Talk:Music/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

62.64.162.212 [deleted text archive]

An anonymous user made some edits to the music page. I've reverted most of it, because I disagree; I don't want to discourage this person from editing, so here are my justifications:

It may be accompanied by sung lyrics.

I think of lyrics as part of the music, rather than an accompaniment. The singing article, linked from the music page, goes into this in a little more detail.

However birdsong for instance is very short of rhythmn.

Not any birdsong I've ever heard.

As stated above music is known not just in the human race, but in birds, crickets even creatures such as hyenas (who most people interpret as laughing but it is fact, song).

Interesting theory; this the the first I've heard of it. References? How do we know that these sounds are interpreted by animals as "music", as opposed to, say, just communication?

Music can also be regarded as the main part of a substance-like the music of the night. It can also be regarded as fury-facing the music.

I'm not sure these expressions belong on this page; definition of music somewhere, maybe?

Some people can sing, some people can't but have an ear for music (i.e. know the difference between a fairly good song and a mediocre song) and some people are tone-deaf.

Do we really need to mention this? It's like saying, "Some people can ski well, some people can't but can spot a good skiier, and some people can't even get the skis on their feet." This all changes with practice, and who's judging what "good" music is anyway?

-- Merphant 22:02 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Someone wrote the following before reverting:

Music is an outlet for people's emotions. If someone is angry, they will compose or play violent, energetic music. If they are sad, they will play mournful, lamenting music. The basic orchestral music began in the mid-1600's. This was known as the Baroque period. Some of the composers of this period were J.S. Bach, G.F. Handel, and A. Vivaldi. This music was basically 'church music' put into orchestra form. Following the Baroque period came the Classical period. This music had more freedom; its composers were more self-obsessed than religious. A famous composer of this period was Telemann, who also helped in the Baroque-to-Classical transition.

It maybe a bad habit. But I like to put deleted text in Talk page in case somebody likes to put it back. wshun 02:09 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You did the right thing - I was going to move it here myself, but got caught up in editing the article instead. --Camembert

Is not Baroque considered to have ended when J.S. Bach died? Jaberwocky6669 17:58, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Here's some more deleted text:

David Bowie had his pupil permanently dialated as a child and he turned out quite a huge amount of compositions, not to mention he also married IMAN, a famous model.

What does this have to do with being deaf? -- Merphant 21:09 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good point. It looks as if there's been alot of faulty info added that people want o keep around, perhpas we should merge all these sections on this page? Or perhaps, for article size, we should remove some of these.

Rmed

I've removed this from the article:

Music is extremely time related, not only in beats and rhythm but also in frequency and frequency patterns and harmonics.A machine called a spectrum analyzer allows humans to visually see the sound waves like a t.v. set.Here the difference between sound and music is VERY obvious!!!!. Sound usually has NO repetition in the way the pattern looks like on a spectrum analyzer. Music on the other hand generates MANY repetitive patterns that can be seen, and USUALLY the more patterns the more "beautiful" or "pleasant" the music. Some of these patterns are named "upper and lower Harmonics". Humans typically enjoy music or sounds with "even order" harmonics in the like the sound of a sparkling glass bell, and tend to dislike music and sounds with "odd or random order" harmonics, like hitting a cardboard box with a flyswatter. Also a musical song can associate a very old memory or a recent time to very specific date, sometimes when no other method of memory recall can.

It makes quite a lot of assumptions about what music is, and basically chucks all percussion out the window. The bit at the end about memory recall can be applied to many other things. Really, if this belongs anywhere, it's probably at definition of music, but it would need a lot of bashing around before it could go there either, I think. --Camembert

Proposed outline

  1. intro: "Music, often an art/entertainment, is a total social fact whose definitions vary according to era and culture," according to Molino (1975: 37), often contrasted with noise. According to Nattiez (1990 p.47-8,55): "The border between music and noise is always culturally defined--which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus....By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be." See: definitions of music.
  2. Definitions
    1. Music as sound
    2. Music as subjective experience
    3. Music as category of perception
    4. Music as social construct
  3. Aspects of music: pitch, duration, timbre, intensity
    1. Common Terms: melody, harmony, chord, chord progression
  4. Performance:
    1. Solo and Ensemble
    2. Oral tradition and Notation:
    3. Improvisation, Interpretation, and Composition
      1. Compositional Methods: form, consonance and dissonance, modulation, twelve tone technique, serialism, process
    4. Media: Radio, CDs and other recorded media, album, television: music videos, notation
  5. Audition
  6. Training, Education, Theory, and Study
    1. Training: apprenticeship, private study
    2. Education
    3. Study
      1. Theory: see "Common Terms" and "Composition"
  7. Types of music:
    1. Art/Classical: One broad and common grouping of music is as art music or classical music traditions.
    2. Popular & Folk: The previous category is often compared and contrasted with Popular music, which includes both modern commercial music and folk music. As opposed to classical music, popular music exists in all cultures.
  8. conclusion

User:Hyacinth/Outlines

Very nice. I like it.

Stirling Newberry 04:50, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Recordings

"After 1960, listening to music through a recorded form, such as sound recording or watching a music video became more common than experiencing live performance."

I submit that this date would be more accurately given as the mid-late 1940's, as the recording industry grew (with a corresponding increase in home sound-reproduction device ownership) following the end of WWII. Distribution of music videos didn't become widespread until the late seventies; the primary genre available then (as now) was rock music. --Hereward

Definitions

I have three concerns about the "definitions" content (to which User:Indosauros has recently contributed):

  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there is an article, including but not limited to a definition, for every term defined in the article. Obviously a lot of these were there before some of us edited the page.
  2. This weakens the "Music" article, adding much unecessary redundant information. Since none of these aspects is music, they are not required in the article and may prevent more in depth discussion.
  3. The definitions may be contentious, in which case they do not belong on this page, but need to be battled out within their appropriate articles.

Hyacinth 18:19, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree with your concerns, and replaced my additions with a link to the list of music topics. Where should you draw the line, and should we even list anything under Common Terms, or just put a link to the music list there?
Regarding your changes, perhaps we should split the Aspects of Music section into "Western Music" (with the 4 elements of music) and "Other Music" (which "may not conform to these 4 elements").
Also, "dance as a music form" is listed in both the first and second paragraphs.
Indosauros

What I advocate is that the header paragraph should document the diversity of views on what "music" is, and the article proper can elaborate on different aspects of music and its study. I realize that on wiki there are "minilead" advocates and "maxilead" advocates. In this case, since there is no universally adhered to definition, it seems better to err on the side of a longer lead. Definitions by definition will contain information redundant to the text. I'm also not sure that we have nailed down all of the definitions in common use. This may seem picky on my part, and perhaps it is being picky, however, POVing one definition as definitive seems ill advised in matters of live controversy. Stirling Newberry 17:43, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)


If we had info on "Other Music" besides that most of it is different, I may agree.

Stirling Newberry I strongly disagree with the wholesale slaughter of the definitions section which went through several iterations. I'm going to work on restoring the work lost, but feel that there was a lack of consideration in the removal of the material without reasonable consensus and discussion.

Might not you simply revert? Hyacinth 03:54, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC). Which I see that you did. So, little harm done, little time lost. Also, I have created an outline, which I intended to be edited. It has gone mostly uncommented. It seems to have been a bold edit, but not inconsiderate one. Also, please indicate specifically where prior discussion occured. Hyacinth 04:04, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Stirling Newberry I like bold editting, I specifically like it when people add well written POVs that expand the range, or find concise and elegant ways of compressing. The working out of the original music definition was done edit by edit. It's an article which does seem to be a telephone pole for every minor stray thought, and i sympathize with wanting to get it into some "shape". Is there more? Probably. Music, like religion is a topic where broadness of definition is probably best, rather than rushing to particular topics. I look forward to others reshaping and improving this section, it is such an overgrown garden at the moment.

Perhaps doing something similar to Poetry? Indosauros

[moved from below]
I object to a list of terms and their definitions, of which all of the latter may be found at the first. If these terms and their definitions are too numerous to integrate into a more interesting text, I think the terms themselves should be simply listed, with bullets.
I don't see how this list in any way addresses the concerns stated below regarding normative and social aspects. Many of these terms, consonance, dissonance, polyphony, progression, are all used in the same way as the term music, as are many non-music related terms. They are not organized in such a way as to address normative and social biases, nor is the bias of each term addressed. Hyacinth 07:54, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't the definitions of music section be integrated with/moved to Definitions of music? Perhaps some of that discussion could be reiterated here, but I don't think they it deserves to be in the opening paragraph. The first sentence of this article -- The definition of the word "music" is hotly contested, not least because the word has such strong connotations and use beyond the subject itself. -- seems more appropriate for an article on Music (word) than an article on Music itself.Tom 22:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"The platonic ideal of music is currently the least fashionable in the philosophy of criticism and music, because it is crowded on one side by the physical view - what is the metasubstance of music made of, if not sound? - and on the other hand by the constructed view of music - how can one tell the difference between any metanarrative of music and one which is merely intersubjective? However, its appeal, finding unexpected mathematical relationships in music, and finding analogies between music and physics, for example string theory, means that this view continues to find adherents, including such critics and performers as Charles Rosen and Edward Rothstein"

The above paragraph is pretty impenetrable to me (and, I think, to most people). It would be nice if someone could rephrase in plainer language. Tlogmer 22:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

  • The latter half of the first sentence: "not least because the word [music] has such strong connotations and use beyond the subject itself."
    • I disagree that the word (any word) has strong connotations and is ever used to describe things besides itself, except metaphorically. Any sources?
  • My version of the intro (see above) is in one way more informative, though it lacks explinations of different definition types, because it positively organizes the definitions rather than simply listing them. Is there a way to integrate some sort of organization while keeping the explinations in the current version?
  • The beneficial problem with descriptions is now we need sources, examples of those types of beliefs.

Hyacinth 05:19, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That is a POV which very few people subscribe to. If you wish to argue it, be my guest, but you'll have a hard time convincing anyone that Kepler intended people to be tuned to Jupiter as a note (though one piece of music I know of was written with the ratios between the median values of the planets as the interval series, it sounded dreadful to my ears. De gustibus however...

Kepler described astronomy as "The Music of the spheres" Celestial Harmony is supposedly the glory of God as it is manifest in the cosmos - a view similar to the pythagoreans that music was an organizing principle seperate from sound (see musica ficta etc) "The Concert of Europe" and other musical metaphors are used in diplomacy. "that's music to my ears" signalling a strong and basic agreement with the statement, not that the person has been singing the words. "make beautiful music together" id est, to be personally sympathetic or compatible. "facing the music" that is accepting consequences an internal quality "a man hath no music in himself", that is, to be unharmonious as a person similar to the japanese word "wa" for personal harmony.

See OED for others.

I'm afraid that on this one there is ample demonstration that the use of the word "music" is used to connote some form of organization or accord which is not "music" per se, and that such usage impinges on definitions of "music". I may not like Donald Vroon, but he has a wide enough readership that demonstrates that clearly somebody out there feels the same way he does about what is and is not "music".

Please sign messages. Hyacinth 06:09, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Destructive metaphors? I don't think that metaphors comparing music to orderly things impinges on the meaning of the word, but helps to create one of them. Music as organized sound is a common definition, as is stated at the beginning of the article. What's the problem? Hyacinth 06:09, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that it is far from a universal definition, and many important musical figures don't subscribe to it. It's POV, and it isn't even the most common POV in historical terms. Stirling Newberry 17:37, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

You stated that there was no connotation to the word. I contend that the definition of the word is controversial because, to no small extent, it has an connotation, an emotional meaning, which extends beyond the subject of music proper. Definitions of music have strong normative and social aspects, and are often used to argue social theories, a tradition that starts with Plato. My objection to the bold edit was that it gave short shrift to this controversy - that we don't "know" what music is, really, but we think we know it when we encounter it. Stirling Newberry

You are correct that "music as order" is not a universal definition, which is more than obvious from our list of other definitions. I guess what I'm saying is the first sentence is a POV, that music is a special term used in ways other terms aren't, and thus deserves special treatment. Hyacinth 19:13, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Could people please sign at the end of their messages as is Wikipedia convention. This makes it much easier to see who has said what. --Camembert
Will do, sorry about that. Stirling Newberry 13:38, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[comments moved to above]

I ask you specificially which biases are impinging the meaning of the article? Hyacinth 07:54, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I may be slow to respond because I will be travelling, so don't think I am ignoring if it takes a few days to cycle on this. Not clear on what you are saying here. Could you clarify? Stirling Newberry 12:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I mixed up conversations. I moved my comments to the appropriate place, leaving only the above question. New question: What words aren't used metaphorically to describe other things? Use in metaphors does not usually seem to impinge on the meaning of words, metaphors are not destructive. Once again I ask, any sources? Hyacinth 19:09, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When a word has powerful metaphoric meanings beyond its denotation, arguments over the denotation are social conflicts over connotation. Democracy is one such word, so too is music. Therefore, in such cases it is important to be careful to represent the major POVs, simply because those whose POV is not listed immediately feel marginalized, whether or not that was the intent. Stirling Newberry 14:37, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Possibly my mixing of the conversations on this page has contributed to others confusion, and not just my own. Referring only to the opening sentence(/paragraph): "The definition of the word "music" is hotly contested, not least because the word has such strong connotations and use beyond the subject itself." If we take Democracy as an example, it opens with: "This page deals with democracy in its modern sense." Even, Democracy (varieties) opens with "Here is a list of different varieties of democracy." Neither page says, "The definition of the word "democracy" is hotly contested, not least because the word has such strong connotations and use beyond the subject itself." Hyacinth 19:54, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Maybe it should, particularly with what is being defined as "democracy" in Iraq. Stirling Newberry 14:20, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I made the original changes removing material from democracy to the new democracy(varieties) page and writing that introduction to democracy. Since I made those changes no-one appears to have had any problem with the introduction or with moving material to democracy(varieties). Imho there's little point in placing a 'hotly contested notice' until such a time as there is real contention. Do you yourself think the definition is not suitable or do you just think that there are people who may? If you do I'd happily discuss possible changes on Talk:democracy. I don't want to bung up debate hear :) Barnaby dawson 21:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The "hotly contested" thing is not so much a notice as a statement of fact. There are many out there who believe that music can be anything with rhythm, while others think that music must have both melody and rhythm. The definition of music varies from person to person, and can easily be hotly contested when people try to impose their views on others. StellarFury 19:08, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Incidentely Democracy (varieties) could do with smartening up including that first sentence (which I felt at the time was quite clumsy) so get to work... Barnaby dawson 21:46, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I found a citation for the claim that "the word [music] has such strong connotations and use beyond the subject itself," and it was moved well below the claim itself (essentially, removed). This is discouraging and confusing. Hyacinth 00:13, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Links

What happens with the links? It looks as if they were advertisements...

Citation

The citation system on this article is ridiculous, as the sources are split into two lists right next to each other. Also Wikipedia:Cite sources reads: "In the text of an article, cite references parenthetically as '(Author-Last-Name, Year)'." Hyacinth 00:45, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes I know, but those inline citations really interrupt the text, which is already pretty heavy. I don't think the two lists are a problem: one lists the texts, and the other lists which parts of the article reference certain texts. The footnotes are kind of a kludge, though, since there is no easy automatic way to do them. If you really hate them, perhaps the references could go at the ends of sentences or paragraphs where they don't break the flow. Merphant 14:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Would you prefer the citations be written into the text such as "So-and-so says 'such and such' in Such and Such Book (year)." Hyacinth 20:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well no, that's actually farther from what I was trying to do. I think the citations should be as unobtrusive as possible. They should still be accessible, of course, but out of the way. Specifically, I have a problem with these:
  • So-and-so (1997:45) says 'such and such'...
  • Blah blah (Somebody, 1999:9) yadda yadda...
I think it would be better like this:
  • So-and-so says "such and such." 1 Or if you prefer:
  • So-and-so says "such and such." (1997:45)
Or, best of all :
  • Such and such.1
(: Merphant 23:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I suggest you take it up at Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Your plan would seem to eliminate the possiblity of "fairly represent[ing] all sides of a dispute." (NPOV) Hyacinth 02:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Starting over with the indenting :] I'm not sure what you mean. Wikipedia:Verifiability suggests adding footnotes to articles so readers can check references:

To make it clear which statement used which reference, it might be worth numbering the references and then referring to them in the article like this[1] or like this1.

Now, I'll admit I was overzealous with the footnotes; in some places, there were quotes that kind of came out of the blue; those needed some sort of attribution inline with the text. I have edited the page a little to reflect that. As for NPOV, as long as all quotes and ideas are referenced and not given to be Universal Truths, I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm not even sure what the "dispute" is, since the authors' points don't seem to be mutually exclusive.

The citation style you used was certainly in accordance with Wikipedia:Cite sources. One of the reasons I am keen to use footnotes is that there are several references, even multiple references to each author. In an article with only a few references it wouldn't be so bad, but since there are a number of citations, I feel it's better with the notes. This use of footnotes is not completely unreasonable; I've seen this method used in other publications (e.g. Grove); also, the Cite Sources page is not the last word, it's only a recommendation. It even links to the Wikipedia:Footnotes page.

As I have said before, all those inline references interrupt the text, and the exact book and page number of the quote is not relevant to the point being made in the article. Keep in mind that I am not not suggesting that we remove any attribution from the article, I'm just saying we should move it out of the way a little so it's easier to read the article text. Merphant 22:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Semiology

I thought I was able to find a source which:

  1. I agreed with
  2. those with whom I've disagreed could agree with, and
  3. could structure the disagreements

Yet much of the work I put in was undone by User:Stirling Newberry for the stated reason that it uses too many citations, or too many from one work. I do think the article is still better off than it was, having benefited greatly from the Nattiez and Molino derived framing of the issues. I am wondering if there are other reasons? Hyacinth 00:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

...

Music a sublime mental factor that causes the mind to give way to emotion. I actually feel depressed when listening to certain composers like Beethoven. Others make me feel restless, and others -- calmed. whatever........

Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Hyacinth 18:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lyrics are NOT music

Music is SOUND, goddamn. Lyrics are like poems, or whatever. They're not music at all.

Now, you guys can watch it to keep those links down there, but it'll be nonsense, still.

You vandalized this article [1]. CryptoDerk 07:33, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
You vandalize Wikipedia.
(above comment by 200.103.119.29)
While lyrics are sound too so that's a pretty ... overgeneral definition of music already. Lyrics are only part of a song; I think we agree songs are music. However, the list of lyrics sites would be better off on lyrics which already has this list and more. How about adding lyrics to the see also and remove the links that way? Sketchee 18:23, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

But lyrics themselves are not music, until you create a melody to put them on. If you replace lyrics with "la la la's" the music normally will suffer subtle changes in it's form only, while if you take off the melody from some lyrics it's not music anymore. But anyway, I think you have a sensible solution for that. 201.14.82.165 16:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True enough but the same can be said for notes, rhythm, form, timbre and a lot of other things mentioned in the article if they're seperated from each other. Anyway I'll wait and see if anyone else has any input --Sketchee 19:40, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. But thing is there's no music without notes, rythm etc. (generally) and a complete musical piece is possible without any lyrics. It's not an element that constitute music. I mean, WHAT you say is not important musically, and that's what lyrics sites are all about.

I took the liberty of removing the lyrics sites myself as well as a few others which I don't think they belong in a broad-scope article like this one; better in the related subtopics. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup Notice

I added a cleanup notice to this page -- There's a fair amount of NPOV and related issues (such as the page going into first-person at some points), and the flow of the page is all over the place. It goes into 'definitions' and then into 'aspects of music', and then back into 'definitions', and such. I really couldn't read it at all, it's such a jumble. Honestly, I would be surprised if this could be fixed up without a near-complete rewrite. Twiin 02:44, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article does not go into first person, it quotes an author writing in first person, though this may not the best way to quote that information it does not attempt to present that POV as NPOV, which would be an NPOV issue. Hyacinth 06:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This article definitely needs the "first" definitions section to be trimmed and excess moved to the definitions of music article. Hyacinth 07:22, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a proposed outline for a rewrite? (not that it is required, it's just interesting) Hyacinth 07:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I moved the extra definitions sections to Definitions of music (which also, especially now, needs work). Hyacinth 21:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Article_improvement_drive#Music. Hyacinth 04:12, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup notice as I reduced the redundancy. Hyacinth 09:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aspects of music

I believe the entire Aspects of Music section needs to be redone. I'm new to editing the Wikipedia, and don't know much of the markup, but I certainly know my music... :-) Anyway, a good deal of it is quite simply inaccurate, mainly in the importance of the elements and universality sections. Please let me know. I'd be glad to rewrite the article and have someone mark it up correctly. -James Kelleyjr47

Can you describe the innaccuracies and your proposed changes? I ask because the section contains three citations (and I wrote it). Hyacinth 20:35, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Actually, you may wish to first address your concerns at Aspects of music and Talk:Aspects of music. When that article is satisfactory it can easily be summarized (re-summarized?) for this article. Hyacinth 20:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is Music?

This section needs to be trimmed, with content possibly moved to Definitions of music. Hyacinth 17:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup and Sectioning

I think that the thing in this article that needs the most work is its plan of sections. The article should be indisputably organised, and thus we should on a new layout of sections. In other words, the entire article needs to be rearranged.

I think that most of the sections are too short. This isn't necessary because there is not enough written, it is more that there are too many sections (though sections could do with elaboration; wikipedia is not a dictionary). There should never be, in an article on a topic like this, just one subsection of a section; there is enough to write without needing to do this.

So, to move the article forward (we can always drive its improvement without it being in AID status), I say that editors of this page agree on the layout of the sections first. (I don't have a specific proposal myself as I've only just seen this article for the first time, and I need to think about it before I give a proposal.) And, I'm tempted to add a to-do list for this article, as there is so much cleanup to do - and, I reckon it still needs cleanup (enough to display the cleanup notice). Neonumbers 09:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Beat you to it: #Proposed outline. Hyacinth 02:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Outline

Here is the current outline: 

1 What Is Music?
2 Aspects of music
3 Common terms
4 Production
 4.1 Performance
 4.2 Solo and ensemble
 4.3 Oral tradition and notation
 4.4 Improvisation, interpretation, composition
  4.4.1 Compositional methods
 4.5 Compositions
 4.6 Change
5 Reception
 5.1 Audition
6 Media
7 Education
 7.1 Training
 7.2 Secondary education
 7.3 Study
  7.3.1 Theory
8 History
9 Genres
10 Sources
11 Notes
12 See also
13 External links

There are three solitary subsections: Compositional methods, Audition, and Theory, added in an attempt to allow the importance of those areas. Hyacinth 09:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Those have been done away with. Hyacinth 09:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC): 

1 What is music?
2 Aspects of music
3 Common terms
4 Production
 4.1 Performance
 4.2 Solo and ensemble
 4.3 Oral tradition and notation
 4.4 Improvisation, interpretation, composition
 4.5 Compositions
 4.6 Change
5 Reception and audition
6 Media
7 Education
 7.1 Training
 7.2 Secondary education
 7.3 Study
8 History
9 Genres
11 Notes
12 References
13 See also
14 External links
The way I tend to see article sectioning is that an article is grouped into broad sections, then subsections, and two levels of sections should be sufficient. I list the main sections (only) below, and where they gobble up other sections that are main sections now:
  • History, includes opinions on definitions.
  • Fundamentals, includes genres. I don't plan for the actual section to be called "fundamentals" - at the moment, I can't think of a real name, but when I find one (or someone else does) we'll change it. This includes things for laymen, so things like genres, types of instruments (maybe that deserves its own main section), basic stuff that's not too theoretical.
  • Theory, includes aspects, common terms. This is a very, very basic summary of music theory, including notation (of both basic and advanced), harmonies, composition, things like that which a layman wouldn't really need to know.
  • Performance and production, self-explanatory
  • Society and culture, includes education except theory, media. I'm tempted to say that this is where we venture most (not only) into non-western music but that'd be POV? Well, you get the idea.
  • References, See also, External links in their own three main sections, as per convention
This plan is not to be implemented. I just hope that it will provide a framework for a more organised sectioning. I don't know everything about music, so I'm trying to be careful that I don't bias towards my knowledge (which is why I haven't proposed subsections).
If there is a major part of music that's been left out, then drop a note. If there's a minor part of music that won't fit into any of those sections, then it's probably a part of a major part that I haven't considered, so drop a note. Neonumbers 10:21, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Theory is a fundamental. I think that attempting to segregate information on a "lay"/"non-lay" basis will result in misinformation and is against Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Explain jargon. I would hope someone reading the music article would be looking for some new information on music, not only things they already know. If a lay reader wants genre information, let them find the easily locatable Music genre article. Hyacinth 02:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What is wrong with the current outline? Why did your propose your outline above? How it is an improvement over the old outline? Thanks. Hyacinth 02:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your point that lay- and non-lay theory shouldn't be separated.
The article is too fragmented. Its flow, as has already been pointed out, is too jumpy and disorganised. I don't think anyone could argue that the article, as it is now, is of encyclopaedic standard; its organisation would be a part of that. When one reads the article, they aren't taken through an overview of music, rather, they're taken through random bits of music in some random order. It's as if it started out well, then people kept adding random bits to random places and this is what we've got now. Comparing the proposed outline several pages above (dated 18 Jan 2004) with the current one, that's what seems to have happened.
With my proposal of less main sections, I hope not only that the article will be more followable, but also that it will be easily expandable without the need for extra, random sections. Its being followable is more important, though my opinion is that nice, general, main headers make it more organsied and more followable. Some sections, like the Common terms section, have no purpose on their own - but as part of a larger section, for example, Theory (perhaps), it would fit in perfectly. Some, like the History section, are out of place - in History's case, at the bottom of the page (as opposed to the top, or near the top). The article should flow from section to section, making for a good read and an article rather than a series of links to more detailed pages (which is also important in an article such as this, but it poses no sacrifice to the flow of the article).
The outline I posted earlier isn't good (by what I expect). I'm trying to hit the nail of flow into the article, and I'll need time, but I really think the article needs a reorganisation. But that's what it is - flow in the sense of length of sections, orphan sections and order of sections, and the room for expansion (less important than flow). Please seriously consider this proposal. I may have hit the wrong nail with the outline above now, but it's on a better track that the current one. Neonumbers 10:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Another way could be:
  • History
  • Types (or Genres or whatever name)
  • Theory, incl aspects
  • Performance and composition, incl instruments
  • Industry
  • Society and culture, incl education
  • References, See also, External links
Perhaps genre and history go into each other a bit, so maybe they should go in the same section. Maybe instruments deserves its own section. Subsections aren't listed here - those can be much more easily figured out.
On the other hand, it could be done by genre (not my piece of cake), so it goes Folk, Popular, Classical, Jazz, etc., but I don't know if it would work so well.
Anyhow, a restructure is really important for this article as it runs into the Article Improvement drive (as of 3 April 2005), so please post comments on sectioning and structure - especially missed out sections. Thanks. Neonumbers 09:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed

I removed the following top level section from the article as it was redundant with sections above, poorly written, and I don't know what else music would be in besides society Hyacinth 02:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC):

Music in society

Music and culture

Music and the Music Industry have become a significant influence on American culture, and culture around the world.

Music as entertainment

Music is and has been a form of entertainment since the caveman.

Music industry

The Music Industry is the industry that creates, performs, records, distributes, and promotes music, both in the form of compositions and performances.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Music/Archive_2&oldid=385975033"