Talk:Musical nationalism

message: I think that this article would make more sense under the heading "Musical nationalism", since the qualifier of "(music)" is generally only used to disambiguate pieces of music from other articles with similar or identical titles. Since this is more of a technical question than a substantive one (see the policy page on naming conventions), I'll give it a few days and if no opposition exists, I'll move it then. --Todeswalzer|Talk 01:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes:  I also think this move is a good idea.  Antandrus  (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to "Musical nationalism"

message: Perhaps someone ought to mention Wagner and Der Ring des Nibelungen, and how that was influential and contributory to the general European musical nationalist trend.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.239.134 (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2008 --69.121.19.29 (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: German Musical Nationalism

message: I think it is impossible to speak of nationalism in music without referring to Chopin's Polonaises, Mazurkas and the Revolutionary etude. The same goes for Listz as far as Hungarian nationalism is concerned (hungarian rhapsodies). In the Spanish section, don't forget Manuel De Falla's Night in the garden of Spain, 7 popular spanish songs, among others.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.18.170.199 (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Polish Musical Nationalism and others

message: As a Ph.D. in musicology, I find at least the opening section of this article to be deeply flawed.  For one thing, it is a gross overstatement to equate "German" music with the European classical music canon.  Did France and Italy not contribute substantially to the formation of the canon?  Aside from this point, why are we using "Czechoslovakia" as a nation here?  Only one of the composers cited was alive when the country existed.  "Bohemia" or other such regional labels would be far more appropriate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.57.70 (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on having received your Ph.D. Since you have the chops to do this, why not correct the article text (with appropriate sources, of course) instead of just complaining about its defects here? Plenty of people without your training feel free to do so on a daily basis, so why let them get away with making a bad job of it? Speaking as a person of Czech descent myself, I should just caution you about confusing countries with nationalities.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "German" Music? 

message: The study of "Guoyue" in China, Taiwan, Hong kong, of Singapore, is often categorized in the subject of ethnomusicology; it's a musical style deprived from the ancient traditional music with modern adjustments. Either by era or by musical instruments, it's definitely not in the musical nationalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Percus (talk • contribs) 23:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guoyue in this List? 

message: Shouldn't Copland be part of American music? Huge influence. Justin Tokke (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point! Don't be shy, and wait around for someone else to add Copland—it may never get done. Please at least make a start. Other editors will be quick enough to join in if they think you've gotten something wrong!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copland to America

message: Does anyone agree that Bartók should be included in the list as well? He didn't explicitly speak out for nationalism, and it certainly wasn't his only focus, but like the Five he was influential in using traditional indigenous music to shape the voice of his country.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.143.173 (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Seemingly the same would be true of Zoltán Kodály as well. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Béla Bartók

message: Please indicate - who uses the term "Musical nationalism". On what source the current difinition is based? --A1 (talk) 18:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard Taruskin's article in the NG certainly uses the term.  The article is under "nationalism" (as you'd expect, it being a music encyclopedia), but the last sentence of his introduction uses exactly that term. Antandrus  (talk) 18:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, there are seven sources cited in this article to support the contents. Demanding a citation for the very title of the article is not the appropriate way to challenge the legitimacy of the term.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is interesting that quite a few things in the article already had been challenged, as long ago as January 2010. These have now been removed, many more unsupported claims have been noted, and a few things referenced. Oh, yes, just for fun, I added to the "Further reading" section about fifteen new items with the expression "musical nationalism" as part of their titles. Many of these will presumably come in handy for finding verifying sources for those uncited claims.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  But whose defenition of the term is used? It is not clear but it is very important. --A1 (talk) 07:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that definitions are very important. However, the place for such a definition (missing from this article) is in the body of the text, not in the first two boldfaced words. Taruskin's definition in New Grove is (not surprisingly) diffuse and exceedingly cautious, beginning with a long discussion of what "nation" means. Further, he is very clear that "musical nationalism" has been defined differently by different people, and attitudes toward it have shifted over time. The usual thing on Wikipedia is to include all reasonably current senses of a term, and then to proceed to elaborate on each of these senses (where sharp conflicts exist). This is not currently done, and urgently needs doing. Without such a definition, every name in the list requires a source specifying in so many words "this person is a musical nationalist", but even then an explanation ought to be given (if possible) of what that source believes the term to mean.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that "musical nationalism" has been defined differently by different people. That's why if you write about "musical ideas or motifs that are identified with a specific country, region, or ethnicity..." it must be clear who defined the term in such way. Now it looks like your original research, as far as it is impossible to define, on what sources did you base. --A1 (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, sorry, what? I think I see what you are saying, and I hope that my change of location to your "citation needed" flag addresses this issue. Where it was (after the word "refers"), it appeared to demand a source for the idea that the term refers to anything at all. While this may be a valid criticism of many terms flung recklessly about in the field of aesthetics, I don't think we may seriously doubt that "nationalism" does actually refer to something, even if different people use it to refer to different things.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The term 

message: I notice that, shortly after footnote citations were adde to this article, User:Daranz added a banner template questioning the clarity and/or appropriateness of the citation style used in this article. I do not find the usual explanation on this talk page, however. If this was in response to the conflict with the established parenthetical referencing style, this has now been corrected, per WP:CITEVAR. If there is some other issue, then a clarification would be welcome.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the issue I found. I originally looked at converting the footnotes to endnotes myself, but found the style inconsistent, so I tagged it instead, lest I mess it up. For example, in the "Joseph Parry: Bachgen Bach o Ferthyr. Dulais Rhys." citation, Rhys is apparently the name of the author, yet in other citations the author seemed to come first. I apologize for not including this explanation with the tag. I have removed it now (as the citation style is consistent now), although User:Ollie Garkey (who added the references in the first place) may still wish to look over it.  — daranz [ t ] 17:43, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed, I see. From to form of the citation, I assumed that Parry was the author, and Dulais Rhys the publisher. Some of the other newly added items look a little iffy to me, as well (for example, I had never heard of a book on nationalism written by Ralph Vaughan Williams, though I can well imagine he may have written a short article on the subject). I shall try to check on these items, but Ollie Garkey may be able to deal with this more quickly than I can.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: It is ironic that this article does not yet list any Russian Musical nationalist composers  - or were all 19th century Russian composers nationalists by default? (ie. had included Russian folk melodies in all their music). --BrianJ34 (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Musical nationalists 

message: This article is taken up predominantly by a list of examples of musical nationalism, with very little discussion on what musical nationalism constitutes. I'm not sure of the best way to resolve this; it might be good to separate the nation-by-nation sections into a separate list article, or it might be good to rewrite those sections to be about the characteristics of musical nationalism in that place rather than just a list of examples of it. Wondering if others feel the same and have ideas about where to take this article. Someone the Person (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almost a list