Talk:Classical music/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Rewrite

This article requires a complete rewrite. It presents a poor and limited overview of Western classical music. The author clearly has little liking for any aspect of classical music and limited knowledge of the subject area. Minor areas are highlighted at the expense of more prominent trends, presumably because of the writer's lack of knowledge. The only references provided are outside the subject area of the article and major scholarly and reference works are completely ignored. This article does not meet the Wikipedia standards of taking a neutral point of view and of not promoting points of view. This article clearly fails on both points in addition to being a poor source of information about the subject area. (preceding unsigned comment by Rayford 30 August 2005)

Please see above. Hyacinth 21:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, can you give some examples. I do not find what you describe true regarding this article. Hyacinth 21:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted a re-write, which consists primarily of shortening the article, and removing sections that appear to be artifacts of POV quarrels between proponents of classical and of popular music. I agree with the unsigned comments (are they all from the same person?) to the effect that an article on classical music does not require extensive references to popular music. However, the attempted re-write (by the same person?) that was reverted indulged in a certain amount of editorializing which was also harmful to the article.

I am of the opinion that many Wikipedia articles are too long, because they incorporate material inserted by warring clans of POV pushers. Editors should have some compassion for the average reader, who is hoping only to obtain a basic understanding of the subject matter. --HK 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And of course information about classical music cannot then be mentioned in the popular music article. Where shall this go then?

Also, there were no POV wars between Popular/Classical POVs. Actually, the POV war appears to just be starting. Hyacinth 20:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the term POV - could you explain?

I'm unwilling to give examples, as you request, until you let me know something about the qualifications and studies you have undertaken that allow you to act as an authority on the subject of classical music. This will allow me to know the level at which I need to pitch my answers in addition to being a reasonable question to ask of anyone compiling an encyclopedia article on any subject. Ray Ford. (preceding unsigned comment by Rayford 31 August 2005)

"POV" means point-of-view. Please read WP:NPOV which is the official policy of Wikipedia on the subject, specifically on how articles are to be written. By the way, while some of us have academic qualifications in music, some of our most capable writers on the subject either do not, or do not reveal them. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ray, I take it poorly that you demand credentials but don't disclose your own, and I take it poorly that you are unwilling to point to any specific problems in the article.
• Please note that nobody here is "acting as an authority" on classical music. Wikipedia articles, like articles in all encyclopedias, are supposed to be secondary sources, drawing their authority from primary sources, not solely on the personal knowledge or stature of their writers. The premise of Wikipedia is that it is possible for people who are not authorities to write useful, accurate articles by following the procedures of ordinary scholarship.
• If you have credentials and prefer to contribute only to encyclopedias that require them, you will probably be happier writing for Britannica than for Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that I do ask for evidence of authority and expertise in any field that demands it, and I think this request is reasonable. I believe, for example, that medical professionals are taught to provide evidence of qualifications and training if asked for by patients. I wouldn't want a cleaner to be diagnosing my terminal illness. Also, we expect our qualifications to be validated and to supply references when we apply for a job. This is a job, like any other, and the product is intended for public consumption, and should be accurate, valid, and representative. When I mark student essays I am asked to give marks for accuracy, representativeness, bias, clarity, etc, and I see no reason not tp hold this essay up to the same examination. I find it wanting and will write more later when I have more time. Rayford 18:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a doctor's office. This is a collaborative process that thrives on accesability, not demands for qualifications. Also, the audience you should have in mind is not me, but a general lay audience who may be reading of a topic for the first time. See, for example, Wikipedia:Explain jargon and Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Think_of_the_reader. Hyacinth 20:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, well we will have to disagree on this, since I feel that even an essay intended for a lay audience should at least be accurate and representative of a subject area. However, as I would expect more on an essay about classical music from one of my first year undergraduates, I will assume that the writers of this article have received little or no musical education. Rayford 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's official policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If you continue to engage in personal attacks you may end up one of the "Users [who] have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks." Hyacinth 19:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My criticisms then. I will send this bit by bit since I have limited time each day due to pressures of work and family.

The first paragraph, Classical Music: the time period, 1000-1900 is incorrect. Classical music has been a continuing and innovative tradition throughout the twentieth century and has produced major composers of many nationalities and numerous different styles of composition in the last 100 years. It is false to claim that it somehow stopped in 1900. The developments in tonality, instrumental technique, and in many other areas were radical and influenced other types of music. Also, the following sentence is imprecise, what do you mean when you say that the central norms developed between 1550 and 1825? This requires explanation, many would challenge this assertion, but I am puzzled by what this sentence means.

I don't see the problem. If you have a well-accepted definition of "classical music" in the broad sense (high art music in the educated European tradition, as opposed to the narrow sense of Haydn-and-Mozart) it would be nice to have it quoted and have the source.

The article opens by saying that "classical music" is a broad and imprecise term. It says it refers particularly to the period 1000-1900, but it certainly does not say it stopped in 1900, and the timeline includes the twentieth century as well. Are Howard Hanson's symphonies "classical music?" Surely. Is Prokofief's "Classical" symphony "classical music?" Of course. What about the atonalists? John Cage? Philip Glass? I am not so sure. I suspect that if one were to examine the programmes performed currently by symphony orchestras one would find that they play far more pieces composed during the 1800s than during the 1900s.

The point here is: is this just a matter of opinion, or can you point to some well-accepted definition of "classical music" that differs significantly from "a broad, somewhat imprecise term, referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, European art, ecclesiastical and concert music, particularly between 1000 and 1900?"

If you just want to fine-tune the wording a bit, by all means do so. Hey, I don't think "classical music" really goes back to the year 1000. Gregorian chant is "classical music?" I don't think so. How often is a Gregorian chant concert performed in Avery Fisher hall? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Timeline: Which school of thought is this? You need to specify and outline alternative conceptualisations if you are to be neutral. "for many this is essential to full enjoyment" - what a huge assertion this is. What does it mean exactly? How do you know? I have always assumed that most people listen to compositions as individual pieces to be enjoyed in their own right, just as one might enjoy a fine whisky or a George Eliot novel, or a Woody Allen film - knowking something about Woody Allen's personal history and predelictions might add something to the enjoymant of the film but surely this is a fairly minor pasrt of the whole? I can't understand where this assertion comes from. To my mind it seems to (fairly nastily) imply that classical music listeners are more interested or excited by something other than the music - they are anoraks, nerds, train spotters, rather strange individuals.

I'd say those sentences are obviously crap, and could be removed under the rubric of avoid weasel words and avoid peacock terms. Discuss it here, or be bold and remove them. If whomever put them there has a good justification, he or she will undoubtedly put them back and may be provoked enough to provide justification. Dpbsmith (talk)

Your time divisions are generally OK. A couple of points: "crisis" in "Modern" is quite a strong word and I think is contentious. Some would see it as a logical development or progression. I think you need to add harmony, key and musical structure to theory and technique.

The following paragraph, starting "the dates are generalisations": the use of counterpart continued throughout musical history and did not die with the end of the Baroque era. Beethoven, I feel, needs to be mentioned as an important composer of fugues, more so than Brahms - but the use of fugue appears even in romantic music - Vaughan Williams symphonies for example.

Well, sure. And Frank Loesser, for that matter. It's pretty hard to find any musical structure or idiom that's limited to one musical period or genre. But associating counterpoint with the baroque era seems to me a useful rough generalization. Like saying that a symphony typically has four movements, with the first in sonata-allegro form. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the chart and the links to composer pages - generally excellent on Wikipedia.

I need to end now, but will write more tomorrow on what I see as more serious issues with the article. Rayford 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you take some cautious nibbles at the article itself and see what happens? Don't try a "complete rewrite" just yet, but remold a sentence or two. In that first paragraph, if you can have a concise description that works better than what's there, try it out.

The title, "European classical music" is a bit of a misnomer. I wonder if part of what's bothering you is that "European classical music" sounds like a somewhat specialized article. This is a general, introductory article that was originally titled simply "Classical music," meaning the-fancy-schmancy-stuff-they-play-on-WCRB-as-opposed-to-hip-hop. Well, a coterie of people objected to restricting the term "classical music" in that way, and wanted the article Classical music to include the "classical" music of all cultures. That left the problem of how this article should be titled. And it was made worse by the fact that we have a different article, Classical music era, for Haydn-and-Mozart "classical." The music described in this article is not strictly limited to 1000-1900? No, nor is it limited to Europe. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I have adjusted my re-write to reflect some of the discussion in this section. I have no doubt but that it can be improved. Please sign your posts, by the way-- was Rayford the person who originally added the re-write tag? --HK 06:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was the person who added the re-write tag - sorry, I didn't know then how to add my signature to posts.

I'll carry on with my comments. I have no argument with "European Classical Music", this is what this article is about and the focus of the article should primarily be about the characteristics and atributes of this music. "Western classical music" might be an alternative.

The Nature of Classical Music section: "Works that are centuries old are performed far more often....." Well, this is obviously incorrect. It depends what the piece is. Late romantic composers are hugely popular. Richard Strauss, for example, who died in the mid-twentieth century, Vaughan Williams and Elgar in Britain, even the music of Tchiakovsky is not "centuries old". On the other hand, the older music such as that of Victoria and Cornysh is played less often. This sentence reinforces the sense of "doing down" of classical music, the use of fairly subtle language to make the field seem arcane and rather odd. I'll point to other examples as I go on.

"There are many passive participants" - is this any different from other types of music? There is also a large and thriving amateur tradition. his sentence convery no information and should be removed.

"Classical music is meant to be enjoyed for its own sake. This paragraph seems to me to be badly written and the sense could be conveyed more tersely. The last sentence seems rather quaint - in the nineteenth century and earlier, chamber music concerts were given in personal homes, but in the twentieth century they moved into the concert hall. I know amateur string quartets who reherse at home and occasionally give performances at weddings and other celebratory events, but giving concerts in your own, or someone else's home? I've never come across it.

If I were to re-write this paragraph, it might go something like this: "Classical music is regarded as an art form that requires concentrated listening and attention in order to grasp the complexity of musical structure and argument. Concerts therefore take place in an atmosphere of formality in which the dress of the musicians conveys a sense of occasion and a sense of respect for the music and silence is expected". But I'm not sure if this information is really important, it seems more of a fashion statement to me and could perhaps be dispensed with.

I'd like to comment on this a bit. Let's take this in two parts. First, should an article about classical music say something about the social context of the genre and the way in which it is usually performed? My own answer to that is, yes. It was surprising when someone mounted a performance of Aida in a sports arena, and it was surprising when Benny Goodman gave a jazz concert at Carnegie Hall. Something should be said.

Second, what is the best explanation of why concerts are presented as they are? There are two aspects, and your phrase presents only one. There is a widely held feeling (to which I subscribe!) that classical music is somehow "better" than most popular music. If asked, music educators will reference its complexity, suggest that it requires some education to appreciate, and delivers a deeper and richer emotional experience than simpler music. This is true but it is only part of the truth.

The other part is that classical music is admired because, to put it bluntly, it is rich peoples' music and the ability to enjoy it carries social stature. Classical music performance carries a weight of social tradition with it, some of which is extramusical. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "Classical composition" seems to me not very clear. I can see something of what is intended. But musical development is more than just the repeat of motifs in different forms. The important idea to convey is the primacy of musical form and structure - in classical music, the "tune" is often not primary (even when good "tunes" are important and significant aspects of a composition) - the important thing is how the melody is managed and manipulated. Just as a novel or short story has a structure (needs to have), the musical material, the themes are part of a musical form that conveys the sense of an argument, some complex means of organising sound as an art form. To the listener, this is more than comparison, it is getting a sense of the whole, a recognition that there is an argument, and the satisfaction or surprise when expectations are met, the unexpected happens, or something realy creative occurs. Just like, when reading a detective story, you may get pleasure from finding out, at the end, that the person you least expected, was actually the murderer. So, this paragraph is inadequate because it does not accurately convey what musical development and musical structure are about in classical music.

The rest of this section seems fine to me.

More later........Rayford 07:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I really think you should just make some of your suggested edits directly to the article. Try it, you'll like it. I think the burden of your criticism is not so much that the article is factually inaccurate or culturally ignorant, but that some of it is clumsily written. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll do this, but I'm a bit bothered about the accusations that seem to have been made earlier about "vandalising" the text - how do I avoid this accusation? I also assume that American spelling will be needed.

English/American spelling first. The convention in Wikipedia is that we strive to be consistent within an article, but not across different articles. (This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the U.S. Wikipedia). This article does use American spelling. (Gramophone record is an example of one that uses British spelling, as do most articles on British topics). So, yes, in editing this article American spelling should be used. That doesn't mean you need to be terribly punctilious about it—you don't need to check everything in a dictionary. If you are aware of a difference and notice that you're about to use a word where the spelling differs and are pretty sure you know the right American spelling, use it. If something slips by—I am sure your fingers will sometimes type a British spelling without your even being aware of it—don't worry, someone else will fix it. If someone seemed to be trying to make a point of imposing British spelling on an article that used American spelling, or vice versa, well, yes, people would get annoyed.

Re vandalism. I only see two example of vandalism in this article. In once case, someone changed "Classical music is primarily a written musical tradition" to "Classical music is primarily a biological tradition." In another, someone changed "this property of permanence" to "this property ofsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf permanence." Those are typical examples of vandalism. (Or a "newbie test." Sometimes we distinguish between vandalism, where the intent is to do harm, with what's called a "newbie test," which is someone just trying to see whether they can really edit a page). That's the sort of thing people are talking about when they talk about vandalizing a page.

Judging from your comments on this page—and your caution about jumping in—I think it is very likely that any edits you make will be sensible, and very unlikely that anyone will accuse you of "vandalising" (or "vandalizing?") the page.

If you make a change, and does revert it (changes it back), don't just immediately make the same change again. You don't need to get any kind of approval before making changes—the official policy is be bold. But if someone does object to your changes after you've made them, be prepared to discuss them here on the talk page. Even if you know what you're talking about and they don't. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Some quotes about the connection of classical music with wealth and "elitism". "The humor of these stories notwithstanding, their important aspect is not that plain people favored plain melodies and that orchestral music remained ostensibly reserved for elite audiences in search of refinement. Quite the contrary: despite their previous lack of access to classical music, ordinary Americans did attend these concerts in ever increasing numbers, regardless of their initial reactions". Trumpeting Down the Walls of Jericho: The Politics of Art, Music and Emotion in German-American Relations, 1870-1920. Journal article by Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht; Journal of Social History, Vol. 36, 2003.

There is more, but my daughter now needs getting out of the bath and into bed....

"As I have shown above, music audiences were much more heterogeneous than we have hitherto believed. The artists, in turn, formed by no means a wealthy elite but spent much of their lives on tour reaching out to audiences who otherwise would never have heard the sound of an orchestra. Instead, it was the early artists' iron determination, their foreignness and attractiveness, and the emotional appeal of the music they performed that proved eventually irresistible to North American audiences and created a bond be tween German and American audiences that would survive two world wars". Ref as above.

"For these reasons, recent thinking on music often exhibits a grave distrust or even guilt about the corpus of music we have inherited. On the one hand it is presented as one of the greatest achievements of the Western mind, but on the other it may betray its origins in social privilege and exclusion. This might seem extreme, but it forms part of a noticeable distancing of the establishment from its earlier identification with high art. When politicians appear on a platform with pop singers, their motives may be blatantly populist, but so, too, is their marked avoidance of public appearances with representatives of an art world considered too minority, too serious, and too highbrow. Whereas the nineteenth-century middle classes aspired to an upward cultural mobility by taking part in activities formally reserved for the aristocracy (like classical music recitals), the tendency of the much larger middle class toward the end of the twentieth century was to a downward cultural mobility. In the politics of contemporary cultural style, classical music has an increasingly negative status". Who Needs Classical Music? Cultural Choice and Musical Value. Book by Julian Johnson; Oxford University Press, 2002.

"A possible illustration of this drive for distinction is provided by recent developments in the market for classical music. Opera, once the exclusive preserve of the upper classes, has entered into the realm of popular music. In Europe the three tenors--Domingo, Carreras, and Pavarotti--sang to sell-out open air shows in the early 1990s. By the mid 1990s, however, the Sunday Times (April 21, 1996) reported that "classical music has become the latest victim of middle-class 'culture fatigue"' and the "loss of interest by those who regard opera as a ladder for social advancement... resulted in lower classical record sales and declining concert audiences."" Veblen, Bourdieu and Conspicuous Consumption. Journal article by Andrew B. Trigg; Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 35, 2001.

Well, I was looking for a quote I can't find. I would argue, you see, that classical music was associated with wealth and high culture in the past. But, so what? All high culture was, theatre, ballet, painting. Reading novels was different because, in the past, people in general were more literate and the quality of reading and writing was at a higher level.

The reason for this was that the relatively well-off were the only section of the population who had the money to become educated and the time to think and reflect and use their education and knowledge. This changed with the coming of mass education after the second world war. Classical musicians were never wealthy or particularly well paid (until the advent of the super-conductors in the twentieth century). At the present time (and since the sixties), it is popular culture that has the wealth - the artists, the promoters and the industry. Today, classical music has an "increasingly negative atatus" in mass culture.

So I think that the association of classical music with wealth and status is complex and has changed over time. I agree that performance practices are preserved from the nineteenth century whan classical music probably was strongly associated with nationalism and rampant colonialism and, in Europe, with it's dominance of the world, economically, socially, militarily, and culturally. This is no longer the case. Rayford 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, though, motion-picture scores are still composed in the classical idiom, but neither enjoy the prestige nor receive the odium accorded to "classical music." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Classical music and popular music

Why is a "Classical music and folk music" section okay, but not a "Classical music and popular music" section? Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Classical music is rooted in folk music, whereas the relationship between classical music and popular music is not so immediate and direct. There is still a brief section entitled "Influences between classical and popular music," which could be expanded, but I see no need to include a debate about the relative merits of classical and popular musics; for encyclopedia purposes, I think it were better to think of them as apples and oranges. BTW, I don't consider my re-write to be the be-all and end-all; I thought I would get the ball rolling, because I did see some validity in the complaints of the fellow who posted the re-write tag. --HK 23:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Influences between classical and popular music

What justifies the inclusion of the unsourced paragraph:

"Classical music has always been influenced or taken material from popular music. Examples include Erik Satie, Kurt Weill's The Threepenny Opera, and postminimalism, as well as much postmodern classical music."

But the deletion of the sourced:

"Songwriters such as Paul Simon have used classical techniques such as, during his early solo career in the 1970s, the twelve tone technique, though Simon actually only employs the full chromatic rather than strict tone rows (Everett 1997)."

Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Complexity

What justifies claiming that Classical music is more complex and giving no other opinion as in the following paragraph:

"This is not to say that popular music is definitively or always simpler than classical. The "default length" of phrases which classical music supposedly deviates from were set as the default by music of the common practice period. Jazz, rap and many forms of technical metal, for instance, make use of rhythms more complex than would appear in the average common practice work, and popular music sometimes uses certain complex chords that would be quite unusual in a common practice piece. Popular music also uses certain features of rhythm and pitch inflection not analyzable by the traditional methods applied to common practice music."

Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph precisely because I saw no point in debating which kind of music is more complex. It seems adequate to me to simply mention that Classical music is often complex. --HK 23:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Works for me. I rewrote the section so that it does "simply mention that Classical music is often complex" rather than elaborating the idea that "classical works have greater musical complexity than popular music" as it did. Hyacinth 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There's probably something sensible to be said about complexity.

An opera aria isn't much more complex, if at all, than a popular song. I don't think an opera is really different in complexity from a musical comedy.

And the reasons why most popular-music pieces are three or four minutes long is related to various commercial considerations as well as musical ones.

However. A symphony really is an hour-long piece of absolute music, and it really is intended to be listened to from beginning to end and appreciated as having a structural whole and unity. It is not just a medley!

I'm aware of heavy-metal pieces that run nearly twenty minutes, the length of a symphony movement.

But offhand, I can't think of anything in popular music that is comparable to a full-scale symphony. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I approve of Hyacinth's further truncation of that section. He got some material that I missed. Incidentally, I don't think that "complexity" is really an essential feature of Classical music. I originally wrote the section on emotional content, which generated some controversy, and I also participated in the writing of the spin-off article on musical development -- I think that these issues go more to the heart of Classical music. --HK 21:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed:

• Moreover, there are "the segments combined into patterns, combined into verses, combined into songs [that] make Burmese music a multileveled hierarchical system...The Burmese musician manipulates the various levels of the hierarchy to create the song..." (Becker 1969, p.272)

Didn't belong at popular music. Hyacinth 10:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Re-Write revisited

I have removed the Re-Write tag, because a re-write has taken place, and the discussion on the talk page seems to have lapsed. This does not, of course, preclude further re-writes or editing. --HK 00:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)