Talk:20th century music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Redirect Inappropriate?

I don't think this redirect is accurate; I think Timeline of trends in music would be better. Comments? --zenohockey 01:24, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rename?

Since there's a rather extensive article on 20th century classical music, perhaps this article should be renamed 20th century popular music? -- T.o.n.y 19:31, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I would vote to keep classical in, but limit its length and put in the cross references to the longer article where appropriate. --Ssilvers 03:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] COTW

Here's a few things that I'd reckon would be worthy of inclusion in this article:

Apart from that, I'm stoked. Not much else of interest happened to music in the 20th century. --Thewayforward 09:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You could start out with how ragtime started the whole new music thing. Then you could talk about music during WWII, then you could talk about how drugs in the psychadellic 60s changed music so drastically. This article disappoints me. A LOT. I've found very good things on wikipedia, and frankly, I'm suprised. I don't have all too much knowledge on the matter, but I hope this article gets better. Fast. 199.224.109.217 21:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a huge amount of 20th Century info in the history of music article. I suggest that someone start cutting and pasting, and then everyone else can expand, edit, etc. --Ssilvers 03:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
A lot depends on how heavy we want to make this article. Just in the second half of the century, we had Rock and Roll, Metal, Punk, Rap and Hip Hop, the birth of MTV and the music video. PDXblazers 15:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Would it not be easier to just split up the history of music article? move the entire bottom 3rd of that article, to here? The empty section headings provided in this article, are already all written in that one... No point in rewriting it all. -Quiddity 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
NOOooo! You cant just copy it across! That's massive overwhelming redundancy!
My previous statement was meant to entail proposing a split on the talk page of history of music, as they're obviously covering exactly the same intended ground. You should propose removing the entire bottom 1/3, and replace it with a short section with a {mainlink} link coming to this article. Because the history of music article needs to be less western and modern -centric, per the comments in the nomination test. Ya? ;) -Quiddity 05:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert on what the best way is to organize this encyclopedia. If you feel confident, go ahead and propose it or even do it. As they say, "be bold". But no one was contributing, so I took the bull by the horns. --Ssilvers 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I mean we can't just duplicate the text, because then when someone fixes/adds something to one copy, it wont be in the other. See what i mean? redundant duplication :)
I just stumbled in here whilst perusing the community portal, i'm afraid i dont have time to add another project to my list ;)
I'll add split template tags, but someone else needs to go explain/discuss the issue at Talk:history of music. -Quiddity 17:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed from history of music the section that was copied here. Noone replied to my message there. Hopefully this all works out ok. -Quiddity 08:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, but I added back a shortened introduction there. I think that both the introduction here and the introduction there could probably use a one paragraph summary or overview of the musical types that are described below. Do you agree? --Ssilvers 18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Yup :) --Quiddity 20:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I added bluegrass music under folk. I'm not sure why folk gets a separate section from popular music. Some of the styles listed under popular music are just as popular (or not) as folk music.Cat 14:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../2/0/t/Talk%7E20th_century_music.html"