Talk:20th-century classical music

message: Since 20 August 2007, this article has carried a tag stating that a suggestion had been made to convert the article into table format. I see no such suggestion or discussion here on the Talk page, and the proposal seems preposterous to me. The article has many faults—it is rambling, unreferenced, and unbalanced—but I fail to see how the substance could be addressed in a table. Before deleting the tag, however (which I assume was placed there in good faith), I would like to give other editors the chance to comment.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Table format? (discuss)

message: As a rough and ready method of reducing the list, I suggest we take out the following names. 
*Malcolm Arnold
*Milton Babbitt
*William Bolcom
*Frank Bridge
*Elliott Carter
*Carlos Chávez
*John Corigliano 
*Henry Cowell
*George Crumb
*Franco Donatoni
*Henri Dutilleux 
*Morton Feldman
*Alberto Ginastera
*Percy Grainger
*Howard Hanson 
*Roy Harris
*Lou Harrison
*Pierre Henry
*Alan Hovhaness
*Scott Joplin
*Włodzimierz Kotoński
*György Ligeti
*Gian-Carlo Menotti
*Harry Partch
*Einojuhani Rautavaara
*Silvestre Revueltas
*Leonard Bernstein
*Terry Riley
*Joaquín Rodrigo
*Ned Rorem
*Carl Ruggles
*Elie Siegmeister
*Josef Tal
*William Walton
*John Williams
*Charles Wuorinen
*Iannis Xenakis
*La Monte Young
*Bernd Alois Zimmermann
Jerome Kohl, Antandrus : I wonder if you would like to remove (strikeout) people you think should remain in the list? Ideally we can arrive at a 'common-lowest denominator' list of expellees (I've just discovered this word exists). --Kleinzach 23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how to format strikeouts (if that is what you mean to be done), but certainly Milton Babbitt, Elliott Carter, Morton Feldman, György Ligeti, Terry Riley, Iannis Xenakis, William Walton, and La Monte Young, at the very least, should remain. Always assuming that the list is to be kept at all.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. I've struck out your group for you, see Milton Babbitt etc. --Kleinzach 05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: So easy. (Why couldn't I remember how to do that?) Now, what about some of the lesser lights in the list not nominated for deletion? Leonard Bernstein, for example. Certainly an enormously important conductor, musical educator, and mover and shaker, but hardly a composer of the stature of Copland, Stravinsky, or even Villa-Lobos.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK by me to add Leonard Bernstein to deletions. --Kleinzach 06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough. What about Arnold Bax, Ernest Bloch, George Enescu, Manuel de Falla, Henryk Górecki, Arthur Honegger, Aram Khachaturian, Zoltán Kodály (whose name isn't even spelled correctly), Ástor Piazzolla (greatest tango composer of all time, but "classical music"?), Francis Poulenc, and Alfred Schnittke? Certainly all composers of some importance, many of whom I regard very highly indeed, but do they really rank with Bartók, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Boulez, Reich—or even with Mauricio Kagel, Bruno Maderna, Magnus Lindberg, and Helmut Lachenmann, who aren't even on this list (yet)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Hmm. I've only just noticed: Why isn't Brian Ferneyhough in the list? Surely he is as notable a composer as La Monte Young or Arvo Pärt.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

text: OK. I agree my suggestion of a (lowest common denominator) 'cull' hasn't worked out, but for reasons explained above, the List of major opera composers method is not really practical either. I think that leaves the 'massively expanding the article' option, eliminating lists completely. --Kleinzach 05:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You won't get any argument from me. I've already started thinking about reorganization, and the first thing that I notice is how many well-documented movements in twentieth-century music are not included here, from the Primitivism of early Stravinsky and Prokofiev, the bruitisme of Luigi Russolo, and the "machine music" of Antheil and Mossolov, to the New Simplicities and the New Complexity. I think using these as a framework would provide a suitable structure for the massive expansion called for here. For the time being, can we leave the list in place as a reminder of some names that link to these various movements, with the understanding that names should be removed from it as quickly as possible, as each section is developed?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK by me. --Kleinzach 23:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I have made a start, with new sections on Impressionism and Futurism. Expressionism is next. I wonder if perhaps The List should be renamed pro tem (pending its eventual removal), something like "Other notable twentieth-century composers", to give some sort of warning that the main article already includes those whose notability is already explained.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again OK by me. Does that mean you will delete names as they are added to the main text? That would be a good idea. --Kleinzach 22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, that is the idea. Since no one else has jumped in to object, and you endorse the idea, I shall proceed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: In the nearly five years since this discussion ended, there have been a few additions to the list in the text, not all of them exactly mighty giants of compositions (Uzeyir Hajibeyov, for example). I have pruned the list once again, and added a "Main" hatnote to the section, directing aficionados of unlisted but (in their view) worthy composers to the List of All the 20th-Century Composers You Ever Dreamed of Knowing About, but Were Afraid to Ask.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Brutal cull?

message: This article should be called 20th-century classical music, not 20th century classical music. Rigaudon (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the page. Rigaudon (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article 

message: I'm not sure I like the style of citing works.  I feel that linked footnotes would be better because the (Author Date, Page) style breaks the flow of the article and many readers will not recognise it.  It actually took me quite while to figure out what on earth it meant, and I browse Wiki and read paper books constantly!  I won't change it, since it is a valid method for Wiki when the article is heavily supported by those sources (see:WP:CS), but I do feel the inline citations would be better as linked footnotes.  We can leave the References list as a kind of quick Bibliography.  Thoughts? Jubilee♫clipman 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is entirely possible to use the author-date citation style in footnotes, but personally (and I know other editors share this view) I find footnote numbers and toggling back and forth betwwen them and the note references an unnecessary distraction. The Chicago style formats used here, as well as the similar Harvard referencing and MLA style references avoid the inelegance of footnotes.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I changed only three refs back, out of about a dozen in the article, which were the only ones altered from the established style. Surely an editor of your experience cannot believe that footnote style is a "standard" on Wikipedia? If so, please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles. If you have good reasons to change from intext author-date citations, please air them here first, as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_templates_and_tools.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (I was in the middle of editing). Please note these are references in the body of the text. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners which explains how to use the Reflist template. in particular see Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference which explains exactly what I have just been doing. --Kleinzach 04:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Jerome Kohl has chosen to revert all the references again, despite my reply above! That's unfortunate, but I don't edit war (period). Instead I will refer this to other editors for their opinions. Should we follow standard WP referencing style in this article? --Kleinzach 04:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: What other kind of inline references are there, apart from references "in the body of the text"? Your "repl;y above" does not present any reason for altering the established format, let alone has a consensus of editors been reached, as specified in Wikipedia:Citing sources. The Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference which you cite is, as the title indicates, "for beginners". It is not so comprehensive a guide to referencing as is found in Wikipedia:Citing sources, which declines to come down in favor of any one format, and describes as acceptable (amongst others) the one used in this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Ludwig van Beethoven for an example of the normal way refs are done. (You are confusing the reference in the main article text with the actual citation in the dedicated References (i.e. Biblio) section.)  --Kleinzach 05:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Au contraire, mon brave, look at Arnold Schoenberg or Luigi Nono for examples of the normal way refs are done. I am not confusing anything.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys.  There are several acceptable ways of doing references on Wikipedia; as with the AE/BE spelling variants, the important thing is to be consistent within the article.  Parenthetical referencing (Harvard/Chicago/MLA -- I had casually called them all "Harvard" until Jerome Kohl corrected me yesterday) is one of the accepted methods (see Wikipedia:CITE#Parenthetical_referencing) but at present it appears to be the minority case.  Personally, I like it because it's easy and friendly for newbies -- those ghastly citation templates can be off-putting to new editors, although they work quite well and are wonderful once you get used to them.  Frankly, I've only used the Harvard/Chicago style in a couple of articles that I've written, just because I have tried to conform to the majority view, even though I think footnote-riddling makes articles look more like first-year graduate-student term papers than encyclopedia articles.  Another great advantage of parenthetical referencing is you don't have to jump down to the "references" section to see what source the writer is pulling from.  Anyway -- nothing to fight about.  It's all about consistency and friendliness to our readers.  Both methods are acceptable.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the problem with 'parenthetical referencing' on WP (as opposed to academic print, where it is normally used) is that it is unlinked. An abbreviated reference is fine if it's connects the full title of the work cited, but this is not the case here and I think that's a disservice to the reader. We have some controversial/questionable ideas being expressed in this article, so we need to see where they are coming from. Perhaps we can have some other opinions on this?--Kleinzach 14:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

text: If you feel that strongly about it, I suggest that Wikipedia talk:Citing sources is a more appropriate forum for making your case on this issue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerome Kohl: As you have just explained (above) that there is no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources so that doesn't seem a good way of resolving the impasse over this issue. --Kleinzach 05:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

text: There has been no consensus there so far, but that is the place to argue the acceptability of various reference formats, not piecemeal on individual article talk pages.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: leave the style as it stands.  It is the one used from the conception of the article and is perfectly acceptable.  I withdraw my objections.  Jubilee♫clipman 05:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Style of citing

message: I've just converted the references to the standard style — without having seen Jubilee♫'s comment above — and been reverted by User:Jerome Kohl. There was an edit conflict (involving edit consistency problems) which confused things. However what was the reason for changing all the refs back? --Kleinzach 04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed only three refs back, out of about a dozen in the article, which were the only ones altered from the established style. Surely an editor of your experience cannot believe that footnote style is a "standard" on Wikipedia? If so, please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_styles. If you have good reasons to change from intext author-date citations, please air them here first, as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Citation_templates_and_tools.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (I was in the middle of editing). Please note these are references in the body of the text. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners which explains how to use the Reflist template. in particular see Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference which explains exactly what I have just been doing. --Kleinzach 04:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Jerome Kohl has chosen to revert all the references again, despite my reply above! That's unfortunate, but I don't edit war (period). Instead I will refer this to other editors for their opinions. Should we follow standard WP referencing style in this article? --Kleinzach 04:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: What other kind of inline references are there, apart from references "in the body of the text"? Your "repl;y above" does not present any reason for altering the established format, let alone has a consensus of editors been reached, as specified in Wikipedia:Citing sources. The Wikipedia:Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference which you cite is, as the title indicates, "for beginners". It is not so comprehensive a guide to referencing as is found in Wikipedia:Citing sources, which declines to come down in favor of any one format, and describes as acceptable (amongst others) the one used in this article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Ludwig van Beethoven for an example of the normal way refs are done. (You are confusing the reference in the main article text with the actual citation in the dedicated References (i.e. Biblio) section.)  --Kleinzach 05:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Au contraire, mon brave, look at Arnold Schoenberg or Luigi Nono for examples of the normal way refs are done. I am not confusing anything.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys.  There are several acceptable ways of doing references on Wikipedia; as with the AE/BE spelling variants, the important thing is to be consistent within the article.  Parenthetical referencing (Harvard/Chicago/MLA -- I had casually called them all "Harvard" until Jerome Kohl corrected me yesterday) is one of the accepted methods (see Wikipedia:CITE#Parenthetical_referencing) but at present it appears to be the minority case.  Personally, I like it because it's easy and friendly for newbies -- those ghastly citation templates can be off-putting to new editors, although they work quite well and are wonderful once you get used to them.  Frankly, I've only used the Harvard/Chicago style in a couple of articles that I've written, just because I have tried to conform to the majority view, even though I think footnote-riddling makes articles look more like first-year graduate-student term papers than encyclopedia articles.  Another great advantage of parenthetical referencing is you don't have to jump down to the "references" section to see what source the writer is pulling from.  Anyway -- nothing to fight about.  It's all about consistency and friendliness to our readers.  Both methods are acceptable.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, the problem with 'parenthetical referencing' on WP (as opposed to academic print, where it is normally used) is that it is unlinked. An abbreviated reference is fine if it's connects the full title of the work cited, but this is not the case here and I think that's a disservice to the reader. We have some controversial/questionable ideas being expressed in this article, so we need to see where they are coming from. Perhaps we can have some other opinions on this?--Kleinzach 14:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

text: If you feel that strongly about it, I suggest that Wikipedia talk:Citing sources is a more appropriate forum for making your case on this issue.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Jerome Kohl: As you have just explained (above) that there is no consensus at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources so that doesn't seem a good way of resolving the impasse over this issue. --Kleinzach 05:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

text: There has been no consensus there so far, but that is the place to argue the acceptability of various reference formats, not piecemeal on individual article talk pages.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: leave the style as it stands.  It is the one used from the conception of the article and is perfectly acceptable.  I withdraw my objections.  Jubilee♫clipman 05:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: A number of editors have been unhappy about this section. What should we do about it? IMO it might be best to simply delete it, or drastically cut it. What do other people think? --Kleinzach 04:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I only see Camembert's reference to this topic in the above discussion list. Perhaps other editors have contacted you off-page. However, I for one agree that this section is at least over-emphasized, perhaps even irrelevant. A comedian once wrote that "on December 31, 1599, all the Renaissance composers died". Obviously, art styles do not change overnight at hte beginning of a new century, decade, or month. The fact that a fairly large number of composers were continuing the Romantic style in the first (or even the second, or the third) decade of the twentieth century is hardly surprising. On the other hand, it is also hardly surprising that many features of the reaction against Romanticism are found already in some composers in the 1890, 1880s, or earlier.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See the inline comments. Also a tag put by User:Jubileeclipman. I guess that means at least four editors expressing reservations of some kind. --Kleinzach 06:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but in spite of all that, I still agree with you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I reworked it a little to tie into C19th and reference some composers who actually extended the late C19th style.  I also deleted those pointless vague statements.  They could be reworked, I suppose, but better to write someting new than rework something no-one can be bothered with!  The cite still needs to point somewhere specific...  Jubilee♫clipman 04:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Romantic style section

message: Hmm. I spent a few minutes making this article consistent in the use of 18th/19th/20th (rather than eighteenth/nineteenth/twentieth). This follow the title of this and other WP articles and normal editorial practice. Unfortunately Jerome Kohl has again chosen to revert all my edits. What was the point of that? (The article currently has a cleanup tag which I thought referred to edit inconsistencies etc.)--Kleinzach 05:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies. I thought I was only reverting your unilateral reference-format changes. However, since you have raised the question, the usual standard (e.g., Chicago Manual) is to spell out century numbers, not to use numerals. The important thing, however, is to maintain consistency, as you say.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You even reverted my correction of a typo square bracket to parentheses, see here. I'd appreciate it if you could restore all my edits. --Kleinzach 06:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Fixed.  (Don't worry, I didn't search and replace, I did it manually ... that would have had a hilariously awful effect on the References section.) Antandrus  (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I hyphenated them all for consistency (half were, half weren't).  It is the establish method and follows the article title.  I did not hyphate the book title nor the interwiki as these should obviously be left as they are.  Jubilee♫clipman 04:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "20th-century" the adjective, and "20th century" the noun?  "During the 20th century, composers wrote 20th-century music."  Right?  "20th-century" as a noun looks wrong to me, and we certainly don't use it here.  Anyone know the grammatical rule?  Antandrus  (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, indeed, the hyphen is surely there to indicate an adjective. --Kleinzach 02:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Hm, not sure now!  You may be right actually: 20th-century is take as a single entity when it is an adjective, but "20th" and "century" are taken as two related entities when they are noun plus qualifier.  I'll read through again and make sense of it all.  Jubilee♫clipman 23:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to reword the lead to follow the rule we believe is correct: it needed a comma anyway as it stood...  I've changed the noun/qualifiers back to the unhyphed form. Jubilee♫clipman 00:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To back up a bit, the issue of hyphenation is not to do with adjective vs noun—"twentieth" is an adjective and "century" a noun in either case—but rather with something called a "unit modifier". When "twentieth century" stands on its own, as in the sentence "This article is about the twentieth century", there should be no hyphen (since it it absolutely unnecessary). However, in the construction "This article is about twentieth-century music", the pair of word "twentieth century" together modifies the object "century". This is called a "unit modifier". Strictly speaking, this only matters in cases of ambiguity, as in "fast sailing ship" as opposed to "fast-sailing ship". In the former case, we are speaking of a sailing ship that is capable of great speed; in the latter, a ship of any sort that is sailing quite rapidly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial consistency: 20th century/Twentieth century

message: (Following posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contemporary music)
The following articles overlap and the situation need to be rationalized: contemporary music, contemporary classical music, 20th-century classical music, and 21st-century classical music.  The following issues are the most urgent (in order of importance):
* It has been suggested that contemporary music and contemporary classical music be merged, but no consensus has been reached as to which way.
* The article 21st-century classical music is contentious.  It is claimed that the title is not the proper name for this period and that the article's subject properly belongs in contemporary music/contemporary classical music.  (Note that I wrote the article, in good faith, following up on a suggestion.)
* 20th-century classical music appears to end in 1980, or so, despite the period defined in the Periods of European art music box. 
* None of the articles fully expore the music of the period in question.
Other issues exist, as well, but those above need immeadiate attention.
Thank you for your input.  --Jubilee♫clipman 21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for this. I think it's good to raise these issues. However can we centralize the discussion in one place? Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music? I think it will attract more attention there. --Kleinzach 02:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I only posted it in all those places to raise as much awareness as possible.  BTW, I will be away for most of the next fortnight and probably won't be able to edit.  Just in case anyone wonders why I don't reply etc.  --Jubilee♫clipman 07:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Major issues to resolve

message: Both the Classical Music and Contemporary Music projects tag this article as "Start".  I can see why: it is merely a list of "movements" and "styles" without much explanation as to how they relate either to each other or the past and future of music.  Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten in a prose style like the common practice articles?  Also the list of "things" at the top seems to be growing with the addition of some oddities that are never actually explained in the text.  The "political commitment" development, in particular links nowhere and means nothing as it stands.  Commitment to which politics? How does this affect music? Was there a particular movement which was "politically commited"?  Also, we never discuss Nationalism (Americanism?), Socialist Realism (Shostakovich), "intuitive music" (Stockhausen), "stochastic music" (Xenakis), "multimedia/happenings" (Cage, Nono, etc), or New Complexity and New Simplicity (though these are discussed in the CCM article and should remain there, IMO).  I'll have a go at redressing all of this but it will take a while.  --Jubilee♫clipman 16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the list with prose (and a reordered lead text) which I developed here.  This seems more infomative and actually covers everything the list highlighted.  The following sections can expand the ideas briefly mentioned in this Introduction. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tidy up

message: Surely the original book is about the rise of the Superman and heavily influenced Hitler?  I was really looking for a non-socialist political work. Any better ones?  --Jubilee♫clipman 05:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but Strauss didn't write the book, Nietzsche did, and the issue of the Superman became a political issue with Hitler, but was not necessarily intended as such by Nietzsche. In what way does Strauss's tone poem (which was written when Hitler was 7 years old) address politics? Indeed it is a lot easier to find notable examples of socialist political music than other sorts (I imagine there must be utterly trivial example of official Third-Reich political music, or birthday odes composed by fourth-rate composers for banana-republic dictators), and perhaps the reference to politically inspired music ought to be adjusted accordingly.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point: ASZ is a philosophical work and Strauss' intention in setting it wasn't actually political.  It could also fuel misconceptions... I'll remove it!  (I'll remove Leighton, too.)  --Jubilee♫clipman 23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Also sprach Zarathustra

message: A new "Styles and movements" section has been created in order to organize the styles and to separate them from other historical events. – Harpsichord246 (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea, but are you sure about the outline levels you have chosen? For example, you have put "modernism", "futurism", "postmodern music", and "minimalism" all on the same level, whereas most people would probably classify futurism as one manifestation of modernism, and minimalism as a subcategory of postmodern music. While I see you have been careful to qualify the list with "movements" as well as "styles" (thus avoiding the blunder of calling things like "free dissonance and experimentalism" a "style"), this, too, runs afoul of the same problem, by treating things like "jazz-influenced classical composition" on the same hierarchic level as, for example, "neoclassicism" and "postmodern music", both of which categories include examples of jazz influence.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That was just a first positive step to reorganization. Perhaps a "Movements" section should be respective of a "Styles" section. I also agree that, combining certain subsections would be certainly necessary to avoid the possible confusion that could arise with the examples you previously gave. – Harpsichord246 (talk) 00:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The inherited sections were certainly a miscellany of topics, thrown together without much (if any) thought about how they might interrelate. Two things ought to be kept in mind, however: (1) the 20th-century does tend to appear less cohesive than earlier historical periods, and (2) it has become fashionable in the past twenty or thirty years to reject such tidy arrangements of history, which means that reliable sources supporting such Aristotelian categorizations are thinner on the ground than once was the case. That said, I agree that a distinction should be drawn between "movements" and "styles". At the same time, I think that "techniques" (such as "modality", "atonality", or "twelve-tone technique") are liable to stand further away from either of the other two than they do from each other.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All these distinctions will be taken into account as this reorganization takes place. Would this be an appropriate organization?
    1 Styles
        1.1 Romantic style
        1.2 Neoclassicism
        1.3 Jazz-influenced classical composition
    2 Movements
        2.1 Impressionism
        2.2 Modernism
            2.2.1 Futurism
        2.3 Free dissonance and experimentalism
        2.4 Expressionism
        2.5 Postmodern music
            2.5.1 Minimalism
    3 Techniques
        3.1 Atonality and twelve-tone technique
        3.2 Spectralism
— Harpsichord246 (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

text: This looks well thought out, though it also exposes some of the shortcomings of the present article content. For example, I find it rather odd to have only futurism listed under modernism, and only minimalism listed under postmodern music. It also appears to heavily favour the first half of the century over the second. I do wonder a bit about the placement of "free dissonance and experimentalism", since free dissonance is usually associated with modernism and the pre-twelve-tone music of the first two decades of the century, whereas experimentalism has two large divisions (pre- and post-WWII), both often associated with postmodernism. Expressionism and neoclassicism are also often thought of under the umbrella of modernism, though they obviously make very strange bedfellows.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a complete restructuring of the article is necessary to deliver the absolute picture of 20th Century Classical Music. But until then, this new organization would probably be better than the previous chaotic article. Although as you previously pointed out, there is no definite "Aristotelian categorization" of the 20th century's aspects, a new organization would provide the reader with a somewhat of an idea of 'where to start', if you will. – Harpsichord246 (talk) 05:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New organized section. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 20th-century classical music. 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/20110716201357/http://www.cea.mdx.ac.uk/local/media/downloads/Dack/Technology_and_the_Instrument.pdf to http://www.cea.mdx.ac.uk/local/media/downloads/Dack/Technology_and_the_Instrument.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified