Talk:Common practice period

message: If you must say "refers to", then you're writing about the phrase rather than using the phrase to write about what it refers to.  In that case, italicize it.  But "refers to" is usually better avoided, since "is" is much simpler. Michael Hardy 23:55, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget the Galant style or Impressionism. Also, do forget the Renaissance. The Common Practice is from 1650-1900ish and the Renaissance was from 1400-1600. 71.34.93.226 (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Refers to

message: 'Anacrustic' is indeed a valid word, appearing in the Oxford Dictionary which cites Gerard Manley Hopkins' use of it in 1878 in a letter to Robert Bridges; deriving directly from ανακρουστικος its invention cannot properly be called a 'barbarous'. Stumps 08:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Stumps: it is precisely because of that august dictionary's acceptance of the word, and its impeccable classical pedigree, that I retracted my animadversion in the very next edit summary (qv). All the same, the article plunges very suddenly into obscurity after some very lucid lead material, don't you think? It could certainly be made more friendly to non-expert readers. – Noetica 11:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anacrustic 

message: The subject matter of this article is supposed to be a period in European art music which "lasted from about 1600 until about 1900"; so why do all three of the References and the only External Link refer to sources whose primary subject matter is Twentieth-century Music? Fenneck (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Links 

message: What is the general reaction to the section called "Duration"? Specifically, can anyone present a reasonable argument why the whole thing should not be deleted as being pseudo-intellectual musicological technobabble largely irrelevant to the subject of the article? Or should it be translated into decent English first and THEN deleted as irrelevant? Fenneck (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it sounds like you're saying you don't understand it. Hyacinth (talk) 12:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duration 

message: I don't know much more about the "Common Practice Period" after reading this article than before, and furthermore I don't see any inline references that might enlighten me on the subject. References, please, preferably inline. And rewrite this article explaining the basics for those of us who come to the page without any musical training whatsoever. Why is it named the "common practice period"? What do the words "common" and "practice" refer to? (I gather from the article that "period" means a historical period of 300 years 1600-1900.) Who named it, and what did they think was the distinguishing characteristic (hallmark) of work in this period. I take it that it basically covers at least part of the period when classical music was in vogue. What distinguishes common practice music from classical music? Is one a subset of the other? Why is this period not called the classical period or the early modern period? I would guess that this would be the first 300 year period when even temperament would be the norm, something we all but take for granted today. But I don't see the term even temperament in your article. Surely it would have been a big deal and should be made mention of.
If you must use a lot of musical terminology like chord progression numbers and contrapuntal norms and parallel fifths and tonal vs modal, please explain yourself inline as much as possible, and not just include references to other wikipedia articles where such terms are explained. Sorry I'm being a tough critic here, but my first impression of this page was total lack of communication due to overuse of jargon and too high of an expectation of prior knowledge from the reader. Dlw20070716 (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a lot of work! 

message: To mince words with  and other interested editors: I  with "dissolution" because it implies that the tonal system no longer exists, which is naturally false. Words like "abandonment" and "departure" seem to be more accurate. Can we look for consensus on a better term? Ibadibam (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see your point about "dissolution". However, "abandonment" and "departure" also would seem to suggest it is not used any longer and, worse, as part of a deliberate program of action. It seems to me that what is really meant is the hegemony of common-practice harmony, rather than common-practice harmony per se, is ... what? "Lost"? "Broken"? "Displaced"? "Weakened"? "Overthrown"? "Rejected"? "Dispelled"? "Dissolved"? "Abandoned"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the "decline of the tonal system"? Ibadibam (talk) 01:40, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Better, but how does this differ from "dissolution"? Does it seem less final somehow?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissolution