Talk:Renaissance music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Renaissance music was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: November 8, 2006
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Renaissance music as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Any opinions on listing composers both on the Baroque page and the Renaissance page? Some composers who worked around 1600 straddled the boundary, and wrote music which clearly fits into each category (for example Monteverdi: the first several books of madrigals are obviously Renaissance, while books six to nine are clearly Baroque; Sweelinck, almost all of his vocal music is Renaissance while his organ music is Baroque, directly influencing Bach; numerous other examples). I put Sweelinck on both lists. Antandrus 23:54, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think it's fine to list some composers on both. It's a bit artificial to make clean divisions, as you suggest (the same goes for Baroque/Classical and so on). --Camembert

Marcus2, you have removed this line, or equivalent, twice: "While 1600 is a convenient and easily-remembered year to use as an end-date for the era, it should be noted that music with essentially Renaissance characteristics continued to be composed, especially in England, and some degree in Spain, for the first several decades of the 17th century (see English Madrigal School)." I need to make the point that musical, artistic or cultural eras don't start and stop at nice round-numbered years and times, like prime-time TV shows. There is a lot of gray area, a lot of simultaneous practice of different styles, and in the case of the end of the Renaissance a very clear set of examples of Renaissance-style movements in different parts of Europe outside of the Italy-France-Germany region which most definitely lasted into the first couple decades of the seventeenth century. The advent of monody in Italy around 1600 has come to be recognized as the "conventional" boundary for the end of the Renaissance but the reality is a whole lot more complicated and I would like the article to express that. Please discuss deletions on the talk page. If you have some compelling reason for insisting that the "Renaissance" ends right at 1600, everywhere at once, I would love to see it. Thanks!  :-) Antandrus 01:50, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking of breaking up this long list of composers into smaller lists by country (Franco-Netherlanders; Spanish; Italian; German; English, etc). Another way, probably not as good, would be to subdivide them by stylistic school (Burgundian School; Roman School; Venetian School; English Madrigal School, etc.) The second way is fuzzier and leaves a lot of people out; besides a lot of composers wrote in more than one style. As I write up more of the individual national styles and more of the schools, the list of composers is only going to grow--and the same thing will probably happen to Baroque music. Comments anyone? I'm leaning towards method #1. Or I could leave it as it is, with a really long list. (They'd remain listed by birthdate within each list.) Antandrus 14:06, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I think there is a general confusion between the terms "form" and "genre." Most of the terms listed under "forms" are not forms at all, but genres. DrG 2005 May 2

You are correct: genre is the more precise term. Antandrus 01:36, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a question about what should be its own page. How do you know when to make an idea a separate page, or whether to include it in a larger topic containing that idea? I am running into this problem a lot, and find it very frustrating. When dealing with large topics, like "renaissance music" or "medieval music", it seems like all that they contain are pointers to other articles. The big articles then lack any kind of flow or feeling of history, and the smaller ones lack proper context. What do you think about putting the text to the small articles (the stylic schools, the "ars nova", etc) into the large article, and then pointing the stubs for the small articles at the proper section in the large article? Is this possible? Is it desireable? Is it proper wiki thinking? Please help me! DrG 2005 May 3

You're combining a couple of different ideas here. Many of the music history articles don't flow well, and that's because they need someone with time and knowledge to improve them. If you can do that, go ahead. Generally long articles get divided into sections using headers. Once the entire page gets too long, it can be broken into separate articles. But usually the topic gets deveoped in a single article first. In this article List of Renaissance composers has already been broken out. But this article is too many lists and not nearly enough textual information. Those other lists might be on the chopping block once there's enough textual information. Please be my guest and wade right in and make it better. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:15, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Date changes

Through my knowledge of the history of music, 1400 seems to be the correct starting date for the Renaissance. John Dunstable was a Medieval/Renaissance transition composer. I can show you sources if you'd like. Marcus2 22:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an area of substantial disagreement both among Wikipedia editors and music historians. —Wahoofive (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
A finely laconic way to put it, and quite accurate. I have a lot of books on this era, and I don't think any two of them agree on where the date goes. Some even think the Burgundian school composers were still medieval; some think the composers of the Italian trecento were Renaissance, since their painter colleagues are defined that way (and have musicologists and art historians ever gotten together to sort that one out? I wish--) Antandrus (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 03:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons for GA Delisting

This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;

(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).

LuciferMorgan 18:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recent addition

"Recent contributions to musicological research however suggest that the concept should be avoided once and for all, or at least used with utmost care, due to the extreme difficulties in defining the meaning and periodization of the term. It is safe to state that the Italian humanist movement, uncovering and proliferating the aesthetics of antique Roman and Greek art, contributed to an accelerated revalidation of music on a conceptual level, but its direct influence on music theory, composition and performance remain suggestive."

What does this mean? Other than that the Italian humanist movement was influential in music as well as the other arts, but its exact degree and type of influence remains somewhat controversial? Antandrus (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)