Talk:Madrigal (Trecento)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Music/Music genres task force

Madrigal (Trecento) is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

Trecento-Madrigal as term

Not sure if this is the right way to do this, but I removed references to "Trecento-Madrigal" from the article. The title of the article is a way of distinguishing it from the 16th-century madrigal, but does not appear anywhere in the literature (that I am aware of) and shouldn't be encouraged. I would be in favor of moving the page to "Madrigal (Trecento)".

The page also had some information on the state of affairs in Italy after 1370 that I disagree with; there really wasn't a shift to Avignon as a center of composition, it's just what a number of textbooks tend to focus on next. --Myke Cuthbert 03:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think moving to "Madrigal (Trecento)" is a good idea. The title seems to have been an invention of the anonymous original author; now that you mention it, I haven't liked it either. Antandrus (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the Madrigal as a musical form continued through the English restoration. Limiting the form to the Trecento makes about as much sense as insisting that sonatas were not written after the Baroque. And for the purists who want to say "the form changed" then OK, Beethoven only wrote 8 symphonies, that number 7 didn't obey the form. Truddick (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The madrigal (music) article covers the sixteenth and seventeenth century development of the form, which was an entirely different thing indeed. It may be beside the point, but I've always felt that that particular page should be at madrigal, with the others disambiguated.

Since it was an obvious oversight, I just added a disambiguation line at the top of the article. Not everyone visiting is going to know there were two kinds of musical madrigals, separated in time by almost two centuries. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that madrigal (music) should just be madrigal, displacing the disambiguation; it's by far the most important, but also since the title of madrigal (music) doesn't distinguish it from this article. I do think if we do that though, the new "madrigal" article should probably begin with something similar to Grove; something like, "Madrigal in music refers to two genres of music that developed independently first in Italy in the 14th century (see madrigal (Trecento)) and then in Italy and later the rest of Europe in the 16th and 17th centuries. This article describes the latter tradition of the madrigal. (For other uses of the term, see madrigal (disambiguation))". I sometimes think that the disambiguation links shouldn't necessarily precede or be distinct from the lede. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:03, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]