Talk:Modernism (music)

message: I made charles ives's name a link. May 15, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.251.13 (talk) 
:Thanks for being bold. Hyacinth 22:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Small Edit

message: I think that something should be said of the more traditional theory of Modernism being started with Tristan und Isolde. Even if one doesn't necessarily agree with this it still needs to be put out there.  Also something more should be said of Stravinsky.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gingermint (talk • contribs) 21:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wagner

message: I've added a  template feel free to add new articles to it. Stirling Newberry 00:32, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modernism template 

message: The article was presenting a few askew views:
* One could think that "Ursonate: Rondo" was a poem by a later artist, who was influenced by Schwitters. -- I think a reference to "Ursonate" is more helpful, without going into detailed parts of it. And of course it must be unambiguously stated, that it is a work of Schwitters.
* Article said that "Ursonate: Rondo" was based on a single word: "fmsbwtözäu" -- Well, firstly Schwitters writes it "Fümms bö wö tää zää Uu" which is not a single word, and secondly he also draws from Hausmann's "pggiv" from the same poem and "qjyE" from another poem.
Hausmann's so-called "poster-poem" which influenced "Ursonate" could be found here (with more background here) at the time of this writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BjKa (talk • contribs) 02:48, 27 June 2006
:Please Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks!.
:Just because Schwitters used many words does not mean tha the did not develop or derive them from one. Your second argument contradicts Albright (2004), if I remember correctly, and some other source if I don't. Hyacinth 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schwitters/Hausmann 

message: This article reads a bit like a sixth-form (high school?) essay to me, I'm afraid. Needs a serious rewrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretTheatre (talk • contribs) 03:30, 15 June 2007
:How so? What about it needs to be rewritten? Hyacinth (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would hope for better advice from someone in a high-school English class. Hyacinth (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Tell us specific things wrong with the page or move on. Hyacinth (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads like a Sixth-Form essay? 

message: I started at the beginning, to edit some of the more obvious problems. After a paragraph I gave up. This article is so poorly written yet so pretentious... Well, I can't even finish that sentence. I will try again at a brief edit, if for no other reason than to eliminate a few of the glaringly incorrect "facts." Really, just reading the beginning of this article put me in a seriously bad mood. Now, if it was a child who wrote it, I certainly apologize for being so grumpy, because this is a rather nice job for a kid. Gingermint (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Horrible

message: Why are all the citations needed needed? Hyacinth (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts needed

message: This article is pretty crap in general, but the history section was especially wtf. I took a stab at starting a writeup -- refs are needed, since I was going mostly off memory of Taruskin's Oxford History but my lovely box set is 3000 miles away :(, more detail is wanted and my prose probably needs some editing -- and took the liberty of deleting the old first paragraph with 01/10 relevance tag. Temevorn 19:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why?/How so? How should it be improved? Hyacinth (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion has now gone rather stale, but the article has not improved much in the past year. The main problem as I see it is the repeated attempts to make simple what is in fact a very complex subject. Identifying philosophical stances in musical artifacts is difficult enough, but when there is disagreement on what exactly those stances are, the exercise becomes virtually impossible. Temevorn was absolutely correct about the lack of references but, even worse, now references have been offered that wholly fail to support the claims being made.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is absolutely correct that there are not references, are they needed? Where? How? Why? Hyacinth (talk) 02:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Let me clarify: When Temevorn complained of this a year ago, references were indeed lacking, Since then, a number of references have been added (and challenged, unreferenced material has been deleted). The net result is that there are now plenty of references, but unfortunately a number of them do not support the claims to which they are attached. These are all in the section "Examples of modernism in music", and have all been tagged. The one remaining flaky section is the lede, which attributes a number of traits to modernist music that are never mentioned in the body of the text. I think with the deletion of these, the refimprove banner can be removed, as well. Clearly, this article was written "off the top of the head" by somebody who really didn't know what they were talking about. Work is progressing now. Thanks once again, Hyacinth, for calling attention to a problematic article that is long overdue for improvement.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: looks like someone has cut and paste a bib section from a paper or some other ref list, all in all a weird list of musicologists with really incompatible views, with nothing in the actual article that would demonstrate their need of being there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.160.43 (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: -list of major theorists of modernism and their direct critics
Major thinkers who have interpreted the importance and influence of modernism in music include: theodore adorno, walter benjamin, lawrence kramer and richard taruskin. etc.. 
-the history of modernism is the history of criticism of theories of modernism (lol)
The term has encountered so much controversy through the last century that to understand it requires the knowledge of an entire history of musicological practices and attempts to theorize modernism (new musicology, new formalism, etc). Many attempts have been made to interpret music categorized by these thinkers as modernist in discourses wholly independent of that title. (these should be noted and linked)
-propose article name change to modernism (musicology)?
cut from dahlhaus quote (needs further context)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vive1936 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed additions

message: (removed from article) this is a critique of a position that has not even been presented on the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.160.43 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2012
"The label "late romanticism"...is a terminological blunder of the first order and ought to be abandoned forthwith. It is absurd to yoke Strauss, Mahler, and the young Schoenberg, composers who represent modernism in the minds of their turn-of-the-century contemporaries, with the self-proclaimed anti-modernist Pfitzner, calling them all "late romantics" in order to supply a veneer of internal unity to an age fraught with stylistic contradictions and conflicts." (Dahlhaus 1989, 334)</blockquote>  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vive1936 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Modernism vs Late Romanticism

message: *Modernism as a term has become more and more disputed and multifaceted due to the challenges laid against the claims of its proponents and constant reinterpretation by contemporary scholarship. Modernism as a term has seen both use as a description of stylistic practices pioneered by composers and theorists, as well as a broad array of philosophical developments, in a classification of thought and practice now often regarded as having been defined and imposed upon the period by latter scholars in the late 20th century.
*The notion of modernism as a descriptions of styles and practices divergent from conventions in earlier periods of music has seen prolonged use, as a narrativizing model of continuity in the development of western music, linking composers and theorists in a long chain of inheritance all the way back to renaissance and antiquity. This narrative, rooted in early 20th century scholarship, was commonly used in pedagogical practice, textbooks, (Grout & Burkholder) and saw widespread use in marketing and publishing the work of artists and writers of that period (Schoenberg, Babbitt, Stockhausen) while being documented as a social and intellectual discourse, in and of itself by latter theorists of modernism in music.
I removed the above as uncited. Hyacinth (talk) 00:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed: Uncited

message: I removed said section. If you put it back, please, please, PLEASE first rework it into something actually worth putting back. In its current form, it would probably be a good idea to replace with a series of raunchy jokes- it'd make as much sense, be as much informative, and be a lot more fun.
I know I'm beating a dead horse here. I'm sorry. But this section needs a complete rebuild, not a few quick edits.
173.22.0.55 (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No dead horse here. It is about time somebody removed the last remnants of random anecdotes. The needed rebuild is a daunting task, however, which is why I have not undertaken it myself. One fundamental problem is that the article in its entirety is almost non-existent. Before the reception of musical modernism can be addressed, it will be necessary to establish just what it is that is being received. The "Time period" section points directly at this problem. On the one hand it offers a definition of an historical period between 1890 and 1930, but on the other makes clear that many scholars disagree with such periodizing efforts and instead regard it as an attitude that may be found in any time period. Just yesterday nd anonymous editor removed a composer's name from the List of modernist composers, and I restored it because it was documented with a reliable source. I can understand the editor's astonishment. No doubt he believed it was either vandalism or some sort of mistake, but indeed the source goes to some length to show that Johann Sebastian Bach was a composer with a modernist outlook.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: The article ends with a remark that sounds interesting, but remains cryptic to me even after reading the cited reference: "Goodwin posits that progressive rock should be considered 'anathema' to postmodernism". Can anybody clarify this notion? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystifying remark about progressive rock