This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2003–2012. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have moved the list of baroque composers to a new article. Why? The article minus the list is c.1500 words, while the list took up c.1900 words. 202.147.72.158 05:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gregorio Allegri should be considered the 'Late Renaissance', not baroque composer. Gehersh 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Trivial maybe, but why does Bach's name appear smaller than Handel and Teleman's, among other names? I view Bach as the greatest Baroque composer...--
Hdk132
14:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoever made the chart of Baroque composers is a genius. Well done. It's pretty good, pretty good. 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't William Brade on the list? If it's because he's transitional, then he at least belongs on a transitional list on a transitional topic (with a link). Being "between" doesn't make you less important or less "documentable". Thanks. -- 76.89.139.255 ( talk) 01:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
How about Francesco Geminiani? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.170.135 ( talk) 22:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've taken out indications of which composers are the "most important". Everyone will disagree about who is important and who isn't. Personally, I would certainly have marked Monteverdi (I assume him not being marked was an oversight) and Sweelinck, and probably not marked A.Scarlatti, but that's just me, and everyone will have different views. What would be useful is a prose commentary on the baroque period wherein we can explain who was significant and exactly why they were significant. -- Camembert
Uhh ... how does homophony jibe with fugues?!? Kwantus
Why if John Dowland is listed under baroque composers, why shouldn't Thomas Campion, who is four years younger? -- 65.73.0.137
Hmmm, yes, but Banchieri (born c1557), Sweelinck (born 1562), and Titelouze (born 1563), and Claudio Monteverdi (born 1567) are listed. For instance Titelouze was born about the same year as Dowland, and Monteverdi about the same year as Campion. Now we're getting into composers that are really associated with Baroque (esp. Monteverdi). Any clarity? -- 65.73.0.137
I can speak to Dowland, in particular, because I'm familiar with his work. His compositional style is clearly late Renaissance, as is his choice of small forms (songs, airs) and his scoring for the lute and for consorts of limited size, made up most often of recorders and viols. These can hardly be considered baroque instruments. I've performed some of his work (when I was an aspiring lute player) and listened to other of it, and whatever else might be said of it, it isn't baroque.
As for the others, I would tend to defer to Camembert's judgement since he is more of a musicologist than I. I would only add that the transition from Renaissance forms to classical ones occured at different times in different places. That and the presence of leading-edge composers alongside laggards who sought to polish the existing forms serves to explain the difference in dates.
I think the encyclopedia would be best served by categorizing the prominent composers in one era or another, and noting any crossover in the articles on each composer. In closing, I observe that the distinction between eras, while somewhat artificial, is still an important one inasmuch as there are so many shared compositional elements among composers in each era.
UninvitedCompany 20:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
You know, the recorder and viol were used during the Baroque Period. For example, Georg Philipp Telemann composed for the recorder, and Marin Marais was a viol player. 65.73.0.137
Actually, no. It is not that I think Dowland belongs any more in Baroque than Renaissance. I think that he deserves mention in both. The Baroque period is said to begin about 1600 anyway, when non-Renaissance styles were emerging, and Dowland died 26 years later. Dowland is also listed in the Renaissance section, and have kept him there. And don't you think that "basso continuo" came out of the closet somewhere in the middle of the Baroque Period? -- 65.73.0.137
Well, some of his music does sound a little Baroque to me (ex. Galliard a 5 for strings). Is there any reason for being too confident about 0% of Dowland's music being baroque? -- 65.73.0.137
Hmmmmmmmm...very debatable.I'll Get back to you. What would you say the 5 main things that make Baroque different from all other genres?
This page seems to have been vandalised (by IP: 217.205.250.130) - I've reverted the changes. -- User:Dawidl (3 Nov 2005, 17:15 SAST)
While I was looking through many sites through a google search i seemed to find that this site is exactly word for word plagerized from www.infoweb.co.nz/baroque-period for many of the paragraphs i would advise changing this —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
70.228.182.126 (
talk •
contribs).
This will eventually have to be factored out, as it is going to include a great deal of text, however it should remain here until there is a consensus version, which can be moved to the subsidiary article at that point. By no means is the version I am writing canonical or in any sense a "best" version, merely an attempt to get some text up so that we can get to work on it, and decide the best way of presenting the huge volume of material that the subject requires. We are, after all, talking about 400 years of music, and almost two centuries of core practice. (unsigned comment by User:Stirling Newberry)
We have two quoted end dates of the Baroque period as 1750 in the opening para and 1760 in the table. I note that the original date in the opening was 1760 but changed by an anonymous users who also seems to be one source of vandalism. It would be useful to have a consistent view here. Velela 19:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Any differences between the rules for key signatures then and those for now?? Was the 2-flat key signature the flattest key signature in common use then?? Georgia guy 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"A small number of musicologists argue that it should be split in to Baroque and Mannerist periods to conform to the divisions that are sometimes applied in the visual arts." This would be a good place for a more specific reference. "A small number of musicologists, such as ..."? -- Christofurio 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason for not including Johann Mattheson in the Baroque Composers Timeline?
This seems to be a recurrant feature of baroque music, if I recall correctly, partly because the harpsichord couldn't sustain a note. How about a section on the instruments of the baroque period and how they influenced the style? The baroque trill isn't mentioned in the article and it is arguably the most identifiable feature of most baroque music. I am not comfortable enough with the genre to add it (nor do I have references). -- Tbeatty 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The idea that trills were used because the harpsichord couldn't sustain a note is nonsense. There are a lot of instances in Bach's music and that of others where the note is just left to fade - the ear still hears it even though it has faded. Trills were used for their own particular effect. This idea is an instance of modern musicians not understanding the baroque style and trying to explain it in their own terms. Trills were used on the harpsichord because they sound good on it, and they are easy to play, and they suit the style of baroque music. It is a combination of these factors. Though I agree it would be nice to have a more detailed section on ornamentation. I have a huge tome on it. 10:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Trills and other devices were often encouraged because of the harpsichord's lack of sustaining tone. To rule this out is rather strange considering what musicians at the time have written on the subject. One example (though I can find more if necessary) from Johann David Heinichen:
It is to be observed generally that a great difference is to be made in the accompaniment of all quick notes according to whether one is accompanying on an instrument with pipes or one with strings. On the former, the right hand may remain motionless till the passing notes are over; on the Organ, therefore, the accompaniment in the above example would not be amiss. But on the Harpsichord it would sound far too empty (especially if the time were slow), and therefore, on instruments of this class, the usual tendency is to double the harmony, i.e. to repeat the preceding chord when the passing note is struck
-- Roivas ( talk) 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to get copies of the sheet music in PDF and upload to Wikipedia? That would be an awesome expansion project to bring out of copyright sheet music to everyone. Are there still copyrights on this music or is it public domain? I don't ever recall having to pay a performance royalty for baroque performances.-- Tbeatty 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
is there anyway for us to expand the timeline?
I am not sure if this part of the article is accurate (Baroque versus Renaissance style):
These stylistic differences mark the transition from the ricercars, fantasias, and canzonas of the Renaissance to the fugue, a defining Baroque form. Monteverdi called this newer, looser style the seconda pratica, contrasting it with the prima pratica that characterized the motets and other sacred choral pieces of high Renaissance masters like Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina.
1 - Fugue is in no way a defining Baroque form: as early as the 15th century, the word fugue was already the established term for any piece in which all voices participated in the canonic performance of a single melodic line, as for example, the fugues by Oswald von Wolkenstein (1376-1445).
2 - For both Vicenzo Galilei and Michael Praetorius, ricercare and fugue were about the same thing. The difference, if any, is in their form rather than the stylistic differences mention in the article.
3 - Monteverdi would never refer to a fugue as seconda pratica, as the article implies. The main characteristic of the Seconda pratica, in fact, was the absence of polyphony. Grove online reads: The first major composers of vocal music in the new Baroque style, however, all but abandoned fugal techniques for their seconda pratica music. (A piece such as Monteverdi’s Piagne e sospira, from the fourth book of madrigals, is a rare exception.) Fugue found no place in the new genres of opera, monody or cantata, nor, surprisingly, did it play a role in the early development of the oratorio.
4 - Opera, monody, cantata and oratorio, are, thus, the defining Baroque genres, since they did not exist during the Renaissance. The organization of a tonal harmony did not take place until the the middle Baroque.
As most of the stylistic features mentioned in the article are not manifestations of the Early Baroque, maybe it is not appropriate to try comparing it to the Renaissance style. Probably it would work better if the section was about "EARLY Baroque vs. Renaissance styles".
What are your opinions? -- Narazadd 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The two stringed instruments, large and small, are probably not viols. There exist violin type viols, but the most common are of the general construction of the picture to the right (note the different construction of the c-bouts: the points are not drawn out). I'd replace it but I don't know whether the smaller instrument is a violin or a violino piccolo. -- Vlmastra 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
it is very cool read on now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.133.20 ( talk) 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
I think credit should be given to the Florentine Camerata for spearheading the early baroque, rather than Monteverdi. It seems peculiar that their mention is omitted from this article, since it was their desire to imitate the early greeks that generated early opera, and indeed, is the foundation for recitative, a common feature in operas ever since.
Does anyone agree?
-- Tjonp 20:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the sub section "jazz" under "The Baroque's influence on later music" defiantly does not fit were it is, I'm not sure that there is any where in the article that it does fit it seems superfluous. What do others think? should it be moved, then to where? or deleted. -- Loganrah 07:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Due to large amounts of vandalism i have, by a request posted on the wikipedia:cleanup page, returned the article to an earlier form, hopefully the vandals will stop. {*TEE DUB*} ( talk) 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
For an explanation of my decision to delete this external link, please see this Pasiphae discussion page which is just one example of the way Wikipedia is going. Charles Marshall -- Charlesmarshall65 ( talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Minor detail, but duble time implies two beats, and it stats the accentation on first and third. first and third is in a (for the gavotte, simple) quadruple time. duple time would be first beat strong, second beat medium, and of course, all in between weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.71.211 ( talk) 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that the middle section and, indeed, a lot of it would be better off with citation. But the "citation needed" every sentence is a bit much. 12.54.108.178 ( talk) 04:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems strange that the development of the piano is not listed anywhere as a possible dividing line between baroque and classical style. 71.221.66.136 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC).
I'm well aware that some cleanup in my new section is needed, but I preferred to do this start instead of just suggesting that others did it. It would be a good idea to amend the mention of the Monteverdi/Artusi debate with some summeray and quotations from the Strunk book. Also to unfold more fully the Mattheson topic. Well, but hope you see my points... Intuitive ( talk) 12:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Mid-sentence (in sentence case), is it correct to capitalize or not to capitalize the word Baroque? I noticed that the article is not consistent. My intuition tells me that it would depend upon whether Baroque is used as a stand-alone word to refer to the period of time (the Baroque) vs. used as a modifier (e.g. in baroque music). However, I'm not sure whether my intuition is correct. Any thoughts? ~ David Rolek ( talk) 03:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
http://teachmeaboutmusic.com/tonlistarsaga/289-barrokk-ca-1600-1750?start=3
The link above seems to be a an exact copy of one of the sections in this article, however it appears to be copyrighted. Could this be where the material in this article or vice versa? Harpsichord246 ( talk) 05:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it may be easier for the reader if the references were linked directly to each sentence rather than being in a separate section. Harpsichord246 ( talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
(outdent, but responding to the "Tastes will vary..." comment above.)
I need to make sure that I/we understand this. From the
Atonality example mentioned above, are you really saying that you find:
less distracting than:
with the reference detail formatted (with a template so that it matches referencing style found all over Wikipedia) in a dedicated section at the end of the article (which the casual reader can easily ignore or skip over)? If you are, then I'm afraid that I have to respectively disagree. I won't push this too hard here right now, but I will commit to being very easy to find if consensus is required to implement a citation system here that resembles those now used widely at WP (e.g. the one at
Bob Hope—even if you just consider the printed source aspect of that example). Cheers.
GFHandel
♬
23:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
It was formally established on 1 July 1945 as the boundary between the Western and Soviet occupation zones of Germany. On the eastern side, it was made one of the world's most heavily fortified frontiers, defined by a continuous line of high metal fences and walls, barbed wire, alarms, anti-vehicle ditches, watchtowers, automatic booby traps and minefields. It was patrolled by 50,000 armed GDR guards who faced tens of thousands of West German, British and U.S. guards and soldiers. [1]
Do you understand now what I am getting at?
Harpsichord246 (
talk)
00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I've not thoroughly read this discussion, but have just fiddled with the article a bit. I worked on the refs for both Shackleton and Monadnock and do a huge amount of this sort of thing. {{ sfn}} is great, as is the related {{ efn}}; {efn} is best used with the note dropped via a name in order to get that detail out of the prose. Not sure why such notes are even being discussed here, as the article has none… The idea is /short/ link in the prose to an organised biblio. by user {{ sfnRef}} you can control the footnote text and use simply author if that's unambiguous. For conflicts you need the year or full dat, or a fragment of the title; or something. Nudging this along would be no big deal, but a km long discussion is uninteresting. Let me know if I can help. Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 02:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
This is an
archive of past discussions for the period 2003–2012. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I have moved the list of baroque composers to a new article. Why? The article minus the list is c.1500 words, while the list took up c.1900 words. 202.147.72.158 05:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Gregorio Allegri should be considered the 'Late Renaissance', not baroque composer. Gehersh 21:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Trivial maybe, but why does Bach's name appear smaller than Handel and Teleman's, among other names? I view Bach as the greatest Baroque composer...--
Hdk132
14:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoever made the chart of Baroque composers is a genius. Well done. It's pretty good, pretty good. 10:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't William Brade on the list? If it's because he's transitional, then he at least belongs on a transitional list on a transitional topic (with a link). Being "between" doesn't make you less important or less "documentable". Thanks. -- 76.89.139.255 ( talk) 01:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
How about Francesco Geminiani? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.170.135 ( talk) 22:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've taken out indications of which composers are the "most important". Everyone will disagree about who is important and who isn't. Personally, I would certainly have marked Monteverdi (I assume him not being marked was an oversight) and Sweelinck, and probably not marked A.Scarlatti, but that's just me, and everyone will have different views. What would be useful is a prose commentary on the baroque period wherein we can explain who was significant and exactly why they were significant. -- Camembert
Uhh ... how does homophony jibe with fugues?!? Kwantus
Why if John Dowland is listed under baroque composers, why shouldn't Thomas Campion, who is four years younger? -- 65.73.0.137
Hmmm, yes, but Banchieri (born c1557), Sweelinck (born 1562), and Titelouze (born 1563), and Claudio Monteverdi (born 1567) are listed. For instance Titelouze was born about the same year as Dowland, and Monteverdi about the same year as Campion. Now we're getting into composers that are really associated with Baroque (esp. Monteverdi). Any clarity? -- 65.73.0.137
I can speak to Dowland, in particular, because I'm familiar with his work. His compositional style is clearly late Renaissance, as is his choice of small forms (songs, airs) and his scoring for the lute and for consorts of limited size, made up most often of recorders and viols. These can hardly be considered baroque instruments. I've performed some of his work (when I was an aspiring lute player) and listened to other of it, and whatever else might be said of it, it isn't baroque.
As for the others, I would tend to defer to Camembert's judgement since he is more of a musicologist than I. I would only add that the transition from Renaissance forms to classical ones occured at different times in different places. That and the presence of leading-edge composers alongside laggards who sought to polish the existing forms serves to explain the difference in dates.
I think the encyclopedia would be best served by categorizing the prominent composers in one era or another, and noting any crossover in the articles on each composer. In closing, I observe that the distinction between eras, while somewhat artificial, is still an important one inasmuch as there are so many shared compositional elements among composers in each era.
UninvitedCompany 20:28, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
You know, the recorder and viol were used during the Baroque Period. For example, Georg Philipp Telemann composed for the recorder, and Marin Marais was a viol player. 65.73.0.137
Actually, no. It is not that I think Dowland belongs any more in Baroque than Renaissance. I think that he deserves mention in both. The Baroque period is said to begin about 1600 anyway, when non-Renaissance styles were emerging, and Dowland died 26 years later. Dowland is also listed in the Renaissance section, and have kept him there. And don't you think that "basso continuo" came out of the closet somewhere in the middle of the Baroque Period? -- 65.73.0.137
Well, some of his music does sound a little Baroque to me (ex. Galliard a 5 for strings). Is there any reason for being too confident about 0% of Dowland's music being baroque? -- 65.73.0.137
Hmmmmmmmm...very debatable.I'll Get back to you. What would you say the 5 main things that make Baroque different from all other genres?
This page seems to have been vandalised (by IP: 217.205.250.130) - I've reverted the changes. -- User:Dawidl (3 Nov 2005, 17:15 SAST)
While I was looking through many sites through a google search i seemed to find that this site is exactly word for word plagerized from www.infoweb.co.nz/baroque-period for many of the paragraphs i would advise changing this —The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
70.228.182.126 (
talk •
contribs).
This will eventually have to be factored out, as it is going to include a great deal of text, however it should remain here until there is a consensus version, which can be moved to the subsidiary article at that point. By no means is the version I am writing canonical or in any sense a "best" version, merely an attempt to get some text up so that we can get to work on it, and decide the best way of presenting the huge volume of material that the subject requires. We are, after all, talking about 400 years of music, and almost two centuries of core practice. (unsigned comment by User:Stirling Newberry)
We have two quoted end dates of the Baroque period as 1750 in the opening para and 1760 in the table. I note that the original date in the opening was 1760 but changed by an anonymous users who also seems to be one source of vandalism. It would be useful to have a consistent view here. Velela 19:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Any differences between the rules for key signatures then and those for now?? Was the 2-flat key signature the flattest key signature in common use then?? Georgia guy 17:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"A small number of musicologists argue that it should be split in to Baroque and Mannerist periods to conform to the divisions that are sometimes applied in the visual arts." This would be a good place for a more specific reference. "A small number of musicologists, such as ..."? -- Christofurio 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason for not including Johann Mattheson in the Baroque Composers Timeline?
This seems to be a recurrant feature of baroque music, if I recall correctly, partly because the harpsichord couldn't sustain a note. How about a section on the instruments of the baroque period and how they influenced the style? The baroque trill isn't mentioned in the article and it is arguably the most identifiable feature of most baroque music. I am not comfortable enough with the genre to add it (nor do I have references). -- Tbeatty 05:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The idea that trills were used because the harpsichord couldn't sustain a note is nonsense. There are a lot of instances in Bach's music and that of others where the note is just left to fade - the ear still hears it even though it has faded. Trills were used for their own particular effect. This idea is an instance of modern musicians not understanding the baroque style and trying to explain it in their own terms. Trills were used on the harpsichord because they sound good on it, and they are easy to play, and they suit the style of baroque music. It is a combination of these factors. Though I agree it would be nice to have a more detailed section on ornamentation. I have a huge tome on it. 10:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Trills and other devices were often encouraged because of the harpsichord's lack of sustaining tone. To rule this out is rather strange considering what musicians at the time have written on the subject. One example (though I can find more if necessary) from Johann David Heinichen:
It is to be observed generally that a great difference is to be made in the accompaniment of all quick notes according to whether one is accompanying on an instrument with pipes or one with strings. On the former, the right hand may remain motionless till the passing notes are over; on the Organ, therefore, the accompaniment in the above example would not be amiss. But on the Harpsichord it would sound far too empty (especially if the time were slow), and therefore, on instruments of this class, the usual tendency is to double the harmony, i.e. to repeat the preceding chord when the passing note is struck
-- Roivas ( talk) 16:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible to get copies of the sheet music in PDF and upload to Wikipedia? That would be an awesome expansion project to bring out of copyright sheet music to everyone. Are there still copyrights on this music or is it public domain? I don't ever recall having to pay a performance royalty for baroque performances.-- Tbeatty 05:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
is there anyway for us to expand the timeline?
I am not sure if this part of the article is accurate (Baroque versus Renaissance style):
These stylistic differences mark the transition from the ricercars, fantasias, and canzonas of the Renaissance to the fugue, a defining Baroque form. Monteverdi called this newer, looser style the seconda pratica, contrasting it with the prima pratica that characterized the motets and other sacred choral pieces of high Renaissance masters like Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina.
1 - Fugue is in no way a defining Baroque form: as early as the 15th century, the word fugue was already the established term for any piece in which all voices participated in the canonic performance of a single melodic line, as for example, the fugues by Oswald von Wolkenstein (1376-1445).
2 - For both Vicenzo Galilei and Michael Praetorius, ricercare and fugue were about the same thing. The difference, if any, is in their form rather than the stylistic differences mention in the article.
3 - Monteverdi would never refer to a fugue as seconda pratica, as the article implies. The main characteristic of the Seconda pratica, in fact, was the absence of polyphony. Grove online reads: The first major composers of vocal music in the new Baroque style, however, all but abandoned fugal techniques for their seconda pratica music. (A piece such as Monteverdi’s Piagne e sospira, from the fourth book of madrigals, is a rare exception.) Fugue found no place in the new genres of opera, monody or cantata, nor, surprisingly, did it play a role in the early development of the oratorio.
4 - Opera, monody, cantata and oratorio, are, thus, the defining Baroque genres, since they did not exist during the Renaissance. The organization of a tonal harmony did not take place until the the middle Baroque.
As most of the stylistic features mentioned in the article are not manifestations of the Early Baroque, maybe it is not appropriate to try comparing it to the Renaissance style. Probably it would work better if the section was about "EARLY Baroque vs. Renaissance styles".
What are your opinions? -- Narazadd 06:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The two stringed instruments, large and small, are probably not viols. There exist violin type viols, but the most common are of the general construction of the picture to the right (note the different construction of the c-bouts: the points are not drawn out). I'd replace it but I don't know whether the smaller instrument is a violin or a violino piccolo. -- Vlmastra 01:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
it is very cool read on now —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.133.20 ( talk) 19:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
I think credit should be given to the Florentine Camerata for spearheading the early baroque, rather than Monteverdi. It seems peculiar that their mention is omitted from this article, since it was their desire to imitate the early greeks that generated early opera, and indeed, is the foundation for recitative, a common feature in operas ever since.
Does anyone agree?
-- Tjonp 20:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the sub section "jazz" under "The Baroque's influence on later music" defiantly does not fit were it is, I'm not sure that there is any where in the article that it does fit it seems superfluous. What do others think? should it be moved, then to where? or deleted. -- Loganrah 07:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Due to large amounts of vandalism i have, by a request posted on the wikipedia:cleanup page, returned the article to an earlier form, hopefully the vandals will stop. {*TEE DUB*} ( talk) 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
For an explanation of my decision to delete this external link, please see this Pasiphae discussion page which is just one example of the way Wikipedia is going. Charles Marshall -- Charlesmarshall65 ( talk) 18:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Minor detail, but duble time implies two beats, and it stats the accentation on first and third. first and third is in a (for the gavotte, simple) quadruple time. duple time would be first beat strong, second beat medium, and of course, all in between weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.71.211 ( talk) 06:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that the middle section and, indeed, a lot of it would be better off with citation. But the "citation needed" every sentence is a bit much. 12.54.108.178 ( talk) 04:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems strange that the development of the piano is not listed anywhere as a possible dividing line between baroque and classical style. 71.221.66.136 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:31, 29 November 2008 (UTC).
I'm well aware that some cleanup in my new section is needed, but I preferred to do this start instead of just suggesting that others did it. It would be a good idea to amend the mention of the Monteverdi/Artusi debate with some summeray and quotations from the Strunk book. Also to unfold more fully the Mattheson topic. Well, but hope you see my points... Intuitive ( talk) 12:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Mid-sentence (in sentence case), is it correct to capitalize or not to capitalize the word Baroque? I noticed that the article is not consistent. My intuition tells me that it would depend upon whether Baroque is used as a stand-alone word to refer to the period of time (the Baroque) vs. used as a modifier (e.g. in baroque music). However, I'm not sure whether my intuition is correct. Any thoughts? ~ David Rolek ( talk) 03:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
http://teachmeaboutmusic.com/tonlistarsaga/289-barrokk-ca-1600-1750?start=3
The link above seems to be a an exact copy of one of the sections in this article, however it appears to be copyrighted. Could this be where the material in this article or vice versa? Harpsichord246 ( talk) 05:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps it may be easier for the reader if the references were linked directly to each sentence rather than being in a separate section. Harpsichord246 ( talk) 19:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
(outdent, but responding to the "Tastes will vary..." comment above.)
I need to make sure that I/we understand this. From the
Atonality example mentioned above, are you really saying that you find:
less distracting than:
with the reference detail formatted (with a template so that it matches referencing style found all over Wikipedia) in a dedicated section at the end of the article (which the casual reader can easily ignore or skip over)? If you are, then I'm afraid that I have to respectively disagree. I won't push this too hard here right now, but I will commit to being very easy to find if consensus is required to implement a citation system here that resembles those now used widely at WP (e.g. the one at
Bob Hope—even if you just consider the printed source aspect of that example). Cheers.
GFHandel
♬
23:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
It was formally established on 1 July 1945 as the boundary between the Western and Soviet occupation zones of Germany. On the eastern side, it was made one of the world's most heavily fortified frontiers, defined by a continuous line of high metal fences and walls, barbed wire, alarms, anti-vehicle ditches, watchtowers, automatic booby traps and minefields. It was patrolled by 50,000 armed GDR guards who faced tens of thousands of West German, British and U.S. guards and soldiers. [1]
Do you understand now what I am getting at?
Harpsichord246 (
talk)
00:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I've not thoroughly read this discussion, but have just fiddled with the article a bit. I worked on the refs for both Shackleton and Monadnock and do a huge amount of this sort of thing. {{ sfn}} is great, as is the related {{ efn}}; {efn} is best used with the note dropped via a name in order to get that detail out of the prose. Not sure why such notes are even being discussed here, as the article has none… The idea is /short/ link in the prose to an organised biblio. by user {{ sfnRef}} you can control the footnote text and use simply author if that's unambiguous. For conflicts you need the year or full dat, or a fragment of the title; or something. Nudging this along would be no big deal, but a km long discussion is uninteresting. Let me know if I can help. Br'er Rabbit ( talk) 02:20, 24 September 2012 (UTC)