Talk:Music history

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. This article has been tagged since January 2007.

Contents 1 Orphan? 2 Change in music 3 Music history → History of music 4 AfD result 5 Musicology ?

[edit] Orphan?

This page is listed as an orphan, but it isn't (it's linked to from music). Bug? jheijmans, Thursday, June 27, 2002

[edit] Change in music

I have a question:

• Is there one defining moment, or period of time that changed music? How was music prior to that time and how did it change?

thanks

No, there were many in many different eras, cultures and within specific styles. Zosodada 18:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There are probably many defining moments, but not one. Some would argue Marshall McLuhan-like that the dawn of recording consciousness was a defining moment, while others argue against the idea that the media really is the message. Others may argue that the transition from oral traditions to notated music is defining, others would disagree. If you click around Wikipedia's articles on music and music history, including timelines, you may get a better idea. Otherwise I'd suggest hitting the music history books. Hyacinth 18:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's a very big question, and a very interesting one. I think it is continually changing, sometimes quickly and sometimes slowly, and differently and different places, the way a stream flows over rapids, flows into pools and eddies, and occasionally blasts by in torrents. The rise of printing was a big and sudden change; the rise of recording technology, as Hyacinth mentions, was a huge change; the advent of notation, the development of technologies that provided an opportunity for wide dissemination of ideas (not just music) certainly changed things. Fruitful topic for study: enjoy! Antandrus 18:36, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Music history → History of music

A long while ago, the content of History of Music was moved to Music history. However I feel that history of music is better - if for no other reason that it seems to follow the convention (History of painting or whatever). Was originally suggest on WP:COTW, which Music history is currently a candidate for. Would have moved it myself, but unfortunately History of music has a brief, and long gone, history. - Estel (talk) 14:02, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

• I propose that the article remains at Music history since that is the convention within the field itself. Hyacinth 21:11, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Move. The standard WP form is "history of..." music history would be the study of the history of music, (like evolutionary biology is the study of evolution) so we could have two pages, but the page describing what happened as opposed to who studies it and why should be at history of music. Dunc|☺ 12:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The distinction you're looking for is between history and historiography. Rd232 06:45, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Support. Dunc has me convinced. grendel|khan 19:14, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)
• Oppose. Pointless move. It is false and misleading to claim that there is a "standard WP form" for names of history articles. Cultural history, Social history, Intellectual history, Military history, Islamic history, Jewish history but History of Christianity (and many other examples, such as History of Europe). See Wikipedia:WikiProject History. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:00, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Support. This seems quite reasonable. Jonathunder 22:20, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
• Support. History of music seems to just flow better if spoken. Dunc also makes a solid point. abomination 06:12, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• oppose. "History of music" and "music history" are not entirely the same concepts. - UtherSRG 02:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Music History seems correct enough. At least, there hasn't yet been a strongly convincing enough argument to support the change IMHO. The average college class on the subject would be Music History as would the degree on the subject (although there's probably some variation between schools). The museum is the Museum of Music History. Maybe if it was another subject such as History of (Adj) Music, I'd support this kind of change for clarity but that's a different can of worms. It seems like the other way is more leaning toward "[The] History of music", which seems like it would be about the "history". --Sketchee 06:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. But the content as it is at the moment seems to be more "history of music" - 'The origin of music are lost deep in prehistoric times'. Though the borderline is quite... skewed. - Estel (talk) 08:47, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Immediately after that sentence however, the rest of the 'paragraph' is about the first musical instruments amd songs, not of the history itself. The difference is probably too semantic for the amount of information that's there. We could split the article into two very sad stubs, but the introduction also reads more toward what I've known as a "Music History" class type subject. Oh well, I'll leave the difference up to the vote. Both types of subjects will probably be presented under some names eventually in a much better way than this short uninformative version. --Sketchee 09:06, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Move that section related to History of music, and leave the text relating to Music history where it is. A poor solution, as Sketchee says, but the most correct one. Noisy | Talk 09:37, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Seems to me that material relating to the study of music history should be at music history, while the actual summary of the history of music should be at history of music. john k 20:35, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. Hyacinth 19:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Until this is categorized according to WP form, I'm going to let it be. It should be "History of Music"; of course since this can't be agreed upon, I doubt if anyone has the ability to even begin developing an outline. Zosodada 18:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Note the parallel between Music theory and music history. Music history is the field which studies the history of music. Hyacinth 19:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Sure. And there could be music theory history and music history theory since most of the history is theory anyway. :) Maybe there should be a fleshed-out outline that combines all the associated articles, Hist of W. music, Timeline of..., &c. Timeline of... can be used as a template. It needs work, though. Zosodada 20:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, as a matter of fact, you are absolutely correct. We call it "history of theory" (i.e. history of music theory) (I plan to write an article on it some day) -- and it is a commonly taught course in music graduate school. Theory of music history is also a field, though philosophy of music history might be more to the point (Philosophies of Music History is a notable book in the field, by Warren Dwight Allen; I'm looking on my shelf but it must be piled up somewhere else). Historiography of music perhaps. There's lots of ways to slice and dice this stuff.  :-) Antandrus 02:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AfD result

This article was nominated for deletion on October 17, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

— JIP | Talk 08:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Musicology ?

I am wondering if the connections between this article and "Musicology" should be strengthened. In particular, it seems that this article writes about the subset of musicology often called "historical musicology"--that is to the say the history of Western classical music. Generally separate from ethnomusicology, historical musicology incorporates aspects of music theory but is not a subset of music theory (nor is music theory a subset of it). Historical musicology is the largest (at least in the US and Europe) subfield of musicology, yet at present, the main tools of the historical musicology (source study, biography, music analysis, criticism) are not part of the musicology article. I'm willing to help but want to go forward with a consensus on how to link the two. --Myke Cuthbert 21:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and was bold for once and made a major rewrite to the article, trying to differentiate it further from musicology and also from history of music. I hope I've done at least that, and added some content that wasn't there before. The objection one can have is adding a Western art music history emphasis, but this is how the term is generally used and I think I've added the appropriate links to other articles. The only section I feel is important from the original article that I wasn't able to include was the following:

In the studies of primitive music which attempt to relate the music to the culture around it there are two prevailing approaches, that of the "Berlin school"'s Kulturkreis and the US "cultural area" tradition. Adherents to Kulturkreis include Curt Sachs, who analyzed the distribution of instrument types according to the Gräbner, Schmidt, Ankermann, Preuss, and other's culture circles, finding that they matched or correlated. According to this theory all cultures pass through the same stages, with cultural difference indicating the age and speed of a culture, both of which cause cultures to be in different stages. The cultural area theory, however, analyzes music according to regions in which people share the same culture (for example, all traditional Inuit owned a kayak, a cultural commonality that defined the Inuit cultural area), without assigning those areas historical meaning or value. In each theory, the regions of that theory necessarily overlap, populated with people who share parts of more than one culture, with cultural centers being easier to define. (Nettl 1956, p.93-94)

• Wellesz, Egon, ed. (1957). New Oxford History of Music, Vol. 1: Ancient and Oriental Music.
• Nettl, Bruno (1956). Music in Primitive Culture. Harvard University Press.

I think that it should go in the prehistoric music article if we can bring it more up to date from 1956, and once that page no longer has such a strong push by Bob Fink to make it all about "Neanderthal Flutes". --Myke Cuthbert 04:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

If you check the article's history, you'll find more than half or 3/4ths of material on the Neanderthal Flute was put at prehistoric_music by people completely unknown to me. A year ago as a "newbie," I was rudely made aware of rules I knew nothing about then (authors not writing on subjects close to themselves). I, & others I know, have since confined ourselves to minor edits -- verifications, fact corrections, dates, grammar, reference literature & the like -- allowed to us under Wiki guidelines. So I could do with a bit less demonization of material somewhat connected to my own research that we didn't even post. Thanks, --Bob Fink 65.255.225.43 09:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) P.s. You seem quite sure the prehistory page will "no longer have a big push" by me to make it all about Neanderthal flutes. Are there plans afoot to likelwise push unneeded prehistoric music-archaeology material out of wiki-existence? Are there troops marshalling somewhere packing big pink erasers? :o)