Talk:Music of Italy/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

From Music of Italy

Contents

Lack of Popular artists

I know a bit about Italian music and I haven't heard of anyone in this article except Enrico Caruso (who wasn't a singer-songwriter), and Franco Battiato (who isn't a folk musician). I have heard of people like Lucio Battisti, Lucio Dalla, Giorgia, Laura Pausini, Francesco di Gregori and dozens of others who don't make it into World Music books, no matter how popular or significant they are in Italy. But I don't feel knowledgeable enough (nor is my Italian good enough) for me to feel confident that I can do this subject justice. Of course this article will be expanded, but what will be the result? I'm an Australian and, going by the Music of Australia article, I doubt this one will ever be very informative for people who hope to learn something about Italian culture (which is for Italians to define). Anyway, I hope I'm wrong. 144.138.194.194

music of Naples

I agree that Italians define Italian culture, but I don't see how that prevents outsiders from being informed and informative about other cultures. I have lived in Naples for 30 years and teach about Neapolitan music to groups from abroad. I am prepared to modify the section on Music of Naples in this entry. I propose four paragraphs, each introducing a different genre of Neapolitan music and each linked to longer articles. But I am confused about the hierarchy of articles. All the sections labelled by region include empty (so far) "Main article" links at the top. That link becomes redundant (I think) since the paragraphs in that section link to different articles, all of which become (in this case) parts of The Music of Naples. Alternately, I suppose one could include all four articles in a longer single article linked from the "Main article" link at the top. Do I sound confused? Jeffmatt

You do sound confused (this article has a confused layout, so that's understandable). In any case, I think it's entirely worthwhile to have an article on the music of Naples even if it's somewhat redundant with certain other articles. Tuf-Kat 14:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


OK. I will work on a single, longish item that will link from the one "Main article" link at the top of the section. Thank you for the fast feedback. Jeffmatt

new article on the music of Naples

I have left the entry for music of Naples on this page intact and simply written a new, larger entry as the main article, referred to and now linked. I hope that was the proper thing to do.Jeffmatt 07:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

(see above)

I did change the short introductory entry about Naples in this item, after all, so that it reads more like a real introduction to the main article that it is linked to.Jeffmatt 12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent, looks great! Tuf-Kat 17:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Organizational Changes

I have made a few organizational changes, most of which flowed out of an expansion of the introduction to the Folk Music section. I created a new heading called "Modern popular music" to capture all the variants (Rock, pop, hip hop, etc) including a reference to jazz that I pulled from the Sicilian folk music section.

I really like the new Music of Naples elucidation, but it raises an interesting point. The current geographic subdivisions of the Folk section raise the challenge of how to deal with content that relates to those geographies but isn't really folk music. Canzone napoletana skirt the issue a bit(they probably are folk music, but are much more closely tied to popular music and opera than the folk music of other areas) but classical and opera will (if anyone ever writes about them) will make the current structure more of a question. --Vineviz 20:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the geographic subdivision ought to be moved to a more specific article, maybe Italian folk music, with just a brief summary of all Italian folk music here. Then it'd be easier to integrate in all the info on Italian music in general. Tuf-Kat 06:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

re the question on canzone napoletana as folk music (above)

Hello Vineviz. I wrote the item on the music of Naples. The question depends on how you define folk music. Traditionally, we tend to view folk music as being the product of some sort of anonymous musical expression that flows from the people--composed by someone at some time or other, yes, but not the direct result of professional song writing. In that case, the canzone napoletana is popular song--just like the products of Tin Pan Aley in the US. The songwriting teams are well-known, and they wrote to sell their music. Part of the problem is that, within Italy, Naples is the only area that has this strong tradition of composed popular music that might also be called--to confuse the issue even more--"composed folk music". Yet, Neapolitans, themselves, make the distinction between the composed canzone napoletana and folk music, so maybe it is wise to keep that distinction.

I realize that this defintion/division of folk music/popular music has a few problems. There are certainly professionally written songs that "sound" as if they should be called folk music, perhaps because they deal with folk themes. I suppose "Old Man River" would be one of those, and perhaps some of Bob Dylan, which is why I included a separate section on cantautori--people who compose and sing their own music. Maybe that is a grey area between folk music and popular music. Yet, that, too, is a distinction that Neapolitans make--that is, they mean different things when they refer to (1) canzone napoletana, (2) folk music, (3) songs of the cantautori.

I left the section on Neapolitan folk music very sparse because I don't know that much about it. The original geographical divisions, as you point out, have some problems. I left it intact and tried to work within the original framework. I think the organizational changes you made are fine, necessary and will no doubt help us iron out this stuff as we go along. I am new to wikipedia and am not even sure when or if you will read this. Jeffmatt 07:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

More changes

I mucked around with structure, I think to the improvement of coherence. I created a section under "Modern popular music" called "canzone napoletana" (I know that doesn't sit completely right, but I think it deserves a seperate sub-head and it fits better in popular music than in folk music). I edited the "canzone napoletana" section of Jeffmatt's Music of Naples article and created a whole new Canzone Napoletana page. This feels right to me, but he or others might know better.

The folk section still needs a lot of work, although I tightened the organization into northern, southern, and Sardinian folk music. I think the headings are less likely to prove confusing and work fine for the material as presented. This structure ends up lumping a lot of diverse styles together, but I agree with Tuf-Kat that Italian folk music should have a page devoted to it so this will serve as a decent enough introduction with a bit more work until I or someone else can get a new page up and running. Vineviz 18:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


2. Folk and Popular Music

Folk music (used here as a synonym for traditional music) may be viewed, originally, as "non-establishment" music—songs and dances that arose spontaneously at unspecified times in the past and have been passed down from generation to generation by people who are not professional musicians and whose songs or dances are more self-expression than they are performances. Popular music might be said to be somewhat of a formalized version of folk music; that is, sooner or later someone will compose and write down the music of the people, music that draws on popular themes and musical devices (scales, rhythms, etc.). That music then becomes performance music very much in the same sense as art music; that is, it is meant to be sold and to be performed. In Italy, some places—Naples, for example—have developed an entire genre of such popular music. Italy, in general, has proven itself to be very much of cultural synthesizer in that it is quick to borrow and internalize popular musical forms from elsewhere. There are now Italian jazz bands, rap performers, etc.

a. general features of Italian folk music (paras + links)
b. (incorporate section 4 from original outline)
c. modern popular music i. American influence, the Italian "musical"
d. (incorporate section 3 from original outline)
e. Neapolitan Song (incorporate from orig.) plus other Neapolitan popular forms
f. the Italian "cantautori"

(Much of the above section involves exracting sections from the original article and renaming/moving them into separate sub-articles. Is that acceptable?) I realize this is rough, but it's a start. Jeffmatt 07:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

New Page

I went ahead and redid the page more or less as I outlined above except that I moved the folk and popular material to a separate page Folk and Popular Music of Italy because it was all too long. I used as many internal links to subarticles I could think of. I have some plans to slot in sections as you suggested on music eduction, etc. etc. maybe film music. Although some of those things would go as separate articles, I suppose.

You've added a lot of great information, but I disagree with some of the structure. First of all, only a tiny fraction of this article is about the music of Italian people today, and the music of the modern country of Italy. The music of Italy really ought to focus on the current music scene, and include a brief, summary style overview of music history. Much of what you added ought to be the basis for music history of Italy.
Take a look at what I did under "baroque" with the link to Baroque music. That should be done (you can also use template:see) for all the sections.
Folk and Popular Music of Italy is a really bad idea for an article, IMO. The focus is way too broad. Music of Italy has to be broadened in scope significantly.
Why Venice (classical music) and not music of Venice?
Remember to cite your sources.
Tuf-Kat 18:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


Lumping Folk and Popular music into one category, then excising the content completely was probably ill-advised. Surely someone looking for information on Italian music would expect to find those topics treated in as much depth as classical and opera.
To that end, I restored that full content of those sections. We are now at 30kb, however, and need a rational plan for making what is here concise, comprehensive, and helpful.
To further that end, I have created three new pages: Art music of Italy, Folk Music of Italy, and Popular music of Italy. As it stands, those pages have exactly the same content as the relevant sections of the current Music of Italy page but I intend to remedy that soon by editing this page.
Folk and popular music of Italy should probably be deleted, but I am open to persuasion to the contrary.Vineviz 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Trimmed (butchered?)

I did as I said I would, and shortened this article down to something approaching reasonable size. I edited the Art Music, Folk Music, and Popular music sections with a goal of preserving their essence. Most of the stuff I removed from the Art music section was, as best I could judge, not super-specific to Italy. Most of the stuff I removed from the Folk and Popular music sections related to current performers (and the whole section I wrote on the Italian folk revival). Again, the full content of those sections as they were is now on Art music of Italy, Folk music of Italy, and Popular music of Italy.

This page still could use a lot of tightening and focus, but it has never looked or read better in my opinion.

Vineviz 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Couple changes: Italian folk music and Italian popular music make them more in line with other similar articles (see Hungarian folk music and American popular music, for example). I've also moved Art music of Italy to Italian classical music -- "art music" is too vague a term, which is why Wikipedia has art music as a disambiguation page. Tuf-Kat 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


To VINEVIZ. I think your changes look fine, make sense, and, above all, make it easy to contribute additional information by slotting into the proper articles. I'm the original butcher, but I wasn't sure what to do with the increasing length of the article, so I concocted that page with the double name of Folk and Popular, which, I agree, might be deleted since the information now exists in the separate articles you set up.

Same problem?

VINEVIZ, nice changes to the lead. I replaced "Peri" with a more general phrase since he and the Camerata group are mentioned later on. One thing occurs to me--TUF-KAT (above) makes the point that the whole first part is too historical and should perhaps be part of an article called Music history of Italy --or something similar, and that this current Music of Italy aricle should be about contemporary music practices. Thus--if that is a good point--we may be spinning our wheels a bit. Should this current article be historical or contemporay? If historical, maybe there should be a separate article right now called Music history of Italy and the entire first part of this thing moved over to it. That would entail some other article on the order of Music of Italy today--or something similar-- to handle the state of contemporary music.

Look at it this way: the "music of Italy" includes music history, current and historical music organizations, orchestras, opera companies, music venues, popular and indie music, past and present and so on. Since this all too much for one article, we need to use Wikipedia:Summary style. That means there should be a brief overview of all those topics, with links to articles that focus on each one. Tuf-Kat 07:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I suspect that once we have made Music of Italy into the perfect article, we will find that what we have already done will be both expanded and condensed. The current sections, especially folk and classical, are probably too long without quite being comprehensive. I am thinking a lot about the Italian folk music page, which whould make the folk music section of music of Italy much better: simultaneously concised and informative. By the way, the Music of Nigeria article truly is a marvelous example of what a "Music of X" page can be.Vineviz 14:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


The TOC is already getting a bit large. I recommend no more than the total number of headings that are already in the article. Tuf-Kat 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, just stumbled across the very good Music of the trecento, which I don't think is linked in anywhere yet. Tuf-Kat 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, the main Music of Italy article should (I think) make some attempt to unify all the material in some way (within the parameters of being encyclopedic, of course). The topic will be poorly served if this goes in the direction of being a buch of short introducutions to other articles with links. Vineviz 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Shortened It

I spent some time shortening and tightening the main sections, with a specific focus on the role of Italy and/or Italians: I excised some material that is interesting but that didn't enlighten the subject of Italian music directly. I think I reduced the number of headings, too.

At the risk of offending, I also de-linked most of the dates as I edited the text, per Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context.

I also removed most of the "See also" links where there was an inline link already present or where such a link no longer made sense in context. I don't think I orphaned anyone, since those links are still on Italian classical music, Italian folk music, and Italian popular music pages. Vineviz 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Started to add paragraphs

I beefed up the paragraph on "cinematic music" and changed the title to "Film music". OK? I am thinking of the need for a "summary" (as VINEVIZ mentioned). Do you mean a single paragraph at the end of everything? That is do-able, butI am not sure that I see the need for it. You brought up the excellent point of giving readers what they need. Most readers will want to know something about particular points of Italian music, I think, and will not look for an all-encompassing summary (other than what is in a good lead paragraph). Or maybe not. Point to ponder. Jeffmatt 08:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

(even later) I moved one heading (1.7) to make the break from 19th to 20th century evident. I have started to fill in a few of the red-linked items with short pages elsewhere-- Roman Vlad, for example. Tht'll take a while. I'll try to beef up the part on jazz. Jeffmatt 13:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Need sources and inline citations -- this is important and not doing so while you're building the article will make it much more difficult later
  2. Not sure what the point of "International musical influences" is
  3. This does not appear to be comprehensive on the subject of popular music
  4. "Classical music" ought to be focused on 20th and 21st century music, IMO, and put the rest under a "music history" header, which can then include historic forms of folk music and stuff
  5. A "Characteristics" section is needed, explaining what makes the "music of Italy" different from other countries
  6. A section on Italian music abroad, in the US, Argentina or wherever, would be nice
  7. Needs some sections on music festivals, venues, industry


notes from Jeffmatt 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Sources and in-line citations. Point taken.
  2. "International Music Influence" was in the original TOC. I left it, but it might tie into your point on "Italian music abroad".
  3. Popular music. I know. It is very sprase. It'll take some time.
  4. Music festivals. I started to mention a bit of that in the 20th century section. It needs work.
  5. What makes the music of Italy different is a bit thorny. It is not the same type of question as What makes the music of Nigeria different?-- Since Italy is one of the major sources of European music, all you can really say is that is very eclectic. (That is a major characteristic of Italian music. The entire culture is a melting pot, but that may resist a point-by-point description.) Maybe I am missing the point.
  6. History vs Contemporary. That, of course, is do-able. Are you suggesting relabeling the TOC of this article such that history is number 1 and then 20th-to-present number 2, itself then sub-labeled into classic, folk, pop, etc.? OR do you think the entire history section should be a separate article called Music History of Italy (as you indicated above) and that this Music of Italy article be about the very recent past and present with a lead on the order of: "Recent and contemporary Italian music can be traced to Italy's long musical history....(something like that) with a see link to the Music History of Italy article? If 1, the article will be very long, even in summary style; if 2, maybe we should set up that new Music History of Italy now. I don't feel quite confident enough to make another major change the way I did before. If you want to make it, go ahead. I'll be happy with it and we can work with some contemporary items with the history article kind of in the bag, except for references, etc, as you say.

Here's what I suggest: Tuf-Kat 18:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Lead

Characteristics

e.g. what makes Italian folk music different from french etc, what are the major regional division of Italian folk music and what makes them coherent music areas? What kinds of music have been "popular music", and in what way is this different from the kinds of music that have been popular elsewhere? What makes Italian opera different from French or German opera?

Music history

3 - 4 paragraph summary of Italy's music history, all the way to the present

Early music

Combine plainsong and "early secular music"

Renaissance

Baroque

Classical

Romantic

Classical music

20th century to the present (maybe needs a subsection or two)

Folk music

Northern and central Italy

Southern Italy and Sicily

Sardinia

Italian music abroad

Roots revival

Popular music

Early popular music

<just guessing because I don't really know> probably printed song and popular ballads of the 19th century, birth of the Italian recording industry in the early 20th century

whatever mid-20th century Italian pop was

brief overview of late 20th century mainstream pop

Other niche styles

Brief intros to hip hop, jazz, etc

Music institutions and organizations

Music venues

Holidays and festivals

Music education

OK Thank you. Jeffmatt 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am working on a "Characteristics" start-up paragraph to slot in according to the outline, above; then, I'll do a jazz paragraph. Then, we'll see what happens.Jeffmatt 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I put in a "characteristics" starter section. It's probably too long. If this thing is NOT going in the right direction, somebody say something! All comments welcome, pro and con. Jeffmatt 18:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I tightened the lead and adjusted the TOC to separate history and 20th/present. The contemprary section is very sparse. I'll work on it a bit. Cheers.Jeffmatt 06:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a section on the San Remo festial to the pop section. I'll fill in the Early Pop music section, before that, later. Thank you, someone, for changing 20th-Present to Modern Classical. What was I thinking!?Jeffmatt 09:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a section on jazz. I am in favor of changing the International Influences because it doesn't make sense to me, at least in its present form. The third paragraph, however, is intriguing--the one about Italian music being a catalyst for a general Medeterranean music. I think that deserves further attention. Some Italian pop singers have already climbed aboard the bandwagon. Massimo Ranieri has an album of Neapolitan Songs set to North African rhythms and instruments. Jeffmatt 19:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


I tried to adjust the paragraph on foreign influences. I chaged the title to World Music, but I don't know. I don't think it deserves a separate section. Perhaps it should be incorporated as another subsection of pop music.Jeffmatt 06:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I added an introductory paragraph at the beginning of Popular Music. Jeffmatt 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I put in a Miscelleous & Trivia section. It may be a cheap shot, but a grab-bag section at the end doesn't strike me as out of place in an article that is already very long. Jeffmatt 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I moved the paragraph on pop music from Rock and Pop to the first section on popular music, thus making it a very long lead (needs shortening?). I relabeled the Rock and Pop as simply Rock.Jeffmatt 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


I have started to write small entries or stubs to clear out a few of the red links. I notice that the wikipedia item on Patchanka is a mess. Someone put up a hype ad for their own album. There's nothing explanatory. Jeffmatt 07:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I have cleaned up most of the empty red links by writing short stubs (anout 20 so far) for everything but the section on World Music. Jeffmatt 17:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


I think I have finished all the red-link empty items. Jeffmatt 18:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It's coming along nicely, I think. A couple points:

  • The first thing, and the most specific thing, mentioned in the lead is the development of opera five hundred years ago. While Italy and opera are certainly relevant, and should probably noted in the lead, is that really how we want to start this article off? Is the invention of opera in 16th century Florence the most important thing for the reader to know about the "music of Italy"? In general, the lead seems to focus too much on classical music and music history, with only little space devoted to both folk and popular music.
  • The "characteristics" section is really only about opera, and is written rather informally; it needs to about the characteristics of Italian music, and how music has effected the Italian people (opera should definitely be mentioned in that section, but placed into context). Also, pretty much everything in that section probably ought to be cited using some kind of inline citation.
  • No section header should be empty, including the one under "music history". Even though there are subsections, try and summarize a 2-3 paragraph bit to put there.
  • On the music history/classical music sections: I know this is the scheme I proposed, but I don't like it. I'm not entirely sure why, but... It's important to remember that "music history" is not synonymous with "classical music" -- there is a history to Italian folk and popular music as well. Perhaps see what I did awhile back at music of Hungary. That would require moving most of the music history section to a subarticle, and making "classical music" cover everything from a somewhat recent time (probably 19th century) to the present.
  • Remember that this is not music history of Italy. There should be at least as much content, if not more, on descriptions of styles than on names and dates.
  • The folk music section seems a bit stubby
  • The popular music section needs some structural work. I suggest doing paragraph-writing. This means
  1. Decide about how many paragraphs you want in the section "Popular music" (and subsections). Let's say 12, which is what's there now.
  2. Write a twelve-sentence essay on Italian popular music, covering absolutely everything of major importance. (e.g. Italian popular music is stereotypically characterized using certain elements. However, the field includes a diverse array of styles. The earliest modern popular music of Italy were canzone napoletano and other popular songs. In the early 20th century, recorded music came to Italy, along with popular American and British tunes, as well as styles like blues and jazz. (note: don't actually use these sentences, as I just made them up -- your sentences should be vague, as they won't be going in the final article, however, the twelve-sentence essay should itself be coherent)
  3. Expand each sentence into a paragraph (e.g. turn Italian popular music is stereotypically characterized using certain elements into an introductory paragraph explaining some characteristics and description sof Italian music. Then turn However, the field includes a diverse array of styles to a second paragraph about the various styles of Italian popular music, then turn The earliest modern popular music of Italy were canzone napoletano and other popular songs. into a paragraph on early popular song.)
  4. Adjust as needed and add section divisions wherever it seems most logical. (let me know if you don't understand what I mean by this process, as it really can work quite well)
  • "World music in Italy" probably just ought to be removed, and anything notable in it ought to be moved somewhere into the rest of the article. If reggaeton's popularity is important enough to be mentioned, it should be in with everything else; if it seems too irrelevant and specific to be in the main body of the article, then remove it outright.
  • Same thing with "Miscellaneous and trivia". Work it into the real article, or remove it.
  • Sources! Every paragraph ought to have at least one source, cited.

Tuf-Kat


Thank You

OK, Thanks for the input. I'll give it a bit of thought. I didn't write any of the original stuff on folk music or what I renamed World Music. I am somewhat reluctant to mess with what other people have done, but I'll give it some thought.

Re "Is the invention of opera in 16th century Florence the most important thing for the reader to know about the "music of Italy"?

It depends on emphasis, I suppose, but, briefly, I would say "yes"--since you have to start somewhere. It is not the most important thing to know about the "Music of Italy"--no--but if you want a lead to lay a foundation, a historical approach is one way to do it. The alternative is to do it backwards--also a good possiblilty; that is. mention all the Italian music in the world today and then drop in a bit of history.

I agree about World Music and Misc. I was using it/them as a kind of a parking lot for ideas waiting for someone else to jump in. The original writer of all this, I think, has wandered away.Jeffmatt 11:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Another note--on your "I know this is the scheme I proposed, but I don't like it. I'm not entirely sure why, but... It's important to remember that "music history" is not synonymous with "classical music" -- there is a history to Italian folk and popular music as well. Perhaps see what I did awhile back at music of Hungary. That would require moving most of the music history section to a subarticle, and making "classical music" cover everything from a somewhat recent time (probably 19th century) to the present."
I agree that a separate article called Music History of Italy is a decision someone has to make. I looked at the Music of Hungary item and it, too, has a separate article. For this article on the Music of Italy, there already IS an article called Classical Music of Italy, which (roughly) fits that bill. Part of the problem is that anything about the music of Italy is one layer thicker, if you will, than the music about anywhere else in Europe, in that much of it is from Italy, at some point. That is, you can get away with only mentioning pop groups and musical instruments and opera houses in Germany, France or whatever, but the most interesting thing about music (except folk music) in Italy is this "Cradle-of-European-Music" aspect. Whether that belongs in a seperate article is a decision to be made. I think I can a write lead that mentions that in a general way, followed by an abbreviated section on history. Then we can see, I suppose.Jeffmatt 14:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

new lead

I rewrote the lead to make it less "classical" and more general, more of an intro. Revert or delete, anyone who wants. Or write a new one. No offense taken. Jeffmatt 06:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

new "characteristics"

Started to rewrite the secion called "chracteristics". I don't like it so far. I'm sure I am not alone.Jeffmatt 07:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops. I see I wasn't logged in for many of the recent changes. That 81.208.83.236 in the History page is me. Sorry. Jeffmatt 08:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Did some more rewriting, cutting. I moved info from the section called World Music (originally "International Influence) into other appropriate sections in order to cut that section entirely. I am not wedded to the idea of a Miscellaneous section, but I notice that many of the items I read (Wikipedia and elsewhere)--including today's wiki feature article--have such a section. I enjoy reading them and I think most people do--sort of like dessert after the main meal--even if it doesn't fit a standard Music of (Country) format (if such even exists).Jeffmatt 17:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes

I have made the following changes

  • Retool lead to make it more inline with Wikipedia style. I didn't really understand some of it, so I cut a few details. They probably don't really need to be fixed and replaced, as what's there looks fine to me, except for being short.
  • Generally tried to give it a good copyedit and more encyclopedic tone.
  • The mass migrations... reasons for the migrations are disputed. - I'm not sure how to fix this. You can't start with the "mass migrations" unless the migrations have already been introduced, which they haven't. The meaning of "thus" isn't clear -- the migrations referred to are from all around the Mediterranean, but the next sentence implies that's it's only natural for southern music to have Arab characteristics, when it could just as easily have been Balkan or Greek. I know that this is because the Arabs inhabited Sicily and Southern Italy, but that isn't explained anywhere.
  • The last part of that paragraph seems to restate what is said above about Italy being open to foreign influences, and then veers off into a description of 16th century polyphony. I've removed the last few sentences entirely, as I'm not sure if they're needed elsewhere or not.
  • Again, I removed the last half of the third paragraph under "Characteristics". Each paragraph should represent a single, coherent thought. That paragraph introduces the dichotomy between text and melody, which is a characteristic of Italian music, but then it starts talking about how opera evolved in the early years, which isn't germaine to the characteristics of Italian music.
  • Suggestion: I assume you're in the process of switching all the inline cites to the ref/note system? That's fine, though I recommend using the simpler <ref> system (see salsa music for an example of that system). There ought to be more explicit attribution in the text, for example "Giangilberto Monti has said that the struggle between the importance of the text and melody is a central characteristic of Italian music" -- footnotes are fine for facts, but something so opinionated is generally better explicitly cited. Also, all cites need page numbers.

I feel like I cut a lot -- I don't mean to discourage you. The most important part of writing is knowing when to cut something. If you think anything lost was really important, mention it here and we can talk about how to get it back in somewhere; if I removed it, it probably wasn't clear why it was so important.

I'll try and do some editing later tonight and tomorrow, and may be able to expand it a bit too. Tuf-Kat 05:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine

"I feel like I cut a lot -- I don't mean to discourage you." Don't worry. That's why it's called "collaboration". All writing needs editing. I was getting discouraged because I was the ONLY one working on this. The person that started the original hasn't checked in in a while.

On the other hand, it is possible to edit to the point where you confuse or mislead a naive reader through omission: "...while Italian opera continues to focus more on the melody, despite the historical importance of the plot in early Italian opera...." That makes it sound as if Italian opera still concentrates on melody, which it doesn't. There hasn't been a melodic Italian opera in 75 years. Italian melodic opera is dead. True, that is explained later on under Romantic / Classical, but it should be mentioned somewhere up front so the reader doesn't get the wrong impression. I put in "through the early 20th century" for clarity. I think the "mass migration" paragraph is fixed now: "...such as..." doesn't exlcude the other possible places.

I had nothing specific in mind as regards the references. I was using a sort of standard (name date) for a general reference and a numbered footnote for a quote--and listing the latter with the former, as well. I am aware that may not correspond to Wikipedia practice, I haven't had the time to study all the fine points, yet.

I am still going to add a couple of items to the Miscellaneous list (I cut some already) more as nn immediate "parking lot" reminder of possible items. Even if it is bit informal or out-of-place, a reader who finds this article in its present state--say, in the next 5 minutes--might enjoy reading that section.

Anyway, thanks for the work. It'll get done.Jeffmatt 05:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the change that produced "...include Arab, Lombard, German, French and Spanish musics."
Originally, that list was meant to specifiy historical invasion groups--peoples-- not kinds of music. (There is no such thing as Lombard music (except folk music from that area, which is a subset of Italian folk music). The Lombards, when they invaded--in the sixth century--adopted Latin and whatever Roman music they found. Same thing with "German". It'll have to be "Germanic". It was all a general cultural statement--the music is diverse because of all the peoples that have gone through Italy. Anyway, I modified that sentence, merging the two groups since Lombards were Germanic. I also put the list in chronological order.

Jeffmatt 06:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree that the folk music section is "stubby". I'll work on that for a bit. Maybe have something up tomorrow or the next day. Speaking of "stubs", I have deleted a reference to cantautori and written a stub for that phrase.Jeffmatt 12:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Vineviz, I'm glad you're back! The rewrite on Folk Music looks great. Jeffmatt 16:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • It is good to be back. I wish I had more time, but sometimes I find it helpful to step back and re-attack the topic with a fresh eye. Still so much to do! Vineviz 16:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

for Vineviz

I added a sentence or two to your second paragraph. My addition starts, "Additionally, Curt Sachs..." to the end of the paragraph. I included notes. If you think it is worthwhile, keep it--if not, that's ok, too.

I am going to do a section now that seems to fit in with other Music of (country X) articles--one on venues. I'll delete the misc & trivia section and move some of it to the new section.Jeffmatt 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

progress report

I zapped the miscelleaneous section--although I still like the idea--and started a Venues section. Still weak. Jeffmatt 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a standard format or template for adding a timeline? Jeffmatt 04:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Generally, timelines should be in their own article -- e.g. timeline of Italian music history Tuf-Kat 04:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done some further tweaking. Some outstanding tasks:

  • Music history stuff needs to be broadened -- I know there's less documentation of folk music, but we need to do what we can. There should also be a section for 20th century music, which would cover the history of folk, classical and popular styles.
  • The classical music section needs to stand alone as an introduction to Italian classical music - i.e. it doesn't need to go into all the detail that the music history section does, but since it isn't a subsection of "Music history", it has to have an overview of styles to begin with, and then a focus on how those have evolved in the last century or so.
  • "Folk music" should probably have about two sections. I'll do some reordering in the article. There ought to be a section about instrumentation -- I know some of that's regional, but focus on the commonalities.
  • I have moved the bit on the Sam Remo festival down and made it part of an expanded subsection for music festivals, venues and holidays, because there seems likely to be a lot of overlap there. That section should probably be expanded a bit.
  • I've also moved a stray sentence and made it the germ of a section for the music industry.
  • I've added a subsection for music education. It's empty at the moment.
  • The popular music section is looking a bit better. Is that all the major fields of Italian popular music? There's no mention of Eurovision, for example. Perhaps there ought to be a section on Italian pop? Look at the sentence beginning "Among the best-known Italian pop singers of the last few decades" -- none of those names are covered in a subsection, but if they're the best known, they certainly ought to be.
  • "Canzone napoletana" should be expanded to at least two paragraphs, probably three would be better. It's the only purely Italian style with a subsection, yet it's the shortest one -- I don't actually know how popular canzone napoletana has ever been in Italy, though.

Tuf-Kat 07:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with separating Classical Music from what has gone before. It leaves the impression that what has gone before in music history is NOT classical music when almost all of it is. The earlier division was clear to me, but it had its problems, too, as you say. One solution is to retitle Music History as Classical Music, the last section of which would be Modern Classical Music. That gives the article three distinct kinds of music, Classical, Folk and Popular with the necessary history embedded in each. I don't know.
I wrote a whole sperate article, up as Canzone Napoletana and I can appropriate or rewrite some of it to fill out that section. It is, by the way, extremely popular throughout Italy. TV studios in Milan are always having Tributes to Naples programs where a bunch of northerners get up and mangle our dialect.
Eurovision is a pop festival. I overlooked that one. It's like San Remo except louder. I'll put something in. I think I wroter stubs for many of the pop singers. I suppose they can incorporated somehow, but this thing is getting very long.

Jeffmatt 07:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I have filled in Canzone Napoletana, added to Venues, and have started something on the Music Industry section--presently, they are sort of in the rough notes-to-myself stage, but nevertheless (I think) readable for someone who finds this article today, for example. That is why I am reluctant to put in empty sections such as Folk Instruments. I'll find something if Vineviz deosn't beat me to it. Please beat me to it.Jeffmatt 09:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Jeffmatt 09:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


I put something on folk instruments up. Needs work, I think. Forgot to log on again. Sorry. That number in the history is mine. Jeffmatt 15:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It's looking very nice, I think! Tuf-Kat 17:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

bit of a rewrite on "Classical"

Yeah, we're getting there. Assuming that we want to have, first, Music History, and then Classical (see discussion above) I have tried to make that change from one to the other a bit smoother. That is, under Classical, a short summation and then a statement on the present state of affairs. The heading "Classical" may be a bit misleading and should perhaps be changed to Modern Classical Jeffmatt 08:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

started an external sites section.

How about some real pretty pictures somewhere--not that we're ready for prime time yet, but... Jeffmatt 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

added photos

I put in a trial 2 photos (under Venues and 16-18th centuries. If they're no good, free free to deep-six them. Actually, it doesn't look bad, IMO.

Time line: When I asked about time-lines (above)--yes, I saw that there was a provision for a separate article. My question was whether or not there is a prepared wiki template with years or centuries already there in a standard format and nice bells and whistles--or is it ok to to do a bullet format:

  • 1200 Joe Blow invents the musical saw
  • 1501 Leonardo da Vinci invents everything else.

etc. etc.

    • No, there's not really any standard timeline format. I've seen quite a few that look like that though. Tuf-Kat 07:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OK. I started one. It links from this article in the box at the top. I added a third photo, under Folk Music. Jeffmatt 17:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

  • We're at 39 K. Time to get out your scissors? Jeffmatt 18:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have started to whittle away at some sections in an attempt to make this shorter. Jeffmatt 06:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I notice that there is no category link at the bottom. Is that to keep people from finding the article until we think it's ready? Just curious. Jeffmatt 12:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Added another photo, did some text tightening to drop the word count and size.Jeffmatt 07:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It's looking good! I like the pictures. I've made some changes to the classical music section. The last two paragraphs of that section are a problem. The second to last sounds like it's trying to prove a point, but that point isn't stated directly. I also think that taking a random recent program as representative of Italian music in general is somewhat spotty -- if taken to WP:FAC, that will probably get tagged as original research. The last paragraph needs the external links removed, preferably replaced with internal links to articles on the conservatories (of course, those articles should have an external link to the conservatory home page). Also, the section "Rock, hip-hop, etc." should be reorganized somehow -- I'm not sure how, but it comes across as a "miscellaneous" category. It might be worth putting it up for a peer review. (I'd say it's length is fine, BTW, right now, or it could even be expanded a bit -- 37 kb isn't much for a major topic, and I doubt anything below 45 or 50 would be a big concern on FAC for this topic.) Tuf-Kat 08:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll think a bit. The changes you made are fine. I'm not sure what "point" I was trying to make in the last paragraph other than show that there is always a lot of music going on. I did pick one program, yes, but I'm not selling tickets for the place. It's best to delete the reference if there is only one. (The alternate is to list six or seven). I'll take out the conservatory links since we do say later on under "education" that there are 75 of them in the country. Now that I look at that classical section, the whole last paragraph is unnecessary since it peovides more of a "venues"-type info. I'll try to delete it entirely and move whatever info is necessary down to the other section. The second-to-the-last paragraph should be incorporated somehow with the one before that. The logical end to the section should be the sentence about modern music being in "a consolidation phase" I'll work on a short rewrite. Jeffmatt 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


(later) I did that--i.e. I cut the last paragraph and put some of the info down in Venues. I rewrote the last part of Classical Music so it is bit tighter. It still needs work. I think it is a mistake not to have a sentence at the beginning of the section that flows from the history section, or you create the impression that the history section was not about classical music--which, like it or not--it was. Either that, or retitle Classical Musical as Modern Classical Music. (I deleted some of the discussion way up on this page because I was getting "too long" warnings. I hope that is not a problem. If it is, you can revert.)

  • On the first sentence of classical music, it was a self-reference, which isn't allowed. Perhaps something should be there, but no part of the article can refer to the author, reader or any section of the article.
  • Nothing should be in bold except the title of the article in the lead, and any redirects used in the lead.
  • It's coming along nicely! Tuf-Kat 21:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


I agree that the Rock section looks ragged. I changed the title. Maybe that "etc." made it look more miscellaneous than it is. Originally there were 2 separate sections and I consolidated them into one. I am not sure about that, since everything I know about that music is contained in those paragraphs (which I did not write). I had a look at the Italian wikipedia, but the article is entirely about the history of US and Brit rock--nothing about Italy. Jeffmatt 07:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

added a paragraph

I put in a short middle paragraph in the 19th century section. It contains some important information ("...primarily operatic..." as opposed to symphonic) that a reader should have. It also helped pop a photo into a good place.

I still see a problem with the headings. A uninformed reader (and that's why they come to an encyclopedia) is going read this and say, "Oh, I see. Classical music started in 1900," which, of course is wrong. I propose:

  • Lead
  • Before 1500
  • Classical Music
    • century
    • century
    • modern (what is now simply Classical)
  • Folk
  • etc. as is

This would do away with Music History, altogether, as a heading, but would avoid that awkward informational glitch and make unnecessary any kind of transitional information that always seems to wind up self-referential.

Anyway, is this already what Wikpedia might call a "good article"?Jeffmatt 07:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a map in the folk music section that explains some of the complexities of Italian geographical references. If it's not a good idea, feel free to delete it. I can always recycle it for a separate article some day.Jeffmatt 15:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added a few more photos, cleaned up a number of the empty red links (by writing at leasr stubs)--though "Ancient Roman Music"" will take a while--and fixed, I think, the references and notes a bit. (We probably need more.)Jeffmatt 16:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote a short item on Ancient Roman music to kill that red link in the history section. It needs work, but it's a start.Jeffmatt 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a section called Music of the Mafia, simply because it is current and very interesting. Time to stop adding stuff, I think.

Jeffmatt 05:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


added to Music Box template

Whew! What a learning curve. I added the Italian national anthem to the music info box. I put it under "genre" --not necessarily a good choice.Jeffmatt 10:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(later) and page/lists of Italian music festivals and operas houses --short lists, but at least they're up and linked from the info box.Jeffmatt 11:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

(and even later) added a list of music conservatories to the box templateJeffmatt 16:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

thank you

...to whoever fixed up the Infobox. Sorry if I botched it. It looks much better this way, although there is now an overlap: one section on "Festivals" with "festivals" repeated at the bottom under "related topics." Jeffmatt 06:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

a few changes in response to peer review

I fiddled with the music box a bit. (See discussion there) Template:Italianmusic. Also, I deleted that photo of the Mafia record --although they told me they would break my legs if I did so!-- and moved it to the last slot in popular music. I changed the title to Outlaw music. As far as what niche it fits in--Willie Nelson (I think) once said that "being an outlaw in music these days just means that your limo is double-parked outside the recording studio." We have "gangsta" music, so these folks fit in somewhere. They are not paid professional pop singers, nor are they working farmers playing folk instruments. Thay have all been in jail and sing songs about killing cops. In any event, I find it interesting, but it if you don't, feel free to delete it.

I left the list bullets in the instrument section because it's a list of instruments. It is also easier on the eye, but if it is not Wikipedia formatting, feel free to delete them.

I'll give the other items some thought.Jeffmatt 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

GA

I have reviewed the article & concluded that this article quite easily fufils the criterion for being a good article. I have therefore promoted it & would like to congratulate all the contributers for doing a fine job.

Cheers

Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Rewrote lead

I have rewritten the lead to try to conform to Wikipedia's view that the lead should be a kind of stand-alone summary of the article that follows. I think the new lead is probably better than the old one, but feel free to revert or--better--edit the new one. It is 4 paragraphs, more or less in keeping with the Wiki guidelines for an article that is as long as this one. All comments welcome. Jeffmatt 08:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

D'alessio?!

please don't insert the name of Gigi D'alessio anymore! He's not an artist, nor a musician.

sign your name

I don't remember if I put in the name originally. In any event, he is a pop singer, and it is reasonable to mention such persons briefy in such an article. If you sign your comments, we could talk about it. But don't worry. I don't think he'll be mentioned again. I think you must have edited out the name. That's fine, but at least note the changes you make. Jeffmatt 08:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

D'Alessio

the name "Gigi D'Alessio" compared in the list of "italian cantautori". Maybe i've been too unkind in my post, but i refered to that specific category. anyway...if i made it all by myself, it's not important anymore. thanks for your answer (i'm not signed) .ndhre

Adding references

To Tuf-Kat: I'm starting to add some references. I'll try to meet the goal of one for each paragraph. It'll take a few days, I think. Any comments on the lead? Jeffmatt 08:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

--I am trying to fill in some ISBN numbers in the references and can't get some of them to link to the Special:Book Sources page (not the ISBN item). Two of them link and the others don't. I'm probably doing something incredibly stupid, or not doing something incredibly simple. Jeffmatt 10:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Remove the colons after "ISBN" ;-) Circeus 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. Maybe I should change my user name to "Duuuuh!" Jeffmatt 05:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I converted all the references I could to Cite template. The fields that should ideally be filled I left open. Circeus 14:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Jeffmatt 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Early music

Wow, this section's awfully brief - only a passing mention of madrigals (!), no laude, no canti carnascialeschi, no frottole, no Landini, only a link to the trecento... I've added some relevant, Italocentric info on chant. I'll add some citations when I can get to my reference books. I'll see what I can know together for a quick overview of the rest. Peirigill 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Early Music Timeline

I think the material you added is great. I wonder if you can think of a few dates to add to the Timeline. I threw together a hasty version of one some weeks ago. It's linked in the infobox.Jeffmatt 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a look and see what I can add. Thanks for the kind words! Peirigill 07:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Jeffmatt 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


cite template

It occurs to me that I no longer know how to insert new references since I have never used that citation template before. Point me and I shall seek. Jeffmatt 06:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Citation templates are listed at Wikipedia:Citation templates. The exact template depends on whether you cite a book ({{cite book}}), an encyclopedia or similar large, multi-authored book ({{cite encyclopedia}}), or an academic journal article ({{cite journal}}). Because they make locating a book much easier, ISBNs arealways deeply appreciated. At worst, you can can just format the citation accirding to what it looks like on screen and someone else will convert it. Circeus 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

congratulations...

...to someone...Tuf-Kat?...for the new stuff in the folk music section. I think it looks fine. Jeffmatt 07:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text vs melody

The recent edit in the "characteristics" section to

"...Italian music typically features a dominant melody, with limited focus on the text; this is true in opera, popular music and even modern styles like Italian hip hop and the music of the cantautori singer-songwriters..."

is overstated. The phrase "limited focus" makes it sounds as if there is no meaningful text in Italian opera, pop music or, more recently, "text/music" such as rap. I suggest something like...

"...Melody has typically been important in most Italian musical forms, even at the expense of text and harmonic complexity. This true in opera, popular music and even, to some extent, in modern text-centered styles such as Italian hip hop and the music of the cantautori singer-songriters."

I'll make that change now. Jeffmatt 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That was my recent edit, and I'm in agreement with your change. Tuf-Kat 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Italian music terminology

Hey, I've just created and will momentarily launch a WP:PR for Italian music terminology. I'd really like some native Italian speakers to comment, so please do so at Wikipedia:Peer review/Italian music terminology/archive1. Tuf-Kat 02:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tuf-Kat. I put a few comments on that page. In this article--on instrumentation--there is a line "Italian instrumentation is an integral part of all facets of folk music." Is that a typo? Shouldn't it be, "Instrumentation is an integral part of all facets of Italian folk music"? Jeffmatt 07:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I made that change. Jeffmatt 08:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Instrument technology

I put a link in the lead to Music instrument technology, a stub that I've just started. I looked for a general article but couldn't find one. The stub is not much, yet--just a link to individual articles about various instruments. Jeffmatt 06:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Popular music, mostly

I've copied the below from my talk page because I think it's better to discuss it here. It's in reference to a comment I left on Jeffmat's talk page, but the most important bits of that are quoted here.

You made some substantial changes to the section on popular music. Some of it is inaccurate, though. If the Garland encylopedia says that "Composers like [such as] Francesco Paolo Tosti and Gaetano Donizetti popularized Neapolitan songs, both within Italy and abroad..." then it's dead wrong. Those two had little to do with the popularization of the music, with the exception of a single song by Donizetti, popular in Italy but not abroad. Maybe there's one by Tosti. The great popularization abroad was coincident with emigration after 1870 as well as the influence of the singer, Enrico Caruso. There may now be a few other things that require some attention, as well. I think I liked the section better the way it was.

Re your:

"I think three main things still need to be done..."

Create a section for musicology, historiography and the like. (Music of the United States has one, as an example)

Is that the section called Scholarship? Yes, that is possible to do.

"Upload sound samples (which I can make a good start on without difficulty)"

I have never tried that but I can learn, I guess.

"Move the very nice history section to its own article. Some of the most important stuff from there ought to be incorporated into the classical section. I think the history section should be moved because it is very long (and the article itself is very long) and all the most relevant historical facts should also be in a different section anyway (making it redundant)."

It is very long, yes, and in the words of the contributer who recently put that fine stuff up about early music, it makes the article "lopsided". He might be able to edit it. Re "Some of the most important stuff from there ought to be incorporated into the classical section." Probably true, but that was the way the article started out some months ago--that is, the Classical and History sections were sort of one and the same (which makes good sense in the commonly understood meaning of "classical"--a lot of it is old and very historical!), but you didn't like it that way--you wanted history, classical, folk and popular, as if history and classical were separate. In any event, what you are suggesting is a major editing and rewrite. Actually, I have a feeling that the article is starting to drift out of control--that is, it may be getting worse rather than better. There are only thee or four of us working on it. Maybe we can talk about this on the ducussion page of the article itself. Jeffmatt 16:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think my suggestions require large-scale rewriting of the article. Aside from moving one large section elsewhere, the only bit that needs major rewriting is classical music. I know this contradicts what I said earlier, but article size is a much bigger issue now.
As I see it, history is an important part of the study of all forms of Italian music, not just classical. Of course, classical music tends to be much more well-documented than other traditions, but nevertheless, the history section needs to have more info in order to be comprehensive -- if we're going to have it, it needs to cover all aspects of music history (including a history of education, industry and media, as well as folk, religious, etc.). The most important and relevant bits of Italian music history, however, are also relevant in at least one of the other sections.
In addition, this is an article on the music of a place which currently exists and the people that currently inhabit it. History should only be covered in as much as it has had an effect on current music, meaning that it should be coverable under at least one other section.
It is not appropriate to structurally lump "history" in with "classical music", both because other musics have a history, and because classical music should be just as focused on present-day Italy as folk or popular (well, maybe not quite so much, because history has a greater effect on classical than folk or popular, but the section should really focus on classical music as it has an impact on modern Italy).
I'll go a bit more in depth on what Garland says about early Neapolitan song. I'm not sure there's a real dispute here - I might have just overstated in my wording.
Anyway, I won't make any changes right now, except to start on the scholarship section. I don't have a lot of sources to cover that, so some expansion would be helpful. Tuf-Kat 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm getting a lot of database errors, so I won't be adding the scholarship stuff tonight. I'll justify the structure I gave to the popular music stuff though.
First off, I'll note that I'm very open to discussing it. I was moving stuff all about in my edit window before I was able to make something I liked - it's definitely a tricky subject to organize effectively.
Sectioning is important to consider. If we're going to have a section for specific styles, then why shouldn't all styles have one? (which would lead to a way too bloated article, IMO)
Since having an article for each genre is impractical and undesirable, we need to group them somehow. I think "early", "modern" and "imported" are relatively clear and distinct groupings, so that's what I eventually settled on. Tuf-Kat 02:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

more on popular music

I'm reluctant to make any more changes because I am not sure which way all this is going. For example, you have put in some strange sentences, such as "Many composers contributed to the Neapolitan tradition by using the local language for their texts, including Alessandro Scarlatti, Leonardo Vinci, Giovanni Paisiello and Orlando di Lasso. Others, most famously Gaetano Donizetti and Francesco Paolo Tosti, composed Neapolitan songs that became popular both in Italy and abroad.[28]" I have already commented on Donizetti and Tosti--but Orlando di Lasso (?)--he is a Flemish composer from the 1500s and has nothing to do with Neapolitan music. I'm not sure what's happening.

The history/classical discussion. The classical section, as it now stands, is, at your earlier suggestion, relatively focused on modern-day Italy...(your "...classical music as it has an impact on modern Italy..."), but common sense tells you that modern Italians, who love opera from the 1800s, are somehow doing somehow more "historical" in a way that people who listen to recent pop music are not--although, as you say, all music has a history. If all this then requires--in order to do justice to the history of all kinds of music--separate historical leads for each section---that is, the history of pop music, history of folk music, etc. etc.--then the article will, as you say, be too long. Part of the problem is trying to discuss the present separately from the past. That is a very recent tendency and one that I am not too comfortable with. That, in reference to your "History should only be covered in as much as it has had an effect on current music...". I am trying to think of present-day anything that is not connected to the past, especially the music of Italy.

Anyway, it looks as if you are suggesing separate articles that deal with the "histories" of this and that-- and then this article that would deal with current-day Italy. I don't know. In terms of beefing up the classical section, I was under the impression that, ideally, the sections should be somewhat synthetic and contain less information than the main articles they refer to, cited at the top of the section. There already is a main article called Italian Classical Music--as there is one on the Neapolitan Song (and others). Where would you move the history part of this article to if you think it needs its own article? Classical music? A new article called History of Italian Classical Music? Jeffmatt 04:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

(Later) To put this another way, if you ask people if they like "classical music," that's really a different type of a question than asking them if they like "popular music." To the pop music question, people inevitably answer non-historically. If they say "yes," that means they like this or that group, generally popular at the moment or relatively recently. They might say "no"--which really means that they don't like the popular music of today. But NO ONE understands the question to include the Original Dixieland Jazz Band (popular in the 1920s) or Barber Shop Quartets (popular in the 1890s). In classical music, a "yes" includes a slice of history going back centuries. It might include contemporary music performed by orchetras, yes, but it always includes music of the past, even the distant past, in a way that popular music does not--this, in spite of the fact that all musics, obviously, have history. This is reflected in music performance, as well. Contemporary popular groups don't play music from the 1890s. Contemporary classical orchestras do. Thus, it seems to me that in an article called The Music of Italy, a sub-section called Classical music automatically has to have a large historical component in a way that popular music does not. You can't relegate history to another article and then have a non-historical section about classical music in this article that mentions history only "in as much as it has had an effect on current music" because it has ALL had an influence on current music. Jeffmatt 06:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
My two cents... There's precedent for separating Music history of Italy from Music of Italy. See Music history of Portugal and Music of Portugal, and Music of France and Music history of France. The "Music of Italy" article would then focus on music in modern Italy in all its facets, folk and art music included. The bulk of the historical information would be migrated to the new Music history of Italy article, and the baroque through contemporary periods would (I hope) be expanded in much greater detail. The Music of Italy article would retain only a thumbnail sketch of Italian music history, prominently indicating the link to the Music history article using summary style.
If you go this route, then you don't have to go into excruciating detail about the history of opera in the "Music of Italy" section. You do need to give a brief overview of the history, but the real weight should be on the popularity of opera in Italy in recent and modern times, preferably with a discussion of why art music like opera is so popular in Italian culture. The best example I know is the funereal procession for Verdi, where Italians throughout the nation mourned him as a national hero, singing "Va, pensiero" to honor him. Treat folk music similarly; the fact that the zampognari traditionally play during the Christmas season is more relevant to a "Music of Italy" article than history of the bagpipe in Italy would be. Peirigill 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I agree with Peirigill, and I really don't think Jeffmat's disagreement on the structure is all that substantive (in other words, I don't think you'll have major qualms about the result). Peirigill, you mentioned using summary style -- I agree in its principle, in that history needs to be covered in this article, but I don't think a separate section with a main article link is warranted because anything in that section would be redundant with a different part of the article. Tuf-Kat 22:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll also note that I went to the library today to see if the New Grove Encyclopedia of Music covered early popular canzone Napoletana. It didn't really help. The article on Naples didn't mention it (neither did the article on Italy). The article on Tosti was only a paragraph and didn't really say anything relevant. The article on Donizetti briefly alluded to something in a Neapolitan "folklike" style. Looking it up in the index yielded a "see villanella", and the only bit there claimed it died out in the early 17th century... New Grove overwhelmingly focuses on classical music (in European countries) though, so that's not too surprising. Tuf-Kat 22:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


The term "canzone napoletana" refers, by defintion, to a composed popular song form that started in 1835 via a song writing contest in Naples. Donizetti won the first year, but wrote nothing after that. His one song remains popular in Naples, but the ones that are famous abroad were all composed after 1880 and run through to about 1920. Tosti is not Neapolitan, but may have had his hand at writing one or two songs in the dialect. He is famous for his Italian (not Neapolitan) songs. In any event, "early Neapolitan song" --I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean music that was popular in Naples before 1835, there is no good English-language source on that. The best Italian source is the 12 CD + book called La Canzone Napoletana by Roberto Murolo. There is a picture plus caption in the Wiki articles on Canzone Napoletana and Music of Naples. The information in those two articles, while not exhaustive, is correct. I made a few changes to your new paragraph two in that section, but I now see that para 3 is redundant. I'll try to blend them somehow.

I have no qualms about anything, by the way. I am sure it will work out. I would like the facts to be straight, though, and I'm not sure how good an idea it is to depend on tertiary sources such as other encyclopedias. As you note, Grove doesn't have everything.

BTW, I certainly don't mind being edited, and if you didn't like "Outlaw Music" for some reason, no hard feelings, but it WAS cited (not as a footnote, because I wasn't sure how to fit that item into those new citation templates (new to me, at least). I had an external link at the bottom. Also, "too recent" seems a strange reason to delete something in an article that wants to concentrate on contemoray music of Italy. I assure you that the phenomenon is at least 30-years old. The recording is just the commercial manifestation of that fact. Sociologically, it is regarded as interesting. Jeffmatt 05:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding outlaw music, I agree that it is interesting. However, the paragraph as it stood was entirely about one CD released in 1999, which was apparently not particularly popular, critically acclaimed and was only notable because it caused "considerable debate". The external link, which was not cited (citing means putting a reference to it somewhere in the paragraph it supports), and is apparently from the record company that puts out the CD in question. I'm in favor of "recent" stuff in the broad sense (20th and 21st century), but it still needs to be very notable to be covered in this article, and the paragraph as it stood didn't even claim notability, much less support it. It's at Italian popular music. Tuf-Kat 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks. Jeffmatt 20:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

early popular music

I tried to merge some of the information in paras 2, 3 & 4. It should be a bit shorter now and hang together better. I didn't touch the two short paragraphs of the lead. They now seem redundant in light of what follows. Delete them? Jeffmatt 05:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph under imported styles on early French pop music--café-chantant (and blue-linked it to a new music stub at Café-chantant--in Italy. I adjusted the lead to reflect that addition. Jeffmatt 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

scholarship

Under "scholarship," I blue-linked Centro Nazionale Studi di Musica Popolare to a new stub. Jeffmatt 06:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a general lead paragraph at the beginning of the "scholarship" section. I'll work on blue-linking some of the names. Jeffmatt 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

In the "scholarship" section, the Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia link led to a one-line stub, so I put in an article. It is an important focus of scholarship in Italy. There were actually two stubs for the same item. I wrote the article at the one indicated, but there is another stub at Accademia Nazionale S. Cecilia. I wanted to eliminate that one and redirect any links to it to the one that now has a complete article. Unfortunately, I am not sure quite how to do that.Jeffmatt 15:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the avangarde and electronic music to the "scholarship" section, though I am not sure that it belongs there. Maybe. Electronic music probably deserves a separate section after "Classical music," called Avantgarde Music or something similar, but since we seem to feel that "Classical music" should include the present, then electronic music might fit in at the end of the "Classical music" section but still in that section. I suppose we can wait until the great division of this article takes place (see above discussion) before deciding.Jeffmatt 09:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

exprimental classical music

In anticipation that this article is going to split--with most of the history going to another article, I started to beef up the "Classical Music" section a bit by adding a sub-topic called "Experimental classical music" (it might also be called "Experimental art music," in keeping with the title of an article of that name that already exists in Wikipedia. I added the paragraph to it that I had previously located in the scholarship section. Jeffmatt 11:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I switched it to just "Experimental music" on the basis that it is a subsection of "Classical music", so no further qualifiers are needed. I've added a section on opera. You mentioned a separate "electronic" and/or "avantgarde" section above - I think that ought to be folded into the "experimental" section. I'm not sure anything else ought to be added to that section, aside from a brief, 5ish paragraph summary of classical music history. The New Grove Encyclopedia spent pretty much all of the 20th century art music section on either opera or "instrumental music" (which in practice seems to be mostly about what you put under "experimental", which seems like a better way to do it to me). My only other thought was to move the last bit from the section just under "classical music" (the one about modern audiences preferring older compositions) and work it into a broader subsection on "Classical music in society" or something. Any thoughts? Tuf-Kat 03:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Classical music in Society"--that might work. I'll give it some thought. By and large, the "Classical music" section reads ok. Maybe a few problems, though. Probably just a matter of definition. Grove avoids the problem by using the term Art Music for what we are calling Classical Music. Maybe it was not a good idea to delete that parenthetical disclaimer about the musicological vs the popular defintion of the term "Classical music".

The Grove division of opera/instrumental music is a good one. It seems to me that, as it now stands, the first, longish part of the Classical music section now reads as a lead; that is, it meantions opera, composers of instrumental music, and even mentions electronic music, sort of setting up further explanation. Thus, we probably should have three subsections: opera, instrumental, and experimental (because not all instrumental is experimental)--by perhaps shortening that lead and shifting some of it into the subsections. Also, I am not too sure about the part that reads, "Opera has been a major part of both Italian classical and popular music since the 19th century. It began the modern era, in the 1930s, by declining in popularity compared to the great heights of the 19th and early 20th centuries." Is that first sentence just a way of saying that opera was popular among the people in the 19th century? If that is true, then the distinction between opera and popular music is a phony one. It's a a bit unclear. Also, the 1930 date is too late. By whose defintion is 1930 the beginning of the "modern era"? Musical tastes (and all artistic tastes) started to change well before that, and Romanticism (most Italian opera) died in WWI. Puccini, who died in 1924, and who wrote beautiful Romantic opera was an anachronism. In any event, I doubt that the rise of the cinema had much to do with the death of Italian Romantic opera--it died because Romanticism died-- although the invention of sound movies did provide an enormous venue for the coninuation of "program music"--most of it written in the Romantic musical tradition. But, maybe it doesn't need much of a rewrite at all; with those few caveats, I think it looks ok.

Anyway, maybe we (meaning you, because I don't feel competent to do it) should go ahead and make the split and see what we come up with. I suggest, for the moment, leaving the lead and "characteristics" section as is and moving all the history to the new article, but stitching together a short Brief History section before Classical Music for this Music of Italy article, perhaps by using the first paragraphs of the various historical subsections.

I'll also look at some of the new red links. That's kind of fun, actually. Learning all sorts of stuff. Jeffmatt 06:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(later)I made a few minor copy edits to Classical music, but maybe it needs rearranging (not rewriting) on the order of: lead>opera>instrumental>experimental>classical music in society. I'll work on that for a while. Jeffmatt 08:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(later later) I tried to rearrange the Classical section aliong those lines a bit, but I'm not sure about it. It hangs together better than it did, but that Instrumental section I put in could be merged somewhere. Jeffmatt 08:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the Grove source you cite for the Corporation for New Music and couldn't find it (I wanted to bluelink to a stub). I am looking at the on-line version of Grove (a great freebie from the people I teach for!). Maybe it's different. It might be good to make sure on this because a number of Italian sources confuse the early organziation founded by Casella with this later one. I'll keep looking. Jeffmatt 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I used a print copy, probably a couple years old, from the local library. I made photocopies of the relevant section though. It's page 660, and the relevant sentence says "Meanwhile, undeterred by the breakup of his first circle of collaborators, Casella (together with Malipiero and Labroca, with enthusiastic encouragement from D'Annunzio) founded the Corporazion delle Nuove Musiche (1923-8), which aimed to bring to Italy 'the latest expressions and the most recent researches of contemporary musical art'". I'm about to take a look at the changes you made.Tuf-Kat 01:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I ended up spending more time tonight than I wanted to, but I think I got a lot accomplished. I split off the history section, beefed up the "classical music in society" and "instrumental music", just a tad. I also added two new sections under "Characteristics", for social identity and politics -- please expand, as there's probably more sources on these topics available in Italian than English.
I think this is more or less ready for WP:PR as is. I'll wait for comments from you before doing so (I have a few minor issues I'll either fix or enumerate in the PR, but I think the current version is mostly ready). Aside from the lack of sound samples, which I'll get to this week or weekend, do you see anything else that's a major concern?
On the other points you brought up: I think the 1930s/modern era in opera thing was a mistake - I combined two sentences and didn't mean a specific "modern era", just pointing to the most recent aspect covered in depth; I think you've fixed this fine, though the opera section seems a little skimpy at the moment. I think using "classical music" exclusively rather than "art music" is preferable, both because that's generally how it's done on Wikipedia and consistency in terminology is helpful for the reader, and because "art music" is just as loose and vague as "classical music". Tuf-Kat 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


social identity and politics

I'll have to give that some thought in order to expand it. It is an angle I had overlooked.

The opera secttion does seem shakey now, as you say, because there is no historical stuff before it. I feel a bit uneasy about that. Is the history stuff still available as another article? It would be nice to have that linked. I still think a short history section wouldn't hurt in this article. I mean short. I can do it of you think it's wise. Either that or a few sentences of up-beefing along the lines of what I tried in the lead sentence to "Instrumental" --the part that starts, "Historically......". (I just tried that. It might work. Have a look.) In any event, I put in a sentence about Verdi, since it's weird to mention opera and how popular and important it is and then mention a lot of other names but not his.

The term "art music" was invented because people got sloppy with "classical music', technically a period of music between 1750 and 1800. We are using "classical music" in the common, widespread sloppy usage. That's fine. Musicologists will prtoest, but that's fine, too. No one understands "art music" anyway. (Painters who play the trombone?) Maybe you should put this up for peer review as is and see what happens. Fresh ideas might be nice. All it can do is send us back to the drawing board. Besides, we can continue to work on it, no matter where it is, right? p.s. I bluelinked a few more names of modern composers. There is a valuable resources if you see the last external link--Italian musicians with webpages. I wish I had found that earlier.

I have no problem with the idea of a section on history, as long as it's short. It's probably best if you do write it though - it's not my area really. One paragraph for each of the main sections in the music history article would be ideal, I think. (maybe two for the most recent section) Tuf-Kat 04:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I like the rewrite of the opera section, BTW. I'd even like another sentence or two maybe, on history. I've split it into two paragraphs. Tuf-Kat 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

footnote help

Sorry , but I am having trouble with the bibliographic template. I have two references for the material I added under "politics". The first comes at the end of para one, after the word "exiled". The second at the end of para 2 after the words "rejected it". They are both from the same encyclopedia: Il Mondo della musica, 1956, Garzanti publisher, Milan. (no ISBN) The first reference is the entry "Cimarosa" on p. 583. The second ref is the entry "Un ballo in maschera" on p. 163. Both entries are unsigned. If you do it for me, I'll look and see how you did it and that means I won't have to bother you anymore. (Ha!) Jeffmatt 12:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

(Later) I think I fixed this. Kind of. See below.

Lede and section organization

The lede needs some work:

  • Per WP:LEAD, the lede should be an abstract of the article, summarizing its most salient points. It shouldn't include information not found in the article. Right now, the first paragraph still reads as though the article goes into depth about Italian music history, for example. "17th century" opera is probably too specific a detail to be included in the lede, especially since it's no longer within the scope of the article now that Music history of Italy has been split off. It's also technically inaccurate; Rinuccini’s Dafne was produced in 1598.
  • My rule of thumb is that the TOC pretty much determines the contents of the lede. If something is important enough to merit a section heading, it's important enough to be mentioned in the lede. For example, opera is mentioned only tangentially in the lede: its origins in the 17th century, comic opera as lighter music, and the existence of opera houses. There's no mention of experimental classical music.
  • Conversely, if something isn't important enough to be mentioned in the lede, maybe it doesn't merit its own section. For example, you go into some detail about the regions of folk music in the lede, but you don't mention folksong, instruments, or dance in the lede. "Dance" strikes me as something that might better be subsumed under the "Instrumental" section rather than meriting its own section, especially given how short it is.
  • The first sentence should define the topic. Right now it seems to comment on the topic instead. What about something like "The music of Italy ranges from traditional to experimental classical music, folk music from Sicily to the Alps, and popular music both native and imported. The music of Italy is a microcosm..."?

Also, per WP:MOS, the section headers shouldn't include words from the article's title. How about

  • Classical, Folk, and Popular instead of Classical music, Folk music, and Popular music?
  • Instrumental and Experimental instead of Instrumental music and Experimental music?
  • Role in society instead of Classical music in society?
  • Would "Performance" be better than "Venues, festivals and holidays"?

A lot of this isn't critical unless you're working towards FA status. The opening sentence, though, has been troubling me for a while. Peirigill 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Peirigill. Now that the Great Split has been wrought, all of those points are good ones. It'll take some time. I'll look at the lead. I put it up in its current form some weeks ago as a replacement for the very weak one we had. Jeffmatt 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
(Later) I tried a new lead in accordance with some of your points. I followed the TOC as much as I could. It wound up a lot shorter than the other lead, but then the article is now much shorter. Feel free to delete, revert, convert, pervert and divert.Jeffmatt 06:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(Later later) I added some to the politics such that the four paragraphs are roughly equal, although the third one maybe could be expanded. I am not wedded to the first two, either. I just ut in some interesting material that ties music to politcs. Maybe it's too much.

Re: footnotes. I figured out that footnote thing, above. Vaguely. I don't know what to do in the case of encycopedia entries that are unsigned. The template doesn't allow deletion of the spaces reserved for authors. Thus, I put in as a title, "entry:...." I know that is not correct. Jeffmatt 09:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • AFAIK, the template with no author problem is unfixed, but has been noted. I think what you did is fine. Tuf-Kat 04:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I did some work on the lead. I think a little more expansion would be warranted. I worked on the 3rd par. (also, I split off a 3rd par.)
  • I think the dance section needs to be expanded. Dance is one of the major fields of folk music research, and is an important part of Italian folk music. What we have isn't very good, though.
  • Section headers shouldn't use the article title, or generally parts of it, but I think the suggested changes would be going overboard. Just "Popular" wouldn't be grammatically correct (adjective with no noun) and could be confusing. It would be wrong to call a section heading "Italian popular music", but I think "Popular music" is fine.
  • FTR, the reason I think it's okay to use "Classical music" in the broad sense is that that's how our articles currently treat it (classical music, European classical music and classical music era). Also, I think most English speakers more readily associate the term with the broad sense, though that's not really provable. Tuf-Kat 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Tuf-Kat 04:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

left and right

I am confused about the last paragraph in "politics," which contains:

"A roots revival stimulated interest in folk traditions, led by writers, collectors and traditional performers.[3] The political left of Italy viewed this roots revival with disdain, as a product of the "unprivileged classes"[6]. The revivalist scene thus became associated with the opposition, and became a vehicle for "protest against free-market capitalism".[3]

Why would the left--which regards itself as the voice of the "unprivileged"-- view a roots revival with disdain? --that is, unless we are saying that left is, itself, somewhat middle of the road, (the Italian terminolgy is normally "center-left" for that). The opposition would then be the far left. I think the paragraph makes sense if you change the phrase "the politcal left of Italt" to "the poltical right of Italy". Then you have opposition of right and left, with the left being the supporters of the revival as well as using it as a protest against free-market capitalism. I won't make that change because maybe I am missing the point. It's easy to do that in Italian politics. Jeffmatt 09:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

(Later) I went ahead and made that change from "left" to "right"--the only way it makes sense to me. I added a few lines from a song at the end. The politcal section is certainly long enough, now. I'll think about the "social identity" part. Are these two sections in the best place, way up in the front?Jeffmatt 17:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

  • You're probably right - I don't have the source to check, but I bet that was a mental typo. It doesn't make sense to me either. I agree the political section is long enough now, and more on social identity is probably good. I think it's good to put that stuff up front because it's really the most central topic to "Music of Italy". Everything else has a really clear and obvious subarticle; someone looking for Italian folk music can very easily find information on it there. While a Social identity and Italian music subarticle (or something like that) would be good, it's a much more nebulous topic and it's the area most closely associated with defining the topic of "Music of Italy" and its role in modern life. Tuf-Kat 04:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture for lead

A lead for the picture picture for the lead would be nice. Something like the music map at music of the United States, maybe, but Italy has so many more regional styles that it might not be feasible. Any other ideas? Tuf-Kat 04:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice job in expanding the lead. I think it looks fine now and should meet the objections raised (above) by Peirigill.
Dance. I'll give it a thought or two. Maybe come up with something.
Picture for lead. Nothing comes to mind except an admittedly, hokey one--something like a treble clef superimposed over a map of Italy. Probably too artsy-fartsy. Jeffmatt 07:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Dance

I tried to add a bit to the dance section. Have a look. Jeffmatt 08:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comment about dance reminded me that we had nothing on ballet, so I also wrote a short paragraph on classical ballet for the sake of completeness. If it is too much or not appropriate, go ahead and deep-six it. Jeffmatt 11:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a fine addition - are there any kinds of classical dance that are not ballet? If so, expanding the scope of the section would be good. The folk dance section looks great! Tuf-Kat 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Classical dance that is not ballet? Sounds like a trick question! Modern dance is not classical; I added a paragraph on that. It is current, but at a certain point, one starts talking about dance instead of music--probably beyond the scope of the article. Jeffmatt 16:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, there's definitely some overlap. Hopefully, sooner or later someone dance-inclined will come along, and maybe help clear things up. (A good Dance of Italy article would help) Tuf-Kat 23:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a little more on the ballet, folk dance, added some good refs. I see that the "film music" paragraph disappeared. It might be good to reinsert it--reworked--into the section called Industry (probably as a last paragraph) since it is a major part of the musical profession in Italy. Maybe I'll go ahead and do that unless you have some objection. Jeffmatt 06:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(later) I went ahead and added that film paragraph to Industry. Jeffmatt 06:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)