Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 3, 2005.

Etymology and terminology[edit]

The modern Japanese language definitely has a word for music. It is "ongaku". The meaning is identical to "music" in English. If there is no objection, I suggest deleting the statement that Japanese does not have a word for music. --Westwind273 (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. I'm frustrated because I can't access the citation given, which is to Grove's, but I would be shocked if Grove's actually said that (and someone needs to take them to task if so!). Looking at goo's entry for ongaku (which is taken from Shogakukan's Daijisen) we have, by my (manual) translation:
  1. Art through the medium of sound; singing, playing instruments, etc. to bring together sounds of varying length, pitch, loudness, tone color, and so on.
  2. Auditory accompaniment to kabuki; performance in the gagaku style for Buddhist temple scenes and the like, using fue, dadaiko, suzu, etc.
Clearly (1) is more-or-less identical to the everyday meaning of the English word "music." (2) gestures towards how the idea of music isn't a recent cultural import to Japan or anything (obviously!!). Neither sense refers to any other kind of art form or anything so vague as "joy." I can't speak as well to Chinese but I'm extremely suspicious there too—the whole passage gives me the feeling of silly exoticism. Maybe in the distant past Chinese didn't have a specific word for "music" but that doesn't remotely justify saying "neither Japan nor China have a single word which encompasses music in a broad sense." If anyone has access to Grove's and would be willing to double-check this for us, maybe we can put that passage to rest ([1]). I really feel like Grove's gets too much use in this article anyway—it's a tertiary source and I don't think it should be used as the sole citation for claims like this. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 02:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should say, perhaps this suggests that a few hundred years ago or whenever the word ongaku was only used in the context of kabuki, so perhaps as recently as the early Edo period or the like there wasn't a general word for "music" in Japanese. I'm not sure of that off the top of my head. If so, though, that part of the article should discuss that, not imply that Japan just doesn't have such a word period. I wouldn't be surprised if the Grove's entry actually describes a situation more along those lines. But, honestly, we should probably go to a source for the etymology of ongaku, another for the etymology of the Chinese yīnyuè, maybe some relevant secondary sources on Japanese and Chinese music history, and actually describe how those words acquired their modern meanings, instead of just resorting to Grove's. 🍉◜◞🄜e𝚜𝚘𝚌𝚊r🅟🜜🥑《 𔑪‎talk〗⇤ 03:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mesocarp, you can request the source at the Resource Request or use the Wikipedia library if you meet the requirements. The sentence is "Although no single word in Japanese encompasses the same ground as the English word ‘music’, Japanese culture accepts the broad definition of the music concepts used in the West..."
Before consistent Western contact the Japanese did not have a word for all "music"—that is a word that encompasses instrumental music, vocal music, absolute music, programmatic music, performance, composition etc etc all at once. Ongaku did not mean that until very recently, see here for further information. I have clarified the sentence with "Before Western contact in". The source you've cited is from the 90s—the sentence in question is discussing the concept much earlier. Aza24 (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023[edit]

As of currently, there is no mention of "Ice Spice" in this Wikipedia page. Ice Spice is very relevant to music as a whole and deserves recognition. (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposing an idea - adding to the definition[edit]

I propose the following idea: Music is a collective human process by which we heal ourselves, heal each other, we teach, we learn, and contribute to the collective knowledge of our species. Our music enables those who succeed us to learn and develop new ideas of their own.

It's a pretty big idea but generally is a summary of the rest of the page - it's a collective truth we all feel. Dyxtan (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, adding a link to music therapy did the trick.Dyxtan (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 2024 in music has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 21 § 2024 in music until a consensus is reached. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Superior pitch resolution[edit]

Music § Neuroscience has an image of the human brain with a description that includes the phrase "superior pitch resolution". Nowhere else in that section, nor in its surrounding sections, do we discuss pitch in any way. This is not a problem per se, but without any context it is unclear to readers such as myself what exactly "superior pitch resolution" is. Perhaps a simple solution is to link the words "superior pitch" to absolute pitch? Assuming that's what it refers to, of course. -- (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]