El directorio enciclopédico desde la Wikipedia.
[edit] ImprovementI definitely believe this complete article should be improved...I mean, it's the flagship-article of the music project! I'd do something about it myself, but I have no experience at all in matters related to wikipedic editing, perhaps some day i will learn.200.28.211.85 (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Considering the incredibly ambitious scope of the article, I'd like to say it's pretty brilliant, and I think it did a pretty good job of covering the world, too.Jeanhenley (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)jeanhenley [edit] CompositionA musical composition is a piece of music designed for repeated performance (as opposed to strictly improvisational music, in which each performance is unique). The music may be preserved in memory, or through a written system of notation. Compositions include songs to be performed by human voices, usually including lyrics, as well as pieces written for other musical instruments. I replaced this entire text, which I realize was cut-and-pasted from the Musical Composition stub. I'm going to go change the stub too. It's much too limited for modern discourse on composition; it essentially describes Western classical music. I attempted to do something about that. Maybe someone else can help? --JEMathews 22:28, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Music Editing WikiIs there a wiki or other site or that allows the contribution and editing of an originial piece of music? Like colaborative writing but for music! Jaberwocky6669 20:28, May 13, 2005 (UTC) [edit] What does it mean?"In support of the view that music is a label for a totality of different aspects which are culturally constructed". Where is the sentence, the idea?
[edit] Music is not to be compared to walkingMusic cannot be simply be used in any analogy, walking being a very bad example at that. I can expect the human (body) to be capable of "walking" in any sense, not even as a mere physical capacity or motor function, but in any case as a biped vertebrae actively and voluntarily propelling itself through space. I'm cool with that. But to put music next to walking is to make the assumption that music is the thing every human has conditionally all to readily, or at least to be tempted to do so. Music cannot be defined from a top-down perspective, as it is already a construction in and of itself. To call everything music as you please or see fit is not necessarily wrong, but an active process, ever evolving and in being. It has become virtually impossible to ignore "music". "Music" is slowly conquering the planet as a perspective happily riding the back of - and itself part of - global consequences of everything involving global constructs, like free market economy as a cultural lingua franca. At the same time there is always something already there, ready to be called music. Fine. Cool. But remember that "music" did not exist in many cultures until introduced as "such", undefinably defined as one "thing", that wasn't even many "things" before, but many "non-things" at most, that did not know each other, because there was no way of comparing. To take an "example" (it is not an "example", but of course only an intangeble, invisible thread to what might have once been): gamelan, as now known on Java and Bali, was never referred to as one "thing", but always as an ensemble - that is the instruments and the "musicians" as a whole. Feel free to compare, or accept that you have no choice. Whatever. Just don't put music next to walking. From my point of view it just seems silly. But hey, nobody's perfect. To elaborate just a bit more, I could add that activities we call music do not exist in and of itself anyway. Good job of the wiki community to focus mostly on music as a "social construct". Cool, I'm for it. I will not be able to generically define "music", so I won't. But let's take the last church service I visited. "Music" all over the place, but no "music" to be found. Silence, you ask? No. It's just that the "about" was more important than the "music", either structurally, socially and functionally. May I perhaps conclude that there is no reference possible to the "one music", only to the one "service" at that? Perhaps. It does seem like the one unit I can refer to, the case being I just did. Even over the social or the religious "context". There just seemed to be a whole that was not deducible. Perhaps comparable to gamelan. But who wants to know about the generic, really. There is more text to be added, but perhaps later. First I have to copyright is, because we have created the perfect world wherein writing loads of BS bring in food. And food is good.
[edit] Deaf people listening to music is a non sequitur in cognition sectionUnder 'music cognition' there appears to be piece of information about deaf people listening to music that should be contextualized within the framework of music cognition. The first paragraph is good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.18.121 (talk) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC) [edit] Improvement driveA related topic, Percussion instrument has been nominated to be improved on WP:IDRIVE. Come and support the nomination there or comment on it.--Fenice 06:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC) [edit] Request for inputA new article claims that a young man named Tireh has a world-record-tying vocal range. Another wikipedian requested verification, and the creator provided audio samples. I have no musical expertise to judge them, and in general input to the conversation at Talk:Tireh from more musically knowledgeable Wikipedians than myself would be appreciated. Thank you — Pekinensis 05:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC) [edit] Start of this article too abstract?Hi, I just wondered by this article and found its opening perhaps a little too abstract for the start of an encyclopaedic entry. Can't it start with something more straightforward, even if not wholly accurate or all-embracing, to be refined further into the article? Cheers, 212.84.98.204 00:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC) I left the comment above before creating a user profile. Having now wandered about Wikipedia a little more, the music portal's first paragraph strikes me as a more inviting way to start an article about music. David Kernow 17:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Regarding: "Those that define music as an external, physical fact, for example "organized sound", or as a specific type of perception" ---- The 'what is music' section is sometimes incorrect, generally incomplete and overall far too inspecific to be usefully included, but this line really makes no sense. Firstly, music can't be a fact. There might be facts about music (if you think musical properties are genuine properties that can be parts/constituents of facts), or facts about the experiences people have when listening to music, but music itself cannot be a fact. So at the very least change the word 'fact' to 'object'. Secondly, the idea that 'music... is a specific type of perception' seems dubious on the same grounds, but should at least not be lumped together with the first claim which is hardly the same thing. Perhaps, if you want to go into groups of definitions, a better way to split it up is into the important intrinsic definitions (e.g. sound is: 'significant form'; 'a vehicle for emotional expression' (Tolstoy); 'toenend bewegte Formen' (Hanslick), etc. etc.), then functional definitions (e.g. Beardsley's 'sound organised for aesthetic appreciation', also Urmson), procedural definitions (e.g. Danto, Dickie and all the Institutional stuff), historical definitions (e.g. Levinson), definitions emphasising music's social role, and then anything else you want. I don't know what this transcendental ideal is or how string theory gets involved - to say this stuff is unpopular in the philosophy of music vastly overrates it (and frankly it's a bit of an insult to the whole discipline to include this and not one theory actually written by a philosopher of music!) Words like 'metanarrative' and 'metasubstance' just masquerade as being informative and only serve to obfuscate the real issues, which can and should be laid out in non-technical vocabulary. (If any such issues are to be found in that last paragraph.) Cage's view would probably be more fairly presented if his addiction to Zen philosophy were noted. But even he doesn't say *anything* can be music - tables and chairs can't, for example. And 'fascistically imposes this definition of everything'? Rather harsh (and a clear misunderstanding). Either a definition proposes normative constraints for the use of a term, or it's a factual enumeration of what things have been called music. Clearly Cage is offering a definition of the former variety, and in that sense it's no worse than someone suggesting that anything that is music has to respect tonality (which 'fascistically' excludes serial music, for example). (In fact, given that Cage's view is far too liberal to make any sense, it's hard to see how it's fascist in the slightest!) Hope this all helps. Zenpea 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image?Wouldn't it be appealing to the eye to include at least one image in this quite central article? Karol 09:12, 22 October 2005 (UTC) [edit] What has 'energy world' to do with music?Would someone care to explain the reference to the energy world (and 'worlds' in general) quoted in the lead para as part of the definition of music?--Light current 04:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] In need of revision...?Hello again. Further to my post above, I've read this article again after a few weeks and still feel it is a little too abstract, especially the opening few paragraphs. I'm willing to work on trying to make it more straightforward, but am hesitating before "being bold" as I'd prefer no-one who's worked on (and is still watching) the article to feel the need to revert (rather than edit) any contributions I make. To give you some idea of what I have in mind, I'd first try recasting the opening as an expansion of the Music Portal's introductory paragraph. I agree, for instance, that the walking analogy and phrases such as "energy world" are not particularly useful (see threads above). Please leave a message here, on my talk page or send me an email, especially if you feel I might be onto a non-starter. Thanks.
[edit] IntroductionI reverted the introduction to an older version written by me (at a time when there was no introduction) that I feel is superior:
I feel this way based on the following priorities I have for the introduction:
Despite my obvious feelings of ownership for this definition I must also point out that I do not agree with it. However, I feel it is the most common definition (or rather that its components are the most common components of definitions of music) and the one which is the most clear to a reader and most prepares a reader for the further detail later in the article. There is no need to rehash every POV conflict in the main body of the article in its introduction. As an alternative I would suggest the same introduction but with qualifications, something like:
Hyacinth 11:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC) [edit] PicturesI am a musician, but not someone who "studies" the topic. I was reviewing this article for Wikipedia 1.0 and noticed that the intro had been spoilt by a picture inserted by a known vandal. I removed this pic and decided to replace it with 3 more suitable pics from Commons. However those more expert than me may feel my additions are inappropriate or in the wrong place, please feel free to edit these, I simply thought that the article should have some appropriate pictures. Also do you think a short section on musical instruments would be appropriate, with a link to the main article at musical instrument? Cheers, Walkerma 06:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC) [edit] Mention of rhythm in the introduction, perhaps?I find it hard to swallow that whoever has written this article has managed to 'forget', in the entire six or seven paragraphs of the introduction the importance of time in music. Personally I have only come across ONE type of music without (much) rhythmn - atonal music - and no one likes it much anyway. I have, however, heard plenty without the authors' asserted 'bastions' of music, harmony and melody. Does this need a change, how about something a little less eurocentric guys?
[edit] John CageI removed the word "fascistically" and replaced with "arbitrarily" (encyclopaedic tone); that sentence still seems a bit unclear to me as to what Cage's critics were actually saying (and its relation to the following musicologist's statement) Leon... 01:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] String Theory?Can someone please explain to me how string theory is an analogy between music and physics?
[edit] Lack of Humanistic PerspectiveI find this article's explanation of music extremely dissatisfactory. It treats music purely from a scientific perspective in descriptive and unfeeling terms. For instance, it gives three definitions of music, one asserting that all sound is music, one that music is a cultural construct, and one that it is some platonic ideal, without any further explanation. These definitions fail to take advantage of the fact that humans will be reading the article, not some robot who will never feel music. I am no scholar in music, but I know that hundreds of important figures in history have described how music affected them, poetically, metaphorically, or otherwise. These quotations describe how music affects the interior. What good is a definition of music if it only treats externalities? The externalities are important, yes, but far more people care about how music makes them feel. I suggest that a list of prominent ideas about music as it affects the interior be provided. The rest of the article is similarly biased toward the externalities of music. It describes how different cultures organize sounds in different ways, and the contexts in which music is encountered, written and studied, but has only a single, paltry sentence to explain what music does that impels people to listen: "Music theory, within this realm, is studied with the presupposition that music is orderly and often pleasant to hear." Is this the best that music scholarship has to offer? That music is "orderly and pleasant to hear"? I would like to hear more about this. Finally, I find it extremely odd that the five references for this article include one by a psychologist, one by a sociologist, two apparently by a linguist, and just one that is actually on music theory, which appears to make very little appearance in the article. I suggest that this article on music be primarily written from the perspective of the musician and the listener, with scientific discourse being provided where appropriate. Volucre 22:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Poor First Paragraphs"The definition of music as sound with particular characteristics is taken as a given by psychoacoustics, and is a common one in musicology and performance. In this view, there are observable patterns to what is broadly labeled music, and while there are understandable cultural variations, the properties of music are the properties of sound as perceived and processed by people." This does not distinguish music from language, without spelling out what characteristics are in mind. Language is sound with particular characteristics, admitting of cultural variations and being perceived and processed by people. Actually, a better attempt is made in the paragraph below the one above, employing harmony and melody, but neither is necessary nor sufficient. (Just think about samba bands or something.) So you might add rhythm to harmony and melody. But then think about serial music, which seems to embody none of the three, since you're supposed not to be hearing a chaotic melody but inversions and retrogrades of hexachords. Or any other more obscure example. If you want to structure an introduction like this, ditch all the idle theory (of which the existing references are just a handful of arbitrarily picked examples) and start from the beginning. (Especially ditch the stuff about the platonic ideal and so on - for one, it's to do with the ontology of music and not the concept of it. And two, it just makes the article sound like the worst kind of student essay. No-one needs words like meta-narrative and meta-substance.) So how about the introduction mention some of the less typical examples of what has been considered music (Schoenberg and the serial school, aleatory music, Cage's 4'33, computer music, Japanese gagaku etc. etc.), and show that there's little more in common between them all than that music is always sound and that it always temporally extended (for even a momentary chord requires the notes to be heard simultaneously - i.e. situated in time). As this doesn't capture music any more than it captures performance poetry or conversation, the introduction could then run through a couple of accounts of possible extrinsic criteria to build on the intrinsic: perhaps music is sound that is meant to elicit an emotional response? or music is sound ordered for aesthetic appreciation? etc. and show the reader some of the plausible options. At least this way it would introduce the issue (the project of defining music), show why it's an issue (things the definition should capture are highly heterogenous), and show some possible solutions. At least that would give this bit some structure and purpose. zenpea 17:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AspectsI readded the lost Aspects of music section removed [1] for no reason. This readds reference notes 4-6. Notes 1-3 where removed when content was moved to Definition of music. This article is difficult to maintain. Hyacinth 09:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC) [edit] ImageImage:Gerrit van Honthorst - Het Concert.jpg I removed the above image, The Concert by Gerrit van Honthorst, since its not a real concert and doesn't seem informative. Hyacinth 10:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Platonic ideal
I removed the above. What is the platonic ideal of music? Hyacinth 10:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Music TherapyAlthough I dont know very much about the subject of Music Therapy, Does anyone else think it should have some sort of link on this page? I dont think it needs a full section but maybe a link in the see also part. Dangerhertz 14:47 9 April 2006 (UTC) [edit] Non-commercial professional
Such as? Hyacinth
[edit] Too Staunchy?The article should contain more about the diversity of music in the world and more than just a few short references to modern music. It largely discusses the professional and classical aspects of music and not much else. Perhaps a section on the diverse styles of music would be helpful. Some pictures of performances of modern music wouldn't hurt either.PierceG 03:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I'm wondering where these two articles are?
I searched and could not find them. Does wikipedia have them? DyslexicEditor 10:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Observations of External Links sectionThe music article is important and general. Some of the links in this section don't sem to qualify. The Cool Music site link and the Guipoo Music link both seem like spam to me. The first one also breaks NPOV, I think. So, I am going to try to be bold and remove them. Does anyone else disagree with my doing that? I also question whether some of the other links might not really qualify either. Does anyone have any ideas about this? Mildy Amused 19:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Also, I just realized something. The two links I will now be deleting were made by anonymous editors. Their IP addresses show them only making one post. It seems to confirm my thoughts about about them being spam. Mildy Amused 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I looked at each of the links. Most look like spam or they are too specific for the general word music. The website Music Web is a tiny "community" with very few posts and requires a log in. Its description sounds more like a television commercial and not NPOV.South Indian Music is not spam, but it seems too narrow to be on a general page like music. The Virginia Tech Multimedia Music Dictionary and probably Wikia's Music are the only ones that seem to apply. I looked at the very first time the Wikia Music site was created a year ago. Now I am not sure about that one either. So, is it really a good idea for us to really wipe out the links section and only keep two links? Mildy Amused 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Laura S and Wmahan, I totally agree with every point you both made made. If we're all in agreement, then we could delete them all except the two more appropriate links, The Virginia Tech Multimedia Music Dictionary and Wikia's Music. Do we all agree? Mildy Amused 15:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] Hip HopA recent edit brought this paragraph to my attention:
This sounds awfully POV, especially the part implying that hip-hop doesn't create "pleasant sounds", etc. It's also not sourced and is stuck in the "Education" section where it's totally out of place. Lastly, it was added by a user with no other edits at all. Would anyone object if I removed this paragraph? -- Laura S | talk to me 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LeadHere are some of the issues I'd like to resolve: I'm uncomfortable with silence being mentioned as one of the primary elements of music in the first line. Clearly, there is silence in music, and 4'33" is an important piece, philosophically and artistically. However, this is a survey article of an incredibly broad topic. Fundamentally, music is sound. Furthermore, tones are sound. Need the sentence say "sounds or tones"? I'm also uncomfortable with the adjective "human" as a defining characteristic of music. Most animals make music, birdsong being one of most clear examples. "Human" is also mentioned twice in the lead which seems unnecessary. I find the writing unnecessarily difficult to understand: "Music involves complex generative forms in time through the construction of patterns and combinations of natural stimuli, principally sound." Besides being difficult to parse, not all music is complex, and not all of it involves generative forms. Plus, what stimuli are we talking about besides sound? I think the entire sentence is unnecessary, at least for the lead. I had a try at revising some of this but my edits were reverted without comment. Can we please work together to improve this? Best wishes, MarkBuckles (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] Music as TimeHi MarkBuckles, I had earlier attempted to explain this, I would repeat it. You asked me whether anything was meant by the term "like sound" in music defn. Well, In music theory, music is the generative process of structures of time. It could be represented in different forms that could express structures and form of time and interval. Hence the German philosopher Goethe said "Architecture is frozen music". Literature uses alphabets to express ideas however literature is not the study of alphabets rather it is the expression and analysis of cultural ideas through writing. Alphabets are just the tools of literature. Hence in todays world, cinema is considered as a form of literature because a lot of modern expression of ideas is done through film. So it is not a hard and fast rule that expression of cultural ideas should only be through words, grammar or alphabets. In like manner musical expression (expression of structures of time) has traditionally been represented through sound. Meaning using sound as a tool for musical expression, just as literature uses alphabets as a tool for cultural communication. However there is no hard and fast rule that it should only be sound or that only sound could be used as a representation of structures of time. In fact most music scholars consider some of the greatest works of European classical music to be best understood only through the notational representation of music to be read and interpreted by each individual. This is particularly the case with the masterpiece composition Die Kunst der Fuge by Johann Sebastian Bach. This was further expressed in the dadaist music of 1912 by Viking Eggeling called as visual symphony or more popularly known as "diagonal symphony", which represented music in diagonal patterns of lines and intersections on film and the revolutionary concept of serialism by Schoenberg, Alban berg and Anton webern which is further expressed in minimalist music. Some of these ideas are also expressed in the classical rock masterpiece compositions like echoes by Pink Floyd (1971). P.S. It is important to use the expression "generative process" in the defn because that is the most defining characteristic process of music, of how few elementary notes interact to generate infinite forms, styles and compositions of music. May be we could remove the word complex. thanks for your collaboration. Robin klein 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC) [edit] ResponseHi Robin! Thanks for your response. :) I still have many concerns! Most of my points remain unaddressed: (use of the "silence" in the lead, use of "human", apparent redudant phrase "sounds or tones", and ease of comprehension. Regarding your explanation of time, firstly let me say that I'm sorry I'm unaware of your previous explanations and thank you for sharing with me. I remain really unconvinced however! I feel that the compositional devices you are mentioning (Art of the Fugue, Serialism, Minimalism) are all devices aimed at creating sound! Composers and scholars I've worked with have always made the point that "the music is not the score." The score is merely a prescription for sound, even in theoretical works - because without sound, there would be no basis for the theory. Am I misunderstanding your point? Regarding time, of course music exists in time, and this is one of the fundamental points of its definition which should be mentioned probably in the first sentence. However, I believe its medium is sound. Per your analogies to literature - I'm confused. I know there's a clear comparison with, for example, visual arts, which exist perpetually. Isn't there many things that exist in time though and not just music? Movies are not perpetual, at least no more than recordings or notated scores, and many non-artistic events occur in time as well. Do you see why I'm confused? Works like the dadaist symphony, Cage's piece, or thousands of other pieces of art that are associated with music are the exception to the rule, not part of the rule. Dictionary.com yields this definition: "The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre." Well, I find all three adjectives subjective, but I find the first phrase spot on. Music is artistic, it arranges sound, and it exists in time. Can we make our lead as clear? MarkBuckles (talk) 05:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
My point is this: The element of music as "time" and as a "generative process" (simple or complex) is most essential and any definition of music should state this in its main statement. (refer to Ray Jackendoff and Fred Lerdahl, Music psychology, Pitch class space, Cognitive Constraints on Compositional Systems and Generative grammar of music). Robin klein 18:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC) I think that "The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre." best describes music. Music is organised sound in its basis. I think reference to early music such as baroque, classical and romantic would be better rather than experimental composers such as John Cage. Just my opinion if it helps. :-) The existence of some modern-day genres such as death metal and grindcore, which enjoy an extensive underground following, indicate that even the harshest sounds can be considered music if the listener is so inclined. Is it just me or is that a really subjective line right there, for all we know the Beach Boys might be considered harsh in twenty years and grindcore reclassified as light pop. Also, all this jive about music is made to make you feel good is whack, I think just calling music the 'art of sound' or 'sounds arranged together' is about as neutral as you could get. [edit] Delete this sentence?
Anybody who once thought they new what music is certainly won't have clue after reading that sentence.
I'll suggest the entire sentence could be discarded and the sentence "Music is sound in time" could be moved into its place(which, in fewer words, achieves everything the original author intended). Any objections? Regards. 02:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC) [edit] Music History sectionI've just done a little revamping of the music history section. However, the full length article about music history contradicts this section (about the samaveda, I think), and its introduction is both clearer and more concise (and more to the point) than this section. What if I just cut the whole music history section and paste the intro from the history of music article? J Lorraine 08:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC) [edit] tv showi saw a recent tv show on channel4 uk which said that humans are pre set to like music the same way we are to learn a language user bouse23 1330 december3rd 2006 gmt
[edit] Definition of MusicRight now this article states "The broadest definition of music is organized sound that is pleasing to the average ear." However, as someone who has studied music education, I still don't think this is broad enough. I don't think the "average ear" part is the best term to use because there are many forms of music that are enjoyed by very few people. And besides that, the average ear enjoys top 40 and county music. An example of the non-average ear is Alvin Curran, whose "music" is a bit too far out there for me, but there are probably some people who enjoy it and consider it music. Other forms of atonal and non-tonal music are just as questionable to many people, but there are those that consider it music. I think a better broad definition is to say "The broadest definition of music is organized sound that is pleasing to a group of people." So I'm going to change the wording. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suso (talk • contribs) 15:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC). I've been thinking about it a lot and I have come up with the following defintion of music: 'Linear arrangement of sound-concepts for entertainment rather than utility.' I phone ringing is not music, it is purely functional, but those downloadable ringtones are, because they're embellishing to add entertainment value to the utility. I say 'sound-concepts' rather than just 'sound' because music written down is still music, is commonly referred to as such, and can even be 'heard' in the minds of trained music readers; and furthermore silence is part of music too. I say 'linear' because they must be linked, not just a big list of sounds. I think this definition successfully distinguishes the sounds which we call music and the sounds which we create but do not call music, and does so without making any assumptions about the audience or the reception.
My music teacher always said 'Keep It Simple Stupid' so he tells us the definition of music is 'A combination of sound and silence'. I belive music is a opinon of the lisener. The phrase 'Music to my ears' may mean good news, still the news may not be good to someone else. Rock-Style music may sound good to me, but someone else may say its just noise, not music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.254.66.213 (talk) 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC) [edit] The Cultural Similarities and Differences Between Music of Different Nations and People.I am writing a news article on The Cultural Similarities and Differences Between Music of Different Nations and People, and I was wondering what everyone's opinion on this is. It would be of great help and perhaps it may contribute to this Wikipedia article in some way, please get back to me if you wish to share your opinions. Psychron 15:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [edit] questionable paragraph (who can call themselves a musician)I don't think the following paragraph belongs in this article: "In professional music, a distinction must be drawn between musicians that perform and performers who make music. All musicians must perform, but not all musical performers can call themselves musicians. In order to be considered a musician, one must play a musical instrument reasonably well. Vocalists run into trouble in some instances, depending on whether critics happen to believe that a voice is an instrument; for example, Isaac Stern may be considered a musician, whereas Jessica Simpson may not." It strikes me as belonging in the realm of personal judgement (opinion) instead of encylclopedic information. I'll remove it if there's no objection. J Lorraine 09:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC) [edit] Music psychologyi found information in that site *link saying that music reduces the breathing rate and so reduces stress, the site is not refrenced, could i include this information in the music main page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:196.205.239.30 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Where?Is there, and if so, where is ther topic for music affecting on learning? ..awesomisticisms 06:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC) [edit] Ocean soundsOcean sounds - In popular music can be experienced what I call the ocean sounds. There is Indian (maybe the Indian Ocean) such as in ragss or George Harrison. An Atlantic sound such as in Celtic music and American music. And the American sound sound such as slide guitar and in country music. The American sound is related to the Hawaiian sound (Pacific Ocean) like Ukelele. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.116 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 24 May 2007 [edit] major revisions to the articleCosprings, I reverted the major reorganization of the article you did today. I can see you did a lot of work on it and I did not revert your changes casually. Your changes may even have improved the article, but there was so much changed all at once that couldn't tell if anything important was lost or modified. At least one thing was lost - there was an semi-protection template on the page that was there due to recent vandalism and your edits unintentionally removed that tempalte. Your help with the article is very welcome, it can certainly use improvement. But before doing something so major, it's important to discuss it with the other editors working on the article. Also, because your changes involved a reorganization of so many headings and "see also" or "main article" templates, we should go step by step, attaining consensus along the way. Or, if you want to do it all at once, we can create a new sub-page with your new version so we can look at it in full and decide if there is consensus for replacing the main page with the new version. If you don't know how to do that, let me know and I'll help you set it up with your edited version. Then you can ask the other editors here if they agree with your new organization, and if there is consensus, we can make the big change. You can contact me here or on my talk page. Thank you for your work on the article, I look forward to seeing the improvements once you engage in the process with the other editors here. --Parzival418 Hello 03:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] needs correction-Would someone fix this article so it's about something other than India??
[edit] Muslims and MusicI think the statement that 'Listening to music is considered a sin by Muslims' is quite inflammatory and strikes me as being a personal judgement, especially considering the Wiki article on Islamic Music. I think that it stinks of paradox because the reading of the Qu'ran itself, by the definitions made in this article, would cause it to be a an act of music and if listening to music is a sin, then listening to the a professional recitation of the Qu'ran would also be a sin. This is ridiculous, the statement should be removed. --preceding comment by User:LafcadioRobot
[edit] Popular music sectionThis article focuses exclusively on “art music.” It should have a section added on popular music (jazz, rock, rap, whatever), and at least one picture on the subject. --S.dedalus 22:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC) [edit] Concerns on stance with Amatuers.I noticed the phrase "in some rare cases amatuer musicians attain professional status" and do not think it entirely fair to amatuers. While it may or may not be the case that this is rare - I do not claim this is an area of special study for me - the point is implied that amatuers are a 'lesser breed' of musisians. I disagree. In many cases amatuers may simply choose not to 'go professional'. This point needs to be underlined in red ink, metaphorily speaking, lest a significant force in the musical world take offence. Targ Collective 194.81.176.254 15:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 1750 was not the date when Handel diedIn the section on baroque music, it refers to "1750, the year of the death of George Frideric Handel along with Johann Sebastian Bach". In fact, only Bach died in 1750; Handel died in 1759. The writer may have been confusing this with the fact that both Bach and Handel (and also Scarlatti) were all born in 1685. I think that this section needs a slight adjustment to fit these facts, but I am unable to make this adjustment at the moment. Is there anyone else who could rewrite this section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Gowers (talk • contribs) 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [edit] ChronologyAl-Farabi is included under "ancient" music. Wouldn't he be considered medieval? -Rosywounds (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC) [edit] Music and GeneticsLet me first say I am not a racist/social darwinist/nazi/asshole whatever. But I think there might be some connection between genes/national origin and what you like. I, for instance, am German/Scandinavian in ancestry and love hard rock/ heavy metal, and my friends of Northern and Eastern European origin like similar stuff, and Norway, Finland and Germany make lots of Metal. And the whole African diaspora has created music with similar rhythms worldwide. Does anyone know of any source where I might find stuff on this?Cameron Nedland (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] BiasWhy is this article so biased to Classical EUROPEAN music. This is such crap. This article as long as it is, does not even take into cognizance that we have 6 continents with people living on them. A short description on the nature of their own music with sublinks would be nice. This article needs serious editing. It's a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borninbronx10 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC) Completely agreed! Unfortunately this is the way that music is taught at a tertiary level at the moment, the rest of the world is relegated to "world music" or "ethnomusicological" units of study. Perhaps the "history" section of this article could (as suggested) list musical history by region of the world: Europe, Africa, South America, North America, Australasia, Continental Asia, South East Asia, Middle East, India. The difficulty is where to draw the line without making the article too unwiledy and long and how to define these regions. It could be argued that music history be moved to a different article all together (mind you History of music is just as Euro-centric).Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Is Wikipedia confined to articles that present topics the same way Western university do? Could you link to an explanation of this Wikipedia rule for me? I did not know the Western world owned music. I think it does not. How sad for readers to come to a general article about music in the 21st century and find that music is owned by a rather small portion of the world. --Blechnic (talk) 06:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
This article should come with this label, but it cannot be edited. Too many non-Western university students mentioning there was music in their country 1000 years ago? Perhaps.
See #Popular music section, above. Hyacinth (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC) I have placed a {Geographical imbalance} tag on this page. Meow meow - purr purr (talk) 13:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Thank you, Meow meow purr purr for posting the geogra | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
