Talk:21st-century classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Music/Music genres task force

21st-century classical music is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

Archives

1

UK-Centric

Maybe it's all those rainy days, but is seems that English people spend a lot of time editing the California-based Wikipedia. This article is no exception. Gingermint (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any substantial improvement in this department over the past two-and-a-half years, so I have added a flag to the "multiple issues" banner at the top of the article. The problem largely stems from relying too much on a very small number of sources, most of them based in the UK (BBC Music Magazine, the Guardian). Heaven forbid that this article should now be flooded with material from just one other country, but I am deeply disappointed to gain the impression that, for example, Australia has stopped producing notable composers altogether, after such a rich output in the 20th century. Similarly for Japan, Indonesia, the entire continent of South America, Italy, Spain, Russia, and Germany.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Started cleanup

OK. I'm back and looking at this again. I've reviewed all the above, and the tags, and started to clean up the article. It's going to take a while to find sources - obviously, this isn't something many people write about so actually sourcing will be tricky. But it is important so I'll persist... Getting a more woldwide view is probably the first point of order to address. Any other suggestions always welcome. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More work today with help from user:Jerome Kohl. It's starting to feel better but we need more non-UK composers! Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the centre of gravity is now slowly shifting away from Croydon.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good! The number of US composers has certainly increased... Seriously, though, we'll crack it yet. I notice that many of the composers' articles need a fair amount of work also. Another day... Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably expand the section on performance to discuss rather than simply list the groups. But one thing at a time... Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I am a little uneasy about some of the orchestras in that list of performers allegedly emphasizing 21st-century music (New York Philharmonic, Berlin Philharmonic, etc.).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found a list somewhere alleging them to be active in promoting New Music. They certainly perform it but whether they promote it is another question... They can be removed as we have plenty that certainly are active in promotion. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 17:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant to say is that this list will quickly get out of hand if it is to include every group that ever performed a piece composed after 2000. The New York and Berlin Philharmonics are only two examples of ensembles the bulk of whose repertoire dates from well before the 21st century. This contrasts rather sharply with groups like Musikfabrik and the London Sinfonietta, for example. Conductors are a separate issue, and probably need to be judged by different criteria.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, quite. I'm sure we and others could add at least a dozen more... And, as you said previously, lists can attract random "favourites", notable or otherwise. I wonder if we should just remove them to the talk page for now so we can review them and add names in context to the article as required? Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that is not necessary quite yet, though if I keep on as I have done for the past couple of days, something will have to be done to stop me! I think for the moment we can discuss such matters here. For a start, I would propose an adjustment to the introductory sentence, to read "In the 21st century, there are a number of musicians and groups whose primary purpose is the promotion of new music:" (italics only meant to call attention to the changed wording). That should give a clearer basis for excluding those whose enthusiasm is divided.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. And remove the less relevant entries at the same time. Go for it. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wonder if we should swap the sections "Art-forms of the 21st century" (I just changed the title) and "Composers"? It makes more sense that way I feel. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This makes better sense, as it presents the more general and inclusive first, with individuals afterward.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I going to do a bit more research before I touch this again (beyond ce etc). There is so much more that needs discussion and the composers' and other articles only really scratch the surface. I'll be back... Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, both of you! I've only had a quick glance over this – I'll have a look in more detail when I find myself with more than the odd minute to spare. --Deskford (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 23:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Tower is among the missing here. A very important and frequently performed composer.Conscientia (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Thanks Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 02:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Music files Comment Suggestion

Would it be useful/appropriate to add some music examples? Obviously copyright may be an issue but they may help to establish styles, genres, etc Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that 20th-century classical music is devoid of such examples. It could be down to copyright issues, but might there be some other reasons for this?——Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Contemporary classical music as highlight by Hyacinth on the talk page recently (she added the templates). Same issue, probably. Iadmc (Jubileeclipman) (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What Makes a Composer "Classical" or "Notable"?

I made an edit to the "Multimedia and music" to include Michael Giacchino, who I thought was worthy of note due to producing some popular soundtrack music, but this edit was undone due to his not being a "classical composer". I'm just a fan, not a musicologist, so I won't revert the undoing of my edits as I'm outside my depth, but I'm curious - what makes someone like John Williams a classical composer but not Giacchino? Looking at Williams' Wikipedia page, he did many more film scores than concert works even early in his career. Is it something about his style or training, or how he orchestrates his music? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.244.243 (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will pass on the question of notability, though I will mention that, on Wikipedia, if the composer has a biographical article, then he/she is usually considered notable. As for John Williams as a "classical" composer, you will find on his biographical page—way, way, down on that page—a discussion of some of his concert (i.e., "classical") music, for example, his Horn Concerto, which even has an article of its own. I see nothing at all about such activities for Michael Giacchino.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, John Williams and Michael Giacchino are both cinematic composers, but only John Williams has composed music in classical forms. They are both notable, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.188.26 (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technicality of the Term 21st Century

Technically, the 21st century starts in the year 2001 instead of 2000. This is because there was no year 0 and AD started with 1. So the article should either change titles to "2000s classical music" or remove any works from the year 2000. Example: "Jennifer Higdon's blue cathedral, premièred in 2000, is a one-movement orchestral tone-poem and is ranked among the most widely performed works of the early 21st century" should be removed because it is incorrect, 2000 is not in the 21st century. --Pithon314 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music and arts

2 songs during 21 century — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.155.226 (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"21st century music" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 21st century 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 16 § 21st century music until a consensus is reached. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's better call this "21st-century Western classical music"

As the Western perspective was questioned in a hatnote 10 years ago without any obvious answer, IMHO the lemma would be more correct being called "21st-century Western classical music". Generally, musicologists agree that there are several classical musics, including Indian, Arabic, Chinese and other classical music. So when we write about "classical music" we should always make it clear to which tradition this applies. This would also resolve the reason for the hatnote, that could then be deleted. Munfarid1 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Same for 20th-century classical music then? Interesting idea. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been discussed on the classical music page. The change would have to begin there and then these ones would be adjusted. Unfortunately, it seems like secondary sources still use the term "classical music" for Western classical music more often than not. Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cat and pigeons come to mind... Since the sources talk about classical music without the Western caveat, we need to follow them, I guess — Iadmc ♫^talk 16:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I'd say so. I wouldn't be surprised if 20/30 years down the road the vast majority of modern scholarship is using the "Western" qualifier. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]