Talk:Romantic music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Classical music	(Rated Start-Class)	Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles
v • d • e Romantic music is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, cleanup, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that aren't 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.  Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 20th century section 2 from Reza 3 Social History? 4 Date war

[edit] 20th century section

This section appears hopelessly OR and NNPOV. It seems to be extending the idea of 'romantic music' to 'anything thst has a tune' and renders the concept of 'romantic music' as a musicological idea almost worthless. Should be deleted.--Smerus (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(Belatedly). I agree. --Kleinzach 10:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] from Reza

== Headline text == ^{'Music is a thing with no definition...its the state of being happy in time .'..}

[edit] Social History?

We need more on the social history of classical music during the Romantic period. Big names and style aren't even half the story. Someone with knowledge should at least add info on economics, institutions, and audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.85.80 (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

=> I disagree. I agree that a social history is important, but I think that should be a separate article.Bansai618 (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Date war

We seem to have a date war going on! Can both editors explain the reasons for their dates here? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there are more than two editors involved. I have been attempting to maintain Antandrus's position (in his edit of 5 September 2009) that the content of the article is not consistent with the date-change persistently being made since at least early last summer by Labrynthis9856. For the moment, I have decided that what is required is an authority, to settle this question once and for all. This article is already burdened with a huge amount of unverified claims, amounting to original research. The least we can do is find a proper source for the most basic definition of the boundaries of an historical period.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problematic article. Perhaps Labrynthis9856 can explain her(?) point of view? --Kleinzach 00:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)