Talk:20th-century music

I wonder if we should change title to 20th-century popular music and exclude the classical stuff? An article on 20th-century classical music already exists. Any thoughts? --Kleinzach 04:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Heartily endorse. There is very little in this article on so-called "classical" twentieth-century music anyway, so that the only other alternative would be to beef up that section to redress a severe imbalance, and then create a new article on pop music to balance the present article on "classical".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with the title change but, as per a comment I made here, I would like to see the classical dropped from both 20th century classical music and contemporary classical music. Measles (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Also endorse the title change, unless there is another article already covering 20th Century Pop Music. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsheehan5 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since this issue was last discussed, more than five years ago now. For one thing, this article has accumulated quite a lot of information in the "classical" department. For another, there is the article Popular music, which has also grown and is largely coextensive with 20th-century popular music, since the topic is defined there as beginning only in the 1880s, and not a whole lot has changed yet in the 21st century. But there is another thing here that confuses me. There are actually two conflicting proposals for title changes. Initially, Kleinzach proposed adding the word "popular" to this article, but then Measles recommended dropping "classical" from both "20th century classical music" and "Contemporary classical music". If both these proposals were to be adopted, the current title of this article would become the new title of "20th-century classical music". Wouldn't it be simpler to create a new "20th-century popular music" article (if indeed it could be justified having two differently titled articles covering basically the same subject), splitting off the popular-music material from this article, and then merge the two remaining "classical" articles?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

There should be more info about other cultures' modern music —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.158.134.49 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hip hop sub genres are under disco. This needs to be moved to a seperate section for hip hop which does not exist yet in this article. Akronman27 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

This comment also draws attention to the very lop-sided presentation of the entire popular-music section, which at the moment is reminiscent of the famous Steinberg New Yorker cover, showing 95% of "The United States" east of the Hudson River, and most of what remains as being New Jersey. At the moment, this section is not only heavily biased toward … no, make that entirely concerned with American popular music, but also heavily weighted toward the last quarter of the century, with dozens upon dozens of genres and sub-genres that didn't even exist before 1975. For the first quarter of the century, there is nothing at all, apart from a vague assertion that it extends "at least as far back as the mid-19th century" (which at least puts its beginnings before the focus of this article). I would say that, before sections are separated out for disco and hip-hop, the subdivisions of the popular-music section need to be balanced up across the entire century (for example, a section on popular music before and including the First World War, another for the postwar period through the "Roaring Twenties", another for the Depression era, another for the Second World War, then probably just one each for 1945–1970 and 1970–2000), and attention needs to be given to the popular music of, amongst others, Latin America, the British Isles, Scandinavia, Eastern Europe, Spain, Italy, the Balkans, Africa, India, China, and Japan (and not just the economic "colonization" of those areas after the Second World War). At the same time, it should be kept in mind that this is just a survey article, and there are main articles that do or should go into greater detail. I look forward to seeing soon a list of the sub-genres of ragtime and of tempo-doeloe Kroncong, to help balance up this section of the article.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Whoever wrote the article forgot about metal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.95.48.30 (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Can we maby put things into chronological sequence ragtime, jazz, swing, rock and roll, rock, funk, Disco, Pop.--J intela (talk) 16:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why is that better than the present alphabetical (more or less) arrangement? Assuming that it would be preferable, how do we go about establishing a chronological sequence for, say, world music, blues, and country music?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well if its origen is befor the 20th century the we can put it at the top.--J intela (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

The origin of everything is before the 20th century. We can't put everything at the top. This still doesn't address the question of whether chronological is better than alphabetical—in fact, it only deepens the doubt.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps this is not the place to do somthing like this, but we do need some sort of History of popular music that talks about what was popular when, how trends lead into each other.--J intela (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC) sort of like the History of fashion seiries--J intela (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

A recent edit seemed to object to my use of the shortened footnote template: Template:Sfn. Could you please explain the objection, if there is one? If there is none, I might add some to the article. DougHill (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

That would have been my edit. The problem is that it introduced a conflicting reference format. There were two ways of resolving this problem: change the formats of all the existing references, or reject the sfn template. I chose the easy way. If the objective is to create links from the inline references to the alphabetical list or sources, there are a number of other options. Frankly, shortened footnotes are the clumsiest available option, since they force the use of three-point links (inline citation to footnote to source list). Let us start with what it is you want to accomplish, and then we can talk about the available options.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'd recommend using the sfn template, along with template:cite web with the |ref=harv setting there. We'd still have a 3-point link, but then the middle link would be hyperlinked. (This is a webpage, after all.) But you don't want to do all of these at once and neither do I. I'd say to make this change gradually as the page is edited. But I will defer if you just want to leave the reference format in its present form. DougHill (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

What advantage does this offer over template:wikicite in the list of references, coupled to template:harvnb in the inline refs? This permits keeping the reference formats as they are, as well as accommodating sources other than web pages (dictionaries, encyclopedias, newspaper article not published online, etc.). This does not solve the problem with three-point links, either, but that is no worse than using the sfn template, which requires a selection of citation templates that in turn force changes on the citation style. Another option (though somewhat more complicated to edit) is to use template:anchor together with {{#cite:}} links in the list of references, which has the additional advantage of providing a return link—though in this case that return would only reach the footnote, not go back to the point in the text from which the reader departed to check the source. As far as I can tell, to accomplish the latter it would be necessary to change footnotes to parenthetical referencing, which would also reduce the three-point links to just two-point ones.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

These all seem more complicated and less standard than using template:sfn with template:citation. Here's what it says at the first wikilink you recommented:

This template is only needed for handwritten citations, or citations using non-standard citation templates, that are linked to by a shortened footnote or a parenthetical reference. If you don't mind using a citation template, it is more standard to use {{sfn}} or {{harv}} with a template such as {{citation}}, {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, etc. (template:wikicite documentation)

I won't change the current scheme unless there is a consensus here to do so. But leaving the page with a non-standard format probably means that you'll have to continue to edit the contributions when other editors use a more standard format. DougHill (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

That is a very odd note. I imagine that "handwritten" actually means "manually formatted". I notice also that it somewhat defensively says, "If you don't mind using citation templates". This goes right to the core of the problem. For many Wikipedia editors, citation templates are a blessing; in my case it is the reverse. The reason is the same for both sides of the coin: the templates impose an orderly, consistent format on references. Unfortunately, the formats imposed are both inflexible and tend to be "one size fits all", especially in one monumentally inappropriate way. (This is a bit of an aside in the present case, but nevertheless bears mentioning.) This is that one and the same template is used both in footnotes and in alphabetical lists, where there are distinct rules for formatting in just about every style manual ever written. As a result, inexperienced editors routinely format footnotes as if they were in an alphabetical list, or conversely format items in an alphabetical list as if they were in footnotes. However, it is the failure of the currently available templates to accommodate several standard parameters (such as book series titles), and the forced placement of some parameters (such as editor, translator, illustrator, author of preface, etc.) in positions inappropriate in bibliography lists that leads me to reject them in favor of "handwritten" citations, linked with templates such as template:wikicite. Admittedly, this requires more of the editor, but I prefer getting things right to getting the best that the templates can manage.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I recently cited the Pop Chronicles music documentary. It was originally broadcast in 1969. Of the cited episodes, shows 9-10 ("Tennessee Firebird") aired April 6 & 13,[1] show 22 ("Route 66") aired June 8,[2] 1969. This source doesn't have a date for show 55 ("Pop Chronicles Crammer"), but I figure that it must have been in 1970 (see Template talk:Pop Chronicles). I think that this is a single work to be listed on reference list once. Currently show 22 is listed and linked there, but the shortened footnotes list the correct show. I appreciate the desire to get the citations correctly, so are we doing so in this case? DougHill (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

Citations of media sources have always been more slippery than print media. With radio programs like these, it may be easier and more dependable to cite the archive where you have consulted them, if that archive has more precise data than can be found about the original broadcast. It is sometimes the case, for example, that an episode was recorded but never broadcast at all. In other cases, an episode may have been announced for transmission at a particular time on a particular day, but then a breaking news story caused a delay that never makes it into the public media, and may not even go into the broadcasting station's logbook. The most important thing is to clearly identify the individual programs, so that others have a reasonable hope of being able to find them. If a particular bit of data (such as the exact date of broadcast) is simply unobtainable, then the reference should say so, with something like, "date of transmission unknown". On Wikipedia, at least, this can always be rectified at a later date, if the missing information turns up.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

The present article has a number of serious defects. Amongst these are multiple violations of WP:CFORK, WP:SYNTH, WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. The lead of the article is a WP:OR essay which is not substantiated by content, references or citations in the article itself. The subheadings of the article are without systematic order, and some have little or no justification, being WP:UNDUE (e.g. the section on polka). The text under the various headings is of poor or negligible quality. Often it is no more than a definition of the heading followed by a link to a more detailed WP article. The section "Neofolklorism and nationalism" is entirely WP:OR. etc. etc. The illustrations provided are random and do not helpfully illustrate any points in the text. In all the article signifcantly fails all WP standards. (And not least, incidentally, that at some point in the past its title has been unilaterally changed from the standard format 'Twentieth-century music' by dropping the hyphen).

In an attempt to remove poor quality content and render the article useful to the WP reader, I effected a rewrite which listed the headings in some systmatic order, and reduced the content of the article to links to other WP articles, all of which are substantially more coherent and resourced than the present article. It seemed to me to present a btter way forward of improving the article than any attempt to rewrite the present article. I also added, with appropriate links, some headings (e.g. "musical theatre") which were missing from the original. My revision, which was intended as a basis on which a useful WP article, meeting WP standards, could be developed, can be found here.

This version was reverted by an editor and replaced by the old, faulty, article. (NB: my version has now been reinstated by a third-party editor - see below) I therefore initiate a discussion here to seek support for reinstating the version I have proposed as the basis of a useful Wikipedia article meeting the WP criteria of quality. As part of this process I also seek support for changing the title back to 'Twentieth-century music' . --Smerus (talk) 19:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I support Smerus here. The article as it existed prior to his involvement was a mess. It also was far too US-centric. The musics of Latin America and Asia were ignored. It also isn't clear what this article is supposed to be about. Is it treating all musics created in the 20th century as if it were a single genre? Is it about how playback and communications technology changed how people hear and think of music? What is "20th century music" anyway? Why are images of performers prominently displayed, but not of the actual creators of these musics? The edit that Smerus made, far from being "indiscriminate and unjustified," was a much needed first step in putting this article in order. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I much prefer Smerus' version, which turns a badly written page on a non-existent concept into a navigational area. The idea of a coherent and academically supported "20th century music" period is nonsense. It is a common plague in Wikipedia to make things like "20th century music" "20th century literature" "20th century art" etc, which work better for categorization, if at all. The fact is, the world is an extremely diverse place, and no idea of "20th century music" exists that unites music of unbelievably different styles and genres from across the world. Aza24 (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've replaced the entries for Japan and Latin America, both of which contained long lists of individual popular styles, for the 'cover' articles for both regions, which would give links to the separate styles. If we have an entry for every genre in each country or region, the article would become so extensive as to be unhelpful, I think. The purpose of the article as it stands should be I think to point readers in the general direction of what they are seeking, and let them sort out from there.--Smerus (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I understand your rationale, but it also seems unfair that musics from the Anglo-American world are not treated similarly. After all, there are such articles as Music of the United States, Music of the United Kingdom, etc. Why not cut down on potential clutter further and use these instead of the genres listed out? —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I accept your point, but - we come back to the whole problem of the article itself, I think. '20th-century music' is not really a topic. The article 19th-Century Music is about the magazine of that name. 21st century music is a lead to a half-baked article Contemporary classical music which exhibits all the problems of the original 20th-century music article, but with knobs on - enormous lists without rationale of composers and performers, WP:OR essays on various aspects; but no sense of it being an encyclopaedic article. With the present 20th-century article, it seems to me there is no simple answer. 'Art-music' is international, does not (I think) need to be split by country. And so, to an extent , is 'pop' music, versions of whose genres can be heard all over the world. The genres which are international can deserve separate headings; then the styles which are specific to regions or countries can be looked for in the articles devoted to the music of those regions and countries. No one who is seeking a non-intenrantial genre wouold necessarily expect to find it specified in an article of this title. That's a compromise which seems OK to me, but I perfectly understand that it may not be ideal for others. If editors can't agree on some compromise format, then we could indeed scrap the whole article - it would be no great loss at the end of the day. But maybe as it is it is (slightly) better than nothing.--Smerus (talk) 22:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I’m honestly not too invested in this article and am grateful for you to take the lead here. I just wanted to point the issue with musical genres outside the Anglophone world. Thank you very much for your good work in putting this article into order! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've only just clocked this discussion, and I echo CurryTime's thanks to Smerus for putting the article in order. It will do pretty well now. Tim riley talk 18:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

what are the different musical atyles of 20th century music 124.105.206.185 (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2022 (UTC)Reply