Talk:Music/Archive 2

message: #intro: "Music, often an art/entertainment, is a total social fact whose definitions vary according to era and culture," according to Molino (1975: 37), often contrasted with noise. According to Nattiez (1990 p.47-8,55): "The border between music and noise is always culturally defined--which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus....By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be." See: definitions of music.
#Definitions
##Music as sound
##Music as subjective experience
##Music as category of perception
##Music as social construct
#Aspects of music: pitch, duration, timbre, intensity
##Common Terms: melody, harmony, chord, chord progression
#Performance:
##Solo and Ensemble
##Oral tradition and Notation:
##Improvisation, Interpretation, and Composition
###Compositional Methods: form, consonance and dissonance, modulation, twelve tone technique, serialism, process
##Media: Radio, CDs and other recorded media, album, television: music videos, notation
#Audition
#Training, Education, Theory, and Study
##Training: apprenticeship, private study
##Education
##Study
###Theory: see "Common Terms" and "Composition"
#Types of music:
##Art/Classical: One broad and common grouping of music is as art music or classical music traditions.
##Popular & Folk: The previous category is often compared and contrasted with Popular music, which includes both modern commercial music and folk music. As opposed to classical music, popular music exists in all cultures.
#conclusion
User:Hyacinth/Outlines
Very nice. I like it.
Stirling Newberry 04:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed outline

message: I thought I was able to find a source which:
# I agreed with
# those with whom I've disagreed could agree with, and
# could structure the disagreements
Yet much of the work I put in was undone by User:Stirling Newberry for the stated reason that it uses too many citations, or too many from one work. I do think the article is still better off than it was, having benefited greatly from the Nattiez and Molino derived framing of the issues. I am wondering if there are other reasons? Hyacinth 00:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Semiology

message: Music a sublime mental factor that causes the mind to give way to emotion.  I actually feel depressed when listening to certain composers like Beethoven.  Others make me feel restless, and others -- calmed.  whatever........
:Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Hyacinth 18:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ...

message: Music is SOUND, goddamn.
Lyrics are like poems, or whatever. They're not music at all.
Now, you guys can watch it to keep those links down there, but it'll be nonsense, still.
:You vandalized this article .  CryptoDerk 07:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
::You vandalize Wikipedia.
::(above comment by 200.103.119.29)
:While lyrics are sound too so that's a pretty ... overgeneral definition of music already.  Lyrics are only part of a song; I think we agree songs are music.  However, the list of lyrics sites would be better off on lyrics which already has this list and more.  How about adding lyrics to the see also and remove the links that way? Sketchee 18:23, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
But lyrics themselves are not music, until you create a melody to put them on. If you replace lyrics with "la la la's" the music normally will suffer subtle changes in it's form only, while if you take off the melody from some lyrics it's not music anymore. But anyway, I think you have a sensible solution for that. 201.14.82.165 16:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: True enough but the same can be said for notes, rhythm, form, timbre and a lot of other things mentioned in the article if they're seperated from each other. Anyway I'll wait and see if anyone else has any input --Sketchee 19:40, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Ditto. But thing is there's no music without notes, rythm etc. (generally) and a complete musical piece is possible without any lyrics. It's not an element that constitute music. I mean, WHAT you say is not important musically, and that's what lyrics sites are all about.
I took the liberty of removing the lyrics sites myself as well as a few others which I don't think they belong in a broad-scope article like this one; better in the related subtopics. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lyrics are NOT music 

message: I added a cleanup notice to this page -- There's a fair amount of NPOV and related issues (such as the page going into first-person at some points), and the flow of the page is all over the place. It goes into 'definitions' and then into 'aspects of music', and then back into 'definitions', and such. I really couldn't read it at all, it's such a jumble. Honestly, I would be surprised if this could be fixed up without a near-complete rewrite. Twiin 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not go into first person, it quotes an author writing in first person, though this may not the best way to quote that information it does not attempt to present that POV as NPOV, which would be an NPOV issue. Hyacinth 06:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: This article definitely needs the "first" definitions section to be trimmed and excess moved to the definitions of music article. Hyacinth 07:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: Do you have a proposed outline for a rewrite? (not that it is required, it's just interesting) Hyacinth 07:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I moved the extra definitions sections to Definitions of music (which also, especially now, needs work). Hyacinth 21:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I removed the cleanup notice as I reduced the redundancy. Hyacinth 09:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Can you describe the innaccuracies and your proposed changes? I ask because the section contains three citations (and I wrote it). Hyacinth 20:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, you may wish to first address your concerns at Aspects of music and Talk:Aspects of music. When that article is satisfactory it can easily be summarized (re-summarized?) for this article. Hyacinth 20:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Beat you to it: #Proposed outline. Hyacinth 02:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup Notice

message: I believe the entire Aspects of Music section needs to be redone. I'm new to editing the Wikipedia, and don't know much of the markup, but I certainly know my music... :-) Anyway, a good deal of it is quite simply inaccurate, mainly in the importance of the elements and universality sections. Please let me know. I'd be glad to rewrite the article and have someone mark it up correctly. -James Kelleyjr47
:Can you describe the innaccuracies and your proposed changes? I ask because the section contains three citations (and I wrote it). Hyacinth 20:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you may wish to first address your concerns at Aspects of music and Talk:Aspects of music. When that article is satisfactory it can easily be summarized (re-summarized?) for this article. Hyacinth 20:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aspects of music

message: This section needs to be trimmed, with content possibly moved to Definitions of music. Hyacinth 17:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Music?

message: I think that the thing in this article that needs the most work is its plan of sections.  The article should be indisputably organised, and thus we should on a new layout of sections.  In other words, the entire article needs to be rearranged.
I think that most of the sections are too short.  This isn't necessary because there is not enough written, it is more that there are too many sections (though sections could do with elaboration; wikipedia is not a dictionary).  There should never be, in an article on a topic like this, just one subsection of a section; there is enough to write without needing to do this.
So, to move the article forward (we can always drive its improvement without it being in AID status), I say that editors of this page agree on the layout of the sections first.  (I don't have a specific proposal myself as I've only just seen this article for the first time, and I need to think about it before I give a proposal.)  And, I'm tempted to add a to-do list for this article, as there is so much cleanup to do - and, I reckon it still needs cleanup (enough to display the cleanup notice). Neonumbers 09:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beat you to it: #Proposed outline. Hyacinth 02:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup and Sectioning

message: I removed the following top level section from the article as it was redundant with sections above, poorly written, and I don't know what else music would be in besides society Hyacinth 02:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed