User talk:Aza24/sandbox/Classical music article

Updates
Starting a new thread here, so I can talk to everyone at once for the moment. ,, , thank you all again for your earlier comments. I have substantially expanded the section in question, and written an entirely new lead. On the "Terminology and definition" section, I opted to keep the "Contemporary understanding" section brief, thinking that perhaps a "Characteristics" section (outlined below) could better discuss some of the modern contradictions and meanings. On the lead, I (as is probably expected) found it very difficult to summarize over 1200 years of history in two paragraphs. Below is the current distribution of periods by number of sentences:


 * Roots – .5
 * Medieval – 4.5
 * Renaissance – 2
 * Baroque – 3
 * Classical – 1
 * Romantic – 2
 * 20th -century – 2
 * Contemporary (post WWII) – 2

I seemed essentially impossible to sum up the massive Medieval period (600–900 years) with less sentences, though I will attempt to do so if others find it badly-balanced! Of course many things are left out, but I hope the major trends and themes have been included (the citations are only there until a better "history" section is written for later in the article). In avoidance of favoritism, I tried my best to avoid naming specific composers in the lead, preferring schools or stylistic movements. The exceptions to this were Beethoven, Bach and Mozart, for probably obvious reasons. I also found that I did not have to go out of my way to include Haydn and Wagner, so mentioned them as well. I think I'm somewhat ready to put the new lead and Terminology and definition section into the WP article, but I would of course be open any feedback first. Aza24 (talk) 00:17, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Second round of thoughts from Uness
Congrats, this is FA-worthy work, in my opinion. My only nitpick (and it really is a nitpick) is this sentence: "These three composers in particular were grouped into the First Viennese School or 'Viennese classics', a coupling that remains problematic by reason of the none of the three being born in Vienna and the minimal time Haydn and Mozart spent in the city." This isn't particularly good prose, and it is particularly hard to read. I would suggest: "These three composers in particular were grouped into the First Viennese School, sometimes/otherwise called the 'Viennese classics'. This coupling remains problematic, as none of the three composers were born in Vienna, and Haydn and Mozart spent minimal time in the city."

Other than that and a few other very minor style issues, though, this is really good, much better than anything I've done here that's for sure. Uness232 (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Good catch! Adjusted to your wording. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on CM
Hey, , , —if any of you are inclined, I would very much appreciate any thoughts on my current sandbox. I'm aiming to create an understandable but concise section on the term 'classical music' for (you guessed it) the classical music article. It may not look like much, but finding sourcing for this and putting the pieces together was surprisingly difficult! I do recognize it is a little heavy on quotes (particularly the last long quote from Nettl) but I find it clearest to explain by doing so. Any and all feedback is welcome. Aza24 (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For all: Just a note to everyone, I left some initial responses on the many helpful comments. It seems that this section may need another paragraph or two to be fully comprehensive, so I will attempt to do so in the following days and get back to everyone. The classical music article has been in fairly awful shape for some time, so giving it more basic structure with a section like this will hopefully be worthwhile. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Some thoughts from Tim
This is good stuff. Defining classical music is like trying to nail jelly to the wall, and I applaud the attempt. (I am reminded of A E Housman on poetry: "I could no more define poetry than a terrier can define a rat, but we both recognise the object by the symptoms it provokes in us.") Blowing the dust off my old Oxford Companion to Music (10th edition, 1970) I find this splendidly high-and-mighty pronouncement:


 * It is frequently used as a label to distinguish what is obviously of more or less established and permanent value from what is ephemeral. (This is the sense in which it is perhaps most often used in connexion with literature and the other arts, and from that point of view the most desirable sense.) The antithesis here is 'Modern'. Riemann's definition conforms to this idea: Classical—a term applied to a work of art against which the destroying hand of time has proved powerless. Since only in the course of time a work can be shown to possess the power of resistance, there can be no living classics.


 * Amongst less educated people 'Classical' is used in antithesis to 'Popular' ('Do you like classical music?' 'No, I like something with a tune to it!')

In The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern World Peter N Stearns opens his article "Music that derives from the tradition of court- and church-based patronage in Europe, classical music is often formally and harmonically complex," which I think makes two points worth making.

You don't mention music academies: I know some include non-classical stuff in their curricula but on the whole they teach classical music (in the third of the OED's senses). Might be worth glancing at that.

A passing piece of pedantry: in the third sentence you shouldn't use "latter" when there are more than two things mentioned; "last" is correct.

Despite Wikipedia's policy of having everything possible in continuous prose, I'd be strongly inclined to put points 1–3 on separate lines as a bulleted list – much easier for the reader to absorb.

"Musicologist Don Michael Randel" … Musicologist Ralph P. Locke [twice] … ethnomusicologist Bruno Nettl … English writer John Feltham Danneley – we could do without the clunky false titles.

Single quotes, as in the last sentence of the first para, should be double quotes throughout, if I correctly understand the Manual of Style.

That's all from me for now. I fear I have delighted you long enough. –  Tim riley  talk   08:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of this, you are certainly more familiar with the MOS than I! I am hesitant to use the 1970 definition, in light of the reservation from others below on including dictionary definitions, though the definition from Stearns is so well put (and seemingly more up-to date?) that I should certainly include something about it. I've addressed some of your minor comments as well. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I quoted that hoity-toity 1970 definition more to amuse than inform you, but on reflection if you are seeking to define classical music it might be as well to glance briefly at how the term was seen by the musical establishment in mid-20th century and contrast it with the less lofty attitude now prevalent. I most decidedly do not press the point, and I leave the matter in your hands.  Tim riley  talk   17:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It did certainly amused me, so I would say you were successful! Your suggestion to use it as an 'older example' may be spot on, I'll let you know. Aza24 (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

from Smerus
Thanks for this, Aza24; you have bravely entered into a minefield and heroically emerged unscathed! What I think I know about this (but can't find any references for at the moment) is that the term 'classical' for music emerged at the time when the pictorial arts, scuplture, architecture and literature all had notable examples from the age of the classics (i.e. Greece and Rome). So all these arts had Classical (i.e. conventional wisdom = insurpassible) forms. Music didn't: and the term was therefore adopted to reward the heights (according to the conventional wisdom of the time) achieved by (initially) Mozart and Haydn (and hence their successors). (Of course in the first 3 decades of the 19th century virtually nothing of JS Bach survived in the repertoire). I will think further about this and the sandbox in the next couple of days if I can grab a moment.--Smerus (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're spot on with these points, and I have some ideas of where such information might be given. I recall a source explaining how musicologists merely took some periodization terms from art history, which seems to align with your observation. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

from kosboot
Thanks for notifying me of your brave attempt. It's a very good start. I agree with Smerus that information on why the term "classical" is used is warranted (and yes, I believe it is an retrospective influence from the art world, in trying to frame how successive generations viewed that period). Lately I've been reading a lot of critical theory and in that context, the Oxford definition makes me wince strongly as the attributes are exactly those which many people are now calling into question or actively protesting for its perceived silencing of other views. Currently I have too many priorities on my plate but I suggest you look at sources no more than about 5-7 years old. Big dictionaries/encyclopedias are good for very traditional framing of ideas. They are NOT good for capturing more recent thinking about topics and ideas that have been in existence a long time. (Although I wonder if Taruskin's history might broach this topic.) Philip Ewell is one that comes to mind, but so is Susan McClary.
 * Very helpful, thanks . I feel there has to be a balance between dictionary definitions and such, but to your point, having both the OED and Harvard Dictionary of Music ones is likely undue. I suspect that introducing with the OED definition and then analyzing it through the lens of some contemporary commentators would be the way to go? I want to include a section on the "Canon" of classical music at some point, which will likely use the criticism of scholars you bring up more directly. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed that you could articulate the "dictionary/encyclopedic" definition first, and then include what more recent scholars say.  Good way to go and thank you for this exhausting work!  Just today I was listening to a lecture (on knowledge in general, not music) about how there's an automatic "Western/white" assumption that excludes music of other cultures so I also commend you for including all the Arab and Chinese thinkers.  Somewhere I have a list of 20th century Russian music theorists, most of which probably don't have an English WP article - I'll try to dig it up. - kosboot (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I really like what you're doing - very nice so far! - kosboot (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

from Uness
Thanks a lot for notfying me of this, even though I feel I am a bit underqualified to talk about it. Nevertheless, while I think this is generally very good, there are some areas that need a little care, especially in regards to prose.

I second kosboot on the dictionary comment, I think dictionary definitions should be used sparingly on topics like this. Furthermore, the second paragraph lacks a bit on the readability side. This is especially true at the very end, where, to an unspecialized eye, the comments of Nettl might seem disjointed at best, and unrelated at worst. There are of course, other smaller accessibility issues, such as the lack of clarity in the "neither term" section, and again, the use of "a second meaning", which can be easily misread as "the second meaning", which would seem to refer to the OED definition; these can be fixed quite easily though.

Overall, I think this is much better than what we currently have on CM, so I don't necessarily see the need to address these small issues, but I'm sure all the comments combined managed to do that anyway. Uness232 (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , given the insightful and valuable opinions I've seen you share with me and others, I have no doubt as to your qualifications. Thank you for calling me out on the prose!—it definitely needs another go-over. I'll take out the second dictionary definition and try to integrate the Nettl quote better. Aza24 (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your kind words Aza24, although I might have miscommunicated one of my points (in some tragic irony I was calling you out on prose with bad prose). The "second meaning" section on my previous comment refers not to the dictionary definition itself, but rather this sentence:
 * by the late 19th-century "classical music" gained a second meaning, "music that had withstood the test of time".
 * My point was that this could potentially give the (mis)impression that this concerns the second OED definition. It's a small issue, but it is likely to be a somewhat common misread. Uness232 (talk) 05:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)