Talk:History of music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a WikiProject related to the the study of History.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

History of music has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

History of music was the collaboration of the week for the week starting on February 13, 2005. For details on improvements made to the article, see history of past collaborations.

See: #Shaping this into a featured article and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/History of music

Contents 1 Please excuse my ignorance 2 More music 3 History of music by genre 4 In relation... 5 Tense 6 Classification of composers 7 Jazz 8 Dates 9 Prehistoric music 10 Too many images! 11 Heavy metal suggestions 12 Shaping this into a featured article 13 Polenc an Impressionist? 14 From the lead paragraph 15 Genres 16 Revision by Universal1300 17 Hip-hop 18 Besides Egypt 19 Piano music 20 Disambig 21 Popular Music Catagories 22 Split - to 20th century music 23 A few minor edits and why

[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)

[edit] More music

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)

[edit] History of music by genre

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)

[edit] In relation...

The article says, "...in 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)

[edit] Tense

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)

[edit] Classification of composers

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)

[edit] Jazz

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)

[edit] Dates

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)

[edit] Prehistoric music

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)

[edit] Too many images!

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)

[edit] Heavy metal suggestions

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)

[edit] Shaping this into a featured article

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)

[edit] Polenc an Impressionist?

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)

[edit] From the lead paragraph

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)

[edit] Genres

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)

[edit] Revision by Universal1300

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)

[edit] Hip-hop

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)

[edit] Besides Egypt

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)

[edit] Piano music

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.

[edit] Disambig

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)

[edit] Popular Music Catagories

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)

[edit] Split - to 20th century music

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)

[edit] A few minor edits and why

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)