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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
How did this label come about? Is there any source, please? And is it reasonable to use it - or should it be called something else? Judging from the quotations that allegedly critisize the modernist view the authors mentioned here do not use that terminology...
For instance - a quotation ascribed to Beethoven is that of "what do I care about his lousy violin when the Spirit speaks to me". Could modernism then start with Beethoven? In that case we should definitely call it something else. "View of the modern ages" would, however, be very different and maybe suitable, but maybe not handy either. Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen ( talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)carlbn
This section needs to be significantly extended to cover the following matters:
1. The History of the Modernist Approach.
1a) For example, there were artists at least a century ago advocating this approach (though in some cases - Anton Rubinstein, as I recall - he often did not not conform to his own precepts). And we know that some composers wanted this approach to be used, whereas others did not (as evidenced by their performances).
1b) Also, who, in modern times, are, and have been, the principal advocates of this approach which can be summed-up as “the score, the whole score, and nothing but the score” and the exclusion of personal interpretation.
There are a number of issues that need to be discussed. For example:
2. The difference between a score and music (the map versus the territory?). Do you want to simply play a score (a wholly mechanical, and repeatable, process), or perform music? The two are quite different.
3. The impossibility of including in a score, which is essentially digital in nature, all facets of music which is analogue in nature.
4. Notations:
4a) How does one get rid of personal interpretation when many notations in a score are not absolute and therefore have to depend on personal opinion?
4b) The fact that the meaning of specific notations has changed over the years and from composer to composer.
4c) The likelihood that some composers would have omitted notations that would have been understood at that time as being automatically included because of the nature of the work.
4d) There are notations whose meaning is not understood.
5. The Score:
5a) The fact that some composers, when acting as exponents of their own compositions, did not follow their own composition’s score. For example, the tempi used by Elgar, as a conductor, often varied from those in his scores. Rachmininov, as a pianist, didn’t always follow his own scores. And why ‘approved’ performances of Rachmaninov’s works don’t accord with the composer’s own performances which surely must have represented what he wanted?
5b) Which score? Why do proponents of the modernist approach approve performances which do not even use the composer’s score, but later ‘editions’ by pupils and others? For example, I know of only one performer today, Angela Lear, who actually uses original scores by Chopin himself. The differences, for example in the case of the Etudes Op 10 and 25, are significant.
5c) What do proponents of the modernist approach advocate in the case of works by Bruckner, where virtually all performances use the ‘editions’ by others?
6. The Instrument:
6a) The fact that concert pitch has varied over the centuries. Shouldn’t instruments be retuned to conform to the modernist approach?
6b) Then there is the lack of authentic instruments. Playing Chopin on a modern piano is essentially a transcription of the music that Chopin wrote for his Playel. What does the modernist approach advocate in such cases.
7. Tempi:
7a) What does an exponent do in the case of lack of metronome markings if wishing to avoid personal interpretation?
7b) It is known that some composers did not have accurate metronomes. How can personal interpretation be avoided?
Tony ( talk) 09:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I often see in western music related articles (and not only in Wikipedia) that there's little or no room to improvisation in classical music. For the sake of the argument, I won't consider what happened to classical music up to Liszt, but what about the French organ school? There is a firm, stablished and abundant amount of improvisation in that school which can be traced to César Franck and the 19th century, and whoever goes to a mass in France will eventually hear an improvisation. Bruno Gripp ( talk) 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
sure, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven all freely improvised as several accounts state. What we have as composition is a particular recording of one such performance, edited and polished. Make no mistake: staff notation was the first form of audio recording. I really find this silly: "The most outstanding characteristic of classical music is that the repertoire tends to be written down in musical notation, creating a musical part or score." It's like saying the most outstanding characteristic of pop music is that it tends to be written down in multitrack audio recordings. 186.215.82.194 ( talk) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this article called classical music or western classical music? 125.19.28.2 ( talk) 15:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It should be western classical music. 199.76.166.139 ( talk)
Pardon my french, but Zyxwv99 is full of s**t. Look at the English-language Wikipedia article on Food to see why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steppenwolf29 ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
this should be western classical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.112.155 ( talk) 17:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I've cut the following paragraph which had opened the section 'Instrumentation':
The first sentence is meaningless (it could equally apply to prog rock, for instance); the second sentence is entirely contentious; the third verges on illiteracy; the fourth is both irrelevant and misleading (what about the cantata, or Lieder, for instance?). So it goes on, without any citations to be seen: I think it better junked, and have gone ahead and done so. Alfietucker ( talk) 21:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Should "Impressionist" really be part of the table at the top (entitled "Periods of European art music")? I see it more as a school of music - and really a school of just two composers: Ravel and Debussy - and not a period. If we included it, wouldn't we also have to include the Twelve-tone or Serialist schools as well? Squandermania ( talk) 18:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
so,what mean classical music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.207.110 ( talk) 13:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand, yet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.207.110 ( talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed a load of external links which in my view and per WP:External links don't belong here. The sites are full of ads and add nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic. These are the ones that have been removed (complete with blurbs):
Voceditenore ( talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Can an image be added to represent Classic music? Facebook is linked with and uses Wikipedia, and when there's no image a generic one is used that is unrelated to music. If an image of sheet music or a music note graphic were added to the top, it would be automatically added to Facebook as a thumbnail/icon. An image at Wikimedia Commons would probably work. J-klem ( talk) 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted these two edits by two different IPs [1], [2] but someone might wish to check if any of the changes were in fact valid ones. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Not only is this partially incorrect (or at the least misleading), since improvisation (see the cadenza for example) was prominent in classical music up to the 19th century, but also has a slightly derogatory tone. If any comparison should be made with the music of other cultures, more care should be taken to offer a balanced view. While admittedly the structure of Western classical music is more structured (rigid, even), it should also be argued/presented that its complexity, richness, and theory is (in general) significantly greater than any other historical form of music. Noldorin ( talk) 03:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC
Can anyone identify this piece of classical music, played as an accompaniment to cocaine snorting buddies from Russian series Brigada in this episode [3]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjojo98 ( talk • contribs)
For full disclosure, it must be stated that link contents for EU use only, together with the link. Ideally frustrated links must be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.17.83 ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 13 September 2011
In 1965 with the establishment of The National Endowment for the Arts, and consequent Liberalization of the Arts, it was expected that Classical music will also re-invent itself, just like the Visual Arts, and will become part of the Industrialization of the Arts. In the attempt for re-invention and becoming to be part of the Industrialization was overlooked the fact that there is a major difference in the consumption. While the Visual Arts supported by the NEA, with public money grew by the use of again public money from the cultural milieu on all levels, and as such, it was not dependent on the support of public at all. Public had no say in the Visual Arts.
Quite contrary, the Classical music depended very much on the paying audience, and as such on the public approval. Any attempts to re-invent the Classical form has failed due to the fact that any new form presented to the public 'en force' have reflected in empty auditoriums. The appearance of success was tried by shuffling the new form(s) placing them at the beginning, in between or at the appendage of the main event. The later, resulted in massive early leaving of attendees. These facts were presented to me in the past by my wife Danica Betakova, an ardent attendee of Classical performances at the National Art Center in Ottawa for many years, herself educated in Classical music, piano teacher, church organist +++ Rasto Hlavina 74.210.37.164 ( talk) 14:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
classical concertgoers and CD buyers are not all upper class
It is indubitable that South Asia has highly developed forms of classical music (This may well be true for other Eastern cultures as well, but I'm not knowledgeable on that question.). It's appalling that the Wikipedia article on Classical Music says that this is an exclusively Western form. Until someone carries out a rewrite of the article, I propose that at least the title be changed to "Western Classical Music".
Please note that I am distinguishing folk/native music (which is a part of all cultures) from classical music. See Indian Classical Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steppenwolf29 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
very eurocentric article. ignorance of other streams amongst the westerners is not an excuse to usurp all claims about classical music unto themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.112.155 ( talk) 18:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 09:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Classical music → Western Classical Music – This page talks specifically about Western classical music and not about classical music in general. Hence its name should be changed to Western Classical Music to remove ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMak2027 ( talk • contribs) 06:45 22 July 2012
Another point to keep in mind is WP:PTOPIC.— Toccata quarta ( talk) 14:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of POV language in that section (it uses "cliched" so much it almost becomes a cliche itself), the various claims about use and implication of particular scores are - while probably true - not supported by cites to show they are significant, and the one cited claim (that some guy I've never heard of thinks commercialization is bad) is unaccessible without a log-in, so I can't tell if it is a reliable source, or a well-established opinion, or a fringe view. While I'm sure a lot could be written, the section as it stands is pretty poor, and I'm not sure it is salvagable. (Change the POV language, and you are left with an unsourced list of commonly used movie scores. Remove that, and all that's left is a not-easily-checkable claim that "some guy thinks commercialization harmed music". Should we try fixing it, or should we just delete it all until someone writes a better "Commercialism" section? Iapetus ( talk) 13:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I propose that List of musical movements be merged into Classical music. List of musical movements has no added value over Classical music because:
My proposal is to delete all the contents of this article and replace with a redirect to Classical music. LazyStarryNights ( talk) 16:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Lan berger and I have reached an agreement on a picture to use in the "Instrumentation" section of the article. You can read the discussion on my talk page. We've agreed to use this picture: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2625/3766992042_e49c2ea114_z.jpg?zz=1, with a caption that says: "A concert band is comprised of wind and percussion instruments."
Can someone upload the image and add it to the article? I'm not sure what all the licenses and stuff means. Saxophilist ( talk) 22:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
How did this label come about? Is there any source, please? And is it reasonable to use it - or should it be called something else? Judging from the quotations that allegedly critisize the modernist view the authors mentioned here do not use that terminology...
For instance - a quotation ascribed to Beethoven is that of "what do I care about his lousy violin when the Spirit speaks to me". Could modernism then start with Beethoven? In that case we should definitely call it something else. "View of the modern ages" would, however, be very different and maybe suitable, but maybe not handy either. Carl Bergstroem-Nielsen ( talk) 15:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)carlbn
This section needs to be significantly extended to cover the following matters:
1. The History of the Modernist Approach.
1a) For example, there were artists at least a century ago advocating this approach (though in some cases - Anton Rubinstein, as I recall - he often did not not conform to his own precepts). And we know that some composers wanted this approach to be used, whereas others did not (as evidenced by their performances).
1b) Also, who, in modern times, are, and have been, the principal advocates of this approach which can be summed-up as “the score, the whole score, and nothing but the score” and the exclusion of personal interpretation.
There are a number of issues that need to be discussed. For example:
2. The difference between a score and music (the map versus the territory?). Do you want to simply play a score (a wholly mechanical, and repeatable, process), or perform music? The two are quite different.
3. The impossibility of including in a score, which is essentially digital in nature, all facets of music which is analogue in nature.
4. Notations:
4a) How does one get rid of personal interpretation when many notations in a score are not absolute and therefore have to depend on personal opinion?
4b) The fact that the meaning of specific notations has changed over the years and from composer to composer.
4c) The likelihood that some composers would have omitted notations that would have been understood at that time as being automatically included because of the nature of the work.
4d) There are notations whose meaning is not understood.
5. The Score:
5a) The fact that some composers, when acting as exponents of their own compositions, did not follow their own composition’s score. For example, the tempi used by Elgar, as a conductor, often varied from those in his scores. Rachmininov, as a pianist, didn’t always follow his own scores. And why ‘approved’ performances of Rachmaninov’s works don’t accord with the composer’s own performances which surely must have represented what he wanted?
5b) Which score? Why do proponents of the modernist approach approve performances which do not even use the composer’s score, but later ‘editions’ by pupils and others? For example, I know of only one performer today, Angela Lear, who actually uses original scores by Chopin himself. The differences, for example in the case of the Etudes Op 10 and 25, are significant.
5c) What do proponents of the modernist approach advocate in the case of works by Bruckner, where virtually all performances use the ‘editions’ by others?
6. The Instrument:
6a) The fact that concert pitch has varied over the centuries. Shouldn’t instruments be retuned to conform to the modernist approach?
6b) Then there is the lack of authentic instruments. Playing Chopin on a modern piano is essentially a transcription of the music that Chopin wrote for his Playel. What does the modernist approach advocate in such cases.
7. Tempi:
7a) What does an exponent do in the case of lack of metronome markings if wishing to avoid personal interpretation?
7b) It is known that some composers did not have accurate metronomes. How can personal interpretation be avoided?
Tony ( talk) 09:12, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I often see in western music related articles (and not only in Wikipedia) that there's little or no room to improvisation in classical music. For the sake of the argument, I won't consider what happened to classical music up to Liszt, but what about the French organ school? There is a firm, stablished and abundant amount of improvisation in that school which can be traced to César Franck and the 19th century, and whoever goes to a mass in France will eventually hear an improvisation. Bruno Gripp ( talk) 20:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
sure, Bach, Mozart and Beethoven all freely improvised as several accounts state. What we have as composition is a particular recording of one such performance, edited and polished. Make no mistake: staff notation was the first form of audio recording. I really find this silly: "The most outstanding characteristic of classical music is that the repertoire tends to be written down in musical notation, creating a musical part or score." It's like saying the most outstanding characteristic of pop music is that it tends to be written down in multitrack audio recordings. 186.215.82.194 ( talk) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this article called classical music or western classical music? 125.19.28.2 ( talk) 15:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
It should be western classical music. 199.76.166.139 ( talk)
Pardon my french, but Zyxwv99 is full of s**t. Look at the English-language Wikipedia article on Food to see why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steppenwolf29 ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
this should be western classical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.112.155 ( talk) 17:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
I've cut the following paragraph which had opened the section 'Instrumentation':
The first sentence is meaningless (it could equally apply to prog rock, for instance); the second sentence is entirely contentious; the third verges on illiteracy; the fourth is both irrelevant and misleading (what about the cantata, or Lieder, for instance?). So it goes on, without any citations to be seen: I think it better junked, and have gone ahead and done so. Alfietucker ( talk) 21:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Should "Impressionist" really be part of the table at the top (entitled "Periods of European art music")? I see it more as a school of music - and really a school of just two composers: Ravel and Debussy - and not a period. If we included it, wouldn't we also have to include the Twelve-tone or Serialist schools as well? Squandermania ( talk) 18:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
so,what mean classical music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.207.110 ( talk) 13:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand, yet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.207.110 ( talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I've just removed a load of external links which in my view and per WP:External links don't belong here. The sites are full of ads and add nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic. These are the ones that have been removed (complete with blurbs):
Voceditenore ( talk) 16:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Can an image be added to represent Classic music? Facebook is linked with and uses Wikipedia, and when there's no image a generic one is used that is unrelated to music. If an image of sheet music or a music note graphic were added to the top, it would be automatically added to Facebook as a thumbnail/icon. An image at Wikimedia Commons would probably work. J-klem ( talk) 22:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I've reverted these two edits by two different IPs [1], [2] but someone might wish to check if any of the changes were in fact valid ones. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Not only is this partially incorrect (or at the least misleading), since improvisation (see the cadenza for example) was prominent in classical music up to the 19th century, but also has a slightly derogatory tone. If any comparison should be made with the music of other cultures, more care should be taken to offer a balanced view. While admittedly the structure of Western classical music is more structured (rigid, even), it should also be argued/presented that its complexity, richness, and theory is (in general) significantly greater than any other historical form of music. Noldorin ( talk) 03:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC
Can anyone identify this piece of classical music, played as an accompaniment to cocaine snorting buddies from Russian series Brigada in this episode [3]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerjojo98 ( talk • contribs)
For full disclosure, it must be stated that link contents for EU use only, together with the link. Ideally frustrated links must be avoided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.17.83 ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 13 September 2011
In 1965 with the establishment of The National Endowment for the Arts, and consequent Liberalization of the Arts, it was expected that Classical music will also re-invent itself, just like the Visual Arts, and will become part of the Industrialization of the Arts. In the attempt for re-invention and becoming to be part of the Industrialization was overlooked the fact that there is a major difference in the consumption. While the Visual Arts supported by the NEA, with public money grew by the use of again public money from the cultural milieu on all levels, and as such, it was not dependent on the support of public at all. Public had no say in the Visual Arts.
Quite contrary, the Classical music depended very much on the paying audience, and as such on the public approval. Any attempts to re-invent the Classical form has failed due to the fact that any new form presented to the public 'en force' have reflected in empty auditoriums. The appearance of success was tried by shuffling the new form(s) placing them at the beginning, in between or at the appendage of the main event. The later, resulted in massive early leaving of attendees. These facts were presented to me in the past by my wife Danica Betakova, an ardent attendee of Classical performances at the National Art Center in Ottawa for many years, herself educated in Classical music, piano teacher, church organist +++ Rasto Hlavina 74.210.37.164 ( talk) 14:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
classical concertgoers and CD buyers are not all upper class
It is indubitable that South Asia has highly developed forms of classical music (This may well be true for other Eastern cultures as well, but I'm not knowledgeable on that question.). It's appalling that the Wikipedia article on Classical Music says that this is an exclusively Western form. Until someone carries out a rewrite of the article, I propose that at least the title be changed to "Western Classical Music".
Please note that I am distinguishing folk/native music (which is a part of all cultures) from classical music. See Indian Classical Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steppenwolf29 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
very eurocentric article. ignorance of other streams amongst the westerners is not an excuse to usurp all claims about classical music unto themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.112.155 ( talk) 18:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian ( talk) 09:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Classical music → Western Classical Music – This page talks specifically about Western classical music and not about classical music in general. Hence its name should be changed to Western Classical Music to remove ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigMak2027 ( talk • contribs) 06:45 22 July 2012
Another point to keep in mind is WP:PTOPIC.— Toccata quarta ( talk) 14:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
There is a lot of POV language in that section (it uses "cliched" so much it almost becomes a cliche itself), the various claims about use and implication of particular scores are - while probably true - not supported by cites to show they are significant, and the one cited claim (that some guy I've never heard of thinks commercialization is bad) is unaccessible without a log-in, so I can't tell if it is a reliable source, or a well-established opinion, or a fringe view. While I'm sure a lot could be written, the section as it stands is pretty poor, and I'm not sure it is salvagable. (Change the POV language, and you are left with an unsourced list of commonly used movie scores. Remove that, and all that's left is a not-easily-checkable claim that "some guy thinks commercialization harmed music". Should we try fixing it, or should we just delete it all until someone writes a better "Commercialism" section? Iapetus ( talk) 13:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I propose that List of musical movements be merged into Classical music. List of musical movements has no added value over Classical music because:
My proposal is to delete all the contents of this article and replace with a redirect to Classical music. LazyStarryNights ( talk) 16:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Lan berger and I have reached an agreement on a picture to use in the "Instrumentation" section of the article. You can read the discussion on my talk page. We've agreed to use this picture: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2625/3766992042_e49c2ea114_z.jpg?zz=1, with a caption that says: "A concert band is comprised of wind and percussion instruments."
Can someone upload the image and add it to the article? I'm not sure what all the licenses and stuff means. Saxophilist ( talk) 22:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)