Talk:Classical music

Archive

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. (preceding unsigned comment by Duncansassoon 30 August 2005)

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 21:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

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. (preceding unsigned comment by Rayford 30 August 2005)

Please see above. Hyacinth 21:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, can you give some examples. I do not find what you describe true regarding this article. Hyacinth 21:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted a re-write, which consists primarily of shortening the article, and removing sections that appear to be artifacts of POV quarrels between proponents of classical and of popular music. I agree with the unsigned comments (are they all from the same person?) to the effect that an article on classical music does not require extensive references to popular music. However, the attempted re-write (by the same person?) that was reverted indulged in a certain amount of editorializing which was also harmful to the article.

I am of the opinion that many Wikipedia articles are too long, because they incorporate material inserted by warring clans of POV pushers. Editors should have some compassion for the average reader, who is hoping only to obtain a basic understanding of the subject matter. --HK 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And of course information about classical music cannot then be mentioned in the popular music article. Where shall this go then?

Also, there were no POV wars between Popular/Classical POVs. Actually, the POV war appears to just be starting. Hyacinth 20:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the term POV - could you explain?

I'm unwilling to give examples, as you request, until you let me know something about the qualifications and studies you have undertaken that allow you to act as an authority on the subject of classical music. This will allow me to know the level at which I need to pitch my answers in addition to being a reasonable question to ask of anyone compiling an encyclopedia article on any subject. Ray Ford. (preceding unsigned comment by Rayford 31 August 2005)

"POV" means point-of-view. Please read WP:NPOV which is the official policy of Wikipedia on the subject, specifically on how articles are to be written. By the way, while some of us have academic qualifications in music, some of our most capable writers on the subject either do not, or do not reveal them. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Ray, I take it poorly that you demand credentials but don't disclose your own, and I take it poorly that you are unwilling to point to any specific problems in the article.
• Please note that nobody here is "acting as an authority" on classical music. Wikipedia articles, like articles in all encyclopedias, are supposed to be secondary sources, drawing their authority from primary sources, not solely on the personal knowledge or stature of their writers. The premise of Wikipedia is that it is possible for people who are not authorities to write useful, accurate articles by following the procedures of ordinary scholarship.
• If you have credentials and prefer to contribute only to encyclopedias that require them, you will probably be happier writing for Britannica than for Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that I do ask for evidence of authority and expertise in any field that demands it, and I think this request is reasonable. I believe, for example, that medical professionals are taught to provide evidence of qualifications and training if asked for by patients. I wouldn't want a cleaner to be diagnosing my terminal illness. Also, we expect our qualifications to be validated and to supply references when we apply for a job. This is a job, like any other, and the product is intended for public consumption, and should be accurate, valid, and representative. When I mark student essays I am asked to give marks for accuracy, representativeness, bias, clarity, etc, and I see no reason not tp hold this essay up to the same examination. I find it wanting and will write more later when I have more time. Rayford 18:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a doctor's office. This is a collaborative process that thrives on accesability, not demands for qualifications. Also, the audience you should have in mind is not me, but a general lay audience who may be reading of a topic for the first time. See, for example, Wikipedia:Explain jargon and Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Think_of_the_reader. Hyacinth 20:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, well we will have to disagree on this, since I feel that even an essay intended for a lay audience should at least be accurate and representative of a subject area. However, as I would expect more on an essay about classical music from one of my first year undergraduates, I will assume that the writers of this article have received little or no musical education. Rayford 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's official policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If you continue to engage in personal attacks you may end up one of the "Users [who] have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks." Hyacinth 19:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My criticisms then. I will send this bit by bit since I have limited time each day due to pressures of work and family.

The first paragraph, Classical Music: the time period, 1000-1900 is incorrect. Classical music has been a continuing and innovative tradition throughout the twentieth century and has produced major composers of many nationalities and numerous different styles of composition in the last 100 years. It is false to claim that it somehow stopped in 1900. The developments in tonality, instrumental technique, and in many other areas were radical and influenced other types of music. Also, the following sentence is imprecise, what do you mean when you say that the central norms developed between 1550 and 1825? This requires explanation, many would challenge this assertion, but I am puzzled by what this sentence means.

I don't see the problem. If you have a well-accepted definition of "classical music" in the broad sense (high art music in the educated European tradition, as opposed to the narrow sense of Haydn-and-Mozart) it would be nice to have it quoted and have the source.

The article opens by saying that "classical music" is a broad and imprecise term. It says it refers particularly to the period 1000-1900, but it certainly does not say it stopped in 1900, and the timeline includes the twentieth century as well. Are Howard Hanson's symphonies "classical music?" Surely. Is Prokofief's "Classical" symphony "classical music?" Of course. What about the atonalists? John Cage? Philip Glass? I am not so sure. I suspect that if one were to examine the programmes performed currently by symphony orchestras one would find that they play far more pieces composed during the 1800s than during the 1900s.

The point here is: is this just a matter of opinion, or can you point to some well-accepted definition of "classical music" that differs significantly from "a broad, somewhat imprecise term, referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, European art, ecclesiastical and concert music, particularly between 1000 and 1900?"

If you just want to fine-tune the wording a bit, by all means do so. Hey, I don't think "classical music" really goes back to the year 1000. Gregorian chant is "classical music?" I don't think so. How often is a Gregorian chant concert performed in Avery Fisher hall? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Timeline: Which school of thought is this? You need to specify and outline alternative conceptualisations if you are to be neutral. "for many this is essential to full enjoyment" - what a huge assertion this is. What does it mean exactly? How do you know? I have always assumed that most people listen to compositions as individual pieces to be enjoyed in their own right, just as one might enjoy a fine whisky or a George Eliot novel, or a Woody Allen film - knowking something about Woody Allen's personal history and predelictions might add something to the enjoymant of the film but surely this is a fairly minor pasrt of the whole? I can't understand where this assertion comes from. To my mind it seems to (fairly nastily) imply that classical music listeners are more interested or excited by something other than the music - they are anoraks, nerds, train spotters, rather strange individuals.

I'd say those sentences are obviously crap, and could be removed under the rubric of avoid weasel words and avoid peacock terms. Discuss it here, or be bold and remove them. If whomever put them there has a good justification, he or she will undoubtedly put them back and may be provoked enough to provide justification. Dpbsmith (talk)

Your time divisions are generally OK. A couple of points: "crisis" in "Modern" is quite a strong word and I think is contentious. Some would see it as a logical development or progression. I think you need to add harmony, key and musical structure to theory and technique.

The following paragraph, starting "the dates are generalisations": the use of counterpart continued throughout musical history and did not die with the end of the Baroque era. Beethoven, I feel, needs to be mentioned as an important composer of fugues, more so than Brahms - but the use of fugue appears even in romantic music - Vaughan Williams symphonies for example.

Well, sure. And Frank Loesser, for that matter. It's pretty hard to find any musical structure or idiom that's limited to one musical period or genre. But associating counterpoint with the baroque era seems to me a useful rough generalization. Like saying that a symphony typically has four movements, with the first in sonata-allegro form. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the chart and the links to composer pages - generally excellent on Wikipedia.

I need to end now, but will write more tomorrow on what I see as more serious issues with the article. Rayford 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you take some cautious nibbles at the article itself and see what happens? Don't try a "complete rewrite" just yet, but remold a sentence or two. In that first paragraph, if you can have a concise description that works better than what's there, try it out.

The title, "European classical music" is a bit of a misnomer. I wonder if part of what's bothering you is that "European classical music" sounds like a somewhat specialized article. This is a general, introductory article that was originally titled simply "Classical music," meaning the-fancy-schmancy-stuff-they-play-on-WCRB-as-opposed-to-hip-hop. Well, a coterie of people objected to restricting the term "classical music" in that way, and wanted the article Classical music to include the "classical" music of all cultures. That left the problem of how this article should be titled. And it was made worse by the fact that we have a different article, Classical music era, for Haydn-and-Mozart "classical." The music described in this article is not strictly limited to 1000-1900? No, nor is it limited to Europe. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I have adjusted my re-write to reflect some of the discussion in this section. I have no doubt but that it can be improved. Please sign your posts, by the way-- was Rayford the person who originally added the re-write tag? --HK 06:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was the person who added the re-write tag - sorry, I didn't know then how to add my signature to posts.

I'll carry on with my comments. I have no argument with "European Classical Music", this is what this article is about and the focus of the article should primarily be about the characteristics and atributes of this music. "Western classical music" might be an alternative.

The Nature of Classical Music section: "Works that are centuries old are performed far more often....." Well, this is obviously incorrect. It depends what the piece is. Late romantic composers are hugely popular. Richard Strauss, for example, who died in the mid-twentieth century, Vaughan Williams and Elgar in Britain, even the music of Tchiakovsky is not "centuries old". On the other hand, the older music such as that of Victoria and Cornysh is played less often. This sentence reinforces the sense of "doing down" of classical music, the use of fairly subtle language to make the field seem arcane and rather odd. I'll point to other examples as I go on.

"There are many passive participants" - is this any different from other types of music? There is also a large and thriving amateur tradition. his sentence convery no information and should be removed.

"Classical music is meant to be enjoyed for its own sake. This paragraph seems to me to be badly written and the sense could be conveyed more tersely. The last sentence seems rather quaint - in the nineteenth century and earlier, chamber music concerts were given in personal homes, but in the twentieth century they moved into the concert hall. I know amateur string quartets who reherse at home and occasionally give performances at weddings and other celebratory events, but giving concerts in your own, or someone else's home? I've never come across it.

If I were to re-write this paragraph, it might go something like this: "Classical music is regarded as an art form that requires concentrated listening and attention in order to grasp the complexity of musical structure and argument. Concerts therefore take place in an atmosphere of formality in which the dress of the musicians conveys a sense of occasion and a sense of respect for the music and silence is expected". But I'm not sure if this information is really important, it seems more of a fashion statement to me and could perhaps be dispensed with.

I'd like to comment on this a bit. Let's take this in two parts. First, should an article about classical music say something about the social context of the genre and the way in which it is usually performed? My own answer to that is, yes. It was surprising when someone mounted a performance of Aida in a sports arena, and it was surprising when Benny Goodman gave a jazz concert at Carnegie Hall. Something should be said.

Second, what is the best explanation of why concerts are presented as they are? There are two aspects, and your phrase presents only one. There is a widely held feeling (to which I subscribe!) that classical music is somehow "better" than most popular music. If asked, music educators will reference its complexity, suggest that it requires some education to appreciate, and delivers a deeper and richer emotional experience than simpler music. This is true but it is only part of the truth.

The other part is that classical music is admired because, to put it bluntly, it is rich peoples' music and the ability to enjoy it carries social stature. Classical music performance carries a weight of social tradition with it, some of which is extramusical. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "Classical composition" seems to me not very clear. I can see something of what is intended. But musical development is more than just the repeat of motifs in different forms. The important idea to convey is the primacy of musical form and structure - in classical music, the "tune" is often not primary (even when good "tunes" are important and significant aspects of a composition) - the important thing is how the melody is managed and manipulated. Just as a novel or short story has a structure (needs to have), the musical material, the themes are part of a musical form that conveys the sense of an argument, some complex means of organising sound as an art form. To the listener, this is more than comparison, it is getting a sense of the whole, a recognition that there is an argument, and the satisfaction or surprise when expectations are met, the unexpected happens, or something realy creative occurs. Just like, when reading a detective story, you may get pleasure from finding out, at the end, that the person you least expected, was actually the murderer. So, this paragraph is inadequate because it does not accurately convey what musical development and musical structure are about in classical music.

The rest of this section seems fine to me.

More later........Rayford 07:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I really think you should just make some of your suggested edits directly to the article. Try it, you'll like it. I think the burden of your criticism is not so much that the article is factually inaccurate or culturally ignorant, but that some of it is clumsily written. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll do this, but I'm a bit bothered about the accusations that seem to have been made earlier about "vandalising" the text - how do I avoid this accusation? I also assume that American spelling will be needed.

Some quotes about the connection of classical music with wealth and "elitism". "The humor of these stories notwithstanding, their important aspect is not that plain people favored plain melodies and that orchestral music remained ostensibly reserved for elite audiences in search of refinement. Quite the contrary: despite their previous lack of access to classical music, ordinary Americans did attend these concerts in ever increasing numbers, regardless of their initial reactions". Trumpeting Down the Walls of Jericho: The Politics of Art, Music and Emotion in German-American Relations, 1870-1920. Journal article by Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht; Journal of Social History, Vol. 36, 2003.

There is more, but my daughter now needs getting out of the bath and into bed....

"As I have shown above, music audiences were much more heterogeneous than we have hitherto believed. The artists, in turn, formed by no means a wealthy elite but spent much of their lives on tour reaching out to audiences who otherwise would never have heard the sound of an orchestra. Instead, it was the early artists' iron determination, their foreignness and attractiveness, and the emotional appeal of the music they performed that proved eventually irresistible to North American audiences and created a bond be tween German and American audiences that would survive two world wars". Ref as above.

"For these reasons, recent thinking on music often exhibits a grave distrust or even guilt about the corpus of music we have inherited. On the one hand it is presented as one of the greatest achievements of the Western mind, but on the other it may betray its origins in social privilege and exclusion. This might seem extreme, but it forms part of a noticeable distancing of the establishment from its earlier identification with high art. When politicians appear on a platform with pop singers, their motives may be blatantly populist, but so, too, is their marked avoidance of public appearances with representatives of an art world considered too minority, too serious, and too highbrow. Whereas the nineteenth-century middle classes aspired to an upward cultural mobility by taking part in activities formally reserved for the aristocracy (like classical music recitals), the tendency of the much larger middle class toward the end of the twentieth century was to a downward cultural mobility. In the politics of contemporary cultural style, classical music has an increasingly negative status". Who Needs Classical Music? Cultural Choice and Musical Value. Book by Julian Johnson; Oxford University Press, 2002.

"A possible illustration of this drive for distinction is provided by recent developments in the market for classical music. Opera, once the exclusive preserve of the upper classes, has entered into the realm of popular music. In Europe the three tenors--Domingo, Carreras, and Pavarotti--sang to sell-out open air shows in the early 1990s. By the mid 1990s, however, the Sunday Times (April 21, 1996) reported that "classical music has become the latest victim of middle-class 'culture fatigue"' and the "loss of interest by those who regard opera as a ladder for social advancement... resulted in lower classical record sales and declining concert audiences."" Veblen, Bourdieu and Conspicuous Consumption. Journal article by Andrew B. Trigg; Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 35, 2001.

Well, I was looking for a quote I can't find. I would argue, you see, that classical music was associated with wealth and high culture in the past. But, so what? All high culture was, theatre, ballet, painting. Reading novels was different because, in the past, people in general were more literate and the quality of reading and writing was at a higher level.

The reason for this was that the relatively well-off were the only section of the population who had the money to become educated and the time to think and reflect and use their education and knowledge. This changed with the coming of mass education after the second world war. Classical musicians were never wealthy or particularly well paid (until the advent of the super-conductors in the twentieth century). At the present time (and since the sixties), it is popular culture that has the wealth - the artists, the promoters and the industry. Today, classical music has an "increasingly negative atatus" in mass culture.

So I think that the association of classical music with wealth and status is complex and has changed over time. I agree that performance practices are preserved from the nineteenth century whan classical music probably was strongly associated with nationalism and rampant colonialism and, in Europe, with it's dominance of the world, economically, socially, militarily, and culturally. This is no longer the case. Rayford 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Classical music and popular music

Why is a "Classical music and folk music" section okay, but not a "Classical music and popular music" section? Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Classical music is rooted in folk music, whereas the relationship between classical music and popular music is not so immediate and direct. There is still a brief section entitled "Influences between classical and popular music," which could be expanded, but I see no need to include a debate about the relative merits of classical and popular musics; for encyclopedia purposes, I think it were better to think of them as apples and oranges. BTW, I don't consider my re-write to be the be-all and end-all; I thought I would get the ball rolling, because I did see some validity in the complaints of the fellow who posted the re-write tag. --HK 23:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Influences between classical and popular music

What justifies the inclusion of the unsourced paragraph:

"Classical music has always been influenced or taken material from popular music. Examples include Erik Satie, Kurt Weill's The Threepenny Opera, and postminimalism, as well as much postmodern classical music."

But the deletion of the sourced:

"Songwriters such as Paul Simon have used classical techniques such as, during his early solo career in the 1970s, the twelve tone technique, though Simon actually only employs the full chromatic rather than strict tone rows (Everett 1997)."

Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Complexity

What justifies claiming that Classical music is more complex and giving no other opinion as in the following paragraph:

"This is not to say that popular music is definitively or always simpler than classical. The "default length" of phrases which classical music supposedly deviates from were set as the default by music of the common practice period. Jazz, rap and many forms of technical metal, for instance, make use of rhythms more complex than would appear in the average common practice work, and popular music sometimes uses certain complex chords that would be quite unusual in a common practice piece. Popular music also uses certain features of rhythm and pitch inflection not analyzable by the traditional methods applied to common practice music."

Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph precisely because I saw no point in debating which kind of music is more complex. It seems adequate to me to simply mention that Classical music is often complex. --HK 23:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)