This template is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this template or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music
Looks nice, not sure so many people would think the present is modernism though. Even "post-tonal" attracts controversy. What do other people think? Stirling Newberry 00:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The present isn't modernism, it is contemporary. Not even the 20th century is modernism, but "modern". Hyacinth 21:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The years given in the template do not match up with what is written in the very articles linked to. Please give justification for current years listed. Hyacinth 21:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Considering this is to be placed on the page European-influenced classical music as the main article, shouldn't this template read "History of European classical music" and not art music, for consistency's sake?--Dmcdevit 04:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
TfD nomination of Template:European art music eras
The template is named {{History of Western art music}} and its headline link is to Classical music. That article does not mention the items you added to that template: Baroque pop, Progressive rock, Progressive metal, Krautrock; even the article art music barely mentions these genres. That's why I saw no good reason to include them in this template which is used in those articles which it listed before your addition.
I've modified the template several times in recent weeks to try and bring some consistency to the uses of the terms "period" and "era". It appears from general usage documented on the talk page of the article "Common practice period" that in music history, a period normally represents a longer span of time than an era even though the opposite hierarchy is used in geology where an era is the longer span of time. A curious exception is the classical "period" which is frequently so called even though is is a shorter span of time than the common practice "period" of which it is a part. In this case I have edited to call the classical time span an "era or period" to recognise both usages. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk 10:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk13:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Style vs. calendar
What's with the inclusion of style era and calendar era in Modern and contemporary period? It seems overly complicated. I think we should make a decision rather than sit on the fence. Squandermania (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was bold and removed "CE". If someone wants to return it, fine, but please remove "AD" in that case. Using both styles side-by-side is pretentious nonsense. Even the "Jesus" article was able to rid itself this problem after years of foolishness, reaching FA in the process. I'm fairly confident that Wikipedia will survive if this template lowers itself from the proverbial fence of which you speak. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post common practice period
Since no concise or official name has been given to the post common practice period, and since calendar eras don't really belong with the style eras, I think the best approach is to combine the most recent calendar eras into a single descriptive title for our own musical period. ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31(talk23:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO "Galant era" is a misnomer though. There's no such "era", while "galant music" was composed as well in the Late Baroque as Classical eras, but is, afaik, not usually classified as an "era" in its own right, so seems a bit WP:OR-ish the way it is presented in the template now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serialism & Changes
Serialism is over. Romanticism is over. It's not because composers still occasionally use these styles (like they do medieval music and whatnot), that the age of such music genres is still "on". --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But this is your simply opinion? You can't just decide that these things are over when composers still write in such styles. The ending dates for Serialism are made up – because it hasn't "ended", likewise there are still plenty of composers classified as "Neo Romanticism". I'd like to see some sources if you're going to make these claims, why would the Neo Romanticism exist if it were not real? And why would it be included over Neoclassicism? Aza24 (talk) 05:58, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals:
Serialism is not "over" and should be in Contemporary Music without and end date. The 1980s date is completely made up and not even in the Serialism article.
The template heading name should be changed to "History of Western art music" or "History of Western classical music" since "Periods, eras, and movements of Western classical music" is pointlessly specific, the word "History" encompasses this fine by itself.
The 2nd Viennese School should be removed since we don't include any other schools and their work falls under Serialism or Expressionism
Abrahamsen has been dealt with: his article doesn't mention, nor has a reference to reliable source for, such assertions: consequently related navbox removed & adapted, & related category removed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Francis, you're missing the point of what I'm saying. We need a source that explains when Serialism ended, if it did as you say this should be easy to find. The "1980s" is completely arbitrary at the moment, otherwise the movement simply hasn't ended. What about Milton Babbitt and Pierre Boulez they are clearly serialist and lived well into the 21st century? Aza24 (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This source has "the three decades following World War II" for the era of serialism in Canada and "most western countries". Combined with what was already said about Pärt above, c. 1970s seems a more appropriate delineation of the end of the era. Again, "era" – which does not imply that serialism (as a technique) was no longer practised beyond that era, like baroque music is still being composed in the 21st century, its era still being over. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well -- it's a routine philosophical problem to which there is no easy solution, the problem of imposing binary distinctions (start/stop, on/off) to non-binary phenomena (cultural history, music style periods). With earlier eras it's pretty easy just to go with scholarly consensus: medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, etc. are decently well-delineated. With some argument, of course. The more recent the era, the more difficult the delineation, particularly the end. The more modern sub-eras (serialism, minimalism, etc.) begin with something famous and well-documented and easy to define. The end not so much. They're rather like the sound of a gong: the opening crash is obvious and overwhelming, but it continues to sound -- eventually you can hear the other instruments clearly again, but has it stopped? When do you say that you hear it no more? I'm not convinced we need "end" dates for the more modern eras. Why not just have start dates? They start strong, and then gradually fade, like the sound of the gong. Antandrus(talk)15:31, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template chaos
Someone here at the template is persistently trying to downgrade postmodernism from a broad era to a movement with specific stylistic traits as might be found under impressionism or some-such. This downgrade directly contradicts the Wikipedia article about postmodernism that clearly identifies postmodernism as an era. I think the editor behind these revisionist reverts needs get an editorial concensus supporting his/her position if the edits are to stick, otherwise those who support postmodernism as an era will just keep taking the reverts down and restoring the proper terminology. If an editorial concensus emerges supporting the revisionist reverts, then the reverter must also "correct" the main Wikipedia article about postmodernism to downgrade it to a movement. It will also be necessary to correct references to postmodernism as an era in some other Wikipedia articles to rescue our music articles from the semantic chaos and mutual contradictions that most of them have fallen into. If no editorial concensus emerges about the nature of postmodernism, I will resume my efforts to protect the version in the original Wikipedia article about postmodernism until a concensus emerges to the contrary.~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does "minimalism" (in music) necessarily belong to "postmodernism" (in music)? I'm not sure it does. At least some reliable sources would need to confirm that. Afaik minimalism is rather a late stage of modernism, which existed concurrently with early postmodern approaches. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, John Cage: his New York Times obituary (see reference in the article on the composer) qualifies the composer as "minimalist" in the title of the article. Qualifying Cage as postmodernist would rather seem like a stretch: I don't see any content to that effect in the Wikipedia article (on the contrary: his collaboration to "Modern" projects is highlighted throughout the article), and even less a reference to a reliable source which would call Cage a postmodernist. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I admit I've picked up some bad editing habits lately, including sometimes making intemperate remarks and not following all the protocols in proper sequence. I think this is due to the fact the talk pages on other Wikipedia articles I've worked on recently seem to have fallen into disuse as expanded edit history pages have made it possible to carry on discussions there rather than on the proper discussion pages. If I propose or perform edits on some of these articles, any comments I leave on the discussion page usually doesn't get read because other contributing editors are going to the edit history pages to get the blow-by-blow accounts of what's being discussed or edited over there. It is often impossible to find any editorial consensus for many of these article, and this is what leads to many edit wars. I did some work on this template a couple of years ago, and it seemed my work was accepted for awhile. Then after a while, my edits started disappearing or being changed or relocated without any explanations I could see, and that's what started to get my back up. Maybe in my growing confusion and frustration, I was looking in some of the wrong places for the explanations.
I see this template is still trying to uphold the old rules, and now that I know that, I can double down to get my own edit habits back into line with that. That said, it seems to me this template has become rather chaotic because most of the articles we draw upon for this template from both Wikipedia and from outside sources are a bit of a shambles themselves. Most of these articles use book sources which are hard to verify. We need way more inline citations rather than the book citations which many of us cannot access easily. There are many other issues surrounding this template and its sources. The template specifies it is to cover periods, eras, and movements, but now "schools" and vague relative terms like "contemporary classical" are being added without any clear definitions or citations to justify their inclusion as eras or movements, if that's what they are. At this rate, I can see this template growing very long and unwieldy as more and more schools are added. I think it's going to take a ton of work to sort this out and produce a template that is concise, consistent, and cited. Are we all up for this?~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "... inline citations rather than ... book citations ..." – afaics you're confusing two concepts of a different category. A WP:inline citation can be to a book or to a website. A citation to a website or a book can be an inline citation, but it can as well be a citation of another type (i.e. not inline). For series boxes, such as {{History of Western art music}}, there are no citations of any type in the template: the verifiability of its content depends on citations given elsewhere. Whether these citations are to books or whatever is immaterial, the only requirement is that the citations are to reliable sources. So I propose to mention the citations here on this talk page when we're considering changes to the content of the template. For verifiability purposes such citations can then be inserted in mainspace where necessary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another ref for postmodernism appearing around 1975. (PS: don't know how representative that book is, but it might help out on several of the time range definitions in the template, at least for those that fall, roughly, in the 1945–1995 period) --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’m more than happy to discus where minimalism fits into modernism vs postmodernism, but I think first we seriously need to address why this template is not simply called “History of Western Classical music”, why the Mannheim school and Second Viennese School are even on the template and why NeoRomantisicm was been removed, since these issues are left over from the above comments and are part of the changes Christ tried to do but was reverted. @Francis Schonken and ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31: thoughts? Aza24 (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions. I suppose I think that taking issues one by one (for the shear impracticality of discussing all at once), and not changing subject in the middle of the discussion of a topic works best. Point by point:
{{History of Western art music}} vs {{History of Western Classical music}} – not an issue that needs to be sorted first, nor one that is particularly difficult to address (take to WP:TFD at any point if you think that to be a pressing matter). On the ground of the matter: "Classical music" is far more ambiguous than "Western art music" (see e.g. boilerplate disambiguation notice at the top of the Classical music article; see e.g. also Official Classical Singles Chart, which, for its short existence, used a definition that is not compatible with "Western art music", indicating that "History of Western Classical music" could be seen as a different topic than "History of Western art music").
"Mannheim school" is, afaik, a significant part of the history of the "classical era"
"Second Viennese School" is, afaik, one of the most significant parts of "modernism" – there is some ambiguity in that some historians see it as a mere early phase of serialism, others as a part of modernism in its own right. So we can discuss that. For the time being, I'd keep it in the template as a part of modernism in its own right (because of its fundamental significance in all modernism-related developments).
"Neoromanticism" – not sure why it should be either in or out of the template. Sources? I mean, without sources indicating it as an important part of the history of Western art music, it should probably best be left out (for the time being).
Oh sorry I wasn't clear about the title thing. I meant for the actual title at the top of the template should be something other than "Periods, eras, and movements of Western classical music" – it's kind of a mouthful, either "History of Western Classical Music" or "History of Western Art Music" would be better imo, perhaps the "History of Western Art Music" due to what you said and the fact that the template itself already has this name. I could understand the Manheim School's inclusion, but the Second Viennese School is fully covered by Serialism and Expressionism so its inclusion hardly seems pertinent. Neoromanticism (music) already has sources for various important composers, demonstrating its importance. Btw Francis, are you going to take that Music of the 1500s template to TFD – or should I? Aza24 (talk) 05:25, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re. "Periods, eras, and movements of Western classical music" vs "History of Western classical music" as header of the template: one approach to "history" is treating it as a succession of events (e.g., 7 May 1824: première of Beethoven's ninth Symphony), which would be an impractical approach for a template; hence limiting the series box's content to "periods, eras and movements" seems like better approach. I think it best to make that clear in the template's header, in order to avoid (as much as possible) uncontrolled growth of its content.
Re. Second Viennese School – still preferring the current approach: too important to compound it with serialism.
Re. Neoromanticism (music) – no preference: does this have workable start and end dates? I also suppose it is not a subdivision of modernism (or is it?), so remains also to propose a way of how to present it in the template.
Related question: where do composers such as Gershwin and Bernstein fit in 20th-century classical (or: art) music? Neoromanticism doesn't seem like a right fit, nor any of the other categories currently in the template? Or is it OK such composers are not covered by the template's general categories? --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:26, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced with having the Second Viennese School. Expressionism and Serialism were the result of such a school and completely cover all of the music it produced. The inclusion of Neoromanticism raises the same question as Impressionism, Expressionism, Serialism and Minimalism – something to Antadrus brought up earlier – they have clear starting dates but the ending dates are not. Sources seem to simply refer to when they were most popular rather than when they ended, and an authoritative sources like Grove that gives clear start and end dates for periods like the Classical and Renaissance, doesn't even attempt to do so for these. To this end, the end dates should be removed for all modernism periods (Neo Romanticism is a movement of the 20th century – at least that's how Grove explains it). There scholarly consensus doesn't exist for them in the same respect that it exists for others. As far as Bernstein and Gershwin, there probably is no appropriate "classification" their styles vary too much – and sometimes fall under a "Jazz–Classical" hybrid, which I don't think a term for even exists. The scope of Modernism as a whole probably includes them enough. Btw, all you had to say about the 1500s template was "yes" or "no"... Aza24 (talk) 07:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but how do you propose to list neoromanticism in the template? With which dates? Above I mentioned https://books.google.com/books?id=o9HJ8EObFgcC – the book does not seem to mention neoromanticism once, thus confirming that it is not a part of modernism and/or had become insignificant after 1945.
For clarity: I don't really agree that end dates are mostly too vague to work with – it took me a few minutes to find a workable end date for serialism (see above). Maybe not always that easy (end of the modernism umbrella seems a bit more difficult to nail satisfactorily), but that's why we have this talk page discussion, & an invitation to continue looking for sources that may provide the info. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One source doesn't "confirm" anything – the same source doesn't mention Impressionism once... there are plenty of sources in the Neoromanticism (music) article that demonstrate its importance to significant composers. Since the term refers to a return to romanticism in the 20th century, having it start at 1910, the end of the Romantic era would make sense since the Romantic era can't be "returned to" until it's over. It doesn't seem to have "ended" either, with two important living composers David Del Tredici and Ellen Taaffe Zwilich being associated with it. On the topic of "end dates" for modernism movements, the fact that it took you "a few minutes" to find a source that vaguely gives a time where Serialism "enjoyed currency" is telling it it self – for the Romantic, Baroque and Classical eras, it would take seconds to find multiple sources give clear "start and end dates". I wonder if @Smerus: or @Jerome Kohl: might have some thoughts on if we should list "end dates" for 20 century movements. Aza24 (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Del Tredici: "He pioneered neo-Romanticism in the 1970s not as an act of commonplace communication but as one of rebellion against Modernism" (my emphasis), per the LAT source used in the article's intro. Neither Bartók nor Schoenberg are usually classified as Romantics, although their early compositions were clearly written in that tradition, thus Del Tredici should not be classified as a Modernist (although his earlier compositions likely belong there).
Zwilich: the source (and the intro of the Wikipedia article copies that verbatim – or is it the other way around: the source may be based on Wikipedia, which would be a WP:CIRCULAR no-no) has: "... post-modernist, neo-romantic style ...", so again talking about a style that originated after postmodernism had already started.
Taking these two composers together, the "neoromanticism" mentioned in their articles,
has nothing to to with modernism (confirming what was already said above);
seems to be one of the (smaller?) sub-categories of post-modernism.
... and does not provide an anchor for "the end of the Romantic era" anywhere near where neoromanticism would have started (other sources are needed for that if that would indeed be the case). And again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so, please, provide external reliable sources directly on this talk page to support assertions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:CANVASS, all I was trying to do is exactly what is said to be permissible: "broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Both users I notified are musicologists. At this point you seem to be arguing for the sake of doing so, so frankly I don't really care anymore. Both, myself and Antandrus have laid out serious concerns with the modernism movements being so rigidly defined and completely ignoring of the lack of academic consensus. If neoromanticsm is not well defined enough for you, fine, put it in a "see also" section at the bottom of the template, with other articles like Art music, Musical nationalism, Dates of classical music eras and Composition school that have importance but not a place in the actual template. This template is still missing the vital movement of Troubadour/Trouvère which Grove describes as "the earliest and most significant exponents of the arts of music and poetry in medieval Western vernacular culture." but if I added that you would immediately revert and then accuse me of WP:CANVASS when I try to broaden the conversation by asking others of their opinion. This conversation is pointless when you seem incapable of compromising. Aza24 (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, broadening would for instance be at the WikiProject Classical music talk page (without pinging anyone in particular), and, that is, if and when we'd have reached a dead end here, which also seems far from the case. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Italicization
Also, the ars nova etc. revert is pointless. MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is clear that they should be italicized since they are latin words "that do not yet have everyday use in non-specialized English". Sturm und Drang already does this, unless for some reason you think otherwise I would ask that you self revert. Aza24 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a waste of time to me, we follow the guidelines and what reliable sources say, both agree with italicization... Nevertheless I will open a thread there. Any thoughts on my previous comments would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 06:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been stable without italicisation for a long period of time, and partial italicisations seem undesirable anyhow. So, either it is discussed, for finding a new consensus (see WP:BRD), or it would probably better remain as it is now. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see quite a debate was raging on while I was preoccupied with other matters in my life, but for the sake of getting in my 2 cents worth, I'd like to make a simple suggestion regarding what goes on this template and what gets taken off. Basically we go with Groves as our main source and authority. If it's in Groves, we can go with it; if it isn't, we mostly don't. I've looked for other reliable sources and have come up empty-handed. Groves has been THE AUTHORITY on classical music history since long before I came into this world. As far as I'm concerned, everything else I've seen so far is either original research or POV, and that includes (but is not necessarily limited to) any non-grovian contributions or deletions I may have attempted (however it doesn't include Wikipedia info based on citations taken from books rather than websites, since I can't easily access the books and therefore can't currently comment on them). I see that Groves designates postmodernism as a "period" (or era, in Wikipedia parlence?), which as far as I can tell, is more than a "movement". However, I haven't become a subscriber yet so I haven't seen everything they have to say about the topic. Logically, if modernism is more than a movement, then postmodernism should be as well, since it basically means "after modernism". In the same way, post-minimalism means "after minimalism", both of which appear to be movements, or at least trends or styles of the same order in the hierarchy of classification. Groves seems to support this idea. I think we also have to see what Groves has to say about "schools". If they are equivilent to periods, eras, or movements, then they belong on the template; if not, they don't. Any takers? ~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Groves is often a good start, but almost never the all-and-everything of a classical music topic:
The on-line version is based on the latest print edition (2001), with several articles in that edition based on earlier versions without much updating. Some articles were updated after their 2001 version, some weren't. So, would likely not work too well for late 20th-century and 21st-century developments.
Some articles in Grove's contain absolute nonsense (example)
Since Grove's is written by a wide variety of authors, without harmonisation between the work of all these authors, it can, and does, contain internal contradictions: these contradictions even occur between two articles on the same topic (e.g. the 1994 and 2018 versions of the Fanny Mendelssohn article, by Citron and Mace respectively, both still available online).
The website also is a subscription website, with limited access for most (often equally reputable sources have better access, via, e.g. Google Books).
I would also not make too big a deal about whether something is usually termed an era or not. Often that is purely circumstantial, e.g. "modern" can be a characteristic of a Romantic era composition (e.g. Liszt wrote some music that was pretty "modern" for its time), "Modernism" is however an era, to which Liszt did not belong, whether or not it is termed "Modernism" or "Modernist Era". Second Viennese School is in all circumstances clear enough to not need an "era" qualifier. For the series box I'd always stay close to the Wikipedia article title: the box represents a way of navigating between articles, so maybe best to keep to the way these articles are titled for best recognisability, I mean, without adding the "era" qualifier when it's not in the Wikipedia article title. The box's header is clear enough – "periods, eras, movements": if its not one of those, it doesn't belong. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:50, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grove is undoubtedly as authoritative as any music source gets. All of the examples you have listed are based on your opinions and do not reflect any Wikipedia policy that states it is unreliable. NYT says that "(First Grove's and now New Grove's closest competitor in terms of scale and authority has been the German Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart -- Music in Past and Present. Edited by Friedrich Blume, it appeared in 14 volumes from 1949 to 1968. Ludwig Finscher is now overseeing a second edition, which began in 1994 and is intended to encompass 21 volumes by its completion in 2004.)" (here) meaning that a reliable source is stating that it is one of at least two authoritative sources. Either way, perhaps "era" should be taken out entirely, since "era" literally refers to the Middle Ages (Medieval era redirects there) and the Renaissance (Renaissance era) redirects there etc. removing it may be the clearest way and would avoid any confusion as to why its not "Modernist era". Alternatively we could use words that are actual in the article: "Medieval period" but this doesn't seem any more or less desirable since the phrase "Medieval period" also redirects to the general movement and its repetitive as the overarching movements (Early, common practice) are also "periods". Removing it would the clearest way and wouldn't be adding OR of calling it an "era" – the indentation would make its importance clear enough by it self. Aza24 (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to think that this template should ideally be a lot more straight forward, something like the example to the right. There are two many assumptions and too much arbitrariness in the current format. What makes the three Ars more notable than the troubadour, trouvère and minnesang movements—they were the first real secular schools after all. Or what about the first major Italian period (Trecento) or the beginning of Polyphony under the Notre Dame School. If the latter is covered under Ars Antiqua then surely the Mannheim school is covered under the classical era. Galant music is presented (in the current state) as a major movement alongside Baroque and Classical, but clearly it was not—my proposed template would be its transitional status clearer (though admittedly, it can probably be formatted better, but I think the point is clear). The Late 19th-, 20th- and 21st-centuries has a huge host of problems; each "movement" has extremely arbitrary dates, most of which are not found anywhere in their respective articles. Impressionism is hardly a movement, but mearly a historical/musicological term for a handful of composers; Expressionist is a little clearer, but why not the "Second Viennese school" instead? Serialism is hardly a movement, but a technique which composers continue to readily engage with (there are plenty of recent and/or living composers in {{Twelve-tone composers}}).
The point is, we are seriously streching the facts to make this template work in the state it's in, really it should just be the core movements and their transitions. The more specific characterizations should be left to more specific templates, such as {{Medieval music sidebar}}; after all, what use does a reader have been navigating between Ars nova and Impressionism? Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Implementing this doesn't help anything so far. Yes it is more straightforward, but the issue right now is that the article on Modernism in music is missing a lot. It would be more helpful to keep the articles that have substantially more information on them. Right now the issue is not the template, it's expanding and organizing the articles. Xenoriole (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Modernism
@EdwardElric2016, modernism is a very specific historiographical term in Western classical music, and does not reach even close to as far as 1975. See modernism's lead:
"Authorities typically regard musical modernism as an historical period or era extending from about 1890 to 1930, and apply the term "postmodernism" to the period or era after 1930. For the musicologist Carl Dahlhaus the purest form was over by 1910, but other historians consider modernism to end with one or the other of the two world wars."
If we're going to include Postmodernism, it needs to somehow be a subset of contemporary. Having 20th-century as a subset of contemporary is also an issue; much of the century's most important music was written before WW2. Aza24 (talk)20:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aza24, the problem with the 1945 ending date for Modernism is that it doesn’t take into account the postwar composers such as Pierre Boulez and Karlheinz Stockhausen who are generally considered to be modernists rather than postmodernists.
I think the 1975 date is used and works better imo because it was around that time where there was a backlash against the strict serialism promoted by the Darmstadt School and movements such as Minimalism and New Simplicity began to arise in response.
Contemporary music is a catch all term for all classical music post-1945 rather than a movement compatible to Romanticism like I think Postmodernism is which is why I had it in its own separate section.
20th century music is also a catch all and there really isn’t a great place to put it since there is a lot of overlap with the other articles. I felt placing 20th century under contemporary was the least bad choice because most of the 20th century was after 1945.
I’m not against adding a “see also” section at the bottom of the template for all the important articles that don’t seem to fit in cleanly somewhere. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 21:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to strongly disagree with not ending modernism at 1945. These dates are messy and will not work perfectly no matter what we do, but at the moment you are simply ignoring cited information. I highly suggest you revert back to the status quo of 1945, unless you can find consensus or prove that the majority of secondary reliable sources agree with you claim. Things like "it doesn't include Boulez and Stockhausen" is OR.
"most of the 20th century was after 1945" –, 55 years vs 45 years is hardly a convincing metric! There must be better ways to do this—the current is vastly far from ideal, and certainly worse than the former inclusion of the 20th and 21st in the header. Aza24 (talk)22:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The status quo was not 1945 for this template but 1975. You’re the one trying to change it from that. And the cited statement from Modernism’s lead you used for your argument uses 1930 as it’s end date not the 1945 date you keep changing it to. EdwardElric2016 (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1930 would be a huge improvement. The cited statement says "For the musicologist Carl Dahlhaus the purest form was over by 1910, but other historians consider modernism to end with one or the other of the two world wars". The second world war ended in 45; I was giving the more generous change to match your insistence on a longer periodization. Please provide sources that back up 1975, otherwise it must be changed. Aza24 (talk)23:26, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of centuries
EdwardElric2016, date changes are one thing, but I feel you are missing the fundamental point of this template when removing contemporary, 21st century and 20th-century classical music: its navigational value. There is no need for over-consolidation (otherwise, this template could just be "early music, common practice and new music"); we want to give readers the ability to traverse between these larger periods with ease, not limit this for the sake of extreme conciseness.
In any case, the new music article is a rather poorly written direct German translation by a now-banned user. It is not a well-defined term, simply because it is hardly used in scholarship (you'll see the entire article has no citations, including its proposed span of "1910 to the present"). Aza24 (talk)18:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
