Talk:Classical music/Archive 4

Poll
(Just indicate what you think is the most common name... we'll worry about grouping or counting when and if it becomes necessary) Dpbsmith (talk) 17:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note 1: Voting for X as "the most common name" is not a vote to name the article X. As Hyacinth points out, the most common name is not always the appropriate name for an article. All I'm trying to do here is to find out what people think is the most common name. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note 2: If you happen to believe that both questions have the same answer, say so. Ambiguity happens. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:39, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is "the most common name" for the genre of music, in the educated European tradition, performed e.g. by symphony orchestras?


 * "Classical music." Dpbsmith (talk) 17:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Classical music". --Carnildo 20:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Classical music." --Wetman 21:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Classical music." Robin klein 02:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Classical music." Antandrus 02:50, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Classical music." Tuf-Kat 03:31, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * It depends upon which group you're talking about (the most common term, if you really did a poll of everyone in the English-speaking world, could well be somthing like 'that snobby music', or worse). Among many people, serious music and art music are both commonly used.  Classical music is certainly very commonly used, though most people who know anything about it at least recognise its inaccuracy, even if they don't refuse to use or acknowledge it. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is "the most common name" for, collectively, the genres of highly developed art music of all cultures?


 * There isn't any. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:28, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any. --Carnildo 20:51, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "World music" if you're buying CDs --Wetman 21:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * (Yeah, I thought of that&mdash;but the "world music" bins also include folk music. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC))


 * If by "highly-developed art music", you mean the musicological definition of classical music, then "classical music" is the most common name Tuf-Kat 22:28, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no common term to collectively refer to all so called 'highly developed art music' across cultures. Robin klein 02:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Art music or classical music are both in use. World music applies to popular music. Stirling Newberry 03:32, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that Stirling Newberry is wrong here; see, for example, the BBC Music Magazine, or the BBC's output in general. World music is used as a catch-all term (and a pretty silly one at that).  Still, I agree that classical music is again (if rather sloppily) the most common term for the art music of different cultures. Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 17:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments
How about coining a new term for all these highly developed music across cultures-- Chauvinistic musics or elitist music. Indian elitist music??.

highly developed?? is Pink Floyd Junk?? Is Andre Previn Jazz compositions inferior to his 'classical compositions'??, Is Philip glass "Einstein on the beach" superior to "Satyagraha"??. What would you call Bela bartok - classical folk?? or Folk classical??. Who defines what is highly developed??, sounds like 19th century and early 20th century chauvinism in evolutionary sciences and biology --"man the highest developed". Only to be knocked out by Stephen Jay Gould and the even humbler Punctuated equilibrium. didn't it already happen with classical music - my beloved atonalism and, the humble minimalism....... "highly deveopled" -- when will classical music leave its elitism?? and yes why dont you redirect "Indian classical music" and "Hindustani classical music" as Hindustani Sangeet its original name. That would be a change from Chauvinism and a great service to wikipedia.
 * There is nothing elitist about classical music.It is open to anyone who wishes to take the time and effort to explore it.It is a tradition of music that over the centuries has been open to influences from all over the globe and from all periods of history and within this tradition there are a great exists a great variety of different styles . The same could be said for Jazz-and if we were to say that the main defining aspect of Jazz is it's improvisational quality then the Indian Classical music (Or Sangeet if you prefer )is also Jazz Frankly I find the 'elitist' accusation a term favoured by philistines and those who seek to perpetuate the current fashion of dumbing down and the criticism is pure bunk. I do not mean to denigrate popular musics, folk musics, the classical musics of other traditions all of which have merit but I cetainly feel that the term 'Classical' music is a perfectly acceptable and well known term for the tradition of traditional Western Art Music. That is not to say that as music history continues that different kinds of Art music will be incoporated into the classical music paradigm. Godfinger 11:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides the current term European classical music is better than Western classical music. whatever "west" means?? western who?? western where??. What about European written music or even better the old fashioned Classical music Robin klein 02:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Blame me for that phrase "highly developed art music." I was trying to find some description that a) expressed clearly what I meant, and b) didn't include the word "classical." Dpbsmith (talk) 02:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (By the way you are mistaken about humans having been considered "highly developed" or "highly evolved." 19th and 20th century zoologists never regarded humans as the most highly evolved species. On the contrary, because adult humans show less difference from the embryonic state than other mammals, they were usually placed near the base of the mammalian evolutionary tree, with the Artiodactyls considered to be the most highly evolved). Dpbsmith (talk) 02:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about Naming conventions (common names) and Naming conventions (precision)? Hyacinth 23:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Point taken. But does this mean that you agree that "classical music" is the most common name, but feel that this is a case where it is inappropriate to use the most common name? I think I understand some of the issues, but weigh them differently. To take an analogy from a different field:


 * How do you feel about the article entitled Starfish? Should Asteroid become a disambiguation to Asteroid (astronomy) and Asteroid (zoology) with Starfish redirecting to Asteroid (zoology)? Is "Starfish" acceptable at all, or is it our duty to reserve the word "fish" for the vertebrate class Pisces and expunge Starfish entirely as a vulgar misnomer? Should we insist that our readers use the phrase Sea star? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Do biologists actually refer to starfish as asteroids?
 * Indeed, they do. In fact the American Heritage Dictionary, which I use as a sort of touchstone for the boundary where "precision" leaves off and "specialized, technical language" or "pedantry" begins, says: "1. Astronomy: Any of numerous small celestial bodies that revolve around the sun, with orbits lying chiefly between Mars and Jupiter and characteristic diameters between a few and several hundred kilometers. Also called minor planet, planetoid. 2. Zoology: See starfish." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Even if so, the situation still wouldn't be a very good analogy. If starfish referred most commonly to the broad category, members of Class Asteroidea, but specialists in the field (asteroidologists?) used it to refer specifically to a family within the lay grouping of starfish, while more general biologists used the word to mean aquatic invertebrate animal -- that would be a closer analogy. Tuf-Kat 03:28, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * My point is that it would be insanely pedantic to insist on using the term "asteroid" for the article on starfish, with or without disambiguation. I don't think current situation with the names of the classical music articles is insanely pedantic, but I do think that it has motivated more by editors wanting to make it clear that they are knowledgeable about proper terminology than with service to our readers.
 * For purposes of discussion, it might be useful to give names to the three ambiguous meanings of "classical music:" the "lay" meaning ("educated European tradition"); the "musicological" definition (I'm relying on you here). Now, what to call the third meaning, "Haydn-and-Mozart-as-opposed-to-Liszt-and-Rachmaninoff?" Is the full phrase "classical music" really ever used in this way? Certainly one might say "Haydn was a classical composer" or "Mozart was a composer of the classical era," but would someone say "The New York Philharmonic is doing something a little unusual tonight: they're having a programme that is all classical music?" Dpbsmith (talk) 14:28, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My point/question was: why are we taking a survey about what the most common name is? Could this have been established by discussion, and one it is established by poll, what does that information mean?

To answer you're question: I think that classical music is probably the most common term used when people talk about European art music, but that the most common contemporary (contemporary as in now) definition of classical music would include all art music. If you asked, "Does China have classical music?" (or "did?") I think most people would say "yes." However, I currently have no way of knowing the answers to either of these questions, at least none that is acceptable as an article source, such as my opinion or any poll or test I myself do.

Other questions I think we should ask, and may answer without sources, include: "How much harder is it to find European classical music now?" "How much more clear is the meaning of the term classical music made now?" "What are other navigational advantages or disadvantages?" "What should the templates and categories be titled?" Hyacinth 21:09, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My answers are, it's currently not that hard to find European classical music. Let me call the three meanings of classical "musicological," "common," and "Haydn-Mozart." The Haydn-Mozart meaning is currently called Classical music era and is linked from the others, and I don't think anyone has a problem with that.


 * the current situation is that Classical music refers to the musicological meaning but begins by defining and linking to the others
 * the common meaning is treated under an artificial title which I dislike and which nobody actually uses.


 * Obviously, my preference is that it be the other way around, i.e.


 * Classical music should refer to the common meaning and begin by defining and linking to the others; as a result,
 * the musicological meaning would then need to get a somewhat artificial title.


 * I can't pretend it makes a lot of difference though.


 * The biggest problem I have with the current situation is that "European classical music" is not a term that anyone commonly uses. It's rather like the situation that persisted for months, where an article was titled Analogue disc record because nobody could agree on "phonograph record" or "gramophone record."


 * In any event, suspecting that things might end up staying as they are, I've made myself happier by wordsmithing the "disambiguation lead" in the current Classical music.


 * OK, I've said my say. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:49, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Classical music to an Indian means Indian Classical music much the same way as Classical Music in say Europe means Western Classical music. In the west Europian traditional music is called Classical music and other classical musics go with the regions/country classical music. It is the other way around in those countries. However to much of the world that is not west it is known as western classical music. Which is much fair and particular. ~rAGU (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Tuf-Kat's proposal
I'll go along with pretty much whatever the consensus is, but I think there should be three articles: Tuf-Kat 22:28, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Classical music era: as it exists now, but preferably with a better title
 * Classical music: the musicological definition, referring to a style taught through formal education (I'm pretty sure that's the most common definition)
 * The American Heritage Dictionary doesn't think so. As noted above, their definition is:
 * 3. Music a. Of or relating to European music during the latter half of the 18th and the early 19th centuries. b. Of or relating to music in the educated European tradition, such as symphony and opera, as opposed to popular or folk music. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:49, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I was unclear -- I meant that formal education is the most common characteristic musicologists use to separate classical music from folk or popular, not that this definition is the most common definition of classical music in general. Tuf-Kat 03:11, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Western classical music: the Western European tradition of classical music (I could live with the current title though)

The Google search for "large classical music audience" turns up 1.8 or 1.9 million pages, but "fewer classical music listeners" only turns out 44,100 pages. Can you explain this?
 * Hmm... Is there some context to your question that I am missing? Presumably, the reason for the results is that nearly two million pages use the words "large classical music audience" and about 44000 use "fewer classical music listeners".  I can't say I'm shocked. Tuf-Kat 23:52, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

What do you propose as an improvement for "Classical music era", and what is wrong with it? "Classical period (music)" has been suggested on Talk:Classical music era. Hyacinth 01:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't really think that's any better, and have no better suggestion. See that talk page. Tuf-Kat 02:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Why is "Western" preferable to "European"? Hyacinth 01:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have never really known what is supposed to be the referent for the word "Western" in "Western civilization," "Western canon," etc. I'm guessing that it either has something to do with the Western part of the Roman empire, or with the Western versus Eastern parts of the Catholic church. I don't think it has to do with which side of the Greenwich meridian you're on, though I could certainly be wrong... Anyone care to enlighten me? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's very imprecise, to say the least, and may be related to Occident vs. Orient (places such as Asia Minor and Egypt were considered "oriental" at least as late as the 11th edition Britannica). If the Roman empire/church split were to be the source I'd expect Russia to be considered non-western, but it isn't, really.  Can't enlighten you further, sorry... I guess I prefer "European." Antandrus 01:52, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I only prefer "Western" because I think it's more common in this context, not because it makes more sense (neither title is really great from a logical standpoint, since there are i.e. Japanese composers and performers of whatever you want to call this style). It gets more google hits, though I'm sure the search is imprecise (Wikipedia is top 3 for both searches!). Tuf-Kat 01:56, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

The Western world explains that the East/West division was initially a Ancient Greek and Roman thing, and that Occident literally means "west". Western is definitely preferable to Occident in my opinion. Hyacinth 03:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Damn, that Wiccan-internet-encyclopedia thingie is good. Maybe I should bookmark it. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:06, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Harrison's proposal
Lou Harrison divides the world, musically and culturally, into Pacifica and the Atlantic. Thus, rather than Europe and the United States being in "Western music" and Asian, African, Australian music in "Eastern music", he groups the United States west coast with Asia and Australia and the United States east coast with Europe and Africa (or just west Africa, I forget). Hyacinth 01:42, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as folk music goes, that's kind of reasonable, I guess, though dividing the world into only two sections is arbitrary and probably not very informative. You should add his division to cultural area, though, as it's interesting that he does so. Tuf-Kat 02:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, does anybody actually have a proposal that they feel strongly is the best? It seems like there's really no great way to untangle this, and everyone's kind of blandly putting forth half-hearted suggestions because no one's come up with anything better. Tuf-Kat 02:01, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I think now it is better to stick with the current title, it seems to be the best possible compromise. European and NOT western and also classical music. So lets just keep it as European classical music. Robin klein 03:01, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I feel pretty strongly about what I don't want, though I do not have a strong specific preferance. Hyacinth 03:27, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * European classical music is fine with me, though I'd be OK with Western classical music as well, if consensus emerges for that name. Antandrus 03:32, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I've said my say. As an outsider/interloper on this page, I defer to the people who are actually putting in real work on the article. What's important to me is that someone who types in "classical music," meaning the ordinary lay/dictionary sense, a) gets to where they want to go easily, and b) gets a simple explanation of why they aren't there already. That's true now. The present situation mumble fulminate pedantry mumble mumble isn't to my heart's desire but isn't worth fussing about. As for the title of European classical music it's certainly not worth fussing about because there is no clearly better title except "classical music." It doesn't matter which artificial title is used, because it will be found by searching or linking, never by typing it in directly. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Francis' proposal
This morning I moved some older stuff of my user talk page to talk:classical music, and added an intro to that same page with some comments regarding the talk on this present "European classical music" talk page.

To summarise my proposal:
 * Classical music as a disambiguation page;
 * Start from how terms are used (wikipedia is descriptive), not from definitions that are afterwards linked to wikipedia article names;

Further, the definition that draws a line between "Folk/popular" music and "classical" music is only one of the uses of the term "classical music": in many contexts this is not wat is understood by "classical music".

I'm gonna do some (maybe "bold") editing of the classical music page in this sense. We'll see where that gets us (without being able to promise an "instant solution"...).

--Francis Schonken 15:17, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Question to classical editors regarding lists
I was recently working on the List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin, which is in a table format, but have since noticed that most compositional lists are not in tables, the most obvious exception being the Köchel-Verzeichnis list of Mozart's works. Anyway, before I go and alter the List of works by Scriabin, could you advise me as to whether editing that into table-form would be a good or bad idea. If it's the consensus opinion I'd be happy to revert the list of Chopin works to non-tabulated form. Any input will be greatly appreciated. Mallocks 22:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have any standard for this, though we could bring it up, perhaps, at one of the Wikiprojects (maybe WikiProject_Composers)? Most of the time when I make lists of compositions I don't put them in table format (seems a tad more trouble than it's worth) but some lists are that way. I'd be happy to hear some other opinions too.  Antandrus 23:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that these lists are better as a bulleted list, simply because they are easier on the eye and look more Wikipedian - I think tables actually make the info a bit less clear.


 * For example, my preference for the Chopin list mentioned would be like this:


 * 12 Études à son ami Mme la Comtesse d'Agoult, Op. 25 (1832-1836)
 * No. 1 in A flat (1836)
 * No. 2 in F minor (1836)
 * No. 3 in F (1836)
 * No. 4 in A minor (1832-1834)
 * &hellip;


 * I certainly agree with Antandrus that tables are not worth the effort. I'd be interested in reading others' opinions, too.  --RobertG 11:16, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Given that the table there is specifically organised by Opus number, I'd say that at the very least that should be the first thing that one sees, the format as you put it makes more sense for arrangement by piece, to my mind at any rate. The effort point isn't actually one that I consider important, I think that the presentation is the most important aspect here, my overall point being that without staying with one system or another, the lists we create are no more useful than those available on the internet that we use as sources. As I commented over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers, the Mozart K number listing at the very least must remain in tabulated form, it would not work as well without, and it was on that template that I based the Chopin list, and now the Purcell. I should stress though that as I've stated before, I will be happy to accept any consensus.  Mallocks 12:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe: ok, perhaps opus number first! But if the opus number were in bold (as in my example), and the pieces are sorted by opus number, that would be clear enough for me - I think clearer than a table.  I tried it out here to check that I wasn't completely off topic.  At the least I think the column headings are redundant.


 * And even without any formatting whatever the lists are of much greater use than other internet sources, as they link to other Wikipedia content, and the information in them is more thoroughly checked, no doubt. :-)


 * I think I've had my 2 pence/cents worth on this topic now - what does anyone else think? --RobertG 13:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This discussion has moved to Wikipedia Composers Project. --RobertG 14:01, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Re-write
I reverted a big re-write by an editor who did not describe the editing or the resaons for it. The editing seemed to introduce POV without attribution, among other things. In any case, this is a mature, heavily-edited article and it would be best if the editor would please explain his or her edits. Thanks, -Willmcw 21:37, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I Can't Believe this article
I can't believe this article is serious. It is supposed to be an unbiased, objective source of information and analysis about Western Classical Music, yet I find that it denigrates classical and idealises pop. The use of language is biased and prejudiced. It provides little information about classical music, and the information there is is outweighed by the information about pop.

This article is a disgrace, it should have no place in a serious enclycloedia, and it should be removed and replaced with something more useful, unbiased, and informative. (preceding unsigned comment by Duncansassoon 30 August 2005)


 * Please Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks. Hyacinth 21:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)