Talk:Classical music

The term again

I think that the term "Classical music" is totally ridiculous. Let's say someone ask a composer, "what do you write?" He says, "I write classical music." So what he writes automatically becomes classics??

Can you imagine someone making an "Art Film" and people call it "classical film" immediately??

It's a total disrespect for the living composers. Classical music means Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert etc. and that is it.

Sigh, this controversy just won't go away. The line I would take is: "classical music" is a conventional term, not necessarily to be taken literally. So, for example, it's what a record store uses to label the bin containing Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Schubert, etc. The record store's staff hasn't evaluated every CD in the bin to make sure it's a "classic"; they just want to make it clear that this is the classical music bin, so that the classical music fans can find it.

English has many conventionalized terms. Lots of suitcases never carry a suit, monkey wrenches have nothing to do with monkeys, many kindergartens lack plants. It's really best just to accept this conventionality, and not start pointless crusades to change the English language. Especially not on the Wikipedia, where our job is be as clear as possible by using standard terms. Cheers, Opus33 20:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

As I noted below, there shouldn't be any controversy. Just check a dictionary. Mine says: "Classical 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." That's what the phrase means. So the following statements are accurate:

• The Bach Brandenburg concerti are examples of classical, rather than popular music.
• The Bach Brandenburg concerti are examples of baroque, rather than classical music.
• John Williams' film scores may not be immortal art, but are in composed in the idiom of classical music.
• Dave Brubeck's Take Five is a jazz classic, but is not classical music.

Dpbsmith 23:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Baroque

I think it's odd to think of separating the Baroque (or any other) era without considering other forms of art from that era (sculpture, archetecture, etc), because they all were influenced by the same forces of those times. As such, I am wondering if we shouldn't organize the eras more generically, link to the generic eras, and within the generic eras describe more specific issues per field of art. Something like this is already starting to take place in Baroque.

Doing so could help tie the various arts together, and avoid duplications of effort in helping someone understand how the arts were influenced by elements within history.

Anyone else with me on this?

-- Fleeb

A problem with an overarching 'Baroque' entry that includes Baroque politics and Baroque religion and Baroque science as well as Baroque jewelry design is that even if you're quite brilliant, b.s. is always only a hair's-breadth away. The fact is, a style is scarcely ever completely in control of a work of art (or culture), making for more interesting approaches, such as 'Baroque influences on Brahms' etc. It's hard enough to define what is 'classical' about 'classical music': at least it hasn't been done well enough yet here (it will be it will be...) User:Wetman

---

Should their be a section for Film Music or Soundtracks (yes, I know not *all* film-music is classical, but there is lots of it and some distinguished composers have composed for it - eg Vaughn Williams)

This is absolutely a great idea. It should have a link here. There should be a highly-selective List of film soundtracks that have succeeded as concert music or a better title. But a genuinely selective list. Wetman 15:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Certainly needs a section on the use of original classical music in films, not just film scores that succeeded as concert pieces. There is a brief mention of the use of previous-composed classical music in films that could porbably use some more/better examples. Rmhermen 16:13, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

I think we should include some discussion of Fantasia, Silly Symphonys and John Williams. Who/what else? Rmhermen 18:03, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

---

Disambiguating "classical"

'Classical' is used in two senses: classical music including romantic and baroque and classic music as opposed to romantic and baroque. This article mentions the distinction, but doesn't make it clear enough. When a word or phrase has two closely related meanings, they should be distinguished in the first paragraph or so. -- SJK

---

I added the synonymous term "serious music." It means the same thing, but also refers mainly to the works of living composers who currently write "classical" music as an artform. "New music" is also used, in the academic sense, to refer to such music recently composed.

---

I can't believe that anyone could be so pompous as to say "Important points from a music graduate". I don't care what your degree is in, or whether you've got one at all - just whether your work on this encylopedia is any good. Please!

---

I was not trying to be pompous! A contributor of this article, whether that is you or someone else, asked, "Is anyone a music major?" I was merely trying to indicate that yes, I majored in music in college. I was not implying that I'm better than anyone else. If I've offended anyone, or caused a misunderstanding, I apologise.

In which case I in turn will apologise for very clearly having overreacted. Sorry.

---

I changed sax for sitar, hope no-one minds. It was this bit: Instruments invented in the twentieth century or outside western musical traditions which then goes on to give B.gtr, synth and sax as examples. Since the sax was NOT invented in the twentieth century or and was NOT invented outside western musical traditions, I thought it rather weakened the point - in its present form anyway. Sitar is maybe a bit of a feeble example but I hope it helps make the point better. Nevilley 22:25 Dec 14, 2002 (UTC)

I agree with you (also, of course, composers like Debussy, Rachmaninov etc used the sax). As the article stands, there is so little talk of non-western classical music that the sitar is probably fine - however, the sitar is used in Indian classical music (as opposed to Indian folk music), so I'm going to change it for the didgeridoo. --Camembert

Rachmaninoff composed for saxophone? What? That would interest me... Malbi 15:47, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

He didn't write any solo pieces for it, but there's a prominent part for a sax in the first of his Symphonic Dances. --Camembert

---

Denouncing vulgar errors

The stuff about Beethoven, etc, not being known until long after their lifetimes is nonsense. All three had international reputations in their lifetime. Why did a London music organisation commission a major work from B. if he was not already highly regarded. Haydn was also well known in London and Paris.

Agreed. In my arrogant opinion, this sort of thing was a mythology created in the 1950s and 1960s in order to deflect criticism of twelve-tone music. Very few concertgoers liked the stuff, and orchestras were forced to program Bach/Schoenberg/Beethoven sandwiches in order to avoid having people walk out, but the argument always was that this stuff was destined to become beloved and popular Real Soon Now, and the fact that nobody liked it was something it had in common with Beethoven. Gee, Stravinsky's Rites of Spring caused a riot on its first performance, etc. etc. Incidentally, I notice that the apotheosis of twelve-tone composers seems to have eased off considerably, and it is now much easier to indulge an appetite for diatonic music without being forced to "eat your Webern-spinach, it's good for you." Dpbsmith 19:21, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't share your "arrogant opinion", i.e. I don't believe that this myth has been created to defend dodecaphony or serialism. Besides that there is some truth in it: Beethoven's late piano sonatas or string quartets were very hard to understand for his contemporary audience (why, they still are for many people ...). And, oddly enough, Mozart had a bad reputation as being a "Dissonanzenjäger" (hunter for dissonances). --- Utis 11:20, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Haydn's father was a wheelwright and Beethoven's a musician but not a composer.

All this should be altered.

If you count B as a Classical composer, it is absurd to say: "Classical music was written specifically for the sake of music; there is no grand design or no emotion built into it." This is untrue of Haydn and Mozart, too. Both wrote music that is intensely emotional.

Beethoven is a classical composer sometimes and a romantic composer sometimes. To be really good, the entry must distinguish what is 'classical' in Beethoven. User:Wetman

Doesn't that go a bit over the scope of this article? It amounts to a discussion about the subtle aesthetical differences between two closely related artistic movements/principles/aeras. That classical artists have strong, sometimes very strong romantic elments in their works is far from being uncommon (cf. Goethe). I don't know about music, but in literature it is up to today an open debate, whether some writers, e.g. Hölerlin, are classical or romantic. So I'd say: leave it there. Beethoven is commonly reckognized as "classical". [As an aside: I tend to think that "the classical" includes "the romantic" as a subset ... I formed this conlusion based on the works of Goethe.] --- Utis 11:45, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BevRowe 18:06 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Do I assume that the lack of response to my comments indicates agreement or that no one is reading this page?

BevRowe 08:16 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

I'm reading it! I think you are probably right. You could always change it to how you think is correct and see if anyone protests. :) Nevilley 20:36 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

---

Denouncing the article

For this to be an encyclopedia, the page would have to be accurate. In my teaching profession, I write my own curriculum for music theory and ran across this page in preparation for a lesson on compound ternary form. I am astounded at the lack of knowledge of music involved. I recommend to anyone who visits this site to go to www.grovemusic.com or go to the library and consult the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians to get a true account of what they should know.

I'll check to make sure http://www.grovemusic.com is linked from this site as an External link Wetman 15:50, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this page needs work. Feel free to edit the article and improve it. See Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers if you're interested. --Camembert

By the way, see ternary form. --Camembert

---

I reverted the paragraph break between the "snobbery" paragraph and the music lessons paragraph. Without the break, the article seems to imply that anyone who signs up Junior for music lessons is a snob, which I don't think we want to say.

169.232.226.5 06:36, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Odious paragraph on sexiness of classical and popular performers

I removed the following paragraph which is nowhere near being NPOV. I don't think its a valid or true observation, so I'm not willing to NPOV it to death and add it back in, but feel free.-Hyacinth 17:13, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC) "One last difference between classical and popular music is worth observing. New performers entering the field of popular music are expected, virtually without exception, to be young and sexually attractive. Older performers are sometimes successful, but typically their following consists largely of fans who encountered them when they were young. In the case of classical music, it is likewise a professional advantage for beginning performers to be attractive, but there is no rigid requirement in this regard. Older performers continue to attract new listeners, and indeed, artists such as Vladimir Horowitz and Artur Rubinstein performed before enthusiastic audiences in advanced old age. Further, a number of opera singers attract enthusiastic followings despite being quite stout or even obese."

Thank you. UninvitedCompany 23:53, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Glad it's gone. Good riddance. Antandrus 17:09, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Classical music for beginners?

In the coming days, I want to start adding some suggested repertoire for the new listener. Not sure the best way to organize it, so I'm open to suggestions. UninvitedCompany 18:30, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This seems rather, ummm, unencyclopedic, but if you insist, why not start a new article? -- Viajero 18:49, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The answer I was looking for was whether it should be by era and style, by instrument, or both. There are some sample pieces listed here are there already. I don't think putting the material off by itself would be especially helpful.

People with limited exposure to classical music often ask where to start listening to learn what such music is like. The answers are fairly standard, so I can't imagine why we wouldn't include them. UninvitedCompany 19:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi Uninvited--I'm a little daunted by the size of the task; there are so many nice pieces. I myself wouldn't feel capable of giving "standard answers," since anything I would recommend would reflect my own taste.

I agree with Viajero that if you do make such a list, it ought to be a separate page, since it's likely to grow a lot as people add their favorites (tastes are so diverse...). I would also suggest organizing by the major eras, and within era by composer. Organizing by instrument is better done by letting people visit the article for the relevant instrument. Be sure to cross-link works that already have Wikipedia articles. Cheers, Opus33 19:25, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The value in such a list is to avoid having it become exhaustive. Some works are such staples of classical music -- Beethoven's 2nd symphony, Hadyn's "surprise" symphony, the Brandenburg concertos, Mass_In_B_Minor_(Bach, Handel's Messiah that they are worth mentioning. Then there are some works that are so characteristic of particular instruments and periods, e.g. Bach's d minor toccata and fugue (Baroque organ), Beethoven and Mozart's piano sonatas for classical piano (pick any of about two dozen). We have a list of famous operas already. There are other forms, of course, but I'll stick to what I know. The romantic era does pose more of a challenge than earlier times because there are so many more composers and works but I think we could still pick some.

While I suppose there are those who will not be satisfied unless their particular favorite is on the list, they miss the point, which is to help the novice reader get their bearings in an unfamiliar world. In the olden days, record stores were intimidating enough for newly-minted classical music enthusiasts, and amazon.com is worse because their is so much from which to choose.

UninvitedCompany 20:02, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A good idea that needs a good title that shows how brief the list is. It needs to be well linked to from here. Personal experience shows that concert music over 20 minutes long exhausts the three-minute attention span of pop fans-- a cue from the "Great Baroque Mood Music" type of CD. This entry should be the next step from one of those CDs. Familiarity helps: Satie's "Gymnopedies" and Holst's "Planets" and Orff's "Carmina Burana"? Bach's "Mass in B-Minor" will scare 'em off. How about that suite for unaccompanied cello? "Less than twenty minutes long" might even be in the opener.

Hi Rh--I enjoyed your remarks but have to say I agree more with Uninvited. Why would someone with a musical attention span of three minutes want to take up classical music at all?

I think the Wikipedia could be more helpful to beginners who come to it with the question, "Which classical works would I enjoy very much if I listened to them enough times to get to know them well?". On that basis, the B Minor Mass is definitely in contention, or so I believe.

P.S.: Rh, please add four tildes ("~") after your discussion contributions so we know who's talking. The software translates the tildes into your Wikipedia handle. Thanks, Opus33 02:14, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I do think that such a list of typical works is a good idea. If somebody seriously wants to explore a new field, such recommendations are invaluable. It should be by aera and it should strieve to do treat each aera equally (i.e. not 30 pieces for "classic", two for "early baroque" and none for "contemporary". Ideally the number of pieces for each aera should be fix. So if one wants to add a (favourite) piece, he or she has to decide on removing one already listed. "Typical" would be more important than "advanced". (E.g. Beethoven's late piano sonatas are probably not typical for "classic", great as they are.) Separate listings for genres (opera, concerto ...) might be a good thing, though I am not sure whether that is feasible. --- Utis 11:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Marsalis's Haydn

"[The Marsalis Haydn trumpet concerto recording] on the strength of Marsalis' jazz notoriety, became a classical best-seller." ~ Richard S. Ginell, All Music Guide

There would be no point in including the Haydn Trumpet Concerto in this section were it not for Marsalis's recording--otherwise, it wouldn't be an example of crossover, right? So anyone who wants to delete should delete the concerto, too.

Opus33 22:59, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Sorry. It was a very bad example of a crossover and the point about Marsalis is wrong (the Ginell quote can be no more than conjecture), so I have removed it entirely as you suggest. Nevilley 00:41, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Move this Article to "Art music"

This article is not about classical music - it is about art music in its entirity. A redirect from "classical music" can either go directly to the art music page - or serve as a disambiguation page (for both Art music and the Classical period).

How do we go about deleting the current content of art music so as to move the page there? --OldakQuill 10:26, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, please do not move the article. People will find it under "classical music" which is where they will look first. The term "art music" is MUCH less used. We are supposed to put things where people can find them. There is plenty of room on the page itself for something about the terminologies. The business of the loose term "classical music" vs the Classical period in music is something which we can live with and is no reason to move the article to somewhere less obvious. Nevilley 11:17, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

We have the opportunity to end the perpetuation of mistakes and falsitudes. It would be no harder to find as there would be an automatic redirect/disambiguation page. I feel it is important, as an encyclopedia (and hence authority on information) to be CORRECT.--OldakQuill 12:07, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Your ambition is laudable, OldakQ, but the Wikipedia can't change the English language! We're stuck with the terminology we have, and unfortunately some of it is ambiguous. "Classical music" really does mean "art music" and not just "music of the Classical era."

A more realistic goal is to serve our readers, and, as Nevilley said, they are most likely to look for classical music under "classical music." Moreover, the current article does explain the "classical/Classical" distinction, so I think we've already done what feasibly can be done for clarification. Cheers, Opus33 23:22, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Nev and Opus. "Classical music" is by far the most common term for this kind of music, and so it's right that the article is called that. I'm not sure that "art music" is such a good substitute in any case, since it's virtually never used in reference to music written before 1900 and might just as well be applied to something by Jacques Brel as Jacques Ibert. --Camembert

I strongly agree with Nev/Opus/Camembert. The dictionary says: "Classical 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." Lay readers in an everyday context understand it to mean b; scholars and musicians in a technical context understand it to mean a. The distinctions are properly explained in Classical music and Classical music era. This is not a case of "mistakes and falsitudes" or "making things CORRECT." The use of the word to mean "music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera" is perfectly correct, though some might wish it otherwise. It's like the question which once appeared on College Bowl: "If a cat is a carnivore, then what is a kangaroo?" A contestant, knowing that kangaroos have an herbivorous diet, replied "herbivore," and was scored as wrong because the intended correct answer was "marsupial." In other words, it was a trick question, resting on the technical meaning of "carnivore," not as "meat-eater," but as "member of class order Carnivora"Dpbsmith 16:21, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Concert music

Partly because its the terminology I use, and partly for completeness, I propose Concert music over classical music when refering to Eastern Asian (European) music of the middle to upper class and its descendents. It nicely avoids the vaguries of art music, while it avoids the double meaning of classical music. Sure, almost all music is "concert music" in that it is performed in concerts (while some (much) classical music is not), but this works to the terms advantage in that there isn't any other kind of music designated "concert." Hyacinth 22:41, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

That's certainly one of the terms I have tried out, but I find a lot of my non-classical-music friends don't know what I'm talking about when I say it. Unfortunately, though I still feel like I'm chewing gravel each time I say it, it seems that "classical music" is the most widely understood. I have to admit I have a hard time labeling Terry Riley, Philip Glass or John Zorn, to grab a few random names, as "classical," though, so I usually perform contortions to avoid using a label at all. Blame Aristotle for making us think we need to label everything. Antandrus 17:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"concert music" seems plain wrong to me, unless you stretch the meaning of "concert" so far that it is not a differentia specifica anymore. Why should performance of chamber music in a small private circle be a "concert", while a "rock concert" should not be one? I think "art music" is the proper term. If it does, taken properly, exclude some now forgotten works, say, of the classical aera, while it includes, taken properly again, some very advanced Jazz pieces ... so what? The point is that this kind of music does not accompany social practices but is meant to provide an aesthetical experience sui generis. That's art. (Well, yes, there is a use of "art" to accompany social practice. The boundaries are a bit blurry---they almost always are.) I am content acknowledging the artistic qualities of certain advanced pieces not commonly considered to be "classical music". That said, it is right that this article is named "classical music", for that is the term most people know. --- Utis 11:02, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

---

Piece "Taxobox"

Anyone think we should have a common table for classical pieces? For reference purposes. Other fields for other genre - key, movements, famous from (for the more populist fans (Volvo advert, etc.) etc --OldakQuill 17:27, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don Giovanni
Composer:	Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Libretto writer:	Lorenzo da Ponte
Composition Period:	1787 (Classical)
Instrumentation:	Symphony Orchestra, Voice
Sub-genre:	Opera
Catalogue number:	K. 527

---

Hi OldAkQ,

I certainly admire your technical skill with tables, but nevertheless I'd like to make a case for not doing this.

I mostly write about pieces that mean a lot to me personally, and the table you propose seems just too vulgar to fit the subject matter. It's sort of like seeing your favorite pieces advertised in huge letters on a sign in Wal-Mart; there's a certain feeling of desecration. I think we'll attract more and better articles on classical music if potential contributors aren't made to feel that the standard article format demeans the composer's work.

I also feel that making hundreds (ultimately: thousands) of tables is not necessarily a good use of your own time. There are so many great classical pieces the Wikipedia has no article about--why not pick your favorites and start writing about them? Cordially, Opus33 15:56, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Query for classical music editors

I've posted a query about policy concerning classical music articles at Talk:Ludwig van Beethoven. Your input would be very welcome. Opus33 18:44, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Art music and popular music

When discussing the relationship between art music and popular music, it might be worth mentioning that some pieces especially of the classical and romantic aera have become folk music (in the actual sense of that term.) This is at least true in Germany for pieces like Schubert's "Das Wandern is des Müllers Lust" from "Die schöne Müllerin" or his "Am Brunnen vor dem Tore" from the "Winterreise". It is probably also true for the Papageno songs from the "Zauberflöte" or for "Freude, schöner Götterfunken" from Beethoven's 9th. --- Utis 11:25, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, the principal melody of the largo movement of Dvorak's 9th symphony was adapted to an American spiritual called "Goin' home." --Herschelkrustofsky 12:17, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On the "Development" paragraph

Re. this new paragraph:

"The feature which absolutely distiguishes Classical music from other genres, is what is loosely termed "development," which is the process by which certain germ ideas are repeated in different contexts, or in altered form, so that the mind of the listener consciously or unconciously compares the various incarnations of these ideas. This process enables the composer to generate various kinds of irony or paradox, revealing a dimension of meaning in the musical idea that goes far beyond the affective or emotional content of the melodies, harmony and rhythm. This can lend Classical music a quality of profundity which is unique among musical genres."

I had a little bit of an "oh dear" reaction, for three reasons.

• I think that some popular music fans will squawk. Not all classical music has development (think of Mozart and Schubert's dance music), and some popular music (jazz) arguably does. It's more a matter of degree.
• Call me an oaf, but I really don't perceive much irony or paradox in classical music--or at least when I do, it's not related to development. Might the author of the passage give some actual examples?
• "Profundity" is awfully subjective; the word is often used as a rhetorical club, and to me it seems a little over the top in an encyclopedia, perhaps even an NPOV violation.

In general I think it is correct to mention development as a prominent trait of classical music, but I'd like to see it done less contentiously than in the above paragraph. I will ponder what might be the right way to proceed and encourage other editors to do so. Cheers, Opus33 18:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First, see: Musical development. Second, cut all comparisons with words such as "absolutely" and "unique".

Perhaps what makes you pause is the non-neutrality of the paragraph, not its inaccuracy. It was obviously written by someone who wishes to privilege classical music at the expense of popular music, and this crap, uncited and without context, does not belong on Wikipedia. Hyacinth 20:20, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't expect that paragraph to be so controversial. I will do my best to address the concerns of Hyacinth and Opus33:

• Irony: there are various definitions and applications for the word, "irony." On the simplest level -- double meaning -- you find countless examples of a musical theme that is introduced in a context that evokes a delicate, pensive feeling, and later reintroduced in a surprisingly different context that may be very bombastic -- I'm thinking of movement one of Dvorak's 7th Symphony. Another example, to my mind, of irony in music, is where a theme is introduced and made familiar to the hearer, and it is not until the end of the composition that the composer reveals that it this theme can be overlaid contrapuntally on another theme, for example, at the end of Mozart's string quintet in D, K 593.

• Paradox: J.S. Bach perfected the technique of introducing what appears to be a really shocking dissonance, and having it resolve contrapuntally in a way that is totally convincing and satisfying to the ear. This is a use of dissonance that is a paradox, because, analyzed vertically, it is indeed dissonant, but viewed over time it is in fact something else. Compare the use of dissonance in jazz or modernism; it is usually employed for shocking sensual effect, or to express emotions of rage or anxiety.

The Musical development article is a stub, which I may expand, after hashing these issues out a bit on this talk page.

I more or less acknowledged in the paragraph that not all Classical music undergoes development, by including the phrase "This can lend Classical music a quality of profundity..." Perhaps it were appropriate to include a disclaimer that some music that is called classical is intended only as entertainment -- but that may mean that the Mozart and Schubert dances were really popular music. As far as jazz is concerned, I have played it professionally, and it is true that improvisers will play around with motives, in a way generally thought of as "witty." However, that is not the same as the sort of sustained, rigorous development that you find in a Bach fugue, where each tiny modification is calculated toward achieving the final effect. It may be arguable whether this is completely unique in Classical music, but I am familiar with many genres -- Indian classical music, for example, as well as jazz -- and I can think of nothing comparable to the Bach fugue example, or the late quartets of Beethoven, which Norbert Brainin of the Amadeus Quartet once described as unique not only in the realm of music, but in all art.

Finally, I don't think that many people who are deeply familiar with music in general will argue that there is no qualitative difference between Classical and various other genres. Attributing it to "complexity" is obviously unsatisfactory. There are numerous pieces by Frank Zappa or the Mahavishnu Orchestra that are considerably more complex than Mozart's Ave verum corpus, but the latter is more poetic, and yes, profound. --Herschelkrustofsky 21:28, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, HK. This little brouhaha illustrates one reason that it is so frustrating trying to put together a good classical music section on the Wikipedia. Lots of people want to put in their opinion, and they feel justified in doing so because:

• their opinion is a cultivated and thoughtful one
• their opinion is based on extensive listening
• their opinion is tied into their sense of what is noble, beautiful, and important (see HK's remark on Ave verum corpus)

Nevertheless, other people do recognize such writing as opinion, and when they do, they get a sense of betrayal--they wanted an encyclopedia article and got an opinion piece instead. I would venture to say that it was this sense of inappropriateness that led Hyacinth to call HK's contribution "crap". Hyacinth was being uncivil, but I do understand where he's coming from.

I feel that a workable classical music section requires us to do what the New Grove does--stick largely to the facts, and go into opinion only with great reluctance. Moreover, if we do state opinions, they should be other people's, and given with appropriate scholarly citation.

Re. irony and paradox: I could see a place for these in Musical development, but they're probably too outré for this article, which, after all, is meant to be very general.

I will try to do some NPOV-oriented changes after pondering further and girding my loins, if no one else does first. Yours very truly, Opus33 00:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think Opus replied well... but you know what? I agree with HK about profundity and "qualitative differences." But I also recognize that my feelings about this are my opinions, and I have been trying to keep them out of the articles I write. So therefore I say--have at an edit of the paragraph about development (it's a very important distinguishing feature of "classical" music, after all) and try to source the bits about profundity (even though I say under my breath, "but it moves!") Antandrus 02:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While I also agree, personally, on the "profundity"; I definitely see the point in Opus33's and Hyacinth's replies. In addition, while I can understand the desire to find something which explains the obvious difference between classical music and other music, I don't think that "musical development" is it. I may be wrong, but I don't think that this is the outstanding distinguishing feature of a lot of great contemporary works (say, the later works of Luigi Nono, for example.) And, for what it's worth, Adorno critisized Wagner for his lack of musical development.

I think the problem arises from the fact that there are two orthogonal criteria for what is "classical music" (in the broad sense of the word): (1) music coming from a specific musical tradition which is socially practised in a particular way (musical performances where the audience remains sitting quiet). (2) music with certain inherent aesthetical qualities that require a particular mode of individual perception (i.e. music as an art).

The problem is that (1), being the "hard" distinguishing feature, is dissatisfactory, because it fails to explain the inherit qualities typical for this type of music as expressed in (2). Unfortunately, (2) is not necessarily confined to (1) and vice versa. (Frank Zappa has already been mentioned. No, personally I don't like Zappa at all, but I have to admit that there is some validity in some people's claim that some of Zappa's works are to be acknowledged as art. He crossed the border, anyways.)

So what? I think it's perfectly o.k. to live with this ambuigity and explain it rather than looking for an absolute criterion that forces both together. Such a criterion (as "musical development") is always bound to fail at some point, because art, being art, may always at some point transcend any such criterion.

-- Utis 10:26, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have re-written the paragraph in a way that I hope conforms to NPOV. I think that there must be an effective way of indentifying the distinction between Classical and other forms of music, but I agree, it is very tricky because it enters into territory which, correctly or not, is considered very subjective, such as, "what is Art?" In the process of rewriting this paragraph, I visited a lot of Wikipedia pages that I had hitherto not been to, such as Art, Idea, and Aesthetics -- and I found them all highly unsatisfactory. I suppose that these concepts may be inherently "encyclopedia-unfriendly."

Incidentally, although I'm the one who brought up Frank Zappa, I disagree that his music should be acknowledged as art. I do think that it should be acknowledged as complex.

Also, I linked the paragraph on development to the sub-heading on Classical music and folk music, because the relationship between the two helps to clarify the role of musical development. Although I didn't say so in my edit, all Classical music has its roots in some sort of folk music -- Classical music listeners are accustomed to German folk music as transformed by centuries of German composers, and a bit less so to Czech, Hungarian or American folk music similarly transformed. --Herschelkrustofsky 12:34, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First, I apologize to User:Herschelkrustofsky for my above "crap" comment.

Second, the beginning of the paragraph is greatly improved by the addition of "an emphasis on". I feel no need to avoid "irony or paradox". Indeed, User:Opus33, I believe they were far better than the super-vague "poetic".

Third, Herschel, I feel your re-edit is not an improvement. "Art" obviously equals the previous "quality of profundity". The consequence of this is that instead of saying that popular and folk music is of bad quality and incapable of being profound, you now say that they are so because they are not art. This is more insulting.

Fourth, though once again, opinions such as these, uncited and without context, do not belong on Wikipedia. we are not aiming for the one-true-viewpoint. I know for a fact that others than yourself and the above contributors hold this opinion. I encourage you to find sources to voice this opinion. You may check wikiquote, List of themes#M.

Lastly, I apologize again to Herschel and I thank you and the other editors for not raising the temperature in response to my "uncivil" "squawking".

I didn't actually avoid "irony" -- I moved it to Musical development. "Paradox," on the other hand, I avoided, coming to agree with Opus33 that it was probably too outré for an encyclopedia -- it may constitute original research. I replaced the super-vague "poetic" with a specific quote from Schumann (although, to my mind, "poetic" ought to be a rather precise term, connoting mental activity in a higher mode than the merely logical or symbolic, such as, if I may indulge my POV, Wagner.)

I'd like to disagree with Hyacinth on equating "profundity" with "art." I think most readers would disagree that there is a greater degree of subjectivity in the definition of "art" (that does not mean that I personally would agree.) I think the operative phrase here is "a more complex relationship between emotions and ideas," which I do not think is necessarily insulting to pop music. I believe (having been there and done that) that most practioners of pop music believe that their main objective is to express emotions of a personal sort, rather than to make universal and world-historic observations about Man and Nature. Of course, there is plenty of music defined as Classical that is rather pedestrian as well -- but the exceptions are, well, exceptional. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:58, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First, notice the distinction between pop music and popular music.

I realized, and your above comments confirmed that another problem is that these claims are out of place. They do not belong in the "Classical music and popular music" section, but in "The nature of classical music" section. The boldest of claims made there would have much less chance of being insulting, privileging, and belittling because they would not be in comparison to something made to seem lesser. Rather than saying, "Classical music is more profound than popular music", which is insulting, try "Classical music is profound."

Whatever the opinion of "pop" musicians, or even "popular" musicians (to the contrary see Selling out and Credibility), these opinions must be verifiable, and thus cited. This is much preferable to a supposed summary of those opinions by someone who identifies themselves as not being one. Hyacinth 21:24, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely that this ought to be moved into the "nature of classical music section" -- although, part of the nature of classical music would be found in that which distinguishes it from other kinds of music. It's a subtle and contentious question, perhaps roughly analogous to the distinction between poetry and prose (an analogy for which I apologize in advance to anyone who finds it offensive). Incidentally, the Schumann quote, in context, is where he is complaining (privately, to Clara) about the mundane nature of much of what passed for classical music in his day, as opposed to his own attempts to compose something more meaningful.

One comment on Opus33's edit: I don't see posing modulation as one of the "other differences in complexity," since it usually takes place in the service of development.

This is an interesting editing task that will hopefully be a successful team effort. --Herschelkrustofsky 00:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, the day before yesterday I had a discussion (one of those evening discussions) with a friend of mine about a related issue. The discussion started with that we both stated "Music is very, very important for me." and then continued to investigate the differences (she only listens to popular music). I stated that for me music does not accompany a practice (social or other), but that regarding music as art means for me that I regard a musical piece as something standing for itself which asks for being explored, examined and interpreted (note that the question of emotionality is orthogonal here!). I compared it to reading a book: I sit down to listen to a musical piece, in the same way and in the same mode as I would sit down to read a novel or a poem. This mode of perception of music was novel to my friend; and my way of putting it seemed unproblematic to her, probably because I put an emphasize on the fact that I don't regard this mode of perception (where art is something that is regarded as außeralltäglich, even if it happens daily) as superior to one in which music is integral and indissoluble part of a form of life (which is true. I don't.)

Of course, this is just one example from a discussion with one particular person and it may by no means be typical. But maybe it hints at a way of expressing the artistic character in classical music that is not insulting. Especially if we make clear that this artistic quality and such a mode of listening is by no means confined to classical music, but just typical.

I think that part of the problems we encounter here is that we are looking for a definition based on absolute criteria -- which is not possible. This is a known issue in philosophy since Wittgenstein. In some cases you can explain terms and concepts (the classical example being the word "game") just by explaining family resemblances. I am preparing an article about that ("family resemblance" in philosophy) because I hope that this might shed some light in to this discussion.

-- Utis 09:41, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent: I think you're on the right track. (I wish we had that word "außeralltäglich" in English--if I understand it correctly, outside-of-the-trivial-daily-commonplace, it's quite precise). As I see it, this is one of the essential defining differences between classical and popular—not universally true by any means but usually true. I know some people who listen to popular music with full attention while not doing anything else, and I know some people who listen to "classical" music in the background, but I think they're relatively the exception. So instead of focusing on an impossible-to-defend value criterion as a distinction, maybe we should focus on the usual approach to the music as the distinction. Interesting ... Antandrus 16:26, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I liked Utis' comments as well, but took them differently. My sense of the "Außeralltäglichkeit" is that the emotional content of the best Classical music is an exception to the kind of emotions that one might experience on a day-to-day basis. Popular music often dwells on romantic or sexual yearnings, frustrations associated with relationships or growing up, and so forth -- whereas the emotional content of Classical music may, one hopes, aspire to more universal, philosphical emotions on the plane of what Schiller calls "das Erhabene" or the Sublime -- the kind of emotion that makes us human in the best sense. I think it may be possible, although not easy, to present this in the article. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:09, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inaccurate generalizations

The article discusses Western classical music as if everything that were true about it were also true of all classical musics. To fix this, I think that this article should be split, so that whats true of most classical music is under 'classical music', and that which is specific to Western classical music is described under 'Western classical music'.

--Johnkarp 08:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think that the disclaimer at the start of the article is quite adequate:

This article is about the broad genre of classical music in the Western musical tradition. For the period of music in the 18th century see Classical music era, for articles on classical music of non-Western cultures, see: List of classical music traditions

--Herschelkrustofsky 14:55, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have two concerns here: ethnocentric bias, and practical issues.

Ethnocentrism: if a user looks up 'classical music' and comes away with the idea that its only a Western phenomenon, I think we'll have failed in giving information on 'classical music'.

Practical concerns: now where does one put info about classical music in general, now that 'classical music' is taken up? There's a similar problem for 'algebra'. What most people think of as 'algebra' is actually only a certain kind of algebra called 'elementary algebra'. Possible solutions they could have done:

• 'algebra' for elementary algebra and 'algebra in general'/'what mathematicians call algebra'/etc. for algebra
• 'elementary algebra' for 'elementary algebra' and 'algebra' for algebra

The second way was chosen. For similar reasons, I think the article on classical music should be called 'classical music' and the article on western classical music should be called 'western classical music'.

--Johnkarp 16:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Hyacinth 21:25, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree totally. This article on Western classical music has a "conflict with the names of other people or things" -- classical music traditions in general ('classical music'), and ought to be fixed. Classical music as defined by the Grove dictionary of music: "(i) formal discipline, (ii) model of excellence" -- note no references to the Western tradition. Or the Oxford English Dictionary: "‘Classic’ is used in two senses. In the one it means, having permanent interest and value...In the second sense...music written in a particular style, aiming at the embodiment of a certain ideal, the chief element of which is beauty of form...In classical music, in this sense, form is first and emotional content subordinate; in romantic music content is first and form subordinate." -- ditto, no references to the Western tradition.

So, to sum up, not only is it inaccurate, POV, and against naming guidelines to say that classical music equals western classical music, the Grove Dictionary of Music and the OED share support my definition.

--Johnkarp 22:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please note I did not express an opinion, but simply pointed all interested parties to an applicable policy/guideline. Hyacinth 22:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can go either way. Fair amount of redirect work to be done if consensus is to change the name of the article, but I see the point about "classical music" being ethnocentric. Btw, I think the OED definition does implicitly refer to western classical tradition in that "second sense" definition Johnkarp quoted because it contrasts "classical" with "romantic" which is specifically a western stylistic dichotomy. Antandrus 22:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the OED does appear to mistakenly call European influenced classical music "classical music", the same "mistake" wikipedia currently makes. Hyacinth 23:07, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

OK. Do people agree with the Grove definition then?

It was actually that definition which caused me to bring this up... originally I was just going to insert that def at the top of the article.... but it struck me as odd to give that definition but then go on to discuss only part of what was implied. Then I thought why not say that this article was about only Western classical music, if you wanted info on anything else you should click through to another article. Then that struck me as blatantly ethnocentric -- why should the other great traditions be relegated to secondary pages.

I'm sorry about coming across as combative, I feel like I'm entering hostile territory here :) I do like Western classical music, and I'm willing to fix any links that could be broken in doing what I suggest.

--Johnkarp 00:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So how do people feel about it now? --Johnkarp 05:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I support and propose a move to "European influenced classical music". Hyacinth 06:06, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why do like that more than 'Western classical music'? IMHO, 'European influenced' isn't very precise... Indian and Arabic classical music have been influenced by European/American classical music, and visa versa. --Johnkarp 08:25, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think there is a need for further disambiguation here. The "Classical" in the European/Western tradition is not just a reference to "serious music with a long formal tradition," but also a specific philosophical reference to the Greek classical period, one might say to Socrates. Perhaps this should be incorporated, carefully, in the "nature of Classical music" section. The same does not apply to art music of other cultures. I think it would be misleading to say that European/Western/etc. Classical music is simply one among many classical traditions. --Herschelkrustofsky 13:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am not convinced that, say, Chinese or Indian or Arabic music don't have their own accompanying philosophical traditions. So I don't think that this claim is valid.

Nevertheless "Western classical music" is not accurate. That specific musical tradition has its origins in Europe, of course, but nowadays it is not just European or "Western" anymore. By that I am not only thinking of performers, but of composers. The works of people like Toshio Hosokawa or Toru Takemitsu clearly belong into that musical tradition commonly known as "classical music", but to call them "Western" seems ... very inappropriate.

But "European influenced" isn't it either. After thinking about it twice, I think I know what Hyacinth meant, but it sounds awkward and people will be puzzled and wonder what this is supposed to mean.

Actually, all this is a new version of the discussion at the top of this talk page. It springs from different uses of the word "classical". "classical" meaning either "3 a: of, relating to, or being music in the educated European tradition [...]", "4a: authoritative, traditional" (Merriam-Webster for "classical") or "serving as a standard of excellence : of recognized value" (Meriam-Webster for "classic"). It is not the same usage of the word "classical" in "classical music" (without further specification) compared to "classical Chinese music". One could circumvent that by talking about "art music" like it discussed (and rejected for the right reasons) at the top of this talk page, or by talking about "music, the art of", like the Britannica does. "Classical Western music" could redirect to that page. Anyways, when people are looking for "artistic music in that tradition which has its origins in Europe" they will look under "classical music".

How about just leaving it as it is and state even more clearly at the top of this page what it is about and what the problems using that term are?

--- Utis 15:04, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course Arabic, Chinese and Indian music have their own philosophical traditions. But the philosophies of say, Ibn Sina, Confucius or the Vedas are generally not called "Classical philosophy" -- that is usually (but not always -- see Classical) reserved for Greece (and probably should extend to the Egyptians who paved the way for the Greeks.) So, I am referring to a definition of "Classical" other than the ones you cite from Merriam-Webster -- although I agree with your proposal. --Herschelkrustofsky 20:21, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But classical music isn't Classical Greek at all. Where are the panpipes, lyres and frame drums in classical music? The characteristic odd meters? If you mean influenced by classical Greek philosophy, then all music of Europe is classical, and then what about the Japanese composers mentioned above?

About calling it 'art music' or 'the art of music': if you think defining classical music is hard, try defining art :). --Johnkarp 01:49, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, the Classical music era (big C) attempted, like the "eras" directly preceeding it, to align itself with the Classicism of Antiquity, but this does not apply to all classical music (little c). This confusion, between "classical music traditions", "classical music" and between "classical music" and "Classical music", is one of the reasons I support Johnkarp's or my own proposal (how quickly "classical music traditions" becomes the western one, and how quickly western classical music becomes the Classical era, or at the least each is used to typify or be exemplary of the last).

Also, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading (For example: "tidal wave" would be a misleading title since these phenomena have nothing to do with tides), then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative (tsunami, for example)."

This would appear to be an exemplary case. Hyacinth 07:16, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hm, maybe. I am not convinced about the latter, but I don't want to start nitpicking. It's not as if I particularly liked the term "classical music", it's just that I find the alternatives worse (including "art music", much as I'd prefer that term myself). "European influenced classical music" or "The classical music tradition which started in Europe" would be precise, but I don't think that people would easily find it, if they are just vaguely looking for "Like Mozart or Prokofiev. You know. With orchestra, or with strings or piano. Stuff like 'the spring offering'"

"Western classical music" is the least worse option in this respect. But I am really a bit concerned about Eastern composers here. Would it be appropriate to say "Toshio Hosokawa writes Western classical music, but he does not write Western music."? If so, then I think "Western classical music" might be o.k.. It sounds rather awkward in my ears, though.

--- Utis 14:27, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Intro

Why is there no introduction? There was one once. Hyacinth 01:40, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It was vandalism; I'm trying to fix it but the database is being difficult tonight. Antandrus 02:17, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Still not a proper introduction. Hyacinth 00:47, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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)

• Have a gander over yonder Glossary of music performance directions; I've combined pertinent sections from the old Musical terminology as well as large sections of Italian musical terms as well as Tempo. Feel free to help clean up :) --bleh fu 04:20, 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)

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)

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)

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).

--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)

Straw poll: what is "the most common name?"

Poll

(Just indicate what you think is the most common name... we'll worry about grouping or counting when and if it becomes necessary) Dpbsmith (talk) 17:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note 1: Voting for X as "the most common name" is not a vote to name the article X. As Hyacinth points out, the most common name is not always the appropriate name for an article. All I'm trying to do here is to find out what people think is the most common name. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note 2: If you happen to believe that both questions have the same answer, say so. Ambiguity happens. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is "the most common name" for the genre of music, in the educated European tradition, performed e.g. by symphony orchestras?

• "Classical music." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "Classical music". --Carnildo 20:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "Classical music." --Wetman 21:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "Classical music." Robin klein 02:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "Classical music." Antandrus 02:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "Classical music." Tuf-Kat 03:31, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• It depends upon which group you're talking about (the most common term, if you really did a poll of everyone in the English-speaking world, could well be somthing like 'that snobby music', or worse). Among many people, serious music and art music are both commonly used. Classical music is certainly very commonly used, though most people who know anything about it at least recognise its inaccuracy, even if they don't refuse to use or acknowledge it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is "the most common name" for, collectively, the genres of highly developed art music of all cultures?

• There isn't any. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I don't know of any. --Carnildo 20:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• "World music" if you're buying CDs --Wetman 21:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Yeah, I thought of that—but the "world music" bins also include folk music. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC))

• If by "highly-developed art music", you mean the musicological definition of classical music, then "classical music" is the most common name Tuf-Kat 22:28, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• There is no common term to collectively refer to all so called 'highly developed art music' across cultures. Robin klein 02:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Art music or classical music are both in use. World music applies to popular music. Stirling Newberry 03:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• I'm afraid that Stirling Newberry is wrong here; see, for example, the BBC Music Magazine, or the BBC's output in general. World music is used as a catch-all term (and a pretty silly one at that). Still, I agree that classical music is again (if rather sloppily) the most common term for the art music of different cultures. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

How about coining a new term for all these highly developed music across cultures-- Chauvinistic musics or elitist music. Indian elitist music??.

highly developed?? is Pink Floyd Junk?? Is Andre Previn Jazz compositions inferior to his 'classical compositions'??, Is Philip glass "Einstein on the beach" superior to "Satyagraha"??. What would you call Bela bartok - classical folk?? or Folk classical??. Who defines what is highly developed??, sounds like 19th century and early 20th century chauvinism in evolutionary sciences and biology --"man the highest developed". Only to be knocked out by Stephen Jay Gould and the even humbler Punctuated equilibrium. didn't it already happen with classical music - my beloved atonalism and, the humble minimalism....... "highly deveopled" -- when will classical music leave its elitism?? and yes why dont you redirect "Indian classical music" and "Hindustani classical music" as Hindustani Sangeet its original name. That would be a change from Chauvinism and a great service to wikipedia.

Besides the current term European classical music is better than Western classical music. whatever "west" means?? western who?? western where??. What about European written music or even better the old fashioned Classical music Robin klein 02:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Blame me for that phrase "highly developed art music." I was trying to find some description that a) expressed clearly what I meant, and b) didn't include the word "classical." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• (By the way you are mistaken about humans having been considered "highly developed" or "highly evolved." 19th and 20th century zoologists never regarded humans as the most highly evolved species. On the contrary, because adult humans show less difference from the embryonic state than other mammals, they were usually placed near the base of the mammalian evolutionary tree, with the Artiodactyls considered to be the most highly evolved). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)? Hyacinth 23:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. But does this mean that you agree that "classical music" is the most common name, but feel that this is a case where it is inappropriate to use the most common name? I think I understand some of the issues, but weigh them differently. To take an analogy from a different field:

How do you feel about the article entitled Starfish? Should Asteroid become a disambiguation to Asteroid (astronomy) and Asteroid (zoology) with Starfish redirecting to Asteroid (zoology)? Is "Starfish" acceptable at all, or is it our duty to reserve the word "fish" for the vertebrate class Pisces and expunge Starfish entirely as a vulgar misnomer? Should we insist that our readers use the phrase Sea star? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do biologists actually refer to starfish as asteroids?

Indeed, they do. In fact the American Heritage Dictionary, which I use as a sort of touchstone for the boundary where "precision" leaves off and "specialized, technical language" or "pedantry" begins, says: "1. Astronomy: Any of numerous small celestial bodies that revolve around the sun, with orbits lying chiefly between Mars and Jupiter and characteristic diameters between a few and several hundred kilometers. Also called minor planet, planetoid. 2. Zoology: See starfish." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Even if so, the situation still wouldn't be a very good analogy. If starfish referred most commonly to the broad category, members of Class Asteroidea, but specialists in the field (asteroidologists?) used it to refer specifically to a family within the lay grouping of starfish, while more general biologists used the word to mean aquatic invertebrate animal -- that would be a closer analogy. Tuf-Kat 03:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

My point is that it would be insanely pedantic to insist on using the term "asteroid" for the article on starfish, with or without disambiguation. I don't think current situation with the names of the classical music articles is insanely pedantic, but I do think that it has motivated more by editors wanting to make it clear that they are knowledgeable about proper terminology than with service to our readers.

For purposes of discussion, it might be useful to give names to the three ambiguous meanings of "classical music:" the "lay" meaning ("educated European tradition"); the "musicological" definition (I'm relying on you here). Now, what to call the third meaning, "Haydn-and-Mozart-as-opposed-to-Liszt-and-Rachmaninoff?" Is the full phrase "classical music" really ever used in this way? Certainly one might say "Haydn was a classical composer" or "Mozart was a composer of the classical era," but would someone say "The New York Philharmonic is doing something a little unusual tonight: they're having a programme that is all classical music?" Dpbsmith (talk) 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My point/question was: why are we taking a survey about what the most common name is? Could this have been established by discussion, and one it is established by poll, what does that information mean?

To answer you're question: I think that classical music is probably the most common term used when people talk about European art music, but that the most common contemporary (contemporary as in now) definition of classical music would include all art music. If you asked, "Does China have classical music?" (or "did?") I think most people would say "yes." However, I currently have no way of knowing the answers to either of these questions, at least none that is acceptable as an article source, such as my opinion or any poll or test I myself do.

Other questions I think we should ask, and may answer without sources, include:
"How much harder is it to find European classical music now?"
"How much more clear is the meaning of the term classical music made now?"
"What are other navigational advantages or disadvantages?"
"What should the templates and categories be titled?"
Hyacinth 21:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My answers are, it's currently not that hard to find European classical music. Let me call the three meanings of classical "musicological," "common," and "Haydn-Mozart." The Haydn-Mozart meaning is currently called Classical music era and is linked from the others, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that.

• the current situation is that Classical music refers to the musicological meaning but begins by defining and linking to the others
• the common meaning is treated under an artificial title which I dislike and which nobody actually uses.

• • Obviously, my preference is that it be the other way around, i.e.

• Classical music should refer to the common meaning and begin by defining and linking to the others; as a result,
• the musicological meaning would then need to get a somewhat artificial title.

I can't pretend it makes a lot of difference though.

The biggest problem I have with the current situation is that "European classical music" is not a term that anyone commonly uses. It's rather like the situation that persisted for months, where an article was titled Analogue disc record because nobody could agree on "phonograph record" or "gramophone record."

In any event, suspecting that things might end up staying as they are, I've made myself happier by wordsmithing the "disambiguation lead" in the current Classical music.

OK, I've said my say. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat's proposal

I'll go along with pretty much whatever the consensus is, but I think there should be three articles:

• Classical music era: as it exists now, but preferably with a better title
• Classical music: the musicological definition, referring to a style taught through formal education (I'm pretty sure that's the most common definition)
  • The American Heritage Dictionary doesn't think so. As noted above, their definition is:
    • 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. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I was unclear -- I meant that formal education is the most common characteristic musicologists use to separate classical music from folk or popular, not that this definition is the most common definition of classical music in general. Tuf-Kat 03:11, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Western classical music: the Western European tradition of classical music (I could live with the current title though)

Tuf-Kat 22:28, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Google search for "large classical music audience" turns up 1.8 or 1.9 million pages, but "fewer classical music listeners" only turns out 44,100 pages. Can you explain this?

Hmm... Is there some context to your question that I am missing? Presumably, the reason for the results is that nearly two million pages use the words "large classical music audience" and about 44000 use "fewer classical music listeners". I can't say I'm shocked. Tuf-Kat 23:52, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

What do you propose as an improvement for "Classical music era", and what is wrong with it? "Classical period (music)" has been suggested on Talk:Classical music era. Hyacinth 01:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think that's any better, and have no better suggestion. See that talk page. Tuf-Kat 02:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why is "Western" preferable to "European"? Hyacinth 01:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have never really known what is supposed to be the referent for the word "Western" in "Western civilization," "Western canon," etc. I'm guessing that it either has something to do with the Western part of the Roman empire, or with the Western versus Eastern parts of the Catholic church. I don't think it has to do with which side of the Greenwich meridian you're on, though I could certainly be wrong... Anyone care to enlighten me? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's very imprecise, to say the least, and may be related to Occident vs. Orient (places such as Asia Minor and Egypt were considered "oriental" at least as late as the 11th edition Britannica). If the Roman empire/church split were to be the source I'd expect Russia to be considered non-western, but it isn't, really. Can't enlighten you further, sorry... I guess I prefer "European." Antandrus 01:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I only prefer "Western" because I think it's more common in this context, not because it makes more sense (neither title is really great from a logical standpoint, since there are i.e. Japanese composers and performers of whatever you want to call this style). It gets more google hits, though I'm sure the search is imprecise (Wikipedia is top 3 for both searches!). Tuf-Kat 01:56, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Western world explains that the East/West division was initially a Ancient Greek and Roman thing, and that Occident literally means "west". Western is definitely preferable to Occident in my opinion. Hyacinth 03:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Damn, that Wiccan-internet-encyclopedia thingie is good. Maybe I should bookmark it. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Harrison's proposal

Lou Harrison divides the world, musically and culturally, into Pacifica and the Atlantic. Thus, rather than Europe and the United States being in "Western music" and Asian, African, Australian music in "Eastern music", he groups the United States west coast with Asia and Australia and the United States east coast with Europe and Africa (or just west Africa, I forget). Hyacinth 01:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as folk music goes, that's kind of reasonable, I guess, though dividing the world into only two sections is arbitrary and probably not very informative. You should add his division to cultural area, though, as it's interesting that he does so. Tuf-Kat 02:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does anybody actually have a proposal that they feel strongly is the best? It seems like there's really no great way to untangle this, and everyone's kind of blandly putting forth half-hearted suggestions because no one's come up with anything better. Tuf-Kat 02:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

• • I think now it is better to stick with the current title, it seems to be the best possible compromise. European and NOT western and also classical music. So lets just keep it as European classical music. Robin klein 03:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think I feel pretty strongly about what I don't want, though I do not have a strong specific preferance. Hyacinth 03:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

European classical music is fine with me, though I'd be OK with Western classical music as well, if consensus emerges for that name. Antandrus 03:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've said my say. As an outsider/interloper on this page, I defer to the people who are actually putting in real work on the article. What's important to me is that someone who types in "classical music," meaning the ordinary lay/dictionary sense, a) gets to where they want to go easily, and b) gets a simple explanation of why they aren't there already. That's true now. The present situation mumble fulminate pedantry mumble mumble isn't to my heart's desire but isn't worth fussing about. As for the title of European classical music it's certainly not worth fussing about because there is no clearly better title except "classical music." It doesn't matter which artificial title is used, because it will be found by searching or linking, never by typing it in directly. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Francis' proposal

This morning I moved some older stuff of my user talk page to talk:classical music, and added an intro to that same page with some comments regarding the talk on this present "European classical music" talk page.

To summarise my proposal:

• Classical music as a disambiguation page;
• Start from how terms are used (wikipedia is descriptive), not from definitions that are afterwards linked to wikipedia article names;

Further, the definition that draws a line between "Folk/popular" music and "classical" music is only one of the uses of the term "classical music": in many contexts this is not wat is understood by "classical music".

I'm gonna do some (maybe "bold") editing of the classical music page in this sense. We'll see where that gets us (without being able to promise an "instant solution"...).

--Francis Schonken 15:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question to classical editors regarding lists

I was recently working on the List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin, which is in a table format, but have since noticed that most compositional lists are not in tables, the most obvious exception being the Köchel-Verzeichnis list of Mozart's works. Anyway, before I go and alter the List of works by Scriabin, could you advise me as to whether editing that into table-form would be a good or bad idea. If it's the consensus opinion I'd be happy to revert the list of Chopin works to non-tabulated form. Any input will be greatly appreciated. Mallocks 22:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we have any standard for this, though we could bring it up, perhaps, at one of the Wikiprojects (maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers)? Most of the time when I make lists of compositions I don't put them in table format (seems a tad more trouble than it's worth) but some lists are that way. I'd be happy to hear some other opinions too. Antandrus 23:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

My feeling is that these lists are better as a bulleted list, simply because they are easier on the eye and look more Wikipedian - I think tables actually make the info a bit less clear.

For example, my preference for the Chopin list mentioned would be like this:

• 12 Études à son ami Mme la Comtesse d'Agoult, Op. 25 (1832-1836)
  • No. 1 in A flat (1836)
  • No. 2 in F minor (1836)
  • No. 3 in F (1836)
  • No. 4 in A minor (1832-1834)
  • …

I certainly agree with Antandrus that tables are not worth the effort. I'd be interested in reading others' opinions, too. --RobertG 11:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Given that the table there is specifically organised by Opus number, I'd say that at the very least that should be the first thing that one sees, the format as you put it makes more sense for arrangement by piece, to my mind at any rate. The effort point isn't actually one that I consider important, I think that the presentation is the most important aspect here, my overall point being that without staying with one system or another, the lists we create are no more useful than those available on the internet that we use as sources. As I commented over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, the Mozart K number listing at the very least must remain in tabulated form, it would not work as well without, and it was on that template that I based the Chopin list, and now the Purcell. I should stress though that as I've stated before, I will be happy to accept any consensus. Mallocks 12:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Maybe: ok, perhaps opus number first! But if the opus number were in bold (as in my example), and the pieces are sorted by opus number, that would be clear enough for me - I think clearer than a table. I tried it out here to check that I wasn't completely off topic. At the least I think the column headings are redundant.

And even without any formatting whatever the lists are of much greater use than other internet sources, as they link to other Wikipedia content, and the information in them is more thoroughly checked, no doubt.  :-)

I think I've had my 2 pence/cents worth on this topic now - what does anyone else think? --RobertG 13:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to Wikipedia Composers Project. --RobertG 14:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Re-write

I reverted a big re-write by an editor who did not describe the editing or the resaons for it. The editing seemed to introduce POV without attribution, among other things. In any case, this is a mature, heavily-edited article and it would be best if the editor would please explain his or her edits. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I Can't Believe this article

I can't believe this article is serious. It is supposed to be an unbiased, objective source of information and analysis about Western Classical Music, yet I find that it denigrates classical and idealises pop. The use of language is biased and prejudiced. It provides little information about classical music, and the information there is is outweighed by the information about pop.

This article is a disgrace, it should have no place in a serious enclycloedia, and it should be removed and replaced with something more useful, unbiased, and informative.

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.