This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Suggests an purposeful balance between experimenting, trying new things, and doing things of which you already know the effect so as to achieve one's expressive goals in a piece, nor did composers explore chaotically with free abandon and no consideration of tradition. Hyacinth ( talk) 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest NOT to include Dunstable nor Ockeghem into the very special musical language of the ars subtilior. These composers do NOT use the specific complex rhythmical language of that period. They belong to a distinctly different type of growing "tonal" simplification. I do not know Plummer, but, considering his date of birth, it is highly questionable to include him.-- Kmbemb ( talk) 20:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
My proposition: to eliminate the "legacy" completely. Many composers of today relate their work to the ars subtilior. It is a mere personal view to focus on Crumb and Ligeti. Kmbemb ( talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add a list of some available recordings of this repertoire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbloch ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth ( talk) 04:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ars subtilior. 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 determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
There is actually more content in the "Further reading" section than readable prose. Some of these entries maybe usable as a reference for content but would someone please look at this section? Otr500 ( talk) 20:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Italicization of various Medieval movements. Please discuss there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Suggests an purposeful balance between experimenting, trying new things, and doing things of which you already know the effect so as to achieve one's expressive goals in a piece, nor did composers explore chaotically with free abandon and no consideration of tradition. Hyacinth ( talk) 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to suggest NOT to include Dunstable nor Ockeghem into the very special musical language of the ars subtilior. These composers do NOT use the specific complex rhythmical language of that period. They belong to a distinctly different type of growing "tonal" simplification. I do not know Plummer, but, considering his date of birth, it is highly questionable to include him.-- Kmbemb ( talk) 20:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
My proposition: to eliminate the "legacy" completely. Many composers of today relate their work to the ars subtilior. It is a mere personal view to focus on Crumb and Ligeti. Kmbemb ( talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to add a list of some available recordings of this repertoire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbloch ( talk • contribs) 18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth ( talk) 04:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Ars subtilior. 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 determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
There is actually more content in the "Further reading" section than readable prose. Some of these entries maybe usable as a reference for content but would someone please look at this section? Otr500 ( talk) 20:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Italicization of various Medieval movements. Please discuss there, not here. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 06:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)