Template talk:History of Western art music

message: Is musical modernism an era or a movement? If it is an era, as is romantic music, then it should be in the template. Hyacinth 07:00, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Modernism

message: This version gives a little more information:
History of European art music	History of European art music
Early                        	Early
Medieval                     	(476 CE - 1400)
Renaissance                  	(1400 - 1600)
Common practice              	Common practice
Baroque                      	(1600 - 1750)
Classical                    	(1750 - 1820)
Romantic                     	(1820 - 1910)
Contemporary                 	Contemporary
Modern                       	(1910 - 2000)
Contemporary                 	(2000 - present)
Hyacinth 00:19, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The present isn't modernism, it is contemporary. Not even the 20th century is modernism, but "modern". Hyacinth 21:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Modernism (music) per SN's suggestion (part of 20th century classical music). Hyacinth 23:42, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leveled

message: The years given in the template do not match up with what is written in the very articles linked to. Please give justification for current years listed. Hyacinth 21:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ANYONE? Hyacinth 22:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Years

message: Considering this is to be placed on the page European-influenced classical music as the main article, shouldn't this template read "History of European classical music" and not art music, for consistency's sake?--Dmcdevit 04:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical? 

message: Template: has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Pax:Vobiscum 16:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Discussion ended (Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_3#Template:European_art_music_eras). Template deleted since it was made redundant by this template. Hyacinth 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TfD nomination of Template:{{ucfirst:European art music eras}} 

message: Hi! Baroque is part of "Early music" AND "Common practice". In fact, I don't know if "Common Practice" is a good categorization here... Lfjslohll (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baroque is a part of "early music" 

message: I've modified the template several times in recent weeks to try and bring some consistency to the uses of the terms "period" and "era".  It appears from general usage documented on the talk page of the article "Common practice period"  that in music history, a period normally represents a longer span of time than an era even though the opposite hierarchy is used in geology where an era is the longer span of time.  A curious exception is the classical "period" which is frequently so called even though is is a shorter span of time than the common practice "period" of which it is a part. In this case I have edited to call the classical time span an "era or period" to recognise both usages. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk 10:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Periods and Eras 

message: What's with the inclusion of style era and calendar era in Modern and contemporary period? It seems overly complicated. I think we should make a decision rather than sit on the fence. Squandermania (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and removed "CE". If someone wants to return it, fine, but please remove "AD" in that case. Using both styles side-by-side is pretentious nonsense. Even the "Jesus" article was able to rid itself this problem after years of foolishness, reaching FA in the process. I'm fairly confident that Wikipedia will survive if this template lowers itself from the proverbial fence of which you speak. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style vs. calendar 

message: Since no concise or official name has been given to the post common practice period, and since calendar eras don't really belong with the style eras, I think the best approach is to combine the most recent calendar eras into a single descriptive title for our own musical period.  ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk 23:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post common practice period 

message: Rococo music, or Galant music as in Wikipedia's article, is a transitory period between Baroque and Classical. So, it ought to be in the template.Dogru144 (talk) 22:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Read again; it's there between "Late Baroque" and "Classical era". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO "Galant era" is a misnomer though. There's no such "era", while "galant music" was composed as well in the Late Baroque as Classical eras, but is, afaik, not usually classified as an "era" in its own right, so seems a bit WP:OR-ish the way it is presented in the template now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: No Rococo in the template?

message: Serialism is over. Romanticism is over. It's not because composers still occasionally use these styles (like they do medieval music and whatnot), that the age of such music genres is still "on". --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But this is your simply opinion? You can't just decide that these things are over when composers still write in such styles. The ending dates for Serialism are made up – because it hasn't "ended", likewise there are still plenty of composers classified as "Neo Romanticism". I'd like to see some sources if you're going to make these claims, why would the Neo Romanticism exist if it were not real? And why would it be included over Neoclassicism? Aza24 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Afaik Arvo Pärt writes in the Tintinnabuli style since around the mid-1970s. That style is, afaik, not some sort of serialism (the Tintinnabuli article doesn't mention serialism even once). --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That is one example. I would like to see a source that explains how Serialism has ended, and how an important composer like Hans Abrahamsen is not serialist... Aza24 (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Abrahamsen has been dealt with: his article doesn't mention, nor has a reference to reliable source for, such assertions: consequently related navbox removed & adapted, & related category removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Francis, you're missing the point of what I'm saying. We need a source that explains when Serialism ended, if it did as you say this should be easy to find. The "1980s" is completely arbitrary at the moment, otherwise the movement simply hasn't ended. What about Milton Babbitt and Pierre Boulez they are clearly serialist and lived well into the 21st century? Aza24 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This source has "the three decades following World War II" for the era of serialism in Canada and "most western countries". Combined with what was already said about Pärt above,  seems a more appropriate delineation of the end of the era. Again, "era" – which does not imply that serialism (as a technique) was no longer practised beyond that era, like baroque music is still being composed in the 21st century, its era still being over. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serialism & Changes 

message: :Also, the ars nova etc. revert is pointless. MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is clear that they should be italicized since they are latin words "that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English". Sturm und Drang already does this, unless for some reason you think otherwise I would ask that you self revert. Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really something that should be discussed here (although indeed, your "partial" italicisation omitted to italicise these terms in this template). I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music as a better venue for a comprehensive discussion on that topic. --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a waste of time to me, we follow the guidelines and what reliable sources say, both agree with italicization... Nevertheless I will open a thread there. Any thoughts on my previous comments would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been stable without italicisation for a long period of time, and partial italicisations seem undesirable anyhow. So, either it is discussed, for finding a new consensus (see WP:BRD), or it would probably better remain as it is now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Italicization

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Template:W cl mu hist. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 16#Template:W cl mu hist until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Elli (talk | contribs) 05:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Template:W cl mu hist" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: I am beginning to think that this template should ideally be a lot more straight forward, something like the example to the right. There are two many assumptions and too much arbitrariness in the current format. What makes the three Ars more notable than the troubadour, trouvère and minnesang movements—they were the first real secular schools after all. Or what about the first major Italian period (Trecento) or the beginning of Polyphony under the Notre Dame School. If the latter is covered under Ars Antiqua then surely the Mannheim school is covered under the classical era. Galant music is presented (in the current state) as a major movement alongside Baroque and Classical, but clearly it was not—my proposed template would be its transitional status clearer (though admittedly, it can probably be formatted better, but I think the point is clear). The Late 19th-, 20th- and 21st-centuries has a huge host of problems; each "movement" has extremely arbitrary dates, most of which are not found anywhere in their respective articles. Impressionism is hardly a movement, but mearly a historical/musicological term for a handful of composers; Expressionist is a little clearer, but why not the "Second Viennese school" instead? Serialism is hardly a movement, but a technique which composers continue to readily engage with (there are plenty of recent and/or living composers in ). 
The point is, we are seriously streching the facts to make this template work in the state it's in, really it should just be the core movements and their transitions. The more specific characterizations should be left to more specific templates, such as ; after all, what use does a reader have been navigating between Ars nova and Impressionism? Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the lack of response, I'm going to go ahead and implement this approach. Aza24 (talk) 06:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Implementing this doesn't help anything so far. Yes it is more straightforward, but the issue right now is that the article on Modernism in music is missing a lot. It would be more helpful to keep the articles that have substantially more information on them. Right now the issue is not the template, it's expanding and organizing the articles. Xenoriole (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplifying the template 

message: EdwardElric2016, date changes are one thing, but I feel you are missing the fundamental point of this template when removing contemporary, 21st century and 20th-century classical music: its navigational value. There is no need for over-consolidation (otherwise, this template could just be "early music, common practice and new music"); we want to give readers the ability to traverse between these larger periods with ease, not limit this for the sake of extreme conciseness.
In any case, the new music article is a rather poorly written direct German translation by a now-banned user. It is not a well-defined term, simply because it is hardly used in scholarship (you'll see the entire article has no citations, including its proposed span of "1910 to the present"). Aza24 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of centuries