Talk:Ars subtilior

Experimentation vs expressive urgency
Suggests an purposeful balance between experimenting, trying new things, and doing things of which you already know the effect so as to achieve one's expressive goals in a piece, nor did composers explore chaotically with free abandon and no consideration of tradition. Hyacinth (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

ars subtilior after 1420
I would like to suggest NOT to include Dunstable nor Ockeghem into the very special musical language of the ars subtilior. These composers do NOT use the specific complex rhythmical language of that period. They belong to a distinctly different type of growing "tonal" simplification. I do not know Plummer, but, considering his date of birth, it is highly questionable to include him.--Kmbemb (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Just as ridiculous is the inclusion of Binchois, Busnois, and Dufay. Even if the cited compositions do have some florid passages, this does not amount to the complex rhythmical language charactristic of the ars subtilior. I propose a short period for discussion (say, one week) by any editors who wish to argue for inclusion of any of these six composers (Dunstable,Ockeghem, Plummer, Binchois, Busnois, andDufay), after which time, if no such arguments are forthcoming, these names should be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

legacy
My proposition: to eliminate the "legacy" completely. Many composers of today relate their work to the ars subtilior. It is a mere personal view to focus on Crumb and Ligeti.Kmbemb (talk) 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It appears to be Daniel Albright's personal view that Crumb's piece is an example, and this at least is documented (though without the obligatory page reference). I do not believe that "Automne à Varsovie" is notated in a circle, and the claim of stylistic or textural similarity is not supported by a source, so this much at least is somebody's Original Research. Although Ligeti's étude is very dense, it seems to me a very poor comparison. Almost any score by Ferneyhough would be more apt, but can a reliable source be found? The weasel words at the beginning also have not yet been documented since being challenged in June of 2008. Though I would like to see someone try to rescue it by coming up with more and better citations, failing this I am inclined to endorse your proposal to eliminate this section, which is pathetic as it stands.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Recordings
Would it be appropriate to add a list of some available recordings of this repertoire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbloch (talk • contribs) 18:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Another stale banner, I would say, though I have found (and flagged) four claims needing verification (one, I think, insupportable). With these specific marks, I would say that the top banner could be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Ars subtilior. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212032509/http://www.corpusmusicae.com/cmm/cmm_cc039.htm to http://www.corpusmusicae.com/cmm/cmm_cc039.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212032556/http://www.corpusmusicae.com/cmm/cmm_cc021.htm to http://www.corpusmusicae.com/cmm/cmm_cc021.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120722155401/http://www.corpusmusicae.com/msd.htm to http://www.corpusmusicae.com/msd.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Further reading issues
There is actually more content in the "Further reading" section than readable prose. Some of these entries maybe usable as a reference for content but would someone please look at this section? Otr500 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Italics?
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Please discuss there, not here. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)