Talk:Common practice period: Difference between revisions
:How so? |
|||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:How so? [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] ([[User talk:Hyacinth|talk]]) 00:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
:How so? [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] ([[User talk:Hyacinth|talk]]) 00:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC) |
||
::It is irrelevant and misleading because it is obviously absurd. Is there anybody (except perhaps Walter Piston) who can actually believe, composers of European art music from [[Claudio Monteverdi|Monteverdi]] to [[Debussy]] and [[Richard Strauss|Strauss]] (1600-1900) had for 300 years done nothing more than restricting themselves to using diatonic scales (Since the late 1500s there were chromatic and enharmonic scales besides.) and repeating conventional patterns like the cadence I IV V I? In fact, your article may be taken as description of most trivial styles of pop music, but the approach of composers of art music was absolutely different. In order to verify this, it should be sufficient to take some scores and look into them. You will find that the chord sequence I V IV I was frequently used and much, much more besides. By the way, the "19th century", as period of music history, is most commonly presumed as to have ended with world war I.[[Special:Contributions/80.144.74.112|80.144.74.112]] ([[User talk:80.144.74.112|talk]]) 08:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 08:56, 22 September 2008
 | Classical music | |||
| ||||
Refers to
If you must say "refers to", then your writing about the phrase rather than using the phrase to write about what it refers to. In that case, italicize it. But "refers to" is usually better avoided, since "is" is much simpler. Michael Hardy 23:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I appreciate your advice on grammar, but I feel uncomfortable uncritically stating that, "the Common Practice Period is," well, anything. Unlike the moon, which is, "the largest satellite of the Earth," the Common Practice Period is made up. Anyway to address this without horrid grammar? Hyacinth 01:41, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
How about "The common practice period in music history is the era 1600-1900" (or whatever) or "is an amalgam formed from the Renaissance, Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods" ? --Tdent 21:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anacrustic
'Anacrustic' is indeed a valid word, appearing in the Oxford Dictionary which cites Gerard Manley Hopkins' use of it in 1878 in a letter to Robert Bridges; deriving directly from ανακρουστικος its invention cannot properly be called a 'barbarous'. Stumps 08:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yes Stumps: it is precisely because of that august dictionary's acceptance of the word, and its impeccable classical pedigree, that I retracted my animadversion in the very next edit summary (qv). All the same, the article plunges very suddenly into obscurity after some very lucid lead material, don't you think? It could certainly be made more friendly to non-expert readers. – Noetica 11:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Confusing
This concept of cpp is irrelevant and misleading
- How so? Hyacinth (talk) 00:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- It is irrelevant and misleading because it is obviously absurd. Is there anybody (except perhaps Walter Piston) who can actually believe, composers of European art music from Monteverdi to Debussy and Strauss (1600-1900) had for 300 years done nothing more than restricting themselves to using diatonic scales (Since the late 1500s there were chromatic and enharmonic scales besides.) and repeating conventional patterns like the cadence I IV V I? In fact, your article may be taken as description of most trivial styles of pop music, but the approach of composers of art music was absolutely different. In order to verify this, it should be sufficient to take some scores and look into them. You will find that the chord sequence I V IV I was frequently used and much, much more besides. By the way, the "19th century", as period of music history, is most commonly presumed as to have ended with world war I.80.144.74.112 (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)