Talk:Music and politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Music and politics article.
Article policies
Music and politics is within the scope of WikiProject Music, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to music. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, an attempt to improve, organise and standardise Wikipedia's articles in the area of politics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Article Grading: The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article..
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Start

Made a start on this topic, which I'm sure could be expanded much further than my meagre knowledge allows. You will note it's currently quite Anglo-centric. --Lancevortex 19:03, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name

The title of this article conflicts with Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles. Hyacinth 20:22, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It does? The title doesn't suggest a hierarchy to me. --Camembert
I guess not. But what about Music in politics? Hyacinth 01:27, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Having just read it for the first time, my understanding of Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Do not use an article name that suggests a hierarchy of articles is that one shouldn't create subpages, i.e. Politics/Music, and that Politics in Music is perfectly acceptable as an article title. Music in Politics is probably just as good though, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of point in changing it to that. --Lancevortex 12:19, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hm, I dunno, music in politics suggests something a bit different to what this article seems to be about: it suggests to me an article about the role music plays in political life. For instance, fanfares when the Queen enters, "Hail to the Chief" for the President, that sort of thing. If you really don't like this title, maybe go with political music instead? But like I say, I think the current title is OK. --Camembert
Good point, Camembert. --Lancevortex 14:36, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The title doesn't really matter to me. Either one is fine, but I do think this should be merged with the article Music in Politics, and rename it or keep the name of one of them. --Knx22knx

It seems articles of this sort will start to pop up more frequently since the music article is quite large. I don't find either title acceptible for an article purportedly about both. How about "Music and politics", using an "and" instead of an "in" and listing alphabetically music then politics. Hyacinth 06:56, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My vote would be to change the title to "Music and politics" and merging this article with "Music in politics" as they both deal with very similar subjects, and the "Music in politics" article seems a bit lacking, even though it contains information that could be merged to this page.Tomorrowsashes 00:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union

I added a bit on the Soviet Union. --YixilTesiphon

[edit] Needs better sourcing

This is possibly a good article topic, but we need to take care that we are not just presenting popular opinion as fact. A discussion on this subject within an encyclopedia needs to include in-line sources to support the claims being made. Currently that seems to be seriously lacking. -MrFizyx 14:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


I Agree. For example, I think the interpretation of Hendrix's Star Spangled Banner as being "Satirical" and "Political" is purely the author's personal opinion as Hendrix himself denies it as being a political statement on the Dick Cavett show. I would opt to delete the passage.


I think this paragraph from Wikipedia's own Jimi Hendrix entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimi_Hendrix) is more accurate about Hendrix's Music: '"Hendrix claimed that he did not intend for his performance of the national anthem to be a political statement, that he simply intended it as a different interpretation of the anthem. When taken to task on the Dick Cavett Show regarding the "unorthodox" nature of his performance of the song at Woodstock, Hendrix replied, "I thought it was beautiful," which was greeted with applause from the audience. His later-career live favorite "Machine Gun" however, was clearly a protest song against war."--Hellokitty2399 12:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New structure and intro needed

I think this is an exciting article with a lot of information in it. I have a couple of suggestions, and since I am not an expert in "music and politics" I'd like to offer them here for a general discussion.

  • I think this article needs an introductory section that traces out the theoretical framework for a discussion of music and politics. Basic questions that could be addressed include: How can music be political? What is the role of language in the relationship between music and politics?
  • I think the section on New Musicology should be deleted. As it stands there is no connection to the topic whatsoever. Of course it would be possible to write about "politics and [of?] musicology" in this section. In this case the section should stay.
  • I think the article should be restructered as follows:
  1. Introduction
  2. Discussion of genres
    1. Folk music
    2. Popular music
    3. Classical music
  3. Censorship of music
  4. Music in the political process
  5. [Politics and [of?] musicology]
  6. See also
  7. Further reading
  8. External links

What do you think about these suggestions? Matthias Röder 14:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Warning

I plan on nomininating this article for deletion, unless it's cleaned up and sources are added. Right now this is one giant piece of original research. 11:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I support deleting this article for the same reason. Besides, music and politics is such a broad-ranging topic that there's no way it could be adequately covered in one article.Spylab 14:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I speak as the person who created the article, and agree with the above comments. I would not argue if the article was deleted. Lancevortex (talk) 19:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame to lose so much hard work. I have attempted a total re-write. The suject is too important to be ignored. Ogg 15:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I had braced myself for a backlash, but the revision seems to be surviving OK, so I have added more detail. Ogg (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this article fit better as a sub-category in the topical song article? Just wondering. Geneisner (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)