Talk:Classical music

Rename article to 'Western classical music'?

Hi! It looks like the last discussion on the subject was in 2012, with an RfC which led to the consensus not to move the article. However, I think it might be time to revisit this discussion, and move the article to 'Western classical music' while redirecting 'Classical music' to art music or similar.

There are a few policies to weigh and balance here: WP:GLOBAL recognizes that given that this is the English Wikipedia, an Anglocentric bias may exist, but should be countered where possible. In non-academic English writing, the non-specific term 'classical music' primarily refers to Western classical music, so WP:PRIMARYTOPIC argues in favor of no change. On the other hand, the consensus is less clear for academics and musicologists, who are more likely to use the terms 'Western' or 'European' classical music. The current status quo devalues the many other classical music traditions listed at List of classical and art music traditions, which may not be as prominent in Western culture, but are nevertheless equally deserving of coverage on English Wikipedia.

Renaming the article will give us a more precise name (WP:PRECISE) that is less likely to lead to confusion for all our readers, whether they come from Western or non-Western countries. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that either would be fine - both are perfectly recognizable to readers, and it is unlikely any reader would be confused by the term 'Western classical music'. I'm interested to hear what others think, and if the discussion is productive enough, we could start an RfC on renaming in a little while. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that we go by common name for article titles (unprecise and wrong as that often is); the common name is Classical music, and nobody will search for Western classical music. (I'm German, so had to learn that, because the German Klassische Musik means specifically music from the Classical period.) - To give you an analogy: we have Western concert flute, a precise name, but many links that mean it go to flute instead, because pieces are flute concertos, not Western concert flute concertos. How about broadening the scope of the article and cover all Classical music, linking to more specific articles? Please ask also at Project:Classical music, - and should that be renamed?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Ganesha811, It's tempting (and ideal), but it may be more or less impossible at the present time (I'm left thinking of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS). As you've pointed out, we cater towards English speakers, so it's important to recognize that the vast majority of these speakers will think of Mozart or Beethoven when they think of Classical music. The "Western/European" stuff is a relatively new development in musicology. Also worth considering this: Our primary readers are going to be from America, the UK and (?) Australia—Western Classical music is the classical music of these places. If the Hindi language Wikipedia named their article on Indian classical music to simply "Classical music" but had "Western classical music" for their equivalent of this article, that might fit with Hindi speakers and literature. As an aside, classical music has expanded quite a bit past the Western world over the last 100 years or so, though I'm not sure such expansion alone is enough to suggest against such a move. The only thing I can think of is continuing to redirect classical music here, but naming the article "Western classical music"—but I have no idea what the standard is for something like that, as it feels somewhat abstract! Best - Aza24 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I can think of is continuing to redirect classical music here, but naming the article "Western classical music".

While I think this is a good idea, it still does not comply with WP:COMMONNAME as you stated. I think a better option would be leaving the article name as it is, while changing the lead so that it reads something like:

Western classical music, commonly known as just classical music in many Western sources/languages...

The problem with my suggestion would be that this is not just a WP:COMMONNAME problem, but also a WP:BIAS one, and more worryingly for Wikipedia it's a problem that still goes on in many reliable sources, making it difficult for us to respond to this in any meaningful way. However, as precedent, such as in Ottoman Decline Thesis and others, would show, Wikipedia has a tendency to present the most recent paradigm or consensus as fact, even if many sources still use terminology and/or aspects from the old paradigm/consensus, so I think this is the best compromise.

Will be making this edit, if anyone objects I am open to discussing alternatives. Uness232 (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The mistake might be to believe that Wikipedia in English aims primarily at an English speaking readership. Compared to other versions of WP in different languages, the English version appears to me (English is not my mother tongue) as the global version. I think therefore, like Gerda Arendt above and probably for similar reasons, that broadening the scope of the article would be the best solution. (There is a similar problem with the mode (music) article, which should be about modes the world over but which some would want to reduce to Western modes.) Besides, we would not easily come to an agreement about what Western Classical Music really is (see for instance the entry "Classical" in the etymonline dictionary). — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I would respectfully disagree, not because your point isn't correct, but rather because there is already an article covering all classical music traditions, art music. Besides, the problem here is not what we believe is the right solution, to be honest, it is what Wikipedia policies and guidelines state, and WP:COMMONNAME says, with very little exception, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)", emphasis on the English-language bit. So the question is, what do we do when say WP:COMMONNAME suggests a name which promotes WP:BIAS? I do not believe that that is clearly articulated anywhere, in fact, as Commonname is a policy while Bias is a widely accepted essay, Commonname takes precedence. Therefore Western classical music (correct name) becomes Classical music (common name), the umbrella term for all classical traditions gets pushed to Art music (also a correct name, but this is the reason why all classical traditions aren't classical music in Wikipedia's opinion), and say Ottoman classical music (correct name, [later edit: in fact the most correct name might be Near and Middle Eastern classical music, referring to inter-related Ottoman, Byzantine, Persian, Arabic and Caucasian traditions.]), becomes Ottoman music (vague, confusing name that erases a rich non-Western classical tradition, but is far more common than OCM.) This is incredibly unfortunate and someone should discuss it wherever it is appropriate, I do not know if the village pump is appropriate in this sense, which is why I do not bring it up, but this has to be changed systematically. Uness232 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how many of us would agree with the first definition of (Western) Classical Music given in the second phrase of the lede,

"Western classical music refers to musical traditions generally considered to have begun in Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the late 5th century CE and continuing to present day."

and the following classification into "medieval", "Renaissance", "baroque", "classical", "romantic", "modernist", and "contemporary".

It is ironic that "classical" appears here as only a sub-category of ... classical. One further reads that a defining characteristic of classical music is its use of staff notation. The styles of "European" classical music are then said to range "from Medieval plainchant sung by monks to Classical and Romantic symphonies for orchestra from the 1700s and 1800s to avant-garde atonal compositions from the 1900s." One further reads that "The first symphonies were produced during the Classical period" – well, for a period that apparently spans more than a thousand years, the contrary would be surprizing...

Obviously, the problem of this article is that it does not say, and probably does not know, what it is about. There are IMO, generally speaking, two possible solutions to this: either widen the subject to cover all types of "classical" music (a general concept that probably must be linked to that of "model" – not necessarily the same as that of "art" music), or reduce it to a limited span of time in European music history (the "Classical period"?), from say 1650 to 1900, or possibly from 1730 to 1810. Discussing the name of the article before having decided about this seems to me pointless. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Well firstly, I would much rather see wider input before such a change to the first sentence. Consider the Renaissance article, which is technically the "European Renaissance" but labeled as such as to be what most Anglophone readers expect (but then again, I don't have a serious objection to it). The idea that the scope of this article is unreasonable is complete OR—there are literally hundreds of surveys on art music from the Middle Ages to the present day, that all create musical direct musical narratives, though sometimes with varying success. We already have the art music, common practice period and classical period (music) articles, which basically fulfill the arbitrarily proposed criteria above. Aza24 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24 I agree 100% with your last two sentences, but I would like to take issue with the Renaissance analogy, as that dispute does not carry the same implications this does. Even if the Renaissance article is Eurocentric, and even if other periods in history (like the Timurid Renaissance, for example) could be called by the same name, the Renaissance being named this way does not necessarily imply that Europeans are the only ones capable of such rapid development, as we have other words for similar events in other cultures (Golden Age, Classical Era, etc.) The problem with this specific naming situation is that as "classical music" is largely interchangeable with "art music", "art music" means serious music of high complexity (as abstract a term that that would be), and the fact that there is no other term for "classical music" that carries the same meaning and connotation, referring to Western classical music as just classical music implies a silent erasure of other classical music forms, and/or a very troubling form of supremacy over other traditions, suggesting that being "uncivilized people", non-Europeans (and in fact non-Western Europeans) can just not create music that matches that of those in European tradition. I'm of course not suggesting that you people believe this, but as the belief that the works of Western classical composers are more "high-culture" "complex" or "civilized" than works of of composers of other traditions is a somewhat pervasive piece of "common sense", I think a WP:RF mentality would suggest that this naming dispute carries a lot more implications than the Renaissance one. Uness232 (talk) 22:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

In general, I agree. As someone who is working on Barbad right now, I readily acknowledge the diversity and existence of other equally impressive forms of art music, I only worry that the average reader will be so unaware of them that "Western" will be an extra layer of confusion. However, I do think that the new sentence is a good compromise between this and the reality of the situation—I don't know that we can do better at the moment. Aza24 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

As it is at present, the article begins with these words: "Western classical music, or often simply classical music in the Western world...". I find this extremely confusing (not only because the "simple" meaning is more complex than the other). It is very unusual to read the lead of a WP article of which the first words are not the same as its title. And for sure, neither "Western classical music" nor "Classical music in the Western world" clarify the title of the article. We might seem to need two articles, one, "Classical music(s) in the world" and the second "Classical music in the Western world." I do not think that "art music" is a synonym for "classical music", anywhere in the world. Let's agree that "art music" is a music with some level of art, and that this does not necessarily involve complexity (otherwise, why not an article on "Complex music"?) – nor "classicism."

If we really could believe that "classical music" merely is a nickname for, say, art music, or written music, or Western learned music, our problem would soon be solved. But I think that we should really consider that "classical" (or, better said perhaps, "classic"), in all this, may mean something more specific and that this is the reason to maintain this article under its present title. Merriam-Webster says that "classic" means "serving as a standard of excellence: of recognized value," which seems to me a valid definition. We should then agree that various cultures, and various periods, have recognized different standards of excellence and different values, and our article should describe them, together with their geographic and chronologic spans of recognition. Palestrina's music, for instance, has been considered for a while the model of learned contrapuntal music, and presented as such by Fux and others: it was then considered "classical music" par excellence, but is probably no more today.

To make things short, I do believe that the scope of the article should both be widened and at the same time narrowed to what "classical music" really is (and was). One may say from the start that it will be mainly about Western classical music, but stating at the same time that there are others in the world, which will also shortly be described or at least mentioned. Also, as soon as other definitions arise in the course of the description (such as "art music", or "written music, etc.) references to more specific articles should be given. Without that, to equate "Classical music" with "Western classical music" would not only repeat an unduly vague notion of what it really is, but also seem to give reason to those in American music theory circles arguing today against Western (or European, or white, or cisgenre) supremacism. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

It is very unusual to read the lead of a WP article of which the first words are not the same as its title.

Not really, and WP:FIRST does not make such a restriction.

Let's agree that "art music" is a music with some level of art, and that this does not necessarily involve complexity (otherwise, why not an article on "Complex music"?) – nor "classicism."

Unfortunately, "Western art music" is used in largely the same sense as "Western classical music", and this is true for other places of the world, including the Middle East and East Asia, where, when one talks about "art music", they are talking about "classical music". Whether that makes sense or not is not the issue of an encyclopedia, and on that note, what would "music with some level of art" be exactly? Besides, languages rarely make sense anyway, or else someone would be asking for the Eastern Anatolia article to be renamed as Eastern Anatolia doesn't make sense, it's an artificially created word that means "Eastern East [of Greece]", but this is an encyclopedia; we describe, not prescribe.

Merriam-Webster says that "classic" means "serving as a standard of excellence: of recognized value," which seems to me a valid definition. We should then agree that various cultures, and various periods, have recognized different standards of excellence and different values, and our article should describe them, together with their geographic and chronologic spans of recognition. Palestrina's music, for instance, has been considered for a while the model of learned contrapuntal music, and presented as such by Fux and others: it was then considered "classical music" par excellence, but is probably no more today.

That is a good idea, but if articles are going to be moved contrary to WP:COMMONNAME, I would much rather have the (already somewhat well-developed) Western classical music article here, and have a general classical music article in place of art music, instead of generalizing this article that already talks in detail about one specific type of classical music.

Without that, to equate "Classical music" with "Western classical music" would not only repeat an unduly vague notion of what it really is, but also seem to give reason to those in American music theory circles arguing today against Western (or European, or white, or cisgenre) supremacism.

Well, not just in American circles, but I agree, to be fair I would be in favor of not having the classical music article be about one specific tradition. The problem is that policy constricts our actions in this sense, and there is a recommendation (edit: more of a requirement, actually) that article titles fit common names, as I said previously. Uness232 (talk) 21:39, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed with the latest developments on the talk page, and I find the argumentation uprersuasive. My main beef is with the lead sentence, which was recently changed to read:

Western classical music, or often classical music in the Western world, is art music produced or rooted in the traditions of Western culture, considered apart from or a refinement of the Western folk and popular music traditions. The Western classical tradition...

You managed to cram the word "Western" no less than four times in the lead sentence and once more in the next, which is awkward to read ("abomination" is about the appropriate word for this level of word-mincing). This music is not commonly called "Western classical music", and there is no reason to violate MOS:BOLDTITLE by using it first and bolding it. While there are indeed other "classical music" traditions, for the vast majority of English speakers the unqualified term refers to this particular musical tradition. This also holds true for other cultures: as far as I know, Mozart is quite frequently played in China, India and Japan and adjectives will be used only if disambiguation is needed.
Further, the Western folk and popular music are only very distant predecessors of classical music, which spinned off those traditions some 5 centuries ago, and wikilinking them in the lead is both undue and misleading, since those articles are about something quite different.
Acknowledging presence of the systemic bias, I'm strongly opposed to this attempt to address it, in the lead sentence of one of the vital articles on English Wikipedia. No such user (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Alas, I cannot make up my mind over this issue. Though I do think renaming the article is out of the question, I don't know that adding clarification to the first sentence is a bad thing. I almost wonder if it should "Classical music, or Western classical music is..." or something. Though we have to establish something, the idea that the disctinction from the Western folk tradition is unimportant is completely unfounded. In fact, that is basically the primary distinction that makes classical music what it is... since the Middle Ages there has always been folk music and for much of Western history there was basically only folk vs classical music (the earliest secular music might be considered more folk than classical even). The popular music comparison is less strong, but given the enormously unprecedented "popularity" of popular music worldwide, I don't think omitting the clarification is beneficial. I know not what "Mozart is quite frequently played in China, India and Japan" means; Mozarts significance in these cultures is and has always been vastly outweighed by their own art music traditions—especially for the hundreds of years before Mozart was born! Aza24 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

@No such user: while Aza24 has already written a response while I was writing this (and I sincerely thank them) I am offering my own as well, and I feel obligated to be a bit more harsh.

Abomination is about the appropriate word for this level of word-mincing.

While I acknolwedge the clumsiness of this sentence, it seemed like the most appropriate option for us, and the tone you seem to use does not seem to foster any sort of civil discussion either.

This music is not commonly called "Western classical music"

True, which is why it isn't the title. WP:COMMONNAME suggests that the common name should be in the title, while it says no such thing about the first sentence, think Ali for example. Western classical music is the correct name, just as Ali ibn Abi Talib is Ali's correct name, which is put first and bolded in the first sentence. This is also what MOS:BOLDTITLE suggests: "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold".

This also holds true for other cultures: as far as I know, Mozart is quite frequently played in China, India and Japan and adjectives will be used only if disambiguation is needed.

Kind of true (after around 1850 at least), but this is a result of a 19th century consensus of Western cultural supremacism, that due to colonialism and Westernisation many cultures have had to accept. The fact that Mozart is played in non-Western countries is therefore not because of a natural expansion of Western classical music, but rather the supression of local music as seen in this example for Turkey. (edit: I forgot that the journal did not allow free access, there is also this one, and another one, although this one is not exactly talking about suppression, it is more so talking about the processes of aesthetic Westernization.)

Besides, this should not change the fact that a correct presentation of scholarly consensus must be presented in the first sentence. The term Mongoloid has the outdated name as its article title (keeping with Commonname), not Mongoloid (outdated racial term), but the context of the situation is explained in the first sentence. A similar thing has taken place here.

Further, the Western folk and popular music are only very distant predecessors of classical music, which spinned off those traditions some 5 centuries ago, and wikilinking them in the lead is both undue and misleading, since those articles are about something quite different.

Complete OR. In fact, as the article suggests, the term classical music has not been around until the 19th century.

Acknowledging presence of the systemic bias, I'm strongly opposed to this attempt to address it, in the lead sentence of one of the vital articles on English Wikipedia.

Alright, if you do acknowledge such bias, I would strongly suggest that you do something to better this article in some way. The current state of the article implies the erasure of other music traditions, and I am not convinced, for the reasons above, that your change has improved the situation. Uness232 (talk) 16:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact that it wasn't called Classical music until 19th century isn't that relevant; people certainly understood the difference much earlier than that, although in earlier times the differences between "court" music and "church" music, for example, were just as important; no one would have lumped them all together like we do now. But the article title needs to reflect modern usage. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

True, but we're not talking about the article title, which already conforms to Commonname and the modern usage of the term. My argument was that the first sentence should start with Western classical, not just classical, to reflect modern scholarly consensus. Uness232 (talk) 16:57, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

People here keep talking about "vast majority of readers". How much is "vast"?

In September 2021, the top countries that read the English Wikipedia were:

• United States: 3 billion
• United Kingdom: 776 million
• India: 720 million
• Canada: 329 million
• Australia: 261 million
• Philippines: 159 million
• Germany: 132 million
• Indonesia: 74 million

The numbers refer to page views.

Let's oversimplify and say that India, Philippines, and Indonesia are "non-western" and the rest of these are "western". This gives the "western" countries about 4.5 billion, and the "non-western" are about 1 billion. Sure, 4.5 billion is more than 1 billion, but I wouldn't call this difference "vast".

Somebody also said that the Hindi Wikipedia should call its version of this article "Western classical music". Like it or not, while the English Wikipedia had 720 million page views in India in September, the Hindi Wikipedia had 68 million.

I agree with @Ganesha811 here: "Classical music" should probably be a redirect to List of classical and art music traditions. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Rewriting the lead

(I open this new subsection because I find that the above already is too long and that one gets lost in it. Also, I think that we could reach an agreement.)

The first phrase in the lead, "Classical music is art music produced or rooted in the traditions of Western culture, generally considered to have begun in Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the late 5th century CE and continuing to present day," refers to the Oxford Dictionary of Music – which says nothing of the kind! The references to the same that follow again fail verification. The short ODM article "Classical" remained basically unmodified since several editions and says:

• "classical Term that, applied to music, has vague rather than specific meaning: music comp. roughly between 1750 and 1830 (i.e. post‐Baroque and pre‐Romantic), which covers the development of the classical sym. and conc.; music of an orderly nature, with qualities of clarity and balance, and emphasising formal beauty rather than emotional expression (which is not to say that emotion is lacking); music generally regarded as having permanent rather than ephemeral value; ‘classical music’ is used as a generic term meaning the opposite of light or popular music."

In former editions the four meanings mentioned in this article were numbered, which made things perhaps clearer: (1) 1750-1830; (2) orderly nature; (3) permanent value; (4) opposite of light music. All four meanings have been mentioned, in one way or another, in our discussion above. With this in mind, I think that we should be able to write a reasonable lead. And adding a word about the matter of non-Western classical music(s) would fully solve the problem that prompted this discussion. Something like this:

• Classical music is a general term refering to Western music of the period 1750-1830 and to its qualities of order, clarity and balance, particularly in the forms of symphony, sonata, and concerto. Classical music corresponds to an esthetic value of formal beauty that was praised during the Enlightement and often is opposed to popular music. In a more general and even less specific sense, the term might also refer to musics evidencing similar qualities in non Western cultures."

One might argue that this remains too close to the ODM article: this is the main reason why I don't yet change the lead. Another reason is that this whole affair should not turn into a war and that we may do better first to reach some sort of agreement here. Of course, after rewriting the lead, we should begin working at the rest of the article. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 17:51, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary and we already have Classical period (music). You seem to be alone in your bafflement by the article's scope. Why else would there be these major surveys by Grout, Taruskin, Stolba etc. on the topic if it were so badly defined? Why don't we engage in a more renowned dictionary? The OED says:

"Of music: of acknowledged excellence; of, relating to, or characteristic of a formal musical tradition, as distinguished from popular or folk music; spec. of or relating to formal European music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, characterized by harmony, balance, and adherence to established compositional forms."

And alas, the "roots" section I've written makes it clear that the Western variation first emerged in the Middle Ages, while the hate note (and note 1 of the text) makes the differentiation from the period clear as well. We can certainly add content pertaining to the 2 and 3 defined above, but I just don't see this as the core of the issue. Aza24 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

While I still see more value in the older compromise, as I've explained in my previous edit, I think what @Hucbald.SaintAmand said is not wholly unacceptable, as I think it can be used with a few tweaks, such as:

Classical music is a term that most commonly refers to the formal musical tradition of the Western world. In a more general sense, the term may also refer to music evidencing similar formal qualities in non-Western cultures. Uness232 (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

This conversation has run into a dead-end again, and I will be making this edit. If someone objects, let's talk here. Uness232 (talk) 19:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems like sound solution, until the article is fleshed out more. An alternative could be to do something like at the Middle Ages article; e.g. "In the Western world, classical music is..." Aza24 (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Roots of classical music

I don't think that the conversation ran into a dead-end. Rather, I find it difficult to continue because it engaged in a confused direction. But let's try.

• A reference to Webster's Dictionary was added yesterday to support the claim that Classical music "most commonly refers to the formal musical tradition of the Western world, considered to be distinct from Western folk music or popular music traditions". However, what Webster says is that "classical" means "a) of or relating to music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries characterized by an emphasis on balance, clarity, and moderation; b) of, relating to, or being music in the educated European tradition that includes such forms as art song, chamber music, opera, and symphony as distinguished from folk or popular music or jazz." There is no mention in this of "the formal musical tradition of the Western world" and I think that this forces the reference beyond what it actually says.
• The lead continues saying that "It [Classical music] is further classified into the medieval (500–1400), Renaissance (1400–1600), Baroque (1600–1750), Classical (1750–1820), Romantic (1800–1910), Modernist (1890–1975) and Postmodern/Contemporary (1950–present) eras". I fail to see how "Classical (1750-1820)" could be a sub-category of ... "Classical". But this may be the crux of our problem: see below.
• The section on Roots begins with this statement: "The Western classical tradition formally begins with music espoused by and for the Christian Church", for which it refers to Donald Grout, A History of Western Music, p. 2. But what Grout says there is "The history of Western art music properly begins with the music of the Christian Church". There is no mention of Classical music here, but more generally of Western art music: it is not the same thing. Grout at times refers to "the Classical age", meaning "the Ancient Greek Age, about 450 to 325 BC" (p. 4). This reminds another definition given in the Webster: "of or relating to the ancient Greek and Roman world and especially to its literature, art, architecture, or ideals". For the rest, Grout almost always refers to the "Classical period" as that between Baroque and Romantic, which corresponds to the sub-category mentioned above.
• Grout is anew refered to in support to the statement that "it remains unclear as to what extent early medieval music, and thus Western classical music as a whole, was influenced by preceding ancient music". But that is not what Grout writes (p. 11): "It is impossible for us to know exactly how much, and what, music from Greece or the mixed Oriental-Hellenistic societies around the eastern Mediterranean was taken into the Christian Church during the first two or three centuries of its existence" (my underlining). But it is doubtful, to say the least, that the first two or three centuries of the Christian Church could be described as "early medieval" (the medieval era was said above to date "500-1400", and later described as beginning in 476).
• And the rest of this "Roots" section deals with possible links between "ancient" and "early medieval" music, without ever saying in what this could be relevant to "classical" music – and ultimately denying that such a link exists. (I won't comment now the strange idea that "exclusively Greek influences include the church modes". Grout is once again refered to, but he never says that.)

Later, the "Timeline of composers" shows an incomplete list of composers who could be said to be those of Western "art" music, or "learned" music; but is art music the same as classical music? There is also an implicit claim in all this that classical music is distinct from popular music – once again, it would be better to oppose "popular" to "art" (or "learned") music but, in addition, such an opposition has little meaning in early times. The relation made between "medieval classical" music and the Christian Church might seem to oppose classical music to that of troubadours and trouvères, but the opposition here is rather between religious and profane music.

The problem with this article is that it does not clearly differentiate between two definitions of "classical music" that I think quite irreconcilable. The first equates "classical music" with (Western) art (or learned) music in general, the second concerns the Western classical period properly speaking, after the Baroque and before the Romantic eras. I don't mean that one definition is wrong and the other right, but I think that the article would be much improved if it made this distinction clearer.

• In the broader sense, classical music may be a music with a "standard of excellence", as Merriam-Webster says, one that may serve (or have served) as a model – in that sense, one might at least say that Josquin, or Palestrina, or Mozart, have at times served as models (and, as such, were "classical" composers), and one could also probably find cases in non-Western musics.
• In the narrower sense, "classical music" refers to music of the Western classical era, say 1750-1820. Much of what follows in the article deals only with that.

Making this distinction clear from the beginning, more clearly defining each of these two, and possibly treating them in separate sections of the article, would make things simpler, I think. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Alas, it is difficult to find any motivation, or indeed need, to respond to the above which seems based around unsupported assumptions. Suggesting that there is a meaningful distinction—especially for our purposes, on a general encyclopedia—between "Western art music" and "Western classical music" is baseless, and no evidence has been provided to think so. Taruskin for instance, in discussing his History of Western music says "A glance at the table of contents will instantly confirm, to the inevitable disappointment and perhaps consternation of some, that "Western music" here means what it has always meant in general academic histories: it means what is usually called “art music” or "classical music". Rather oddly, Hucbald.SaintAmand asserts that But it is doubtful, to say the least, that the first two or three centuries of the Christian Church could be described as "early medieval" is some revolutionary correction. A rather weak comment indeed—I have corrected the statement, but the point stands, do you really think that ancient music could not influence the Christian Church for 2–3 centuries but then suddenly influence it (particularly after the end of antiquity) in the 5th and 6th? What nonsense. If you are unable to understand "exclusively Greek influences include the church modes", I no not what to do. Immediately before it says "virtually all ancient civilizations." so quite obviously "exclusively Greek" is clarifying that modal influences are not from "virtually all ancient civilizations" but Greek ones.

In all, it is disappointing to see a user find it productive to try and (unsuccessfully) pick apart the work of users who have actually added content to the page (e.g. my "Roots section"). There is already a hat note (quite literally the first thing on the page) that acknowledges the distinction between the period and tradition as a whole. Aza24 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Aza24, I try to avoid a war about all this, in vain I am afraid. I don't want to "pick apart" the work of anyone. Note that the only recent change I made in the article was to question a reference to the Oxford Dictionary of Music that another user has removed since. Apart from that, I merely tried to conduct a discussion on this talk page. And I really believe that my "unsupported assumptions" actually are supported by references.

Our main point of disagreement for the time being concerns whether "classical music" can concern Western "art" or "learned" music at large, or more particularly denotes Western music from the second half of the 18th century to the 19th. Let me be more specific: I think that the quotations that you provide in support of your opinion (that "Classical music" covers all of Western art music) are biased or trunkated to adapt to your needs. And I strongly doubt that WP readers seeking information about "Classical music" are not thinking of what Charles Rosen defined as The Classical Style.

• When I write that "it is doubtful, to say the least, that the first two or three centuries of the Christian Church could be described as "early medieval"," I merely think of the first sentence of the Middle Ages article: "In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages or medieval period lasted approximately from the 5th to the late 15th centuries." In addition, the first paragraph of our article defines the first subsection of "Classical music" as "Medieval (500-1400). Unless you want the Christian Church to have begun only in the 5th century, its first two or three centuries do not belong to the Middle Ages.
• As I already said above, it is not true that Donald Grout wrote that "The Western classical tradition formally begins with music espoused by and for the Christian Church" (also, I don't understand in what sense the Church "espoused" early music). By "Classical music", Grout obviously understands "the period between Baroque and Romantic."
• You quote Taruskin saying that "'Western music' here means what it has always meant in general academic histories: it means what is usually called 'art music' or 'classical music'," but your quote closes too soon, while Taruskin goes on saying that this meaning "has come under so much justified fire for its long-unquestioned dominance of the academic curriculum (a dominance that is now in irreversible process of decline)." He further discusses this, saying for instance that "all of the genres that are treated in this book, are literate genres. That is, they are genres that have been disseminated primarily through the medium of writing. The sheer abundance and the generic heterogeneity of the music so disseminated in 'the West' is a truly distinguishing feature—perhaps the West's signal musical distinction. It is deserving of critical study." So, this is another definition that we should take in account, "Literate music" (which Taruskin never equates with "classical music".) Later, Taruskin mentions "sonatas, symphonies, 'classical music' generally," obviously thinking of the period between Baroque and Romantic, but he also says that "Anyone who has heard the classical music of Iran or India will have an idea of what may have been lost from the European tradition." (Note that the classical music of Iran or India is not necessarily written.)
• The Online Etymology Dictionary has an entry, "Classical", that deserves a full quotation:

classical (adj.)

1590s, "of the highest rank" (originally in literature), from classic + -al (1). Classical music (1836) was defined originally against romantic music.

[I]n general, as now used, the term classical includes the composers active in instrumental music from somewhere about 1700 to say 1830. Hence the list includes among the great names those of Bach, his sons, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Clementi, Dussek, Pleyel, Cramer, etc. The next step beyond the term classical is "modern romantic," the composers of which school may be taken to include all the writers for pianoforte from about 1829 (when Mendelssohn published the first "Songs without Words") down to the present. The term romantic in this sense means strongly marked, extraordinary, intending to tell stories and the like. ["Music, Its Ideals and Methods," W.S.B. Mathews, 1897]

But already by 1880s it was acknowledged the term had a double sense: Music that had withstood the test of time, as well as music of a style contrasted to "romantic." Later (early 20c.) it was contrasted to jazz (in this sense more often with reference to the orchestras than to the music itself). Still later it stood in contrast to popular music generally (mid-20c.). Classical history is the history of ancient Greece and Rome; ancient history is the history of mankind from the earliest reliable records to the fall of Rome (476 C.E.).

• The entry "Classic" also is interesting:

classic (adj.)

1610s, "of or belonging to the highest class; approved as a model," from French classique (17c.), from Latin classicus "relating to the (highest) classes of the Roman people," hence, "superior," from classis [...]. Originally in English, "of the first class;" meaning "belonging to or characteristic of standard authors of Greek and Roman antiquity" is attested from 1620s.

So, let me repeat what I wrote above and that I still believe: The problem with this article is that it does not clearly differentiate between two definitions of "classical music" [...]. The first equates "classical music" with (Western) art (or learned) music in general, the second concerns the Western classical period properly speaking, after the Baroque and before the Romantic eras. I don't mean that one definition is wrong and the other right, but I think that the article would be much improved if it made this distinction clearer.

At present, the article is full of contradictory statements, e.g.:

• "Classical music is a term that most commonly refers to the formal musical tradition of the Western world, considered to be distinct from Western folk music or popular music traditions." (This is supported by a reference to Webster's Dictionary, but with a footnote that indicates that the reference is not complete.)
• "In a more general sense, the term may also refer to music evidencing similar formal qualities in non-Western cultures." (Why "formal qualities"?)
• "It is further classified into the [...] Classical (1750–1820), [...] eras."
• "The term "classical music" did not appear until the early 19th century, in an attempt to distinctly canonize the period from Johann Sebastian Bach to Ludwig van Beethoven as a golden age."
• "One distinguishing feature of Western classical music is its use of staff notation, in use since about the 11th century."
• "Classical music has been noted for its development of highly sophisticated forms of instrumental music such as the symphony, concerto, fugue, sonata, and mixed vocal and instrumental styles such as opera, cantata, and mass."
• "European classical music, from Medieval plainchant sung by monks to Classical and Romantic symphonies for orchestra from the 1700s and 1800s to avant-garde atonal compositions from the 1900s."
• "A universal characteristic of classical music written since the late 13th century is the invariable appliance of a standardized system of precise mensural notation."
• "Another is the creation and development of complex pieces of solo instrumental works (e.g., the fugue)."
• "The first symphonies were produced during the Classical period; beginning in the mid 18th century, the symphony ensemble and the compositions became prominent features of Classical-period music."

Etc. etc. I remain at loss to understand what the article means by "Classical music."

Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:08, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Classical period, typically spelled with uppercase C, is one of the eras within the broader classical music (which is, yes, broadly synonymous with art music). With that in mind, I do not see any contradiction in the above sentences. No such user (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Classical period vs Classical music

Thank you, No such user, I think that this clarifies the object of our dispute. We are facing two contradictory conceptions:

• 1. The one, which sees "Classical music" as a term for a long era, broadly synonymous with "Art music", "Learned music", "Literate music", etc., extending from the early Middle Ages to today, and encompassing a narrower era, the "Classical period", say, from 1700 to 1850, from 1730 to 1810, or whatever.
• 2. The second, which claims that "Classical music" has two meanings, either the general one as above, "Art music", "Learned music", "Literate music", etc., but not linked to a temporal era, or the specific one, a period from 1700 to 1850, from 1730 to 1810, or whatever.

The distinction between these two conceptions is slight and should perhaps not retain us that long, but all the rest follows from it, in our discussion which began in 2012, partly hidden today in Archives 9 and 10 of this talk page.

The first conception clearly is the one chosen in WP, as can be seen from the initial statements both of the Classical music page, "This article is about Western art music from the Middle Ages to the present. For Western art music from 1750 to 1820, see Classical period (music)," and of the Classical period (music) page, "This article is about the Western art music that was written between about 1730 and 1820. For an article about Western art music from the Middle Ages to the present, see Classical music."

The problem that I have with this, and about which I am ready not to complain any more if nobody supports my view, is that I know of no reference, not a single one, supporting that conception. All the references given, in both articles, actually support the other conception, that "Classical music" has either a generic, or a specific meaning. None that I know says that "Classical music" is overarching and that "Classical period" is a restricted era within the first.

The first conception sees both "Classical music" and "Classical period" as temporal eras, the first ("from the Middle Ages to the present") encompassing the second ("between about 1730 and 1820"), while the second sees "Classical music" as a general (or a generic) type of music, the second as a temporal era. The first conception almost necessarily understands "Classical music" as Western, beginning with early Christian music, and excludes all non Western classical musics, even if their existence cannot be doubted. But it fails to clearly define the beginnings of this large Classical music era, saying that it begins with the Christian Church, with plainchant, with staff notation, with proportional rhythmic notation, with solo instrumental forms, with orchestral forms, etc. It fails to see that all these aspects might indeed be said "Classical", but only if the word, in this generic sense, does not define an era.

I'll stop here. I think that my opinion now is as clear as possible. Further than that, it remains to other Wikipedians to decide. Once again, if everybody is happy with the present situation, I won't come back on it. Otherwise, there will be quite a work to be done, to which I'll gladly participate. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 21:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure how consistent these articles are in following this rule, but I have long believed (and read many times) that "Classical music" refers to the era of Mozart, Haydn et al., whereas "classical music" is roughly synonymous with "Western art music". I see at least one comment above referencing this practice. Unless there is some major issue with it or new consensus is obtained at WP:CLASSICAL, I don't see a reason to deviate from this practice or not implement it. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Toccata quarta, could you give a reference (external to WP) about this "rule"? — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

The upper/lower-case distinction seems to me sensible and helpful, and fine in print or on screen. (Trickier in speech of course, but that needn't worry us.) This is what the OED says on the general definition:

classical: Of music: of acknowledged excellence; of, relating to, or characteristic of a formal musical tradition, as distinguished from popular or folk music; spec. of or relating to formal European music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, characterized by harmony, balance, and adherence to established compositional forms.

It seems to me that our present article is, accordingly, sensibly titled. Tim riley talk 13:55, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: Would a document like this one be good enough? It endorses the practice followed by Wikipedia and cites sources (which, I presume, follow the same approach to capitalization). Toccata quarta (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you: you helped me better formulate my view. I slightly modified the descriptions of the two meanings given above, and numbered them.

@Tim riley: thanks for reproducing this OED definition, which had been given at one moment and disappeared. However, I don't think that it supports the distinction between too temporal eras, a wide one say from the Middle Ages to today, that would encompass a narrow one say from late 18th to early 19th century. It seems to me rather to suggest (1) a generic definition, i.e. of "classical music" as a genre, "a formal musical tradition as distinguished form popular or folk"; (2) a temporal one, "late 18th and early 19th centuries". The first certainly is not defined as "from Middle Ages to modern" and, as such, could also apply to non-Western music. In other words, the OED seems to support the second meaning sketched above, not the first. And, certainly, it does not differentiate the two by capitalizing or not capitalizing the word.

@Toccata quarta: no, I don't think that this document endorses what you suggest ("Classical music" for the narrow temporal period, "classical music" for the wide one). Your document deals with titles of musical works and first suggests that titles in general are italicized (and capitalized), although in the case when the title is the name of a genre ("Symphony", "Sonata", etc.), it merely takes a capital without italics. It adds that if the name of the genre is not used as a title, it is not capitalized. (One would write for instance "Beethoven's Ninth Symphony [the genre is taken as the title] is an early romantic symphony [the genre is not a title].") This, I think, is a general rule, indeed applied in WP and in other publications. Titles in Wikipedia obviously are capitalized (and more rarely italicized). Both the title of our article, Classical music, and that of the other article, Classical period (music), rightly write "Classical" with a capital. Both give "Classical" with a capital whenever the word appears as a title, also within the text, but without capital when it merely appears in the course of a phrase. The capitalization has nothing to do with the length of the temporal era considered.

The initial question that led to here was whether the article should be renamed "Western classical music". We agree, I think, on the fact that "Classical music" has (at least) two meanings. The main point is that if the general meaning is to cover the era from the Middle Ages to today (as in 1. above), then we are certainly dealing with Western classical music (whether we rename the article or not). If on the other hand the meaning is more generic than general (as in 2. above), then it might be enough to add a subsection, "Classical music in non-Western traditions". — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I know not what to respond to at this point, because the responses are getting longer and longer. Hucbald, I don't think you are uncovering anything that has not already been established. I really do not find the distinction between the formal tradition and 18th period as confusing as you do and I do think the OED definition supports our article. I will attempt some brief bullet points:

• The vast majority of our readers will expect this article to cover Western classical music. I don't think this is debatable, if you asked someone in American or the UK what classical music is, they would give an answer that fits in the Western tradition (e.g. Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Stravinsky etc.)
• Western classical music and Western art music are, for our purposes, the same. Hucbald continuously argues they are not (with no evidence) and demands evidence from others. This is an impossible situation; the distinction is so meaningless that there are not going to be any sources that bother clarifying. My Taruskin quote was meant to make it clear that the terms "art music" or "classical music" are casually interchangeable.
• Grout says this: "The history of Western art music properly begins with the music of the Christian church". Grout further clarifies that the tradition cannot be considered to have begun with Ancient music: "To say, however, that the music of the early Church resembled Greek music in being monophonic, improvised and inseparable from a text, is not to assert a historical continuity. No direct historical connection from the one to the other can be demonstrated."
• Yes, classical music can mean the specific 18th century period, as the OED points out. The distinction is put in the first sentence of the article (the hatnote), and is truly, not complicated.

Still not seeing an issue. Of course, this conversation is not helped by the awful state of this article. In writing the "Roots" section, it occured to me that the entire article will likely need to be rewritten at some point. Aza24 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a certain difference between art music and classical music, but it only exists on edge cases, and mostly in the 20th century contexts. For example, it is a matter of perspective whether minimalism stems from the classical tradition. There are art music acts derived from sources other than the classical tradition, such as The Residents, rooted in vaudeville and pop; numerous other avant-garde music authors; various world music discourses. But that's already mostly covered in Art music#Popular music. No such user (talk) 08:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Hucbald.SaintAmand: I do not know whether the file is displaying properly at your end, but for the record, here is what it says (page 2 of the PDF file): "Capitalize historical musical eras- Baroque, Classical, Romantic. However, when distinguishing classical music from popular music, that is not capitalized (emphasis mine)." This is the relevant part of the document and one that is quite clear. Toccata quarta (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Toccata quarta: The document continues: "Words like 'classical' and 'romantic' are not capitalized when used as adjectives." — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

"Medieval" or "medieval"?

@Aza24: As clearly stated in the document quoted above in answer to Toccata quarta, "words like ['medieval'], 'classical' and 'romantic' are not capitalized when used as adjectives." But they certainly are when as substantives they describe musical eras, Medieval, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, etc. This may not be clear enough in that particular text, but I do believe that it is a rule. There is no reason to claim that "Classical" should be capitalized when describing a musical era, and that "Medieval" should not. The confusion may arise from the fact that some of these terms are more likely adjectives than others. "Medieval" may seem the adjective corresponding to "Middle Ages", while "Renaissance" and "Baroque" are substantives that may be take adjectively. In a list of the kind "Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern", all terms must be treated as substantives. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to self revert because I don't have any energy for this. Aza24 (talk) 20:33, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove from To do list: Articles needing expanded

This article seems to have been sufficiently expanded that it should be removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Classical_music/To-do_list Articles needing expanded section. Mike32065 (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Mike32065, the list you refer to was generated by a bot and has not been updated by said bot in 15 years. It is almost certainly completely out of date. Aza24 (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't there any audio examples?

I mean come on some of the most famous examples are in the public domain and we do have tracks on commons that are CC sharealike. Leonard LMT (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2024 (UTC)