Talk:Music of Italy/Archive 1

message: I agree that Italians define Italian culture, but I don't see how that prevents outsiders from being informed and informative about other cultures. I have lived in Naples for 30 years and teach about Neapolitan music to groups from abroad. I am prepared to modify the section on Music of Naples in this entry. I propose four paragraphs, each introducing a different genre of Neapolitan music and each linked to longer articles. But I am confused about the hierarchy of articles. All the sections labelled by region include empty (so far) "Main article" links at the top. That link becomes redundant (I think) since the paragraphs in that section link to different articles, all of which become (in this case) parts of The Music of Naples. Alternately, I suppose one could include all four articles in a longer single article linked from the "Main article" link at the top. Do I sound confused? Jeffmatt
:You do sound confused (this article has a confused layout, so that's understandable).  In any case, I think it's entirely worthwhile to have an article on the music of Naples even if it's somewhat redundant with certain other articles. Tuf-Kat 14:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, looks great! Tuf-Kat 17:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: music of Naples

message: I have left the entry for music of Naples on this page intact and simply written a new, larger entry as the main article, referred to and now linked. I hope that was the proper thing to do.Jeffmatt 07:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: new article on the music of Naples

message: I did change the short introductory entry about Naples in this item, after all, so that it reads more like a real introduction to the main article that it is linked to.Jeffmatt 12:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, looks great! Tuf-Kat 17:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  (see above)

message: Hello Vineviz. I wrote the item on the music of Naples. The question depends on how you define folk music. Traditionally, we tend to view folk music as being the product of some sort of anonymous musical expression that flows from the people--composed by someone at some time or other, yes, but not the direct result of professional song writing. In that case, the canzone napoletana is popular song--just like the products of Tin Pan Aley in the US. The songwriting teams are well-known, and they wrote to sell their music. Part of the problem is that, within Italy, Naples is the only area that has this strong tradition of composed popular music that might also be called--to confuse the issue even more--"composed folk music". Yet, Neapolitans, themselves, make the distinction between the composed canzone napoletana and folk music, so maybe it is wise to keep that distinction.
I realize that this defintion/division of folk music/popular music has a few problems. There are certainly professionally written songs that "sound" as if they should be called folk music, perhaps because they deal with folk themes. I suppose "Old Man River" would be one of those, and perhaps some of Bob Dylan, which is why I included a separate section on cantautori--people who compose and sing their own music. Maybe that is a grey area between folk music and popular music. Yet, that, too, is a distinction that Neapolitans make--that is, they mean different things when they refer to (1) canzone napoletana, (2) folk music, (3) songs of the cantautori.
I left the section on Neapolitan folk music very sparse because I don't know that much about it. The original geographical divisions, as you point out, have some problems. I left it intact and tried to work within the original framework. I think the organizational changes you made are fine, necessary and will no doubt help us iron out this stuff as we go along.  I am new to wikipedia and am not even sure when or if you will read this. Jeffmatt 07:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: re the question on ''canzone napoletana'' as folk music (above)

message: I did as I said I would, and shortened this article down to something approaching reasonable size.  I edited the Art Music, Folk Music, and Popular music sections with a goal of preserving their essence.  Most of the stuff I removed from the Art music section was, as best I could judge, not super-specific to Italy.  Most of the stuff I removed from the Folk and Popular music sections related to current performers (and the whole section I wrote on the Italian folk revival).  Again, the full content of those sections as they were is now on Art music of Italy, Folk music of Italy, and Popular music of Italy.
This page still could use a lot of tightening and focus, but it has never looked or read better in my opinion.
Vineviz 21:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Couple changes: Italian folk music and Italian popular music make them more in line with other similar articles (see Hungarian folk music and American popular music, for example).  I've also moved Art music of Italy to Italian classical music -- "art music" is too vague a term, which is why Wikipedia has art music as a disambiguation page. Tuf-Kat 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimmed (butchered?)

message: VINEVIZ, nice changes to the lead. I replaced "Peri" with a more general phrase since he and  the Camerata group are mentioned later on. One thing occurs to me--TUF-KAT (above) makes the point that the whole first part is too historical and should perhaps be part of an article called Music history of Italy --or something similar, and that this current Music of Italy aricle should be about contemporary music practices. Thus--if that is a good point--we may be spinning our wheels a bit. Should this current article be historical or contemporay? If historical, maybe there should be a separate article right now called Music history of Italy and the entire first part of this thing moved over to it. That would entail some other article on the order of Music of Italy today--or something similar-- to handle the state of contemporary music.
:Look at it this way: the "music of Italy" includes music history, current and historical music organizations, orchestras, opera companies, music venues, popular and indie music, past and present and so on.  Since this all too much for one article, we need to use Wikipedia:Summary style.  That means there should be a brief overview of all those topics, with links to articles that focus on each one. Tuf-Kat 07:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I suspect that once we have made Music of Italy into the perfect article, we will find that what we have already done will be both expanded and condensed.  The current sections, especially folk and classical, are probably too long without quite being comprehensive.  I am thinking a lot about the Italian folk music page, which whould make the folk music section of music of Italy much better:  simultaneously concised and informative.  By the way, the Music of Nigeria article truly is a marvelous example of what a "Music of X" page can be.Vineviz 14:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The TOC is already getting a bit large.  I recommend no more than the total number of headings that are already in the article. Tuf-Kat 17:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, just stumbled across the very good Music of the trecento, which I don't think is linked in anywhere yet. Tuf-Kat 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the main Music of Italy article should (I think) make some attempt to unify all the material in some way (within the parameters of being encyclopedic, of course).  The topic will be poorly served if this goes in the direction of being a buch of short introducutions to other articles with links.  Vineviz 18:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same problem?

message: I spent some time shortening and tightening the main sections, with a specific focus on the role of Italy and/or Italians:  I excised some material that is interesting but that didn't enlighten the subject of Italian music directly.  I think I reduced the number of headings, too.
At the risk of offending, I also de-linked most of the dates as I edited the text, per Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context.
I also removed most of the "See also" links where there was an inline link already present or where such a link no longer made sense in context.  I don't think I orphaned anyone, since those links are still on Italian classical music, Italian folk music, and Italian popular music pages.  Vineviz 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortened It

message: I beefed up the paragraph on "cinematic music" and changed the title to "Film music". OK?  I am thinking of the need for a "summary" (as VINEVIZ mentioned). Do you mean a single paragraph at the end of everything? That is do-able, butI am not sure that I see the need for it. You brought up the excellent point of giving readers what they need. Most readers will want to know something about particular points of Italian music, I think, and will not look for an all-encompassing summary (other than what is in a good lead paragraph). Or maybe not. Point to ponder. Jeffmatt 08:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Started to add paragraphs

message: OK   Thank you. Jeffmatt 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am working on a "Characteristics" start-up paragraph to slot in according to the outline, above; then, I'll do a jazz paragraph. Then, we'll see what happens.Jeffmatt 17:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I tightened the lead and adjusted the TOC to separate history and 20th/present. The contemprary section is very sparse. I'll work on it a bit. Cheers.Jeffmatt 06:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a section on jazz. I am in favor of changing the International Influences because it doesn't make sense to me, at least in its present form. The third paragraph, however, is intriguing--the one about Italian music being a catalyst for a general Medeterranean music. I think that deserves further attention. Some Italian pop singers have already climbed aboard the bandwagon. Massimo Ranieri has an album of Neapolitan Songs set to North African rhythms and instruments. Jeffmatt 19:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I added an introductory paragraph at the beginning of Popular Music. Jeffmatt 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I moved the paragraph on pop music from Rock and Pop to the first section on popular music, thus making it a very long lead (needs shortening?). I relabeled the Rock and Pop as simply Rock.Jeffmatt 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have cleaned up most of the empty red links by writing short stubs (anout 20 so far) for everything but the section on World Music.  Jeffmatt 17:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music education 

message: I rewrote the lead to make it less "classical" and more general, more of an intro. Revert or delete, anyone who wants. Or write a new one.  No offense taken. Jeffmatt 06:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new lead

message: Started to rewrite the secion called "chracteristics". I don't like it so far. I'm sure I am not alone.Jeffmatt 07:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. I see I wasn't logged in for many of the recent changes. That 81.208.83.236 in the History page is me. Sorry. Jeffmatt 08:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new "characteristics"

message: I have made the following changes
*Retool lead to make it more inline with Wikipedia style.  I didn't really understand some of it, so I cut a few details.  They probably don't really need to be fixed and replaced, as what's there looks fine to me, except for being short.
*Generally tried to give it a good copyedit and more encyclopedic tone.
*The mass migrations... reasons for the migrations are disputed. - I'm not sure how to fix this.  You can't start with the "mass migrations" unless the migrations have already been introduced, which they haven't.  The meaning of "thus" isn't clear -- the migrations referred to are from all around the Mediterranean, but the next sentence implies that's it's only natural for southern music to have Arab characteristics, when it could just as easily have been Balkan or Greek.  I know that this is because the Arabs inhabited Sicily and Southern Italy, but that isn't explained anywhere.
*The last part of that paragraph seems to restate what is said above about Italy being open to foreign influences, and then veers off into a description of 16th century polyphony.  I've removed the last few sentences entirely, as I'm not sure if they're needed elsewhere or not.
*Again, I removed the last half of the third paragraph under "Characteristics".  Each paragraph should represent a single, coherent thought.  That paragraph introduces the dichotomy between text and melody, which is a characteristic of Italian music, but then it starts talking about how opera evolved in the early years, which isn't germaine to the characteristics of Italian music.
*Suggestion: I assume you're in the process of switching all the inline cites to the ref/note system?  That's fine, though I recommend using the simpler <ref> system (see salsa music for an example of that system).  There ought to be more explicit attribution in the text, for example "Giangilberto Monti has said that the struggle between the importance of the text and melody is a central characteristic of Italian music" -- footnotes are fine for facts, but something so opinionated is generally better explicitly cited.  Also, all cites need page numbers.
I feel like I cut a lot -- I don't mean to discourage you.  The most important part of writing is knowing when to cut something.  If you think anything lost was really important, mention it here and we can talk about how to get it back in somewhere; if I removed it, it probably wasn't clear why it was so important.
I'll try and do some editing later tonight and tomorrow, and may be able to expand it a bit too. Tuf-Kat 05:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: I added a sentence or two to your second paragraph. My addition starts, "Additionally, Curt Sachs..." to the end of the paragraph. I included notes. If you think it is worthwhile, keep it--if not, that's ok, too.
I am going to do a section now that seems to fit in with other Music of (country X) articles--one on venues. I'll delete the misc & trivia section and move some of it to the new section.Jeffmatt 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: for Vineviz

message: Yeah, we're getting there. Assuming that we want to have, first, Music History, and then Classical (see discussion above) I have tried to make that change from one to the other a bit smoother. That is, under Classical, a short summation and then a statement on the present state of affairs. The heading "Classical" may be a bit misleading and should perhaps be changed to Modern Classical   Jeffmatt 08:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: started an external sites section.  
How about some real pretty pictures somewhere--not that we're ready for prime time yet, but...   Jeffmatt 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: bit of a rewrite on "Classical"

message: I put in a trial 2 photos (under Venues and 16-18th centuries. If they're no good, free free to deep-six them. Actually, it doesn't look bad, IMO.
Time line: When I asked about time-lines (above)--yes, I saw that there was a provision for a separate article. My question was whether or not there is a prepared wiki template with years or centuries already there in a standard format and nice bells and whistles--or is it ok to to do a bullet format:
*1200 Joe Blow invents the musical saw
*1501 Leonardo da Vinci invents everything else.
etc.
etc.
**No, there's not really any standard timeline format.  I've seen quite a few that look like that though. Tuf-Kat 07:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that there is no category link at the bottom. Is that to keep people from finding the article until we think it's ready? Just curious. Jeffmatt 12:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll think a bit. The changes you made are fine. I'm not sure what "point" I was trying to make in the last paragraph other than show that there is always a lot of music going on. I did pick one program, yes, but I'm not selling tickets for the place. It's best to delete the reference if there is only one. (The alternate is to list six or seven). I'll take out the conservatory links since we do say later on under "education" that there are 75 of them in the country. Now that I look at that classical section, the whole last paragraph is unnecessary since it peovides more of a "venues"-type info. I'll try to delete it entirely and move whatever info is necessary down to the other section. The second-to-the-last paragraph should be incorporated somehow with the one before that. The logical end  to the section should be the sentence about modern music being in  "a consolidation phase" I'll work on a short rewrite. Jeffmatt 19:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: added photos

message: I put in a short middle paragraph in the 19th century section. It contains some important information  ("...primarily operatic..." as opposed to symphonic) that a reader should have.
It also helped pop a photo into a good place.
I still see a problem with the headings. A uninformed reader (and that's why they come to an encyclopedia) is going read this and say, "Oh, I see. Classical music started in 1900," which, of course is wrong. I propose:
*Lead
*Before 1500
*Classical Music
**century
**century
**modern (what is now simply Classical)
*Folk
* etc. as is
This would do away with Music History, altogether, as a heading, but would avoid that awkward informational glitch and make unnecessary any kind of transitional information that always seems to wind up self-referential.  
Anyway, is this already what Wikpedia might call a "good article"?Jeffmatt 07:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a map in the folk music section that explains some of the complexities of Italian geographical references. If it's not a good idea, feel free to delete it. I can always recycle it for a separate article some day.Jeffmatt 15:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I wrote a short item on Ancient Roman music to kill that red link in the history section. It needs work, but it's a start.Jeffmatt 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: added a paragraph

message: Whew! What a learning curve. I added the Italian national anthem to the music info box. I put it under "genre" --not necessarily a good choice.Jeffmatt 10:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (later) and page/lists of Italian music festivals and operas houses --short lists, but at least they're up and linked from the info box.Jeffmatt 11:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: added to Music Box template

message: ...to whoever fixed up the Infobox. Sorry if I botched it. It looks much better this way, although there is now an overlap: one section on "Festivals" with "festivals" repeated at the bottom under "related topics." Jeffmatt 06:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: thank you

message: I fiddled with the music box a bit. (See discussion there) Template:Italianmusic.
Also, I deleted that photo of the Mafia record --although they told me they would break my legs if I did so!-- and moved it to the last slot in popular music. I changed the title to Outlaw music. As far as what niche it fits in--Willie Nelson (I think) once said that "being an outlaw in music these days just means that your limo is double-parked outside the recording studio."  We have "gangsta" music, so these folks fit in somewhere. They are not paid professional pop singers, nor are they working farmers playing folk instruments. Thay have all been in jail and sing songs about killing cops. In any event, I find it interesting, but it if you don't, feel free to delete it. 
I left the list bullets in the instrument section because it's a list of instruments. It is also easier on the eye, but if it is not Wikipedia formatting, feel free to delete them.
I'll give the other items some thought.Jeffmatt 22:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a few changes in response to peer review

message: I have reviewed the article & concluded that this article quite easily fufils the criterion for being a good article. I have therefore promoted it & would like to congratulate all the contributers for doing a fine job.
Cheers
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 06:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: I have rewritten the lead to try to conform to Wikipedia's view that the lead should be a kind of stand-alone summary of the article that follows. I think the new lead is probably better than the old one, but feel free to revert or--better--edit the new one. It is 4 paragraphs, more or less in keeping with the Wiki guidelines for an article that is as long as this one. All comments welcome. Jeffmatt 08:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrote lead

message: I don't remember if I put in the name originally. In any event, he is a pop singer, and it is reasonable to mention such persons briefy in such an article. If you sign your comments, we could talk about it. But don't worry. I don't think he'll be mentioned again. I think you must have edited out the name. That's fine, but at least note the changes you make. Jeffmatt 08:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sign your name

message: To Tuf-Kat: I'm starting to add some references. I'll try to meet the goal of one for each paragraph. It'll take a few days, I think.  Any comments on the lead? Jeffmatt 08:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the colons after "ISBN" ;-) Circeus 21:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I converted all the references I could to Cite template. The fields that should ideally be filled I left open. Circeus 14:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding references

message: Wow, this section's awfully brief - only a passing mention of madrigals (!), no laude, no canti carnascialeschi, no frottole, no Landini, only a link to the trecento... I've added some relevant, Italocentric info on chant.  I'll add some citations when I can get to my reference books.  I'll see what I can know together for a quick overview of the rest. Peirigill 20:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early music

message: I think the material you added is great. I wonder if you can think of a few dates to add to the Timeline. I threw together a hasty version of one some weeks ago. It's linked in the infobox.Jeffmatt 06:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a look and see what I can add.  Thanks for the kind words!  Peirigill 07:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Early Music Timeline

message: It occurs to me that I no longer know how to insert new references since I have never used that citation template before. Point me and I shall seek. Jeffmatt 06:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation templates are listed at Wikipedia:Citation templates. The exact template depends on whether you cite a book (), an encyclopedia or similar large, multi-authored book  (), or an academic journal article (). Because they make locating a book much easier, ISBNs arealways deeply appreciated. At worst, you can can just format the citation accirding to what it looks like on screen and someone else will convert it. Circeus 20:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cite template

message: ...to someone...Tuf-Kat?...for the new stuff in the folk music section. I think it looks fine. Jeffmatt 07:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: congratulations...

message: The recent edit in the "characteristics" section to
"...Italian music typically features a dominant melody, with limited focus on the text; this is true in opera, popular music and even modern styles like Italian hip hop and the music of the cantautori singer-songwriters..."
is overstated. The phrase "limited focus" makes it sounds as if there is no meaningful text in Italian opera, pop music or, more recently, "text/music" such as rap. I suggest something like...
"...Melody has typically been important in most Italian musical forms, even at the expense of text and harmonic complexity. This true in opera, popular music and even, to some extent, in modern text-centered styles such as Italian hip hop and the music of the cantautori singer-songriters."
I'll make that change now. Jeffmatt 16:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my recent edit, and I'm in agreement with your change. Tuf-Kat 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: text vs melody

message: Hey, I've just created and will momentarily launch a WP:PR for Italian music terminology.  I'd really like some native Italian speakers to comment, so please do so at Wikipedia:Peer review/Italian music terminology/archive1. Tuf-Kat 02:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Tuf-Kat. I put a few comments on that page. In this article--on instrumentation--there is a line "Italian instrumentation is an integral part of all facets of folk music." Is that a typo? Shouldn't it be, "Instrumentation is an integral part of all facets of Italian folk music"?  Jeffmatt 07:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Italian music terminology]]

message: I put a link in the lead to Music instrument technology, a stub that I've just started. I looked for a general article but couldn't find one. The stub is not much, yet--just a link to individual articles about various instruments. Jeffmatt 06:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Instrument technology

message: I tried to merge some of the information in paras 2, 3 & 4. It should be a bit shorter now and hang together better. I didn't touch the two short paragraphs of the lead. They now seem redundant in light of what follows. Delete them? Jeffmatt 05:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a paragraph under imported styles on early French pop music--café-chantant (and blue-linked it to a new music stub at Café-chantant--in Italy. I adjusted the lead to reflect that addition. Jeffmatt 08:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: early popular music

message: Under "scholarship," I blue-linked Centro Nazionale Studi di Musica Popolare to a new stub.  Jeffmatt 06:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a general lead paragraph at the beginning of the "scholarship" section. I'll work on blue-linking some of the names. Jeffmatt 08:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a paragraph on the avangarde and electronic music to the "scholarship" section, though I am not sure that it belongs there. Maybe. Electronic music probably deserves a separate section after "Classical music," called Avantgarde Music or something similar, but since we seem to feel that "Classical music" should include the present, then electronic music might fit in at the end of the "Classical music" section but still in that section. I suppose we can wait until the great division of this article takes place (see above discussion) before deciding.Jeffmatt 09:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: scholarship

message: I'll have to give that some thought in order to expand it. It is an angle I had overlooked. 
The opera secttion does seem shakey now, as you say, because there is no historical stuff before it. I feel a bit uneasy about that. Is the history stuff still available as another article? It would be nice to have that linked. I still think a short history section wouldn't hurt in this article. I mean short. I can do it of you think it's wise. Either that or a few sentences of up-beefing along the lines of what I tried in the lead sentence to "Instrumental" --the part that starts, "Historically......". (I just tried that. It might work. Have a look.) In any event, I put in a sentence about Verdi, since it's weird to mention opera and how popular and important it is and then mention a lot of other names but not his. 
The term "art music" was invented because people got sloppy with "classical music', technically a period of music between 1750 and 1800. We are using "classical music" in the common, widespread sloppy usage. That's fine. Musicologists will prtoest, but that's fine, too.  No one understands "art music" anyway.  (Painters who play the trombone?) Maybe you should put this up for peer review as is and see what happens. Fresh ideas might be nice. All it can do is send us back to the drawing board. Besides, we can continue to work on it, no matter where it is, right?  p.s. I bluelinked a few more names of modern composers. There is a valuable resources if you see the last external link--Italian musicians with webpages. I wish I had found that earlier.
:I have no problem with the idea of a section on history, as long as it's short.  It's probably best if you do write it though - it's not my area really.  One paragraph for each of the main sections in the music history article would be ideal, I think. (maybe two for the most recent section) Tuf-Kat 04:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the rewrite of the opera section, BTW. I'd even like another sentence or two maybe, on history.  I've split it into two paragraphs. Tuf-Kat 04:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: social identity and politics

message: Sorry , but I am having trouble with the bibliographic template. I have two references for the material I added under "politics". The first comes at the end of para one, after the word "exiled". The second at the end of para 2 after the words "rejected it". They are both from the same encyclopedia: Il Mondo della musica, 1956, Garzanti publisher, Milan. (no ISBN) The first reference is the entry "Cimarosa" on p. 583. The second ref is the entry "Un ballo in maschera" on p. 163. Both entries are unsigned. If you do it for me, I'll look and see how you did it and that means I won't have to bother you anymore. (Ha!) Jeffmatt 12:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: footnote help

message: The lede needs some work:
*Per WP:LEAD, the lede should be an abstract of the article, summarizing its most salient points.  It shouldn't include information not found in the article.  Right now, the first paragraph still reads as though the article goes into depth about Italian music history, for example.  "17th century" opera is probably too specific a detail to be included in the lede, especially since it's no longer within the scope of the article now that Music history of Italy has been split off.  It's also technically inaccurate; Rinuccini’s Dafne was produced in 1598.
*My rule of thumb is that the TOC pretty much determines the contents of the lede.  If something is important enough to merit a section heading, it's important enough to be mentioned in the lede.  For example, opera is mentioned only tangentially in the lede: its origins in the 17th century, comic opera as lighter music, and the existence of opera houses.  There's no mention of experimental classical music.
*Conversely, if something isn't important enough to be mentioned in the lede, maybe it doesn't merit its own section.  For example, you go into some detail about the regions of folk music in the lede, but you don't mention folksong, instruments, or dance in the lede.  "Dance" strikes me as something that might better be subsumed under the "Instrumental" section rather than meriting its own section, especially given how short it is.
*The first sentence should define the topic.  Right now it seems to comment on the topic instead.  What about something like "The music of Italy ranges from traditional to experimental classical music, folk music from Sicily to the Alps, and popular music both native and imported.  The music of Italy is a microcosm..."?
Also, per WP:MOS, the section headers shouldn't include words from the article's title.  How about
*Classical, Folk, and Popular instead of Classical music, Folk music, and Popular music?
*Instrumental and Experimental instead of Instrumental music and Experimental music?
*Role in society instead of Classical music in society?
*Would "Performance" be better than "Venues, festivals and holidays"?
A lot of this isn't critical unless you're working towards FA status.  The opening sentence, though, has been troubling me for a while.  Peirigill 19:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Peirigill. Now that the Great Split has been wrought, all of those points are good ones. It'll take some time. I'll look at the lead. I put it up in its current form some weeks ago as a replacement for the very weak one we had.  Jeffmatt 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (Later) I tried a new lead in accordance with some of your points. I followed the TOC as much as I could. It wound up a lot shorter than the other lead, but then the article is now much shorter. Feel free to delete, revert, convert, pervert and divert.Jeffmatt 06:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lede and section organization

message: I am confused about the last paragraph in "politics," which contains:
"A roots revival stimulated interest in folk traditions, led by writers, collectors and traditional performers.[3] The political left of Italy viewed this roots revival with disdain, as a product of the "unprivileged classes"[6]. The revivalist scene thus became associated with the opposition, and became a vehicle for "protest against free-market capitalism".[3]
Why would the left--which regards itself as the voice of the "unprivileged"-- view a roots revival with disdain? --that is, unless we are saying that left is, itself, somewhat middle of the road, (the Italian terminolgy is normally "center-left" for that). The opposition would then be the far left. I think the paragraph makes sense if you change the phrase "the politcal left of Italt" to "the poltical right of Italy". Then you have opposition of right and left, with the left being the supporters of the revival as well as using it as a protest against free-market capitalism. I won't make that change because maybe I am missing the point. It's easy to do that in Italian politics. Jeffmatt 09:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: left and right

message: I tried to add a bit to the dance section. Have a look. Jeffmatt 08:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a fine addition - are there any kinds of classical dance that are not ballet?  If so, expanding the scope of the section would be good. The folk dance section looks great! Tuf-Kat 23:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, there's definitely some overlap.  Hopefully, sooner or later someone dance-inclined will come along, and maybe help clear things up.  (A good Dance of Italy article would help) Tuf-Kat 23:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dance

message: I adjusted that section by shifting a few sentences so that we get a smoother flow from lead to northern to southern. Jeffmatt 05:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good - I'm also fine with adding a paragraph on film music, though I'm not entirely sure I agree with the placement.  I think I'll make some small edits tonight and hopefully make a couple sound samples (may not have time to upload them, but I'll make them). Tuf-Kat 00:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: regions

message: Hey, nice job on the sound files! I never even had to download the .ogg player. My Irfan photo view has a sound player, as well. Picked it right up. Curious about copyright--say, on those Caruso things. They're from the 1975 RCA  100th anniversary of Caruso's Birth release. They are all re-releases, of course, but a re-release can be copyrighted. If two guys named Vinnie from RCA come to visit me, shall I send them to you? 
I also redid the link to Chitarra_battente. It was a one-liner, but it's an important folk instrument, so I expanded it. Jeffmatt 03:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't actually upload any of the current ones, they're all from the commons.  So, tell the Vinnies I'm only the middleman... Maybe that'll give me enough time for Witness Protection Tuf-Kat 14:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I fixed it.  It was missing a set of ]] (one for the Puccini link, and one for the pic). Tuf-Kat 00:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sound files

message: I've archived the talk page (feel free to bring something back if I was too aggressive, but this page is long). And I'm about to active a Wikipedia:Peer review/Music of Italy/archive2. Tuf-Kat 00:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The shorter discussion page is fine: the original was huge. The music additions are fine. The article looks good, I think. Jeffmatt 06:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steps forward 

message: I disagree with some of those "citation needed" inserts. It is not generally necessary to cite common knowledge--such as the most popular song festival in Italy. In any event, I'll see what I can do. Jeffmatt 08:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: citation needed?

message: I took the liberty of deleting the phrase "and perception" after "Instrumental and vocal classical music is an iconic part of Italian identity..." It was unclear to me in the sense that I think I know what it means ("...as well as the way in Italians are perceived by others") but I can't come up with a less wordy way of saying it--- "...and perception..." by itself makes it sound as if maybe the Italians are doing the perceiving. Small point, but we don't want give the nit-pickers a blank check.Jeffmatt 18:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: small change to lead

message: I haven't made this one, but anticipating comments on the next  FA-go-round similar to the first time, I suggest minor changes along the lines of: "...Italian innovation in musical scales, harmony, notation, and theater were necessary to the development of musical forms such as opera in the late 16th century and then later forms in European classical music, such as the symphony and concerto.
"Instrumental and vocal classical music is an iconic part of Italian identity, spanning experimental art music and international fusions to symphonic music and opera. Opera is integral to Italian musical identity, and though, by defintion, not "pop music" is nontheless a major segment of music that is popular." 
Maybe that last part is clunky, but I am trying to find a way around the objection to calling opera "popular music" and yet show that opera commonly shows up in such pop formats as musical variety shows on Italian television, for example. Jeffmatt 07:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: another change to lead?

message: In the fifth paragraph of this section, there was half a sentence (mentioning the TV show "Sabato Sera"). I couldn't find the original in the history, so I reconstructed something plausible, I hope. Jeffmatt 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: imported styles

message: In the article is not present the roker Vasco Rossi.
He is the gretest italian roker and the best seller cantautore in Italy but not very know outside of Italy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.110.20.97 (talk) 15:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vasco Rossi 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, T Rex | talk 11:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Pass

message: :Image:Sanremofest.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Sanremofest.jpg

message: Madrigals were invented in Italy (according to the Wikipedia 
article on "Madrigals", but no mention is made of them here in this article. 
I think madrigals should be at least mentioned on the "Music of Italy" page 
since this form was clearly invented in Italy (and then became used in other 
countries and their languages).
:You're quite right.  This article omits mention of music before about 1600 (except briefly in passing as regards church music).  Italy was the musical center of Europe in the 16th century -- other musicians flocked to the place.  No mention of the madrigal, the most popular secular form in Europe for decades. No mention of the Venetian school and the birth of the Baroque either.  Looks like a whole section has never been written.  At one point a "Classical music of Italy" was split off from this article, which may have obliterated those centuries from mention. Antandrus  (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Madrigals-Italy]]

message: I don't know if there's scope to look at this article and Music history of Italy as a whole, it feels like there must be scope to integrate them more elegantly than the seealso I've just added at the top of this one... FlagSteward (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're probably right, but it's a tough one. I was one of the two or three main contributors to this article, which got longer and longer and finally failed the peer review for FA, in my view, because no one could agree on whether to deal with "Italy" as a relatively new nation state (in the Music of (nation) series, or a very old cultural concept that would include all music from the Italian peninsula--ever!--(maybe even Etruscan barbershop quartets). We couldn't agree and there it sits.Jeffmatt (talk) 07:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those Etruscan barbers could rock the place! There's a third way, which to me is a no-brainer.  You get in a right pickle when trying to cut up broad cultural movements with arbitrary political events.  For instance, Verdi was technically born a French citizen, although by the time of I Lombardi Parma was an independent duchy, which had been returned to the Bourbons by the time of La traviata and which had become part of a unified Italy by the time of Aida.  In the real world, will the average Wikipedian music lover be interested in that kind of thing? If you are writing about a cultural movement, you should look at the broad sweep of "Italian-ness" rather than trying to keep up with the complicated politics. In that regard recent countries such as Italy and Germany make the Wikipedia convention of "XXXX of YYYY" rather meaningless, far better to replace "Music of Italy" with "Italian music" - as a WP:COMMONNAME there's not much doubt what that "means" to the average Wikipedian, whilst being fairly pedant-proof. If it doesn't fit the Music of ZZZZ framework, that's just tough, they'll just have to cope with Italian Music, like we have Italian wine for instance.  However, I would regard what happened before the fall of Rome as a distinct culture, and so I'd put those Etruscan barbers in a "Music of European antiquity" article or some such, there's not much to link the Etruscans with Verdi other than geographical proximity. JMO anyway. FlagSteward (talk) 12:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how merging both articles to Italian music really solves anything, and I think there's a lot of doubt what that term means to people: Googling "Italian music" and "Frank Sinatra" gets more hits than "Italian music" and "Zucchero", or does Zucchero not count because his music (rock) is American and not Italian? Are recent immigrants to Italy part of "Italian music"? What about Sicilian or Sardinian music? Are they "Italian music" or are they distinct? Is the answer different if you're talking about traditional launeddas or "Italian"-style opera or hip hop? Even if your answer to these questions is clear, many people will argue the point. "Music of Italy" has the advantage of being clear in scope - Italy is a country with well-defined borders, and anything relevant to the musical lives of people who live within those borders is part of the "music of Italy". "Italian" is far more vague than "Italy". Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I don't see any value to the "dab block"-style pointer to music history of Italy; there's a link to it right over in the box, and it could be worked into the lead more gracefully than at the top of the article. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thought I'd point out that, whether the topic is "Italian music" or "Music of Italy", the nationality of a person like say Verdi is really irrelevant. If he played a role in Italian music/Music of Italy, it doesn't matter if he's Japanese and never been to or even heard of Italy, he can still be covered. Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello, TUF-KAT! How are you? Long time, no hear. (Ah, and hasn't it been peaceful?!) I still don't see a solution to the problem. I think we had it pretty well knocked, though. Longish with some history and some modern stuff. You know, not a bad compromise. I just happened to look in on the article for the first time in a while and saw FlagSteward's comment and responded. I hope you are well. Greetings from Naples. Jeffmatt (talk) 14:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm glad to be back around! I was busy with work, then became unemployed, and I am now (unfortunately for Wikipedia) re-employed... I'll probably re-bring this article to FAC in the nearish future, but I have some other stuff to do first probably. I think it'll make it through sooner or later. FACers like to complain about stuff, but if there's a consensus among the article's editors to handle something a particular way, they'll usually let it go through eventually, even if it takes a few tries. Anyway, it's good to see you again too! Greetings from Maryland, Tuf-Kat (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Music history of Italy]]

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Music of Italy. 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/20070225015233/http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/blog08.html to http://faculty.ed.umuc.edu/~jmatthew/naples/blog08.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060608103535/http://www.istruzione.it/normativa/2005/allegati/dlgs_secondo_ciclo_all_c5.pdf to http://www.istruzione.it/normativa/2005/allegati/dlgs_secondo_ciclo_all_c5.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060716115824/http://www.istruzione.it/riforma/secondociclo.shtml to http://www.istruzione.it/riforma/secondociclo.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060427113426/http://www.netmusicitalia.it/discografiche.html to http://www.netmusicitalia.it/discografiche.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130415202316/http://www.sibmas.org/idpac/europe/it.html to http://www.sibmas.org/idpac/europe/it.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Music of Italy. 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/20100124034323/http://www.cematitalia.it/cemat/index.htm to http://www.cematitalia.it/cemat/index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)