![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This article requires a complete rewrite. It presents a poor and limited overview of Western classical music. The author clearly has little liking for any aspect of classical music and limited knowledge of the subject area. Minor areas are highlighted at the expense of more prominent trends, presumably because of the writer's lack of knowledge. The only references provided are outside the subject area of the article and major scholarly and reference works are completely ignored. This article does not meet the Wikipedia standards of taking a neutral point of view and of not promoting points of view. This article clearly fails on both points in addition to being a poor source of information about the subject area. (preceding unsigned comment by Rayford 30 August 2005)
I have attempted a re-write, which consists primarily of shortening the article, and removing sections that appear to be artifacts of POV quarrels between proponents of classical and of popular music. I agree with the unsigned comments (are they all from the same person?) to the effect that an article on classical music does not require extensive references to popular music. However, the attempted re-write (by the same person?) that was reverted indulged in a certain amount of editorializing which was also harmful to the article.
I am of the opinion that many Wikipedia articles are too long, because they incorporate material inserted by warring clans of POV pushers. Editors should have some compassion for the average reader, who is hoping only to obtain a basic understanding of the subject matter. -- HK 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with the term POV - could you explain?
I'm unwilling to give examples, as you request, until you let me know something about the qualifications and studies you have undertaken that allow you to act as an authority on the subject of classical music. This will allow me to know the level at which I need to pitch my answers in addition to being a reasonable question to ask of anyone compiling an encyclopedia article on any subject. Ray Ford. (preceding unsigned comment by Rayford 31 August 2005)
My criticisms then. I will send this bit by bit since I have limited time each day due to pressures of work and family.
The first paragraph, Classical Music: the time period, 1000-1900 is incorrect. Classical music has been a continuing and innovative tradition throughout the twentieth century and has produced major composers of many nationalities and numerous different styles of composition in the last 100 years. It is false to claim that it somehow stopped in 1900. The developments in tonality, instrumental technique, and in many other areas were radical and influenced other types of music. Also, the following sentence is imprecise, what do you mean when you say that the central norms developed between 1550 and 1825? This requires explanation, many would challenge this assertion, but I am puzzled by what this sentence means.
Timeline: Which school of thought is this? You need to specify and outline alternative conceptualisations if you are to be neutral. "for many this is essential to full enjoyment" - what a huge assertion this is. What does it mean exactly? How do you know? I have always assumed that most people listen to compositions as individual pieces to be enjoyed in their own right, just as one might enjoy a fine whisky or a George Eliot novel, or a Woody Allen film - knowking something about Woody Allen's personal history and predelictions might add something to the enjoymant of the film but surely this is a fairly minor pasrt of the whole? I can't understand where this assertion comes from. To my mind it seems to (fairly nastily) imply that classical music listeners are more interested or excited by something other than the music - they are anoraks, nerds, train spotters, rather strange individuals.
Your time divisions are generally OK. A couple of points: "crisis" in "Modern" is quite a strong word and I think is contentious. Some would see it as a logical development or progression. I think you need to add harmony, key and musical structure to theory and technique.
The following paragraph, starting "the dates are generalisations": the use of counterpart continued throughout musical history and did not die with the end of the Baroque era. Beethoven, I feel, needs to be mentioned as an important composer of fugues, more so than Brahms - but the use of fugue appears even in romantic music - Vaughan Williams symphonies for example.
I like the chart and the links to composer pages - generally excellent on Wikipedia.
I need to end now, but will write more tomorrow on what I see as more serious issues with the article. Rayford 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll carry on with my comments. I have no argument with "European Classical Music", this is what this article is about and the focus of the article should primarily be about the characteristics and atributes of this music. "Western classical music" might be an alternative.
The Nature of Classical Music section: "Works that are centuries old are performed far more often....." Well, this is obviously incorrect. It depends what the piece is. Late romantic composers are hugely popular. Richard Strauss, for example, who died in the mid-twentieth century, Vaughan Williams and Elgar in Britain, even the music of Tchiakovsky is not "centuries old". On the other hand, the older music such as that of Victoria and Cornysh is played less often. This sentence reinforces the sense of "doing down" of classical music, the use of fairly subtle language to make the field seem arcane and rather odd. I'll point to other examples as I go on.
"There are many passive participants" - is this any different from other types of music? There is also a large and thriving amateur tradition. his sentence convery no information and should be removed.
"Classical music is meant to be enjoyed for its own sake. This paragraph seems to me to be badly written and the sense could be conveyed more tersely. The last sentence seems rather quaint - in the nineteenth century and earlier, chamber music concerts were given in personal homes, but in the twentieth century they moved into the concert hall. I know amateur string quartets who reherse at home and occasionally give performances at weddings and other celebratory events, but giving concerts in your own, or someone else's home? I've never come across it.
If I were to re-write this paragraph, it might go something like this: "Classical music is regarded as an art form that requires concentrated listening and attention in order to grasp the complexity of musical structure and argument. Concerts therefore take place in an atmosphere of formality in which the dress of the musicians conveys a sense of occasion and a sense of respect for the music and silence is expected". But I'm not sure if this information is really important, it seems more of a fashion statement to me and could perhaps be dispensed with.
The paragraph beginning "Classical composition" seems to me not very clear. I can see something of what is intended. But musical development is more than just the repeat of motifs in different forms. The important idea to convey is the primacy of musical form and structure - in classical music, the "tune" is often not primary (even when good "tunes" are important and significant aspects of a composition) - the important thing is how the melody is managed and manipulated. Just as a novel or short story has a structure (needs to have), the musical material, the themes are part of a musical form that conveys the sense of an argument, some complex means of organising sound as an art form. To the listener, this is more than comparison, it is getting a sense of the whole, a recognition that there is an argument, and the satisfaction or surprise when expectations are met, the unexpected happens, or something realy creative occurs. Just like, when reading a detective story, you may get pleasure from finding out, at the end, that the person you least expected, was actually the murderer. So, this paragraph is inadequate because it does not accurately convey what musical development and musical structure are about in classical music.
The rest of this section seems fine to me.
More later........ Rayford 07:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Some quotes about the connection of classical music with wealth and "elitism". "The humor of these stories notwithstanding, their important aspect is not that plain people favored plain melodies and that orchestral music remained ostensibly reserved for elite audiences in search of refinement. Quite the contrary: despite their previous lack of access to classical music, ordinary Americans did attend these concerts in ever increasing numbers, regardless of their initial reactions". Trumpeting Down the Walls of Jericho: The Politics of Art, Music and Emotion in German-American Relations, 1870-1920. Journal article by Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht; Journal of Social History, Vol. 36, 2003.
There is more, but my daughter now needs getting out of the bath and into bed....
"For these reasons, recent thinking on music often exhibits a grave distrust or even guilt about the corpus of music we have inherited. On the one hand it is presented as one of the greatest achievements of the Western mind, but on the other it may betray its origins in social privilege and exclusion. This might seem extreme, but it forms part of a noticeable distancing of the establishment from its earlier identification with high art. When politicians appear on a platform with pop singers, their motives may be blatantly populist, but so, too, is their marked avoidance of public appearances with representatives of an art world considered too minority, too serious, and too highbrow. Whereas the nineteenth-century middle classes aspired to an upward cultural mobility by taking part in activities formally reserved for the aristocracy (like classical music recitals), the tendency of the much larger middle class toward the end of the twentieth century was to a downward cultural mobility. In the politics of contemporary cultural style, classical music has an increasingly negative status". Who Needs Classical Music? Cultural Choice and Musical Value. Book by Julian Johnson; Oxford University Press, 2002.
"A possible illustration of this drive for distinction is provided by recent developments in the market for classical music. Opera, once the exclusive preserve of the upper classes, has entered into the realm of popular music. In Europe the three tenors--Domingo, Carreras, and Pavarotti--sang to sell-out open air shows in the early 1990s. By the mid 1990s, however, the Sunday Times (April 21, 1996) reported that "classical music has become the latest victim of middle-class 'culture fatigue"' and the "loss of interest by those who regard opera as a ladder for social advancement... resulted in lower classical record sales and declining concert audiences."" Veblen, Bourdieu and Conspicuous Consumption. Journal article by Andrew B. Trigg; Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 35, 2001.
Well, I was looking for a quote I can't find. I would argue, you see, that classical music was associated with wealth and high culture in the past. But, so what? All high culture was, theatre, ballet, painting. Reading novels was different because, in the past, people in general were more literate and the quality of reading and writing was at a higher level.
The reason for this was that the relatively well-off were the only section of the population who had the money to become educated and the time to think and reflect and use their education and knowledge. This changed with the coming of mass education after the second world war. Classical musicians were never wealthy or particularly well paid (until the advent of the super-conductors in the twentieth century). At the present time (and since the sixties), it is popular culture that has the wealth - the artists, the promoters and the industry. Today, classical music has an "increasingly negative atatus" in mass culture.
So I think that the association of classical music with wealth and status is complex and has changed over time. I agree that performance practices are preserved from the nineteenth century whan classical music probably was strongly associated with nationalism and rampant colonialism and, in Europe, with it's dominance of the world, economically, socially, militarily, and culturally. This is no longer the case. Rayford 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Why is a "Classical music and folk music" section okay, but not a "Classical music and popular music" section? Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
What justifies the inclusion of the unsourced paragraph:
But the deletion of the sourced:
Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
What justifies claiming that Classical music is more complex and giving no other opinion as in the following paragraph:
Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Removed:
Didn't belong at popular music. Hyacinth 10:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Re-Write tag, because a re-write has taken place, and the discussion on the talk page seems to have lapsed. This does not, of course, preclude further re-writes or editing. -- HK 00:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This article requires a complete rewrite. It presents a poor and limited overview of Western classical music. The author clearly has little liking for any aspect of classical music and limited knowledge of the subject area. Minor areas are highlighted at the expense of more prominent trends, presumably because of the writer's lack of knowledge. The only references provided are outside the subject area of the article and major scholarly and reference works are completely ignored. This article does not meet the Wikipedia standards of taking a neutral point of view and of not promoting points of view. This article clearly fails on both points in addition to being a poor source of information about the subject area. (preceding unsigned comment by Rayford 30 August 2005)
I have attempted a re-write, which consists primarily of shortening the article, and removing sections that appear to be artifacts of POV quarrels between proponents of classical and of popular music. I agree with the unsigned comments (are they all from the same person?) to the effect that an article on classical music does not require extensive references to popular music. However, the attempted re-write (by the same person?) that was reverted indulged in a certain amount of editorializing which was also harmful to the article.
I am of the opinion that many Wikipedia articles are too long, because they incorporate material inserted by warring clans of POV pushers. Editors should have some compassion for the average reader, who is hoping only to obtain a basic understanding of the subject matter. -- HK 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I am unfamiliar with the term POV - could you explain?
I'm unwilling to give examples, as you request, until you let me know something about the qualifications and studies you have undertaken that allow you to act as an authority on the subject of classical music. This will allow me to know the level at which I need to pitch my answers in addition to being a reasonable question to ask of anyone compiling an encyclopedia article on any subject. Ray Ford. (preceding unsigned comment by Rayford 31 August 2005)
My criticisms then. I will send this bit by bit since I have limited time each day due to pressures of work and family.
The first paragraph, Classical Music: the time period, 1000-1900 is incorrect. Classical music has been a continuing and innovative tradition throughout the twentieth century and has produced major composers of many nationalities and numerous different styles of composition in the last 100 years. It is false to claim that it somehow stopped in 1900. The developments in tonality, instrumental technique, and in many other areas were radical and influenced other types of music. Also, the following sentence is imprecise, what do you mean when you say that the central norms developed between 1550 and 1825? This requires explanation, many would challenge this assertion, but I am puzzled by what this sentence means.
Timeline: Which school of thought is this? You need to specify and outline alternative conceptualisations if you are to be neutral. "for many this is essential to full enjoyment" - what a huge assertion this is. What does it mean exactly? How do you know? I have always assumed that most people listen to compositions as individual pieces to be enjoyed in their own right, just as one might enjoy a fine whisky or a George Eliot novel, or a Woody Allen film - knowking something about Woody Allen's personal history and predelictions might add something to the enjoymant of the film but surely this is a fairly minor pasrt of the whole? I can't understand where this assertion comes from. To my mind it seems to (fairly nastily) imply that classical music listeners are more interested or excited by something other than the music - they are anoraks, nerds, train spotters, rather strange individuals.
Your time divisions are generally OK. A couple of points: "crisis" in "Modern" is quite a strong word and I think is contentious. Some would see it as a logical development or progression. I think you need to add harmony, key and musical structure to theory and technique.
The following paragraph, starting "the dates are generalisations": the use of counterpart continued throughout musical history and did not die with the end of the Baroque era. Beethoven, I feel, needs to be mentioned as an important composer of fugues, more so than Brahms - but the use of fugue appears even in romantic music - Vaughan Williams symphonies for example.
I like the chart and the links to composer pages - generally excellent on Wikipedia.
I need to end now, but will write more tomorrow on what I see as more serious issues with the article. Rayford 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I'll carry on with my comments. I have no argument with "European Classical Music", this is what this article is about and the focus of the article should primarily be about the characteristics and atributes of this music. "Western classical music" might be an alternative.
The Nature of Classical Music section: "Works that are centuries old are performed far more often....." Well, this is obviously incorrect. It depends what the piece is. Late romantic composers are hugely popular. Richard Strauss, for example, who died in the mid-twentieth century, Vaughan Williams and Elgar in Britain, even the music of Tchiakovsky is not "centuries old". On the other hand, the older music such as that of Victoria and Cornysh is played less often. This sentence reinforces the sense of "doing down" of classical music, the use of fairly subtle language to make the field seem arcane and rather odd. I'll point to other examples as I go on.
"There are many passive participants" - is this any different from other types of music? There is also a large and thriving amateur tradition. his sentence convery no information and should be removed.
"Classical music is meant to be enjoyed for its own sake. This paragraph seems to me to be badly written and the sense could be conveyed more tersely. The last sentence seems rather quaint - in the nineteenth century and earlier, chamber music concerts were given in personal homes, but in the twentieth century they moved into the concert hall. I know amateur string quartets who reherse at home and occasionally give performances at weddings and other celebratory events, but giving concerts in your own, or someone else's home? I've never come across it.
If I were to re-write this paragraph, it might go something like this: "Classical music is regarded as an art form that requires concentrated listening and attention in order to grasp the complexity of musical structure and argument. Concerts therefore take place in an atmosphere of formality in which the dress of the musicians conveys a sense of occasion and a sense of respect for the music and silence is expected". But I'm not sure if this information is really important, it seems more of a fashion statement to me and could perhaps be dispensed with.
The paragraph beginning "Classical composition" seems to me not very clear. I can see something of what is intended. But musical development is more than just the repeat of motifs in different forms. The important idea to convey is the primacy of musical form and structure - in classical music, the "tune" is often not primary (even when good "tunes" are important and significant aspects of a composition) - the important thing is how the melody is managed and manipulated. Just as a novel or short story has a structure (needs to have), the musical material, the themes are part of a musical form that conveys the sense of an argument, some complex means of organising sound as an art form. To the listener, this is more than comparison, it is getting a sense of the whole, a recognition that there is an argument, and the satisfaction or surprise when expectations are met, the unexpected happens, or something realy creative occurs. Just like, when reading a detective story, you may get pleasure from finding out, at the end, that the person you least expected, was actually the murderer. So, this paragraph is inadequate because it does not accurately convey what musical development and musical structure are about in classical music.
The rest of this section seems fine to me.
More later........ Rayford 07:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Some quotes about the connection of classical music with wealth and "elitism". "The humor of these stories notwithstanding, their important aspect is not that plain people favored plain melodies and that orchestral music remained ostensibly reserved for elite audiences in search of refinement. Quite the contrary: despite their previous lack of access to classical music, ordinary Americans did attend these concerts in ever increasing numbers, regardless of their initial reactions". Trumpeting Down the Walls of Jericho: The Politics of Art, Music and Emotion in German-American Relations, 1870-1920. Journal article by Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht; Journal of Social History, Vol. 36, 2003.
There is more, but my daughter now needs getting out of the bath and into bed....
"For these reasons, recent thinking on music often exhibits a grave distrust or even guilt about the corpus of music we have inherited. On the one hand it is presented as one of the greatest achievements of the Western mind, but on the other it may betray its origins in social privilege and exclusion. This might seem extreme, but it forms part of a noticeable distancing of the establishment from its earlier identification with high art. When politicians appear on a platform with pop singers, their motives may be blatantly populist, but so, too, is their marked avoidance of public appearances with representatives of an art world considered too minority, too serious, and too highbrow. Whereas the nineteenth-century middle classes aspired to an upward cultural mobility by taking part in activities formally reserved for the aristocracy (like classical music recitals), the tendency of the much larger middle class toward the end of the twentieth century was to a downward cultural mobility. In the politics of contemporary cultural style, classical music has an increasingly negative status". Who Needs Classical Music? Cultural Choice and Musical Value. Book by Julian Johnson; Oxford University Press, 2002.
"A possible illustration of this drive for distinction is provided by recent developments in the market for classical music. Opera, once the exclusive preserve of the upper classes, has entered into the realm of popular music. In Europe the three tenors--Domingo, Carreras, and Pavarotti--sang to sell-out open air shows in the early 1990s. By the mid 1990s, however, the Sunday Times (April 21, 1996) reported that "classical music has become the latest victim of middle-class 'culture fatigue"' and the "loss of interest by those who regard opera as a ladder for social advancement... resulted in lower classical record sales and declining concert audiences."" Veblen, Bourdieu and Conspicuous Consumption. Journal article by Andrew B. Trigg; Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 35, 2001.
Well, I was looking for a quote I can't find. I would argue, you see, that classical music was associated with wealth and high culture in the past. But, so what? All high culture was, theatre, ballet, painting. Reading novels was different because, in the past, people in general were more literate and the quality of reading and writing was at a higher level.
The reason for this was that the relatively well-off were the only section of the population who had the money to become educated and the time to think and reflect and use their education and knowledge. This changed with the coming of mass education after the second world war. Classical musicians were never wealthy or particularly well paid (until the advent of the super-conductors in the twentieth century). At the present time (and since the sixties), it is popular culture that has the wealth - the artists, the promoters and the industry. Today, classical music has an "increasingly negative atatus" in mass culture.
So I think that the association of classical music with wealth and status is complex and has changed over time. I agree that performance practices are preserved from the nineteenth century whan classical music probably was strongly associated with nationalism and rampant colonialism and, in Europe, with it's dominance of the world, economically, socially, militarily, and culturally. This is no longer the case. Rayford 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Why is a "Classical music and folk music" section okay, but not a "Classical music and popular music" section? Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
What justifies the inclusion of the unsourced paragraph:
But the deletion of the sourced:
Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
What justifies claiming that Classical music is more complex and giving no other opinion as in the following paragraph:
Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Removed:
Didn't belong at popular music. Hyacinth 10:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Re-Write tag, because a re-write has taken place, and the discussion on the talk page seems to have lapsed. This does not, of course, preclude further re-writes or editing. -- HK 00:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)