Jump to content

Talk:Music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cassa342 (talk | contribs) at 16:55, 12 September 2022 (→‎Music of Zambia: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 3, 2005.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

"Mucic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mucic and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 25#Mucic until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music

Good afternoon I was wondering if anyone could direct me to the right source, or professionals. I have have a few talents hat I can perform mainly relevant to musical arts and could do with as to were to go or talk to? I believe with arts I perform would be widely accepted and appreciated. Bringing fun back into music. Thank you HeadBoy MUNGA (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but we're Wikipedia, the online Encyclopedia. We don't assist in job searches, advertising or promotions. But I wish you luck in finding what you want elsewhere. Haploidavey (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 rehaul

This article has too much fluff. I rewrote the introduction, I think to superior effect. The rest could use some sweeping changes.

The "elements" section needs to be transferred to the "elements of music" page. The section is longer and more detailed than the page itself (uh oh!), and there's no way we can reasonably list all the patterns and motifs that make up global music in one subsection. It does disservice to the depth of the concepts involved.

W. is great for Western classical music, thanks to a cornucopia of sources, but there is a lack of love for everything else - even modern Western music.

What shall we do to improve this article?

RedGrinchJr (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RedGrinchJr, its great to see your enthusiasm here. I rewrote the Etymology and terminology section a week or two ago, and was planning to slowly chip away at the rest of the article. It's difficult to consider what improvements the article should need, since almost every section needs to be written entirely. The main thing is, as you allude to, the too narrow conception of music considered, which results in a both a Western content, and a very non-broad treatment of the subject. Your improvements to the lead (the introduction) are welcome, though the make it very choppy—we should stuck to 3–4 paragraphs, each and try to use less specific examples. At its core, the lead is meant to summarize the article, so it will have to keep changing until the article is rewritten. One place to start might be the Education section, which is way too detailed and confusing—having fields of study together with modern university programs is pointless. Also, talking about different ways to learn music would be much more effective than degree programs, which don't belong in the article at all imo. Aza24 (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The etymology and terminology section is noticeably better than the entire rest of the page.
Lack of sources is a killer. We can raise the issue of Western centrism but it won't change until a bilingual scholar with non-Anglophone sources can bridge the gap. I am woefully unable to do so. The other language Wikipedias might have leads.
I maintain that popular examples of nonstandard works are crucial to prove that a reductive definition like "sounds with pitches and rhythms" cannot encompass all that is commonly called music. It is well established in musicology[citation needed] that music is described and not prescribed, so any assertion about the nature of music must be corroborated with real-world examples of that nature. To that end I have preserved some un-encyclopedic examples from the previous revisions.
Apropos of examples, Wikipedia should downplay controversies about "legitimacy" of what is music and what isn't because these foofaraws solve themselves and never rise to notability - but if we were to devote space to talking about it (not in the intro), these are some helpful examples I removed that could deserve to come back in some form (the context is that each of these pieces or styles were declared "not music" on arrival):
Beethoven's 1845 Grosse Fuge[1]
early 20th century jazz [2]
hardcore punk in the 1980s.[3]
I agree that it would be better to have all this info woven throughout the body, not piled willy-nilly at the start, and that it would not be effective to scatter it throughout the existing text just yet; it's stronger (informatively) to replace batches of bad writing with less bad writing and let it propagate up and down the page. The gestalt article has never fit together well, and it can't accord to itself until its fundamental priorities are straightened out and bolstered with citations. RedGrinchJr (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Watson 2009, 109–10.[incomplete short citation]
  2. ^ Reiland Rabaka. Hip Hop's Amnesia: From Blues and the Black Women's Club Movement to Rap and the Hip Hop Movement. Lexington Books, 2012. p. 103
  3. ^ Manabe, Noriko. The Revolution Will Not Be Televised: Protest Music After Fukushima. Oxford University Press, 2015. p. 163.

In the opening paragraph it mentions music is sometimes organized using meters, but then links to the unit of measurement instead of to the meter (music) page Ellynu (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now it links to Metre (music). Thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sound, the origin of music.

The origin of sound and its derivation towards music should have been placed first, since its derivation is not radical but one or several derivations starting from the first instrument that the human being creates to produce a sound that allows him to be heard at a greater distance than his voice and trying to copy the *birds. And that instrument(s) should have been a wind instrument, like a flute but with only one hole, as it was the easiest to make. And yet, with a single note but with different volume and tempo, songs could be made that were clearly differentiated from the sounds they knew. Later, holes were added and it was at that moment that a "primary musical scale" was created, very rudimentary but effective because it already had several differentiated notes. Given that there are several hypotheses about its origin (sexual, festive, religious...) and as they all have their meaning, I would add that the original sound that created the musical scale materialised in very diverse cultures and different forms, as tribes from New Guinea did not have contact with tribes from Canada or Australia and therefore there is no single point of its creation but an amalgam of situations in which its use was necessary for that specific society.

The use of birds as a means to imitate them is due to their very extensive scale of notes, times and distance of their sounds and their distribution in any part of the planet; this is not the case with the rest of the animals whose notes do not reach that sonic extreme (and even if there were some tribes that managed to imitate a howler monkey or an elephant, they would surely be in the minority with respect to the generalised use). According to current archaeological findings, Chinese music dates back more than 9,000 years, : 

Chinese music dates back 9,000 years. The JiaHu bone flute excavated at the Jiahu site is between 9000 and 7500 years old. [1] Around 7,000 years ago, bone whistles and primitive pottery began to appear everywhere.

zh. wikipedia.org



Jcollmart (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All well and good, but without citing a reliable source, this looks like your own general speculation. Are you proposing a change to the article's text? Just plain Bill (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Si, claro, el artículo debería ser cambiado. Por otra parte si las fuentes de Wikipedia no son fiables (puesto que Wikipedia no es una fuente fiable) ¿qué sentido tiene ponerlas?, pregunto. Jcollmart (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Porque mis fuentes son la Wikipedia de Japón que deriva a Wikipedia de China: zh.wikipedia.org Jcollmart (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English-language Wikipedia; discussions should normally be conducted in English. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, the article should be changed. On the other hand, if Wikipedia's sources are not reliable (since Wikipedia is not a reliable source), what is the point of putting them, I ask? Because my sources are Japan's Wikipedia which derives from China's Wikipedia: zh.wikipedia.org Jcollmart (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use other Wikipedias as sources, period. Please read WP:RS. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

REMA

Rema — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.91.4.126 (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music of Zambia

Hello. I have noticed, that in section see also is link to article Music of Zambia. Please, why this link is here? I think, that It belongs to another articles, for example to article about various musical traditions. So, this link will be removed. Thank You for understanding. Cassa342 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Music&oldid=1109930420"