Jump to content

Talk:Classical music/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Complexity

I removed the following:

  • "Also, it is normally only in classical music that very long works (30 minutes to three hours) are built up hierarchically from smaller units (phrases, periods, sections, and movements). Structural levels are distinguished by Schenkerian analysis."

Given the following counterexample found in Burmese music:

  • "The segments combined into patterns, combined into verses, combined into songs make Burmese music a multileveled hierarchical system...The Burmese musician manipulates the various levels of the hierarchy to create the song..." Becker, Judith (1969: 272). "The Anatomy of a Mode", Ethnomusicology 13, no.2:267-79.

Hyacinth 00:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The above is now readded. Hyacinth 02:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

they know nothing about classical music is a problem

I had to delete a paragraph in "influences between classical and popular music, I don't know any popular songs using a piece of classical music, except "Upside Down" by - John Lennon, used from the Beethoven Moonlight Piano Sonata No.14. 4.160.219.31

I put it back. Start here: List of popular songs based on classical music Antandrus 22:33, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps "they" know nothing about popular music, which would be a problem. Hyacinth 22:45, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not every popular song uses a piece of classical music. Do you think I want to see the list? No, I won't do this. However, anyone know that the NBC Symphony Orchestra was broadcast on the air, it failed in the mid 1950s. "New York Philharmonic", has never went off the air, including "The Metropolitan Opera", whatever which network carries them? PBS? 4.160.219.31
What exactly are you saying? Of course not every popular song uses a piece of classical music. Some do. Most don't. There is influence back and forth, and there has been for at least a thousand years. What do the failure or successes of radio broadcasts have to do with the influence of popular on classical music and vice versa? I don't see a connection. Antandrus 02:24, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because most program directors know nothing about classical music, but many that do have a knowledge of the music or have a music degree. I already know all the classical music as possible. I know there are even many cartoons, TV shows, and commercials use a piece of this. It's also not rare in Alex Trebek's game show I am saying that some popular songs, three to four minutes, don't use it, I do not listen to popular music all the time.

User Oct 21 2004 (11:44)

Vandalism

I am somewhat mystified as to why this article keeps getting vandalized. Does anyone have an explanation or insight? --Herschelkrustofsky 14:58, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism is a little like mildew; you just have to wipe it away every once in a while. Overall the vandalism in this area is an order of magnitude less than on the political articles, so maybe we could consider ourselves blessed. Antandrus 16:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The classical music area is, in general, one of the most collegial and productive on en.wikipedia, we should be grateful for this, and for the contributions of a good group of knowledgeable and dedicated editors. Stirling Newberry 19:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not Vandalism!

When I wrote "Most program directors know nothing about classical music". That edit is not vandalism, believe me. How many people do you think will read the classical music article?

Music terminology

I would like to see Classical music#Terms of classical music merged into [the article] Musical terminology; it's far too cumbersome to have in an article already as general as this in scope. However, Musical terminology seems to be inhabited mainly by performance terminology; if you take a look at Category:Musical terminology you'll see a more varied picture. Terms like atonality certainly belong within the realm of musical terminology so perhaps I should go ahead and merge? Perhaps there should be a seperate category for performance related terminology? Arg....

Sometimes I amaze myself at my own obsession over semantics. --bleh fu 00:37, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

To join in the obessive fun:
I agree, articles should not contain article size lists and the list of terms on this article should be moved elsewhere. However, I think that it is important to have a list of only performance related terms, as evidenced by their ubiquity outside of Wikipedia these lists are useful. Seperate lists of non-performance related terms and performance and non-performance terms would also be useful. As for Category:Musical terminology, it seems strange to have every word used in music in one category. This would be great for a glossary, but perhaps not a category(?). For example, I placed Atonality in Category:Musical techniques.
I propose creating Glossary of music, List of musical directions or List of performance directions (or List of music performance directions), and having non-performance terms at Musical terminology. Hyacinth 02:52, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I like it. When these lists are fully populated they are likely to be enormous, so breaking the subject out into several lists is helpful. Obsessively, Antandrus 02:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Certainly there is some overlap.... I suppose it might be more prudent at this stage to these categories separate rather than try to figure out a cohesive hierarchy. Is there a wikiproject somewhere regarding this? Every possible word with any connection to musick? *shudder* --bleh fu 03:07, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think I like List of music performance directions, or I suppose Glossary of music performance directions is more accurate, since some definitions are supplied, and they are arranged alphabetically.--bleh fu 03:11, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
Fully concur with splitting. Glossary of music performance directions sounds good. "Musical terminology", then, while descriptive, doesn't make the point that it is a list excluding performance directions. Glossary of music theory, perhaps? And a separate glossary of musical forms (using the list at musical form as a jumping off point)? Musical terminology could then end up being a list of glossaries (with some helpful guide text, and perhaps whatever can't be easily classified into whatever lists split off from it). Mindspillage (spill your mind?) 03:41, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Aye-yah, musical form there's another ball of wax. I think Musical terminology would be a good receptacle to fill with general terminology. When it comes to more specialized topics like ones specifically dealing with theory, form, musicology, I think that's where putting the term in some sort of Category:Musical form or the like would be useful. --bleh fu 04:07, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
%#^%@%$^ I noticed it before, but check it out if you haven't already. Italian musical terms. It's a little bit of a mixed bag over there. I'm glad the concensus is that it should be merged with musical terminology, or, henceforth, Glossary of music performance directions, but it does need a little filtering. --bleh fu 04:12, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

"Emotional content"

I dropped the "Emotional content" section because it is LaRouche-cruft. If anyone wants to rebuild it with some regular references, super. -Willmcw 09:04, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche

Because of his role as a political figure, and accusations that he has engaged in fraud, as well as the vociferousness of his adherents, LaRouche's ideas on music are often regarded dimly. But then the same things could be said about Richard Wagner who was run out of Germany because of his debts and political activities, and his supporters were ardent in promoting his theories of music. There is a long tradition in music of looking at the art, and not the movement, its activities, or its supporters rhetorical tactics. We all have points of view - LaRouche's supporters are far from alone in making quesitonable declarations of universality about music - indeed it is a cottage industry in classical music only if your idea of a cottage is the same as the Vanderbilt family's. As long as we can work together, place ideas in their context, cite their origin, or express them in a sufficiently broad way, there is no reason why supporters of particular schools of music cannot work together.

The converse is also true: groups that try and impose their agendas on these pages will almost certainly be rejected. Good will and good faith our essential - and classical editors should consider this a plea to think about the edits they make, and ask if they really are NPOV.

There is also that his (supposed) theory as expressed in the article is ethnocentric and classist. Agape is: "a universal, as opposed a personal, love; this could mean love of truth, or love of humanity...the special love for God and God's love for man, as well as the self-sacrificing love...all should have for each other."
Use of Agape in this way is hardly limited to one group, it is common in Christian circles to hear it as well - arguing that music is god's gift to man, and that tonality represents the trinity and the emotional affect agape. I'm not supporting this, merely pointing out that it is a commonly held belief, and probably ought to be documented. Stirling Newberry 18:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The assertion that only the music of a certain class of a certain race in a certain region during a certain time is capable of truth, humanity, or holiness is readily questionable and in my opinion should be "regarded dimly".
However, this opinion is commonly expressed and should be described in the article, though this should be done through a source and citation more appropriate than LaRouche (who would serve as a straw man). Wagner would be a much better source being a respected and famous musician, but the best source would provide reasoning in addition to assertion. Hyacinth 17:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not clear that the majority of holders of this viewpoint would support a racial contention this particular time. Stirling Newberry 18:07, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what Schiller has to do with Classical music. The emotional content of Schiller's pooem may have inspired Beethoven, in which case the reference should go in his biographical article. Can someone indicate why the author of a libretto is so important? I'm fairly certain that Schiller didn't write any music himself, and the Ninth was composed after his death. -Willmcw 04:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's kind of a big question, and deserves a thoughtful answer. The collaboration between Schiller and Goethe is probably the most famous and fruitful in the history of German letters, and the coming-together of their ideas with those of Beethoven, specifically regarding their mutual interest in the search for political and moral freedom--seen in the middle period in Fidelio, and in the late with the 9th Symphony, in which he set Schiller's magnificent Ode to Joy--is one of the most climactic moments in western cultural history. I think it's essential to mention their names together. Respectfully, Antandrus 04:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This paragraph isn't about the climactic moment in western cultural history. No doubt that Schiller should be mentioned in the bio article on Beethoven, and in the article on the symphony. The question is, in a single paragraph on the emotional content of classical music, is Schiller especially important? Is the content of the poem what makes the 4th movement emotional? If you were sitting down to write a single paragraph on the topic of emotional content in classical music would you be sure to include Schiller? -Willmcw 04:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what the conflict is here, but if I were mentioning 1) Beethoven, 2) the Ode to Joy, then I think Schiller is an essential 3). Is it essential in a paragraph on the emotional content of classical music? No, you could use another example, but the Beethoven 9th is as good as any, I think. Btw, just to be clear, I have no clue what LaRouche has to do with any of this; my interest is music. Antandrus 04:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
On the one hand I don't see that the presence or absence of two or three words (all other things being equal!) should produce so much discussion, on the other I'm for keeping them. I do agree that if you're going to use the Ode to Joy you should mention Schiller in connection, of course. Schissel : bowl listen 04:57, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
FYI, the reason I have made an issue of this is that the paragraph was written by a LaRouche supporter, user:Herschelkrustofsky.[1] Wiki editors are specifically banned from adding LaRouche theories to articles unrelated to LaRouche. The LaRouche organization is particularly devoted to Schiller and, to a lesser extent, Dvorak. LaRouche supporters have been reported to disrupt concerts and pass around petitions against Vivaldi because that composer is lacking in the "fundamental emotion".[2] So, when I saw this paragraph about emotional content and also prominently mentioning Schiller and Dvorak, the alarm bells went off. However, if the non-LaRouche editors agree that the paragraph, as edited by User:Stirling Newberry reflects the generally held view about emotion and classical music, then I am satisfied. Thanks to all for the input. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
(By the way, someone tells me — not sure! — that for uncluttering, people use the same number of tabs at each appearance, that is, if I come in using 7 colons, I use 7 colons with each response, instead of responding to someone with 8 colons with a 9 colon response. Hope that's clear.) Hrm. Yes, I have read that section of your Usertalk page (and do hope you do not believe that I am another sock puppet; I suppose it would take an admin though to show that I am, indeed, posting/etc out of New York State, if not always out of the same place in it. Travel, and all that. Especially since I work more on Dvorak-related pages than Vivaldi, though I do not believe him unemotional.) Thank you for explaining but I still don't find it reason enough to omit the reference. Schissel : bowl listen 12:44, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
(with one less colon, going in the other direction now) Honestly, that's the first time in my life I have heard of this (Schiller, LaRouche, etc.) and even though it's a Monday morning I actually laughed out loud. OK, I understand Will's sensitivity now. I do believe this is one case, though, where it is quite legitimate to mention Schiller. (Vivaldi lacking in "fundamental emotion"? hmmm... I can cite numerous 18th century theoretical treatises in his defense should that ever be necessary ... ) Regards, Antandrus 15:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

One great difference between Lyndon Larouche and Richard Wagner is that Lyndon LaRouche is not a musician. Whatever one thinks of Wagner's political and ethnic view, Wagner at least had the authority of a creator. LaRouche is at the most a consumer of music, and any criticism that he has of the compositions of some composer is the "I don't like this" argument. I may despise Richard Wagner the person but recognize the power of his music. Likewise I may recognize that Anton Bruckner was a madman and that Gustav Mahler treated musicians contemptibly, but I can't argue against their music. The test of Wagner's validity as a composer is that composers active after his death fall under his influence, even if the influence is a reaction to what they considered his excesses.

Nobody has the authority to state that some classical music is awful because it offends his sensibilities. Even if the composition includes an offensive text -- let us say a paean to Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler -- it is the text that is objectionable and not the composition. If any music is incompetent, trivial, or excessively inaccessible, then such is a different issue altogether, entailing a rule in the visual arts and literature that if one breaks the rules, then one must have compelling cause for doing so or else the violation of the rule is a sign of incompetence and ultimately contempt for the listener. --66.231.41.57 02:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Setting

Note on the use of the word: while the most common use is to set a text, the word also applies to a pre-existing melody. This "setting" a folk melody or chorale means to harmonize it. It can also refer to the instrumentation: to set a plainsong chant for 4 voices. It does not matter in the present case. Stirling Newberry 11:40, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Poor naming

Now that we have abandoned the unclear term Classical music can't we leave it behind all together, so European-influenced art music. I realise that many non-Europeans have written in this style, but is it necessary to say "European-influenced" over "European"? Phillip Glass has composed in Indian classical music - does that mean we should move the article to Indian-influenced classical music? --Oldak Quill 01:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been following this debate, but I think "European-influenced classical music" is an insane name. Nobody would ever think to look for the article there. Wikipedia Naming conventions says very clearly "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." It does not say "use the most technically accurate" or "use the terminology used by academics and professionals."
In the case of this article, that name is Classical music.
And there's nothing unclear about it. The dictionary definition is "Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music." That's clear, precise, and it is the terminology used by most people. Isn't that what this article is about?
Does anybody really think "European-influenced classical music" is "the most common name... that does not conflict with the names of other people or things?" Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What about the conflict between your "classical music" and Quill and other's "art music". In my opinion avoiding ethnocentrism is also important.
I was not aware that Philip Glass had composed any Indian music at all. I did not invent the term "classical" and I did not implement its use on wikipedia or in the larger culture, but I support its use based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The current article and category titling uses "classical", though many of the templates use "art". I would find European classical music an acceptable title, though I did not move to that title because I felt it would be objected that the clarity added by "influenced" is necessary. Hyacinth 02:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article is very easy to find from Classical music. Hyacinth 02:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I stand by the dictionary. The dictionary, at least the one I use (American Heritage) is very specific about the meaning of the word "classical" when applied to "music." There are exactly two meanings:
3. Music a. Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries. b. Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music.
The only ambiguity here is that it can mean "(European)-Classical-as-opposed-to-Romantic" and "(European)-Classical-as-opposed-to-Rock." According to the dictionary, classical music is European-tradition music, literally by definition.
References to "classical" Indian or Japanese or Chinese music are perfectly valid (meaning 2 is "Of or relating to the most artistically developed stage of a civilization: Chinese classical poetry") but are not what is commonly meant by the term "classical music." There should be a line at the top saying something like
For the "classical," i.e. artistically highly developed music of other cultures, see Classical music traditions
or something of the sort, and the list that is now at Classical music should go there.
Our guidelines call for the "most common name of a person or thing" and that is "Classical music," not "European classical music." I don't tune in to WCRB and hear them say "WCRB, your station for European classical music."
P. S. "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Philip Glass." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please somebody add Johann Strauss to the chronological table

I cant belive the composer of the blue danube is missing in this article!

Poor naming and cultural chauvanism

  • The term classical music is very clear. It is the other cultures that adopted the term classical music to equate their music as equivalent or 'superior' to european music. Just a case of cultural chauvinism and jingoism. eg: the original term for so called hindustani classical music is "sangeet", so instead one should move Indian classical music to page called hindustani sangeet rather than move 'classical music' to 'european influenced classical music'.

The term classical music was and is a european term coined originally for european concert music. If other cultures adopted it, does it make un-european?? So tomorrow if so called Indian 'classical music' calls itself Indian MUSIK does that mean german music can no longer use the term MUSIK.

the term classical music is a term fundamentally refering to european music, since it was coined by the europeans to refer as such. this definitely sounds rude and may be politically incorrect. But really, it doesnt seem worthwhile to be politically correct at the cost of authenticity.

If anything at all, at least move the contents of this poorly named page 'European influenced classical music' to the page "European classical music". yes I know philip glass, bernstein or copland etc are/were American; but really we are talking about a tradition of music based on its origins, not the nationality of composers. Robin klein 22:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find you argument strange. Europeans may have been the first to use "classical" music in the manner of "classy" or "art" music but this already is two generalizations removed from the "Classical antiquity" to which it refers.
Sure, non-Europeans use "classical music" chauvanistically just like Europeans do, for example Ravi Shankar has argued the only two good traditions are the classical ones of Europe and India, but rather than illustrating the greater chauvanism and racism of non-Europeans it simply points out the similarities between the art tradition in Europe and the art tradition in India. Hyacinth 22:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Per a few requests the page has been moved to European classical music. Hyacinth 00:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What a peculiar discussion. The term 'classical music' is English, so of course it was coined by Europeans. Moreover, as Hyacinth points out, it wasn't coined to refer to European concert music (though it has come to be used in that sloppy way), but to refer to music composed in a style and tradition that drew upon the perceived virtues of the art of the Classical World of ancient Greece and Rome (similarly: classical theatre, classical poetry, etc.). There's enough real chauvinism in the world — there's no need to look for it where it doesn't exist. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we are to consider the contributions of serious composers from countries whose cultures are unquestionably European in origin (the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa), then "Western" is more appropriate, being aware, of course, that (1) some folk traditions relating to indigenous peoples have their norms and traditions (i.e., Peru), (2) that any composer has the temptation to adapt norms of the underlying folk culture into his music (examples: Chopin, Dvořák, Ives, Bartók), and (3) that persons schooled in Western musical traditions will be tempted to write in the contemporary -- and even archaic -- manner irrespective of national origin. Thus if a musical composition is accepted as "classical" in the concert and recording business, then it will be recognized as "classical". Folk elements do not degrade a piece of music, and may give it power and accessibility. Music is "classical", it seems, due to structure more than to content. --66.231.41.57 03:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There are indeed arguments to be made that Classical Music as a term is a very loose definition. I agree that Western Culture would indeed be mostly correct, as opposed to Euro-inspired. Really it is European music inspired by the musical traditions of many different cultures. The descriptive in the article leads me to believe that Classical Music was inspired by European culture, which is only partially true. Cultural fads have largely influenced Classical Music. Turkish Music (Alla Turka), Eastern (Turandot, Madama Butterfly)influenced music and the huge popularity of these influences with the cultural elite and the proletariat classes alike, far outweigh the valididty of the articles definition....aside from the fact that the American Heritage Dictionary even gave a definition challenging the validity of the author's claims.--Ngranner 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Ngranner

Just a note of addition to this Naming, in most of the countries (other than of course the European) Classical music always refers to the classical traditions of that country / region. Incidentally the European tradition is referred as Western Classical music. [User: AR] 11:17, 08 March 2007 (UTC)

Lies, Damned lies and Classical elitism

The google search for the forms of music regarded as / or using the term "classical music", in double inverted comma ( " " ), yields the following statistics of number of pages; as on 27th Feb 2005: eg: "Ancient Greek music" - 10,600

Oriental - Asian Musics regarded as / or using the term "Classical music" 

   * Andalusian (North African) classical music  -  111
   * Arab classical music  -  849
   * Azerbaijani classical music:  -  57  Mugam  -  14,100
   * Burmese classical music  -  120
   * Byzantine classical music: 163; Orthodox Byzantine music  -  68
   * Cambodian classical music: Pinpeat  -  72
   * Central Asian classical music:  -  20  
         o Uzbek and Tajik shashmaqam  -  219
   * Chinese classical music Yayue,   -  9690  Guqin  -  18,800
   * Eastern classical music  -  666
   * Indian classical music:   -  1,40,000
         o Bengali classical music  -  15
         o Carnatic music  -  1,16,000
         o Hindustani music  -  40,900 
           and Pakistani classical music - 340
         o Hindustani classical music  -  10,500
               + Odissi classical music  -  10
         o Kashmiri classical music: Sufiana Kalam  -  5
         o North Indian classical music  -  11,500
         o South Indian classical music  -  5,190
   * Indonesian classical music  -  117
       Gamelan classical music  -  35  
       Gamelan  -  5,13,000  
   * Iranian classical music:  -  4010; Musiqi-e assil  -  152
   * Japanese classical music:   -  977; Gagaku  -  41,100
   * Korean court music  -  1,940
   * Laotian classical music:  -  13; Sep nyai  -  86
   * Middle eastern classical music"  -  112
   * Nepalese classical music:  -  9; Charya  -  11,000
   * Ottoman classical music:  -  897; Sanat  -  1,250,000
   * Thai court music  -  53
   * Tibetan classical music:  -  35; Nangma  -  1,020
   * Vietnamese classical music  -  88

Occidental-Western traditions of music regarded as / or using the term "classical music" 

   * Classical rock music  -  1,110
   * Classical Jazz music -  2,010    

   * Ancient Greek music  -  10,600
   * Western classical music  -  34,400
   * European written music  -  3

Other traditions regarded as / or using the term "classical music" 

   * African classical music  -  158
   * Classical folk music  -  7,680
   * Folk Classical music  -  792

Original term refering to "Klassische musik" / "classical music" from Europe: 

   * European classical music  -  10,600
   * Classical music  -  15,700,000
   * Klassische musik  -  9,680,000 (in german)

The term "classical music" yields over 15.5 million pages, (15,700,000), but that is inclusive of all the traditions and various musical forms across the globe using the term "classical music".

The term "Classical music" or "Klassische Musik" originally described only written music from Europe and largely refers to music composed by european composers. With the naive assumption of deriving at the usage of the term "classical music" for music written by European composers through an approximate subtraction of the number of "non-european music" pages using the term "classical music". The approximate estimate of the term "classical music" refering only to music written by European composers would be over (13.5 million).

A lover of Classical Music was once referred to as a "long hair". 

 Ex: He doesn't dig Benny. He's a "long hair."

--Hindustani classical music, how about African sangeet??

from classical music to European classical music to western classical music. Way to go.

-- wonder how delibes' "flower duet" morphed into "British airways song" to Yanni "Aria" - for soprano"

P.S. "Western classical music"!! how about "Eastern classical music"??. Robin klein 14:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the above all one message from Robin klein? Hyacinth 23:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Classical_music/Archive_3&oldid=1136615583"