Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Contemporary music task force/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

Proposed changes to lead section

Addendum - both discussions are now archived here and here

At the request of Kleinzach (in this discussion and this discussion), I have drafted a new lead section for this project's main page. It was felt that the present lead did not adequately define the scope and terms of reference for the project. I hope to tidy these issues up, with your help. The first draft of the new lead can be found at User:Jubileeclipman/WikiProject Contemporary music lead. Thank you. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My main problem here, and I know I'm out in the cold on this, is the overabundance of the word classical. Can this be solved? Measles (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I voiced my opinion earlier at some point, and here it is again: if this project covers post-1975 music exclusively, who is going to cover music by composers such as Cage and Stockhausen? Certainly if I went to WP Classical music and requested assistance with copyediting the article on John Cage, which I have recently rewritten, I'd be told off, because people there work on common practice period articles, sometimes early music, but not Cage, or Stockhausen, or Xenakis, etc. I really can't understand why this project has to limit itself to post-1975 music, especially since the vast majority of listeners would classify all the composers I mentioned, and more (even Webern), as "contemporary music". --Jashiin (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, John Cage comes under the scope of the Composers project, not WP Classical music. I'm sure if you go there you won't be 'told off'. --Klein zach 23:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP Classical music covers "all articles related to classical music, that aren't covered by other classical music related projects" (their emphasis). Contributors to that project that spurn your requests on the basis that they are not covered by the project are plain wrong. The rationale for starting at 1975 is that those composers and movements are generally still alive and need careful handling. They are also often exceptionally difficult to source, since much of there music is very recent. Cage, Stockhausen and Xenakis are now well sourced (try The Rest is Noise by Alex Ross for a good starting point). The 1975 dividing has been chosen since there seems to have been a seismic shift around that time from Modernism to Postmodernism similar to that witnessed earlier between Baroque and Classical. However, I take your point: Modernists' articles need to be properly included and maintained on Wiki... Finally, "Classical" because it is the normal word used to tag "art music", despite the more restricted usage. Use of that latter term would seem perverse. (BTW, the Classical Period should technically be called the Neoclassical Period, since "Classical" refers to Ancient Greece and Rome whose ideals C18th century artists and philosophers tried to emulate. See Classical antiquity. That would cause some interesting problems, however: Neoneoclassical, anyone?) --Jubilee♫clipman 18:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My point was simply that I can't understand how including modernist composers (to use your term) can hurt the project. Members have discussed both pre-1975 and post-1975 music on this very talk page, and if the activity isn't what it used to be, I doubt it's because the scope of the project is too wide. It's just one of those things that happen. And excluding modernist composers most definitely will hurt - not the project, but Wikipedia - because editors involved with modernist composer articles will have no place to discuss such articles. (Yes, maybe you could force all WP Classical members to accept modernist composers as "classical" composers, but I doubt you'd be able to do that without a huge fight, like the fights I've seen so very often on forums, with topics such as "is 4'33" music?", "20th century classical music is not music", etc.).

But then I guess it doesn't matter, since it seems that very few people work on modernist composer articles anyway, so maybe changing the scope here won't affect anyone. --Jashiin (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think it looks good! I do think that all Contemporary Music definitions should be relative, so instead of 1975, maybe "Music of the last forty years"? (my other interest in Early music makes me think of Johannes Tinctoris: "if it wasn't written in the last 40 years, it's crap!"), one could also say, "project members also work on important articles on influential music and figures prior to this (arbitrary) boundary who have a special influence on recent composition." I'd hate to have someone ask for help on an article on "Jesus' Blood" and be told, "go away! that's pre-1975 ('69)" I also would include something like, "The boundary between classical and non-classical music is also ambiguous, and we welcome the overlap with other popular and world music projects that will inevitably occur."

The most important thing a project like this can do is give encouragement to people who are going to need to make tough choices and scary changes, etc. -- reaching out to major figures to ask them if they'd write articles; rewriting from scratch significant articles that were terrible or copyvios (my students and I took on Adams when the article was reduced to a stub b/c of copyvios).

Good luck! too important a project to lay dormant. To the writing! Name an article, let's do it! All the best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

2nd edition

Try this new version: User:Jubileeclipman/WikiProject Contemporary music lead 2. I've split it up. I've also extended the period as per the growing consensus. I am beginning to see how fundamental this project is in relation to the future of Wikipedia... --Jubilee♫clipman 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Jubileeclipman for undertaking this. I'm in favour of limiting the scope to post-1975, or Myke Cuthbert's more flexible 'last 40 years' for which he makes a good case. I'd prefer not to see it extended back to 1945. 20th century music is not only within the scope of the WP Classical music, but also the relatively more active Composers and Opera projects. Taken as a whole these projects have pretty thoroughly covered pre-1975 music and I don't think bannering their efforts (which is what it amounts to) really contributes much to the encyclopedia. It would also make this project lose focus.

I agree with Measles about the 'classical' word problem. I know this is difficult but perhaps we can use the word 'mainstream' (or something similar?) to qualify 'classical', in the sense of 'so-called classical, i.e. mainstream'. --Klein zach 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

'Contemporary classical music' has always been a problem re: nomenclature in so far as it has been used to describe contemporary 'art music' often composed by living composers or within a generation. However, it remains a clumsy and contradictory classification for obvious reasons - the 'Classical' style having been well postulated by Charles Rosen et al. Guilds and Societies still use the term though making it difficult to change. 'Contemporary art music' would also upset a few feathers no doubt. As for post 1975 as a qualifier - most probably would find that somewhat arbitrary. Certainly, I've always felt it started with aleatoric music, graphic scores, performer/audience interaction, computer generated music (ring modulation), etc. which would put the date a little earlier. Mid sixties to 1970 but there is no general consensus on this that I am aware of. In short; nobody likes the term or can give a clear and critical analysis of where to demarcate as the term was 'faded' into usage (mind you - if you could find the origin of the term and its first official usage it would be interesting). Ernstblumberg (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been working extensively on the other sections of the project page and note that many of the flagged articles actually relate to pre-1975; indeed, Second Viennese School, for one, relates to pre-WWII! That was another consideration in extending the period (loosely, indeed). As regards "classical", that is easily remedied: just remove most of the refs to it. Eg Contemporary classical -> Contemporary. As long as the actual boundary has been clearly marked out in the lead we don't need to go there. I need to do that actually, since my lead says: "All music-related articles covering the period from 1945 to the present day. Also, any articles directly related to but not explicitly covered by this period". All music?! Oops... --Jubilee♫clipman 01:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

3rd Edition

Latest version - User:Jubileeclipman/WikiProject Contemporary music lead 3 (Using the "40-years or so" approach, extended slightly, and minimising "classical".) --Jubilee♫clipman 01:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

An improvement! But if we use the formula "that are not already covered by other projects" it will exclude all composers and operas. Do we want to do that? The only project I know that takes this approach is ClassMusic. --Klein zach 02:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Far less work... ;) Seriously, though, we need to avoid conflict with those other projects. Perhaps the "collaboration" bit, lower down, needs emphasising instead? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've edited the latest version: Kleinzach is right about the exclusion problem. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I should explain that in the case of the Composers project, they invariably defer to more specialized groups, so for example opera composers come under 'Opera', and music theatre composers are handled by 'Music Theatre' etc. I'm sure they would also be happy if this project took the lead on contemporary composers. (The relationship with Opera would be more collaborative. They have excellent style guidelines.)--Klein zach 03:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Further note: I'll be away again for several days, so no more editions till I'm back. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose all proposals. "Contemporary classical music" is a clearly understood term, comprising the "modern" classical music since the end of the Late Romantic, until the present, though also influenced by world music, rock, jazz, etc. Thus, it includes Antheil, Russolo, Stravinsky, Ligeti, Adams, Branca, et al. Badagnani (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose all proposals. I'm with Badagnani on this one, though perhaps with a slightly different emphasis. Wikipedia is not supposed to be promoting original research, even if that original research is being carried out by a group of editors. The expression "contemporary music" is admittedly vague, and the time-frame varies by context, but the almighty Reliable Sources do favor Badagnani's definition—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. Unfortunately, Kohl may be right about the weight of popular sources supporting the notion of something called contemporary classical music but according to the texts I've seen on the matter it most definitely does not stretch back to the late Romantic era. Have you guys got cites for this claim? There may be an issue using it as an article title, but I fail to see what the problem with using it in a mission statement might be. I would also like to see sourcing on this claim that 1975 is a pivotal date and that it marked some kind of paradigmatic shift. Again, I can't find explicit mention of this anywhere, can someone point me to a source? Thanks. Measles (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Support. Let's keep our feet on the ground here! 'Contemporary' is a common English word. We don't need to refer to some school text written X years ago to determine what it means. Regarding 1975, see the previous comments of Jubileeclipman and Myke Cuthbert which I think address this question. --Klein zach 14:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

it doesn't really address the 1975 question I'm afraid, and I still haven't found a source that supports this notion? any pointers? Measles (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the '3rd Edition' doesn't mention 1975 precisely because of doubts about that date's significance. Does that help? --Klein zach 13:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. However Shostakovich died in 1975 and Britten in 1976. --Klein zach 13:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment:I recognise Badagnani's and Jerome Kohl's objections but suspect this issue will simply go round in circles (ie is it with or without classical?) unless actual citations are produced that uneqivocally state that one or other term is the one preferred by the bulk of musicologists, composers, performers etc. I actually suspect that there is no clear consensus on this. Note though that the project's very name is "WikiProject Contemporary music". Are we also questioning that? I'm not sure what OR I am introducing, BTW: JK will need to point this out so it can be rectified immeadiately. Regarding 1975, I've actually ditched it in favour of a more vague period (written in the past 50 years or so); this was done precisely to avoid any question of the validity of particular dates. The present vague period is arbritary. I do point out the oft-stated fact that the present period is most often called Postmodern, if it is ever actually given a name. That statement could be removed, if deemed irrelevent or OR. Finally, would Measels like to join the project? You make some very useful and thought provoking comments that would be welcomed here more often! --Jubilee♫clipman 21:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC) PS I will be without any internet connection from the end of this month until further notice: I am moving and the phone has been cut off already. Others will have to continue this debate without me until I can reconnect. I am at my mother's with the PC for the next few days and I will contribute as and when until I return home. From that point on I will not be around for a potentially long time. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

To expand on my previous comment, this project is not part of the encyclopedia, it's not an article or series of articles. For that reason we don't need to validate it's name and description with citations etc. What we decide to do is a matter of (our) choice. The project name and description should be appropriate (and facilitate the kind of editing we think desirable) but they don't need to be based on printed sources. No other project (that I know of) does this. It would be ridiculous if we went down this path. --Klein zach 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To repond to Jubileeclipman's points: First, it does seem to me that the definition of what is "contemporary music" has got to be tied to the article on this subject, which presently gives two "actual citations" for the date back to which "contemporary" is to be calculated: Leon Botstein's Grove Music Online article "Modernism" (favoring a mid-1970s date), and the article "Contemporary" by Paul Du Noyer, in his Illustrated Encyclopedia of Music. Jubileeclipman is quite correct to say there is no clear consensus, and it is also true that neither of these sources makes any claim about the preference of the bulk of musicologists, etc. (who, in my experience, avoid such definitions like the proverbial plague). The OR question is to do precisely with this matter: trying to make a hard-and-fast definition. Of course, for the purpose of this project (as Kleinzach rightly points out) we can define "contemporary" any way we like—so long as we don't end up getting up somebody's nose by interfering with other projects, of course—but I think we need to take a hard look at the definition as presented in the article Contemporary classical music, as well. I like the vagueness of "within the last fifty years or so", but this did lead to some problems when the project was first launched.

Just to clarify my position on an issue raised by Measles, in case I have been mistaken as the source: I did not say (or mean to imply) that "contemporary" stretches back to include the late Romantic era (which would mean as early as about 1840, and as late as 1920 or so—that terminus date being another mess that needs to be sorted out, but in the Romantic music article, thankfully, and not a concern for us here).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I get it now: people are confusing several issues. (In "people" I include me.) First, Contemporary music: to reiterate Kleinzach's comments, we are at present solely concerned about this project and its scope not any one particular article; for example, the Contemporary classical music article does need work but it is not the focus of this discussion. (I believe the fudged definition in that article is necessary since it brings out the very issue we are grappling with: removing any part of it will create OR or POV.) Second, again to reiterate Kleinzach's comments, we need to define the scope of this project on our terms but in the most inclusive way possible, inclusive of people that is not of time periods: in other words, what ever (arbitrary) time period we define must be acceptable to as many people involved in the project as possible. Third, sourcing: actually, this project—and in particular this talkpage—is the precise place to put forward POV and OR so that they can be sourced/unPOVed/unORed and included in Wiki articles, if necessary. Finally, this project is independent of the CCM article and is in no way tied to its definitions: we actually define its definitions, if anything... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm back: any further thoughts?

Is the 3rd edition up to scratch enough to replace the present text? Jubilee♫clipman 21:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes --Klein zach 23:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Done -- Jubilee♫clipman 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Two oppose votes plus two support votes equals "yes"? Great decision making skills. Good luck with the project. --Jashiin (talk) 10:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There was never a "vote" per se: opinions were expressed on certain aspects of the text and these were then dealt with as best as possible. I left it for several weeks (while I was offline) and no more was said so it seemed a good time to make a bold decision and replace the original text. I suspect we never really fully covered your time period anyway, though Xenakis and Stockhausen are still covered in the definition "written in the past 50 years or so". Hope to see you back soon. Regards. --Jubilee♫clipman 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Assessments/importance scale

Two-thirds of the articles here lack even nominal assessments, however, unlike the other classical music projects, we also have an 'importance scale'. The latter has never be maintained, so I'm suggesting we remove it. Is that OK? Or does somebody see a use for the scale (and presumably is willing to service it!). --Klein zach 01:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Importance is relative and is usually assessed well after the fact. How important is John Adams in the grand scheme? At present: very. In the future: who knows. The scale is irrelevant, IMO, remove it. Everything is "important" to us! --Jubilee♫clipman 04:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've removed the 'importance scale' from the template. --Klein zach 07:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nonpop

Is Nonpop a viable article? Any opinions? --Klein zach 02:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The lead is horrendous, though I see the point. Play aroud with it see what happens: if it fails to grow delete it. I'll add it to "Articles needing attention" --Jubilee♫clipman 04:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Recruitment

Now that this project is being revived, should we put an invitation for new members on related project pages? --Klein zach 02:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, though we also need to reach out to some members who seem to have been alienated recently... --Jubilee♫clipman 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, though it needs to be emphasized that we are trying to get the show back on the road. No music period is going to be neglected because we are working closely with the other projects, Classical music, Composers and Opera. The objective now is to encourage the writing and development of a set of articles that can be properly maintained and looked after. --Klein zach 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

With reference to a need to "reach out to some members who seem to have been alienated recently", I hope this doesn't include me. I've not checked in on this page much recently, simply because I've been too busy editing articles, largely contemporary music ones. Sorry to have been so unsociable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Sociable" and "Editing" are mutually exclusive. ;) No I didn't mean you: I can see you're hard at work and thank you! --Jubilee♫clipman 16:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Quartal and quintal harmony

(From thoughts I sent to Kleinzach)
The article appears to have multiple issues which go way beyond the overabundance of musical examples. While the quality of writing, of itself, is excellent, the actual content appears to be full of inconsistencies and irrelevancies. As I understand it, Quartal Harmony relates to harmony that is based on fourths; the article discusses melody and uses Beethoven's 0p.110, Bach's Inventions and other music written in "Tertian Harmony" as examples of what might be called "Quartal Melody", to coin a phrase. Many of the musical examples are related to that; indeed the article itself contrasts Quartal and Tertian. I'm not even sure if Perotin's fourths and fifths are relevant here, since he mainly uses them in a melodic sense and only between two parts (the third part being a drone). In the sense I understand it, Quartal Harmony was first fully explored by Scriabin based on harmonic ideas he found in Liszt and Wagner (the Tristan chord, for example). It has been exploited ever since by Modernists and Postmodernists. If am right, then the article is full of errors and badly in need of an overhaul. Furthermore, the article is mainly a direct translation of the German page (accomplished by Rainwarrior) as it stood in 2006 - and as it still stands for the most part... Both articles appear to have been accepted as correct for all that time: for that reason I am reluctant to edit it yet. Maybe Quartal Harmony really does include melody? Two minds...!

Please contribute to this discussion at Talk:Quartal and quintal harmony. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 20:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Perotin example needs to go. The harmonic intervals of the time are measured against the tenor (the drone). Perotin and esp. the substitute discant clausulae of the time could be used as examples of quartal harmony at times (as could the earliest parallel organum), but this example is totally wrong. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 10:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Myke. I've answered you on the talk page --Jubilee♫clipman 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles marked as ours?

Several assessed articles appear to not fall under our definitions.

The following are C-class:

This one is GA-class:

To the Stars (album)

Are they genuinely part of our project or should they be dropped?

--Jubilee♫clipman 02:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

PS Wright did write some quasi-classical stuff (eg "Sysyphus" on Ummagumma) and some of the Jazz men did cross over. Also, "singer-songwriter" has wide connotations. But MTV? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest debannering all of these. We certainly don't cover mass media and I think Jazz is best left to the Jazz project. They probably have a different style of editing and I don't think we should interfere with their work. (Of course if we have 'Joe Smith' who is 80% 'classical' and 20% Jazz then the reverse would apply.) --Klein zach 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done --Jubilee♫clipman 04:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)