Talk:History of music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Today's articles for improvement
WikiProject iconThis article was selected as Today's article for improvement on 8 July 2013 for a period of one week.WikiProject icon
Former featured article candidateHistory of music is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
March 6, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate

Music history/History of music[edit]

♥ Please excuse my ignorance ♥

I never really understood the difference between Music history and History of music. After all, grammar-wise, shouldn't they mean the same thing (Canadian history vs history of Canada)? Could someone please enlighten me?

(PS if there is such a difference, perhaps Music history would make a good COTW candidate, considering its basically nonexistent) --Dmcdevit 02:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I believe there was a discussion of this on the COTW page, where we all voted for the article; consensus seemed to be that Music history referred to the academic field which studied the history of music. If so, that article would include things such as teaching of music in secondary and post-secondary schools, common curricula in music history, etc. There doesn't seem to be any uniform Wikipedia standard in this regard -- e.g. check out Art history, where history of art redirects to it -- although perhaps that area could benefit from a structuring similar to that in the music history articles. Antandrus 16:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More music[edit]

I've just added 3 full length songs to this article. There are plenty more to be found at Wikipedia:Sound/list - feel free to add more songs to this article using the listen template. →Raul654 07:50, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

Beethoven is not a good example of Classical music, he is more commonly identified as a Romanticist - his work is far too expressive to illustrate classicism, but far to formulaic to illustrate Romantic era. I would put some Mozart with Classical and Wagner with Romantic (the former is already present on Commons - including his 40th and overture of Don Giovanni; the latter I will be uploading later tonight - the overture to Tristan und Isolde). --Oldak Quill 00:46, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The problem is more using the Ninth Symphony as the example. – flamurai (t) 01:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Very few people identify Beethoven as a Romantic composer. He is generally put in the Classical period. The problem is more that his late works (such as the Ninth Symphony) contain enough proto-Romantic features that they're sort of transitional between the two stylistic periods. I agree that Mozart and Haydn are more representative of the Classical-period "core style". --Marnen Laibow-Koser (talk) 13:29, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History of music by genre[edit]

This article appears to be the History of music by genre, with a seperate article, History of music by region, suggested by the see also. Hyacinth 01:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Very possibly - but what would go at history of music? I would suggest that, until recently, genre and region of music were fundamentally connected. This has been subverted through global relatively new genres such as pop and jazz. Still, jazz has its styilistic roots in existing region-based genres such as folk and classical. Even today, jazz is primarily performed in the Americas and Europe - one could say that these two should be considered the same in terms of musical regions (apart from aboriginal music).
On another note, how are we handling this article? We seem to currently have a series of paragraphs about definable periods of music - briefly describing why they were definable. Should we go into the transition between periods and why they occured? The social aspect of history? --Oldak Quill 11:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to say that there is a difference between european jazz and american jazz and that consulting people at say the University of North Texas ( a lot of those professors were some of the fore runners of jazz music), they would be able to clarify whether or not european and american jazz are differenet from each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In relation...[edit]

The article says, " relation to humans..." I say, "As opposed to...?" Unless there is a race of beings out there that I do not know about that recognizes and produces music I believe there is something wrong with that statement. Jaberwocky6669 04:46, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well... bird song is essentially a series melodious sounds produced by a non-human species which is interpreted by humans as song. Of course, we do not know whether birds take functionless pleasure in this music in a similar manner to the way in which humans are stimulated by music. I do not believe one could argue it is not music simply because it has function, national anthems have function. Similarly, could it not be called music because Passeriformes do not intend it as such? Do football fans intend chants as music, or is it a means of showing solidarity and lobbying players? One does have to ask: what is music? --Oldak Quill 11:15, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Some people think only humans produce music, some think many species do. The article should not take sides, but describe that difference of opinion. Since we don't have an accepted definition of music, and cannot communicate about something as complex as music with non-humans animals (unless we can communicate through music, which would still disallow much communication about music), and the solution is not urgently needed, I propose we find a better place, Zoomusicology, to more fully describe this topic and then summarize that information in this article. Hyacinth 21:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


It seems really awkward to me to write about the past in the present tense. "In the late 19th century, music becomes..." seems awkward compared to "In the late 19th century, music became..." Is this the de facto standard in Wikipedia history articles? – flamurai (t) 05:28, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should unify the article on past tense--all history writing I'm familiar with does it that way. Certainly we should be consistent. I'm grabbing books off my shelf at random and they're all done that way. Other opinions? Antandrus 05:33, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Classification of composers[edit]

There seems to be some arbitrary classification of composers going on. The impressionists should not be split up. We have Faure under Romantic and Debussy and Ravel under 20th c. I think we should incorporate a transitional paragraph at the end of the Romantic section or the beginning of the 20th c. section describing the impressionists. In fact, it's a major flaw that the word "impressionist" is not in either the main Romantic or 20th c. articles! I'd do it myself, but I'm too tired to write clearly. – flamurai (t) 05:31, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Whoa, you are correct. Looks like one of us needs to do some writing about impressionism soon. :-) Antandrus 05:43, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I would consider MOST (good) Jazz music to not be popular - a few faux-Jazz pseudo-musicians pose under this genre (Norah Jones, back to Frank Sinatra) but these few should not be allowed to stain all of Jazz - they are ultimately popular musicians with Jazz influence. The jazz-classical fusion of George Gerschwin, the jazz experimentalism and freedom of Ornette Coleman, the bebopers including Dizzy Gillespie and the Latin jazz artists cannot be described as "popular" stylistically, commercially or in their followers. True jazz belongs to the core of music as art (or art music) along with classical traditions and other world musics. --Oldak Quill 18:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I second this view, and think jazz would most comfortably fit at the top level, say between folk music and popular music in the outline. What does anyone else think? Antandrus 19:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What do the jazz, popular music, and classical music articles say? Hyacinth 22:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Category:Jazz is a subgenre of Category:Musical genres (distinct from popular and classical music). Popular music lists Jazz a few subgenres, but also indicates popular music is sometimes distinguished from jazz. European classical music distinguishes itself from Jazz twice. Jazz only mentions that many performers were also classically trained (and that bosa nova was inflounced by impressionism). Hyacinth 22:21, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I actually have two woefully inadaquite CD shelves (they hold about 300 each), the one on the right is popular and related folk music. The one on the left is classical, "ethnic" and non-popular folk, and jazz music. So I put it with classical music, but I only have experimental and free jazz. The small amount of older jazz I have (Cole Porter, Raymond Scott, and, if I had any, Ella Fitgerald etc) I put on the right. Hyacinth 22:24, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let's not go down this road. Do we have to throw out Duke Ellington as POP or Miles Davis as Pop as he was in France? When in the history of Jazz did it move from being POP to being "good" jazz, because jazz certainly started out as music played for the buzz of it. Instead let's address the serious flaw in this article: the missing word Africa. Jazz is based the successful application of European instrumentation onto an African sensibility. It's a great shame that this article is dying. User:Donohue 1.2.08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


How shall we present dates? I added them to the headers as I feel readers should be able to access the sections of the article by date and not have to scroll through the article checking if each section is the date they are looking for. Any better way to do it besides just under the heading? Hyacinth 22:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about this? Hyacinth 04:27, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's just great! --Eleassar777 09:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

History of European art music
Medieval (476 CE - 1400)
Renaissance (1400 - 1600)
Baroque (1600 - 1760)
Classical (1730 - 1820)
Romantic (1815 - 1910)
20th century (1900 - 1999)
Contemporary (2000 - present)

Prehistoric music[edit]

I suggest that the section about prehistoric music is moved into its main article prehistoric music. I'll do this tomorrow if no-one objects. --Eleassar777 23:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sounds great. We may have to trim information from all the sections eventually, and it is great to check if information in this general article is lacking in the specific ones. Hyacinth 23:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We definitely need to trim some of the longer sections, like renaissance music. I was just about to post a comment about that, in fact. – flamurai (t) 23:36, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Too many images![edit]

I think one image per section is enough, especially of these portraits. What do portraits tell people about music? It would be nice to get more performance images, like maybe for 20th c music, a performance of a piece that's more visually interesting. – flamurai (t) 00:35, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Some sections are four times (or more) as long as others. Why can't they have two? Hyacinth 00:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm just saying in general, it looks bad to have images stacked on top of each other. For example, 20th c music as it stands right now. I am looking for an image of an interesting 20th century score to replace a couple of the headshots (especially the Philip Glass one, because I question it's status as "fair use" since that seems to be the whole image, not part of it). – flamurai (t) 00:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the images go in the sections they depict? Hyacinth 00:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They appear next to the sections they depict. The reason I put the left-aligned images above the heading is because it keeps the heading and the body of the text instead of the heading being all the way out at the left margin, then the text starting to the right of the photo. The only problem it really causes is that "edit section" doesn't include the photo, but really, isn't it more important that the finished product looks good? – flamurai (t) 00:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
On my monitor the Philip Glass image appears in 20th century classical music, making it appear that section has three images. Hyacinth 01:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Elvis appears in Jazz. Hyacinth 01:06, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They were moved when new sound clips were added. If they were in their correct place, they would appear correctly – flamurai (t) 01:08, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
Ah, too many cooks! Hyacinth 01:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Heh heh. A side effect of COTW, I guess. – flamurai (t) 01:29, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Heavy metal suggestions[edit]

I found a CC-by-SA heavy metal song here - look at #8, Scarey Devil Heavy Metal. If you guys think that song is representative of heavy metal, I'll add it to this article. →Raul654 01:03, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC) : Eh, it's a little cheesy. I don't think it really represents heavy metal. It's more a mockery of '80s hair bands. – flamurai (t) 01:18, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think it should be in a top level section! Heavy-metal is surely just a development of rock, it takes the aggression of rock to its logical (and often pitiful) conclusion... Thus it is surely related to pop music (a cheesy grandmother perhaps). --Oldak Quill 15:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's POV, as well, saying metal is more important than the rest of the rock sub-genres. – flamurai (t) 15:36, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
First of all, I think you to are forgetting that this page was the collaboration of the week and more so a work in progress than the average wikipedia page.
Metal is very important and influential, affecting the sound of almost all rock and pop afterwards (such as the now widespread prevalence of power chords).
Why don't you add information about these other important genres. Hyacinth 22:36, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We're getting off the subject here. Someone, please, suggest a copyleft song we could use as representitive of the genre. I suggest doing a little searching around on the internet archive, and/or creative commons and/or your favorite indie band's website. →Raul654 00:02, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

metal and Punk need to be mentioned. Both compleetely changed popular music, probably forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Shaping this into a featured article[edit]

This article has a lot of featured article potential - I speak with some knowledge of the subject :). Here's a list of improvements that I would like someone more knowledge of the subject to add:

  • The introduction needs to be expanded and made more relavant
  • The organization is (IMHO) weak. Why musical history of India, Persia, China, and Europe, but not elsewhere (Africa, the australian aborginiees)? Some explinatino about the choice of these four should be given
  • The introductory section on European classical music only has the timeine. I need some kind of overarching explination
  • The dates given for the history of European classical music do not match up to the articles they cite. This should be fixed. →Raul654 20:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

  1. How so?
  2. Because the article is a work-in-progress.
  3. Agreed, and I'm also unqualified/uninterested.
  4. The templates also need to be corrected.

Hyacinth 21:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Polenc an Impressionist?[edit]

I didn't think Francis Poulenc was an Impressionistic composer. In fact, his own Wikipedia article links him to Les Six, which rejected the impressionistic ideas, and favored a more simple form of music. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is true. I've moved his name, then, away from Debussy modern composers in order to separate that connection. Bratsche 16:18, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)

Poulenc wrote some early impressionist works, and used impresisonist gestures, but no, he is not generally considered an impressionist composer. Stirling Newberry 16:31, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Poulenc used some impressionistic elements throughout his life, more early than late, but classifying him as an impressionist isn't quite right. (In general I don't like jamming composers into neatly arranged bins anyway; once you start to look at the work in detail there's just too much gray to allow rigid taxonomy) Antandrus 16:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From the lead paragraph[edit]

I'm taking this out for now because I'm not entirely sure what it means: "The popularity of the classical music of the middle ages has gradually been replaced by forms of popular music, including Country music, jazz, and Rock and roll."

  1. There was no classical music in the middle ages; what is usually referred to as "classical music" is the European music of the common practice period after about 1600.
  2. It's a mistake to assume that just because it has not survived, there was no popular music in the middle ages, though the popular music then was probably more what we would term folk music today. There's an interesting document by Notker, c. 880, that records the attempts of the clergy to keep the people from singing Gregorian chant in the style of their popular songs. I tried to get at this in the lead line to the medieval music section.
  3. Art music and popular music--or Classical music and popular music--have developed in parallel in many world cultures (not all, though). That the commercial popular music of the present day has replaced the classical music of times past in popularity is a misconception. Only a small percentage of Europeans in, say, 1750 went to the opera--probably the same percentage as went in 2000. Most of them knew popular music: dances, folk songs and such, more of which survives as you get closer to the present day.
  4. It seems a tad Eurocentric, though western popular music has certainly overshadowed the popularity of a lot of native music all over the world (not necessarily part of the local classical traditions, though possibly so in some cases)

This could be written up in the article (not sure where, though--in the lead? under the classical heading?

Cheers, Antandrus 21:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Why are Disco, funk, hip hop, salsa, and soul lumped together? Surely they're at least as distinct from each other as jazz is from blues. Tlogmer 22:24, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Revision by Universal1300[edit]

Unfortunately, I felt compelled to revert this edit (diff [1]). This is because although I applaud the desire to make the article flow better, I feel strongly that this edit did not make it flow better. More words doesn't necessarily mean better. In addition to the flow difficulty, it introduced a number of inaccuracies, including the beginning disambig., and my least favorite spelling mistake ever, definately. Sorry. Makemi 04:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Hip-hop shouldn't be grouped in with disco, funk, salsa, and soul. If Punk Rock is justified in its own section, I feel Hip-hop should be too.

Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 09:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides Egypt[edit]

does this artical even mention Africa? --Vehgah 03:36, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, does it? Hyacinth 09:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
It does once in the main paragraph, but that is still pretty pathetic.B14709 (talk) 02:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Piano music[edit]

Why does the article go from Classical to Folk music skipping the popularity of solo piano music in the 19th century? No mention of it all in the article.


In the Classical traditions section, the main article link links to the disambiguation page Classical music. My problem is what to change the link to. Should it be European classical music? Foxjwill 18:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Since that section of this article is about the history of music and not the history of European music I think the disambiguation page is appropriate. Hyacinth 22:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Popular Music Catagories[edit]

I think the catagories for pop music are incorrect. The broader genres should be listed, while the subgenres should not. The following is what I consider a list of the genres of pop: Jazz, Blues, Country, R&B(funk & soul are sub genres of R&B), Rock (r&r, heavy metal, punk), Hip-hop, & Electronic/Dance. There are other genres that I am not sure about. Reggae for instance could be considered a board genre or you could lump it as a sub-genre of rock. Regardless, all of the broad genres should represent the larger musical movements. Georgiapatio 17:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Split - to 20th century music[edit]

Per comments in the nomination for 20th century music as COTW, and another editors bold copying of the content across, i've added split tags to the modern music sections in this article.

(i'm not an active participant, just an bypasser. But i do agree with the nomination comments, that this article could benefit by becoming less modern/western-centric. I suggested at talk:20th century music, that they move everything under "folk music" from here to there, and replace it here with a short section and a {mainlink} to them. Hopefully some of them will come here to facilitate, and continue the discussion should it prove contentious. Thanks :) -Quiddity 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A few minor edits and why[edit]

I just changed a few things:

" the situations that music is played and listened to in "

is not perfect grammar.

" the situations in which music is played and listened to "

is better.

In the Music in ancient civilizations section, there were a couple of sentences that were also in the Greek section. I removed them so that we don't waste space:

" In ancient Greece, mixed-gender choruses performed for entertainment, celebration and spiritual reasons. Instruments included the double-reed aulos and the plucked string instrument, the lyre, especially the special kind called a kithara. Music was an important part of education in ancient Greece, and boys were taught music starting at age six. Greek musical literacy created a flowering of development; Greek music theory included the Greek musical modes, eventually became the basis for Western religious music and classical music. "

Finally, in the India subsection in the Classical Traditions section, I found the following typo:

" The origins of Indian classical music (marga), the classical music of India... ">

and removed

" , the classical music of India "

Also... I didn't change anything there, but this sentence in the subsection Europe in the section Classical traditions:

" 'Classical European music' is a somewhat broad term, referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, European art, ecclesiastical and concert music, particularly between 1000 and 1900. "

has tortured the English quite a bit. Anyone want to fix it?

Gavintlgold 15:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Provided sources/citations for homophonic comments as requested.Greenwyk 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Origins of music[edit]

From the first paragraph: "Since all peoples of the world including the most isolated tribal groups, have a form of music, scientists conclude that music must have been present in the ancestral population prior to the dispersal of humans around the world."

I think we need to find a better source (or a better summarizing of the existing source). This reasoning is weak - humans could have developed music independently in different places, as we have with so many other things. This is probably moot, as human music is likely far older than 50,000 years anyway, but i don't have a source to reference on that, so meanwhile cleaning up the existing paragraph would be nice. --John_Abbe 16:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


This article does not convey a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. There are no popular or folk musics described and very little non-European music. Hyacinth 21:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think a better tag for what you described would be Template:Globalize/Europe. I'm going to change the tag. Although the article has changed since you tagged it, I think it still could use some improvement for around-the world music. It would be really great if we had music samples of folk music worldwide. -Tea and Crumpets (Talk - contribs) 18:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The article nauseatingly eurocentric. The article essentially includes a paragraph on every single style of Western music, and then contributes a sentence or a link to every other civilization. Great. (And no, it's not because Western music is more "influential." No one in the non-western world probobly knows who Beethoven or Mozart even are. They probobly know more about Britney Spears than they do about Baroque style). How about a little equality. - 04:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's because people haven't written those sections, not because of "nauseating eurocentrism". It's a volunteer project, 68.43, and people write what they know, and what they want to write. If you're expert enough on the musics of the "non-western world" to know that no one in Japan, China, or Korea has ever heard of Beethoven, but yet has extensive knowledge of Britney Spears, then by all means further enlighten us with your expertise, and start writing. Antandrus (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Is a history of music viable?[edit]

After considering a response to the nauseated poster in the POV thread, I realize I have an issue of my own. I am beginning to doubt whether a broad, all-encompassing history of all musics is necessary, possible, or even desirable. After the prehistorical and ancient music sections--both of which are concise to a degree that perhaps threatens their helpfulness to the reader--, the main musical traditions of the world are each mentioned in brief in a more or less chronologically static way (except of course for the Western music history section and the Greek music section--perhaps there were others). Granted, this may reflect the need for further contributions. I propose that this issue may be symptomatic of a larger problem: that the premise of this article needs to be reconsidered. Here are some questions to think about: Would it be helpful for this article to flesh out the primary music cultures of the world according to the chronological history-of-civilization model? If so, how would that be best accomplished? Could all of these geographically distinct traditions be discussed in a more blended manner, according to time rather than place? Might the history of these musics be better handled within the main articles, rather than together in this one? It just seems to me that this article would be better served by going in one of two directions: either (1) by discussing the history of music in a more broadly-conceived fashion, paying attention to how all music cultures developed and interacted over time (rather than one by one), or (2) by leaving historical discussion to the articles for each music culture. This is just a suggestion, and the length of this paragraph rather deceptively conceals the fact that I have almost no time to devote to this project. What do you all think? Dunkelweizen 14:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What bugs me about this article is how it devotes a huge section to Western music, and then has only a few sentences on other types of music. If there's anyone out there who knows anything about the history of any type of Oriental music, please, please edit this article!
Dunkelweizen, I think both of your suggestions are laudable. I like your comparison to the "history-of-civilization model", Civilization#Development of early civilizations gives a bit of an idea of what we're talking about here.
The history of music in each area should have equal coverage, though whether that means we should shorten all of the sections on Western music, I'm not sure. Since this is the article on the history of music, It should give enough information about the history of music in each place and in each period, and how they developed over time, to make the average reader satisfied. It also shouldn't use too much jargon, but should give the average reader a good summary of what the music was like, without needing to click into a lot of different articles to find out what all the jargon means. The best way to describe what the music sounds like is to provide music samples. We already have a few, but it would be great if we could find one for each section. If anyone reading this knows where to find a sample, and wants to help, see Wikipedia:Music samples and Wikipedia:Media for more information.
I, too, don't have a lot of time to work on this article -- I'm working on so many other things. I'll add this article to my list of things to do, but I can't guarantee I'll be working on it a lot. Anyone else have any suggestions? -Tea and Crumpets (t c) 17:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Any other thoughts??? Dunkelweizen (talk) 14:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, yes. We can balance this article. It doesn't really matter if it's primary organization is geographical or chronological. This is a WP:summary style article. That means that each section begins with {{Main}}. If a section is too large we move material down into the lower level article. If a section is too small we gather more material up from the lower level article. You can't fail. This much is obvious.
What we need is a standard for how much emphasis each region (and/or era) should receive. Typically, we allow more room for more recent history, less room for more ancient history. We also need to allow for globalization: towards the end of the 20th century, music is increasing being shared between regions. Genre replaces region as a primary organizing principle. Those are the issues. They can all be solved. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

I have moved this article to 'History of classical music traditions', because that is exclusively what this article focuses on. There is actually not a single mention of the existence of popular music. This is a fairly good article, but it should not be called 'history of music', because it is not. A new article at History of music should be created. Zazaban (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to add those sections? Here is what the article looked like four years ago, for example, just picking one at random. I haven't picked through to figure out why folk and popular music vanished from the article, but wouldn't it be better to add them back, and make it better? Antandrus (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea those had even ever existed. Yes, for the love of all that is good and holy, put them back. Why on earth were they deleted in the first place?! Zazaban (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
After a bit of digging, I see it happened here (5 June 2006). I do not quite understand why the entire twentieth century (of all types of music) was split off entirely (or, for that matter, why things like "folk music" are considered to be exclusively "twentieth century music"). Is anyone else watching this page? It's on my watchlist, but I haven't actually edited it since it was the "collaboration of the week" back in the Wikipedia Jurassic period sometime like 2005 or so. (I probably wrote a bunch of the stuff on Renaissance music.) Not sure how to handle this. It's a colossal subject. Antandrus (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to be watching it like a hawk. There are a lot of very opinionated people in this area of interest on both sides of the field. Most people who edit this article seem to be on the 'classical' side of things, though. Zazaban (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) For the record, (as everyone above has pointed out) there have been past versions of the article (like this one) that featured the distinction Classical/Folk/Popular and had separate sections for each of these "types" (btw, the term 'Folk music' is a bit faulty, since it is so-to-speak Anglocentric and its meaning is ambiguous which might somehow explain why it was considered to be "20th c. music"; "History of Traditional music" should have been the term instead). However, since these 'Folk' and 'Popular' sections referred only to developments during the 20th c., they were eventually copy-pasted to the '20th-century music'-article; thus, only the 'classical/historical music' sections were left to the article on the History of music, but such an article could not possibly bare such a generic name anymore. In that respect, the page-move was a really good idea if it was meant to reflect the present condition of the article.
Now, whether that split on 5-6-06 was justified or not is another matter. The distinction Traditional/Folk vs. Classical/Historical vs. Commercial/Popular is to be found in articles such as Dance music and Music of the United Kingdom and I don't see why this shouldn't be the case here, as well. In other words, either 1) leave this article exactly as it is, or 2) restore the 'Folk' section (which is to be renamed to 'Traditional' and "globalized" so as to include most of the regional traditions studied by Ethnomusicologists) and a part (or all or a synopsis) of the 'Popular' section, and then move the article back to the 'History of music'. --Omnipaedista (talk) 04:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Purandara.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Purandara.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


It would really help if in the first part of the sections on Baroque and Classical era's there was some indication of dates. For someone unversed in classical music this is a serious omission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

CSD for History of Music[edit]

"History of classical music traditions" is an existent article and moving it to History of Music would provide both a more commonly used search term and a more commonly used name. Also, an interesting discussion was raised at TAFI on the subject, more rationale can be seen there. Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 02:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

what was the first song recorded?[edit]

Does anyone know Samuelson's (talk) 13:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

See Phonautograph#Recovered sounds. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

African music[edit]

It is very important for this article to be balanced and comprehensive, however there is virtually no information available describing African music and its influence. Africa itself is only mentioned once, in the first paragraph, as the place where music may have first originated. If Africa is the birthplace of music and home to thousands of cultures with over a billion people between them, why is it neglected so? B14709 (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a shameful omission. I've added some material on Africa. I hope other readers will add more into it.DanJazzy (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Music History is not only about Western History[edit]

Why is this all about western music history ! allow for the addition of articles from years 700-1100 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of music. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

External links issue[edit]

This article has too many "External links". Three or four is sufficient, possibly 5 with consensus on longer articles, but when there are 19 references and 14 external links, that is just too many. I have not been involved in this article, so a discussion would be better than BRD by my removing the bottom 10, someone replacing them, and then appropriate dispute resolution requests for more broad community consensus. Otr500 (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I deleted one "External link" thinking it was bot-added --- but it was bot-rescued. There are still too many and I will just wait for some dialog. Otr500 (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

And the Baroque music? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molloyyy (talkcontribs) 14:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Table of contents hierarchy is confusing[edit]

I don't understand like why it says "Eras of music" then has modern eras on the right but then it only goes from prehistoric to ancient to biblical (what is diff?) to "early music" it's very very confusing. I think we may have to restructure the whole article! Krehel (talk) 03:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)