Classical music | ||||
|
Is musical modernism an era or a movement? If it is an era, as is romantic music, then it should be in the template. Hyacinth 07:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Placed in template Stirling Newberry 18:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This version gives a little more information:
History of European art music | |
Early | |
---|---|
Medieval | (476 CE - 1400) |
Renaissance | (1400 - 1600) |
Common practice | |
Baroque | (1600 - 1750) |
Classical | (1750 - 1820) |
Romantic | (1820 - 1910) |
Contemporary | |
Modern | (1910 - 2000) |
Contemporary | (2000 - present) |
Hyacinth 00:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looks nice, not sure so many people would think the present is modernism though. Even "post-tonal" attracts controversy. What do other people think? Stirling Newberry 00:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ooh, how about having the 20th century and contemporary being their own "eras"? Hyacinth 00:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The years given in the template do not match up with what is written in the very articles linked to. Please give justification for current years listed. Hyacinth 21:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Considering this is to be placed on the page European-influenced classical music as the main article, shouldn't this template read "History of European classical music" and not art music, for consistency's sake?-- Dmcdevit 04:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Template:European art music eras has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pax:Vobiscum 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Baroque is part of "Early music" AND "Common practice". In fact, I don't know if "Common Practice" is a good categorization here... Lfjslohll ( talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Umm, i am perfectly aware that pop and rock music is not art music. but progressive rock is. Do you have a suggesion for your change? McLennonSon ( talk) 14:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Since then, McLennonSon has reverted to her version. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I've modified the template several times in recent weeks to try and bring some consistency to the uses of the terms "period" and "era". It appears from general usage documented on the talk page of the article "Common practice period" that in music history, a period normally represents a longer span of time than an era even though the opposite hierarchy is used in geology where an era is the longer span of time. A curious exception is the classical "period" which is frequently so called even though is is a shorter span of time than the common practice "period" of which it is a part. In this case I have edited to call the classical time span an "era or period" to recognise both usages. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 10:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC) ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 13:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What's with the inclusion of style era and calendar era in Modern and contemporary period? It seems overly complicated. I think we should make a decision rather than sit on the fence. Squandermania ( talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Since no concise or official name has been given to the post common practice period, and since calendar eras don't really belong with the style eras, I think the best approach is to combine the most recent calendar eras into a single descriptive title for our own musical period. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 23:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Rococo music, or Galant music as in Wikipedia's article, is a transitory period between Baroque and Classical. So, it ought to be in the template. Dogru144 ( talk) 22:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Serialism is over. Romanticism is over. It's not because composers still occasionally use these styles (like they do medieval music and whatnot), that the age of such music genres is still "on". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Proposals:
Would be interested to see what @ Antandrus: and @ Jerome Kohl: think of these changes. And Francis Schonken why did you remove Neoromanticism? Aza24 ( talk) 05:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Well -- it's a routine philosophical problem to which there is no easy solution, the problem of imposing binary distinctions (start/stop, on/off) to non-binary phenomena (cultural history, music style periods). With earlier eras it's pretty easy just to go with scholarly consensus: medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, etc. are decently well-delineated. With some argument, of course. The more recent the era, the more difficult the delineation, particularly the end. The more modern sub-eras (serialism, minimalism, etc.) begin with something famous and well-documented and easy to define. The end not so much. They're rather like the sound of a gong: the opening crash is obvious and overwhelming, but it continues to sound -- eventually you can hear the other instruments clearly again, but has it stopped? When do you say that you hear it no more?
I'm not convinced we need "end" dates for the more modern eras. Why not just have start dates? They start strong, and then gradually fade, like the sound of the gong.
Antandrus
(talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Someone here at the template is persistently trying to downgrade postmodernism from a broad era to a movement with specific stylistic traits as might be found under impressionism or some-such. This downgrade directly contradicts the Wikipedia article about postmodernism that clearly identifies postmodernism as an era. I think the editor behind these revisionist reverts needs get an editorial concensus supporting his/her position if the edits are to stick, otherwise those who support postmodernism as an era will just keep taking the reverts down and restoring the proper terminology. If an editorial concensus emerges supporting the revisionist reverts, then the reverter must also "correct" the main Wikipedia article about postmodernism to downgrade it to a movement. It will also be necessary to correct references to postmodernism as an era in some other Wikipedia articles to rescue our music articles from the semantic chaos and mutual contradictions that most of them have fallen into. If no editorial concensus emerges about the nature of postmodernism, I will resume my efforts to protect the version in the original Wikipedia article about postmodernism until a concensus emerges to the contrary.~~ ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 ( talk) 13:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Periods, eras, and movements of Western classical music | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
... | ||||||||||||||||||||
... | ||||||||||||||||||||
... | ||||||||||||||||||||
... | ||||||||||||||||||||
Late 19th-century to 20th- and 21st-centuries | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks for your suggestions. I suppose I think that taking issues one by one (for the shear impracticality of discussing all at once), and not changing subject in the middle of the discussion of a topic works best. Point by point:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Nah, broadening would for instance be at the WikiProject Classical music talk page (without pinging anyone in particular), and, that is, if and when we'd have reached a dead end here, which also seems far from the case. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I see quite a debate was raging on while I was preoccupied with other matters in my life, but for the sake of getting in my 2 cents worth, I'd like to make a simple suggestion regarding what goes on this template and what gets taken off. Basically we go with Groves as our main source and authority. If it's in Groves, we can go with it; if it isn't, we mostly don't. I've looked for other reliable sources and have come up empty-handed. Groves has been THE AUTHORITY on classical music history since long before I came into this world. As far as I'm concerned, everything else I've seen so far is either original research or POV, and that includes (but is not necessarily limited to) any non-grovian contributions or deletions I may have attempted (however it doesn't include Wikipedia info based on citations taken from books rather than websites, since I can't easily access the books and therefore can't currently comment on them). I see that Groves designates postmodernism as a "period" (or era, in Wikipedia parlence?), which as far as I can tell, is more than a "movement". However, I haven't become a subscriber yet so I haven't seen everything they have to say about the topic. Logically, if modernism is more than a movement, then postmodernism should be as well, since it basically means "after modernism". In the same way, post-minimalism means "after minimalism", both of which appear to be movements, or at least trends or styles of the same order in the hierarchy of classification. Groves seems to support this idea. I think we also have to see what Groves has to say about "schools". If they are equivilent to periods, eras, or movements, then they belong on the template; if not, they don't. Any takers? ~~ ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 ( talk) 12:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:W cl mu hist. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#Template:W cl mu hist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli ( talk | contribs) 05:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
History of Western classical music | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Early music | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Common practice period | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Late 19th-, 20th- and 21st-centuries | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
I am beginning to think that this template should ideally be a lot more straight forward, something like the example to the right. There are two many assumptions and too much arbitrariness in the current format. What makes the three Ars more notable than the troubadour, trouvère and minnesang movements—they were the first real secular schools after all. Or what about the first major Italian period (Trecento) or the beginning of Polyphony under the Notre Dame School. If the latter is covered under Ars Antiqua then surely the Mannheim school is covered under the classical era. Galant music is presented (in the current state) as a major movement alongside Baroque and Classical, but clearly it was not—my proposed template would be its transitional status clearer (though admittedly, it can probably be formatted better, but I think the point is clear). The Late 19th-, 20th- and 21st-centuries has a huge host of problems; each "movement" has extremely arbitrary dates, most of which are not found anywhere in their respective articles. Impressionism is hardly a movement, but mearly a historical/musicological term for a handful of composers; Expressionist is a little clearer, but why not the "Second Viennese school" instead? Serialism is hardly a movement, but a technique which composers continue to readily engage with (there are plenty of recent and/or living composers in {{ Twelve-tone composers}}).
The point is, we are seriously streching the facts to make this template work in the state it's in, really it should just be the core movements and their transitions. The more specific characterizations should be left to more specific templates, such as {{ Medieval music sidebar}}; after all, what use does a reader have been navigating between Ars nova and Impressionism? Aza24 ( talk) 22:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@ EdwardElric2016, modernism is a very specific historiographical term in Western classical music, and does not reach even close to as far as 1975. See modernism's lead:
"Authorities typically regard musical modernism as an historical period or era extending from about 1890 to 1930, and apply the term "postmodernism" to the period or era after 1930. For the musicologist Carl Dahlhaus the purest form was over by 1910, but other historians consider modernism to end with one or the other of the two world wars."
If we're going to include Postmodernism, it needs to somehow be a subset of contemporary. Having 20th-century as a subset of contemporary is also an issue; much of the century's most important music was written before WW2. Aza24 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
EdwardElric2016, date changes are one thing, but I feel you are missing the fundamental point of this template when removing contemporary, 21st century and 20th-century classical music: its navigational value. There is no need for over-consolidation (otherwise, this template could just be "early music, common practice and new music"); we want to give readers the ability to traverse between these larger periods with ease, not limit this for the sake of extreme conciseness.
In any case, the new music article is a rather poorly written direct German translation by a now-banned user. It is not a well-defined term, simply because it is hardly used in scholarship (you'll see the entire article has no citations, including its proposed span of "1910 to the present"). Aza24 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Classical music | ||||
|
Is musical modernism an era or a movement? If it is an era, as is romantic music, then it should be in the template. Hyacinth 07:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Placed in template Stirling Newberry 18:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This version gives a little more information:
History of European art music | |
Early | |
---|---|
Medieval | (476 CE - 1400) |
Renaissance | (1400 - 1600) |
Common practice | |
Baroque | (1600 - 1750) |
Classical | (1750 - 1820) |
Romantic | (1820 - 1910) |
Contemporary | |
Modern | (1910 - 2000) |
Contemporary | (2000 - present) |
Hyacinth 00:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Looks nice, not sure so many people would think the present is modernism though. Even "post-tonal" attracts controversy. What do other people think? Stirling Newberry 00:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ooh, how about having the 20th century and contemporary being their own "eras"? Hyacinth 00:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The years given in the template do not match up with what is written in the very articles linked to. Please give justification for current years listed. Hyacinth 21:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Considering this is to be placed on the page European-influenced classical music as the main article, shouldn't this template read "History of European classical music" and not art music, for consistency's sake?-- Dmcdevit 04:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Template:European art music eras has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pax:Vobiscum 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Baroque is part of "Early music" AND "Common practice". In fact, I don't know if "Common Practice" is a good categorization here... Lfjslohll ( talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Umm, i am perfectly aware that pop and rock music is not art music. but progressive rock is. Do you have a suggesion for your change? McLennonSon ( talk) 14:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Since then, McLennonSon has reverted to her version. -- Michael Bednarek ( talk) 13:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I've modified the template several times in recent weeks to try and bring some consistency to the uses of the terms "period" and "era". It appears from general usage documented on the talk page of the article "Common practice period" that in music history, a period normally represents a longer span of time than an era even though the opposite hierarchy is used in geology where an era is the longer span of time. A curious exception is the classical "period" which is frequently so called even though is is a shorter span of time than the common practice "period" of which it is a part. In this case I have edited to call the classical time span an "era or period" to recognise both usages. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 10:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC) ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 13:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
What's with the inclusion of style era and calendar era in Modern and contemporary period? It seems overly complicated. I think we should make a decision rather than sit on the fence. Squandermania ( talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Since no concise or official name has been given to the post common practice period, and since calendar eras don't really belong with the style eras, I think the best approach is to combine the most recent calendar eras into a single descriptive title for our own musical period. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31( talk 23:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Rococo music, or Galant music as in Wikipedia's article, is a transitory period between Baroque and Classical. So, it ought to be in the template. Dogru144 ( talk) 22:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Serialism is over. Romanticism is over. It's not because composers still occasionally use these styles (like they do medieval music and whatnot), that the age of such music genres is still "on". -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Proposals:
Would be interested to see what @ Antandrus: and @ Jerome Kohl: think of these changes. And Francis Schonken why did you remove Neoromanticism? Aza24 ( talk) 05:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Well -- it's a routine philosophical problem to which there is no easy solution, the problem of imposing binary distinctions (start/stop, on/off) to non-binary phenomena (cultural history, music style periods). With earlier eras it's pretty easy just to go with scholarly consensus: medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, etc. are decently well-delineated. With some argument, of course. The more recent the era, the more difficult the delineation, particularly the end. The more modern sub-eras (serialism, minimalism, etc.) begin with something famous and well-documented and easy to define. The end not so much. They're rather like the sound of a gong: the opening crash is obvious and overwhelming, but it continues to sound -- eventually you can hear the other instruments clearly again, but has it stopped? When do you say that you hear it no more?
I'm not convinced we need "end" dates for the more modern eras. Why not just have start dates? They start strong, and then gradually fade, like the sound of the gong.
Antandrus
(talk) 15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Someone here at the template is persistently trying to downgrade postmodernism from a broad era to a movement with specific stylistic traits as might be found under impressionism or some-such. This downgrade directly contradicts the Wikipedia article about postmodernism that clearly identifies postmodernism as an era. I think the editor behind these revisionist reverts needs get an editorial concensus supporting his/her position if the edits are to stick, otherwise those who support postmodernism as an era will just keep taking the reverts down and restoring the proper terminology. If an editorial concensus emerges supporting the revisionist reverts, then the reverter must also "correct" the main Wikipedia article about postmodernism to downgrade it to a movement. It will also be necessary to correct references to postmodernism as an era in some other Wikipedia articles to rescue our music articles from the semantic chaos and mutual contradictions that most of them have fallen into. If no editorial concensus emerges about the nature of postmodernism, I will resume my efforts to protect the version in the original Wikipedia article about postmodernism until a concensus emerges to the contrary.~~ ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 ( talk) 13:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Periods, eras, and movements of Western classical music | ||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
... | ||||||||||||||||||||
... | ||||||||||||||||||||
... | ||||||||||||||||||||
... | ||||||||||||||||||||
Late 19th-century to 20th- and 21st-centuries | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Thanks for your suggestions. I suppose I think that taking issues one by one (for the shear impracticality of discussing all at once), and not changing subject in the middle of the discussion of a topic works best. Point by point:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 05:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Nah, broadening would for instance be at the WikiProject Classical music talk page (without pinging anyone in particular), and, that is, if and when we'd have reached a dead end here, which also seems far from the case. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I see quite a debate was raging on while I was preoccupied with other matters in my life, but for the sake of getting in my 2 cents worth, I'd like to make a simple suggestion regarding what goes on this template and what gets taken off. Basically we go with Groves as our main source and authority. If it's in Groves, we can go with it; if it isn't, we mostly don't. I've looked for other reliable sources and have come up empty-handed. Groves has been THE AUTHORITY on classical music history since long before I came into this world. As far as I'm concerned, everything else I've seen so far is either original research or POV, and that includes (but is not necessarily limited to) any non-grovian contributions or deletions I may have attempted (however it doesn't include Wikipedia info based on citations taken from books rather than websites, since I can't easily access the books and therefore can't currently comment on them). I see that Groves designates postmodernism as a "period" (or era, in Wikipedia parlence?), which as far as I can tell, is more than a "movement". However, I haven't become a subscriber yet so I haven't seen everything they have to say about the topic. Logically, if modernism is more than a movement, then postmodernism should be as well, since it basically means "after modernism". In the same way, post-minimalism means "after minimalism", both of which appear to be movements, or at least trends or styles of the same order in the hierarchy of classification. Groves seems to support this idea. I think we also have to see what Groves has to say about "schools". If they are equivilent to periods, eras, or movements, then they belong on the template; if not, they don't. Any takers? ~~ ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 ( talk) 12:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:W cl mu hist. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#Template:W cl mu hist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli ( talk | contribs) 05:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
History of Western classical music | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Early music | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Common practice period | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
Late 19th-, 20th- and 21st-centuries | ||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
I am beginning to think that this template should ideally be a lot more straight forward, something like the example to the right. There are two many assumptions and too much arbitrariness in the current format. What makes the three Ars more notable than the troubadour, trouvère and minnesang movements—they were the first real secular schools after all. Or what about the first major Italian period (Trecento) or the beginning of Polyphony under the Notre Dame School. If the latter is covered under Ars Antiqua then surely the Mannheim school is covered under the classical era. Galant music is presented (in the current state) as a major movement alongside Baroque and Classical, but clearly it was not—my proposed template would be its transitional status clearer (though admittedly, it can probably be formatted better, but I think the point is clear). The Late 19th-, 20th- and 21st-centuries has a huge host of problems; each "movement" has extremely arbitrary dates, most of which are not found anywhere in their respective articles. Impressionism is hardly a movement, but mearly a historical/musicological term for a handful of composers; Expressionist is a little clearer, but why not the "Second Viennese school" instead? Serialism is hardly a movement, but a technique which composers continue to readily engage with (there are plenty of recent and/or living composers in {{ Twelve-tone composers}}).
The point is, we are seriously streching the facts to make this template work in the state it's in, really it should just be the core movements and their transitions. The more specific characterizations should be left to more specific templates, such as {{ Medieval music sidebar}}; after all, what use does a reader have been navigating between Ars nova and Impressionism? Aza24 ( talk) 22:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@ EdwardElric2016, modernism is a very specific historiographical term in Western classical music, and does not reach even close to as far as 1975. See modernism's lead:
"Authorities typically regard musical modernism as an historical period or era extending from about 1890 to 1930, and apply the term "postmodernism" to the period or era after 1930. For the musicologist Carl Dahlhaus the purest form was over by 1910, but other historians consider modernism to end with one or the other of the two world wars."
If we're going to include Postmodernism, it needs to somehow be a subset of contemporary. Having 20th-century as a subset of contemporary is also an issue; much of the century's most important music was written before WW2. Aza24 (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
EdwardElric2016, date changes are one thing, but I feel you are missing the fundamental point of this template when removing contemporary, 21st century and 20th-century classical music: its navigational value. There is no need for over-consolidation (otherwise, this template could just be "early music, common practice and new music"); we want to give readers the ability to traverse between these larger periods with ease, not limit this for the sake of extreme conciseness.
In any case, the new music article is a rather poorly written direct German translation by a now-banned user. It is not a well-defined term, simply because it is hardly used in scholarship (you'll see the entire article has no citations, including its proposed span of "1910 to the present"). Aza24 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)