This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Contemporary classical music article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||
|
I can see a major problem with the name of this article: contemporary means "happening now", but most of the music discussed in this article is no longer "contemporary" in that sense. Pop music of the 80s is not contemporary, so how can classical music of that decade be contemporary? I am aware that some critics and musicologists lump all the music from 1975 onwards under this banner, but I suggest most speak only of music written in the past ten years or so when talking about contemporary music. I might also point out that 20th-century classical music already talks about the music from the first 25 years of this article's time line (or it should, given the name). Perhaps 21st-century classical music would be a better title, then we could move any pre-2000 music to the other article. Thoughts? Jubilee♫ clipman 01:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC) PS, both Cage and Messiaen died in 1992, so they can hardly be called "contemporary"! Jubilee♫ clipman 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Erm, it might have been a bad idea for Galassi to move the article without waiting for others to join the debate. I was merely putting forward objections and waiting for opinions. This article still discusses music from latter quarter of C20th. Will Galassi now move those over to 20th-century classical music? At present there is a major anomaly! I've opened a can of worms! Sorry. Jubilee♫ clipman 03:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Also, the lead still talks about contemporary classical music. I'm not rolling back: I think we might need to go to WP:RM and have a proper discussion. Jubilee♫ clipman 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair points raised here. I notice name change has been reverted by Measles: probably correctly. Leave this article here. As Jerome Kohl suggested, I'll start a new article at 21st-century classical music and we can quibble about a better name for this article later. There is perhaps a stylistic change somewhere around 1975 which overlaps with other developments in latter quarter of C20th. We'll have to define it. Jubilee♫ clipman 13:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
That's precicely the point, Measles: contemporary music does not exclusively cover recent developments. The term covers anything from 1975 onward - or 1945 onward, depending who you talk to. By recent, I mean the very latest developments from, say 1995, on. After all we are only ten years into this century and a lot has happened in that time. I hope to make that point clear as the article develops. Thanks for the input though: it helps to define the boundaries in more concrete ways. Jubilee♫ clipman 19:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Solved one problem: I've merged Contemporary music into this article. :) Jubilee♫ clipman 03:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel the term classical has no place here. If we're talking about contemporary music (contemporary being interpreted as modern)then everything listed under movements is right where it should be, but then the title of the article is just confusing. The article should be titled simply Contemporary Music. 206.248.183.75 ( talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"Contemporary classical" is an oxymoron. It is not possible to be both, and the title of this article should be changed to "Contemporary art music". 90.24.185.199 ( talk) 12:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I've just thought: shouldn't P. D. Q. Bach/ Peter Schickele here somewhere? He did parody an enormous number of styles and has influenced a great many composers in one way or another. Jubilee♫ clipman 04:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(Following posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music)
The following articles overlap and the situation need to be rationalized: contemporary music, contemporary classical music, 20th-century classical music, and 21st-century classical music. The following issues are the most urgent (in order of importance):
Other issues exist, as well, but those above need immeadiate attention.
Thank you for your input. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This call for discussion has been posted on multiple talk pages. In order to keep all relevant discussions in one place, please post any response on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Major issues to resolve. -- Deskford ( talk) 12:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
A substantial list of articles on individual composers has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that they were initially created in a mass spam effort by a record company. Whilst some of these composers may be non-notable (I hadn't heard of some of them), some are certainly of international significance. Please look through the list on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empreintes_DIGITALes and if any of these composers come under your sphere of expertise add a few references, remove excessive promotional content, and contribute to the discussion so that we don't lose valuable articles. -- Deskford ( talk) 13:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I am a trained musicologist and make my living from writing about music. I have to say that the following sentence seems elliptical at best, and I doubt whether it's at all illuminating to someone coming to the article hoping to be informed:
Can anybody here explain what "its subgenre of musical purpose" is supposed to mean? And if they can, could they have a go at rewriting it into plain English? Thank you. Alfietucker ( talk) 21:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the best way to understand something isn't to declare that is had no meaning and than to attempt to understand that. Instead proposing a meaning may work out better. This is Wikipedia, and even small parts of sentences may have been written over large periods of time by a multitude of people. Regardless, you can rewrite it right now.
The sentence as a whole seems to be saying that "contemporary" should be taken in context, both time and, if not place, then (intended) genre. If we simply remove "of musical purpose" doesn't the sentence make sense? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Upon reading the source cited, no where does it suggest that post 1970s music should be termed 'contemporary classical music'. While modernism isn't as pronounced as it was between the 50s-70s, it is by no means an abandoned aesthetic, so it is not really a suitable cut-off point. Furthermore, this is not a term actively used by musicians, or academics who work in this field, to describe music of this kind, or even the 'classical tradition'. I suspect a more appropriate term is 'contemporary art music', to echo the sentiments above. To clarify, I'm not arguing that music since 1970 isn't contemporary, but I am arguing it isn't contemporary because it is in the post of modernism. It suggests that all post 1970 new music is postmodernist, which it certainly isn't. Jabbercat ( talk) 15:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to have accumulated quite a farm of external links of dubious value. Do any of them conform to our external links policy or add value to the article? Should we, in fact, boldly delete the entire section? -- Deskford ( talk) 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Jerome Kohl for bringing attention to a hidden-text comment regarding the inclusion of John Williams in the section about Neo-romanticism.
The comment (author unknown to me) is: "Should John Williams be included here? Arguably, he is not a 'serious' composer in the art music tradition and has written little concert music."
I personally think the mention of Williams should stay, though sourced. The argument that "Arguably, he is not a 'serious' composer" is in my opinion irrelevant. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether Williams is "serious". He has written concert music. With that said, it should definitely be sourced - as should any content on Wikipedia.
Regards, -- Danmuz ( talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have worked in the field of music for 10 years now in executive positions. I've been considered as a spammer, but I went through WP:EL and WP:NOT, and I'm not sure my links could be really considered as SPAM in the context they were. But this is not the point now. Regardless of who is posting a contribution, the contribution must be consistent with 1) the context; 2) the quality level of the information contained in the page; 3) the need of citing the information. For these reasons, I can't agree with the elimination of the highSCORE Festival link under the Contemporary music festivals section, because it is consistent with 1) the context; 2) the quality of the other links cited; 3) the need of citing the information, as other festival links have been cited. In addition, the link was there from 10 February 2010. In line with the above mentioned consistency criteria, I'm going to propose 3 alternative solutions to go over the dilemma: a) We boldly delete the Contemporary music festivals section, as we don't consider it appropriate in the context. In this case, the External links are redundant also; b) We establish the eligible principles with regard to the quality level of a festival whose link can be mentioned; c) We accept to add the highSCORE Festival link, as similar (and maybe worst) festivals are cited.— Armonite ( talk) 15:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence in the Neo-Romanticism section is cited, but it is a non-internet citation, and the claim and the way it is put are somewhat sketchy, and the use of "at least", makes it more so. If someone has access to the source and could check this would be good.
It never has been considered shocking or controversial in the larger musical world—as has been demonstrated statistically for the United States, at least.[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.51.117 ( talk) 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contemporary classical music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
"Contemporary classical music" is a bad label. Music's Boulez will not contemporary for hundred years. 86.197.147.83 ( talk) 08:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Dissonant harmonies 2001:FD8:6A0:1DA3:A513:15A8:4770:F55A ( talk) 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The redirect
Contemporary music has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 17 § Contemporary music until a consensus is reached.
J947 †
edits 09:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Contemporary Music has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26 § Contemporary Music until a consensus is reached.
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk 15:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Contemporary classical music article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners | |||||||||||
|
I can see a major problem with the name of this article: contemporary means "happening now", but most of the music discussed in this article is no longer "contemporary" in that sense. Pop music of the 80s is not contemporary, so how can classical music of that decade be contemporary? I am aware that some critics and musicologists lump all the music from 1975 onwards under this banner, but I suggest most speak only of music written in the past ten years or so when talking about contemporary music. I might also point out that 20th-century classical music already talks about the music from the first 25 years of this article's time line (or it should, given the name). Perhaps 21st-century classical music would be a better title, then we could move any pre-2000 music to the other article. Thoughts? Jubilee♫ clipman 01:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC) PS, both Cage and Messiaen died in 1992, so they can hardly be called "contemporary"! Jubilee♫ clipman 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Erm, it might have been a bad idea for Galassi to move the article without waiting for others to join the debate. I was merely putting forward objections and waiting for opinions. This article still discusses music from latter quarter of C20th. Will Galassi now move those over to 20th-century classical music? At present there is a major anomaly! I've opened a can of worms! Sorry. Jubilee♫ clipman 03:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Also, the lead still talks about contemporary classical music. I'm not rolling back: I think we might need to go to WP:RM and have a proper discussion. Jubilee♫ clipman 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair points raised here. I notice name change has been reverted by Measles: probably correctly. Leave this article here. As Jerome Kohl suggested, I'll start a new article at 21st-century classical music and we can quibble about a better name for this article later. There is perhaps a stylistic change somewhere around 1975 which overlaps with other developments in latter quarter of C20th. We'll have to define it. Jubilee♫ clipman 13:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
That's precicely the point, Measles: contemporary music does not exclusively cover recent developments. The term covers anything from 1975 onward - or 1945 onward, depending who you talk to. By recent, I mean the very latest developments from, say 1995, on. After all we are only ten years into this century and a lot has happened in that time. I hope to make that point clear as the article develops. Thanks for the input though: it helps to define the boundaries in more concrete ways. Jubilee♫ clipman 19:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Solved one problem: I've merged Contemporary music into this article. :) Jubilee♫ clipman 03:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I feel the term classical has no place here. If we're talking about contemporary music (contemporary being interpreted as modern)then everything listed under movements is right where it should be, but then the title of the article is just confusing. The article should be titled simply Contemporary Music. 206.248.183.75 ( talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"Contemporary classical" is an oxymoron. It is not possible to be both, and the title of this article should be changed to "Contemporary art music". 90.24.185.199 ( talk) 12:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I've just thought: shouldn't P. D. Q. Bach/ Peter Schickele here somewhere? He did parody an enormous number of styles and has influenced a great many composers in one way or another. Jubilee♫ clipman 04:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
(Following posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music)
The following articles overlap and the situation need to be rationalized: contemporary music, contemporary classical music, 20th-century classical music, and 21st-century classical music. The following issues are the most urgent (in order of importance):
Other issues exist, as well, but those above need immeadiate attention.
Thank you for your input. -- Jubilee♫ clipman 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
This call for discussion has been posted on multiple talk pages. In order to keep all relevant discussions in one place, please post any response on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Major issues to resolve. -- Deskford ( talk) 12:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
A substantial list of articles on individual composers has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that they were initially created in a mass spam effort by a record company. Whilst some of these composers may be non-notable (I hadn't heard of some of them), some are certainly of international significance. Please look through the list on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empreintes_DIGITALes and if any of these composers come under your sphere of expertise add a few references, remove excessive promotional content, and contribute to the discussion so that we don't lose valuable articles. -- Deskford ( talk) 13:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I am a trained musicologist and make my living from writing about music. I have to say that the following sentence seems elliptical at best, and I doubt whether it's at all illuminating to someone coming to the article hoping to be informed:
Can anybody here explain what "its subgenre of musical purpose" is supposed to mean? And if they can, could they have a go at rewriting it into plain English? Thank you. Alfietucker ( talk) 21:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the best way to understand something isn't to declare that is had no meaning and than to attempt to understand that. Instead proposing a meaning may work out better. This is Wikipedia, and even small parts of sentences may have been written over large periods of time by a multitude of people. Regardless, you can rewrite it right now.
The sentence as a whole seems to be saying that "contemporary" should be taken in context, both time and, if not place, then (intended) genre. If we simply remove "of musical purpose" doesn't the sentence make sense? Hyacinth ( talk) 07:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Upon reading the source cited, no where does it suggest that post 1970s music should be termed 'contemporary classical music'. While modernism isn't as pronounced as it was between the 50s-70s, it is by no means an abandoned aesthetic, so it is not really a suitable cut-off point. Furthermore, this is not a term actively used by musicians, or academics who work in this field, to describe music of this kind, or even the 'classical tradition'. I suspect a more appropriate term is 'contemporary art music', to echo the sentiments above. To clarify, I'm not arguing that music since 1970 isn't contemporary, but I am arguing it isn't contemporary because it is in the post of modernism. It suggests that all post 1970 new music is postmodernist, which it certainly isn't. Jabbercat ( talk) 15:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to have accumulated quite a farm of external links of dubious value. Do any of them conform to our external links policy or add value to the article? Should we, in fact, boldly delete the entire section? -- Deskford ( talk) 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to Jerome Kohl for bringing attention to a hidden-text comment regarding the inclusion of John Williams in the section about Neo-romanticism.
The comment (author unknown to me) is: "Should John Williams be included here? Arguably, he is not a 'serious' composer in the art music tradition and has written little concert music."
I personally think the mention of Williams should stay, though sourced. The argument that "Arguably, he is not a 'serious' composer" is in my opinion irrelevant. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether Williams is "serious". He has written concert music. With that said, it should definitely be sourced - as should any content on Wikipedia.
Regards, -- Danmuz ( talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
I have worked in the field of music for 10 years now in executive positions. I've been considered as a spammer, but I went through WP:EL and WP:NOT, and I'm not sure my links could be really considered as SPAM in the context they were. But this is not the point now. Regardless of who is posting a contribution, the contribution must be consistent with 1) the context; 2) the quality level of the information contained in the page; 3) the need of citing the information. For these reasons, I can't agree with the elimination of the highSCORE Festival link under the Contemporary music festivals section, because it is consistent with 1) the context; 2) the quality of the other links cited; 3) the need of citing the information, as other festival links have been cited. In addition, the link was there from 10 February 2010. In line with the above mentioned consistency criteria, I'm going to propose 3 alternative solutions to go over the dilemma: a) We boldly delete the Contemporary music festivals section, as we don't consider it appropriate in the context. In this case, the External links are redundant also; b) We establish the eligible principles with regard to the quality level of a festival whose link can be mentioned; c) We accept to add the highSCORE Festival link, as similar (and maybe worst) festivals are cited.— Armonite ( talk) 15:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence in the Neo-Romanticism section is cited, but it is a non-internet citation, and the claim and the way it is put are somewhat sketchy, and the use of "at least", makes it more so. If someone has access to the source and could check this would be good.
It never has been considered shocking or controversial in the larger musical world—as has been demonstrated statistically for the United States, at least.[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.111.51.117 ( talk) 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contemporary classical music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
"Contemporary classical music" is a bad label. Music's Boulez will not contemporary for hundred years. 86.197.147.83 ( talk) 08:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Dissonant harmonies 2001:FD8:6A0:1DA3:A513:15A8:4770:F55A ( talk) 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The redirect
Contemporary music has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 17 § Contemporary music until a consensus is reached.
J947 †
edits 09:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Contemporary Music has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26 § Contemporary Music until a consensus is reached.
Edward-Woodrow :) [
talk 15:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)