Talk:Contemporary classical music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article title (again)[edit]

I can see a major problem with the name of this article: contemporary means "happening now", but most of the music discussed in this article is no longer "contemporary" in that sense. Pop music of the 80s is not contemporary, so how can classical music of that decade be contemporary? I am aware that some critics and musicologists lump all the music from 1975 onwards under this banner, but I suggest most speak only of music written in the past ten years or so when talking about contemporary music. I might also point out that 20th-century classical music already talks about the music from the first 25 years of this article's time line (or it should, given the name). Perhaps 21st-century classical music would be a better title, then we could move any pre-2000 music to the other article. Thoughts? Jubilee♫clipman 01:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC) PS, both Cage and Messiaen died in 1992, so they can hardly be called "contemporary"! Jubilee♫clipman 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A small correction: "contemporary" does not mean "happening now", but rather (1) "happening, existing, , living, or coming into being during the same period of time", (2)"simultaneous", or (3) "marked by characteristics of the present period: modern, current" (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary). Still, I take your point, even if the term is often meant to refer to a "present period" stretching back more than just a decade or two (the standards for pop music tend to be much shorter than for, say, opera). I like very much your idea of starting a new article on "Twenty-first century classical music" (though I must make the ritual objection to that word "classical", which I feel is inappropriate except in reference to the music of Classical Antiquity or the late-eighteenth-century period of music history conventionally designated by the term). Although it is still a little early to be able to talk about much with great certainty, it would be silly to wait until the entire century has gone by before beginning to write about it. Please feel free to start. I, for one, will be watching with interest.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not simply moving the current article over redirect, so both titles would point to it?Galassi (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand what you are proposing here.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Move the article to the proposed new title. The old title will automatically point to the same article despite its new title. It is a logical thing to do, and I am willing to undertake it. It seems the word CLASSICAL will stay, as it remains accepted in all the vernaculars.Galassi (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean, retitle this article (Contemporary classical music) as "Twenty-first century classical music"? I don't think that's a good idea at all, given that this article says practically nothing at all about music in the twenty-first century, and quite a lot about music in the late twentieth century. I think you will have a hard time getting editorial consensus to support this move.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did it, so we'll see how it fares. It is still better than a previous one. The nomenclature is not really going to get sorted out until the 22nd century, to be sure...Galassi (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Erm, it might have been a bad idea for Galassi to move the article without waiting for others to join the debate. I was merely putting forward objections and waiting for opinions. This article still discusses music from latter quarter of C20th. Will Galassi now move those over to 20th-century classical music? At present there is a major anomaly! I've opened a can of worms! Sorry. Jubilee♫clipman 03:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Also, the lead still talks about contemporary classical music. I'm not rolling back: I think we might need to go to WP:RM and have a proper discussion. Jubilee♫clipman 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't see a problem here. 20th century didn't'end on 12/31/1999, and 21st started earlier, as far as music is concerned. The same is true for any musical era.Galassi (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chronologically, you are absolutely right. The twentieth century did not end until 00:00 hours on 1 January 2001. Figuratively speaking, if you are you saying that "contemporary music" and "twenty-first century music" are identical (on the analogy of the "long 19th century"), you must intend the twenty-first century to begin either in 1975 or in 1945, which is how the (sourced) definition in the lede defines it. Seems a bit early to me, either way.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need new imput or we will go round and round and round... One major point I made was that the articles overlap, massively. I actually think this article should stay at 21st-century classical music. We should just rewrite the lead to refer to the title-subject and move the discussions about music written between 1975 and 1990 over to 20th-century classical music. That creates a sensible "broad century" - to coin a phrase - here. But that is only my preference. If there is a strong arguement for the title Contemporary classical music (which I haven't seen yet) then move back. New input please! Jubilee♫clipman 04:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC) BTW, I know there is an overlap of 30 years between Baroque and Classical but there are clearly defined stylistic differences to be discussed in the appropriate articles. That may be true in the present case. If so, that needs to be clearly stated in the lead if we return to the old name. Jubilee♫clipman 04:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, too, would like to see input from more editors on this. As I already said, I have no objection at all to having an article on twenty-first century classical music—in fact, I endorsed that idea. What I do take issue with is equating the expression "contemporary music" with "music composed after 1 January 2001". The literature does not (yet) support this definition. The re-direct from "Contemporary classical music", at least, ought to be changed to a split direct to both the later portions of Twentieth-century classical music and to Twenty-first century classical music, if that is possible.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose. This name change is controversial and is not supported by concensus opinion, nevermind by scholarly sources. Irrespective of whether or not it is a suitable definition 'Contemporary classical music' (Contemporary music) is widely used. What citations exist for the purposes of demonstrating usage of the term '21st-century classical music'?? Please establish a clear concensus before changing the name.Measles (talk) 10:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair points raised here. I notice name change has been reverted by Measles: probably correctly. Leave this article here. As Jerome Kohl suggested, I'll start a new article at 21st-century classical music and we can quibble about a better name for this article later. There is perhaps a stylistic change somewhere around 1975 which overlaps with other developments in latter quarter of C20th. We'll have to define it. Jubilee♫clipman 13:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've created the page 21st-century classical music. Any move will have to be a merger now! I suggest leaving the new article since it will be expanded as the century progresses. There will be overlap but there is one with 20th-century classical music anyway. The present article, Contemporary classical music, will be renamed at some point in the future when this period is better defined by musicologists. I have no doubt about that. Jubilee♫clipman 14:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
well it seems there is now overlap across four articles: contemporary music, contemporary classical music, 20th-century classical music, and 21st-century classical music, someone should really sort this out once and for all, preferably someone with the musicological credentials to dispel the confusion here. Measles (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Contemporary music and Contemporary classical music should be merged. See talk:contemporary music. Here is a rationale for the existance of the main articles: 20th-century classical music discusses the historical period, now past; the new article, 21st-century classical music, will only discuss recent developments in this century; the present article discusses the cross over and how the former period has influenced the latter. The three are separate entities, though any overlap should be minimised, I agree. Jubilee♫clipman 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jubileeclipman, you state: "21st-century classical music, will only discuss recent developments in this century". Problem here, as I see it, is that this is covered by the term 'contemporary music'. Measles (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's precicely the point, Measles: contemporary music does not exclusively cover recent developments. The term covers anything from 1975 onward - or 1945 onward, depending who you talk to. By recent, I mean the very latest developments from, say 1995, on. After all we are only ten years into this century and a lot has happened in that time. I hope to make that point clear as the article develops. Thanks for the input though: it helps to define the boundaries in more concrete ways. Jubilee♫clipman 19:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see you are now contradicting what you stated at the top of this section ; ) - however, I'm sorry, but I disagree with your definition, contemporary music is generally interchanged with so called new music, and both terms are, whether correctly or incorrectly, widely used within academia and the professional music circuit to refer to music now. I also think the 20th/21st historical distinctions you are drawing are arbitrary, there are composers who have written work in the last 10 years that is stylistically indistinguishable from the music they were writing in 1990 (or earlier in some cases) so to suddenly define what they have been doing recently as 21st Century music is meaningless. The use of the term 20th Century music had meaning initially, it referred to music that had broken decisively with various musical traditions. We simply have not seen a paradigm shift of the same magnitude in the last 10 years; and post-modernity put paid to this narrow chronological connectionism you are dabbling in here. But that's just my view, so knock yourself out defining what you think constitutes classical music in the 21st Century : ) Measles (talk) 11:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant that the present article does not exclusively cover those developments "happening now". Sorry for the confusion! Anyway, Jerome Kohl corrected me. Also, music written in 2009 is quite different stylistically from that written in 1975, IMO, which is where the present article kicks off. Finally, I have just checked the articles against each other and the overlap is minimal, if not actually non-existant. 20th-century classical music does not discuss any music post-1975, as far as I can see (except Spectralism which contains no examples), so it could almost be defined as music written 1895-1975. (Postmodern music and Minimalism only cite music written between 1939 and 1971.) Contemporary classical music discusses very little music post-1995, though names of current composers are dropped throughout. I suggest 21st-century classical music be expanded to include all the current trends and that we wait for consensus before we decide how to proceed (though others need to intitiate that discussion since I created the article). In starting that article, I was just following up on a suggestion from Jerome Kohl. Jubilee♫clipman 19:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(semantics): actually, I meant that both the article and the term do not cover recent developments. Anyway, I now agree with the broader definition. Jubilee♫clipman 20:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solved one problem: I've merged Contemporary music into this article.  :) Jubilee♫clipman 03:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I feel the term classical has no place here. If we're talking about contemporary music (contemporary being interpreted as modern)then everything listed under movements is right where it should be, but then the title of the article is just confusing. The article should be titled simply Contemporary Music. (talk) 22:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problem is: "contemporary music" could mean anything at all written within the last half-century, including pop, jazz, rock, you name it... Other alternatives include: Contemporary art music and Contemporary western art music (to be even more specific). However, even there we have the problem that Jazz is often considered "Art Music"... The present name and subsquent merger (by me) were reluctantly agreed upon due to these difficulties. I don't really feel that we should move it. We could split it out between 20th-century classical music and 21st-century classical music but we still have that "classical" qualifier... No idea how to deal with that --Jubilee♫clipman 22:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Contemporary classical" is an oxymoron. It is not possible to be both, and the title of this article should be changed to "Contemporary art music". (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How is it an oxymoron? Neither "contemporary" nor "classical" have a single sense, especially where music is concerned.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because contemporary refers to something that is happening now, at this moment, and classical is a term that can be give only when the "classic" value of the subject is proved. This is pretty clear, the terms are mutually exclusive. (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have sources for those definitions? As I said in my preceding comment, neither word has a single sense, but even allowing for several, I cannot find a dictionary that agrees even approximately with your definition of "contemporary", and your qualifier for "classic" is a tautology. I suggest that the OED's sense 9 of "classical" is the best fit in this case: "Of music: of acknowledged excellence; of, relating to, or characteristic of a formal musical tradition, as distinguished from popular or folk music; spec. of or relating to formal European music of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, characterized by harmony, balance, and adherence to established compositional forms." Naturally, this applies only when it can be shown as applicable, though this can become rather complicated.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PDQ Bach[edit]

I've just thought: shouldn't P. D. Q. Bach/Peter Schickele here somewhere? He did parody an enormous number of styles and has influenced a great many composers in one way or another. Jubilee♫clipman 04:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Perhaps you're right. Schickele should doubtless also be added to the article Musical historicism, as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added him/them to both articles. Jubilee♫clipman 09:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Major issues to resolve[edit]

(Following posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music)

The following articles overlap and the situation need to be rationalized: contemporary music, contemporary classical music, 20th-century classical music, and 21st-century classical music. The following issues are the most urgent (in order of importance):

Other issues exist, as well, but those above need immeadiate attention.

Thank you for your input. --Jubilee♫clipman 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contemporary music and Contemporary classical music have been merged. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This call for discussion has been posted on multiple talk pages. In order to keep all relevant discussions in one place, please post any response on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music#Major issues to resolve. --Deskford (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Composers for deletion[edit]

A substantial list of articles on individual composers has been proposed for deletion on the grounds that they were initially created in a mass spam effort by a record company. Whilst some of these composers may be non-notable (I hadn't heard of some of them), some are certainly of international significance. Please look through the list on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empreintes_DIGITALes and if any of these composers come under your sphere of expertise add a few references, remove excessive promotional content, and contribute to the discussion so that we don't lose valuable articles. --Deskford (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've never heard of any of them! However they may indeed be notable in some countries/styles etc they should be reviewed rather than deleted. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum: Looking more carefully, I have heard of (and heard music by) Jonty Harrison and Adrian Moore. Others I may have come across, though I am rubbish at remembering names! --Jubilee♫clipman 03:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you will find that the discussion of this proposal is over on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Empreintes_DIGITALes. The proposal has also been withdrawn, after numerous responses defending many of the composers on the list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are all almost exclusively electroacoustic composers and they are all quite important and well known within that field, which has developed as a significant parallel stream in contemporary music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDOCallaghan (talkcontribs) 09:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification needed[edit]

I am a trained musicologist and make my living from writing about music. I have to say that the following sentence seems elliptical at best, and I doubt whether it's at all illuminating to someone coming to the article hoping to be informed:

"Strictly speaking, the term "contemporary music" only retains meaning when it refers to a work's specific date of publication and/or performance and its subgenre of musical purpose."

Can anybody here explain what "its subgenre of musical purpose" is supposed to mean? And if they can, could they have a go at rewriting it into plain English? Thank you. Alfietucker (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking as another trained musicologist, I'm just as mystified as you are. Perhaps the person who wrote this sentence can explain it or, better yet, just plain fix it. In the meantime, I put my trust in Google Language tools, with a chain of translations that runs: English-Dutch-French-Malay-Japanese-English, resulting in:
CEO Steve Jobs is related to a specific date publicity and/or efficiency goals-genre.
I think that's much clearer, but perhaps still susceptible of improvement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps the best way to understand something isn't to declare that is had no meaning and than to attempt to understand that. Instead proposing a meaning may work out better. This is Wikipedia, and even small parts of sentences may have been written over large periods of time by a multitude of people. Regardless, you can rewrite it right now.

The sentence as a whole seems to be saying that "contemporary" should be taken in context, both time and, if not place, then (intended) genre. If we simply remove "of musical purpose" doesn't the sentence make sense? Hyacinth (talk) 07:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The edit that inserted those words was made here by Rbbloom (talk · contribs). I would remove a whole lot more than those words though, Hyacinth: "contemporary music" isn't a genre or subgenre it is really a period; "a work's date of publication and/or performance" could refer to anything posthumously published (even a work by Perotin...) or performed recently (ditto). With those words also removed, we have: "Strictly speaking, the term "contemporary music" only retains meaning when it refers to" ... what? Well the answer to that question obviously even eludes our esteemed musicologists! I prefered the original sentence, which was replaced by the present non-sequetur, and vote we restore it --Jubilee♫clipman 08:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could simply add first, as in "first publication or performance", or replace it with "date of composition" or "date of creation". Since I didn't bother yet to look at the changes made, I don't know what "original" sentence you are referring to, but it is surely a copy as is this "non sequitur". Hyacinth (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
“In the strict historical and musicological terminology, the term "contemporary music" can not be defined.” I think that is much truer... Trying to actually define the term "contemporary music" is like trying to measure the distance to the moon with a 30cm ruler or calculating Pi to 100 decimal places using a abacus, IMO. It can be done but you need to be very precise at every turn... --Jubilee♫clipman 13:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We go from "clarification needed" to "don't bother". Hyacinth (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If that's the case, I guess we may as well delete that sentence and be done with it. Alfietucker (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opening sentence/article title[edit]

Upon reading the source cited, no where does it suggest that post 1970s music should be termed 'contemporary classical music'. While modernism isn't as pronounced as it was between the 50s-70s, it is by no means an abandoned aesthetic, so it is not really a suitable cut-off point. Furthermore, this is not a term actively used by musicians, or academics who work in this field, to describe music of this kind, or even the 'classical tradition'. I suspect a more appropriate term is 'contemporary art music', to echo the sentiments above. To clarify, I'm not arguing that music since 1970 isn't contemporary, but I am arguing it isn't contemporary because it is in the post of modernism. It suggests that all post 1970 new music is postmodernist, which it certainly isn't. Jabbercat (talk) 15:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you can see from the discussion at the beginning of this page, there was quite a scrap over this issue some while ago. The Botstein citation was faulty, in that someone did not understand the difference between "¶" (paragraph) and "§" (section), so that the citation pointed to paragraph 9, which is the beginning of section 4. I have fixed this, but I don't think it actually was the source of your objection, which is perfectly valid, in my opinion. Botstein is an "authority", however (or what on Wikipedia is termed a "reliable source"), and he does confirm part of what is being said in that sentence—but not, as you correctly state, that the term "contemporary" out to be applied to the period after the mid-1970s. The real issue here, though, is that the lede section is only supposed to summarize the material presented at greater length in the article itself. As such, there should ordinarily be no need in the lede for any citations at all, since evidence will be presented elsewhere in the article where these matters are discussed in full. The way this article is presently laid out, such definitions should be found in the section headed "Categorization", though it looks to me as if this section regards the definition of "contemporary classical music" as a fait accompli, and is proceeding to describe examples within this assumed timeframe.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links[edit]

This article seems to have accumulated quite a farm of external links of dubious value. Do any of them conform to our external links policy or add value to the article? Should we, in fact, boldly delete the entire section? --Deskford (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My link keeps being removed for SPAM, even if it is in topic. If we don't want to accept further links, I wonder why keeping the existing. So I do agree with Deskford. --Armonite (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, Deskford. I started checking and deleting. I wouldn't object to someone boldly deleting them all, but for now I'll keep checking them. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Williams[edit]

Thanks to Jerome Kohl for bringing attention to a hidden-text comment regarding the inclusion of John Williams in the section about Neo-romanticism.

The comment (author unknown to me) is: "Should John Williams be included here? Arguably, he is not a 'serious' composer in the art music tradition and has written little concert music."

I personally think the mention of Williams should stay, though sourced. The argument that "Arguably, he is not a 'serious' composer" is in my opinion irrelevant. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide whether Williams is "serious". He has written concert music. With that said, it should definitely be sourced - as should any content on Wikipedia.

Regards, --Danmuz (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quite so. It seems to me the issue is whether Williams is documented as a notable composer of "serious" concert music. There is no doubt that he has composed such music, just as countless other notable film-music and popular-music composers have done.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, I do understand the concern. However, his "classical" works has been performed and recorded by many notable ensembles and musicians. Also, unlike many of the popular-music composers that have composed such music, he actually compose the whole thing himself (doing his own orchestrations, etc.). Finally, it seems he has a rather significant output of concert works. I think it sets him apart from most of the other "popular music" composers. Whether the music is actually "good" or "serious" enough is not up to us to judge. --Danmuz (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't mean to imply that it was up to us to judge; all that I meant to say was that a reliable source needs to be found that supports the claim of notability in this field.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry if I implied that. Absolutely, we need sources. Danmuz (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a list of his recorded concert works: - please don't get me wrong, such a list in itself does not necessarily establish notability but it can be used as a starting point. Danmuz (talk) 20:12, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am already aware of his concert music, as implied above. My opinion of it is evidently much lower than yours but, as we have already agreed, this is of no significance whatever to this article, or any other article on Wikipedia. Neither does quantity matter in the slightest. Any number of composers are notable for only a single work.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we are in agreement. Actually, my opinion of Williams' concert works is not that high, at least not of the ones I have heard. As a composer of film music I find him in the pantheon yet the "pure" concert works I have heard have not caught my interest at all. My rather strong and defensive response here was caused by the argument in the "hidden-text-comment" that he and his work are not "serious". I think they are. I may not hold them in high regard, but I think they are indeed to be taken seriously regardless. Kind regards, --Danmuz (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well said, thank you for clarifying your position. There is the additional, much larger question of who goes into a short list like this, and whether including Williams sets a notability standard by which other composers might be measured. Indiscriminate lists are strongly discouraged on Wikipedia, and there are so many active "contemporary classical composers" that it would not be difficult to make this list indiscriminate without violating the principle of notability.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

highSCORE Festival (Contemporary music festivals)[edit]

I have worked in the field of music for 10 years now in executive positions. I've been considered as a spammer, but I went through WP:EL and WP:NOT, and I'm not sure my links could be really considered as SPAM in the context they were. But this is not the point now. Regardless of who is posting a contribution, the contribution must be consistent with 1) the context; 2) the quality level of the information contained in the page; 3) the need of citing the information. For these reasons, I can't agree with the elimination of the highSCORE Festival link under the Contemporary music festivals section, because it is consistent with 1) the context; 2) the quality of the other links cited; 3) the need of citing the information, as other festival links have been cited. In addition, the link was there from 10 February 2010. In line with the above mentioned consistency criteria, I'm going to propose 3 alternative solutions to go over the dilemma: a) We boldly delete the Contemporary music festivals section, as we don't consider it appropriate in the context. In this case, the External links are redundant also; b) We establish the eligible principles with regard to the quality level of a festival whose link can be mentioned; c) We accept to add the highSCORE Festival link, as similar (and maybe worst) festivals are cited.—Armonite (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links were removed to all festivals that don't have their own articles on Wikipedia. Having a separate article that is uncontested and has been present for some time is often taken as an indication of notability, and many editors feel that a list such as this should only include internal links to such articles. --Deskford (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The precedented existence of a dedicated page on Wikipedia is neither a parameter of quality, nor of notability. The worst implication of this metric is the self-referentiality which brings notability to what exists on Wikipedia. I'm not going to use Facebook as a metric, but a good argument confuting your idea of notability resides in the Facebook pages of all the festivals indicated here. They have much, much less fans than the highSCORE Festival page. This is a dead-end street: We need to either use another metric or get back to my 3 alternative solutions.—Armonite (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A long time passed since my last message. If none disagree, in a few days I will be happy to add the link again —Armonite (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sketchy citation.[edit]

The following sentence in the Neo-Romanticism section is cited, but it is a non-internet citation, and the claim and the way it is put are somewhat sketchy, and the use of "at least", makes it more so. If someone has access to the source and could check this would be good.

It never has been considered shocking or controversial in the larger musical world—as has been demonstrated statistically for the United States, at least.[20] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Straus compiled statistics only for the United States. It does not seem very likely that his findings would not apply elsewhere, as well, though the claim to which he was responding had to do only with the US, also. Does that help?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, yes. The Musical Quarterly is available online, but only through subscribing institutions. Perhaps individuals can access for a fee, as well. I could look into adding a link, if you think this would be desirable.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pages 322-329 of that issue consist entirely of bar charts, showing whose music was played/won prizes/was reviewed/ etc., with the bars representing tonal/atonal/serial/experimental, and a different chart for organization doing the reviewing (Time/Musical Quarterly/New Yorker/Guggenheim Fellowships) Whoever wrote the line seems to be drawing a conclusion from the charts. ( Antandrus (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hold my hands up, it was me. However, pp. 322–29 are not the sole citation. Granted, "et passim" is vague, so I have replaced it with specific page numbers, and added a quotation from Straus summarizing his conclusion, instead of just paraphrasing it. I hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent -- thanks. To my eye the charts supported the line anyway, so I wasn't really objecting. (Coincidentally, I had just been reading that article a couple of days ago -- enjoying my new access to JSTOR courtesy of the Wikimedia Foundation.) Antandrus (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Contemporary classical music. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2018[edit]

"Contemporary classical music" is a bad label. Music's Boulez will not contemporary for hundred years. (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dissonant harmonies 2001:FD8:6A0:1DA3:A513:15A8:4770:F55A (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]