![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Huilin826.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This page is listed as an orphan, but it isn't (it's linked to from music). Bug? jheijmans, Thursday, June 27, 2002
I have a question:
thanks
A long while ago, the content of History of Music was moved to Music history. However I feel that history of music is better - if for no other reason that it seems to follow the convention ( History of painting or whatever). Was originally suggest on WP:COTW, which Music history is currently a candidate for. Would have moved it myself, but unfortunately History of music has a brief, and long gone, history. - Estel (talk) 14:02, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on October 17, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
— JIP | Talk 08:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering if the connections between this article and " Musicology" should be strengthened. In particular, it seems that this article writes about the subset of musicology often called "historical musicology"--that is to the say the history of Western classical music. Generally separate from ethnomusicology, historical musicology incorporates aspects of music theory but is not a subset of music theory (nor is music theory a subset of it). Historical musicology is the largest (at least in the US and Europe) subfield of musicology, yet at present, the main tools of the historical musicology (source study, biography, music analysis, criticism) are not part of the musicology article. I'm willing to help but want to go forward with a consensus on how to link the two. -- Myke Cuthbert 21:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If you check the article's history, you'll find more than half or 3/4ths of material on the Neanderthal Flute was put at prehistoric_music by people completely unknown to me. A year ago as a "newbie," I was rudely made aware of rules I knew nothing about then (authors not writing on subjects close to themselves). I, & others I know, have since confined ourselves to minor edits -- verifications, fact corrections, dates, grammar, reference literature & the like -- allowed to us under Wiki guidelines. So I could do with a bit less demonization of material somewhat connected to my own research that we didn't even post. Thanks, --Bob Fink 65.255.225.43 09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) P.s. You seem quite sure the prehistory page will "no longer have a big push" by me to make it all about Neanderthal flutes. Are there plans afoot to likelwise push unneeded prehistoric music-archaeology material out of wiki-existence? Are there troops marshalling somewhere packing big pink erasers? :o)
Would it be good to have a subdivision on the various methodologies that are being used in the historiography of music? It might be helpful to name a few approaches and explain what the differences are (i.e. Forkel, Fetis, Dahlhaus, Knepler, Taruskin, Cook...). I'd be happy to start working on this section but I wanted to make sure that people think this is the right spot to have this kind of discussion. Alternatively I could start a new article on "music historiography" or the "historiography of music." Matthias Röder 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, started working on the methodology section. Obviously its just a draft and needs much work. I think we will definitly need something on "history of styles", "history of genres", "Begriffsgeschichte", "micro-history", "history of institutions." Holy crap, this list is probably endless... Any volunteers? Matthias Röder 13:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The following is the talk page from Historical musicology, from before the merge:
Thia article has NOTHING to do with the academic discipline of historical musicology.
I have now rewritten the article so that it is about a discipline of historical musicology.
Capitalistroadster 06:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. - Splash 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
On what basis is it asserted that "the history of popular music is generally not studied within the discipline of musicology."? I don't believe the disciplines are, um, disciplined that stringently. Rikyu 23:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please give a look at the article Music History (not History of Music) and see if you agree that the two articles should be merged. Music History, is generally speaking, what the discipline of Historical musicology is called when taught at the undergraduate level. It might be better to merge Music History into Historical musicology rather than vice versa, since people will always want to know why "Music History" doesn't cover popular and non-western music (reason: classes called "Music History" and scholars who call themselves "Music historians" tend not to; those who do tend to choose other titles). -- Myke Cuthbert 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the policy on deleting items in the talk pages? Could we get rid of the first section ("Orphan?") for instance? Or archive the "Talk from Historical Musicology"? Any opinions? Matthias Röder 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is the word "boners" in "It arose peoples boners at a specific moment, in a specific context..." in the last paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.23.30.130 ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Greetings from the desk of O=MC4 Orschstaffer/Principal,
This is a school assignment♭, Presently I am researching/developing a WikiProject for a classroom assignment. Please be patient with my attempts to Improve Wikipedia and the global Wiki interface. O=MC4
This is a school assignment♭, —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not so much aware about the citation rules, but this article probably asks for improvements. There is just one reference - Lipman's book and none else. There are some mentions in the text, but no proper citation provided in the references. Igor Klimeš ( talk) 19:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Category:Dates in music has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. X -robot- X ( talk) 17:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, Luperstinsky removed the "Examples" subsection under the Critiques section with the edit summary Demasiado sobre música popular. Al final parece que fuera más importante que la docta (artística) y no lo es. (I don't speak Spanish well enough to make a useful translation here). This edit was seen as improper, and was reverted by Equine-man. Luperstinsky has removed the material again, this time with the edit summary alot of popular music. Excesive. While I don't know that this edit summary is sufficient, I do agree with the removal of the material. The "Example" was presumably meant to show how popular music is often ignored in the study of musical history, but the content of the section merely describes Lydia Canaan's career with no reference to how she serves as an example of this critique. The section seems to have been added merely as a means to further expound on Canaan's career. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nebbiethechihuaua (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Nebbiethechihuaua ( talk) 14:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 8 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Emmasarkan (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Emmasarkan ( talk) 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Huilin826.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This page is listed as an orphan, but it isn't (it's linked to from music). Bug? jheijmans, Thursday, June 27, 2002
I have a question:
thanks
A long while ago, the content of History of Music was moved to Music history. However I feel that history of music is better - if for no other reason that it seems to follow the convention ( History of painting or whatever). Was originally suggest on WP:COTW, which Music history is currently a candidate for. Would have moved it myself, but unfortunately History of music has a brief, and long gone, history. - Estel (talk) 14:02, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on October 17, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. |
— JIP | Talk 08:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
I am wondering if the connections between this article and " Musicology" should be strengthened. In particular, it seems that this article writes about the subset of musicology often called "historical musicology"--that is to the say the history of Western classical music. Generally separate from ethnomusicology, historical musicology incorporates aspects of music theory but is not a subset of music theory (nor is music theory a subset of it). Historical musicology is the largest (at least in the US and Europe) subfield of musicology, yet at present, the main tools of the historical musicology (source study, biography, music analysis, criticism) are not part of the musicology article. I'm willing to help but want to go forward with a consensus on how to link the two. -- Myke Cuthbert 21:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If you check the article's history, you'll find more than half or 3/4ths of material on the Neanderthal Flute was put at prehistoric_music by people completely unknown to me. A year ago as a "newbie," I was rudely made aware of rules I knew nothing about then (authors not writing on subjects close to themselves). I, & others I know, have since confined ourselves to minor edits -- verifications, fact corrections, dates, grammar, reference literature & the like -- allowed to us under Wiki guidelines. So I could do with a bit less demonization of material somewhat connected to my own research that we didn't even post. Thanks, --Bob Fink 65.255.225.43 09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) P.s. You seem quite sure the prehistory page will "no longer have a big push" by me to make it all about Neanderthal flutes. Are there plans afoot to likelwise push unneeded prehistoric music-archaeology material out of wiki-existence? Are there troops marshalling somewhere packing big pink erasers? :o)
Would it be good to have a subdivision on the various methodologies that are being used in the historiography of music? It might be helpful to name a few approaches and explain what the differences are (i.e. Forkel, Fetis, Dahlhaus, Knepler, Taruskin, Cook...). I'd be happy to start working on this section but I wanted to make sure that people think this is the right spot to have this kind of discussion. Alternatively I could start a new article on "music historiography" or the "historiography of music." Matthias Röder 17:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, started working on the methodology section. Obviously its just a draft and needs much work. I think we will definitly need something on "history of styles", "history of genres", "Begriffsgeschichte", "micro-history", "history of institutions." Holy crap, this list is probably endless... Any volunteers? Matthias Röder 13:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The following is the talk page from Historical musicology, from before the merge:
Thia article has NOTHING to do with the academic discipline of historical musicology.
I have now rewritten the article so that it is about a discipline of historical musicology.
Capitalistroadster 06:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
This article survived a Vote for Deletion. The discussion can be found here. - Splash 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
On what basis is it asserted that "the history of popular music is generally not studied within the discipline of musicology."? I don't believe the disciplines are, um, disciplined that stringently. Rikyu 23:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please give a look at the article Music History (not History of Music) and see if you agree that the two articles should be merged. Music History, is generally speaking, what the discipline of Historical musicology is called when taught at the undergraduate level. It might be better to merge Music History into Historical musicology rather than vice versa, since people will always want to know why "Music History" doesn't cover popular and non-western music (reason: classes called "Music History" and scholars who call themselves "Music historians" tend not to; those who do tend to choose other titles). -- Myke Cuthbert 20:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
What's the policy on deleting items in the talk pages? Could we get rid of the first section ("Orphan?") for instance? Or archive the "Talk from Historical Musicology"? Any opinions? Matthias Röder 13:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Why is the word "boners" in "It arose peoples boners at a specific moment, in a specific context..." in the last paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.23.30.130 ( talk) 15:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Greetings from the desk of O=MC4 Orschstaffer/Principal,
This is a school assignment♭, Presently I am researching/developing a WikiProject for a classroom assignment. Please be patient with my attempts to Improve Wikipedia and the global Wiki interface. O=MC4
This is a school assignment♭, —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not so much aware about the citation rules, but this article probably asks for improvements. There is just one reference - Lipman's book and none else. There are some mentions in the text, but no proper citation provided in the references. Igor Klimeš ( talk) 19:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Category:Dates in music has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page. X -robot- X ( talk) 17:59, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
In this edit, Luperstinsky removed the "Examples" subsection under the Critiques section with the edit summary Demasiado sobre música popular. Al final parece que fuera más importante que la docta (artística) y no lo es. (I don't speak Spanish well enough to make a useful translation here). This edit was seen as improper, and was reverted by Equine-man. Luperstinsky has removed the material again, this time with the edit summary alot of popular music. Excesive. While I don't know that this edit summary is sufficient, I do agree with the removal of the material. The "Example" was presumably meant to show how popular music is often ignored in the study of musical history, but the content of the section merely describes Lydia Canaan's career with no reference to how she serves as an example of this critique. The section seems to have been added merely as a means to further expound on Canaan's career. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 13:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 2 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Nebbiethechihuaua (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Nebbiethechihuaua ( talk) 14:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 8 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Emmasarkan (
article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Emmasarkan ( talk) 20:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)