![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
European classical music...not good enough. United States is not European, so does it mean that, for example, works like Piston cannot be considered here? Should be renamed "Western classical music" or "Classical music of the Western tradition". Mandel 22:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The external links are getting out of hand. Too many of them are just spamlinks to sites selling classical-music CDs. I'm going to start pruning soon. — Wahoofive ( talk) 16:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do not consider to put the website kunstderfuge.com instead of classicalarchives.com? I think this last site is too difficoult to navigate (you have there to login). The first site (kunstderfuge.com) is totally free and the files are preatty more and of better quality. It also contains piano rolls. The site also claims to be the main resource of Classical Music MIDI files. Please evaluate to put it on WikiPedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.57.113 ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 October 2006
Also, I'd like to know why you keep removing Classical Forums ( http://www.classicalforums.com) which is an important, free growing classical music community with very interesting articles on classical music written by professional musicians (which is absolutely an unique content related to classical music) when instead there are listed evident commercial websites such as Naxos and others. I have put Classical Forums back again, if you want to remove it, please let me know your motivation. Thank you. -- Fablau 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Very good! I am glad you agree.-- Fablau 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This article, and all its subarticles ( Baroque music, Renaissance music, 'etc) are desperately lacking for actual music. I maintain a list of full-length songs available on wikipedia - Wikipedia:Sound/list. There are tons of songs there that could be used to illustrate these articles, if someone knowledge about hte topic is willing to do it. Raul654 09:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I propose the following eras for European classical music (with approximate dates):
Early Christian
Plainchant 476-??
Carolingian ??-800
Medieval
Early Medieval 800-1000
Late Medieval 1000-1200
Gothic
Early Gothic (or Ars Antiqua) 1200-1300
Late Gothic (or Ars Nova) 1300-1400
Renaissance
Early Renaissance 1400-1500
Late (or High) Renaissance 1500-1600
Baroque
Early Baroque 1600-1700
Late Baroque 1700-1750
Classical and Romantic
Classical 1750-1800
Romantic 1800-1900
Post-Romantic
20th Century 1900-2000
Contemporary 2000 - today
Eroica 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure if there's anything to merge from that article. If anyone can have a look, that would be great. The article had to be redirected here because of an AFD debate. Johnleemk | Talk 10:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Article makes biased claims about the superior complexity of European classical music, without making note of the many ways in which it is simpler than other musics. It also implies that certain types of complexity found in classical musics are unique to classical musics. Further, it asserts that all non-classical musics are "mere adjuncts" to other forms of entertainment.
Until this bias is removed, the article will remain essentially an advertisement for a music that already has too many grandiose claims for itself in the first place.
Can we remove the POV tag now? The anon editor who put it on has shown no interest in discussing how to improve it. — Wahoofive ( talk) 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I liked the structure of the article, but I would add some examples. Cerealmix
The hatnote on top explaining that this article is about European art music and directing users to other articles is a holdover from when this article was called "Classical music". No one would come to an article called "European classical music" expecting anything other than what we have here. I propose removing it. — Wahoofive ( talk) 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
These sentences do not contain interesting information:
If someone does not already know the above information, he is probably less than 12 years old.
Rintrah 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
To "Rintrah": You motivated me to try to do better. I see this as part of a "man from Mars" problem which is quite widespread here: explaining things with the assumption that the reader has absolutely zero knowledge of any aspect of the subject. See if you like what I wrote better. (I reformatted that paragraph in your comment to make it stand out better; hope you don't mind.) -- ILike2BeAnonymous 01:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I like your amendments. Yes, the "man from Mars" problem is prevalent in wikipedia. There is much more interesting information that should be provided in this article (including the history, performance, etc.), but I am too lazy to put in any work.
Rintrah 14:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add something that's interesting to the article, not sure where, which is to explain that the current taboo against applauding between movements of a symphony didn't exist at the time when most of these works were written. In fact, audiences often loudly demonstrated between movements, either approvingly or not, and sometimes even called for the just-played movement to be encored. There are many written accounts of this (the last I remember was from a biography of Berlioz). And of course there are the somewhat more well-known incidents, like the near-riot that accompanied the first performance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. However, the current ossified practice is widely believed to be the same as when this "revered" (damn, how I hate that word!) music was created.
Anyone care to tackle this, or at least comment on this? -- ILike2BeAnonymous 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Currently the article has this to say:
Can't we do better than this? This description is totally milquetoast, actually worse than nothing, in that it says essentially nothing but takes a lot of words to do so. Anyone want to take a crack at restating this, to include something of the essence of romantic music? == ILike2BeAnonymous 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
== I would like to teach Classical Music someday. I found your entry nice. Thanks for collaborating. -- Robert Waly 00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that this description should be fleshed out quite a bit, though I'm not sure I am the person to do it. First of all, there ought to be something about changing forms: cyclical treatment of themes and the "tone poem," for instance, were both devised by Liszt during this time. Also huge advances were made in instrumental technique (viz. Paganini, Chopin, Lizst). Programmatic music became much more "illustrative," as in the Symphonie Fantastique of Berlioz. This should be touched upon, at least a little bit! Finally, I don't think the Romantic period lasted quite as long as the article implies. Brahms is usually considered "Late-Romantic," and what can be said of Nielsen, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, etc. who began writing during the "romantic period" and continued using its harmonies long into the 20th century?
I visit Ursatz nearly every day to find out whose birthday it is and who died, too. I've never had a commercial pop-up ever on their site. What was the pop-up that you said happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.84.72.181 ( talk • contribs) 10 May 2006.
Can anyone tell me the name or type of music to this song. -- Je suis t\ c 23:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed new additions by Sobolewski, as the term "formal music" is not used in America to the best of my knowledge, but either way, further discussion of the term "Classical Music" belongs on the Classical music page, or the Classical music era page, not here (unless I am mistaken). -- MarkBuckles 23:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Classical music for a current discussion about two pages moves involving this page. -- Aguerriero ( talk) 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Non-Western_classical_music#Requested_move for 7-2 consensus. Wangry 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Should we add more countries or just delete all of these? And why on earth German classical music isn't included?!! Masahiko 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Look at russian editing tradition on russian wiki classical music [ [1]]....
use LINGVO to translate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butamironin ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The timeline has a bit of a gap between Josquin and Palestrina (although there was plenty of music during that period). My nomination for filling the gap would be Thomas Tallis. Bluewave 10:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"For those who desire to become performers, any musical instrument is practically impossible to learn to play at a professional level if it, or at least a similar instrument, is not learned in childhood."
How true is this really? I'm pretty sure, for example that a cellist who starts playing at age 8 and who starts playing the recorder at age of 14 has maybe even more chance becoming a professional than most of 8 years olds. 8 years olds have 6 six years advantage, 14 year old can read music, understands music theory, has more discipline, propably has better ear. And how similar these instruments really are? The sentence should be modified, IMO.
One of the best piano jazz performer, Franco d'Andrea, started playing piano at age 17 and ... me too, I am a professional performer. :) -- Alegreen 22:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to question the opening introduction of this article, which comes across to me as biased and not written in an encyclopaedic style. There are many statements within the introduction that are not referenced; and it feels more journalistic than encyclopaedic. I propose that the introduction should be changed, because there really do seem to be problems with it at the moment. I'd like to change it but see what others suggest first, because I'm not sure what should replace the current introduction. Feedback appreciated. Madder 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I hate this opening sentence: "Classical music is the sweeping term applied to the musical tradition that is untethered and almost diametrically opposed to the popular music of contemporary culture." Here's why...
1. It's narrow. Maybe classical art music was diametrically opposed to popular music in 1960, but composers like Michael Daugherty, John Zorn and Laurie Anderson, not to mention Charles Ives and Josquin des Prez, strongly integrate popular music into their writing. Are we not including these composers in the umbrella of classical music? If not, then what do we call them? For that matter, how do we decide what's really "opposed" to popular music?
2. It's misleading. To my eyes, that sentence says that classical music was either born or is sustained as a rebellion against popular music, which certainly is not the case.
If we're trying to represent classical music as music which is intrinsically anti-popular culture, fine, but that's not the type of music that the article represents currently and it's not what I think the lead line of this article should paint. It would be much more encyclopedic to define classical music in its own terms, rather than in terms of comparison to pop. I'm not sure what exactly the solution to this problem is, but we as a community should be able to do better than this. SingCal 07:04, 6 November 2006 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
European classical music...not good enough. United States is not European, so does it mean that, for example, works like Piston cannot be considered here? Should be renamed "Western classical music" or "Classical music of the Western tradition". Mandel 22:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
The external links are getting out of hand. Too many of them are just spamlinks to sites selling classical-music CDs. I'm going to start pruning soon. — Wahoofive ( talk) 16:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Why do not consider to put the website kunstderfuge.com instead of classicalarchives.com? I think this last site is too difficoult to navigate (you have there to login). The first site (kunstderfuge.com) is totally free and the files are preatty more and of better quality. It also contains piano rolls. The site also claims to be the main resource of Classical Music MIDI files. Please evaluate to put it on WikiPedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.57.113 ( talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 October 2006
Also, I'd like to know why you keep removing Classical Forums ( http://www.classicalforums.com) which is an important, free growing classical music community with very interesting articles on classical music written by professional musicians (which is absolutely an unique content related to classical music) when instead there are listed evident commercial websites such as Naxos and others. I have put Classical Forums back again, if you want to remove it, please let me know your motivation. Thank you. -- Fablau 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Very good! I am glad you agree.-- Fablau 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
This article, and all its subarticles ( Baroque music, Renaissance music, 'etc) are desperately lacking for actual music. I maintain a list of full-length songs available on wikipedia - Wikipedia:Sound/list. There are tons of songs there that could be used to illustrate these articles, if someone knowledge about hte topic is willing to do it. Raul654 09:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I propose the following eras for European classical music (with approximate dates):
Early Christian
Plainchant 476-??
Carolingian ??-800
Medieval
Early Medieval 800-1000
Late Medieval 1000-1200
Gothic
Early Gothic (or Ars Antiqua) 1200-1300
Late Gothic (or Ars Nova) 1300-1400
Renaissance
Early Renaissance 1400-1500
Late (or High) Renaissance 1500-1600
Baroque
Early Baroque 1600-1700
Late Baroque 1700-1750
Classical and Romantic
Classical 1750-1800
Romantic 1800-1900
Post-Romantic
20th Century 1900-2000
Contemporary 2000 - today
Eroica 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure if there's anything to merge from that article. If anyone can have a look, that would be great. The article had to be redirected here because of an AFD debate. Johnleemk | Talk 10:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Article makes biased claims about the superior complexity of European classical music, without making note of the many ways in which it is simpler than other musics. It also implies that certain types of complexity found in classical musics are unique to classical musics. Further, it asserts that all non-classical musics are "mere adjuncts" to other forms of entertainment.
Until this bias is removed, the article will remain essentially an advertisement for a music that already has too many grandiose claims for itself in the first place.
Can we remove the POV tag now? The anon editor who put it on has shown no interest in discussing how to improve it. — Wahoofive ( talk) 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I liked the structure of the article, but I would add some examples. Cerealmix
The hatnote on top explaining that this article is about European art music and directing users to other articles is a holdover from when this article was called "Classical music". No one would come to an article called "European classical music" expecting anything other than what we have here. I propose removing it. — Wahoofive ( talk) 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
These sentences do not contain interesting information:
If someone does not already know the above information, he is probably less than 12 years old.
Rintrah 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
To "Rintrah": You motivated me to try to do better. I see this as part of a "man from Mars" problem which is quite widespread here: explaining things with the assumption that the reader has absolutely zero knowledge of any aspect of the subject. See if you like what I wrote better. (I reformatted that paragraph in your comment to make it stand out better; hope you don't mind.) -- ILike2BeAnonymous 01:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I like your amendments. Yes, the "man from Mars" problem is prevalent in wikipedia. There is much more interesting information that should be provided in this article (including the history, performance, etc.), but I am too lazy to put in any work.
Rintrah 14:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to add something that's interesting to the article, not sure where, which is to explain that the current taboo against applauding between movements of a symphony didn't exist at the time when most of these works were written. In fact, audiences often loudly demonstrated between movements, either approvingly or not, and sometimes even called for the just-played movement to be encored. There are many written accounts of this (the last I remember was from a biography of Berlioz). And of course there are the somewhat more well-known incidents, like the near-riot that accompanied the first performance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. However, the current ossified practice is widely believed to be the same as when this "revered" (damn, how I hate that word!) music was created.
Anyone care to tackle this, or at least comment on this? -- ILike2BeAnonymous 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Currently the article has this to say:
Can't we do better than this? This description is totally milquetoast, actually worse than nothing, in that it says essentially nothing but takes a lot of words to do so. Anyone want to take a crack at restating this, to include something of the essence of romantic music? == ILike2BeAnonymous 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
== I would like to teach Classical Music someday. I found your entry nice. Thanks for collaborating. -- Robert Waly 00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that this description should be fleshed out quite a bit, though I'm not sure I am the person to do it. First of all, there ought to be something about changing forms: cyclical treatment of themes and the "tone poem," for instance, were both devised by Liszt during this time. Also huge advances were made in instrumental technique (viz. Paganini, Chopin, Lizst). Programmatic music became much more "illustrative," as in the Symphonie Fantastique of Berlioz. This should be touched upon, at least a little bit! Finally, I don't think the Romantic period lasted quite as long as the article implies. Brahms is usually considered "Late-Romantic," and what can be said of Nielsen, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, etc. who began writing during the "romantic period" and continued using its harmonies long into the 20th century?
I visit Ursatz nearly every day to find out whose birthday it is and who died, too. I've never had a commercial pop-up ever on their site. What was the pop-up that you said happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.84.72.181 ( talk • contribs) 10 May 2006.
Can anyone tell me the name or type of music to this song. -- Je suis t\ c 23:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Removed new additions by Sobolewski, as the term "formal music" is not used in America to the best of my knowledge, but either way, further discussion of the term "Classical Music" belongs on the Classical music page, or the Classical music era page, not here (unless I am mistaken). -- MarkBuckles 23:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Classical music for a current discussion about two pages moves involving this page. -- Aguerriero ( talk) 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
See Talk:Non-Western_classical_music#Requested_move for 7-2 consensus. Wangry 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Should we add more countries or just delete all of these? And why on earth German classical music isn't included?!! Masahiko 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Look at russian editing tradition on russian wiki classical music [ [1]]....
use LINGVO to translate... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butamironin ( talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
The timeline has a bit of a gap between Josquin and Palestrina (although there was plenty of music during that period). My nomination for filling the gap would be Thomas Tallis. Bluewave 10:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
"For those who desire to become performers, any musical instrument is practically impossible to learn to play at a professional level if it, or at least a similar instrument, is not learned in childhood."
How true is this really? I'm pretty sure, for example that a cellist who starts playing at age 8 and who starts playing the recorder at age of 14 has maybe even more chance becoming a professional than most of 8 years olds. 8 years olds have 6 six years advantage, 14 year old can read music, understands music theory, has more discipline, propably has better ear. And how similar these instruments really are? The sentence should be modified, IMO.
One of the best piano jazz performer, Franco d'Andrea, started playing piano at age 17 and ... me too, I am a professional performer. :) -- Alegreen 22:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I have to question the opening introduction of this article, which comes across to me as biased and not written in an encyclopaedic style. There are many statements within the introduction that are not referenced; and it feels more journalistic than encyclopaedic. I propose that the introduction should be changed, because there really do seem to be problems with it at the moment. I'd like to change it but see what others suggest first, because I'm not sure what should replace the current introduction. Feedback appreciated. Madder 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I hate this opening sentence: "Classical music is the sweeping term applied to the musical tradition that is untethered and almost diametrically opposed to the popular music of contemporary culture." Here's why...
1. It's narrow. Maybe classical art music was diametrically opposed to popular music in 1960, but composers like Michael Daugherty, John Zorn and Laurie Anderson, not to mention Charles Ives and Josquin des Prez, strongly integrate popular music into their writing. Are we not including these composers in the umbrella of classical music? If not, then what do we call them? For that matter, how do we decide what's really "opposed" to popular music?
2. It's misleading. To my eyes, that sentence says that classical music was either born or is sustained as a rebellion against popular music, which certainly is not the case.
If we're trying to represent classical music as music which is intrinsically anti-popular culture, fine, but that's not the type of music that the article represents currently and it's not what I think the lead line of this article should paint. It would be much more encyclopedic to define classical music in its own terms, rather than in terms of comparison to pop. I'm not sure what exactly the solution to this problem is, but we as a community should be able to do better than this. SingCal 07:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)