Talk:Parody music

message: Wouldn't a mention of P. D. Q. Bach be appropriate? Binksternet 13:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very funny, but is it parody? Not all musical humour is. Have a look at the definition at the top and see what you think yourself.  Soundofmusicals 23:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 'yes'. Binksternet 05:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PDQ Bach?

message: Not in an encyclopedia, where terms have to have some kind of meaning!! Most French and German 19th century operetta is in fact MUCH more "operatic" than G&S - the works they wrote together are really intermediate between true operetta and the later form of musical comedy - and were were only dignified with the name "Comic Opera" at the time:
1. As a joke!! (Quite a good one too, of course).
2. In order to studiously avoid the "operetta" label and thus avoid the "saucy" implication (German and French operetta was often rather naughty) and so (hopefully) to attract a larger audience. They certainly got a big audience - but lots of staid Victorian critics STILL found them a bit questionable, and the really fastidious continued to stay away. They were considered "unworthy" of a composer of Sullivan's standing exactly because they were classed as "popular" rather than "classical" music.
By any rational definition, they are either English language operettas - or perhaps proto-musicals!
Only Yoemen, (and perhaps Ruddigore) is even close to being a "comic opera" (much less an "opera", since the term on its own implies a serious opera).
None the less - having noted your tenacity over questions like this - I have reworded the offending sentence in an attempt at compromise.Soundofmusicals 09:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, Gilbert and Sullivan (and their producer Carte) called their joint works "operas" (a "nautical opera", a "piratical opera", a "fairy opera" a "Japanese opera", an "original comic opera", etc.).  They wished to distinguish their pieces from Continental operetta, particularly French operetta, which they considered bawdy and too risque for family entertainment, and also, in England, usually badly translated and sloppily produced.  The participants of the Gillbert and Sullivan project have consistently agreed to honor the authors' wishes in the terminology used for the Savoy operas, and our WP:Consensus is also supported by virtually all of the writers who have written scholarly books about G&S, including Stedman, Jacobs, Ainger, Bradley, Allen, etc. (see the list of references at the bottom of the Gilbert and Sullivan article and the Arthur Sullivan article).  If you read Jacobs' introduction, he lays out his reasoning for using the word "opera" with respect to each of the G&S works.  All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Gilbert and Sullivan "operas"?

message: - The Capitol Steps.
- Mark Twain's "Battle Hymn Of The Republic", Brought Down To Date".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.74.1 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable emissions

message: In the light of the earlier discussions I have been playing about with the text of the article in my sandbox. I've done what I can with the classical part, with the aid of Grove, and I thought perhaps to spin off the complete text of the "popular music" section into a separate article, leaving a shorter version of it on this page, concentrating on the most notable examples, and referencing them properly. Before I go much further down this route, may I invite comments from interested editors? I don't want to tread on any toes. Tim riley (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Yes, and a great start, signalling the way ahead, imo. Suggest perhaps highlighting a wee bit more the fact that the older usage of the word survives as a technical term commonly used by musicologists and historians.  MistyMorn (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, I think, but see what you think. Add more, by all means, if you think it's still lacking. Tim riley (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Support. Considerable improvement there over the current article. I do still wonder why 1918 is being treated as a watershed, though.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Support. (Very strongly). You knew that already but... --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Later: I think I've about done. I hope someone who knows about popular music will look carefully at my summary of the spun-off article. I have absolutely no proprietorial feelings about any of this article or the spin-off one, and shall not be in the least put out if other editors edit vigorously. Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, so much better than the previous article... Very impressive indeed - although there is still very possibly room for improvement I think we have the basic framework right at last. Well done! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ha!  I need only go on vacation for a few days, and I return to see that Tim riley has rescued another article!  Well done, indeed!  -- The "Brisk Angel" ( Ssilvers (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible redraft

message: Can we add material about the likes of StSanders or Bad Lip Reading? Though not parody in the strict sense, it can be explained here as well. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As discussed above, I plan to spin off the large Popular Music section to its own article, leaving only a general overview on this page. I think your additions would be more appropriate to the new page, which I hope to have up within a few days. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is now up: Parody in popular music. If adding your suggested info, please be sure to add citations to a reliable source. Tim riley (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Other types of parody