This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
20th-century classical music article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Since 20 August 2007, this article has carried a tag stating that a suggestion had been made to convert the article into table format. I see no such suggestion or discussion here on the Talk page, and the proposal seems preposterous to me. The article has many faults—it is rambling, unreferenced, and unbalanced—but I fail to see how the substance could be addressed in a table. Before deleting the tag, however (which I assume was placed there in good faith), I would like to give other editors the chance to comment.— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed... but we over at WPCM should really start the rewriting process. One cleanup starts I'm hoping prose will be sufficient, just as it is over at classical period (music) and romantic music. Sing Cal 00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Using this as an example, I guess I have a philosophical difference with you. Why do we need "fact" tags on things which are widely known? There's nothing whatsoever controversial about Schoenberg using a free atonal style prior to developing the 12-tone method; Stravinsky adopting a serial method after the death of Schoenberg; or the development of "total serialism" after the Second World War. When you cite everything the article becomes a clutter of dozens to hundreds of footnotes; I think it's best to cite only the things that might be challenged, or are less obvious. These three examples can be found in any competent general history of music. Any other opinions on this? Antandrus (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Antandrus and Jerome Kohl, you both have doctors degrees in music so maybe sometimes you think something is widely known but I don't know it yet because I am not as old as you and I don't know things as widely as you. I am not sure what subject-specific common knowledge is supposed to mean, but maybe you don't both think it means the same thing either. Maybe that is what you don't agree about. Common knowledge for people with doctors degrees is not the same as for anybody that would probably read an article in Wikipedia. I think what you call common knowledge has to be different for each article because if you are writing an article you should not have to teach everything people need to already know before they can start to understand the article, but if you are reading an article you should not have to already understand whatever the article is about before you can understand what the article says. I wish some articles could have a part that would help me find the common knowledge I am supposed to have, like at the end of each chapter in the Prentice Hall history books where there is a part that tells what books are good ones to read and it talks about what is in them and where you can find the things that they are talking about in that chapter so it isn't only a list with just the names of a bazillion books. Maybe if you give good sources at the end that tell where people can learn the common knowledge you want them to already know you would not have to give sources for so many things right in the article. Teenly ( talk) 20:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that the introduction to this article is too long? I think that it could stand to be cut down significantly, and most of the content from the introduction should be distributed throughout the article. Or perhaps the introduction could be turned into an overview, and a much shorter introduction written. What do people think? O Graeme Burns ( talk) 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This one needs some clean-up. There's a lot of composers there which doesn't seem very notable at all. Added John Adams and Arvo Pärt to the list (pretty much any recent book on classical music mentions them as notable). I also removed Frank Zappa who hardly counts as a notable classical composer. Flux712 ( talk) 15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I came to this discussion late, it seems I missed a lot of the fun. Perhaps I've been too distracted in my personal search for new, and maybe I've been wasting my money, but Panufnik seems unmentioned; I think he should be included, but I'm not sure what the criteria are. Frank Lynch ( talk) 22:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
As a rough and ready method of reducing the list, I suggest we take out the following names.
|
Jerome Kohl, Antandrus : I wonder if you would like to remove (strikeout) people you think should remain in the list? Ideally we can arrive at a 'common-lowest denominator' list of expellees (I've just discovered this word exists). -- Klein zach 23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This list just isn't going to fly. Horsetrading over personal preferences won't protect it against someone coming along, adding their own favourites and questioning your choices. You won't be able to make it conform to WP:NPOV like that. We've already been through all this on List of major opera composers. You either use a similar method of coming up with a "neutral" list by collating reliable sources or you do as Antandrus suggests and rewrite "and massively expanding the article to include all the important names in context." -- Folantin ( talk) 10:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Why remove Joplin? He is far better known to the general public than most other C20 composers. His music (or the style) was also influenial: consider how many composers have written rags or used the style in mainstream works. Bernstein, too, is famous for West Side Story and Candide, both of which are infleuntial is their own way. Jubilee♫ clipman 01:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This article should be called 20th-century classical music, not 20th century classical music. Rigaudon ( talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think calling it "classical" is a misnomer, since Classical Music has its own time period. That would be like saying, "baroque classical music." We need to find another term instead of "classical" for this type of music. If you think of it, using that term, movie scores would also be considered classical, insofar as some of what we deem as "classical music" was written for opera and the stage and the like.
But perhaps using a new term would be original information, so we're not allowed to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I have noted that the section on Postmodern music does not accurately summarize either of the main articles, Postmodern music and Postmodern classical music. There are just two things discussed here, John Cage and minimalism, neither of which/whom is mentioned at all in either of the two main articles.— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the style of citing works. I feel that linked footnotes would be better because the (Author Date, Page) style breaks the flow of the article and many readers will not recognise it. It actually took me quite while to figure out what on earth it meant, and I browse Wiki and read paper books constantly! I won't change it, since it is a valid method for Wiki when the article is heavily supported by those sources (see: WP:CS), but I do feel the inline citations would be better as linked footnotes. We can leave the References list as a kind of quick Bibliography. Thoughts? Jubilee♫ clipman 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just converted the references to the standard style — without having seen Jubilee♫'s comment above — and been reverted by User:Jerome Kohl. There was an edit conflict (involving edit consistency problems) which confused things. However what was the reason for changing all the refs back? -- Klein zach 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A number of editors have been unhappy about this section. What should we do about it? IMO it might be best to simply delete it, or drastically cut it. What do other people think? -- Klein zach 04:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I spent a few minutes making this article consistent in the use of 18th/19th/20th (rather than eighteenth/nineteenth/twentieth). This follow the title of this and other WP articles and normal editorial practice. Unfortunately Jerome Kohl has again chosen to revert all my edits. What was the point of that? (The article currently has a cleanup tag which I thought referred to edit inconsistencies etc.)-- Klein zach 05:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Jerome Kohl: Once again, please restore my edits making the centuries consistent with each other and with the title (i.e. 18th/19th/20th - rather than eighteenth/nineteenth/twentieth). You may disagree with me about references but that doesn't justify bulldozing all my other edits out of the way. I was attempting, in good faith, to clean up this article in response to the tag at the top of the article. -- Klein zach 23:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(Following posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music)
The following articles overlap and the situation need to be rationalized: contemporary music, contemporary classical music, 20th-century classical music, and 21st-century classical music. The following issues are the most urgent (in order of importance):
Other issues exist, as well, but those above need immeadiate attention.
Thank you for your input. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This call for discussion has been posted on multiple talk pages. In order to keep all relevant discussions in one place, please post any response on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Major issues to resolve. -- Deskford ( talk) 12:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Both the Classical Music and Contemporary Music projects tag this article as "Start". I can see why: it is merely a list of "movements" and "styles" without much explanation as to how they relate either to each other or the past and future of music. Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten in a prose style like the common practice articles? Also the list of "things" at the top seems to be growing with the addition of some oddities that are never actually explained in the text. The "political commitment" development, in particular links nowhere and means nothing as it stands. Commitment to which politics? How does this affect music? Was there a particular movement which was "politically commited"? Also, we never discuss Nationalism (Americanism?), Socialist Realism (Shostakovich), "intuitive music" (Stockhausen), "stochastic music" (Xenakis), "multimedia/happenings" (Cage, Nono, etc), or New Complexity and New Simplicity (though these are discussed in the CCM article and should remain there, IMO). I'll have a go at redressing all of this but it will take a while. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely the original book is about the rise of the Superman and heavily influenced Hitler? I was really looking for a non-socialist political work. Any better ones? -- Jubilee♫ clipman 05:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) PS Leighton was a composer of some note in his time but has probably dropped off the radar now I'll replace him with someone better when I can think of one.
Given that this "Introduction" is probably longer than the rest of the article put together, should the various specific discussions (Impresionism, Twelve tone, Electroacoustic etc) be put into their relevent sections while leaving the more general stuff intact (breakup of Romanticism, new directions etc)? One final thought: I've missed a few things here. Messiaen, for one.
To Jerome Kohl: Your hidden texts are useful as they highlight all sorts of deficiencies in my text. The overabundance of "citation needed" is rather overpowering, however: would it be better to replace them all with a banner at the head of the section? Regarding the Experimental music addition made last night, I actually copied that directly from the main article's lead - perhaps I took the quote out of context, I'll need to check that. In fact, quite alot of this text is pinched from the respective main articles and will need to be checked for context: I'll also copy their sources over tomorrow night, where relevent! -- Jubilee♫ clipman 23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I've just been sourcing it and have discovered several anomolies. First, the article Impressionist music is hardly more than a stub; the famous statement by Debussy is sourced from someone's personal website rather that a reliable source. Modernism (music) is hardly useful either, though it does have better sources. Worst of all, Expressionism is reduced to a small section within the article on the main artistic movement: Expressionism#Music. Looks like I'll actually have to start reading "boox" (?sp) again...! -- Jubilee♫ clipman 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that JK's deletions are probably correct, on balance. I wrote those statements, IIRC, when I expanded the article. I had meant to revisit this article but never got around to it. The sweeping statements about DSCH and BB were a tad oversimplified; the description of Impressionism was misleading (I actually lifted it from a previous version of this article, as I recall, but was never happy with it either: we need to use Harvard or Oxford etc for definitions really). I know you tweeked those statements, but I feel they are better left out for now. Perhaps Ross has some better way to explain it all in The rest is noise? I'll check later this week. I was still learning the basics of WP editing, BTW, when I expanded this article: I have been around since 2008 but only started editing in ernest in late 2009. Hope that explanation helps -- Jubilee♫ clipman 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There was discussion above about a brutal cull of the list of "other notable 20th-century composers", though there didn't seem to be an objective way of trimming it. Meanwhile the list has been growing again. I think the only solution is to remove the list altogether. There is already a "see also" link to List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date, which should satisfy readers in need of a comprehensive list. I am going to be bold and remove the list from this article — I hope I don't lose too many friends in doing so! -- Deskford ( talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Above is the list of names at the time of removal. Please feel free to use this as a checklist for expansion of the article as suggested previously. -- Deskford ( talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
A new "Styles and movements" section has been created in order to organize the styles and to separate them from other historical events. – Harpsichord246 ( talk) 08:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
1 Styles 1.1 Romantic style 1.2 Neoclassicism 1.3 Jazz-influenced classical composition 2 Movements 2.1 Impressionism 2.2 Modernism 2.2.1 Futurism 2.3 Free dissonance and experimentalism 2.4 Expressionism 2.5 Postmodern music 2.5.1 Minimalism 3 Techniques 3.1 Atonality and twelve-tone technique 3.2 Spectralism
— Harpsichord246 ( talk) 04:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 20th-century classical music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
20th-century classical music article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Since 20 August 2007, this article has carried a tag stating that a suggestion had been made to convert the article into table format. I see no such suggestion or discussion here on the Talk page, and the proposal seems preposterous to me. The article has many faults—it is rambling, unreferenced, and unbalanced—but I fail to see how the substance could be addressed in a table. Before deleting the tag, however (which I assume was placed there in good faith), I would like to give other editors the chance to comment.— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed... but we over at WPCM should really start the rewriting process. One cleanup starts I'm hoping prose will be sufficient, just as it is over at classical period (music) and romantic music. Sing Cal 00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Using this as an example, I guess I have a philosophical difference with you. Why do we need "fact" tags on things which are widely known? There's nothing whatsoever controversial about Schoenberg using a free atonal style prior to developing the 12-tone method; Stravinsky adopting a serial method after the death of Schoenberg; or the development of "total serialism" after the Second World War. When you cite everything the article becomes a clutter of dozens to hundreds of footnotes; I think it's best to cite only the things that might be challenged, or are less obvious. These three examples can be found in any competent general history of music. Any other opinions on this? Antandrus (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Antandrus and Jerome Kohl, you both have doctors degrees in music so maybe sometimes you think something is widely known but I don't know it yet because I am not as old as you and I don't know things as widely as you. I am not sure what subject-specific common knowledge is supposed to mean, but maybe you don't both think it means the same thing either. Maybe that is what you don't agree about. Common knowledge for people with doctors degrees is not the same as for anybody that would probably read an article in Wikipedia. I think what you call common knowledge has to be different for each article because if you are writing an article you should not have to teach everything people need to already know before they can start to understand the article, but if you are reading an article you should not have to already understand whatever the article is about before you can understand what the article says. I wish some articles could have a part that would help me find the common knowledge I am supposed to have, like at the end of each chapter in the Prentice Hall history books where there is a part that tells what books are good ones to read and it talks about what is in them and where you can find the things that they are talking about in that chapter so it isn't only a list with just the names of a bazillion books. Maybe if you give good sources at the end that tell where people can learn the common knowledge you want them to already know you would not have to give sources for so many things right in the article. Teenly ( talk) 20:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that the introduction to this article is too long? I think that it could stand to be cut down significantly, and most of the content from the introduction should be distributed throughout the article. Or perhaps the introduction could be turned into an overview, and a much shorter introduction written. What do people think? O Graeme Burns ( talk) 04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This one needs some clean-up. There's a lot of composers there which doesn't seem very notable at all. Added John Adams and Arvo Pärt to the list (pretty much any recent book on classical music mentions them as notable). I also removed Frank Zappa who hardly counts as a notable classical composer. Flux712 ( talk) 15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I came to this discussion late, it seems I missed a lot of the fun. Perhaps I've been too distracted in my personal search for new, and maybe I've been wasting my money, but Panufnik seems unmentioned; I think he should be included, but I'm not sure what the criteria are. Frank Lynch ( talk) 22:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
As a rough and ready method of reducing the list, I suggest we take out the following names.
|
Jerome Kohl, Antandrus : I wonder if you would like to remove (strikeout) people you think should remain in the list? Ideally we can arrive at a 'common-lowest denominator' list of expellees (I've just discovered this word exists). -- Klein zach 23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
This list just isn't going to fly. Horsetrading over personal preferences won't protect it against someone coming along, adding their own favourites and questioning your choices. You won't be able to make it conform to WP:NPOV like that. We've already been through all this on List of major opera composers. You either use a similar method of coming up with a "neutral" list by collating reliable sources or you do as Antandrus suggests and rewrite "and massively expanding the article to include all the important names in context." -- Folantin ( talk) 10:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Why remove Joplin? He is far better known to the general public than most other C20 composers. His music (or the style) was also influenial: consider how many composers have written rags or used the style in mainstream works. Bernstein, too, is famous for West Side Story and Candide, both of which are infleuntial is their own way. Jubilee♫ clipman 01:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This article should be called 20th-century classical music, not 20th century classical music. Rigaudon ( talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I think calling it "classical" is a misnomer, since Classical Music has its own time period. That would be like saying, "baroque classical music." We need to find another term instead of "classical" for this type of music. If you think of it, using that term, movie scores would also be considered classical, insofar as some of what we deem as "classical music" was written for opera and the stage and the like.
But perhaps using a new term would be original information, so we're not allowed to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parmadil ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I have noted that the section on Postmodern music does not accurately summarize either of the main articles, Postmodern music and Postmodern classical music. There are just two things discussed here, John Cage and minimalism, neither of which/whom is mentioned at all in either of the two main articles.— Jerome Kohl ( talk) 19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like the style of citing works. I feel that linked footnotes would be better because the (Author Date, Page) style breaks the flow of the article and many readers will not recognise it. It actually took me quite while to figure out what on earth it meant, and I browse Wiki and read paper books constantly! I won't change it, since it is a valid method for Wiki when the article is heavily supported by those sources (see: WP:CS), but I do feel the inline citations would be better as linked footnotes. We can leave the References list as a kind of quick Bibliography. Thoughts? Jubilee♫ clipman 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just converted the references to the standard style — without having seen Jubilee♫'s comment above — and been reverted by User:Jerome Kohl. There was an edit conflict (involving edit consistency problems) which confused things. However what was the reason for changing all the refs back? -- Klein zach 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
A number of editors have been unhappy about this section. What should we do about it? IMO it might be best to simply delete it, or drastically cut it. What do other people think? -- Klein zach 04:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I spent a few minutes making this article consistent in the use of 18th/19th/20th (rather than eighteenth/nineteenth/twentieth). This follow the title of this and other WP articles and normal editorial practice. Unfortunately Jerome Kohl has again chosen to revert all my edits. What was the point of that? (The article currently has a cleanup tag which I thought referred to edit inconsistencies etc.)-- Klein zach 05:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Jerome Kohl: Once again, please restore my edits making the centuries consistent with each other and with the title (i.e. 18th/19th/20th - rather than eighteenth/nineteenth/twentieth). You may disagree with me about references but that doesn't justify bulldozing all my other edits out of the way. I was attempting, in good faith, to clean up this article in response to the tag at the top of the article. -- Klein zach 23:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(Following posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music)
The following articles overlap and the situation need to be rationalized: contemporary music, contemporary classical music, 20th-century classical music, and 21st-century classical music. The following issues are the most urgent (in order of importance):
Other issues exist, as well, but those above need immeadiate attention.
Thank you for your input. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This call for discussion has been posted on multiple talk pages. In order to keep all relevant discussions in one place, please post any response on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Major issues to resolve. -- Deskford ( talk) 12:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Both the Classical Music and Contemporary Music projects tag this article as "Start". I can see why: it is merely a list of "movements" and "styles" without much explanation as to how they relate either to each other or the past and future of music. Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten in a prose style like the common practice articles? Also the list of "things" at the top seems to be growing with the addition of some oddities that are never actually explained in the text. The "political commitment" development, in particular links nowhere and means nothing as it stands. Commitment to which politics? How does this affect music? Was there a particular movement which was "politically commited"? Also, we never discuss Nationalism (Americanism?), Socialist Realism (Shostakovich), "intuitive music" (Stockhausen), "stochastic music" (Xenakis), "multimedia/happenings" (Cage, Nono, etc), or New Complexity and New Simplicity (though these are discussed in the CCM article and should remain there, IMO). I'll have a go at redressing all of this but it will take a while. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Surely the original book is about the rise of the Superman and heavily influenced Hitler? I was really looking for a non-socialist political work. Any better ones? -- Jubilee♫ clipman 05:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) PS Leighton was a composer of some note in his time but has probably dropped off the radar now I'll replace him with someone better when I can think of one.
Given that this "Introduction" is probably longer than the rest of the article put together, should the various specific discussions (Impresionism, Twelve tone, Electroacoustic etc) be put into their relevent sections while leaving the more general stuff intact (breakup of Romanticism, new directions etc)? One final thought: I've missed a few things here. Messiaen, for one.
To Jerome Kohl: Your hidden texts are useful as they highlight all sorts of deficiencies in my text. The overabundance of "citation needed" is rather overpowering, however: would it be better to replace them all with a banner at the head of the section? Regarding the Experimental music addition made last night, I actually copied that directly from the main article's lead - perhaps I took the quote out of context, I'll need to check that. In fact, quite alot of this text is pinched from the respective main articles and will need to be checked for context: I'll also copy their sources over tomorrow night, where relevent! -- Jubilee♫ clipman 23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I've just been sourcing it and have discovered several anomolies. First, the article Impressionist music is hardly more than a stub; the famous statement by Debussy is sourced from someone's personal website rather that a reliable source. Modernism (music) is hardly useful either, though it does have better sources. Worst of all, Expressionism is reduced to a small section within the article on the main artistic movement: Expressionism#Music. Looks like I'll actually have to start reading "boox" (?sp) again...! -- Jubilee♫ clipman 18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that JK's deletions are probably correct, on balance. I wrote those statements, IIRC, when I expanded the article. I had meant to revisit this article but never got around to it. The sweeping statements about DSCH and BB were a tad oversimplified; the description of Impressionism was misleading (I actually lifted it from a previous version of this article, as I recall, but was never happy with it either: we need to use Harvard or Oxford etc for definitions really). I know you tweeked those statements, but I feel they are better left out for now. Perhaps Ross has some better way to explain it all in The rest is noise? I'll check later this week. I was still learning the basics of WP editing, BTW, when I expanded this article: I have been around since 2008 but only started editing in ernest in late 2009. Hope that explanation helps -- Jubilee♫ clipman 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
There was discussion above about a brutal cull of the list of "other notable 20th-century composers", though there didn't seem to be an objective way of trimming it. Meanwhile the list has been growing again. I think the only solution is to remove the list altogether. There is already a "see also" link to List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date, which should satisfy readers in need of a comprehensive list. I am going to be bold and remove the list from this article — I hope I don't lose too many friends in doing so! -- Deskford ( talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Above is the list of names at the time of removal. Please feel free to use this as a checklist for expansion of the article as suggested previously. -- Deskford ( talk) 03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
A new "Styles and movements" section has been created in order to organize the styles and to separate them from other historical events. – Harpsichord246 ( talk) 08:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
1 Styles 1.1 Romantic style 1.2 Neoclassicism 1.3 Jazz-influenced classical composition 2 Movements 2.1 Impressionism 2.2 Modernism 2.2.1 Futurism 2.3 Free dissonance and experimentalism 2.4 Expressionism 2.5 Postmodern music 2.5.1 Minimalism 3 Techniques 3.1 Atonality and twelve-tone technique 3.2 Spectralism
— Harpsichord246 ( talk) 04:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 20th-century classical music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)