Talk:Musical form

message: #Intro
#Single-movement forms: sectional vs developmental, developmental vs variational, extensional vs intentional
##Sectional forms, the larger unit (form) is built from various smaller clear-cut units (sections), combinational, sort of like stacking legos.
##Developmental forms, larger unit (form) is built from small bits of material given different presentations and combinations, usually progressive.
##Variational forms, larger unit (form) is built from sections treated to one type of presentation at a time, but varying succesively.
#Multi-movement "forms"
Hyacinth 20:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed outline

message: I'd like to "de-mystify" this article so it's more friendly to the person who wants to know what musical form is.  Begining the first section with the sentence "Forms and formal detail may be described as sectional or developmental, developmental or variational, syntactical or processual (Keil 1966), embodied or engendered, extensional or intensional (Chester 1970), and associational or hierarchical (Lerdahl 1983)", and you've lost most musicians, let alone non-musicians who come to the encyclopedia wanting to learn something about musical form.J Lorraine 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article can't use the terms such as development, variation, syntax, process, embody, engender, extension/intension, association, and hierarchy; a lot more of this article is going to have to be rewritten. Hyacinth (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course that was eleven years ago. Surely by now all that gobbledy-gookhas been replaced with plain, understandable English?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is hard to understand

message: Musical form needs first relating to the general concept of FORM, "a shape; an arrangement of parts" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1995) or "the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material" (Merriam-Webster, online 07 October 2012). Then the conventional wisdom about MUSICAL FORM needs to be problematised: why does musical "form" seem only to denote the episodic arrangement or shape of constituent elements over time and neglect the arrangement or shape of constituent elements in the extended present? Distinctions are in other words required between the episodic, extensional, diachronic or "horizontal" and the intensional, synchronic or "vertical" aspects of musical form. To exclude the latter and focus solely on the former is illogical since episodic form cannot exist if there is no variation or repetition of synchronic form on which it can be based. Calling one main aspect of musical form "form" and the other something else, as if it were not also form, is misleading and inaccurate. "Texture", a term sometimes used to refer to synchronic musical form, covers only one of its features. Synchronic form also involves movement, space, depth and volume, as well as the inclusion of musemes that are not all necessarily anaphonic. Tagg (2012: 383-385) suggests renaming the conventional episodic aspect of form "diataxis"  and calling its synchronic aspect "syncrisis". That way neither type of form has a misleading monopoly on the term and unequivocal reference can be made to these essential aspects of musical form. [Tagg, Philip: Music's Meanings. New York & Huddersfield: Mass Media Music Scholars' Press, 2012].  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etymophony (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamental definition and problematisation

message: To give a specific example of the incomprehensible jargon in this article, I must ask, what is the meaning of "apodigm"?  This word is used in section 4, titled "More recent developments".  I can't find apodigm in any dictionary or reference book.  Perhaps someone with musical expertise could add apodigm to the wiktionary?
71.207.203.133 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find it in any dictionary I have either. A google search turned up only a web hosting company named Apodigm and pages which had this same quote from Chester (including translations into French and Italian which left "apodigm" untraslated). I suspect he made the word up, and either we aren't clever enough or we don't know enough greek to know what he meant by it. 76.20.12.54 (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: apodigm

message: While I haven't read the book which is being cited, it appears (from reviews) to be about politically correct language in Britain, which seems rather incongruous as a source for this article.  If no one objects, I am going to remove both the sentence and the citation.  (The current sentence with citation reads: "In fact, pop music is much more complex in terms of musical form than all types of classical music (Browne, A. The Retreat of reason, 2006).") J Lorraine 07:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: citing "The Retreat of Reason"

message: A broad perspective: several works by various avantgarde  artists (also notable in the mainstream popular music) usually regarded as ambient, cosmic, new age, electronic music, such as Brian Eno, Tangerine Dream.... can't be cathegorized as "songs" or simply "instrumentals", becouse such music features complex structures and patterns that can be referred to as musical forms; examples: Eno's (Discreet music or the long cosmic compositions by TD. Dr. Who 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Musical forms in various avantgarde/popular music works

message: This is regarding Categories related to Form in Music.
I'd like to see everything together, but also a separate subcategory for Form in the compositional sense (period, transition, cell, cadence...etc.).  These subjects might get lost in the myriad "Dance Forms" (tarantella, sarabande...etc.).
Any ideas on how to do this efficiently?  There's so much material scattered everywhere!
Can someone combine the "Musical form" and "Musical forms" categories automatically?
--Roivas 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to consolidate all these '''Form''' links into one solid index

message: The numerous and repeatedly wikilinked references to Popular music give the appearance of an attempt to confer some merit on a genre which lacks it.  This is bad stylistically and also (in some cases anyway) unfair, and the statements are poorly referenced.  I'd suggest that the subsection on popular music currently near the lead - which section essentially says that pop music is too trivial to merit formal assignment - should be moved to the bottom to avoid distracting from the discussion of what is at root a method of classification of classical music.  Discussion of contemporary popular music is of tangential relevance only to the subject o musical form, and most of the early music forms, and a good deal of the classical repertoire, were popular music in their day.  So it's an arbitrary, poorly supported, poorly referenced and apparently gratuitous intrusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.214 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular music 

message: Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional citations

message: This article is entirely about the Western European historical tradition. It would be greatly enhanced by adding information about musical forms of other cultures on other continents. In short, a little ethnomusicological influence... Esn (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing stopping you from adding it. 108.60.216.202 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus is too narrow

message: There's nothing on Cyclic form in this article.
As to the term cyclical as used in this article, is it common or is it some editor's idea? The so called cyclical forms mentioned in this article (mass, ballet, opera, suite, etc.) are not really "musical forms" (as in sonata form, binary form, etc.). You might as well then include concerto and symphony among "musical forms". Contact Basemetal here 06:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyclic and cyclical 

message: The "thought-form" artwork is pretty, but it seems to have nothing to do with the subject matter of the article.  Does this picture belong here? 130.226.142.243 (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Yank it. A though form is not a musical form, even if it's a thought form about music. 38.86.48.38 (talk) 17:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture in lead 

message: I would like to suggest that this section be removed, or completely retooled. For one, there's nothing at all that connects the title of the section to its content. What "The formalist trap" is is never explained, nor is it at all clear what the content of the section has to do with "escaping" it. It seems to me that the basic thrust of the section is "you can just like develop things instead of relying on a predetermined form." But it uses unnecessarily convoluted language to make that point, and frames it in terms of a strange and, it seems to me, largely irrelevant polemic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:C500:88A0:3453:5C42:CA36:80B8 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Reviewing the edit history of this article, it appears that at some point seven or more years ago someone tried to reshape this article around the cited source by Middleton (which is specifically focussed on form in popular music). It was at some point long afterward that the present section heading was concocted. I don't have the patience to follow all of the editorial meandering, but it does seem clear that it gradually drifted into the morass that you so accurately describe. Personally, I am all for removing the section, though I am willing to listen to other opinions, if anyone can come up with an argument for reshaping it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in a group that's working on this page as a class project, and we're thinking the same thing. Unless there are any objections, we'll remove it, potentially replacing it with a discussion of evolving formal practices, or the subversion thereof, or something.Ekkobekko (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does "Escaping the formalist trap" Do for this article? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Musical form. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715170614/http://www.rem.ufpr.br/REMv9-1/kokoras.html to http://www.rem.ufpr.br/REMv9-1/kokoras.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Hi, everyone! Newbie on a wiki-ed project here... Noticed that there is a book called "The Ninth Juror" in the further reading section. It is, um, not about music. Shall I go ahead and remove it? Ekkobekko (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely! You do not have to ask in cases such as this (See: WP:BOLD). I would remove it myself, but I don't want to deny you the pleasure! Oh, one thing: When adding a new topic to a talk page, it is customary to place it at the bottom of the page, to preserve chronological order. Welcome to Wikipedia!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Unrelated Source

message: It does not seem to me that the ketawang structure illustrated in the lead of the article describes a musical form. As the complete description of the image says, this is a "ketawang colotomic structure", and a colotomy is "a description of the rhythmic and metric patterns of gamelan music." Following the circumference of the circle indeed describes a repeating rhythmic pattern, forming a kind of ostinato played by four instruments. (The letters along the circumference denote instrument names.) Such an ostinato pattern cannot really be considered a "musical form", IMO. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ketawang structure and musical form 

message: The "Levels of Organization" section is perplexing. It is mostly unsourced, and the terms "passage," "piece" and "cycle" -- where is this from? Is there a music theory source that uses these terms in this way? I can't find a source that does. It reads as if the author means "phrase" "movement" and "full work," but that is both Eurocentric, and leaves out other levels. Above the phrase, there should be the level of section, before we get to a full piece. This should be edited in brought in line with standard sources in music theory and maybe ethnomusicology. Caper2112 (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levels of Organization 

message: According to section headings, popular music is largely unrepresented. The heading "Common forms in Western classical music" is the only section describing the different sectional forms. It also omits to mention many of the common popular forms.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musomox (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular Music 

message: I don't understand the purpose of the gong diagram at the top of the page... Adamilo (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't either... See above, Talk:Musical form#Ketawang structure and musical form. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 07:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gong? 

message: it refers to the structure of a musical composition 103.161.60.87 (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAPEH