Talk:Music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B	Music has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Music was the Article Improvement Drive for the week starting on 3 April 2005.

For more details, see the Article Improvement Drive history.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Arts article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is a current candidate for the Article Creation and Improvement Drive.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.

To-do list for Music:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

For archived talk, see (oldest first) ... /Archive 1 ... /Archive 2

[edit] Composition

A musical composition is a piece of music designed for repeated performance (as opposed to strictly improvisational music, in which each performance is unique). The music may be preserved in memory, or through a written system of notation. Compositions include songs to be performed by human voices, usually including lyrics, as well as pieces written for other musical instruments.

I replaced this entire text, which I realize was cut-and-pasted from the Musical Composition stub. I'm going to go change the stub too. It's much too limited for modern discourse on composition; it essentially describes Western classical music. I attempted to do something about that. Maybe someone else can help? --JEMathews 22:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the musical composition article, at least, you should indicate that the word is used the way you don't like. Hyacinth 02:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Changed the article too. Thanks for the welcome. -JEMathews

[edit] Music Editing Wiki

Is there a wiki or other site that allows the contribution and editing of an originial piece of music? Like colaborative writing but for music! Jaberwocky6669 20:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] What does it mean?

"In support of the view that music is a label for a totality of different aspects which are culturally constructed". Where is the sentence, the idea?

This article if often edited and frequently vandalized. Even non-vandal edits frequently harm the page and it is extremely difficult to maintain. Surely this information was moved to another paragraph or article, or removed altogether, and that fragment strayed behind. Hyacinth 10:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music is not to be compared to walking

Music cannot be simply be used in any analogy, walking being a very bad example at that. I can expect the human (body) to be capable of "walking" in any sense, not even as a mere fysical capacity or motor function, but in any case as a biped vertibrae actively and voluntarily propelling itself through space. I'm cool with that. But to put music next to walking is to make the assumption that music is the thing every human has conditionally all to readily, or at least to be tempted to do so. Music cannot be defined from a top-down perspective, as it is already a construction in and of itself. To call everything music as you please or see fit is not necessarily wrong, but an active process, ever evolving and in being. It has become virtually impossible to ignore "music". "Music" is slowly conquering the planet as a perspective happily riding the back of - and itself part of - global consequences of everything involving global constructs, like free market economy as a cultural lingua franca. At the same time there is always something already there, ready to be called music. Fine. Cool.

But remember that "music" did not exist in many cultures until introduced as "such", undefinably defined as one "thing", that wasn't even many "things" before, but many "non-things" at most, that did not know each other, because there was no way of comparing. To take an "example" (it is not an "example", but of course only an intangeble, invisible thread to what might have once been): gamelan, as now known on Java and Bali, was never referred to as one "thing", but always as an ensemble - that is the instruments and the "musicians" as a whole. Feel free to compare, or accept that you have no choice. Whatever. Just don't put music next to walking. From my point of view it just seems silly. But hey, nobody's purfuct.

To elaborate just a bit more, I could add that activities we call music do not exist in and of itself anyway. Good job of the wiki community to focus mostly on music as a "social construct". Cool, I'm for it. I will not be able to generically undefine "music", so I won't. But let's take the last church service I visited. "Music" all over the place, but no "music" to be found. Silence, you ask? No. It's just that the "about" was more important than the "music", either structurally, socially and functionally. May I perhaps conclude that there is no reference possible to the "one music", only to the one "service" at that? Perhaps. It does seem like the one unit I can refer to, the case being I just did. Even over the social or the religious "context". There just seemed to be a whole that was not deducable. Perhaps comparable to gamelan. But who wants to know about the generic, really.

There is more text to be added, but perhaps later. First I have to copyright is, because we have created the perfect world wherein writing loads of BS bring in food. And food is good.

The walking comparison appears to have been removed. Hyacinth 08:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

A related topic, Percussion instrument has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support the nomination there or comment on it.--Fenice 06:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for input

A new article claims that a young man named Tireh has a world-record-tying vocal range. Another wikipedian requested verification, and the creator provided audio samples. I have no musical expertise to judge them, and in general input to the conversation at Talk:Tireh from more musically knowledgeable Wikipedians than myself would be appreciated. Thank you — Pekinensis 05:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Start of this article too abstract?

Hi, I just wondered by this article and found its opening perhaps a little too abstract for the start of an encyclopaedic entry. Can't it start with something more straightforward, even if not wholly accurate or all-embracing, to be refined further into the article? Cheers, 212.84.98.204 00:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I left the comment above before creating a user profile. Having now wandered about Wikipedia a little more, the music portal's first paragraph strikes me as a more inviting way to start an article about music. David Kernow 17:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd say that the opening wasn't too abstract, but tendentious and PoV. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding: "Those that define music as an external, physical fact, for example "organized sound", or as a specific type of perception" ---- The 'what is music' section is sometimes incorrect, generally incomplete and overall far too inspecific to be usefully included, but this line really makes no sense. Firstly, music can't be a fact. There might be facts about music (if you think musical properties are genuine properties that can be parts/constituents of facts), or facts about the experiences people have when listening to music, but music itself cannot be a fact. So at the very least change the word 'fact' to 'object'. Secondly, the idea that 'music... is a specific type of perception' seems dubious on the same grounds, but should at least not be lumped together with the first claim which is hardly the same thing.

Perhaps, if you want to go into groups of definitions, a better way to split it up is into the important intrinsic definitions (e.g. sound is: 'significant form'; 'a vehicle for emotional expression' (Tolstoy); 'toenend bewegte Formen' (Hanslick), etc. etc.), then functional definitions (e.g. Beardsley's 'sound organised for aesthetic appreciation', also Urmson), procedural definitions (e.g. Danto, Dickie and all the Institutional stuff), historical definitions (e.g. Levinson), definitions emphasising music's social role, and then anything else you want.

I don't know what this transcendental ideal is or how string theory gets involved - to say this stuff is unpopular in the philosophy of music vastly overrates it (and frankly it's a bit of an insult to the whole discipline to include this and not one theory actually written by a philosopher of music!) Words like 'metanarrative' and 'metasubstance' just masquerade as being informative and only serve to obfuscate the real issues, which can and should be laid out in non-technical vocabulary. (If any such issues are to be found in that last paragraph.)

Cage's view would probably be more fairly presented if his addiction to Zen philosophy were noted. But even he doesn't say *anything* can be music - tables and chairs can't, for example. And 'fascistically imposes this definition of everything'? Rather harsh (and a clear misunderstanding). Either a definition proposes normative constraints for the use of a term, or it's a factual enumeration of what things have been called music. Clearly Cage is offering a definition of the former variety, and in that sense it's no worse than someone suggesting that anything that is music has to respect tonality (which 'fascistically' excludes serial music, for example). (In fact, given that Cage's view is far too liberal to make any sense, it's hard to see how it's fascist in the slightest!) Hope this all helps. Zenpea 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"Fact" may be a leftover from a definition of music as a total social fact that was moved to Definition of music. Hyacinth 07:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image?

Wouldn't it be appealing to the eye to include at least one image in this quite central article? Karol 09:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. See #Pictures below. Hyacinth 08:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What has 'energy world' to do with music?

Would someone care to explain the reference to the energy world (and 'worlds' in general) quoted in the lead para as part of the definition of music?--Light current 04:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The mention appears to have been removed. Hyacinth 08:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In need of revision...?

Hello again. Further to my post above, I've read this article again after a few weeks and still feel it is a little too abstract, especially the opening few paragraphs. I'm willing to work on trying to make it more straightforward, but am hesitating before "being bold" as I'd prefer no-one who's worked on (and is still watching) the article to feel the need to revert (rather than edit) any contributions I make.

To give you some idea of what I have in mind, I'd first try recasting the opening as an expansion of the Music Portal's introductory paragraph. I agree, for instance, that the walking analogy and phrases such as "energy world" are not particularly useful (see threads above).

Please leave a message here, on my talk page or send me an email, especially if you feel I might be onto a non-starter. Thanks.
David Kernow 15:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What else do you have in mind? Hyacinth 08:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I reverted the introduction to an older version written by me (at a time when there was no introduction) that I feel is superior:

Music is an art, entertainment, or other human activity which involves organized and audible sound, though definitions vary.

I feel this way based on the following priorities I have for the introduction:

Brevity. The introduction should be short.
Clarity. The introduction should be simple and easily understood.
Generality. The introduction should avoid conflicts and discussion. Rather it should provide one definition and indicate that it is not final. (Generally I would say that at most a comparison between three definitions would be acceptable but that in this case the multitude of definitions makes that impossible).

Despite my obvious feelings of ownership for this definition I must also point out that I do not agree with it. However, I feel it is the most common definition (or rather that its components are the most common components of definitions of music) and the one which is the most clear to a reader and most prepares a reader for the further detail later in the article. There is no need to rehash every POV conflict in the main body of the article in its introduction.

As an alternative I would suggest the same introduction but with qualifications, something like:

Music is an art and entertainment which centers on organized and audible sound, though definitions vary.

Hyacinth 11:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I am a musician, but not someone who "studies" the topic. I was reviewing this article for Wikipedia 1.0 and noticed that the intro had been spoilt by a picture inserted by a known vandal. I removed this pic and decided to replace it with 3 more suitable pics from Commons. However those more expert than me may feel my additions are inappropriate or in the wrong place, please feel free to edit these, I simply thought that the article should have some appropriate pictures. Also do you think a short section on musical instruments would be appropriate, with a link to the main article at musical instrument? Cheers, Walkerma 06:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of rhythm in the introduction, perhaps?

I find it hard to swallow that whoever has written this article has managed to 'forget', in the entire six or seven paragraphs of the introduction the importance of time in music. Personally I have only come across ONE type of music without (much) rhythmn - atonal music - and no one likes it much anyway. I have, however, heard plenty without the authors' asserted 'bastions' of music, harmony and melody. Does this need a change, how about something a little less eurocentric guys?

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 12:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Note that the introduction doesn't currently mention melody or harmony. How about you show a little restraint with your accusations of ethnocentrism? Hyacinth 08:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] John Cage

I removed the word "fascistically" and replaced with "arbitrarily" (encyclopaedic tone); that sentence still seems a bit unclear to me as to what Cage's critics were actually saying (and its relation to the following musicologist's statement) Leon... 01:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

To summarize: Cage's definition imposes itself on the nonmusical. It relates to the following in that they are both about sound/noise. Hyacinth 08:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] String Theory?

Can someone please explain to me how string theory is an analogy between music and physics?

I removed the mention. Hyacinth 08:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it quite an analogy. But a vibrating string (as on a guitar or piano) is the metaphor physicists chose to represent the subatomic process theorized by "string theory," in order to make it more comprehensible. The ease and simplicity of this metaphor is probably part of the reason this theory is so popular (in the name-dropping sense).

[edit] Lack of Humanistic Perspective

I find this article's explanation of music extremely dissatisfactory. It treats music purely from a scientific perspective in descriptive and unfeeling terms. For instance, it gives three definitions of music, one asserting that all sound is music, one that music is a cultural construct, and one that it is some platonic ideal, without any further explanation. These definitions fail to take advantage of the fact that humans will be reading the article, not some robot who will never feel music. I am no scholar in music, but I know that hundreds of important figures in history have described how music affected them, poetically, metaphorically, or otherwise. These quotations describe how music affects the interior. What good is a definition of music if it only treats externalities? The externalities are important, yes, but far more people care about how music makes them feel. I suggest that a list of prominent ideas about music as it affects the interior be provided.

The rest of the article is similarly biased toward the externalities of music. It describes how different cultures organize sounds in different ways, and the contexts in which music is encountered, written and studied, but has only a single, paltry sentence to explain what music does that impels people to listen: "Music theory, within this realm, is studied with the presupposition that music is orderly and often pleasant to hear." Is this the best that music scholarship has to offer? That music is "orderly and pleasant to hear"? I would like to hear more about this.

Finally, I find it extremely odd that the five references for this article include one by a psychologist, one by a sociologist, two apparently by a linguist, and just one that is actually on music theory, which appears to make very little appearance in the article. I suggest that this article on music be primarily written from the perspective of the musician and the listener, with scientific discourse being provided where appropriate.

Volucre 22:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I welcome your contributions to this and other music related articles. I encourage you to Wikipedia:Cite sources and add information and POVs and Neutrality to the article.

I think you raise a valid point: this article, like most writings on music, neglects the lived experience of music. However, I am unclear as to what you suggest. For example, the article should be written in a neutral manner, not a highly emotional one, even if writing about emotions. Am I correct in assuming that you are talking about reception?

Have you found a definition of music which is based upon how it makes people feel or that it does? I'm not sure what a definition like that would look like.

You seem to want the "internalities" of music to both unify all music under one definition and distinguish between various types of music. I'm not sure how that would work either.

You may also be interested in Definition of music and specifically Definition of music#Music as subjective experience.

The sentence: "Music theory, within this realm, is studied with the presupposition that music is orderly and often pleasant to hear", doesn't explain anything about what music does or what compels them to listen. Also, I think most music theory is either neutral and doesn't presuppose or ever consider the quality or pleasantness of the music it considers, or presupposes the opposite, that most music is crap. Back to the point, the sentence asserts that music is orderly and pleasant, but does not explain why that would compel someone to listen.

For more theory see music theory. I warn you though, most music theory is exclusively about the externals.

What's wrong with referencing a sociologist and/or linguist in an article on music? However, please note that Dane Harwood is a cognitive psychologist but appears to work exclusively in the psychology of music, Julian Johnson is "Reader in the Faculty of Music, Tutorial Fellow in Music, St Anne’s College, Lecturer in Music, St Hilda’s College", Harold Owen "is professor emeritus of composition, musicianship, and music history and former chair of the department of composition at the University of Oregon School of Music", Jean Molino is a semologist and "anthropologist of the music", and Jean-Jacques Nattiez is a "musical semiologist or semiotician and professor of Musicology at the Université de Montréal".

Incidentally, the citations have almost all been lost.

Hyacinth 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor First Paragraphs

"The definition of music as sound with particular characteristics is taken as a given by psychoacoustics, and is a common one in musicology and performance. In this view, there are observable patterns to what is broadly labeled music, and while there are understandable cultural variations, the properties of music are the properties of sound as perceived and processed by people."

This does not distinguish music from language, without spelling out what characteristics are in mind. Language is sound with particular characteristics, admitting of cultural variations and being perceived and processed by people. Actually, a better attempt is made in the paragraph below the one above, employing harmony and melody, but neither is necessary nor sufficient. (Just think about samba bands or something.) So you might add rhythm to harmony and melody. But then think about serial music, which seems to embody none of the three, since you're supposed not to be hearing a chaotic melody but inversions and retrogrades of hexachords. Or any other more obscure example.

If you want to structure an introduction like this, ditch all the idle theory (of which the existing references are just a handful of arbitrarily picked examples) and start from the beginning. (Especially ditch the stuff about the platonic ideal and so on - for one, it's to do with the ontology of music and not the concept of it. And two, it just makes the article sound like the worst kind of student essay. No-one needs words like meta-narrative and meta-substance.)

So how about the introduction mention some of the less typical examples of what has been considered music (Schoenberg and the serial school, aleatory music, Cage's 4'33, computer music, Japanese gagaku etc. etc.), and show that there's little more in common between them all than that music is always sound and that it always temporally extended (for even a momentary chord requires the notes to be heard simultaneously - i.e. situated in time). As this doesn't capture music any more than it captures performance poetry or conversation, the introduction could then run through a couple of accounts of possible extrinsic criteria to build on the intrinsic: perhaps music is sound that is meant to elicit an emotional response? or music is sound ordered for aesthetic appreciation? etc. and show the reader some of the plausible options. At least this way it would introduce the issue (the project of defining music), show why it's an issue (things the definition should capture are highly heterogenous), and show some possible solutions. At least that would give this bit some structure and purpose.

zenpea 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would give a list of examples which do little to explain your definition of music. Hyacinth 09:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I never suggested a definition of music. I suggested that this section include plausible accounts of the definition of music, rather than a few arbitrary selections, which are introduced by way of heterogenous examples to show why the job's difficult. zenpea 09:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What would be the process or criteria by which these heterogenous examples are chosen? Hyacinth 11:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the examples are counter-examples, so nothing much hangs on the specifics of which ones are used. Anything that someone could say is music that doesn't fit with an putative account will do, as all you're trying to show are the pros and cons of various accounts. e.g. if someone says the essential thing about music is melody, you give a concrete example wholly dependent upon rhythm (e.g. something based on drumming) and ask: is it music? The person suggesting that melody is essential will have to say it isn't. So that may be a downside to their account - it excludes this particular piece of drumming, which may seem ad hoc. Similarly, if someone says determinate form is essential, then you take a piece that contains a selection of elements to be combined freely as the conductor wishes (these were quite common in the mid/late 20th century). Again, it may be a downside that these works are excluded. And so on and so forth. So you just go through the various accounts and bring out borderline examples each time to show why many accounts (particularly accounts based on entirely intrinsic properties of music) are not clearly satisfactory for capturing what we consider to be music. Then the extrinsic accounts, ones which hang the definition of the concept of music not on the particular structure of pieces of music but rather on the relation all works stand in to composer and audience, or to previous works, or to something else, bring up equally interesting counter-examples. The approach will end as an open question (given that there's no final consensus), but at least you've shown why the problem is an issue, how people have disagreed, and the debate has been illuminated with examples of putative music that many people might not be familiar with. Zenpea 23:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds lengthy. Hyacinth 10:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aspects

I readded the lost Aspects of music section removed [1] for no reason. This readds reference notes 4-6. Notes 1-3 where removed when content was moved to Definition of music. This article is difficult to maintain. Hyacinth 09:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Image:Gerrit van Honthorst - Het Concert.jpg

I removed the above image, The Concert by Gerrit van Honthorst, since its not a real concert and doesn't seem informative. Hyacinth 10:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Platonic ideal

"The platonic ideal of music is currently the least fashionable in the philosophy of criticism and music, because it is crowded on one side by the physical view - what is the metasubstance of music made of, if not sound? - and on the other hand by the constructed view of music - how can one tell the difference between any metanarrative of music and one which is merely intersubjective? However, its appeal, finding unexpected mathematical relationships in music, and finding analogies between music and physics, means that this view continues to find adherents, including such critics and performers as Charles Rosen and Edward Rothstein."

I removed the above. What is the platonic ideal of music? Hyacinth 10:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music Therapy

Although I dont know very much about the subject of Music Therapy, Does anyone else think it should have some sort of link on this page? I dont think it needs a full section but maybe a link in the see also part. Dangerhertz 14:47 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-commercial professional

"Finally, there are composers and musicians who are professional without being a direct part of the commercial music industry."

Such as? Hyacinth

Such as composers living mainly from state funds and the like (a very normal arrangement in Europe); or people making a living by playing at a local bar or in the street; or people distributing their music over the internet. Not to mention that the music industry is little more than 100 years old so everything before that! And many others. Why this idea that the music industry is ubiquitous? And why delete that sentence before seeing the answer? --Sangild 12:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too Staunchy?

The article should contain more about the diversity of music in the world and more than just a few short references to modern music. It largely discusses the professional and classical aspects of music and not much else. Perhaps a section on the diverse styles of music would be helpful. Some pictures of performances of modern music wouldn't hurt either.PierceG 03:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, death metal and grindcore aren't acceptable forms of music to normal people, and, at most, are harsh forms of music with, at most, underground followings. Yeah, a little bit about the diversity of music would be nice.backstabb 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm wondering where these two articles are?

Bass thump -- a type of music that is purely synthetised bass thumps, typically played loudly
Boom car -- a type of car with an extremely loud car stereo that produces bass thumps that can be heard a quarter mile away

I searched and could not find them. Does wikipedia have them? DyslexicEditor 10:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the bass thump you're referring to might be the four to the floor. I've no idea about the boom car though, sorry. Wintran 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Observations of External Links section

The music article is important and general. Some of the links in this section don't sem to qualify. The Cool Music site link and the Guipoo Music link both seem like spam to me. The first one also breaks NPOV, I think. So, I am going to try to be bold and remove them. Does anyone else disagree with my doing that? I also question whether some of the other links might not really qualify either. Does anyone have any ideas about this? Mildy Amused 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just realized something. The two links I will now be deleting were made by anonymous editors. Their IP addresses show them only making one post. It seems to confirm my thoughts about about them being spam. Mildy Amused 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. I've noticed a couple questionable links get added but didn't remove them because I couldn't be positive they were spam - ie, there could be an argument that they add some value. Now that someone else is agreeing, I say go for it. -- Laura S | talk to me 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I looked at each of the links. Most look like spam or they are too specific for the general word music. The website Music Web is a tiny "community" with very few posts and requires a log in. Its description sounds more like a television commercial and not NPOV.South Indian Music is not spam, but it seems too narrow to be on a general page like music. The Virginia Tech Multimedia Music Dictionary and probably Wikia's Music are the only ones that seem to apply. I looked at the very first time the Wikia Music site was created a year ago. Now I am not sure about that one either. So, is it really a good idea for us to really wipe out the links section and only keep two links?

Mildy Amused 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a while to respond to this because I'm not sure what to do here. I agree that the spam links should go. Some of them weren't so obviously spammy but still set off small alarms with me, so I have absolutely no objections if you want to get rid of them. Music Web would be an example. The narrow links such as South Indian Music are what troubles me. I want to say that they are too narrow and shouldn't be there - if they're worthwhile links they should be linked from their specifically related articles (if they exist). On the other hand, music links are music links. But in the end, I think since we can't possibly have external links to all music-related subjects, it might be best to get rid of the narrow ones. You could even make a POV argument that only some types of music are represented in the links.

The number of links doesn't bother me; if only two are appropriate, then we should only have two. I'm guessing there are more sites out there that would be good to link to; maybe a Google search would yield some good links. Maybe I will look tomorrow; it's 2:30am here and time for me to sleep. :) -- Laura S | talk to me 06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The "South Indian Music" link is indeed spam; users like 202.83.52.9 (t·c), 202.83.52.31 (t·c), and 202.83.52.19 (t·c) have been adding it to many articles. And even if it weren't spam, I think it would belong at Music of India or a similar article. Wmahan . 00:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Laura S and Wmahan, I totally agree with every point you both made made. If we're all in agreement, then we could delete them all except the two more appropriate links, The Virginia Tech Multimedia Music Dictionary and Wikia's Music. Do we all agree?

Mildy Amused 15:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and I went ahead and removed the other links. Wmahan . 09:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hip Hop

A recent edit brought this paragraph to my attention:

In one opinion, Hip-Hop is said to be a popular style of music, but this is merely a cultural phrase used by fans of such a style. Hip-hop is not music, because, according to the most recent of dictionaries and resources, music "is the art of combining instrumental sounds that create beauty of form, pleasant sounds, and harmony." Hip-hop does not do any of these to any acceptable extent, and therefore is not technically music.

This sounds awfully POV, especially the part implying that hip-hop doesn't create "pleasant sounds", etc. It's also not sourced and is stuck in the "Education" section where it's totally out of place. Lastly, it was added by a user with no other edits at all. Would anyone object if I removed this paragraph? -- Laura S | talk to me 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do. It's nonsense. MarkBuckles (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. The more I looked at it, the more it grated on me. -- Laura S | talk to me 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

Here are some of the issues I'd like to resolve: I'm uncomfortable with silence being mentioned as one of the primary elements of music in the first line. Clearly, there is silence in music, and 4'33" is an important piece, philosophically and artistically. However, this is a survey article of an incredibly broad topic. Fundamentally, music is sound.

Furthermore, tones are sound. Need the sentence say "sounds or tones"?

I'm also uncomfortable with the adjective "human" as a defining characteristic of music. Most animals make music, birdsong being one of most clear examples. "Human" is also mentioned twice in the lead which seems unnecessary.

I find the writing unnecessarily difficult to understand: "Music involves complex generative forms in time through the construction of patterns and combinations of natural stimuli, principally sound."

Besides being difficult to parse, not all music is complex, and not all of it involves generative forms. Plus, what stimuli are we talking about besides sound? I think the entire sentence is unnecessary, at least for the lead.

I had a try at revising some of this but my edits were reverted without comment. Can we please work together to improve this? Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music as Time

Hi MarkBuckles,

I had earlier attempted to explain this, I would repeat it.

You asked me whether anything was meant by the term "like sound" in music defn. Well, In music theory, music is the generative process of structures of time. It could be represented in different forms that could express structures and form of time and interval. Hence the German philosopher Goethe said "Architecture is frozen music".

Literature uses alphabets to express ideas however literature is not the study of alphabets rather it is the expression and analysis of cultural ideas through writing. Alphabets are just the tools of literature. Hence in todays world, cinema is considered as a form of literature because a lot of modern expression of ideas is done through film. So it is not a hard and fast rule that expression of cultural ideas should only be through words, grammar or alphabets.

In like manner musical expression (expression of structures of time) has traditionally been represented through sound. Meaning using sound as a tool for musical expression, just as literature uses alphabets as a tool for cultural communication. However there is no hard and fast rule that it should only be sound or that only sound could be used as a representation of structures of time. In fact most music scholars consider some of the greatest works of European classical music to be best understood only through the notational representation of music to be read and interpreted by each individual. This is particularly the case with the masterpiece composition Die Kunst der Fuge by Johann Sebastian Bach.

This was further expressed in the dadaist music of 1912 by Viking Eggeling called as visual symphony or more popularly known as "diagonal symphony", which represented music in diagonal patterns of lines and intersections on film and the revolutionary concept of serialism by Schoenberg, Alban berg and Anton webern which is further expressed in minimalist music. Some of these ideas are also expressed in the classical rock masterpiece compositions like echoes by Pink Floyd (1971).

P.S. It is important to use the expression "generative process" in the defn because that is the most defining characteristic process of music, of how few elementary notes interact to generate infinite forms, styles and compositions of music. May be we could remove the word complex. thanks for your collaboration. Robin klein 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Hi Robin! Thanks for your response. :) I still have many concerns! Most of my points remain unaddressed: (use of the "silence" in the lead, use of "human", apparent redudant phrase "sounds or tones", and ease of comprehension.

Regarding your explanation of time, firstly let me say that I'm sorry I'm unaware of your previous explanations and thank you for sharing with me. I remain really unconvinced however! I feel that the compositional devices you are mentioning (Art of the Fugue, Serialism, Minimalism) are all devices aimed at creating sound! Composers and scholars I've worked with have always made the point that "the music is not the score." The score is merely a prescription for sound, even in theoretical works - because without sound, there would be no basis for the theory. Am I misunderstanding your point?

Regarding time, of course music exists in time, and this is one of the fundamental points of its definition which should be mentioned probably in the first sentence. However, I believe its medium is sound. Per your analogies to literature - I'm confused. I know there's a clear comparison with, for example, visual arts, which exist perpetually. Isn't there many things that exist in time though and not just music? Movies are not perpetual, at least no more than recordings or notated scores, and many non-artistic events occur in time as well. Do you see why I'm confused?

Works like the dadaist symphony, Cage's piece, or thousands of other pieces of art that are associated with music are the exception to the rule, not part of the rule.

Dictionary.com yields this definition: "The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre."

Well, I find all three adjectives subjective, but I find the first phrase spot on. Music is artistic, it arranges sound, and it exists in time. Can we make our lead as clear? MarkBuckles (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi MarkBuckles, I am not convinced by your arguements either. Cage's music though a novelty piece for concert performance, is actually a representation of the underlying temporal basis of music. Selling a recording of cage's 4'33" is like selling hot air in room temperature. :))

My point is this: The element of music as "time" and as a "generative process" (simple or complex) is most essential and any definition of music should state this in its main statement. (refer to Ray Jackendoff and Fred Lerdahl, Music psychology, Pitch class space, Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems and Generative grammar of music). Robin klein 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that "The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre." best describes music. Music is organised sound in its basis. I think reference to early music such as baroque, classical and romantic would be better rather than experimental composers such as John Cage. Just my opinion if it helps. :-)

The existence of some modern-day genres such as death metal and grindcore, which enjoy an extensive underground following, indicate that even the harshest sounds can be considered music if the listener is so inclined.

Is it just me or is that a really subjective line right there, for all we know the Beach Boys might be considered harsh in twenty years and grindcore reclassified as light pop.

Also, all this jive about music is made to make you feel good is whack, I think just calling music the 'art of sound' or 'sounds arranged together' is about as neutral as you could get.

[edit] Music History section

I've just done a little revamping of the music history section. However, the full length article about music history contradicts this section (about the samaveda, I think), and its introduction is both clearer and more concise (and more to the point) than this section. What if I just cut the whole music history section and paste the intro from the history of music article? J Lorraine 08:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC) i saw a recent tv show on channel4 uk which said that humans are pre set to like music the same way we are to learn a language user bouse23 1330 december3rd 2006 gmt

[edit] Definition of Music

Right now this article states "The broadest definition of music is organized sound that is pleasing to the average ear." However, as someone who has studied music education, I still don't think this is broad enough. I don't think the "average ear" part is the best term to use because there are many forms of music that are enjoyed by very few people. And besides that, the average ear enjoys top 40 and county music. An example of the non-average ear is Alvin Curran, whose "music" is a bit too far out there for me, but there are probably some people who enjoy it and consider it music. Other forms of atonal and non-tonal music are just as questionable to many people, but there are those that consider it music.

I think a better broad definition is to say "The broadest definition of music is organized sound that is pleasing to a group of people." So I'm going to change the wording. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suso (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/u/s/Talk%7EMusic_6eea.html"