Talk:Classical music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Diference Between Complexity And Difficulty

This article states that classical music is the most complex type of music, or very complex. This is completley biased and just wrong. While much of classical is difficult the average jazz or tech metal piece is far far more complex rythmically, melodically and harmonically than the average classical piece. While many pieces for example on the piano are very difficult to play their complexity is limitted to modulation and the use of harmony. Jazz can for example employs modulation over every chord change and uses chords that are never found in many classical pieces. Jazz also makes use of improvisation something not found in today's classical which makes a Jazz pianist really a composer and musician and not just the human equivalent of a player piano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.210.130 (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Setting

Note on the use of the word: while the most common use is to set a text, the word also applies to a pre-existing melody. This "setting" a folk melody or chorale means to harmonize it. It can also refer to the instrumentation: to set a plainsong chant for 4 voices. It does not matter in the present case. Stirling Newberry 11:40, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poor naming

Now that we have abandoned the unclear term Classical music can't we leave it behind all together, so European-influenced art music. I realise that many non-Europeans have written in this style, but is it necessary to say "European-influenced" over "European"? Phillip Glass has composed in Indian classical music - does that mean we should move the article to Indian-influenced classical music? --Oldak Quill 01:26, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been following this debate, but I think "European-influenced classical music" is an insane name. Nobody would ever think to look for the article there. Wikipedia Naming conventions says very clearly "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." It does not say "use the most technically accurate" or "use the terminology used by academics and professionals."
In the case of this article, that name is Classical music.
And there's nothing unclear about it. The dictionary definition is "Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music." That's clear, precise, and it is the terminology used by most people. Isn't that what this article is about?
Does anybody really think "European-influenced classical music" is "the most common name... that does not conflict with the names of other people or things?" Dpbsmith (talk) 02:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What about the conflict between your "classical music" and Quill and other's "art music". In my opinion avoiding ethnocentrism is also important.
I was not aware that Philip Glass had composed any Indian music at all. I did not invent the term "classical" and I did not implement its use on wikipedia or in the larger culture, but I support its use based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). The current article and category titling uses "classical", though many of the templates use "art". I would find European classical music an acceptable title, though I did not move to that title because I felt it would be objected that the clarity added by "influenced" is necessary. Hyacinth 02:25, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article is very easy to find from Classical music. Hyacinth 02:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I stand by the dictionary. The dictionary, at least the one I use (American Heritage) is very specific about the meaning of the word "classical" when applied to "music." There are exactly two meanings:
3. Music a. Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries. b. Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music.
The only ambiguity here is that it can mean "(European)-Classical-as-opposed-to-Romantic" and "(European)-Classical-as-opposed-to-Rock." According to the dictionary, classical music is European-tradition music, literally by definition.
References to "classical" Indian or Japanese or Chinese music are perfectly valid (meaning 2 is "Of or relating to the most artistically developed stage of a civilization: Chinese classical poetry") but are not what is commonly meant by the term "classical music." There should be a line at the top saying something like
For the "classical," i.e. artistically highly developed music of other cultures, see Classical music traditions
or something of the sort, and the list that is now at Classical music should go there.
Our guidelines call for the "most common name of a person or thing" and that is "Classical music," not "European classical music." I don't tune in to WCRB and hear them say "WCRB, your station for European classical music."
P. S. "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Knock knock." "Who's there?" "Philip Glass." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please somebody add Johann Strauss to the chronological table

I cant belive the composer of the blue danube is missing in this article!

[edit] Poor naming and cultural chauvanism

  • The term classical music is very clear. It is the other cultures that adopted the term classical music to equate their music as equivalent or 'superior' to european music. Just a case of cultural chauvinism and jingoism. eg: the original term for so called hindustani classical music is "sangeet", so instead one should move Indian classical music to page called hindustani sangeet rather than move 'classical music' to 'european influenced classical music'.

The term classical music was and is a european term coined originally for european concert music. If other cultures adopted it, does it make un-european?? So tomorrow if so called Indian 'classical music' calls itself Indian MUSIK does that mean german music can no longer use the term MUSIK.

the term classical music is a term fundamentally refering to european music, since it was coined by the europeans to refer as such. this definitely sounds rude and may be politically incorrect. But really, it doesnt seem worthwhile to be politically correct at the cost of authenticity.

If anything at all, at least move the contents of this poorly named page 'European influenced classical music' to the page "European classical music". yes I know philip glass, bernstein or copland etc are/were American; but really we are talking about a tradition of music based on its origins, not the nationality of composers. Robin klein 22:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find you argument strange. Europeans may have been the first to use "classical" music in the manner of "classy" or "art" music but this already is two generalizations removed from the "Classical antiquity" to which it refers.
Sure, non-Europeans use "classical music" chauvanistically just like Europeans do, for example Ravi Shankar has argued the only two good traditions are the classical ones of Europe and India, but rather than illustrating the greater chauvanism and racism of non-Europeans it simply points out the similarities between the art tradition in Europe and the art tradition in India. Hyacinth 22:45, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Per a few requests the page has been moved to European classical music. Hyacinth 00:11, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What a peculiar discussion. The term 'classical music' is English, so of course it was coined by Europeans. Moreover, as Hyacinth points out, it wasn't coined to refer to European concert music (though it has come to be used in that sloppy way), but to refer to music composed in a style and tradition that drew upon the perceived virtues of the art of the Classical World of ancient Greece and Rome (similarly: classical theatre, classical poetry, etc.). There's enough real chauvinism in the world — there's no need to look for it where it doesn't exist. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we are to consider the contributions of serious composers from countries whose cultures are unquestionably European in origin (the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa), then "Western" is more appropriate, being aware, of course, that (1) some folk traditions relating to indigenous peoples have their norms and traditions (i.e., Peru), (2) that any composer has the temptation to adapt norms of the underlying folk culture into his music (examples: Chopin, Dvořák, Ives, Bartók), and (3) that persons schooled in Western musical traditions will be tempted to write in the contemporary -- and even archaic -- manner irrespective of national origin. Thus if a musical composition is accepted as "classical" in the concert and recording business, then it will be recognized as "classical". Folk elements do not degrade a piece of music, and may give it power and accessibility. Music is "classical", it seems, due to structure more than to content. --66.231.41.57 03:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There are indeed arguments to be made that Classical Music as a term is a very loose definition. I agree that Western Culture would indeed be mostly correct, as opposed to Euro-inspired. Really it is European music inspired by the musical traditions of many different cultures. The descriptive in the article leads me to believe that Classical Music was inspired by European culture, which is only partially true. Cultural fads have largely influenced Classical Music. Turkish Music (Alla Turka), Eastern (Turandot, Madama Butterfly)influenced music and the huge popularity of these influences with the cultural elite and the proletariat classes alike, far outweigh the valididty of the articles definition....aside from the fact that the American Heritage Dictionary even gave a definition challenging the validity of the author's claims.--Ngranner 13:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Ngranner

Just a note of addition to this Naming, in most of the countries (other than of course the European) Classical music always refers to the classical traditions of that country / region. Incidentally the European tradition is referred as Western Classical music. [User: AR] 11:17, 08 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Lies, Damned lies and Classical elitism

The google search for the forms of music regarded as / or using the term "classical music", in double inverted comma ( " " ), yields the following statistics of number of pages; as on 27th Feb 2005: eg: "Ancient Greek music" - 10,600


Oriental - Asian Musics regarded as / or using the term "Classical music"

   * Andalusian (North African) classical music  -  111
   * Arab classical music  -  849
   * Azerbaijani classical music:  -  57  Mugam  -  14,100
   * Burmese classical music  -  120
   * Byzantine classical music: 163; Orthodox Byzantine music  -  68
   * Cambodian classical music: Pinpeat  -  72
   * Central Asian classical music:  -  20  
         o Uzbek and Tajik shashmaqam  -  219
   * Chinese classical music Yayue,   -  9690  Guqin  -  18,800
   * Eastern classical music  -  666
   * Indian classical music:   -  1,40,000
         o Bengali classical music  -  15
         o Carnatic music  -  1,16,000
         o Hindustani music  -  40,900 
           and Pakistani classical music - 340
         o Hindustani classical music  -  10,500
               + Odissi classical music  -  10
         o Kashmiri classical music: Sufiana Kalam  -  5
         o North Indian classical music  -  11,500
         o South Indian classical music  -  5,190
   * Indonesian classical music  -  117
       Gamelan classical music  -  35  
       Gamelan  -  5,13,000  
   * Iranian classical music:  -  4010; Musiqi-e assil  -  152
   * Japanese classical music:   -  977; Gagaku  -  41,100
   * Korean court music  -  1,940
   * Laotian classical music:  -  13; Sep nyai  -  86
   * Middle eastern classical music"  -  112
   * Nepalese classical music:  -  9; Charya  -  11,000
   * Ottoman classical music:  -  897; Sanat  -  1,250,000
   * Thai court music  -  53
   * Tibetan classical music:  -  35; Nangma  -  1,020
   * Vietnamese classical music  -  88

Occidental-Western traditions of music regarded as / or using the term "classical music"

   * Classical rock music  -  1,110
   * Classical Jazz music -  2,010    

   * Ancient Greek music  -  10,600
   * Western classical music  -  34,400
   * European written music  -  3

Other traditions regarded as / or using the term "classical music"

   * African classical music  -  158
   * Classical folk music  -  7,680
   * Folk Classical music  -  792

Original term refering to "Klassische musik" / "classical music" from Europe:


   * European classical music  -  10,600
   * Classical music  -  15,700,000
   * Klassische musik  -  9,680,000 (in german)

The term "classical music" yields over 15.5 million pages, (15,700,000), but that is inclusive of all the traditions and various musical forms across the globe using the term "classical music".


The term "Classical music" or "Klassische Musik" originally described only written music from Europe and largely refers to music composed by european composers. With the naive assumption of deriving at the usage of the term "classical music" for music written by European composers through an approximate subtraction of the number of "non-european music" pages using the term "classical music". The approximate estimate of the term "classical music" refering only to music written by European composers would be over (13.5 million).

A lover of Classical Music was once referred to as a "long hair".

 Ex: He doesn't dig Benny. He's a "long hair."

--Hindustani classical music, how about African sangeet??

from classical music to European classical music to western classical music. Way to go.

-- wonder how delibes' "flower duet" morphed into "British airways song" to Yanni "Aria" - for soprano"

P.S. "Western classical music"!! how about "Eastern classical music"??. Robin klein 14:49, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is the above all one message from Robin klein? Hyacinth 23:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll: what is "the most common name?"

[edit] Poll

(Just indicate what you think is the most common name... we'll worry about grouping or counting when and if it becomes necessary) Dpbsmith (talk) 17:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note 1: Voting for X as "the most common name" is not a vote to name the article X. As Hyacinth points out, the most common name is not always the appropriate name for an article. All I'm trying to do here is to find out what people think is the most common name. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note 2: If you happen to believe that both questions have the same answer, say so. Ambiguity happens. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is "the most common name" for the genre of music, in the educated European tradition, performed e.g. by symphony orchestras?

  • "Classical music." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Classical music". --Carnildo 20:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Classical music." --Wetman 21:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Classical music." Robin klein 02:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Classical music." Antandrus 02:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "Classical music." Tuf-Kat 03:31, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • It depends upon which group you're talking about (the most common term, if you really did a poll of everyone in the English-speaking world, could well be somthing like 'that snobby music', or worse). Among many people, serious music and art music are both commonly used. Classical music is certainly very commonly used, though most people who know anything about it at least recognise its inaccuracy, even if they don't refuse to use or acknowledge it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is "the most common name" for, collectively, the genres of highly developed art music of all cultures?

  • There isn't any. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know of any. --Carnildo 20:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • "World music" if you're buying CDs --Wetman 21:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Yeah, I thought of that—but the "world music" bins also include folk music. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC))
  • If by "highly-developed art music", you mean the musicological definition of classical music, then "classical music" is the most common name Tuf-Kat 22:28, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no common term to collectively refer to all so called 'highly developed art music' across cultures. Robin klein 02:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Art music or classical music are both in use. World music applies to popular music. Stirling Newberry 03:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that Stirling Newberry is wrong here; see, for example, the BBC Music Magazine, or the BBC's output in general. World music is used as a catch-all term (and a pretty silly one at that). Still, I agree that classical music is again (if rather sloppily) the most common term for the art music of different cultures. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

How about coining a new term for all these highly developed music across cultures-- Chauvinistic musics or elitist music. Indian elitist music??.

highly developed?? is Pink Floyd Junk?? Is Andre Previn Jazz compositions inferior to his 'classical compositions'??, Is Philip glass "Einstein on the beach" superior to "Satyagraha"??. What would you call Bela bartok - classical folk?? or Folk classical??. Who defines what is highly developed??, sounds like 19th century and early 20th century chauvinism in evolutionary sciences and biology --"man the highest developed". Only to be knocked out by Stephen Jay Gould and the even humbler Punctuated equilibrium. didn't it already happen with classical music - my beloved atonalism and, the humble minimalism....... "highly deveopled" -- when will classical music leave its elitism?? and yes why dont you redirect "Indian classical music" and "Hindustani classical music" as Hindustani Sangeet its original name. That would be a change from Chauvinism and a great service to wikipedia.

There is nothing elitist about classical music.It is open to anyone who wishes to take the time and effort to explore it.It is a tradition of music that over the centuries has been open to influences from all over the globe and from all periods of history and within this tradition there are a great exists a great variety of different styles . The same could be said for Jazz-and if we were to say that the main defining aspect of Jazz is it's improvisational quality then the Indian Classical music (Or Sangeet if you prefer )is also Jazz Frankly I find the 'elitist' accusation a term favoured by philistines and those who seek to perpetuate the current fashion of dumbing down and the criticism is pure bunk. I do not mean to denigrate popular musics, folk musics, the classical musics of other traditions all of which have merit but I cetainly feel that the term 'Classical' music is a perfectly acceptable and well known term for the tradition of traditional Western Art Music. That is not to say that as music history continues that different kinds of Art music will be incoporated into the classical music paradigm. Godfinger 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides the current term European classical music is better than Western classical music. whatever "west" means?? western who?? western where??. What about European written music or even better the old fashioned Classical music Robin klein 02:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Blame me for that phrase "highly developed art music." I was trying to find some description that a) expressed clearly what I meant, and b) didn't include the word "classical." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • (By the way you are mistaken about humans having been considered "highly developed" or "highly evolved." 19th and 20th century zoologists never regarded humans as the most highly evolved species. On the contrary, because adult humans show less difference from the embryonic state than other mammals, they were usually placed near the base of the mammalian evolutionary tree, with the Artiodactyls considered to be the most highly evolved). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)? Hyacinth 23:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. But does this mean that you agree that "classical music" is the most common name, but feel that this is a case where it is inappropriate to use the most common name? I think I understand some of the issues, but weigh them differently. To take an analogy from a different field:
How do you feel about the article entitled Starfish? Should Asteroid become a disambiguation to Asteroid (astronomy) and Asteroid (zoology) with Starfish redirecting to Asteroid (zoology)? Is "Starfish" acceptable at all, or is it our duty to reserve the word "fish" for the vertebrate class Pisces and expunge Starfish entirely as a vulgar misnomer? Should we insist that our readers use the phrase Sea star? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do biologists actually refer to starfish as asteroids?
Indeed, they do. In fact the American Heritage Dictionary, which I use as a sort of touchstone for the boundary where "precision" leaves off and "specialized, technical language" or "pedantry" begins, says: "1. Astronomy: Any of numerous small celestial bodies that revolve around the sun, with orbits lying chiefly between Mars and Jupiter and characteristic diameters between a few and several hundred kilometers. Also called minor planet, planetoid. 2. Zoology: See starfish." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Even if so, the situation still wouldn't be a very good analogy. If starfish referred most commonly to the broad category, members of Class Asteroidea, but specialists in the field (asteroidologists?) used it to refer specifically to a family within the lay grouping of starfish, while more general biologists used the word to mean aquatic invertebrate animal -- that would be a closer analogy. Tuf-Kat 03:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
My point is that it would be insanely pedantic to insist on using the term "asteroid" for the article on starfish, with or without disambiguation. I don't think current situation with the names of the classical music articles is insanely pedantic, but I do think that it has motivated more by editors wanting to make it clear that they are knowledgeable about proper terminology than with service to our readers.
For purposes of discussion, it might be useful to give names to the three ambiguous meanings of "classical music:" the "lay" meaning ("educated European tradition"); the "musicological" definition (I'm relying on you here). Now, what to call the third meaning, "Haydn-and-Mozart-as-opposed-to-Liszt-and-Rachmaninoff?" Is the full phrase "classical music" really ever used in this way? Certainly one might say "Haydn was a classical composer" or "Mozart was a composer of the classical era," but would someone say "The New York Philharmonic is doing something a little unusual tonight: they're having a programme that is all classical music?" Dpbsmith (talk) 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


My point/question was: why are we taking a survey about what the most common name is? Could this have been established by discussion, and one it is established by poll, what does that information mean?

To answer you're question: I think that classical music is probably the most common term used when people talk about European art music, but that the most common contemporary (contemporary as in now) definition of classical music would include all art music. If you asked, "Does China have classical music?" (or "did?") I think most people would say "yes." However, I currently have no way of knowing the answers to either of these questions, at least none that is acceptable as an article source, such as my opinion or any poll or test I myself do.

Other questions I think we should ask, and may answer without sources, include:
"How much harder is it to find European classical music now?"
"How much more clear is the meaning of the term classical music made now?"
"What are other navigational advantages or disadvantages?"
"What should the templates and categories be titled?"
Hyacinth 21:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My answers are, it's currently not that hard to find European classical music. Let me call the three meanings of classical "musicological," "common," and "Haydn-Mozart." The Haydn-Mozart meaning is currently called Classical music era and is linked from the others, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that.
  • the current situation is that Classical music refers to the musicological meaning but begins by defining and linking to the others
  • the common meaning is treated under an artificial title which I dislike and which nobody actually uses.
    • Obviously, my preference is that it be the other way around, i.e.
  • Classical music should refer to the common meaning and begin by defining and linking to the others; as a result,
  • the musicological meaning would then need to get a somewhat artificial title.
I can't pretend it makes a lot of difference though.
The biggest problem I have with the current situation is that "European classical music" is not a term that anyone commonly uses. It's rather like the situation that persisted for months, where an article was titled Analogue disc record because nobody could agree on "phonograph record" or "gramophone record."
In any event, suspecting that things might end up staying as they are, I've made myself happier by wordsmithing the "disambiguation lead" in the current Classical music.
OK, I've said my say. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Classical music to an Indian means Indian Classical music much the same way as Classical Music in say Europe means Western Classical music. In the west Europian traditional music is called Classical music and other classical musics go with the regions/country classical music. It is the other way around in those countries. However to much of the world that is not west it is known as western classical music. Which is much fair and particular. ~rAGU (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tuf-Kat's proposal

I'll go along with pretty much whatever the consensus is, but I think there should be three articles:

  • Classical music era: as it exists now, but preferably with a better title
  • Classical music: the musicological definition, referring to a style taught through formal education (I'm pretty sure that's the most common definition)
    • The American Heritage Dictionary doesn't think so. As noted above, their definition is:
      • 3. Music a. Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries. b. Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • I was unclear -- I meant that formal education is the most common characteristic musicologists use to separate classical music from folk or popular, not that this definition is the most common definition of classical music in general. Tuf-Kat 03:11, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Western classical music: the Western European tradition of classical music (I could live with the current title though)

Tuf-Kat 22:28, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

The Google search for "large classical music audience" turns up 1.8 or 1.9 million pages, but "fewer classical music listeners" only turns out 44,100 pages. Can you explain this?

Hmm... Is there some context to your question that I am missing? Presumably, the reason for the results is that nearly two million pages use the words "large classical music audience" and about 44000 use "fewer classical music listeners". I can't say I'm shocked. Tuf-Kat 23:52, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

What do you propose as an improvement for "Classical music era", and what is wrong with it? "Classical period (music)" has been suggested on Talk:Classical music era. Hyacinth 01:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't really think that's any better, and have no better suggestion. See that talk page. Tuf-Kat 02:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why is "Western" preferable to "European"? Hyacinth 01:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have never really known what is supposed to be the referent for the word "Western" in "Western civilization," "Western canon," etc. I'm guessing that it either has something to do with the Western part of the Roman empire, or with the Western versus Eastern parts of the Catholic church. I don't think it has to do with which side of the Greenwich meridian you're on, though I could certainly be wrong... Anyone care to enlighten me? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's very imprecise, to say the least, and may be related to Occident vs. Orient (places such as Asia Minor and Egypt were considered "oriental" at least as late as the 11th edition Britannica). If the Roman empire/church split were to be the source I'd expect Russia to be considered non-western, but it isn't, really. Can't enlighten you further, sorry... I guess I prefer "European." Antandrus 01:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I only prefer "Western" because I think it's more common in this context, not because it makes more sense (neither title is really great from a logical standpoint, since there are i.e. Japanese composers and performers of whatever you want to call this style). It gets more google hits, though I'm sure the search is imprecise (Wikipedia is top 3 for both searches!). Tuf-Kat 01:56, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Western world explains that the East/West division was initially a Ancient Greek and Roman thing, and that Occident literally means "west". Western is definitely preferable to Occident in my opinion. Hyacinth 03:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Damn, that Wiccan-internet-encyclopedia thingie is good. Maybe I should bookmark it. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harrison's proposal

Lou Harrison divides the world, musically and culturally, into Pacifica and the Atlantic. Thus, rather than Europe and the United States being in "Western music" and Asian, African, Australian music in "Eastern music", he groups the United States west coast with Asia and Australia and the United States east coast with Europe and Africa (or just west Africa, I forget). Hyacinth 01:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As far as folk music goes, that's kind of reasonable, I guess, though dividing the world into only two sections is arbitrary and probably not very informative. You should add his division to cultural area, though, as it's interesting that he does so. Tuf-Kat 02:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does anybody actually have a proposal that they feel strongly is the best? It seems like there's really no great way to untangle this, and everyone's kind of blandly putting forth half-hearted suggestions because no one's come up with anything better. Tuf-Kat 02:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

    • I think now it is better to stick with the current title, it seems to be the best possible compromise. European and NOT western and also classical music. So lets just keep it as European classical music. Robin klein 03:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think I feel pretty strongly about what I don't want, though I do not have a strong specific preferance. Hyacinth 03:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
European classical music is fine with me, though I'd be OK with Western classical music as well, if consensus emerges for that name. Antandrus 03:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've said my say. As an outsider/interloper on this page, I defer to the people who are actually putting in real work on the article. What's important to me is that someone who types in "classical music," meaning the ordinary lay/dictionary sense, a) gets to where they want to go easily, and b) gets a simple explanation of why they aren't there already. That's true now. The present situation mumble fulminate pedantry mumble mumble isn't to my heart's desire but isn't worth fussing about. As for the title of European classical music it's certainly not worth fussing about because there is no clearly better title except "classical music." It doesn't matter which artificial title is used, because it will be found by searching or linking, never by typing it in directly. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Francis' proposal

This morning I moved some older stuff of my user talk page to talk:classical music, and added an intro to that same page with some comments regarding the talk on this present "European classical music" talk page.

To summarise my proposal:

  • Classical music as a disambiguation page;
  • Start from how terms are used (wikipedia is descriptive), not from definitions that are afterwards linked to wikipedia article names;

Further, the definition that draws a line between "Folk/popular" music and "classical" music is only one of the uses of the term "classical music": in many contexts this is not wat is understood by "classical music".

I'm gonna do some (maybe "bold") editing of the classical music page in this sense. We'll see where that gets us (without being able to promise an "instant solution"...).

--Francis Schonken 15:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question to classical editors regarding lists

I was recently working on the List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin, which is in a table format, but have since noticed that most compositional lists are not in tables, the most obvious exception being the Köchel-Verzeichnis list of Mozart's works. Anyway, before I go and alter the List of works by Scriabin, could you advise me as to whether editing that into table-form would be a good or bad idea. If it's the consensus opinion I'd be happy to revert the list of Chopin works to non-tabulated form. Any input will be greatly appreciated. Mallocks 22:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we have any standard for this, though we could bring it up, perhaps, at one of the Wikiprojects (maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject_Composers)? Most of the time when I make lists of compositions I don't put them in table format (seems a tad more trouble than it's worth) but some lists are that way. I'd be happy to hear some other opinions too. Antandrus 23:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


My feeling is that these lists are better as a bulleted list, simply because they are easier on the eye and look more Wikipedian - I think tables actually make the info a bit less clear.
For example, my preference for the Chopin list mentioned would be like this:
  • 12 Études à son ami Mme la Comtesse d'Agoult, Op. 25 (1832-1836)
    • No. 1 in A flat (1836)
    • No. 2 in F minor (1836)
    • No. 3 in F (1836)
    • No. 4 in A minor (1832-1834)
    • …
I certainly agree with Antandrus that tables are not worth the effort. I'd be interested in reading others' opinions, too. --RobertG 11:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Given that the table there is specifically organised by Opus number, I'd say that at the very least that should be the first thing that one sees, the format as you put it makes more sense for arrangement by piece, to my mind at any rate. The effort point isn't actually one that I consider important, I think that the presentation is the most important aspect here, my overall point being that without staying with one system or another, the lists we create are no more useful than those available on the internet that we use as sources. As I commented over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, the Mozart K number listing at the very least must remain in tabulated form, it would not work as well without, and it was on that template that I based the Chopin list, and now the Purcell. I should stress though that as I've stated before, I will be happy to accept any consensus. Mallocks 12:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Maybe: ok, perhaps opus number first! But if the opus number were in bold (as in my example), and the pieces are sorted by opus number, that would be clear enough for me - I think clearer than a table. I tried it out here to check that I wasn't completely off topic. At the least I think the column headings are redundant.
And even without any formatting whatever the lists are of much greater use than other internet sources, as they link to other Wikipedia content, and the information in them is more thoroughly checked, no doubt.  :-)
I think I've had my 2 pence/cents worth on this topic now - what does anyone else think? --RobertG 13:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to Wikipedia Composers Project. --RobertG 14:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re-write

I reverted a big re-write by an editor who did not describe the editing or the resaons for it. The editing seemed to introduce POV without attribution, among other things. In any case, this is a mature, heavily-edited article and it would be best if the editor would please explain his or her edits. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I Can't Believe this article

I can't believe this article is serious. It is supposed to be an unbiased, objective source of information and analysis about Western Classical Music, yet I find that it denigrates classical and idealises pop. The use of language is biased and prejudiced. It provides little information about classical music, and the information there is is outweighed by the information about pop.

This article is a disgrace, it should have no place in a serious enclycloedia, and it should be removed and replaced with something more useful, unbiased, and informative. (preceding unsigned comment by Duncansassoon 30 August 2005)

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 21:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This article requires a complete rewrite. It presents a poor and limited overview of Western classical music. The author clearly has little liking for any aspect of classical music and limited knowledge of the subject area. Minor areas are highlighted at the expense of more prominent trends, presumably because of the writer's lack of knowledge. The only references provided are outside the subject area of the article and major scholarly and reference works are completely ignored. This article does not meet the Wikipedia standards of taking a neutral point of view and of not promoting points of view. This article clearly fails on both points in addition to being a poor source of information about the subject area. (preceding unsigned comment by Rayford 30 August 2005)

Please see above. Hyacinth 21:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Also, can you give some examples. I do not find what you describe true regarding this article. Hyacinth 21:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have attempted a re-write, which consists primarily of shortening the article, and removing sections that appear to be artifacts of POV quarrels between proponents of classical and of popular music. I agree with the unsigned comments (are they all from the same person?) to the effect that an article on classical music does not require extensive references to popular music. However, the attempted re-write (by the same person?) that was reverted indulged in a certain amount of editorializing which was also harmful to the article.

I am of the opinion that many Wikipedia articles are too long, because they incorporate material inserted by warring clans of POV pushers. Editors should have some compassion for the average reader, who is hoping only to obtain a basic understanding of the subject matter. --HK 01:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And of course information about classical music cannot then be mentioned in the popular music article. Where shall this go then?
Also, there were no POV wars between Popular/Classical POVs. Actually, the POV war appears to just be starting. Hyacinth 20:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with the term POV - could you explain?

I'm unwilling to give examples, as you request, until you let me know something about the qualifications and studies you have undertaken that allow you to act as an authority on the subject of classical music. This will allow me to know the level at which I need to pitch my answers in addition to being a reasonable question to ask of anyone compiling an encyclopedia article on any subject. Ray Ford. (preceding unsigned comment by Rayford 31 August 2005)

"POV" means point-of-view. Please read WP:NPOV which is the official policy of Wikipedia on the subject, specifically on how articles are to be written. By the way, while some of us have academic qualifications in music, some of our most capable writers on the subject either do not, or do not reveal them. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ray, I take it poorly that you demand credentials but don't disclose your own, and I take it poorly that you are unwilling to point to any specific problems in the article.
  • Please note that nobody here is "acting as an authority" on classical music. Wikipedia articles, like articles in all encyclopedias, are supposed to be secondary sources, drawing their authority from primary sources, not solely on the personal knowledge or stature of their writers. The premise of Wikipedia is that it is possible for people who are not authorities to write useful, accurate articles by following the procedures of ordinary scholarship.
  • If you have credentials and prefer to contribute only to encyclopedias that require them, you will probably be happier writing for Britannica than for Wikipedia. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Well, I'm afraid that I do ask for evidence of authority and expertise in any field that demands it, and I think this request is reasonable. I believe, for example, that medical professionals are taught to provide evidence of qualifications and training if asked for by patients. I wouldn't want a cleaner to be diagnosing my terminal illness. Also, we expect our qualifications to be validated and to supply references when we apply for a job. This is a job, like any other, and the product is intended for public consumption, and should be accurate, valid, and representative. When I mark student essays I am asked to give marks for accuracy, representativeness, bias, clarity, etc, and I see no reason not tp hold this essay up to the same examination. I find it wanting and will write more later when I have more time. Rayford 18:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a doctor's office. This is a collaborative process that thrives on accesability, not demands for qualifications. Also, the audience you should have in mind is not me, but a general lay audience who may be reading of a topic for the first time. See, for example, Wikipedia:Explain jargon and Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Think_of_the_reader. Hyacinth 20:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, well we will have to disagree on this, since I feel that even an essay intended for a lay audience should at least be accurate and representative of a subject area. However, as I would expect more on an essay about classical music from one of my first year undergraduates, I will assume that the writers of this article have received little or no musical education. Rayford 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia's official policy on Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." If you continue to engage in personal attacks you may end up one of the "Users [who] have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks." Hyacinth 19:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My criticisms then. I will send this bit by bit since I have limited time each day due to pressures of work and family.

The first paragraph, Classical Music: the time period, 1000-1900 is incorrect. Classical music has been a continuing and innovative tradition throughout the twentieth century and has produced major composers of many nationalities and numerous different styles of composition in the last 100 years. It is false to claim that it somehow stopped in 1900. The developments in tonality, instrumental technique, and in many other areas were radical and influenced other types of music. Also, the following sentence is imprecise, what do you mean when you say that the central norms developed between 1550 and 1825? This requires explanation, many would challenge this assertion, but I am puzzled by what this sentence means.

I don't see the problem. If you have a well-accepted definition of "classical music" in the broad sense (high art music in the educated European tradition, as opposed to the narrow sense of Haydn-and-Mozart) it would be nice to have it quoted and have the source.
The article opens by saying that "classical music" is a broad and imprecise term. It says it refers particularly to the period 1000-1900, but it certainly does not say it stopped in 1900, and the timeline includes the twentieth century as well. Are Howard Hanson's symphonies "classical music?" Surely. Is Prokofief's "Classical" symphony "classical music?" Of course. What about the atonalists? John Cage? Philip Glass? I am not so sure. I suspect that if one were to examine the programmes performed currently by symphony orchestras one would find that they play far more pieces composed during the 1800s than during the 1900s.
The point here is: is this just a matter of opinion, or can you point to some well-accepted definition of "classical music" that differs significantly from "a broad, somewhat imprecise term, referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, European art, ecclesiastical and concert music, particularly between 1000 and 1900?"
If you just want to fine-tune the wording a bit, by all means do so. Hey, I don't think "classical music" really goes back to the year 1000. Gregorian chant is "classical music?" I don't think so. How often is a Gregorian chant concert performed in Avery Fisher hall? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Timeline: Which school of thought is this? You need to specify and outline alternative conceptualisations if you are to be neutral. "for many this is essential to full enjoyment" - what a huge assertion this is. What does it mean exactly? How do you know? I have always assumed that most people listen to compositions as individual pieces to be enjoyed in their own right, just as one might enjoy a fine whisky or a George Eliot novel, or a Woody Allen film - knowking something about Woody Allen's personal history and predelictions might add something to the enjoymant of the film but surely this is a fairly minor pasrt of the whole? I can't understand where this assertion comes from. To my mind it seems to (fairly nastily) imply that classical music listeners are more interested or excited by something other than the music - they are anoraks, nerds, train spotters, rather strange individuals.

I'd say those sentences are obviously crap, and could be removed under the rubric of avoid weasel words and avoid peacock terms. Discuss it here, or be bold and remove them. If whomever put them there has a good justification, he or she will undoubtedly put them back and may be provoked enough to provide justification. Dpbsmith (talk)

Your time divisions are generally OK. A couple of points: "crisis" in "Modern" is quite a strong word and I think is contentious. Some would see it as a logical development or progression. I think you need to add harmony, key and musical structure to theory and technique.

The following paragraph, starting "the dates are generalisations": the use of counterpart continued throughout musical history and did not die with the end of the Baroque era. Beethoven, I feel, needs to be mentioned as an important composer of fugues, more so than Brahms - but the use of fugue appears even in romantic music - Vaughan Williams symphonies for example.

Well, sure. And Frank Loesser, for that matter. It's pretty hard to find any musical structure or idiom that's limited to one musical period or genre. But associating counterpoint with the baroque era seems to me a useful rough generalization. Like saying that a symphony typically has four movements, with the first in sonata-allegro form. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the chart and the links to composer pages - generally excellent on Wikipedia.

I need to end now, but will write more tomorrow on what I see as more serious issues with the article. Rayford 19:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you take some cautious nibbles at the article itself and see what happens? Don't try a "complete rewrite" just yet, but remold a sentence or two. In that first paragraph, if you can have a concise description that works better than what's there, try it out.
The title, "European classical music" is a bit of a misnomer. I wonder if part of what's bothering you is that "European classical music" sounds like a somewhat specialized article. This is a general, introductory article that was originally titled simply "Classical music," meaning the-fancy-schmancy-stuff-they-play-on-WCRB-as-opposed-to-hip-hop. Well, a coterie of people objected to restricting the term "classical music" in that way, and wanted the article Classical music to include the "classical" music of all cultures. That left the problem of how this article should be titled. And it was made worse by the fact that we have a different article, Classical music era, for Haydn-and-Mozart "classical." The music described in this article is not strictly limited to 1000-1900? No, nor is it limited to Europe. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I have adjusted my re-write to reflect some of the discussion in this section. I have no doubt but that it can be improved. Please sign your posts, by the way-- was Rayford the person who originally added the re-write tag? --HK 06:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I was the person who added the re-write tag - sorry, I didn't know then how to add my signature to posts.

I'll carry on with my comments. I have no argument with "European Classical Music", this is what this article is about and the focus of the article should primarily be about the characteristics and atributes of this music. "Western classical music" might be an alternative.

The Nature of Classical Music section: "Works that are centuries old are performed far more often....." Well, this is obviously incorrect. It depends what the piece is. Late romantic composers are hugely popular. Richard Strauss, for example, who died in the mid-twentieth century, Vaughan Williams and Elgar in Britain, even the music of Tchiakovsky is not "centuries old". On the other hand, the older music such as that of Victoria and Cornysh is played less often. This sentence reinforces the sense of "doing down" of classical music, the use of fairly subtle language to make the field seem arcane and rather odd. I'll point to other examples as I go on.

"There are many passive participants" - is this any different from other types of music? There is also a large and thriving amateur tradition. his sentence convery no information and should be removed.

"Classical music is meant to be enjoyed for its own sake. This paragraph seems to me to be badly written and the sense could be conveyed more tersely. The last sentence seems rather quaint - in the nineteenth century and earlier, chamber music concerts were given in personal homes, but in the twentieth century they moved into the concert hall. I know amateur string quartets who reherse at home and occasionally give performances at weddings and other celebratory events, but giving concerts in your own, or someone else's home? I've never come across it.

If I were to re-write this paragraph, it might go something like this: "Classical music is regarded as an art form that requires concentrated listening and attention in order to grasp the complexity of musical structure and argument. Concerts therefore take place in an atmosphere of formality in which the dress of the musicians conveys a sense of occasion and a sense of respect for the music and silence is expected". But I'm not sure if this information is really important, it seems more of a fashion statement to me and could perhaps be dispensed with.

I'd like to comment on this a bit. Let's take this in two parts. First, should an article about classical music say something about the social context of the genre and the way in which it is usually performed? My own answer to that is, yes. It was surprising when someone mounted a performance of Aida in a sports arena, and it was surprising when Benny Goodman gave a jazz concert at Carnegie Hall. Something should be said.
Second, what is the best explanation of why concerts are presented as they are? There are two aspects, and your phrase presents only one. There is a widely held feeling (to which I subscribe!) that classical music is somehow "better" than most popular music. If asked, music educators will reference its complexity, suggest that it requires some education to appreciate, and delivers a deeper and richer emotional experience than simpler music. This is true but it is only part of the truth.
The other part is that classical music is admired because, to put it bluntly, it is rich peoples' music and the ability to enjoy it carries social stature. Classical music performance carries a weight of social tradition with it, some of which is extramusical. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph beginning "Classical composition" seems to me not very clear. I can see something of what is intended. But musical development is more than just the repeat of motifs in different forms. The important idea to convey is the primacy of musical form and structure - in classical music, the "tune" is often not primary (even when good "tunes" are important and significant aspects of a composition) - the important thing is how the melody is managed and manipulated. Just as a novel or short story has a structure (needs to have), the musical material, the themes are part of a musical form that conveys the sense of an argument, some complex means of organising sound as an art form. To the listener, this is more than comparison, it is getting a sense of the whole, a recognition that there is an argument, and the satisfaction or surprise when expectations are met, the unexpected happens, or something realy creative occurs. Just like, when reading a detective story, you may get pleasure from finding out, at the end, that the person you least expected, was actually the murderer. So, this paragraph is inadequate because it does not accurately convey what musical development and musical structure are about in classical music.

The rest of this section seems fine to me.

More later........Rayford 07:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I really think you should just make some of your suggested edits directly to the article. Try it, you'll like it. I think the burden of your criticism is not so much that the article is factually inaccurate or culturally ignorant, but that some of it is clumsily written. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'll do this, but I'm a bit bothered about the accusations that seem to have been made earlier about "vandalising" the text - how do I avoid this accusation? I also assume that American spelling will be needed.
English/American spelling first. The convention in Wikipedia is that we strive to be consistent within an article, but not across different articles. (This is the English-language Wikipedia, not the U.S. Wikipedia). This article does use American spelling. (Gramophone record is an example of one that uses British spelling, as do most articles on British topics). So, yes, in editing this article American spelling should be used. That doesn't mean you need to be terribly punctilious about it—you don't need to check everything in a dictionary. If you are aware of a difference and notice that you're about to use a word where the spelling differs and are pretty sure you know the right American spelling, use it. If something slips by—I am sure your fingers will sometimes type a British spelling without your even being aware of it—don't worry, someone else will fix it. If someone seemed to be trying to make a point of imposing British spelling on an article that used American spelling, or vice versa, well, yes, people would get annoyed.
Re vandalism. I only see two example of vandalism in this article. In once case, someone changed "Classical music is primarily a written musical tradition" to "Classical music is primarily a biological tradition." In another, someone changed "this property of permanence" to "this property ofsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf permanence." Those are typical examples of vandalism. (Or a "newbie test." Sometimes we distinguish between vandalism, where the intent is to do harm, with what's called a "newbie test," which is someone just trying to see whether they can really edit a page). That's the sort of thing people are talking about when they talk about vandalizing a page.
Judging from your comments on this page—and your caution about jumping in—I think it is very likely that any edits you make will be sensible, and very unlikely that anyone will accuse you of "vandalising" (or "vandalizing?") the page.
If you make a change, and does revert it (changes it back), don't just immediately make the same change again. You don't need to get any kind of approval before making changes—the official policy is be bold. But if someone does object to your changes after you've made them, be prepared to discuss them here on the talk page. Even if you know what you're talking about and they don't. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Some quotes about the connection of classical music with wealth and "elitism". "The humor of these stories notwithstanding, their important aspect is not that plain people favored plain melodies and that orchestral music remained ostensibly reserved for elite audiences in search of refinement. Quite the contrary: despite their previous lack of access to classical music, ordinary Americans did attend these concerts in ever increasing numbers, regardless of their initial reactions". Trumpeting Down the Walls of Jericho: The Politics of Art, Music and Emotion in German-American Relations, 1870-1920. Journal article by Jessica C.E. Gienow-Hecht; Journal of Social History, Vol. 36, 2003.

There is more, but my daughter now needs getting out of the bath and into bed....

"As I have shown above, music audiences were much more heterogeneous than we have hitherto believed. The artists, in turn, formed by no means a wealthy elite but spent much of their lives on tour reaching out to audiences who otherwise would never have heard the sound of an orchestra. Instead, it was the early artists' iron determination, their foreignness and attractiveness, and the emotional appeal of the music they performed that proved eventually irresistible to North American audiences and created a bond be tween German and American audiences that would survive two world wars". Ref as above.

"For these reasons, recent thinking on music often exhibits a grave distrust or even guilt about the corpus of music we have inherited. On the one hand it is presented as one of the greatest achievements of the Western mind, but on the other it may betray its origins in social privilege and exclusion. This might seem extreme, but it forms part of a noticeable distancing of the establishment from its earlier identification with high art. When politicians appear on a platform with pop singers, their motives may be blatantly populist, but so, too, is their marked avoidance of public appearances with representatives of an art world considered too minority, too serious, and too highbrow. Whereas the nineteenth-century middle classes aspired to an upward cultural mobility by taking part in activities formally reserved for the aristocracy (like classical music recitals), the tendency of the much larger middle class toward the end of the twentieth century was to a downward cultural mobility. In the politics of contemporary cultural style, classical music has an increasingly negative status". Who Needs Classical Music? Cultural Choice and Musical Value. Book by Julian Johnson; Oxford University Press, 2002.

"A possible illustration of this drive for distinction is provided by recent developments in the market for classical music. Opera, once the exclusive preserve of the upper classes, has entered into the realm of popular music. In Europe the three tenors--Domingo, Carreras, and Pavarotti--sang to sell-out open air shows in the early 1990s. By the mid 1990s, however, the Sunday Times (April 21, 1996) reported that "classical music has become the latest victim of middle-class 'culture fatigue"' and the "loss of interest by those who regard opera as a ladder for social advancement... resulted in lower classical record sales and declining concert audiences."" Veblen, Bourdieu and Conspicuous Consumption. Journal article by Andrew B. Trigg; Journal of Economic Issues, Vol. 35, 2001.

Well, I was looking for a quote I can't find. I would argue, you see, that classical music was associated with wealth and high culture in the past. But, so what? All high culture was, theatre, ballet, painting. Reading novels was different because, in the past, people in general were more literate and the quality of reading and writing was at a higher level.

The reason for this was that the relatively well-off were the only section of the population who had the money to become educated and the time to think and reflect and use their education and knowledge. This changed with the coming of mass education after the second world war. Classical musicians were never wealthy or particularly well paid (until the advent of the super-conductors in the twentieth century). At the present time (and since the sixties), it is popular culture that has the wealth - the artists, the promoters and the industry. Today, classical music has an "increasingly negative atatus" in mass culture.

So I think that the association of classical music with wealth and status is complex and has changed over time. I agree that performance practices are preserved from the nineteenth century whan classical music probably was strongly associated with nationalism and rampant colonialism and, in Europe, with it's dominance of the world, economically, socially, militarily, and culturally. This is no longer the case. Rayford 19:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Oddly enough, though, motion-picture scores are still composed in the classical idiom, but neither enjoy the prestige nor receive the odium accorded to "classical music." Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Classical music and popular music

Why is a "Classical music and folk music" section okay, but not a "Classical music and popular music" section? Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Classical music is rooted in folk music, whereas the relationship between classical music and popular music is not so immediate and direct. There is still a brief section entitled "Influences between classical and popular music," which could be expanded, but I see no need to include a debate about the relative merits of classical and popular musics; for encyclopedia purposes, I think it were better to think of them as apples and oranges. BTW, I don't consider my re-write to be the be-all and end-all; I thought I would get the ball rolling, because I did see some validity in the complaints of the fellow who posted the re-write tag. --HK 23:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Influences between classical and popular music

What justifies the inclusion of the unsourced paragraph:

"Classical music has always been influenced or taken material from popular music. Examples include Erik Satie, Kurt Weill's The Threepenny Opera, and postminimalism, as well as much postmodern classical music."

But the deletion of the sourced:

"Songwriters such as Paul Simon have used classical techniques such as, during his early solo career in the 1970s, the twelve tone technique, though Simon actually only employs the full chromatic rather than strict tone rows (Everett 1997)."

Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Complexity

What justifies claiming that Classical music is more complex and giving no other opinion as in the following paragraph:

"This is not to say that popular music is definitively or always simpler than classical. The "default length" of phrases which classical music supposedly deviates from were set as the default by music of the common practice period. Jazz, rap and many forms of technical metal, for instance, make use of rhythms more complex than would appear in the average common practice work, and popular music sometimes uses certain complex chords that would be quite unusual in a common practice piece. Popular music also uses certain features of rhythm and pitch inflection not analyzable by the traditional methods applied to common practice music."

Hyacinth 20:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed that paragraph precisely because I saw no point in debating which kind of music is more complex. It seems adequate to me to simply mention that Classical music is often complex. --HK 23:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Works for me. I rewrote the section so that it does "simply mention that Classical music is often complex" rather than elaborating the idea that "classical works have greater musical complexity than popular music" as it did. Hyacinth 19:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
There's probably something sensible to be said about complexity.
An opera aria isn't much more complex, if at all, than a popular song. I don't think an opera is really different in complexity from a musical comedy.
And the reasons why most popular-music pieces are three or four minutes long is related to various commercial considerations as well as musical ones.
However. A symphony really is an hour-long piece of absolute music, and it really is intended to be listened to from beginning to end and appreciated as having a structural whole and unity. It is not just a medley!
I'm aware of heavy-metal pieces that run nearly twenty minutes, the length of a symphony movement.
But offhand, I can't think of anything in popular music that is comparable to a full-scale symphony. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I approve of Hyacinth's further truncation of that section. He got some material that I missed. Incidentally, I don't think that "complexity" is really an essential feature of Classical music. I originally wrote the section on emotional content, which generated some controversy, and I also participated in the writing of the spin-off article on musical development -- I think that these issues go more to the heart of Classical music. --HK 21:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed:

  • Moreover, there are "the segments combined into patterns, combined into verses, combined into songs [that] make Burmese music a multileveled hierarchical system...The Burmese musician manipulates the various levels of the hierarchy to create the song..." (Becker 1969, p.272)

Didn't belong at popular music. Hyacinth 10:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-Write revisited

I have removed the Re-Write tag, because a re-write has taken place, and the discussion on the talk page seems to have lapsed. This does not, of course, preclude further re-writes or editing. --HK 00:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name again

European classical music...not good enough. United States is not European, so does it mean that, for example, works like Piston cannot be considered here? Should be renamed "Western classical music" or "Classical music of the Western tradition". Mandel 22:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Classical music of the sort we are discussing has gone global, and there are musicians of every nationality that perform or compose it. However, the tradition did originate in Europe. I would prefer the original "classical music," but I think that the disambig page that exists under that name is sufficient to steer interested parties to the article they are looking for. The debate over the name sort of degenerates into Political Correctness, and I think the less time spent on that, the better. --HK 15:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It's not a matter of political correctness, rather finding the right terminology for the music style. The title is certainly confusing to a layperson, me for one. The term "European classical music" is obviously problematic - it suggests "classical music" has somehow died away as it moves away from Europe. "Western classical music" is much less ambiguous, covers a much broader base, and specifies the engendering as clearly. Maybe "Classical music in the Western tradition" will make it even clearer. Mandel 00:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The term 'European classical music', is fine, considering the given constraints that one finds with the term 'classical music'. The classical compositions by composers outside Europe are fundamentally rooted in the harmonic tradition of European tradition. Hence the best compromise is 'European classical music'. Besides arriving at a COMPROMISE is never a perfect task. Several nuances would be left out and that is precisely why it is called as compromise. Robin klein 18:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Fine...it would have been much better to hold a vote of sorts for this sort of thing, but if you fellas have no objections, I'll shut up. I just need to reflect the opinions of some two people who have been browsing this article at random reflecting this irritant to me; as I'm a registered user and I agree wholeheartedly with them I brought this out. Whether your so-called nuance is covered in my emended "Classical music in the Western tradition" is debatable, but I won't go on...If you guys feel this term is already the best compromise (which I hardly agree) then feel free to leave it as it is. Mandel 16:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment: If you guys will not drop the "European" from classical music, how about "European-traditioned classical music" or "Classical Music in the European tradition"? Mandel 17:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

The external links are getting out of hand. Too many of them are just spamlinks to sites selling classical-music CDs. I'm going to start pruning soon. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless a site has a substantial amount of encyclopedic-quality information on the topic, it should go. Spamlinks grow in Wikipedia like weeds. Antandrus (talk) 16:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, now that Svelyka has reverted my deletes and restored many of the links, I hope he'll come here to defend why we need links to MIDI files, minor discussion forums, and MP3 sales sites. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
As noted, your original "trimming" of external links was excessive. Even now I would cater for additional quality links for a topic quite broad and diverse. The existing sites, save "Chopin's", offer introduction to sources that offer numerous mp3's and midifiles which the eager enthusiast could very well embrace rather than just reading literature (which even in its current revision still appears controversial) of it. I tried to delete links out there to make a sale more than offer info. As for the forum, agreed it's not major, but it still covers an entry into discussion for a multitude of topics that are listed in this article, and I thought an easy link from it wouldn't hurt. If a better forum surfaces however, I wouldn't hesitate to replace it. BTW...it's "she". Svelyka 06:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, mademoiselle. —Wahoofive (talk) 01:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do not consider to put the website kunstderfuge.com instead of classicalarchives.com? I think this last site is too difficoult to navigate (you have there to login). The first site (kunstderfuge.com) is totally free and the files are preatty more and of better quality. It also contains piano rolls. The site also claims to be the main resource of Classical Music MIDI files. Please evaluate to put it on WikiPedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.2.57.113 (talk • contribs) 04:06, 13 October 2006

Also, I'd like to know why you keep removing Classical Forums (http://www.classicalforums.com) which is an important, free growing classical music community with very interesting articles on classical music written by professional musicians (which is absolutely an unique content related to classical music) when instead there are listed evident commercial websites such as Naxos and others. I have put Classical Forums back again, if you want to remove it, please let me know your motivation. Thank you. --Fablau 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It does look OK to me as well: non-commercial, with discussions of subjects pertinent to classical music and culture. I notice that contributors even include external links to further reading in their articles. One question, though: you say that the material there is written by "professional musicians"; how do you know this? Admittedly, I didn't spend much time there, but I saw no author attribution for the articles I read. If true, it would mean something (what a concept: articles on music written by people who actually know something about the subject!). +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry; just checked back there. I didn't realize the authors' names were linked to their bios. Silly me. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good! I am glad you agree.--Fablau 21:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wanted: Someone willing to add music

This article, and all its subarticles (Baroque music, Renaissance music, 'etc) are desperately lacking for actual music. I maintain a list of full-length songs available on wikipedia - Wikipedia:Sound/list. There are tons of songs there that could be used to illustrate these articles, if someone knowledge about hte topic is willing to do it. Raul654 09:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eras

I propose the following eras for European classical music (with approximate dates):


Early Christian
Plainchant 476-??
Carolingian ??-800


Medieval
Early Medieval 800-1000
Late Medieval 1000-1200


Gothic
Early Gothic (or Ars Antiqua) 1200-1300
Late Gothic (or Ars Nova) 1300-1400


Renaissance
Early Renaissance 1400-1500
Late (or High) Renaissance 1500-1600


Baroque
Early Baroque 1600-1700
Late Baroque 1700-1750


Classical and Romantic
Classical 1750-1800
Romantic 1800-1900


Post-Romantic
20th Century 1900-2000
Contemporary 2000 - today

Eroica 16:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally good but what's the need to subdivide each era? Of course the article on Baroque music (or the other individual periods) might have such subdivisions, but those should be discussed on those individual pages. Were you planning to incorporate these into {{History of European art music}}? I wouldn't. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dates of classical music eras redirects here

I'm not an expert, so I'm not sure if there's anything to merge from that article. If anyone can have a look, that would be great. The article had to be redirected here because of an AFD debate. Johnleemk | Talk 10:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Implications and Bias

Article makes biased claims about the superior complexity of European classical music, without making note of the many ways in which it is simpler than other musics. It also implies that certain types of complexity found in classical musics are unique to classical musics. Further, it asserts that all non-classical musics are "mere adjuncts" to other forms of entertainment.

Until this bias is removed, the article will remain essentially an advertisement for a music that already has too many grandiose claims for itself in the first place.

unsigned comment by User:151.198.157.245 —Wahoofive (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Where exactly does the article make the claim that its complexity is "superior"? Antandrus (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

Can we remove the POV tag now? The anon editor who put it on has shown no interest in discussing how to improve it. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. If anyone thinks the article has POV problems, please discuss them here. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I liked the structure of the article, but I would add some examples. Cerealmix

OK; for example, what? --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eliminate hatnote

The hatnote on top explaining that this article is about European art music and directing users to other articles is a holdover from when this article was called "Classical music". No one would come to an article called "European classical music" expecting anything other than what we have here. I propose removing it. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worthless sentences

These sentences do not contain interesting information:

The use of notation is an effective vehicle for transmitting classical music because all active participants in the classical music tradition are able to read music and are schooled in both historical and contemporary performance practices. Normally, this ability comes from formal training, which usually begins with learning to play an instrument, and sometimes continues with instruction in music theory and composition. However, there are many passive participants in classical music who enjoy it without being able to read it or perform it.

If someone does not already know the above information, he is probably less than 12 years old.

Rintrah 14:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are numerous adults in this world who don't know this information. In the developed world, you're undoubtedly right, but Wikipedia is not just for the developed world. In any case, this article ought to discuss the position of European classical music in society, how it is transmitted and composed, etc. Tuf-Kat 15:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

To "Rintrah": You motivated me to try to do better. I see this as part of a "man from Mars" problem which is quite widespread here: explaining things with the assumption that the reader has absolutely zero knowledge of any aspect of the subject. See if you like what I wrote better. (I reformatted that paragraph in your comment to make it stand out better; hope you don't mind.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 01:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I like your amendments. Yes, the "man from Mars" problem is prevalent in wikipedia. There is much more interesting information that should be provided in this article (including the history, performance, etc.), but I am too lazy to put in any work.

Rintrah 14:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applause between movements

I'd like to add something that's interesting to the article, not sure where, which is to explain that the current taboo against applauding between movements of a symphony didn't exist at the time when most of these works were written. In fact, audiences often loudly demonstrated between movements, either approvingly or not, and sometimes even called for the just-played movement to be encored. There are many written accounts of this (the last I remember was from a biography of Berlioz). And of course there are the somewhat more well-known incidents, like the near-riot that accompanied the first performance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. However, the current ossified practice is widely believed to be the same as when this "revered" (damn, how I hate that word!) music was created.

Anyone care to tackle this, or at least comment on this? --ILike2BeAnonymous 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll vouch for L2BA's historical acuity. Period quotes would improve this section. --Wetman 14:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline

The timeline has a bit of a gap between Josquin and Palestrina (although there was plenty of music during that period). My nomination for filling the gap would be Thomas Tallis. Bluewave 10:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Description of Romantic period

Currently the article has this to say:

Romantic, 1815–1950 a period which codified practice, expanded the role of music in cultural life and created institutions for the teaching, performance and preservation of works of music.

Can't we do better than this? This description is totally milquetoast, actually worse than nothing, in that it says essentially nothing but takes a lot of words to do so. Anyone want to take a crack at restating this, to include something of the essence of romantic music? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 00:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

== I would like to teach Classical Music someday. I found your entry nice. Thanks for collaborating. --Robert Waly 00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that this description should be fleshed out quite a bit, though I'm not sure I am the person to do it. First of all, there ought to be something about changing forms: cyclical treatment of themes and the "tone poem," for instance, were both devised by Liszt during this time. Also huge advances were made in instrumental technique (viz. Paganini, Chopin, Lizst). Programmatic music became much more "illustrative," as in the Symphonie Fantastique of Berlioz. This should be touched upon, at least a little bit! Finally, I don't think the Romantic period lasted quite as long as the article implies. Brahms is usually considered "Late-Romantic," and what can be said of Nielsen, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, etc. who began writing during the "romantic period" and continued using its harmonies long into the 20th century?

[edit] Link to "Ursatz" website

I visit Ursatz nearly every day to find out whose birthday it is and who died, too. I've never had a commercial pop-up ever on their site. What was the pop-up that you said happened? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.84.72.181 (talk • contribs) 10 May 2006.

To explain: I followed the link to investigate whether it is a commercial site. When I did so the site's home page popped up a commercial, complete with pictures of certain pretty ladies in interesting poses. I use Firefox; the site presumably tried to pop up the commercial in a new window, but I have tabbed browsing set so that it just opened a new tab and then resized my browser. This explains the slightly annoyed tone of my edit summary, for which I apologise. When I eventually got to the home page it appeared to be just links to Google searches. I now see that it lists composers who were born or died today. The popup is the clinching decider for me. However, I haven't seen the popup again since, so maybe it only does it on your first visit? Perhaps I just struck lucky? However, I still am not convinced of the utility of the site in the context of Wikipedia. Have you considered helping Wikipedia by contributing to our daily lists? It's not exhaustive, yet, (neither is Ursatz, I notice) but you could be of assistance here! :-) --RobertG ♬ talk 15:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


http://www.ursatz.com does not cite the sources of its information. It appears to be the personal website of Eric Chernov and under the complete control of that single individual. Thus, it does not meet the reliable source guidelines and could not be cited as a source for facts in Wikipedia.
The site has very little information. It does not give information on the birth or death dates of any composer except those that happened to be born or die on the day you access the site (which to me says this feature is about building traffic and encouraging repeat visits rather than promulgating information). It does not have any information about the composers except their dates (when you click on their name, it simply launches a Google search on that name).
http://www.ursatz.com is thin on information, has a "make a donation" button, and advertises "Ads by Google."
For the record, I did not encounter popups when I visited the site.
The site is probably not very commercial, i.e. it is probably not very successful--it looks like a self-promotional attempt to make a small amount of money on the side with very little effort. I am not sure who keeps reinserting the link and why, but it would certainly not surprise me if it were being done by someone with a direct interest in trying to promote the site. It is not a very notable site, as shown by the fact that a Google search on "www.ursatz.com" shows no hits other than the site itself.
The value of this link to someone with an interest in classical music is very low. It should not be in the article. I say it's linkspam and I intend to remove it whenever I see it, unless the quality of the website increases enormously (has much more information and cites the sources for that information). I suggest that unless 4.84.72.181 can gain consensus here in talk that the link is valuable to the article, he or she should stop reinserting it. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name to a song

Can anyone tell me the name or type of music to this song. -- Je suis t\c 23:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Formal Music" and French Classicism on this page

Removed new additions by Sobolewski, as the term "formal music" is not used in America to the best of my knowledge, but either way, further discussion of the term "Classical Music" belongs on the Classical music page, or the Classical music era page, not here (unless I am mistaken). --MarkBuckles 23:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Please see Talk:Classical music for a current discussion about two pages moves involving this page. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move completed as determined by consensus

See Talk:Non-Western_classical_music#Requested_move for 7-2 consensus. Wangry 11:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classical music (of the European tradition) in different countries

Should we add more countries or just delete all of these? And why on earth German classical music isn't included?!! Masahiko 19:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Look at russian editing tradition on russian wiki classical music [[1]]....


use LINGVO to translate...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butamironin (talk • contribs) 23:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd sentence

"For those who desire to become performers, any musical instrument is practically impossible to learn to play at a professional level if it, or at least a similar instrument, is not learned in childhood."

How true is this really? I'm pretty sure, for example that a cellist who starts playing at age 8 and who starts playing the recorder at age of 14 has maybe even more chance becoming a professional than most of 8 years olds. 8 years olds have 6 six years advantage, 14 year old can read music, understands music theory, has more discipline, propably has better ear. And how similar these instruments really are? The sentence should be modified, IMO.

One of the best piano jazz performer, Franco d'Andrea, started playing piano at age 17 and ... me too, I am a professional performer. :) --Alegreen 22:31, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

...although of course the phrase "practically impossible" doesn't mean there aren't exceptions. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral Point of View

I have to question the opening introduction of this article, which comes across to me as biased and not written in an encyclopaedic style. There are many statements within the introduction that are not referenced; and it feels more journalistic than encyclopaedic. I propose that the introduction should be changed, because there really do seem to be problems with it at the moment. I'd like to change it but see what others suggest first, because I'm not sure what should replace the current introduction. Feedback appreciated. Madder 14:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Sentence and Definition

I hate this opening sentence: "Classical music is the sweeping term applied to the musical tradition that is untethered and almost diametrically opposed to the popular music of contemporary culture." Here's why...

1. It's narrow. Maybe classical art music was diametrically opposed to popular music in 1960, but composers like Michael Daugherty, John Zorn and Laurie Anderson, not to mention Charles Ives and Josquin des Prez, strongly integrate popular music into their writing. Are we not including these composers in the umbrella of classical music? If not, then what do we call them? For that matter, how do we decide what's really "opposed" to popular music?

2. It's misleading. To my eyes, that sentence says that classical music was either born or is sustained as a rebellion against popular music, which certainly is not the case.

If we're trying to represent classical music as music which is intrinsically anti-popular culture, fine, but that's not the type of music that the article represents currently and it's not what I think the lead line of this article should paint. It would be much more encyclopedic to define classical music in its own terms, rather than in terms of comparison to pop. I'm not sure what exactly the solution to this problem is, but we as a community should be able to do better than this. SingCal 07:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just read this section and agree wholeheartedly. For a reader who knew nothing about classical music, this introduction would leave them none the wiser. I turned to Scholes' Oxford Companion, to see what he would say. He gives three meanings of classical: the first is essentially the music of the classical era (end of 16th to end of 18th century, he says); secondly, "as a label to distinguish what is obviously of more or less established and permanent value from what is ephemeral"; thirdly, "amongst less educated people [...it] is used in antithesis to 'Popular'"!
I'm not sure that Scholes is any help, but at least his definitions are more illuminating (if POV) than the current article. I suggest that the definition needs to incorporate the elements which are usually present in classical music:
  • It is composed by someone who has undergone a particular training in its traditional forms.
  • It is written down in a well-defined notation.
  • The work is defined by the notated version, rather than a particular performance of it.
  • It is underpinned by a set of rules and conventions of modality, harmony, etc.
  • It is intended to be performed at concerts in which the audience pays serious attention to the work.
  • It does have some pretensions to Scholes' second definition of having a permanent, rather than ephemeral, value.
  • It tends to be centred on particular kinds of instruments and particular "sound pallettes"
There are no absolute distinctions, and there are, indeed, many examples that do not conform to the above. However, even something like Cage's 4'33" only makes any sense because it exists in the context of the above framework - it wouldn't do well in the pop charts or at a heavy metal concert. Bluewave 09:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I also agree that there are problems with the opening (see 'Neutral Point of View' above). But it's all very well saying there are problems with it, suggestions need to be made as to what it should be. Madder 18:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair point! My suggestion would be:
  • Lose the first sentence (and the "undethered" word) altogether.
  • Promote the 2nd paragraph to the start of the article as a better intro.
  • Improve the style of the old first para and particularly reword the ambiguous bit about exclusivity (which can be read as though it is the champions who accuse it of exclusivity).
  • Mention that it is based on a written tradition.
  • And I'd take out the bit about nostalgia which is a bit POV I think. Music from 1550 (for instance) doesn't invoke nostalgia in me, at least.
Classical music is a broad, somewhat imprecise term, referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, European art, ecclesiastical and concert music, encompassing a broad period from roughly 1000 to the present day. The central norms of this tradition, according to one school of thought, developed between 1550 and 1820, focusing on what is known as the common practice period.
This music evokes classical traditions, focuses on formal styles, invites technical and detailed deconstruction and criticism, and demands focused attention from the listener. It is written down using a formal notation and a work of classical music is usually defined by the notated version, rather than a particular performance of it. This music is associated with, and often compared to, fine art and high culture, sometimes leading to accusations of haughtiness and exclusivity being levelled at its enthusiasts. Nevertheless, many "classical" pieces were the popular music of their time, and have remained popular to this day. Though periods of resurgence come and go, the public taste for and appreciation of formal music of this type has generally waned through the later part of the 20th century and into the present millennium.
Just my suggeston. Still not great, but an improvement (I think). Bluewave 15:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty good; I disagree with the "waning" part (might be true in the U.S., especially outside of the major urban centers, but it's certainly not true in east Asia and lots of Europe); the 1550 year troubles me a bit, since the "central norms" -- as far as large-scale formal structure, voice-leading, harmony, instrumentation, and just about everything else goes -- developed over a much longer time, without a clear starting date. If we're pointing specifically to development of functional tonality, 1550 is as good a break as any, but that's a minor quibble anyway. Antandrus (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was dubious about both those points too, But focused on the main structure. I think the waning would need to be backed up by facts. Perhaps it needs to be worded around the public appreciation for classical music being massively surpassed by its huge growth in appetite for popular music in the late 20th century. The 1550 looks a bit at odds with the 1000 in the previous sentence and I don't like "according to one school of thought". That part does little to shed light on the subject for someone not already familiar. What about something along the lines of:
Classical music is a broad, somewhat imprecise term, referring to music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of, European art, ecclesiastical and concert music, encompassing a broad period from roughly 1000 to the present day. The central norms of this tradition developed throughout this period but reached their heights of complexity and development in the period between 1550 and 1820: what is known as the common practice period.
Bluewave 16:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I did some quick Google research on proportions of people who attended a classical music concert in the last 12 months. Results: New Zealanders 11% [2], Australia 9% [3], Norway 35% [4] and Britain 12% [5]. Also some statisctics from the EU [6]. Unfortunately, these are all snapshots, not trends. Other stuff that I could find was very anecdotal. Big symphony orchestras certainly seen to be in trouble, but that is only part of classical music. Bluewave 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting! I think it may take a bit of work to get some sources together ... can't do it now, I'm at work. That 40% of concert ticket sales in Italy were for classical concerts correlates with what I thought; that interest remains strongest in the regions where the music actually developed (i.e. not the US). At any rate, nice work on the lead; it's getting there. :) Antandrus (talk) 17:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classical radio

Somebody keeps undoing the reference to classical radio as one of the "commercial" aspects of classical music. What's the problem here? Perfectly legitimate topic; it provides a link to a category of value to the reader; and there is nothing inflammatory or non-NPOV about the material being delete. Please explain yourself. -- Bill-on-the-Hill 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, since you're the one who keeps putting that stuff in, I was hoping you'd explain yourself. No, nothing "POV" or inflammatory about what you wrote: it's just, well, irrelevant. You seem to be saying—correct me if I'm wrong—that classical radio stations constitute a commercialization of classical music. While on the face of it there is some apparent merit to this, it really is just a trivial circumstance that is hardly worth noting. After all, there are radio stations that play many genres of music: this is nothing new, and only really indicates that there's an audience for all those types of music, as well as those who supply those audience's needs. Same thing would apply to recorded music.
I originally added that section, and the intent was to point out those cases where classical music is used for commercial purposes in selling something other than the music itself; hence Muzak, music in movies and television, etc. I guess the real answer is that the "commercialization" of classical music involved in distributing the music itself is so inherent that it's not worth discussing. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Having said that, I should add that some mention in the article of classical radio wouldn't be out of line. Not sure where that would belong, but it's certainly relevant to the topic, especially as an indicator of present-day interest in the genre. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] classical music vs "non-western classical music" is rubbish and POV

I do tend to agree that since most people think of classical music as Western or European classical music and not other kinds that having the classical music article be about European classical music is perhaps the best thing to do.

HOWEVER, I strongly disagree with the concept of "Non-Western classical music" as a link and article on because nothing really connects all the different types of "non-western classical music" in any sense other than their being "non-western". There is no such thing as "Non-Western classical music" as a genre and no reason for such an article to exist except to emphasize a western/eurocentric POV. It would be like having an article on "white people" and then an article on "non-white people" which would be clearly ridiculous. Or another example would be having an article called "Non-western art history" alongside "Western art history". Both of these examples show how POV and stupid that would be but "Non-western classical music" is no less stupid.

I suggest changing the title of "non-western classical music" to something like: "List of classical music genres" or "Classical Music (general)" and listing all music that is considered "classical" including "European classical music". The European classical music link should be shown as European classical music like so European classical music alongside other types not set aside as something special and unique while all "non-western" types are lumped together and set aside in a cleary POV and chauvinistic way that it comes across with the way the the articles are organized.

The top of the article should instead look something like: This article is about the genre of classical music or art music in the Western musical tradition. For a list of all classical music types see List of classical music. For the period of music in the late 18th century, see Classical period (music).

In order not to have duplicate discussion on this matter, please follow the discussion on: [[7]] Cpe1704tks 20:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the dictionary defines classical music as "Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music."[8]. That's what the phrase means to lexicographers and virtually all people except academics and musicologists. Mozart's 40th symphony is not an example of "a genre of classical music," it is an example of classical music.
You may wish that the definition of classical music were more cosmopolitan, but it is not. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
As can be seen from many different definitions and the very long archived discussions on this matter, there has been and are debates as to what "classical music" means. There are lots of dictionary entries for the term "classical music" alone that don't specifically refer to Europe.
In any case, my objection is not that most people think of "European" classical music when simply referring to classical music. That is probably a fact so having classical music be an article about European classical music is probably justified.
HOWEVER, my objection is to lumping everything else as "non-western classical music" and having an article entitled "non-western classical music". There is no such thing as "non-western classical music". This is my main objection. It would be like having an article called "non-white people" or "non-western art history".
To lump all "non-western classical music" in an article is simply wrong. Also please continue the discussion on the "Non-western classical music" talk page as I suggested.

[[9]]

Cpe1704tks 22:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that "non-western classical music" is a completely idiosyncratic non-topic and that the various forms of classical music that are not European-derived don't have anything in particular in common with each other. (Of course, neither do the dozen or so phyla of organisms covered by the rubric Invertebrate zoology... nor are Nonlinear systems a coherent group...) Dpbsmith (talk) 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Okay this is my proposal for the best way I believe the classical music articles should be handled.

1. The article "classical music" should remain as an article on European classical music as this is the most common usage for classical music to mean "European classical music".

2. The title of "Non-western classical music" article should be moved to: "List of classical music forms". This list will include all music forms that are sometimes named "classical" and the article description will be editted as appropriate to reflect that it is only a list.

3. The note on the top of the "classical music" article should now read: This article is about the genre of classical music or art music in the European musical tradition. For articles on other types of music called "classical" see the list of classical music forms. For the period of music in the late 18th century, see Classical period (music).

Any thoughts on this specific proposal?Cpe1704tks 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly sensible. Go for it. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a question about who decides/how you decide what is the most common usage. It might not be the correct place to ask this question. But I was reading all the discussions about naming various articles on Classical music, European/western classical music/list of classical music etc. Everybody keeps talking about 'the most common use'. When I was living in India, the most common meaning of the word 'classical music' was Indian classical music. When I said I learn classical music people understood it as Indian classical. They might ask Hindustani or Karnatik or just assume one or the other depending on which state I am in. But they never assumed I was learning Western classical. So my question is who decides what is common use? Are there guidelines for it?

I am not asking to start the name change debate again but just wanted a clarification. --Kaveri 20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Classical music in the European or Western tradition?

Personally I feel that the common term for classical music should be described and introduced as "classical music in the European tradition" rather than "classical music in the Western tradition". Yes it is true that people outside of Europe have contributed to it. American, Australian, etc. musicians have and continue to transform "classical music". However, the TRADITION is still deeply rooted and based in EUROPE during the early modern Euopean period. That Americans, Australians etc carried on and developed this tradition doesn't make it any less EUROPEAN based.

Consider that Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc speak English and have contributed and further developed this language. However, would we not all agree that English should still be described as a EUROPEAN-based language rather than a WESTERN language?

I say it should be described as based on the European tradition not Western tradition.

Perhaps we can vote and discuss it. Nayra 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Western traditon* Nayra 21:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to vote in a poll, which I think is silly in this case; I'd just like to point out that while both terms are problematic—"Western" since it describes something in the west in relation to what?, and "European" since the classical music canon is by no means limited to that continent—I'm going to have to stick with "Western" for the reasons just given. "European" cuts a lot of significant players (let's see: Villa-Lobos, Chavez, Bernstein, Copland, Cage, Foss, Ives just for starters) out of the picture. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S.: Someone else mentioned Australian classical composers. I don't know of any; who would those be? -IL2BA
As I mentioned before in my edit summary, I feel the term "European" is too limited. This article is about the classical music of Western culture. While it may have its origins in Europe, it has since developed with the traditions of the larger Western world. As ILike2BeAnonymous stated, "European" cuts out many significant individuals unnecessarily. See again how it is Western art, Western literature, Western canon, etc. As far as Australian classical composers: List of Australian composers -Wangry 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The fact that people of non-European origin have contributed to European classical music does not however change the fact that the music tradition was developed almost completely in Europe. There are lots of people from all over the world who speak English. It doesn't mean it then became a non-European language because of that. Your point about Western art, Western literature doesn't fly because these are very broad terms. Western Music would be the equivalent term which I am fine with. But classical music was developed almost entirely in early modern Europe and should be described as such. Anyone developing music from whatever nationality be it American, Australian, Canadian, or Japanese or Chinese for that matter is still creating music that was based on the traditions of EUROPE. Saying that the tradition is European doesn't mean only European have developed it or create music based on that tradition. It only means the tradition is based on foundations almost entirely DEVELOPED IN EUROPE not the "West" as a whole. Nayra 03:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
According to this very article, "classical music" is "a broad, somewhat imprecise term." "European tradition" is not appropriate when there is a more encompassing term available that has been used before for other arts. And if you want to bring up Western music, even there, the authors (I did not ever edit that page) have chosen the terms "Western classical music" and "musical genres in the Western tradition." Wangry 17:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I think I can speak for the congregation here when I say that it's OK to mention in the article that the bulk of the classical canon comes from Europe, even when using the term "Western" to describe it. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I would opt for describing the tradition as European. The structures of harmony, counterpint, modality, etc that characterise classical music were developed in Europe. The notation was developed in Europe. The instrumentation associated with classical music is rooted in Europe. This has been built on outside Europe (not just in Western countries) but the tradition is surely a European one. I think "western" can mean several things. If it is a geographical term then it would presumably exclude Australia. However, if it is taken as a cultural one, meaning "countries deriving from a European cultural tradition" then surely it is just a less clear way of referring to the same European tradition. Bluewave 09:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Much of what you say as being developed in Europe can apply to jazz. Many of the traditional jazz instruments were developed in Europe as well as the notation and even music theory. Indeed, if you look at the jazz article, it states that jazz is "born out of a blend of African American musical styles with Western music technique and theory," not European. I would argue again that using the term Western is not meant as a "less clear way of referring to the same European tradition" but rather a more encompassing one. Wangry 02:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources needed

(The following paragraph is just one example among many:)

"The term classical music did not appear until the early 19th century, in an attempt to "canonize" the period from Bach to Beethoven as an era in music parallel to the golden age of sculpture, architecture and art of classical antiquity (from which no music has directly survived). The earliest reference to "classical music" recorded by the Oxford English Dictionary is from about 1836. Since that time the term has come in common parlance to mean the opposite of popular music."

There is much supposedly 'factual' information here, but it all need to be referenced! The statement on the Oxford Dictionary is terrible: "from about 1836", if I'd written this in an essay I'd have failed! I suggest all three of these sentences need to cite a source, due to the nature of their claims. The academic music world is extremely rigorous and scrutinizing, and when this article comes up no. 3 on the google results for classical music, it's embarrassing that there are only two references cited on the whole page!! Matt.kaner 03:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

That being the case, please stick in the {{fact}} template whereever you think it's needed. (It expands to [citation needed]). +ILike2BeAnonymous 03:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New "infobox" seems unsuitable

What's up with that new infobox someone installed? The thing I hate most about it is that it always displays an item labeled "Mainstream popularity" no matter which parameters are given. What's the purpose of this thing? Can we get rid of it? Yesterday? +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, can we please remove it? It's impossible to jam the subtlety and complexity of the "cultural" and "stylistic" origins of 2,000 years of music history into an infobox designed for popular music genres. Origins, 15th century? "Traditional music?" "Classical instruments"? This is unencyclopedic, aside from being inaccurate and misleading. Out please. Thanks for the effort to put it in, but it's inappropriate. Antandrus (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
As they say in Hungary, kösönöm szépen. +ILike2BeAnonymous 05:20, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complexity

ILike2BeAnonymous thought my addition of {{Fact}} tags to this section was unnecessary, that some how the claims in this paragraph were self-evident. I would just like to take the opportunity to explain therefore why this paragraph is in DIRE need of more information and (along with much of the article) is factually inaccurate and above all misleading.

"Classical works often display great musical complexity through the composer's use of development, modulation (changing of keys), variation rather than exact repetition, musical phrases that are not of even length, counterpoint, polyphony and sophisticated harmony. Larger-scale classical works (such as symphonies, concertos, operas and oratorios) are built up from a hierarchy of smaller units: namely phrases, periods, sections, and movements. Musical analysis often seeks to distinguish and explain these structural levels."

"Classical works often display great musical complexity." This statemment is too broad to be of any meaning whatsoever. Whose works are we talking about? Satie's (whose works often display great simplicity)?

"through the composer's use of development, modulation (changing of keys), variation rather than exact repetition, musical phrases that are not of even length, counterpoint, polyphony and sophisticated harmony"

None of these things can simply be said to create complexity in classical works, and if you believe that it is a valid claim, a source is need, because it is deduction that implies POV. I can find you (easily) works by Britney Spears that contain modulation, variation rather than straight repetition of the melody, counterpoint/polyphony and even at push sophisticated harmonies here and there. I would also add that some of the most "complex works" by Pierre Boulez contain very few of these characteristics.

"Larger-scale classical works (such as symphonies, concertos, operas and oratorios) are built up from a hierarchy of smaller units: namely phrases, periods, sections, and movements"

This is an ANALYTICAL claim and a gross oversimplication. The use of the terms 'phrases', 'periods' etc is highly specialised and refers to Schoenbergian analysis in particular. It must be expanded, or at least more accurately put and referenced. Otherwise the statement is meaningless. The notion that they are self-evident is nonsensical and clearly displays the interference of a point of view. These things are never considered to be givens in modern musicological settings - theory pertaining to musical unity etc. is under great debate nowadays, and has been since about 1950.


"Musical analysis often seeks to distinguish and explain these structural levels." This is ok. But does it belong in a paragraph entitled 'Complexity'? How about 'analytical theory'?

As a music student I would like to take the opportunity to say that this article is abysmal, and I'm sorry to rant like this, but unless this people recognise the need for references (which are all readily available) for an article such as this one it will never improve. Referencing is not something you do just because it looks good - it is the only accepted way of making statement that you hold to be fact in an article, particularly one that serves to give definitions of a topic and its related issues.

Matt.kaner 15:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Impressionist Music

This is not a widely accepted term, particularly because Debussy himself was very opposed to it. French Music of this era can however be described as modernist, in its breaking with romantic tradition, exploration of new sounds and pitch structures etc. It also had arguably, just as much effect on the music of the 20th century that followed as Stravinsky's and Schoenberg's music. Therefore I propose it is removed. Of course it is an 'area' of music that exists, but in an article like this it would better go under Modernism and be mentioned as an aspect thereof. Matt.kaner 11:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Heavy metal" section

I removed this section because it basically had nothing to do with actual classical music. As written, the section alluded to heavy-metal pieces which sounded "classical", but not to any actual classical pieces. Besides, it was completely unreferenced. +ILike2BeAnonymous 06:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linked from the BBC

This page has been linked from BBC radio4 Tim Vickers 00:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strengthening an important article.

I would like to make some changes to this article to help its flow and make it more informative for people without detailed knowledge of classical music. I will start by trying to strengthen each of the sections of the timeline. I think that they need to make reference to composers and seminal works of each period. Then perhaps they can become subheadings in the TOC. I think this is important as any book giving even a cursory description of classical music will usually break it up in this manner. Then, I will to work on a brief theoretical overview that tries to explain the development of classical music from the Medieval to the Modern. Neiler 04:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schoolproject

Hey, Im a 15 year old student from Sweden. We recently got a musicassignment where you got a genre to write about. My group wanted 'History of Rap' but ended up with Classical Music. This is because our teacher is a feminist and never let guys get thier way. Any idea how I (who prefer rap) could find anything intrested in Classical Music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.227.188.125 (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Composers "timeline" needs fixing

I just did some editing around this section of the article and realized something: this "timeline" looks horrible. The legend text overwrites the timeline dates at the bottom, which are completely illegible in any case; all the text looks very ragged and "pixelated", and the whole thing just looks very amateurish (and not in the good, true sense of that word!). What can be done to fix this?

The graphic appears to be generated by the <timeline> tag. Is there some other way to generate this? Or should it be done in a dedicated graphic image? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's pretty bad. Plus who in their right mind would describe Bartok as belonging to the romantic era?Matt.kaner (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't just look horrible, but whoever chose the composers? Surely they should include the major figures from each era. Machaut and Dufay should be inserted into the huge gap between 1250 and 1450. The 20th century is weird. How can one exclude major figures such as Shostakovich and Messaien while including minor composers such as Satie, Vierne and Varese? And was Prokofieff the last "Modern" composer? Of course not. Apart from the two I've mentioned, we have Henze, Birtwistle, Schnittke, Ades and lots of others. 20th century opera doesn't get much of a showing: if they did, you'd include Berg (surely much more deserving than Satie!), Janacek and Britten. There are too many minimalists, considering that this is a style pursued by a small minority of composers mostly in the US rather than being the dominant 21st century style implied by the graph. To my European eyes, the other US selections are strange. How can Varese be there rather than Ives? And Carter has a stronger international reputation than Crumb. Of course it's easy to argue about who is or is not a major composer, but a test I would apply is the following: if it were that composer's centenary, would you expect to see many celebratory events in more than one country? Shostakovich, Messiaen and Carter pass this test, while the likes of Satie fail. 79.66.27.225 (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree. I was bold and removed Satie and Varese and added Ives. I have never heard of Vierne, so I didn't remove him.

Also, can we prune the Romantic period composers down? There are currently 31 of them on the timeline, more than any other period. I realize that there would naturally be more for the Romantic period (Classical.net lists more Romantic composers than any other era as well), but this timeline is just stuffed to the gill, and I don't imagine that it would be useful to a layperson.

On pruning: I have never heard of Donizetti, and I believe that Offenbach and Saint-Saens are pretty minor as well. Does anyone else agree that we can remove them? Squandermania (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Donizetti is another opera composer, but for some reason virtually all the 19th century opera composers get included but virtually none from the 20th century! I would remove Paganini (what on earth is he doing there?), Weber, czerny, Donizetti, Offenbach, Franck, Smetana, Saint-Saens, Bizet and Bruch. Some of these have written important works, but I agree we have far too many from the 19th century. The 20th century is improving, but I'd remove Vierne and Partch (neither international figures) and add Messaien, Janacek and Britten (the last two justified by their contributions to opera). Maybe Berg too. Galltywenallt (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classical music = staff notation?

European classical music is largely distinguished from many other non-European and popular musical forms by its system of staff notation, in use since about the 16th century...

This surely needs rewording, but at the moment I can't see how to do it. On the one hand, staff notation began to be developed well before the period of classical music, except in the broadest use of the word "classical." On the other hand, the sheet music that was big business in the early 1900s, the popular songs of everyone from Stephen Foster to Carrie Jacobs-Bond to Irving Berlin to Lieber and Stoller, the piano rags of Scott Joplin, the orchestra-pit arrangements of every Broadway musical... cannot possibly be called "classical music," but use the same system of staff notation. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Characteristics" section is a pure, unreferenced personal essay, start to finish

There's not a single reference in the whole section. Much of it is semireasonable, much of it is very questionable. To pick one point at random:

Classical and popular music are often distinguished by their choice of instruments. There are few if any genres in which so many different instruments are used simultaneously by performing groups such as symphony orchestras...

This is ludicrous. The orchestras of the Baroque period... even Mozart's... weren't much larger than Benny Goodman's band.

And what is a string quartet? Chopped liver?

If it's the choice of instruments that matters, what's the difference between Glenn Gould playing solo piano and Erroll Garner playing solo piano?

How does this go, exactly? Glenn Gould playing solo is classical, because he's playing Bach, who is considered a classical composer, because he also composed pieces for big symphony orchestras... except, of course, that he didn't.

Any marching band, and the United States Marine Band, is about as large and has about as many kinds of instruments in it as a symphony orchestra. Does that make a Sousa march classical music? Even though it's notated using staff notation? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)