Talk:Music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Music article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of April 3, 2005.

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic music topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!

Contents

[edit] Improvement

I definitely believe this complete article should be improved...I mean, it's the flagship-article of the music project! I'd do something about it myself, but I have no experience at all in matters related to wikipedic editing, perhaps some day i will learn.200.28.211.85 (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the incredibly ambitious scope of the article, I'd like to say it's pretty brilliant, and I think it did a pretty good job of covering the world, too.Jeanhenley (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)jeanhenley

[edit] Composition

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

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

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

[edit] Music Editing Wiki

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

[edit] What does it mean?

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

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

[edit] Music is not to be compared to walking

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

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

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

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

The walking comparison appears to have been removed. Hyacinth 08:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I know this is old, but does anybody else thinks this person was really stupid? - anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.177.237.30 (talk) 12:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC).


[edit] Deaf people listening to music is a non sequitur in cognition section

Under 'music cognition' there appears to be piece of information about deaf people listening to music that should be contextualized within the framework of music cognition. The first paragraph is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.18.121 (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement drive

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

[edit] Request for input

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

[edit] Start of this article too abstract?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Image?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] In need of revision...?

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

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

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

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

[edit] Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hyacinth 11:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

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

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

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

Please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 12:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that the introduction doesn't currently mention melody or harmony. How about you show a little restraint with your accusations of ethnocentrism? Hyacinth 08:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this article places much too much emphasis on melody and harmony and pitch and timbre. The article, as its currently written, places those concepts as pillars of the definition of music. However, pitch is rhythm -- (any vibration played with a frequency greater than approximately 40 hertz will be perceived by the human ear as a "pitched" sound -- or play a snare drum 440 times per second and you'll have a noisy 'A' above middle 'C'). Once a person accepts that pitch is just vibration (i.e. rhythm) then melody and harmony must be accepted as mere byproducts. These are not fundamental elements of music and could be discarded from the lead of this article. Regards. 02:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John Cage

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

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

[edit] String Theory?

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

I removed the mention. Hyacinth 08:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it quite an analogy. But a vibrating string (as on a guitar or piano) is the metaphor physicists chose to represent the subatomic process theorized by "string theory," in order to make it more comprehensible. The ease and simplicity of this metaphor is probably part of the reason this theory is so popular (in the name-dropping sense).

[edit] Lack of Humanistic Perspective

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

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

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

Volucre 22:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I welcome your contributions to this and other music related articles. I encourage you to Wikipedia:Cite sources and add information and POVs and Neutrality to the article.
I think you raise a valid point: this article, like most writings on music, neglects the lived experience of music. However, I am unclear as to what you suggest. For example, the article should be written in a neutral manner, not a highly emotional one, even if writing about emotions. Am I correct in assuming that you are talking about reception?
Have you found a definition of music which is based upon how it makes people feel or that it does? I'm not sure what a definition like that would look like.
You seem to want the "internalities" of music to both unify all music under one definition and distinguish between various types of music. I'm not sure how that would work either.
You may also be interested in Definition of music and specifically Definition of music#Music as subjective experience.
The sentence: "Music theory, within this realm, is studied with the presupposition that music is orderly and often pleasant to hear", doesn't explain anything about what music does or what compels them to listen. Also, I think most music theory is either neutral and doesn't presuppose or ever consider the quality or pleasantness of the music it considers, or presupposes the opposite, that most music is crap. Back to the point, the sentence asserts that music is orderly and pleasant, but does not explain why that would compel someone to listen.
For more theory see music theory. I warn you though, most music theory is exclusively about the externals.
What's wrong with referencing a sociologist and/or linguist in an article on music? However, please note that Dane Harwood is a cognitive psychologist but appears to work exclusively in the psychology of music, Julian Johnson is "Reader in the Faculty of Music, Tutorial Fellow in Music, St Anne’s College, Lecturer in Music, St Hilda’s College", Harold Owen "is professor emeritus of composition, musicianship, and music history and former chair of the department of composition at the University of Oregon School of Music", Jean Molino is a semologist and "anthropologist of the music", and Jean-Jacques Nattiez is a "musical semiologist or semiotician and professor of Musicology at the Université de Montréal".
Incidentally, the citations have almost all been lost.
Hyacinth 08:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor First Paragraphs

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

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

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

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

zenpea 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would give a list of examples which do little to explain your definition of music. Hyacinth 09:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I never suggested a definition of music. I suggested that this section include plausible accounts of the definition of music, rather than a few arbitrary selections, which are introduced by way of heterogenous examples to show why the job's difficult. zenpea 09:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
What would be the process or criteria by which these heterogenous examples are chosen? Hyacinth 11:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, the examples are counter-examples, so nothing much hangs on the specifics of which ones are used. Anything that someone could say is music that doesn't fit with an putative account will do, as all you're trying to show are the pros and cons of various accounts. e.g. if someone says the essential thing about music is melody, you give a concrete example wholly dependent upon rhythm (e.g. something based on drumming) and ask: is it music? The person suggesting that melody is essential will have to say it isn't. So that may be a downside to their account - it excludes this particular piece of drumming, which may seem ad hoc. Similarly, if someone says determinate form is essential, then you take a piece that contains a selection of elements to be combined freely as the conductor wishes (these were quite common in the mid/late 20th century). Again, it may be a downside that these works are excluded. And so on and so forth. So you just go through the various accounts and bring out borderline examples each time to show why many accounts (particularly accounts based on entirely intrinsic properties of music) are not clearly satisfactory for capturing what we consider to be music. Then the extrinsic accounts, ones which hang the definition of the concept of music not on the particular structure of pieces of music but rather on the relation all works stand in to composer and audience, or to previous works, or to something else, bring up equally interesting counter-examples. The approach will end as an open question (given that there's no final consensus), but at least you've shown why the problem is an issue, how people have disagreed, and the debate has been illuminated with examples of putative music that many people might not be familiar with. Zenpea 23:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
That sounds lengthy. Hyacinth 10:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aspects

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

[edit] Image

Image:Gerrit van Honthorst - Het Concert.jpg

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

[edit] Platonic ideal

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

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


[edit] Music Therapy

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

[edit] Non-commercial professional

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

Such as? Hyacinth

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

[edit] Too Staunchy?

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

Apparently, death metal and grindcore aren't acceptable forms of music to normal people, and, at most, are harsh forms of music with, at most, underground followings. Yeah, a little bit about the diversity of music would be nice.backstabb 21:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This article's purpose is to define the concept of music and, perhaps, how music effects our human experience. It's not intended to be a list of everybody's favourite style with link to their favourite band. Discussing Grindcore here would be like discussing fast food in an article about economics. If content related to the musical styles, (diversity), is desired, then simply linking to the Music genre page would be sufficient. Regards. 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Understood, but the sentence I'm referring to is "The existence of some modern-day genres such as grindcore and noise music, which enjoy an extensive underground following, indicate that even the crudest noises can be considered music if the listener is so inclined." Perhaps implying that such genres are "crude noises". Debatable, but not the point. Modern music styles which have had a major influence on history are barely mentioned in the article. I'm not saying the article should be about Progressive Trance, but discussing the influence of contemporary music does have a place here. backstabb 00:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
This article mainly talks about the western tradition of music. (except the one line mention of samaveda being one of the earliest mentions of music.). You should rename it as Music: western tradition or something to that effect. India has rich classical, semiclassical, and folk music traditions, there is the distinct music of central Asia, the Maquam that developed in the area of Afganistan, Iran. This article makes you feel as if the western world was the only one that developed and thought of effects of music. --Kaveri 19:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I totally agree with Kaveri.Leafever 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think the bass thump you're referring to might be the four to the floor. I've no idea about the boom car though, sorry. Wintran 02:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Possibly Car audio or DB drag racing, but that's as much as I could find. backstabb 00:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Observations of External Links section

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

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

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

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

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

I took a while to respond to this because I'm not sure what to do here. I agree that the spam links should go. Some of them weren't so obviously spammy but still set off small alarms with me, so I have absolutely no objections if you want to get rid of them. Music Web would be an example. The narrow links such as South Indian Music are what troubles me. I want to say that they are too narrow and shouldn't be there - if they're worthwhile links they should be linked from their specifically related articles (if they exist). On the other hand, music links are music links. But in the end, I think since we can't possibly have external links to all music-related subjects, it might be best to get rid of the narrow ones. You could even make a POV argument that only some types of music are represented in the links.
The number of links doesn't bother me; if only two are appropriate, then we should only have two. I'm guessing there are more sites out there that would be good to link to; maybe a Google search would yield some good links. Maybe I will look tomorrow; it's 2:30am here and time for me to sleep. :) -- Laura S | talk to me 06:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The "South Indian Music" link is indeed spam; users like 202.83.52.9 (t c), 202.83.52.31 (t c), and 202.83.52.19 (t c) have been adding it to many articles. And even if it weren't spam, I think it would belong at Music of India or a similar article. Wmahan . 00:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Hip Hop

A recent edit brought this paragraph to my attention:

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

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

Please do. It's nonsense. MarkBuckles (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. The more I looked at it, the more it grated on me. -- Laura S | talk to me 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's trash.--HisSpaceResearch 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sound and silence, silence is confusing. I agree. --phocks (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music as Time

Hi MarkBuckles,

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Delete this sentence?

"Music may also involve generative forms in time through the construction of patterns and combinations of natural stimuli, principally sound."

Anybody who once thought they new what music is certainly won't have clue after reading that sentence.

  • Music 'IS' a form generated by sounds in time -- the word "may" is not necessary.
  • Patterns have nothing to do with anything. (Unless we're all still stuck in the Classical period.)
  • "'Principally' sound" ? That phrase suggests that there may be an alternative stimuli which can be constructed in time to produce music? The word "principally" can be discarded.
  • "Natural stimuli" ? Is there any other kind? (I'm suggesting that the adjective can be dropped.)
  • Sound 'IS' natural. And sound stimulates. I don't think there's any need to be wordy and obfuscate the logic by saying "natural stimuli, principally sound".

I'll suggest the entire sentence could be discarded and the sentence "Music is sound in time" could be moved into its place(which, in fewer words, achieves everything the original author intended). Any objections? Regards. 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music History section

I've just done a little revamping of the music history section. However, the full length article about music history contradicts this section (about the samaveda, I think), and its introduction is both clearer and more concise (and more to the point) than this section. What if I just cut the whole music history section and paste the intro from the history of music article? J Lorraine 08:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tv show

i saw a recent tv show on channel4 uk which said that humans are pre set to like music the same way we are to learn a language user bouse23 1330 december3rd 2006 gmt


there'd have to be some non-human made music to really test that.

[edit] Definition of Music

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

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

I've been thinking about it a lot and I have come up with the following defintion of music:

'Linear arrangement of sound-concepts for entertainment rather than utility.'

I phone ringing is not music, it is purely functional, but those downloadable ringtones are, because they're embellishing to add entertainment value to the utility. I say 'sound-concepts' rather than just 'sound' because music written down is still music, is commonly referred to as such, and can even be 'heard' in the minds of trained music readers; and furthermore silence is part of music too. I say 'linear' because they must be linked, not just a big list of sounds. I think this definition successfully distinguishes the sounds which we call music and the sounds which we create but do not call music, and does so without making any assumptions about the audience or the reception.


so are footsteps music? how about tapdancing? what about tapdancers rehearsing?

Please sign your posts! Now, there are a few problems with this working definition. (1) "Linear"? In what way do the sounds have to be linked? Not all music demonstrates unity of any kind. (2) Referring to "sound-concepts" begs the question of who does the conceptualizing with regards to a given music. Not all music exists fundamentally in someone's mind, even a composer's. (3) This will probably be easiest for you to agree to: only some music is used for entertainment. Medieval plainchant, for example, was not for entertainment. Dunkelweizen (talk) 18:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Cultural Similarities and Differences Between Music of Different Nations and People.

I am writing a news article on The Cultural Similarities and Differences Between Music of Different Nations and People, and I was wondering what everyone's opinion on this is. It would be of great help and perhaps it may contribute to this Wikipedia article in some way, please get back to me if you wish to share your opinions. Psychron 15:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] questionable paragraph (who can call themselves a musician)

I don't think the following paragraph belongs in this article:

"In professional music, a distinction must be drawn between musicians that perform and performers who make music. All musicians must perform, but not all musical performers can call themselves musicians. In order to be considered a musician, one must play a musical instrument reasonably well. Vocalists run into trouble in some instances, depending on whether critics happen to believe that a voice is an instrument; for example, Isaac Stern may be considered a musician, whereas Jessica Simpson may not."

It strikes me as belonging in the realm of personal judgement (opinion) instead of encylclopedic information. I'll remove it if there's no objection. J Lorraine 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music psychology

i found information in that site *link saying that music reduces the breathing rate and so reduces stress, the site is not refrenced, could i include this information in the music main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:196.205.239.30 (talk • contribs)

It's possible that might be a valid reference, but you didn't link to the page with the information, you just linked to the website's main page - so there's no way to confirm it would be relevant.
But more importantly, if you include the link, where would you put it? There is a section of this article about therapeutic uses of music, and that section needs improvement, so you could be bold and add information there; if it applies, you could refer to the website link as a reference for the edits you add. If you do though, make sure to link to the correct page on the website. For information of what links are good to include, please refer to this article: Wikipedia:External links.
I suggest that you first learn a bit more about how Wikipedia works. There is more information about how to proceed on your personal user talk page at this link: User talk:196.205.239.30 [re-editing to add my signature omitted from original edit dated 17:02, 9 April 2007] --Parzival418 23:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Where?

Is there, and if so, where is ther topic for music affecting on learning? ..awesomisticisms 06:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean sounds

Ocean sounds - In popular music can be experienced what I call the ocean sounds. There is Indian (maybe the Indian Ocean) such as in ragss or George Harrison. An Atlantic sound such as in Celtic music and American music. And the American sound sound such as slide guitar and in country music. The American sound is related to the Hawaiian sound (Pacific Ocean) like Ukelele. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.116 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 24 May 2007

[edit] major revisions to the article

Cosprings, I reverted the major reorganization of the article you did today. I can see you did a lot of work on it and I did not revert your changes casually. Your changes may even have improved the article, but there was so much changed all at once that couldn't tell if anything important was lost or modified.

At least one thing was lost - there was an semi-protection template on the page that was there due to recent vandalism and your edits unintentionally removed that tempalte.

Your help with the article is very welcome, it can certainly use improvement. But before doing something so major, it's important to discuss it with the other editors working on the article. Also, because your changes involved a reorganization of so many headings and "see also" or "main article" templates, we should go step by step, attaining consensus along the way.

Or, if you want to do it all at once, we can create a new sub-page with your new version so we can look at it in full and decide if there is consensus for replacing the main page with the new version.

If you don't know how to do that, let me know and I'll help you set it up with your edited version. Then you can ask the other editors here if they agree with your new organization, and if there is consensus, we can make the big change. You can contact me here or on my talk page.

Thank you for your work on the article, I look forward to seeing the improvements once you engage in the process with the other editors here. --Parzival418 Hello 03:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Why would I bother engaging in a discussion with editors about music? I don't know who you editors are, why would I with reason respect your opinion on a subject on which I am an academic? Apparantly, you agree that with the current page, that ornamentation is a notation, which is part of performance?!!? NO! This website died when it decided it could be the distributor of expertise. Wiki is supposed to be democratic, open to all, you wont let some obviously good changes through because they didn't go throguh the beauracracy! The page looks terrible now! This is one of the pages which everyone in the world knows something about, and you want to lock it? Wiki is great, but its people like you, who make everyone engage in red tape, which make it annoyingly American. This system of editors was supposed to defend from vandalism, not progress. If you believe in democracy, please leave the page the way I had it and let ALL others edit it.Cosprings 16:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Please calm down a bit. This is not about red tape, it's just about respecting each other while we work on the articles. I did not say I don't think your edits were not improvements, maybe they are and we should include them. What I said was there were so many changes at once that it was hard to see what you did and that we should discuss it first. By the way, I also saw the many edits you did on other articles, for example History of music, and Music market and I did not revert them because they seemed to improve the articles.
Also, the page is not locked. The semi-protection template does not apply to you. It does not stop you from editing the article. It applies only to new editors or anonymous IP editors - the reason it is there is that this article was vandalized several times a day for a long time by people who were just causing trouble for fun.
You are welcome to edit Wikipedia and your are invited to improve the articles. But to do that, you need to recognize that Wikipedia is a community and there is a wide variety of people here working on articles. The community is based on mutual respect, civility, collaboration and consensus. In your first response to my comment, your first communication with me, you insulted me several times and you insulted other editors who have worked on this and other articles. That's not an acceptable way of communicating here.
You seem to have a lot of knowledge about music and I'm sure you can make valuable improvements to the articles. To do that, you need to learn how Wikipedia works. It's not a democracy, it's run by consensus and based on core principles. At the end of this comment, I'll include links to a few articles you can read to get familiar with how things are done in this community. If you are willing to review those articles, I think you'll find the system is pretty good and you will be able to join in and make valuable contributions.
I also noticed that whenever someone has posted a comment on your user talk page, you have immediately blanked the page. You have the right to do that, but over time, you'll find that is not an effective way of making progress. Sometimes blanking parts of your talk page is useful. But in general because this is a community, especially within the subject areas of various articles, after a while people get to know each other and part of that involves communications on the article and user talkpages. You've already received some warnings on your talk page that you have blanked. The reason that happened is that you were making changes so fast and not discussing them. Especially major changes, like you did on this article, or as you did at Portal:Music/Featured article. The articles featured there are a result of a nomination and consensus process by people working on the project of improving the music portal. As an academic with knowledge in this area, you might want to join that project and make a difference. But again, to do what you want, you need to respect the other people here and the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you think the polices or guidelines are wrong - you can also go to those pages and improve them as well, if you can get consensus from the editors working on those pages.
Here are the articles I mentioned that can help you learn about how the system works - there are additional articles linked within these. It's a an interesting and resiliant system once you start to appreciate how deep it is and how it allows so many thousands of people to work together productively:
If you are willing to communicate with me without insults or demands, I would be happy to help you improve this article. --Parzival418 Hello 18:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] needs correction-

Would someone fix this article so it's about something other than India??

Somebody really seems to have fixed it. Now it is all about Western music. --Kaveri 02:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muslims and Music

I think the statement that 'Listening to music is considered a sin by Muslims' is quite inflammatory and strikes me as being a personal judgement, especially considering the Wiki article on Islamic Music. I think that it stinks of paradox because the reading of the Qu'ran itself, by the definitions made in this article, would cause it to be a an act of music and if listening to music is a sin, then listening to the a professional recitation of the Qu'ran would also be a sin. This is ridiculous, the statement should be removed. --preceding comment by User:LafcadioRobot

At least members of the Wahhabi school of jurisprudence I personally adhere to believe that music is sinful. It was considered evil by first generations of Muslims. Note also that most musicians are very corrupted people who engage in activities like adultery and narcotics and some of them consider themselves prophets of Allah which is evident from inserting (by themselves or their followers) of the p.b.u.h. honorific after their names (see in my edit history; I recently removed 2 such instances). See also this fatwa to remove all doubts that music is haram: [2] Aminullah 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 23:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular music section

This article focuses exclusively on “art music.” It should have a section added on popular music (jazz, rock, rap, whatever), and at least one picture on the subject. --S.dedalus 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

See #Bias, below. Hyacinth (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns on stance with Amatuers.

I noticed the phrase "in some rare cases amatuer musicians attain professional status" and do not think it entirely fair to amatuers. While it may or may not be the case that this is rare - I do not claim this is an area of special study for me - the point is implied that amatuers are a 'lesser breed' of musisians. I disagree. In many cases amatuers may simply choose not to 'go professional'. This point needs to be underlined in red ink, metaphorily speaking, lest a significant force in the musical world take offence.

Targ Collective 194.81.176.254 15:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


it's amateur

[edit] 1750 was not the date when Handel died

In the section on baroque music, it refers to "1750, the year of the death of George Frideric Handel along with Johann Sebastian Bach". In fact, only Bach died in 1750; Handel died in 1759. The writer may have been confusing this with the fact that both Bach and Handel (and also Scarlatti) were all born in 1685. I think that this section needs a slight adjustment to fit these facts, but I am unable to make this adjustment at the moment. Is there anyone else who could rewrite this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Gowers (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chronology

Al-Farabi is included under "ancient" music. Wouldn't he be considered medieval? -Rosywounds (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] maximize

h —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.50.9 (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music and Genetics

Let me first say I am not a racist/social darwinist/nazi/asshole whatever. But I think there might be some connection between genes/national origin and what you like. I, for instance, am German/Scandinavian in ancestry and love hard rock/ heavy metal, and my friends of Northern and Eastern European origin like similar stuff, and Norway, Finland and Germany make lots of Metal. And the whole African diaspora has created music with similar rhythms worldwide. Does anyone know of any source where I might find stuff on this?Cameron Nedland (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Start with google, then email some professors.Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 10:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Check out Kofi Agawu's article "The Invention of 'African Rhythm'" in the Journal of the American Musicological Society, Vol. 48, No. 3, Music Anthropologies and Music Histories. (Autumn, 1995), pp. 380-395. See also essentialism. Hyacinth (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

Why is this article so biased to Classical EUROPEAN music. This is such crap. This article as long as it is, does not even take into cognizance that we have 6 continents with people living on them. A short description on the nature of their own music with sublinks would be nice. This article needs serious editing. It's a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninbronx10 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed! Unfortunately this is the way that music is taught at a tertiary level at the moment, the rest of the world is relegated to "world music" or "ethnomusicological" units of study. Perhaps the "history" section of this article could (as suggested) list musical history by region of the world: Europe, Africa, South America, North America, Australasia, Continental Asia, South East Asia, Middle East, India. The difficulty is where to draw the line without making the article too unwiledy and long and how to define these regions. It could be argued that music history be moved to a different article all together (mind you History of music is just as Euro-centric).Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia confined to articles that present topics the same way Western university do? Could you link to an explanation of this Wikipedia rule for me? I did not know the Western world owned music. I think it does not. How sad for readers to come to a general article about music in the 21st century and find that music is owned by a rather small portion of the world. --Blechnic (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ach! That's not what I was saying. And there is no wikipedia rule to the best of my knowledge. I AGREE that the article is not universal enough, I'm just saying it's unfortunate that there is a Euro-centric approach to tertiary music study. Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This article should come with this label, but it cannot be edited. Too many non-Western university students mentioning there was music in their country 1000 years ago? Perhaps.

Globe icon
 This article may not provide balanced geographical coverage on the region in question.
An editor has expressed concern that this article is biased. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.
Unbalanced scales
Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! In regards to content see Wikipedia:POV and Wikipedia:Cite sources. It should be easy to find sources which indicate that non-European or Euro-American music be covered and sources which cover them and they may be used to build a better article. Perhaps if you draw up a list of the specific gaps or flaws in the current article that would help others with assisting you improve the article. Hyacinth (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See #Popular music section, above. Hyacinth (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a {Geographical imbalance} tag on this page. Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Meow meow purr purr for posting the geographical imbalance.

I did sign my post. But please don't open dialogues by scolding the other party like I am doing here. It serves no purpose. You can also check the history if you need to know who posted a comment.

Specific gaps and flaws? Start with the history of music, it is missing Africa, China, Japan, the Middle East, pop music (really!), musical theater, the folk music history of the world (funny since the big history of music event for folk is the American Smithsonian Institute's 20th c. recordings), the folk music of the Caribbean, the British Isles, the African drum and its diaspora along with its peoples in the 19th and 20th c., and focuses almost exclusively on Europe until the 20th century. Musical theater probably had a bigger and more lasting influence on Western music thus far than rap music, certainly pop has. But give the rappers a hand for at least getting this form of music in their among the European orchestras and chambers.

"Medieval and Renaissance Europe, European Baroque, European Classical, and Romantic" are not the history of music they are the history of European music and the history of Western music.

--Blechnic (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

First, sorry you feel scolded, but you shouldn't since I was only informing you of a guideline. If you signed your comment, where did your signature go?
Second, calm down. To assume that I'm a classical music fan out to save my prized artifacts from contamination by music theater and throat singing is dead wrong. Read my next comments less defensively.
Unfortunately, musicology itself is an ethnocentric and biased discipline. "Music history" actually is only European music history. "Ethnomusicology" covers the rest of the world. This is, I know first hand, the way it is still taught at least in the University music department I consider my personal hell. :Wikipedia, however, is not limited to the way things are taught. Rather, content in Wikipedia must be verifiable. You may think of it as Wikipedia being limited to sources which may be cited. See Wikipedia:Verifiablity and Wikipedia:Cite sources. Hyacinth (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

This talk page needs to mention why the article is semi-protected so that only established users may edit it. Why is it so? Hyacinth (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good question. I asked that it be unprotected. --Blechnic (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Irregardless of whether it stays protected or not an article being protected should be discussed on the article talk page. Given the lack of that discussion I also support un-protecting the page. Hyacinth (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Checking the protection history it was blocked in Nov 2007 due to heavy IP vandalism. I have removed the protection. Hyacinth (talk) 21:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I dont recall what I was thinking at the time, but I doubt I intended to leave it this long. Thanks for unprotecting it. John Vandenberg (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead again

I do not think Wackymacs's recent change to the lead was an improvement, being an account of one school of thought about what music ought to be. The sounds do not have to be vocal or instrumental, and the classification of the individual sounds does not usefully define the difference between music and non-music. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and in any case some musicians go out of their way to create sounds that are not "beautiful" in the usual sense. The same goes for emotion. If you're going to mention beauty and emotion, then you must mention intellectual engagement too, and not all music strives for that either. Some music is monodic, and even sounding together does not always produce sounds that can be analysed as "harmony". I think "art form where the medium is sound" summed it up in a much more general and neutral way, without requiring paragraphs of qualification and explanation. Does anyone else have a view? --RobertG ♬ talk 14:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, but either way, the lead needs to, at some point in time, end up about 2-3 paragraphs long to fully summarize this article as per WP:LEAD. — Wackymacs (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Since you accept my objection, I'll put the old lead back for now. But I completely agree with your suggestion that eventually it should summarise the article. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)