This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
If you must say "refers to", then you're writing about the phrase rather than using the phrase to write about what it refers to. In that case, italicize it. But "refers to" is usually better avoided, since "is" is much simpler. Michael Hardy 23:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I appreciate your advice on grammar, but I feel uncomfortable uncritically stating that, "the Common Practice Period is," well, anything. Unlike the moon, which is, "the largest satellite of the Earth," the Common Practice Period is made up. Anyway to address this without horrid grammar? Hyacinth 01:41, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
How about "The common practice period in music history is the era 1600-1900" (or whatever) or "is an amalgam formed from the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods" ? -- Tdent 21:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'Anacrustic' is indeed a valid word, appearing in the Oxford Dictionary which cites Gerard Manley Hopkins' use of it in 1878 in a letter to Robert Bridges; deriving directly from ανακρουστικος its invention cannot properly be called a 'barbarous'. Stumps 08:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh, what lucid beginning was that? Sorry, my initial impression was total incomprehension of the entire piece. It's "defined" as a time period with no reference to the hallmarks of the music it supposedly encompasses. It goes downhill from there. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 21:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This concept of cpp is irrelevant and misleading
"Common practice harmony is almost always derived from diatonic scales" This sentence is quite misleading and incorrect. Composers as early as the renaissance period were using chromatic alterations. In the Baroque period, the idea of a 'scale' was both unreal and non-practical. Minor keys frequently blended all three forms of the minor scale, modes, chromatic alterations and borrowed chords. Likewise, Major keys borrowed from minor and often had chromatic alterations to create stronger leading to the dominant and eventual rest on the tonic.
It would be much more sensible to say that Common practice harmony is almost always derived from a single tonal center.
As for the I IV V I/ I V IV I sequence, it was much more common to see I II V I as the II acts like a dominant to the dominant, I VI+ V I or second inversion of I(6/4) followed by dominant. I don't think the progressions are neccessary but more attractive and real cadences should be used if they must be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.226.228 ( talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The subject matter of this article is supposed to be a period in European art music which "lasted from about 1600 until about 1900"; so why do all three of the References and the only External Link refer to sources whose primary subject matter is Twentieth-century Music? Fenneck ( talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the general reaction to the section called "Duration"? Specifically, can anyone present a reasonable argument why the whole thing should not be deleted as being pseudo-intellectual musicological technobabble largely irrelevant to the subject of the article? Or should it be translated into decent English first and THEN deleted as irrelevant? Fenneck ( talk) 19:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Since each "duration pattern" in the list uses terms such as rhythmic units, rhythmic gestures, pulse, trills, and composite rhythms, I'd have to guess that there is actually no difference between duration and rhythm. Anything of substance in this section could be said better in the section on rhythm. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 21:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know much more about the "Common Practice Period" after reading this article than before, and furthermore I don't see any inline references that might enlighten me on the subject. References, please, preferably inline. And rewrite this article explaining the basics for those of us who come to the page without any musical training whatsoever. Why is it named the "common practice period"? What do the words "common" and "practice" refer to? (I gather from the article that "period" means a historical period of 300 years 1600-1900.) Who named it, and what did they think was the distinguishing characteristic (hallmark) of work in this period. I take it that it basically covers at least part of the period when classical music was in vogue. What distinguishes common practice music from classical music? Is one a subset of the other? Why is this period not called the classical period or the early modern period? I would guess that this would be the first 300 year period when even temperament would be the norm, something we all but take for granted today. But I don't see the term even temperament in your article. Surely it would have been a big deal and should be made mention of.
If you must use a lot of musical terminology like chord progression numbers and contrapuntal norms and parallel fifths and tonal vs modal, please explain yourself inline as much as possible, and not just include references to other wikipedia articles where such terms are explained. Sorry I'm being a tough critic here, but my first impression of this page was total lack of communication due to overuse of jargon and too high of an expectation of prior knowledge from the reader. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 21:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I've attempted to make the opening sentence correspond to the infoboxes in terms of the use of the words era and period. Overall, if there is agreement that musical periods make up an era then the article needs to be renamed accordingly (or, if it is the other way around, then the infoboxes need reheading).
Another consistency question is whether or not to hyphenate common practice: at the moment we have, for example, common practice music but common-practice harmony. (I favour hyphenization throughout, but am open to persuasion).
In consideration of the above points, I propose moving the article to Common-practice era, and would appreciate other users' comments. -- Picapica ( talk) 04:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I've done a survey of some articles about this subject (basically those I could pull up in a limited amount of time using Google), and so far my finding is that 'Common practice period' is used in some blogs, non-university books, and a few "educational" web sites that appear to have no declared authorship or university affiliation. However, 'Common practice era' turns up in the majority of scholarly articles by accredited university experts I was able to find in a relatively short period of time. Of the 5 accredited URL's provided below, only the first article from the University of Dayton uses the term 'Common practice period', but it doesn't appear to make reference to any shorter periods of time. The other 4 use the term 'era'. Of those, article 2 from the University of California clearly divides the era into baroque, classical, and romantic 'periods' in much the same way that eras are divided into periods in geology (albeit on a much different time scale, but I'm suggesting it's the hierarchy in relative time rather than absolute time that is important here). Article 3 from Johnson C. Smith University in North Carolina refers to the Classical period as a component time-span within the Common practice era, and additionally uses 'period' in quotation marks to denote even shorter periods of time withing the Classical period, in particular the periods of Beethoven's life. Articles 4 and 5 refer to the Common prectice era in very specific contexts that don't involve subdividing it into periods.
1. http://academic.udayton.edu/PhillipMagnuson/soundpatterns/diatonicI/transition.html
2. https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/36604/1/EMR000064b_Konecni.pdf
3. http://cdm16324.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15170coll2/id/3392
4. http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/36604
5. http://www.d.umn.edu/~jrubin1/JHR%20Theory%20Scales.htm
So the question now seems to be whether we go with the vernacular that seems to prefer 'Common practice period' while using 'era' to denote shorter periods of time? Or do we go with 'Common practice era' that appears to be majority preference among accredited scholars; with 'periods' denoting shorter time spans? Everything I understand about Wikipedia, particularly with the types of sources that are to be used for inline citations, tells me that scholarly opinion should take precedence over popular usage. I don't know if the samples I was able to find of popular and scholarly articles were large enough to be statistically significant, but I only had limited time to do the resarch. I can try to find more examples of both usages if that's needed to make any imformed decisions, but it may take awhile. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk) 12:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The parenthetical referencing is something I've never seen before. If it's faster and more concise than the type of referencing I've done with other articles, I'll definitely want to learn how to do it and use it where appropriate. I'll check out the link you've provided. I was in a hurry when I did that previous edit and got a bit sloppy with the syntax; my apologies for that! There is in infobox with this article that uses 'era' in connection with the prehistoric, early, common practice, and contemporary 'periods'. I think it should be brought into conformity with the rest of the article and other related articles by reversing the era and period terminologies, but I don't see an edit function of any kind to make the correction. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 13:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There are two template infoboxes included with the article. One has the letters V T E at the bottom right that allows the template to be edited even though it displays on multiple music-related articles. I have made some modifications to the title and subtitles on the template over the past few weeks to try and establish some consistency regarding the uses of 'period' and 'era'. I initially explained my changes in the edit history and have now followed your advice to include an explanation on the template's talk page lest I be accused or suspected of disruptive editing. So far, nobody has tagged or reverted my edits so I'm assuming that some degree of editorial concensus exists. The other template infobox has no V T E and therefore can't be edited so easily, if at all. It is this second infobox that uses 'era' where the other one uses 'period'. I can see that there may be variences in general usage of such terms, but to have 2 infoboxes in direct conflict with each other on the same page makes it a free-for-all. The contrary infobox contains no date information that isn't already in the larger and more conformist infobox, so I think the two should be merged or the contrary infobox should be deleted. Additionally, the contrary infobox doesn't appear to have a talk page, so the only place I can see to express my concerns about it is right here on this page as I'm now doing.
Re: George Perle. If only he expressed himself as clearly as Adam Carse! I've removed my clumsy and misguided attempt to clarify his dense academic jargon. However, I've left the 'clarification needed' tag (minus the references to my own erstwhile edit) in place because I think the remark attributed to him still needs to be clarified in some way for lay readers, or maybe replaced by a comparable quote from a more readable expert. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 11:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem with this section is it doesn't explicitly tie in the idea of these pitch class relations with atonality and serialism, even though the latter seem to be the most obvious manifestations of this suposed new common practice period. I initially gathered the symmetries and pitch class relations referred to were about atonality and serialism when I attempted my own edit to that effect, but it seems maybe they're not connected since my edit didn't stand. The section also makes no mention of minimalism and post-minimalism. Are composers like John Adams a part of this new common practice, or do they mark the beginning another new "period" that has developed it's own "common practice"? Confusion reigns supreme in this section of the article!! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 12:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If find this section more confusing than some others, it's probably because I"m not a professional expert in this field. We seem to find many of the same shortcomings in the section that needs to be fixed. I think this scetion requires the attention of an acredited expert. As for myself, I think I can add some badly needed citations for some of the previous text, but can't do much with Perle's theories. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 13:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Once again I think we have concurrence regarding possible ways to deal with the section "later trends". Once again though, I don't think I'm the once to make any changes or deletions. I'll leave that to accredited experts in the field of musicology. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 11:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
To mince words with Jerome Kohl and other interested editors: I take issue with "dissolution" because it implies that the tonal system no longer exists, which is naturally false. Words like "abandonment" and "departure" seem to be more accurate. Can we look for consensus on a better term? Ibadibam ( talk) 19:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
If you must say "refers to", then you're writing about the phrase rather than using the phrase to write about what it refers to. In that case, italicize it. But "refers to" is usually better avoided, since "is" is much simpler. Michael Hardy 23:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I appreciate your advice on grammar, but I feel uncomfortable uncritically stating that, "the Common Practice Period is," well, anything. Unlike the moon, which is, "the largest satellite of the Earth," the Common Practice Period is made up. Anyway to address this without horrid grammar? Hyacinth 01:41, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
How about "The common practice period in music history is the era 1600-1900" (or whatever) or "is an amalgam formed from the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods" ? -- Tdent 21:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
'Anacrustic' is indeed a valid word, appearing in the Oxford Dictionary which cites Gerard Manley Hopkins' use of it in 1878 in a letter to Robert Bridges; deriving directly from ανακρουστικος its invention cannot properly be called a 'barbarous'. Stumps 08:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh, what lucid beginning was that? Sorry, my initial impression was total incomprehension of the entire piece. It's "defined" as a time period with no reference to the hallmarks of the music it supposedly encompasses. It goes downhill from there. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 21:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
This concept of cpp is irrelevant and misleading
"Common practice harmony is almost always derived from diatonic scales" This sentence is quite misleading and incorrect. Composers as early as the renaissance period were using chromatic alterations. In the Baroque period, the idea of a 'scale' was both unreal and non-practical. Minor keys frequently blended all three forms of the minor scale, modes, chromatic alterations and borrowed chords. Likewise, Major keys borrowed from minor and often had chromatic alterations to create stronger leading to the dominant and eventual rest on the tonic.
It would be much more sensible to say that Common practice harmony is almost always derived from a single tonal center.
As for the I IV V I/ I V IV I sequence, it was much more common to see I II V I as the II acts like a dominant to the dominant, I VI+ V I or second inversion of I(6/4) followed by dominant. I don't think the progressions are neccessary but more attractive and real cadences should be used if they must be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.226.228 ( talk) 23:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The subject matter of this article is supposed to be a period in European art music which "lasted from about 1600 until about 1900"; so why do all three of the References and the only External Link refer to sources whose primary subject matter is Twentieth-century Music? Fenneck ( talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
What is the general reaction to the section called "Duration"? Specifically, can anyone present a reasonable argument why the whole thing should not be deleted as being pseudo-intellectual musicological technobabble largely irrelevant to the subject of the article? Or should it be translated into decent English first and THEN deleted as irrelevant? Fenneck ( talk) 19:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Since each "duration pattern" in the list uses terms such as rhythmic units, rhythmic gestures, pulse, trills, and composite rhythms, I'd have to guess that there is actually no difference between duration and rhythm. Anything of substance in this section could be said better in the section on rhythm. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 21:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't know much more about the "Common Practice Period" after reading this article than before, and furthermore I don't see any inline references that might enlighten me on the subject. References, please, preferably inline. And rewrite this article explaining the basics for those of us who come to the page without any musical training whatsoever. Why is it named the "common practice period"? What do the words "common" and "practice" refer to? (I gather from the article that "period" means a historical period of 300 years 1600-1900.) Who named it, and what did they think was the distinguishing characteristic (hallmark) of work in this period. I take it that it basically covers at least part of the period when classical music was in vogue. What distinguishes common practice music from classical music? Is one a subset of the other? Why is this period not called the classical period or the early modern period? I would guess that this would be the first 300 year period when even temperament would be the norm, something we all but take for granted today. But I don't see the term even temperament in your article. Surely it would have been a big deal and should be made mention of.
If you must use a lot of musical terminology like chord progression numbers and contrapuntal norms and parallel fifths and tonal vs modal, please explain yourself inline as much as possible, and not just include references to other wikipedia articles where such terms are explained. Sorry I'm being a tough critic here, but my first impression of this page was total lack of communication due to overuse of jargon and too high of an expectation of prior knowledge from the reader. Dlw20070716 ( talk) 21:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
I've attempted to make the opening sentence correspond to the infoboxes in terms of the use of the words era and period. Overall, if there is agreement that musical periods make up an era then the article needs to be renamed accordingly (or, if it is the other way around, then the infoboxes need reheading).
Another consistency question is whether or not to hyphenate common practice: at the moment we have, for example, common practice music but common-practice harmony. (I favour hyphenization throughout, but am open to persuasion).
In consideration of the above points, I propose moving the article to Common-practice era, and would appreciate other users' comments. -- Picapica ( talk) 04:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I've done a survey of some articles about this subject (basically those I could pull up in a limited amount of time using Google), and so far my finding is that 'Common practice period' is used in some blogs, non-university books, and a few "educational" web sites that appear to have no declared authorship or university affiliation. However, 'Common practice era' turns up in the majority of scholarly articles by accredited university experts I was able to find in a relatively short period of time. Of the 5 accredited URL's provided below, only the first article from the University of Dayton uses the term 'Common practice period', but it doesn't appear to make reference to any shorter periods of time. The other 4 use the term 'era'. Of those, article 2 from the University of California clearly divides the era into baroque, classical, and romantic 'periods' in much the same way that eras are divided into periods in geology (albeit on a much different time scale, but I'm suggesting it's the hierarchy in relative time rather than absolute time that is important here). Article 3 from Johnson C. Smith University in North Carolina refers to the Classical period as a component time-span within the Common practice era, and additionally uses 'period' in quotation marks to denote even shorter periods of time withing the Classical period, in particular the periods of Beethoven's life. Articles 4 and 5 refer to the Common prectice era in very specific contexts that don't involve subdividing it into periods.
1. http://academic.udayton.edu/PhillipMagnuson/soundpatterns/diatonicI/transition.html
2. https://kb.osu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/1811/36604/1/EMR000064b_Konecni.pdf
3. http://cdm16324.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15170coll2/id/3392
4. http://kb.osu.edu/dspace/handle/1811/36604
5. http://www.d.umn.edu/~jrubin1/JHR%20Theory%20Scales.htm
So the question now seems to be whether we go with the vernacular that seems to prefer 'Common practice period' while using 'era' to denote shorter periods of time? Or do we go with 'Common practice era' that appears to be majority preference among accredited scholars; with 'periods' denoting shorter time spans? Everything I understand about Wikipedia, particularly with the types of sources that are to be used for inline citations, tells me that scholarly opinion should take precedence over popular usage. I don't know if the samples I was able to find of popular and scholarly articles were large enough to be statistically significant, but I only had limited time to do the resarch. I can try to find more examples of both usages if that's needed to make any imformed decisions, but it may take awhile. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk) 12:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
The parenthetical referencing is something I've never seen before. If it's faster and more concise than the type of referencing I've done with other articles, I'll definitely want to learn how to do it and use it where appropriate. I'll check out the link you've provided. I was in a hurry when I did that previous edit and got a bit sloppy with the syntax; my apologies for that! There is in infobox with this article that uses 'era' in connection with the prehistoric, early, common practice, and contemporary 'periods'. I think it should be brought into conformity with the rest of the article and other related articles by reversing the era and period terminologies, but I don't see an edit function of any kind to make the correction. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 13:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
There are two template infoboxes included with the article. One has the letters V T E at the bottom right that allows the template to be edited even though it displays on multiple music-related articles. I have made some modifications to the title and subtitles on the template over the past few weeks to try and establish some consistency regarding the uses of 'period' and 'era'. I initially explained my changes in the edit history and have now followed your advice to include an explanation on the template's talk page lest I be accused or suspected of disruptive editing. So far, nobody has tagged or reverted my edits so I'm assuming that some degree of editorial concensus exists. The other template infobox has no V T E and therefore can't be edited so easily, if at all. It is this second infobox that uses 'era' where the other one uses 'period'. I can see that there may be variences in general usage of such terms, but to have 2 infoboxes in direct conflict with each other on the same page makes it a free-for-all. The contrary infobox contains no date information that isn't already in the larger and more conformist infobox, so I think the two should be merged or the contrary infobox should be deleted. Additionally, the contrary infobox doesn't appear to have a talk page, so the only place I can see to express my concerns about it is right here on this page as I'm now doing.
Re: George Perle. If only he expressed himself as clearly as Adam Carse! I've removed my clumsy and misguided attempt to clarify his dense academic jargon. However, I've left the 'clarification needed' tag (minus the references to my own erstwhile edit) in place because I think the remark attributed to him still needs to be clarified in some way for lay readers, or maybe replaced by a comparable quote from a more readable expert. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 11:42, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the problem with this section is it doesn't explicitly tie in the idea of these pitch class relations with atonality and serialism, even though the latter seem to be the most obvious manifestations of this suposed new common practice period. I initially gathered the symmetries and pitch class relations referred to were about atonality and serialism when I attempted my own edit to that effect, but it seems maybe they're not connected since my edit didn't stand. The section also makes no mention of minimalism and post-minimalism. Are composers like John Adams a part of this new common practice, or do they mark the beginning another new "period" that has developed it's own "common practice"? Confusion reigns supreme in this section of the article!! ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 12:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If find this section more confusing than some others, it's probably because I"m not a professional expert in this field. We seem to find many of the same shortcomings in the section that needs to be fixed. I think this scetion requires the attention of an acredited expert. As for myself, I think I can add some badly needed citations for some of the previous text, but can't do much with Perle's theories. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 13:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Once again I think we have concurrence regarding possible ways to deal with the section "later trends". Once again though, I don't think I'm the once to make any changes or deletions. I'll leave that to accredited experts in the field of musicology. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 11:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
To mince words with Jerome Kohl and other interested editors: I take issue with "dissolution" because it implies that the tonal system no longer exists, which is naturally false. Words like "abandonment" and "departure" seem to be more accurate. Can we look for consensus on a better term? Ibadibam ( talk) 19:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)