Talk:20th-century classical music

678:

you don't both think it means the same thing either. Maybe that is what you don't agree about. Common knowledge for people with doctors degrees is not the same as for anybody that would probably read an article in Knowledge (XXG). I think what you call common knowledge has to be different for each article because if you are writing an article you should not have to teach everything people need to already know before they can start to understand the article, but if you are reading an article you should not have to already understand whatever the article is about before you can understand what the article says. I wish some articles could have a part that would help me find the common knowledge I am supposed to have, like at the end of each chapter in the Prentice Hall history books where there is a part that tells what books are good ones to read and it talks about what is in them and where you can find the things that they are talking about in that chapter so it isn't only a list with just the names of a bazillion books. Maybe if you give good sources at the end that tell where people can learn the common knowledge you want them to already know you would not have to give sources for so many things right in the article.

4010:. I sincerely apologize for the error, and withdraw my suggestion that you may be best-equipped to add a paragraph that might include Ligeti. I shall however see what I can do in this direction myself. (3) I'm not sure what point is "a non-point and without merit", but if you are referring to the category of "postserialism", then I am obliged to point out that, should we respect composers' opt-outs from such categories, then Schoenberg never composed atonal music, Debussy and Ravel were not impressionists, and Glass, Reich, and Adams are not minimalists. In case you missed it the first time around, I expressed personal distaste for the term "postserial" (and you really ought to check the links I provided before assuming that my suggestion was entirely serious). However, since it is a term widely used and abused in the literature, there may nevertheless be some merit to including it in this article.— 2237:) but at present it appears to be the minority case. Personally, I like it because it's easy and friendly for newbies -- those ghastly citation templates can be off-putting to new editors, although they work quite well and are wonderful once you get used to them. Frankly, I've only used the Harvard/Chicago style in a couple of articles that I've written, just because I have tried to conform to the majority view, even though I think footnote-riddling makes articles look more like first-year graduate-student term papers than encyclopedia articles. Another great advantage of parenthetical referencing is you don't have to jump down to the "references" section to see what source the writer is pulling from. Anyway -- nothing to fight about. It's all about consistency and friendliness to our readers. Both methods are acceptable. Cheers, 3998:, whom he discusses at some length. I agree completely that omission by Taruskin of this name or that is not sufficient grounds to regard that composer as being non-notable, but the omission of "at least ten names in this list" … "should still be evidence enough that this list has become a trivia lure". (2) I don't know where you get "irrelevant argument from authority regarding my lack of edits to the article on Ligeti". First of all, I did not cite any authority with respect to the article on Ligeti, let alone in reference to yourself. Second, far from complaining that you have never edited the article on Ligeti, I stated (erroneously, as it happens) that you had done so, and that you seemed to know your beans on the subject. I was obviously confusing your entirely competent editing of some 2977:

prose style like the common practice articles? Also the list of "things" at the top seems to be growing with the addition of some oddities that are never actually explained in the text. The "political commitment" development, in particular links nowhere and means nothing as it stands. Commitment to which politics? How does this affect music? Was there a particular movement which was "politically commited"? Also, we never discuss Nationalism (Americanism?), Socialist Realism (Shostakovich), "intuitive music" (Stockhausen), "stochastic music" (Xenakis), "multimedia/happenings" (Cage, Nono, etc), or New Complexity and New Simplicity (though these are discussed in the CCM article and should remain there, IMO). I'll have a go at redressing all of this but it will take a while. --

3199:

forced to by the state). These facts are self-evident from reading whole articles and biographies rather than something which can be pinpointed by reference to a few pages. Also it seemed a bit harsh to delete someone's quite helpful outline (not by me) of the actual characteristics of 'impressionistic' music, simply because no one had yet provided a citation for it. Jerome Kohl, did you actually disagree with the description of impressionism in music? If not, wouldn't it be sufficient to simply leave it with the demand for a citation attached so a) the innocent reader would be alerted that this statement should probably be checked; b) someone who has the time to find a relevant citation, or is fortunate enough to know one straight off, can provide it?

577:"Widely known" is not an acceptable Knowledge (XXG) standard—certainly not for something like "Stravinsky adopting a serial method after the death of Schoenberg" which, if it can as you say "be found in any competent general history of music", should be no problem to cite from one. The call for verification of "the development of 'total serialism' after the Second World War" was meant to refer specifically to the derivation from twelve-tone technique, which is not as "widely known" as many textbooks would have it. As it happens, the "parametrization" of music (in Europe, as opposed to the USA) is more usually attributed to Messiaen's "Mode de valeurs et d'intensités", which is not a twelve-tone composition in any sense of the term.— 1077:), but I personally find this sort of ghettoization offensive. One thing is for sure: this article is way too short. I would say that there must be at least five hundred 20th-century composers interesting enough to add to the ones already discussed here, but please try to think of a way of putting them into context by incorporating their names into the prose text. That bare list of "other composers" is another sort of ghetto, which might be alternatively titled "Composers not interesting enough to actually write anything about". As far as criteria are concerned, it is just the usual thing on Knowledge (XXG): if it is supported by reliable sources, just about any information is welcome.— 774:

dive right into the 'Romantic style' section rather than rely on a kind of non-neutral generalization that will be contradicted even in the next sentence. 'Irrelevant details' - for one example, I'm unsure what that quote from Debussy is doing in that paragraph, since it is rather tangential and indeed could serve to weaken the central point of the passage. More generally, because the topics explored in the article are merely outlined throughout it in favor of longer articles with their own pages, the introduction serves as an outline of an outline, which is at least in my view a bit overkill if done to the extent that it is here.

658:. I hope that I qualify as an expert on at least some portions of this vast subject, and have been trying to improve the article as best I can. It seems to me that the first thing needed is to identify specific statements that need references, and I inserted some of these flags as much for my own reference as for the benefit of other editors who may find citations before I can. That said, in many cases here it is probable that a single source can be found that will cover two or more challenged claims in a single paragraph. I am as wary as you are of the "two-cites-per-sentence" syndrome but, having recently gotten the 3214:

quote such a superficial author, then well and good—at least we know where it comes from—but I couldn't find any source that substantially agreed with that statement. I marked that passage four months ago, which I think should be enough time to find a source. The same is true for the remarks about Shostakovich and Socialist Realism, which are a gross oversimplification, but so long as someone can be pinned down as the source of this claim, then we can start finding better ways of dealing with it. "Self-evident facts" are, unfortunately, counter to Knowledge (XXG)

2787:

century", there should be no hyphen (since it it absolutely unnecessary). However, in the construction "This article is about twentieth-century music", the pair of word "twentieth century" together modifies the object "century". This is called a "unit modifier". Strictly speaking, this only matters in cases of ambiguity, as in "fast sailing ship" as opposed to "fast-sailing ship". In the former case, we are speaking of a sailing ship that is capable of great speed; in the latter, a ship of any sort that is sailing quite rapidly.—

4078:

fashionable in the past twenty or thirty years to reject such tidy arrangements of history, which means that reliable sources supporting such Aristotelian categorizations are thinner on the ground than once was the case. That said, I agree that a distinction should be drawn between "movements" and "styles". At the same time, I think that "techniques" (such as "modality", "atonality", or "twelve-tone technique") are liable to stand further away from either of the other two than they do from each other.—

507:, this article has carried a tag stating that a suggestion had been made to convert the article into table format. I see no such suggestion or discussion here on the Talk page, and the proposal seems preposterous to me. The article has many faults—it is rambling, unreferenced, and unbalanced—but I fail to see how the substance could be addressed in a table. Before deleting the tag, however (which I assume was placed there in good faith), I would like to give other editors the chance to comment.— 229: 4126:

century over the second. I do wonder a bit about the placement of "free dissonance and experimentalism", since free dissonance is usually associated with modernism and the pre-twelve-tone music of the first two decades of the century, whereas experimentalism has two large divisions (pre- and post-WWII), both often associated with postmodernism. Expressionism and neoclassicism are also often thought of under the umbrella of modernism, though they obviously make very strange bedfellows.—

4048:

subcategory of postmodern music. While I see you have been careful to qualify the list with "movements" as well as "styles" (thus avoiding the blunder of calling things like "free dissonance and experimentalism" a "style"), this, too, runs afoul of the same problem, by treating things like "jazz-influenced classical composition" on the same hierarchic level as, for example, "neoclassicism" and "postmodern music", both of which categories include examples of jazz influence.—

2422:

composers died". Obviously, art styles do not change overnight at hte beginning of a new century, decade, or month. The fact that a fairly large number of composers were continuing the Romantic style in the first (or even the second, or the third) decade of the twentieth century is hardly surprising. On the other hand, it is also hardly surprising that many features of the reaction against Romanticism are found already in some composers in the 1890, 1880s, or earlier.—

280: 262: 452: 368: 350: 802:

opening sentence about the continuing "late Romantic style" has for years struck me as inane. I shall scrutinize this section myself, with particular attention to the Debussy quotation, but please don't hesitate to make any changes yourself that you think would improve this introduction. Detailed criticism of this sort would be welcome from other editors, as well, either in a discussion here, or by "direct action".—

2595:, please restore my edits making the centuries consistent with each other and with the title (i.e. 18th/19th/20th - rather than eighteenth/nineteenth/twentieth). You may disagree with me about references but that doesn't justify bulldozing all my other edits out of the way. I was attempting, in good faith, to clean up this article in response to the tag at the top of the article. -- 220: 4222: 290: 2265:. An abbreviated reference is fine if it's connects the full title of the work cited, but this is not the case here and I think that's a disservice to the reader. We have some controversial/questionable ideas being expressed in this article, so we need to see where they are coming from. Perhaps we can have some other opinions on this?-- 378: 3078:

made last night, I actually copied that directly from the main article's lead - perhaps I took the quote out of context, I'll need to check that. In fact, quite alot of this text is pinched from the respective main articles and will need to be checked for context: I'll also copy their sources over tomorrow night, where relevent! --

3303:

misleading (I actually lifted it from a previous version of this article, as I recall, but was never happy with it either: we need to use Harvard or Oxford etc for definitions really). I know you tweeked those statements, but I feel they are better left out for now. Perhaps Ross has some better way to explain it all in

3885:

fit the pigeonholes — who neither followed nor initiated any identifiable strand in the development of music but just dug their own unique furrow. These could include Ligeti, Messiaen, Feldman, Birtwistle.... (Or maybe adding such a section would just lead to the re-creation of the list I've just removed!) --

3094:

sources ("The threshold for inclusion on Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth"). As regards the experimental music description, what you cribbed from the main article constitutes the "other uses", and omits the main definition from Cage: music composed in such a way that its outcome is unforeseeable.

4102:

1 Styles 1.1 Romantic style 1.2 Neoclassicism 1.3 Jazz-influenced classical composition 2 Movements 2.1 Impressionism 2.2 Modernism 2.2.1 Futurism 2.3 Free dissonance and experimentalism 2.4 Expressionism 2.5 Postmodern music

3073:

Given that this "Introduction" is probably longer than the rest of the article put together, should the various specific discussions (Impresionism, Twelve tone, Electroacoustic etc) be put into their relevent sections while leaving the more general stuff intact (breakup of Romanticism, new directions

2232:

Hey guys. There are several acceptable ways of doing references on Knowledge (XXG); as with the AE/BE spelling variants, the important thing is to be consistent within the article. Parenthetical referencing (Harvard/Chicago/MLA -- I had casually called them all "Harvard" until Jerome Kohl corrected

1003:

That's my own feeling. Too much work for too little result. Who would bother? That opera list is one of the best lists on Knowledge (XXG); but the little end-of-article lists are like weed patches, that typically grow by fan-club additions and suffer periodic weedings. Just looking quickly at the

677:

Antandrus and Jerome Kohl, you both have doctors degrees in music so maybe sometimes you think something is widely known but I don't know it yet because I am not as old as you and I don't know things as widely as you. I am not sure what subject-specific common knowledge is supposed to mean, but maybe

608:

gets an inline cite or else cites will start to appear two-per-sentence in everything we write! Maybe this needs to be on the Village Pump or somewhere more central, because I think it's a big issue. A while back we had another editor who was insisting on a cite that Beethoven's 5th Symphony was in

1834:

I think calling it "classical" is a misnomer, since Classical Music has its own time period. That would be like saying, "baroque classical music." We need to find another term instead of "classical" for this type of music. If you think of it, using that term, movie scores would also be considered

1639:

of Luigi Russolo, and the "machine music" of Antheil and Mossolov, to the New Simplicities and the New Complexity. I think using these as a framework would provide a suitable structure for the massive expansion called for here. For the time being, can we leave the list in place as a reminder of some

3950:

First you wrote, "Whatever you may think of Richard Taruskin's views of music history," thus implying that evidence extrapolated from said work is not conclusive, but then you said, " should still be evidence enough that this list has become a trivia lure," thus arguing that his views are the final

3884:

I think the absence of Ligeti arises because the structure of the article is to consider various trends / schools / movements in 20th-century composition, and, as you say, Ligeti never really allied himself to any one movement. Maybe the solution is to add a new section on those composers who don't

3830:

The only sensible thing to do. If they are notable enough to include, then there should be no trouble finding a way of working them into the text, with citations to reliable sources. We must also keep in mind that we are cultivating a short encyclopedia article here. There are at least ten names in

2488:

I reworked it a little to tie into C19th and reference some composers who actually extended the late C19th style. I also deleted those pointless vague statements. They could be reworked, I suppose, but better to write someting new than rework something no-one can be bothered with! The cite still

1990:

I'm not sure I like the style of citing works. I feel that linked footnotes would be better because the (Author Date, Page) style breaks the flow of the article and many readers will not recognise it. It actually took me quite while to figure out what on earth it meant, and I browse Wiki and read

883:

Excellent point. Considering that there are already at least two full-tilt lists on Knowledge (XXG) of twentieth-century composers (one by birth date, the other by death date), not to mention the alphabetical list of all composers from any era, I think we may take your first question as rhetorical.

773:

Basically, I feel that it reduces the many interesting and novel musical trends being explored in Europe during the 1890s (Debussy? R. Strauss? Scriabin?) to the general perception that all of the music being written then was somehow traditional and even uninteresting. IMHO it would be better to

693:

I like the idea of ending certain articles with a bibliographic essay, as long as there is someone with deep and balanced knowledge of the whole literature of the subject in question to write it, but that's a big AS LONG AS. The idea that prerequisite knowledge could be considered "subject-specific

558:

as an example, I guess I have a philosophical difference with you. Why do we need "fact" tags on things which are widely known? There's nothing whatsoever controversial about Schoenberg using a free atonal style prior to developing the 12-tone method; Stravinsky adopting a serial method after the

4140:

Perhaps a complete restructuring of the article is necessary to deliver the absolute picture of 20th Century Classical Music. But until then, this new organization would probably be better than the previous chaotic article. Although as you previously pointed out, there is no definite "Aristotelian

3955:

as " major figure in 20th century music." Perhaps we should submit to its authors' views?) With respect to your irrelevant argument from authority regarding my lack of edits to the article on Ligeti, I have written, "by his own admission, he never stuck to a single compositional technique," which

3857:

Leaving aside the contradiction near the end of your contribution, I disagree with your "notable enough" argument. How do we explain the absence of Ligeti in this article? He is essentially the most popular "avant-garde" composer, but, by his own admission, he never stuck to a single compositional

3334:

There was discussion above about a brutal cull of the list of "other notable 20th-century composers", though there didn't seem to be an objective way of trimming it. Meanwhile the list has been growing again. I think the only solution is to remove the list altogether. There is already a "see also"

3213:

Regarding the sentence about impressionism, I particularly found the phrase "preference for shorter, non-symphonic forms" troublesome (opera and ballet are not short forms, and "symphonic" is a problematic term in itself), but the whole thing sounded very superficial to me. If someone can actually

3093:

I've been through this kind of discussion before, on other articles. I much prefer marking the specific claims that need citations to a general banner (though sometimes both are appropriate). I don't believe it should be difficult to find verification for most of those claims, but they do require

2976:

Both the Classical Music and Contemporary Music projects tag this article as "Start". I can see why: it is merely a list of "movements" and "styles" without much explanation as to how they relate either to each other or the past and future of music. Perhaps the article needs to be rewritten in a

1688:

I have made a start, with new sections on Impressionism and Futurism. Expressionism is next. I wonder if perhaps The List should be renamed pro tem (pending its eventual removal), something like "Other notable twentieth-century composers", to give some sort of warning that the main article already

1029:

incorporated into the main text. Perhaps one strategy would be to subdivide some sections by geographical area (for example, Electronic Music: in Europe, in America, in Japan, etc.), where mention of the more important names could be given some context, explaining the reasons for their notability.—

1028:

It may seem perverse, but I have just added Dallapiccola and Tippett, because of course you are correct that both are at least as notable as Donatoni. I also agree that this article needs a massive amount of rewriting, and that many of these names (perhaps all of the really notable ones) should be

824:

This one needs some clean-up. There's a lot of composers there which doesn't seem very notable at all. Added John Adams and Arvo Pärt to the list (pretty much any recent book on classical music mentions them as notable). I also removed Frank Zappa who hardly counts as a notable classical composer.

4077:

The inherited sections were certainly a miscellany of topics, thrown together without much (if any) thought about how they might interrelate. Two things ought to be kept in mind, however: (1) the 20th-century does tend to appear less cohesive than earlier historical periods, and (2) it has become

3198:

Possibly I'm just being naive, but I'm finding it frustrating having to deal with the demand for 'citations' for statements such as that Shostakovich had to work within the restrictions of Socialist Realism, and that Britten wrote politically motivated works at his own volition (rather than being

3077:

To Jerome Kohl: Your hidden texts are useful as they highlight all sorts of deficiencies in my text. The overabundance of "citation needed" is rather overpowering, however: would it be better to replace them all with a banner at the head of the section? Regarding the Experimental music addition

840:

Ooh, you are going to catch it from the Zappa fans! In my opinion, your point is well taken, but part of the problem is that, although the article title is "20th century classical music", the section title is less restrictive. Zappa is certainly notable, and he certainly composed what is quaintly

609:

C Minor, since the key is not in the title, and he claimed that looking at the score was prohibited Original Research. Does adding lots of "fact" tags to an article really help it? I can see adding "fact" tags if you are questioning statements about Stravinsky's exact use of row rotation in the

4062:

That was just a first positive step to reorganization. Perhaps a "Movements" section should be respective of a "Styles" section. I also agree that, combining certain subsections would be certainly necessary to avoid the possible confusion that could arise with the examples you previously gave. –

3914:

which ones those are, don't we? ;-) is down to the fact that the article is far from being a finished product. Deskford is correct about pigeonholes, the use of which is the easiest way of quickly knocking an article together. At the same time, pigeonholes almost guarantee oversimplification and

3036:

a political issue with Hitler, but was not necessarily intended as such by Nietzsche. In what way does Strauss's tone poem (which was written when Hitler was 7 years old) address politics? Indeed it is a lot easier to find notable examples of socialist political music than other sorts (I imagine

954:

Perhaps, though this sounds a bit like a beauty contest—more defensible, I think, for operas than for composers. As for a numerical limit, if I am allowed to choose the eight books, I'm quite certain I can find considerably more than thirty names included in the indexes of four of them. Thinking

801:

Thank you. I must confess that I suspected you might have been making a sly joke by complaining so generally and broadly of "unjustifiably broad generalizations". I am relieved to learn that my (slightly paranoid) suspicion was without foundation. I do see your point, and I must confess that the

649:

Since you ask, yes, I do mean to challenge at least some of these statements. I have already given one example, which is the supposed derivation of serialism from twelve-tone technique. This is not so much an incorrect statement as a gross oversimplification but, without knowing who exactly I am

4125:

This looks well thought out, though it also exposes some of the shortcomings of the present article content. For example, I find it rather odd to have only futurism listed under modernism, and only minimalism listed under postmodern music. It also appears to heavily favour the first half of the

3993:

has come under heavy critical fire, for which reason I though a cautionary tone was appropriate. So, no, of course the fact that he happens never to mention Villa-Lobos (for example) does not necessarily mean that this composer is less improtant in Latin-American music of the 20th century than

3302:

I think that JK's deletions are probably correct, on balance. I wrote those statements, IIRC, when I expanded the article. I had meant to revisit this article but never got around to it. The sweeping statements about DSCH and BB were a tad oversimplified; the description of Impressionism was

714:

Does anyone else feel that the introduction to this article is too long? I think that it could stand to be cut down significantly, and most of the content from the introduction should be distributed throughout the article. Or perhaps the introduction could be turned into an overview, and a much

650:

meant to be answering, and without being able to verify that the editor who inserted it didn't inadvertently distort the meaning, I am floundering around in the dark. Things that "everybody knows" often turn out to be flat wrong, as well, which makes me skeptical about a lot of common knowledge.

2786:

To back up a bit, the issue of hyphenation is not to do with adjective vs noun—"twentieth" is an adjective and "century" a noun in either case—but rather with something called a "unit modifier". When "twentieth century" stands on its own, as in the sentence "This article is about the twentieth

2421:

I only see Camembert's reference to this topic in the above discussion list. Perhaps other editors have contacted you off-page. However, I for one agree that this section is at least over-emphasized, perhaps even irrelevant. A comedian once wrote that "on December 31, 1599, all the Renaissance

4047:

Not a bad idea, but are you sure about the outline levels you have chosen? For example, you have put "modernism", "futurism", "postmodern music", and "minimalism" all on the same level, whereas most people would probably classify futurism as one manifestation of modernism, and minimalism as a

2542:

My apologies. I thought I was only reverting your unilateral reference-format changes. However, since you have raised the question, the usual standard (e.g., Chicago Manual) is to spell out century numbers, not to use numerals. The important thing, however, is to maintain consistency, as you

938:, ... etc.); compile all the names from the index of each book; then include only those that appear in, say, four or more of the books. The problem, of course, is that it is a lot of work; it also would be biased in favor of older and deader composers. Still, it is a defensible approach. 3236:

Excuse me - it seems to me that we're working to different editing philosophies. I seem to remember seeing this summarized quite well somewhere in Wiki's editorial guidelines, but it's too late an hour here in the UK for me to have the energy to find it now: but essentially I'm for a more

768:

Ah, I didn't see the section below - my apologies. However, I still feel that the content of the introduction is rather unnecessary in light of the detailed nature of the following sections. I guess pretty much the main 'generalization' I'm reacting to is the very first sentence -

3919:

article, Toccata, and you know the subject well. Why don't you consider how best to work Ligeti into the narrative of this article? If a pigeonhole is really desirable, he is often described as one of a large number of "postserial" composers, though I have always found the label

2160:

which you cite is, as the title indicates, "for beginners". It is not so comprehensive a guide to referencing as is found in Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources, which declines to come down in favor of any one format, and describes as acceptable (amongst others) the one used in this

1050:

Sorry I came to this discussion late, it seems I missed a lot of the fun. Perhaps I've been too distracted in my personal search for new, and maybe I've been wasting my money, but Panufnik seems unmentioned; I think he should be included, but I'm not sure what the criteria are.

603:

on citing: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." Seriously? Are you challenging these statements? I think we need to set a slightly higher standard for

1634:

You won't get any argument from me. I've already started thinking about reorganization, and the first thing that I notice is how many well-documented movements in twentieth-century music are not included here, from the Primitivism of early Stravinsky and Prokofiev, the

563:

the article becomes a clutter of dozens to hundreds of footnotes; I think it's best to cite only the things that might be challenged, or are less obvious. These three examples can be found in any competent general history of music. Any other opinions on this?

1740:

Why remove Joplin? He is far better known to the general public than most other C20 composers. His music (or the style) was also influenial: consider how many composers have written rags or used the style in mainstream works. Bernstein, too, is famous for

653:

The other factor here is that this article has (quite rightly, in my view) been tagged with three banners at the top, and two more on the "Post-modernist music" section for missing citations, need of cleanup, call for expert input, and possible violation of

2721:

Hm, not sure now! You may be right actually: 20th-century is take as a single entity when it is an adjective, but "20th" and "century" are taken as two related entities when they are noun plus qualifier. I'll read through again and make sense of it all.

2070:

I changed only three refs back, out of about a dozen in the article, which were the only ones altered from the established style. Surely an editor of your experience cannot believe that footnote style is a "standard" on Knowledge (XXG)? If so, please see

2010:

It is entirely possible to use the author-date citation style in footnotes, but personally (and I know other editors share this view) I find footnote numbers and toggling back and forth betwwen them and the note references an unnecessary distraction. The

3281:), explored political themes in their works, albeit entirely at their own volition."); and I was sorry to see my latest tweak, made in good faith, flattened just minutes after I'd made it. I'm also sorry if I seemed a touch confrontational as a result. 3037:

there must be utterly trivial example of official Third-Reich political music, or birthday odes composed by fourth-rate composers for banana-republic dictators), and perhaps the reference to politically inspired music ought to be adjusted accordingly.—

1967:

and most of the names I suggested aren't even there. One of the names in the cat appears to be made up and appears in a users sandbox... This is more complex than simply rewriting the section if no one can define PM and which composers are PMist...

2151:

What other kind of inline references are there, apart from references "in the body of the text"? Your "repl;y above" does not present any reason for altering the established format, let alone has a consensus of editors been reached, as specified in

2130:

has chosen to revert all the references again, despite my reply above! That's unfortunate, but I don't edit war (period). Instead I will refer this to other editors for their opinions. Should we follow standard WP referencing style in this article?

3951:

word on the subject of notability. Other writers may disagree with him. (On a side note, I have a two-volume book on 20th-century classical music, which has no chapter and virtually zero material on Morton Feldman, a composer whom Knowledge (XXG)

841:

termed "classical" music. The fact that this portion of his output is of negligible importance compared to his work in rock and pop is an important distinction, but easily overlooked by those with less esxposure to the former field than the latter.

3115:

OK. I'll play around tommorow - I've work in the morning! I see your point about putting the tags inline, though: you know where the info is actually needed. We simply need to add this quickly to avoid people complaining of unreadable text.

694:

common knowledge" and left uncited but material within the scope of the subject of the article should be cited (I believe that was the suggestion) sounds good in theory but I'm not sure whether it would work out so neatly in practice.

2518:

Hmm. I spent a few minutes making this article consistent in the use of 18th/19th/20th (rather than eighteenth/nineteenth/twentieth). This follow the title of this and other WP articles and normal editorial practice. Unfortunately

1004:

list itself, why Donatoni but not Dallapiccola? Why not Tippett? I'm open to any suggestions for improvement, including the obvious -- rewriting and massively expanding the article to include all the important names in context.

2932:

Good idea. I only posted it in all those places to raise as much awareness as possible. BTW, I will be away for most of the next fortnight and probably won't be able to edit. Just in case anyone wonders why I don't reply etc.

1593:. You either use a similar method of coming up with a "neutral" list by collating reliable sources or you do as Antandrus suggests and rewrite "and massively expanding the article to include all the important names in context." -- 153: 1934:

I've just been looking around the web and find that Postmodern Music is a term defined in all sorts of contradictory ways. Some sites include Minimalism, some don't; others include Stravinsky; yet others say the movement

1584:

This list just isn't going to fly. Horsetrading over personal preferences won't protect it against someone coming along, adding their own favourites and questioning your choices. You won't be able to make it conform to

844:

As to the other composers in the list who you feel are not very notable, may I suggest a discussion here before proceeding further? I do not personally see a single name in the list that is not notable, in one way or

730:

I agree, the 'introduction' section is very long and loosely written, with tons of irrelevant details thrown in. Not only that, it makes a lot of unjustifiably broad generalizations and isn't worded all that well...

955:

about a bias in favor of "older and deader composers", is that such a bad thing? There is such a thing as the test of time, and history has shown that the judgement of contemporaries is often overthrown by history.—

3909:

Leaving aside the fact that I don't believe I contradicted myself at all, the absence of Ligeti, as well as a number of other composers in this list who are obviously important enough to include (and we all know

2656:

Isn't "20th-century" the adjective, and "20th century" the noun? "During the 20th century, composers wrote 20th-century music." Right? "20th-century" as a noun looks wrong to me, and we certainly don't use it

1342:: I wonder if you would like to remove (strikeout) people you think should remain in the list? Ideally we can arrive at a 'common-lowest denominator' list of expellees (I've just discovered this word exists). -- 2993: 409: 405: 3858:

technique. Messiaen, another prominent composer, is mentioned only in the context of impressionism. I always assumed that the list was there to single out composers who elude simplistic categorisations.--

1531:? Certainly all composers of some importance, many of whom I regard very highly indeed, but do they really rank with Bartók, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Schoenberg, Boulez, Reich—or even with 3097:

I think you are right about putting discussion of various movements, techniques, and styles into their relevant sections, though I have sometimes run into complaints that lede sections are too short!—

3928:. I think this should make a good start on dealing appropriately with this catch-all list (and its about time!). Who will be next with, say, Harry Partch, or Carl Orff? Step right up—don't be shy!— 3051:

Fair point: ASZ is a philosophical work and Strauss' intention in setting it wasn't actually political. It could also fuel misconceptions... I'll remove it! (I'll remove Leighton, too.) --

312: 2179:

for an example of the normal way refs are done. (You are confusing the reference in the main article text with the actual citation in the dedicated References (i.e. Biblio) section.) --

1939:

Stravinsky... there appears to be no consensus that I can find on this quick search. Perhaps we should simply talk about the other composers that could be here in other headings (eg

147: 1439:, for example. Certainly an enormously important conductor, musical educator, and mover and shaker, but hardly a composer of the stature of Copland, Stravinsky, or even Villa-Lobos.— 750:

Are you agreeing with O Graeme Burns about how the introduction looked in July 2008, or speaking of how it looks now, after the extensive editing undertaken in 2009 (see the section

3336: 2402:

A number of editors have been unhappy about this section. What should we do about it? IMO it might be best to simply delete it, or drastically cut it. What do other people think? --

977:

method could still be used here, but I wonder if it could give us a result proportionate to the effort involved. These list-magnet general articles are poor quality anyway. . . . --

396: 355: 3339:, which should satisfy readers in need of a comprehensive list. I am going to be bold and remove the list from this article — I hope I don't lose too many friends in doing so! -- 44: 4298: 1770:, for example). I have pruned the list once again, and added a "Main" hatnote to the section, directing aficionados of unlisted but (in their view) worthy composers to the 3157:

is hardly useful either, though it does have better sources. Worst of all, Expressionism is reduced to a small section within the article on the main artistic movement:

2996:. This seems more infomative and actually covers everything the list highlighted. The following sections can expand the ideas briefly mentioned in this Introduction. -- 2356:

There has been no consensus there so far, but that is the place to argue the acceptability of various reference formats, not piecemeal on individual article talk pages.—

884:

The second question raises the issue of how to determine relative importance. To take just one pair of examples from the present list, who is the more notable composer,

3016:

Surely the original book is about the rise of the Superman and heavily influenced Hitler? I was really looking for a non-socialist political work. Any better ones? --

2752:

I had to reword the lead to follow the rule we believe is correct: it needed a comma anyway as it stood... I've changed the noun/qualifiers back to the unhyphed form.

2826: 2523:

has again chosen to revert all my edits. What was the point of that? (The article currently has a cleanup tag which I thought referred to edit inconsistencies etc.)--

1766:

In the nearly five years since this discussion ended, there have been a few additions to the list in the text, not all of them exactly mighty giants of compositions (

4187: 4308: 2952: 2911: 2822: 79: 1640:

names that link to these various movements, with the understanding that names should be removed from it as quickly as possible, as each section is developed?—

3028:

PS Leighton was a composer of some note in his time but has probably dropped off the radar now I'll replace him with someone better when I can think of one.

4288: 4283: 754:, below)? Assuming the latter, could you be more specific about the "unjustifiably broad generalizations" made there, and the "tons of irrelevant details"?— 468: 190: 4141:

categorization" of the 20th century's aspects, a new organization would provide the reader with a somewhat of an idea of 'where to start', if you will. –

1995:), but I do feel the inline citations would be better as linked footnotes. We can leave the References list as a kind of quick Bibliography. Thoughts? 633:. As I said, this may be a philosophical difference between editors here, but I think fact tags need to be rationed just a bit more carefully. Thanks, 3813:

Above is the list of names at the time of removal. Please feel free to use this as a checklist for expansion of the article as suggested previously. --

2051:. There was an edit conflict (involving edit consistency problems) which confused things. However what was the reason for changing all the refs back? -- 2378:

I agree: leave the style as it stands. It is the one used from the conception of the article and is perfectly acceptable. I withdraw my objections.

863:

notable composer (defined as every composer with a WP article?), or is it an exclusive list of only the most important figures, serving as examples? --

521:

Agreed... but we over at WPCM should really start the rewriting process. One cleanup starts I'm hoping prose will be sufficient, just as it is over at

4318: 2951:

This call for discussion has been posted on multiple talk pages. In order to keep all relevant discussions in one place, please post any response on

3835:. Whatever you may think of Richard Taruskin's views of music history, that should still be evidence enough that this list has become a trivia lure.— 2614:

Fixed. (Don't worry, I didn't search and replace, I did it manually ... that would have had a hilariously awful effect on the References section.)

1771: 316: 303: 267: 233: 85: 4303: 4293: 1909:

article is just a list of opinions by Kramer, despite the huge list of sources. Both articles should probably be merged and the result expanded.

2157: 2105: 2101: 662:

article passed in a Good Article review, I have perhaps a heightened sensitivity to the current rigour of Knowledge (XXG) citation standards.—

4313: 1991:

paper books constantly! I won't change it, since it is a valid method for Wiki when the article is heavily supported by those sources (see:

4032:

A new "Styles and movements" section has been created in order to organize the styles and to separate them from other historical events. –

168: 30: 1612:

method is not really practical either. I think that leaves the 'massively expanding the article' option, eliminating lists completely. --

135: 2867:

is contentious. It is claimed that the title is not the proper name for this period and that the article's subject properly belongs in

695: 3153:

is hardly more than a stub; the famous statement by Debussy is sourced from someone's personal website rather that a reliable source.

2818: 413: 1435:

So easy. (Why couldn't I remember how to do that?) Now, what about some of the lesser lights in the list not nominated for deletion?

99: 2630:

I hyphenated them all for consistency (half were, half weren't). It is the establish method and follows the article title. I did

906:

Perhaps a numerical limit? Say 30 individuals? I realize that doesn't provide us with a criteria but it might concentrate minds. --

104: 20: 4188:

https://web.archive.org/web/20110716201357/http://www.cea.mdx.ac.uk/local/media/downloads/Dack/Technology_and_the_Instrument.pdf

4092:

All these distinctions will be taken into account as this reorganization takes place. Would this be an appropriate organization?

3956:

makes it clear that Ligeti never purported to be part of any musical movement; your point is thus a non-point and without merit.

2323: 2294: 2261:

IMO, the problem with 'parenthetical referencing' on WP (as opposed to academic print, where it is normally used) is that it is

74: 4278: 3969:

As for a solution, I was fine with the list, although it could be argued who belongs on it; I have found the approach used at

3307:? I'll check later this week. I was still learning the basics of WP editing, BTW, when I expanded this article: I have been 242: 129: 3970: 1854: 2910:

Thank you for this. I think it's good to raise these issues. However can we centralize the discussion in one place? Perhaps

65: 3237:

evolutionary approach (I changed the sentence on Shostakovich and Britten, which originally read, "Other Russians, notably

1609: 1608:

OK. I agree my suggestion of a (lowest common denominator) 'cull' hasn't worked out, but for reasons explained above, the

1590: 125: 4259: 4191: 4171: 2878: 2872: 2864: 2857: 2845: 2841: 2837: 1801: 1797: 1074: 789: 740: 390: 24: 777:

Again I must apologize, this time for the wording of my last message - it was much too abrupt and not all that helpful.

1703:

Again OK by me. Does that mean you will delete names as they are added to the main text? That would be a good idea. --

2153: 2076: 2072: 1992: 175: 3715: 3567: 1902: 1875: 1214: 185: 3215: 1835:

classical, insofar as some of what we deem as "classical music" was written for opera and the stage and the like.

973:

Operas can (and are) measured in terms of productions, performances and recordings. Opera books reflect this. The

109: 3720: 626: 480: 199: 4146: 4111: 4068: 4037: 3978: 3925: 3863: 3319: 3165: 3120: 3082: 3055: 3020: 3000: 2981: 2937: 2899: 2756: 2726: 2638: 2493: 2382: 1999: 1972: 1924: 1753: 974: 931: 720: 522: 3176:

I've just taken a look at the article and I think it's coming along very well. Big improvements. I agree with

248: 1901:

Good point: Minimalism is not PMism... it is a later development. However, both Cage and Reich are listed in

1870:

I have noted that the section on Postmodern music does not accurately summarize either of the main articles,

1723:

Yes, that is the idea. Since no one else has jumped in to object, and you endorse the idea, I shall proceed.—

699: 4250: 4179: 4103:

2.5.1 Minimalism 3 Techniques 3.1 Atonality and twelve-tone technique 3.2 Spectralism

3989:

All right, then, let me clarify a few things that I thought were perfectly evident: (1) Richard Taruskin's

2075:. If you have good reasons to change from intext author-date citations, please air them here first, as per 1842: 3760: 3259:) explored political themes in their works." to the more nuanced/less misleading "Other Russians, notably 1322: 295: 141: 716: 55: 4234:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

4131: 4083: 4053: 4015: 3933: 3840: 3656: 3602: 3286: 3227: 3204: 3139: 3102: 3042: 2792: 2548: 2467: 2427: 2361: 2302: 2215: 2207: 2166: 2084: 2028: 1948: 1940: 1891: 1779: 1728: 1694: 1645: 1570: 1552: 1444: 1398: 1240: 1082: 1034: 960: 897: 850: 807: 759: 667: 659: 582: 559:

death of Schoenberg; or the development of "total serialism" after the Second World War. When you cite

512: 4178:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3915:

thereby obstruct comprehension on the part of the reader. I have seen your recent contributions to the

3577: 70: 4212: 3800: 3621: 2176: 1956: 786: 737: 1052: 219: 4142: 4107: 4064: 4033: 3974: 3859: 3831:

this list that failed to make it into either of the two large volumes on the 20th century from the

3661: 3651: 3626: 3582: 3389: 3364: 3316: 3260: 3238: 3187: 3162: 3150: 3117: 3079: 3052: 3017: 2997: 2978: 2934: 2921: 2896: 2753: 2723: 2694: 2665: 2635: 2618: 2602: 2574: 2530: 2490: 2451: 2441: 2409: 2379: 2337: 2272: 2241: 2186: 2138: 2115: 2058: 2044: 2016: 1996: 1969: 1921: 1750: 1710: 1669: 1619: 1468: 1420: 1349: 1245: 1056: 1008: 984: 942: 913: 870: 637: 568: 161: 3562: 3448: 1516: 826: 4007: 3890: 3818: 3770: 3765: 3755: 3587: 3434: 3359: 3344: 2962: 2868: 2853: 2833: 1850: 1824: 1809: 1598: 1230: 486: 204: 3995: 3666: 3631: 3498: 1772:

List of All the 20th-Century Composers You Ever Dreamed of Knowing About, but Were Afraid to Ask

1520: 1262: 4235: 3149:

Indeed. I've just been sourcing it and have discovered several anomolies. First, the article

3710: 3557: 3513: 3493: 3488: 3268: 3246: 3154: 2203: 1562: 1544: 1512: 1504: 1458: 1436: 1250: 1174: 1097:

As a rough and ready method of reducing the list, I suggest we take out the following names.

830: 537: 51: 2234: 1838:

But perhaps using a new term would be original information, so we're not allowed to use it.

1586: 315:

for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the

4127: 4079: 4049: 4011: 3929: 3916: 3836: 3785: 3705: 3700: 3691: 3686: 3572: 3503: 3478: 3439: 3409: 3369: 3282: 3272: 3250: 3223: 3200: 3177: 3135: 3098: 3038: 2788: 2588: 2544: 2520: 2463: 2423: 2357: 2319: 2298: 2211: 2162: 2127: 2080: 2048: 2024: 1960: 1906: 1887: 1883: 1871: 1775: 1767: 1724: 1690: 1641: 1566: 1548: 1528: 1440: 1394: 1374: 1335: 1303: 1281: 1224: 1135: 1078: 1073:? If the latter, the usual excuse is to start a section on women composers (like the one in 1070: 1066: 1030: 956: 893: 846: 803: 755: 683: 663: 578: 508: 482: 451: 201: 4242: 1361:

I'm not sure how to format strikeouts (if that is what you mean to be done), but certainly

655: 4264: 4150: 4135: 4115: 4087: 4072: 4057: 4041: 4019: 3982: 3937: 3894: 3867: 3844: 3822: 3745: 3740: 3725: 3646: 3641: 3458: 3453: 3424: 3348: 3324: 3290: 3231: 3208: 3193: 3170: 3143: 3125: 3106: 3087: 3060: 3046: 3025: 3005: 2986: 2966: 2942: 2927: 2904: 2796: 2761: 2731: 2700: 2668: 2643: 2621: 2608: 2580: 2552: 2536: 2498: 2471: 2457: 2431: 2415: 2387: 2365: 2343: 2306: 2278: 2244: 2219: 2192: 2170: 2144: 2121: 2088: 2064: 2032: 2004: 1977: 1929: 1895: 1858: 1828: 1813: 1783: 1758: 1732: 1716: 1698: 1675: 1649: 1625: 1602: 1574: 1556: 1540: 1524: 1508: 1500: 1474: 1448: 1426: 1402: 1355: 1160: 1155: 1140: 1086: 1060: 1038: 1011: 990: 964: 945: 930:

One way to do it -- and we have a precedent -- is to adopt an approach similar to that at

919: 901: 889: 876: 854: 834: 811: 794: 781: 763: 745: 732: 724: 703: 687: 671: 640: 586: 571: 544: 516: 308: 2634:

hyphate the book title nor the interwiki as these should obviously be left as they are.

1393:, at the very least, should remain. Always assuming that the list is to be kept at all.— 484: 203: 3775: 3547: 3508: 3483: 3414: 3399: 3374: 3182: 2916: 2689: 2662: 2615: 2597: 2569: 2525: 2446: 2404: 2332: 2267: 2238: 2181: 2133: 2110: 2053: 1944: 1705: 1664: 1614: 1532: 1463: 1415: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1344: 1339: 1316: 1309: 1292: 1204: 1179: 1169: 1129: 1118: 1112: 1106: 1005: 979: 939: 908: 885: 865: 634: 565: 526: 4241:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

600: 4272: 4192:

http://www.cea.mdx.ac.uk/local/media/downloads/Dack/Technology_and_the_Instrument.pdf

3921: 3886: 3814: 3636: 3518: 3468: 3419: 3379: 3340: 3158: 3032:

Yes, but Strauss didn't write the book, Nietzsche did, and the issue of the Superman

2958: 2012: 1952: 1846: 1820: 1805: 1594: 1536: 1496: 1298: 1184: 279: 261: 3735: 3676: 3616: 3592: 3552: 3542: 3537: 3528: 3463: 3429: 3404: 3394: 2658: 2444:. I guess that means at least four editors expressing reservations of some kind. -- 1492: 1276: 1235: 1209: 1199: 1194: 1150: 1145: 1123: 530: 383: 3607: 859:

I think we need to decide on the purpose of this list. Is it an inclusive list of

367: 349: 311:, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the 307:, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to 3790: 3681: 3277: 3255: 2875:. (Note that I wrote the article, in good faith, following up on a suggestion.) 1886:, neither of which/whom is mentioned at all in either of the two main articles.— 1565:

in the list? Surely he is as notable a composer as La Monte Young or Arvo Pärt.—

1378: 1256: 771:

At the turn of the century, music was characteristically late Romantic in style.

679: 401: 2043:

I've just converted the references to the standard style — without having seen

4006:) with a different unregistered editor's work on the Ligeti article (probably 4003: 3780: 3750: 3523: 3384: 1488: 1189: 373: 285: 3074:

etc)? One final thought: I've missed a few things here. Messiaen, for one.

2992:

I replaced the list with prose (and a reordered lead text) which I developed

2557:

You even reverted my correction of a typo square bracket to parentheses, see

3795: 3730: 3671: 3597: 3473: 3264: 3242: 3161:. Looks like I'll actually have to start reading "boox" (?sp) again...! -- 2020: 1879: 1286: 1267: 501: 3180:

that citation tags pinpointing issues are more useful than general ones. --

2210:

for examples of the normal way refs are done. I am not confusing anything.—

599:? Do you think these widely-known facts are likely to be challenged? See 2832:

The following articles overlap and the situation need to be rationalized:

892:

and, more importantly, what criteria form the basis for such a judgement?—

595:

Yes, I know it shouldn't be hard to find cites for things like this, but

2953:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Classical music#Major issues to resolve

2892:

Other issues exist, as well, but those above need immeadiate attention.

2327: 4229:

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

2888:

None of the articles fully expore the music of the period in question.

2848:. The following issues are the most urgent (in order of importance): 3218:, which hold that "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is 2687:

Yes, indeed, the hyphen is surely there to indicate an adjective. --

2322:: As you have just explained (above) that there is no consensus at 2104:

which explains how to use the Reflist template. in particular see

2881:

appears to end in 1980, or so, despite the period defined in the

621:

in which he first experimented with his individual "rows" -- but

2297:

is a more appropriate forum for making your case on this issue.—

504: 2158:

Knowledge (XXG):Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference

2106:

Knowledge (XXG):Referencing_for_beginners#Inserting_a_reference

1523:(greatest tango composer of all time, but "classical music"?), 408:

page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us

487: 445: 213: 205: 15: 2860:

be merged, but no consensus has been reached as to which way.

4197:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the

3353: 1100: 2077:

Knowledge (XXG):Citing_sources#Citation_templates_and_tools

4182:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

422:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Music/Music genres task force

404:

articles on Knowledge (XXG). Please visit the task force

1920:

and the actual PM bit expanding. I'll have a go, soon.

4175: 3952: 2559: 555: 3337:

List of 20th-century classical composers by birth date

3267:

and subsequently had to work within the strictures of

2462:

OK, but in spite of all that, I still agree with you.—

2108:

which explains exactly what I have just been doing. --

1912:

Back on topic though: the section needs spliting into

1689:

includes those whose notability is already explained.—

1411:

OK. I've struck out your group for you, see <s: -->

160: 2514:

Editorial consistency: 20th century/Twentieth century

1963:) BTW, I have never heard of 7/8th of the names in 715:

shorter introduction written. What do people think?

400:, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize 2827:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Contemporary music

2293:If you feel that strongly about it, I suggest that 174: 2914:? I think it will attract more attention there. -- 2233:me yesterday) is one of the accepted methods (see 1749:, both of which are infleuntial is their own way. 1589:like that. We've already been through all this on 751: 425:Template:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force 3249:in their music; indeed, other composers, such as 2326:so that doesn't seem a good way of resolving the 934:. Pick, say, eight books on contemporary music ( 2912:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Classical music 2823:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Classical music 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 4299:Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles in Arts 3315:in late 2009. Hope that explanation helps -- 2235:Knowledge (XXG):CITE#Parenthetical_referencing 2073:Knowledge (XXG):Citing_sources#Citation_styles 2023:references avoid the inelegance of footnotes.— 4002:article on my watchlist (possibly the one on 8: 1878:. There are just two things discussed here, 397:Music genres task force of the Music project 1519:(whose name isn't even spelled correctly), 325:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Classical music 4170:I have just modified one external link on 2015:formats used here, as well as the similar 344: 256: 3271:in their music. Other composers, such as 2563:. I'd appreciate it if you could restore 2102:Knowledge (XXG):Referencing for beginners 3134:Good, we are of one mind on this, then.— 2047:'s comment above — and been reverted by 1561:Hmm. I've only just noticed: Why isn't 346: 258: 217: 4289:Knowledge (XXG) vital articles in Arts 4284:Knowledge (XXG) level-4 vital articles 2819:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Music 2661:. Anyone know the grammatical rule? 2489:needs to point somewhere specific... 1547:, who aren't even on this list (yet)?— 4209:to let others know (documentation at 629:: When a source may not be needed: 7: 4309:WikiProject Classical music articles 328:Template:WikiProject Classical music 301:This article is within the scope of 2324:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Citing sources 2295:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Citing sources 2096:. Please note these are references 247:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 1905:, but that article is awful! The 14: 4174:. Please take a moment to review 3263:, reflected the social impact of 631:subject-specific common knowledge 50:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome! 4319:Music genres task force articles 4220: 3330:List of other notables revisited 3241:, explored the social impact of 2094:(I was in the middle of editing) 450: 376: 366: 348: 288: 278: 260: 227: 218: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3833:Oxford History of Western Music 613:, or the exact inspiration for 4304:C-Class vital articles in Arts 4294:C-Class level-4 vital articles 4265:11:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC) 3971:User:(RT)/Major_composer_lists 2154:Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources 1796:This article should be called 1: 4020:18:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3983:18:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3938:16:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3895:12:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3868:06:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3845:05:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3823:03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3349:03:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3194:00:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC) 3171:18:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 3144:04:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 3126:01:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 3107:01:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 3088:23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) 3061:23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) 3047:18:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC) 3026:05:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC) 3006:20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 2987:16:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 2895:Thank you for your input. -- 2883:Periods of European art music 1965:Category:Postmodern composers 1610:List of major opera composers 1591:List of major opera composers 419:Music/Music genres task force 356:Music/Music genres task force 42:Put new text under old text. 4314:C-Class music genre articles 4172:20th-century classical music 3924:even less satisfactory than 3311:since 2008 but only started 2967:12:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 2943:07:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 2928:02:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 2905:21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 2879:20th-century classical music 2873:contemporary classical music 2865:21st-century classical music 2858:contemporary classical music 2846:21st-century classical music 2842:20th-century classical music 2838:contemporary classical music 2797:03:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 2762:00:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 2732:23:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 2701:02:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC) 2669:21:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 2644:04:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 2622:23:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2609:23:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2581:06:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2553:05:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2537:05:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2499:04:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 2472:22:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2458:06:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2440:comments. Also a tag put by 2432:05:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2416:04:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2388:05:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC) 2366:05:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 2344:05:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 2307:22:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2279:14:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2245:00:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 2220:21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2193:05:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2171:05:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2145:04:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2122:04:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2089:04:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2065:04:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2033:04:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 2005:23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 1978:02:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 1930:00:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC) 1896:19:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 1802:20th century classical music 1798:20th-century classical music 1759:01:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 1075:21st-century classical music 704:00:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC) 627:Knowledge (XXG):When to cite 391:20th-century classical music 25:20th-century classical music 2852:It has been suggested that 1784:21:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 1087:23:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC) 1061:22:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC) 812:00:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC) 795:22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC) 764:21:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC) 746:20:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC) 688:20:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC) 394:is within the scope of the 304:WikiProject Classical music 4335: 4167:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 4151:05:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 4136:04:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 4116:04:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 4088:04:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 4073:00:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 4058:16:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 4042:08:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC) 3325:02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC) 3291:00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC) 3232:23:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC) 3209:22:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC) 1903:Postmodern classical music 1876:Postmodern classical music 1859:21:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC) 710:Length of the Introduction 545:00:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC) 517:19:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 3721:Charles Villiers Stanford 3069:"Introduction" needs work 1829:21:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 1814:19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC) 820:List of notable composers 752:"Introduction" needs work 725:04:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC) 617:, or the sections within 361: 273: 255: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3220:verifiability, not truth 1733:04:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 1717:22:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 1699:16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 1676:23:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 1650:07:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1626:05:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC) 1603:10:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 1575:05:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC) 1557:17:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC) 1487:Good enough. What about 1475:06:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC) 1449:05:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC) 1427:05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC) 1403:05:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC) 1356:23:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 1039:19:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 1012:13:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 991:05:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 975:List of important operas 965:04:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 946:03:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 932:List of important operas 920:03:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 902:02:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC) 877:23:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC) 855:16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC) 835:15:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC) 672:19:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 641:17:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 587:06:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 572:00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC) 523:classical period (music) 331:Classical music articles 4163:External links modified 3012:Also sprach Zarathustra 2813:Major issues to resolve 2200:Au contraire, mon brave 2098:in the body of the text 496:Table format? (discuss) 4279:C-Class vital articles 4028:New organized section. 3761:Ralph Vaughan Williams 2398:Romantic style section 1323:Bernd Alois Zimmermann 550:Calls for verification 296:Classical music portal 75:avoid personal attacks 3657:Einojuhani Rautavaara 3603:Ignacy Jan Paderewski 2817:(Following posted on 1941:Karlheinz Stockhausen 1241:Einojuhani Rautavaara 660:Karlheinz Stockhausen 241:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 234:level-4 vital article 100:Neutral point of view 3801:Ellen Taaffe Zwilich 3622:Krzysztof Penderecki 3568:Włodzimierz Kotoński 2177:Ludwig van Beethoven 1957:Peter Maxwell Davies 1215:Włodzimierz Kotoński 428:music genre articles 105:No original research 4201:parameter below to 3953:presently describes 3662:Silvestre Revueltas 3652:Sergei Rachmaninoff 3627:Vincent Persichetti 3390:Harrison Birtwistle 3365:Jurriaan Andriessen 3261:Dmitri Shostakovich 3239:Dmitri Shostakovich 3159:Expressionism#Music 3151:Impressionist music 2442:User:Jubileeclipman 2330:over this issue. -- 2017:Harvard referencing 1246:Silvestre Revueltas 414:good article status 4253:InternetArchiveBot 4008:User:Squandermania 3771:Heitor Villa-Lobos 3766:Matthijs Vermeulen 3756:Galina Ustvolskaya 3588:Gian Carlo Menotti 3578:Witold Lutosławski 3435:Luigi Dallapiccola 3360:Hendrik Andriessen 2869:contemporary music 2854:contemporary music 2834:contemporary music 1819:I moved the page. 1231:Gian-Carlo Menotti 412:genre articles to 410:assess and improve 243:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3810: 3809: 3716:Kaikhosru Sorabji 3711:Joseph Schwantner 3558:Aram Khachaturian 3514:Sofia Gubaidulina 3489:Alberto Ginastera 3313:editing in ernest 3305:The rest is noise 3269:socialist realism 3247:socialist realism 3155:Modernism (music) 2204:Arnold Schoenberg 1862: 1845:comment added by 1563:Brian Ferneyhough 1545:Helmut Lachenmann 1513:Aram Khachaturian 1459:Leonard Bernstein 1437:Leonard Bernstein 1332: 1331: 1251:Leonard Bernstein 1175:Alberto Ginastera 936:The Rest is Noise 793: 744: 611:Requiem Canticles 493: 492: 474: 473: 444: 443: 440: 439: 436: 435: 343: 342: 339: 338: 319:for more details. 212: 211: 66:Assume good faith 43: 4326: 4263: 4254: 4227: 4224: 4223: 4216: 3786:Charles Wuorinen 3706:Alfred Schnittke 3701:Elie Siegmeister 3692:Peter Sculthorpe 3687:Frederic Rzewski 3583:Bohuslav Martinů 3504:Karel Goeyvaerts 3440:Frederick Delius 3370:Louis Andriessen 3354: 3322: 3273:Benjamin Britten 3251:Benjamin Britten 3190: 3185: 3168: 3123: 3085: 3058: 3023: 3003: 2984: 2940: 2924: 2919: 2902: 2759: 2729: 2697: 2692: 2641: 2605: 2600: 2577: 2572: 2533: 2528: 2496: 2454: 2449: 2412: 2407: 2385: 2340: 2335: 2275: 2270: 2189: 2184: 2141: 2136: 2118: 2113: 2061: 2056: 2049:User:Jerome Kohl 2002: 1975: 1927: 1914:Postmodern music 1907:Postmodern music 1872:Postmodern music 1866:Postmodern music 1861: 1839: 1792:Title of article 1768:Uzeyir Hajibeyov 1756: 1713: 1708: 1672: 1667: 1622: 1617: 1529:Alfred Schnittke 1471: 1466: 1461:to deletions. -- 1457:OK by me to add 1423: 1418: 1352: 1347: 1304:Charles Wuorinen 1282:Elie Siegmeister 1101: 987: 982: 916: 911: 873: 868: 784: 735: 597:how does it help 541: 534: 488: 465: 464: 454: 446: 430: 429: 426: 423: 420: 386: 381: 380: 379: 370: 363: 362: 352: 345: 333: 332: 329: 326: 323: 298: 293: 292: 291: 282: 275: 274: 264: 257: 240: 231: 230: 223: 222: 214: 206: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 4334: 4333: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4269: 4268: 4257: 4252: 4225: 4221: 4210: 4180:this simple FaQ 4165: 4104: 4030: 3996:Julián Carrillo 3811: 3746:Virgil Thompson 3741:Michael Tippett 3726:Richard Strauss 3667:Joaquín Rodrigo 3647:Giacomo Puccini 3642:Francis Poulenc 3632:Ástor Piazzolla 3499:Reinhold Glière 3459:Henri Dutilleux 3454:Franco Donatoni 3425:John Corigliano 3332: 3320: 3188: 3183: 3166: 3121: 3083: 3071: 3056: 3021: 3014: 3001: 2982: 2974: 2938: 2922: 2917: 2900: 2815: 2757: 2727: 2695: 2690: 2639: 2603: 2598: 2575: 2570: 2531: 2526: 2516: 2494: 2452: 2447: 2410: 2405: 2400: 2383: 2338: 2333: 2273: 2268: 2187: 2182: 2139: 2134: 2116: 2111: 2059: 2054: 2041: 2000: 1988: 1986:Style of citing 1973: 1925: 1868: 1840: 1794: 1754: 1743:West Side Story 1711: 1706: 1670: 1665: 1620: 1615: 1541:Magnus Lindberg 1525:Francis Poulenc 1521:Ástor Piazzolla 1509:Arthur Honegger 1501:Manuel de Falla 1469: 1464: 1421: 1416: 1350: 1345: 1333: 1263:Joaquín Rodrigo 1161:Henri Dutilleux 1156:Franco Donatoni 1141:John Corigliano 1095: 985: 980: 914: 909: 890:Jerry Goldsmith 871: 866: 822: 792: 743: 712: 615:Canticum Sacrum 552: 539: 532: 498: 489: 483: 459: 427: 424: 421: 418: 417: 382: 377: 375: 330: 327: 324: 322:Classical music 321: 320: 309:classical music 294: 289: 287: 268:Classical music 238: 228: 208: 207: 202: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 4332: 4330: 4322: 4321: 4316: 4311: 4306: 4301: 4296: 4291: 4286: 4281: 4271: 4270: 4247: 4246: 4239: 4195: 4194: 4186:Added archive 4164: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4143:Harpsichord246 4108:Harpsichord246 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4065:Harpsichord246 4034:Harpsichord246 4029: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3975:Toccata quarta 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3940: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3860:Toccata quarta 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3808: 3807: 3804: 3803: 3798: 3793: 3788: 3783: 3778: 3776:William Walton 3773: 3768: 3763: 3758: 3753: 3748: 3743: 3738: 3733: 3728: 3723: 3718: 3713: 3708: 3703: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3689: 3684: 3679: 3674: 3669: 3664: 3659: 3654: 3649: 3644: 3639: 3634: 3629: 3624: 3619: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3605: 3600: 3595: 3590: 3585: 3580: 3575: 3570: 3565: 3560: 3555: 3550: 3548:Alan Hovhaness 3545: 3540: 3533: 3532: 3531: 3526: 3521: 3516: 3511: 3509:Percy Grainger 3506: 3501: 3496: 3494:Henryk Górecki 3491: 3486: 3484:Morton Feldman 3481: 3476: 3471: 3466: 3461: 3456: 3451: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3437: 3432: 3427: 3422: 3417: 3415:Chou Wen-Chung 3412: 3407: 3402: 3400:William Bolcom 3397: 3392: 3387: 3382: 3377: 3375:Malcolm Arnold 3372: 3367: 3362: 3352: 3331: 3328: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3147: 3146: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3110: 3109: 3095: 3070: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3013: 3010: 3009: 3008: 2973: 2970: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2890: 2889: 2886: 2876: 2861: 2814: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2625: 2624: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2515: 2512: 2510: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2399: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2040: 2037: 2036: 2035: 1987: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1945:Iannis Xenakis 1910: 1867: 1864: 1832: 1831: 1793: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1629: 1628: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1559: 1533:Mauricio Kagel 1505:Henryk Górecki 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1452: 1451: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1406: 1405: 1391:La Monte Young 1387:William Walton 1383:Iannis Xenakis 1371:Morton Feldman 1367:Elliott Carter 1363:Milton Babbitt 1330: 1329: 1326: 1325: 1320: 1317:La Monte Young 1313: 1310:Iannis Xenakis 1306: 1301: 1296: 1293:William Walton 1289: 1284: 1279: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1265: 1260: 1253: 1248: 1243: 1238: 1233: 1228: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1212: 1207: 1205:Alan Hovhaness 1202: 1197: 1192: 1187: 1182: 1180:Percy Grainger 1177: 1172: 1170:Morton Feldman 1165: 1164: 1163: 1158: 1153: 1148: 1143: 1138: 1133: 1130:Elliott Carter 1126: 1121: 1119:William Bolcom 1116: 1113:Milton Babbitt 1109: 1107:Malcolm Arnold 1099: 1094: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 996: 995: 994: 993: 968: 967: 951: 950: 949: 948: 925: 924: 923: 922: 886:Percy Grainger 881: 880: 879: 842: 821: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 799: 798: 797: 785: 778: 775: 736: 717:O Graeme Burns 711: 708: 707: 706: 675: 674: 651: 646: 645: 644: 643: 590: 589: 551: 548: 527:romantic music 497: 494: 491: 490: 485: 481: 479: 476: 475: 472: 471: 461: 460: 455: 449: 442: 441: 438: 437: 434: 433: 431: 388: 387: 371: 359: 358: 353: 341: 340: 337: 336: 334: 300: 299: 283: 271: 270: 265: 253: 252: 246: 224: 210: 209: 200: 198: 197: 194: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4331: 4320: 4317: 4315: 4312: 4310: 4307: 4305: 4302: 4300: 4297: 4295: 4292: 4290: 4287: 4285: 4282: 4280: 4277: 4276: 4274: 4267: 4266: 4261: 4256: 4255: 4244: 4240: 4237: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4218: 4214: 4208: 4204: 4200: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4181: 4177: 4173: 4168: 4162: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4133: 4129: 4124: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4039: 4035: 4027: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3954: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3918: 3913: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3834: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3820: 3816: 3806: 3802: 3799: 3797: 3794: 3792: 3789: 3787: 3784: 3782: 3779: 3777: 3774: 3772: 3769: 3767: 3764: 3762: 3759: 3757: 3754: 3752: 3749: 3747: 3744: 3742: 3739: 3737: 3734: 3732: 3729: 3727: 3724: 3722: 3719: 3717: 3714: 3712: 3709: 3707: 3704: 3702: 3699: 3698: 3697: 3693: 3690: 3688: 3685: 3683: 3680: 3678: 3675: 3673: 3670: 3668: 3665: 3663: 3660: 3658: 3655: 3653: 3650: 3648: 3645: 3643: 3640: 3638: 3637:Willem Pijper 3635: 3633: 3630: 3628: 3625: 3623: 3620: 3618: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3609: 3606: 3604: 3601: 3599: 3596: 3594: 3591: 3589: 3586: 3584: 3581: 3579: 3576: 3574: 3573:György Ligeti 3571: 3569: 3566: 3564: 3563:Zoltán Kodály 3561: 3559: 3556: 3554: 3551: 3549: 3546: 3544: 3541: 3539: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3530: 3527: 3525: 3522: 3520: 3519:Howard Hanson 3517: 3515: 3512: 3510: 3507: 3505: 3502: 3500: 3497: 3495: 3492: 3490: 3487: 3485: 3482: 3480: 3479:Gabriel Fauré 3477: 3475: 3472: 3470: 3469:George Enescu 3467: 3465: 3462: 3460: 3457: 3455: 3452: 3450: 3449:Ernő Dohnányi 3447: 3446: 3445: 3441: 3438: 3436: 3433: 3431: 3428: 3426: 3423: 3421: 3420:John Chowning 3418: 3416: 3413: 3411: 3410:Carlos Chávez 3408: 3406: 3403: 3401: 3398: 3396: 3393: 3391: 3388: 3386: 3383: 3381: 3380:Samuel Barber 3378: 3376: 3373: 3371: 3368: 3366: 3363: 3361: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3338: 3329: 3327: 3326: 3323: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3279: 3274: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3258: 3257: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3192: 3191: 3186: 3179: 3175: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3169: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3132: 3127: 3124: 3119: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3086: 3081: 3075: 3068: 3062: 3059: 3054: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3044: 3040: 3035: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3027: 3024: 3019: 3011: 3007: 3004: 2999: 2995: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2985: 2980: 2971: 2969: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2954: 2944: 2941: 2936: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2926: 2925: 2920: 2913: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2903: 2898: 2893: 2887: 2884: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2830: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2812: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2763: 2760: 2755: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2733: 2730: 2725: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2702: 2699: 2698: 2693: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2670: 2667: 2664: 2660: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2645: 2642: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2623: 2620: 2617: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2607: 2606: 2601: 2594: 2590: 2582: 2579: 2578: 2573: 2566: 2562: 2561: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2535: 2534: 2529: 2522: 2513: 2511: 2500: 2497: 2492: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2456: 2455: 2450: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2414: 2413: 2408: 2397: 2389: 2386: 2381: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2367: 2363: 2359: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2336: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2280: 2277: 2276: 2271: 2264: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2246: 2243: 2240: 2236: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2198: 2194: 2191: 2190: 2185: 2178: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2159: 2155: 2150: 2146: 2143: 2142: 2137: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2120: 2119: 2114: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2063: 2062: 2057: 2050: 2046: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2013:Chicago style 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2003: 1998: 1994: 1985: 1979: 1976: 1971: 1966: 1962: 1961:György Ligeti 1958: 1954: 1953:Luciano Berio 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1928: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1865: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1836: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1791: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1757: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1718: 1715: 1714: 1709: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1677: 1674: 1673: 1668: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1638: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1627: 1624: 1623: 1618: 1611: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1537:Bruno Maderna 1534: 1530: 1526: 1522: 1518: 1517:Zoltán Kodály 1514: 1510: 1506: 1502: 1498: 1497:George Enescu 1494: 1490: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1476: 1473: 1472: 1467: 1460: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1433: 1428: 1425: 1424: 1419: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1375:György Ligeti 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1354: 1353: 1348: 1341: 1337: 1328: 1324: 1321: 1319: 1318: 1314: 1312: 1311: 1307: 1305: 1302: 1300: 1299:John Williams 1297: 1295: 1294: 1290: 1288: 1285: 1283: 1280: 1278: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1269: 1266: 1264: 1261: 1259: 1258: 1254: 1252: 1249: 1247: 1244: 1242: 1239: 1237: 1234: 1232: 1229: 1227: 1226: 1225:György Ligeti 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1213: 1211: 1208: 1206: 1203: 1201: 1198: 1196: 1193: 1191: 1188: 1186: 1185:Howard Hanson 1183: 1181: 1178: 1176: 1173: 1171: 1168: 1167: 1166: 1162: 1159: 1157: 1154: 1152: 1149: 1147: 1144: 1142: 1139: 1137: 1136:Carlos Chávez 1134: 1132: 1131: 1127: 1125: 1122: 1120: 1117: 1115: 1114: 1110: 1108: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1098: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1065: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1013: 1010: 1007: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 992: 989: 988: 983: 976: 972: 971: 970: 969: 966: 962: 958: 953: 952: 947: 944: 941: 937: 933: 929: 928: 927: 926: 921: 918: 917: 912: 905: 904: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 882: 878: 875: 874: 869: 862: 858: 857: 856: 852: 848: 843: 839: 838: 837: 836: 832: 828: 819: 813: 809: 805: 800: 796: 791: 788: 783: 779: 776: 772: 767: 766: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 748: 747: 742: 739: 734: 729: 728: 727: 726: 722: 718: 709: 705: 701: 697: 696:24.36.191.143 692: 691: 690: 689: 685: 681: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 652: 648: 647: 642: 639: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 607: 602: 598: 594: 593: 592: 591: 588: 584: 580: 576: 575: 574: 573: 570: 567: 562: 557: 549: 547: 546: 543: 542: 536: 535: 528: 524: 519: 518: 514: 510: 506: 503: 495: 478: 477: 470: 467: 466: 463: 462: 458: 453: 448: 447: 432: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 398: 393: 392: 385: 374: 372: 369: 365: 364: 360: 357: 354: 351: 347: 335: 318: 314: 310: 306: 305: 297: 286: 284: 281: 277: 276: 272: 269: 266: 263: 259: 254: 250: 244: 236: 235: 225: 221: 216: 215: 196: 195: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 4251: 4248: 4228: 4219: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4196: 4169: 4166: 4105: 4031: 3999: 3990: 3926:total serial 3911: 3832: 3812: 3805: 3736:John Tavener 3677:Carl Ruggles 3617:Harry Partch 3593:Carl Nielsen 3553:Scott Joplin 3543:Gustav Holst 3538:Pierre Henry 3529:Lou Harrison 3464:Edward Elgar 3430:George Crumb 3405:Frank Bridge 3395:Ernest Bloch 3333: 3312: 3308: 3304: 3301: 3276: 3254: 3219: 3181: 3148: 3076: 3072: 3033: 3015: 2975: 2950: 2949: 2915: 2894: 2891: 2882: 2863:The article 2831: 2816: 2688: 2631: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2568: 2567:my edits. -- 2564: 2558: 2524: 2517: 2509: 2445: 2437: 2403: 2401: 2331: 2266: 2262: 2199: 2180: 2132: 2109: 2097: 2093: 2052: 2042: 1989: 1964: 1936: 1917: 1913: 1869: 1837: 1833: 1795: 1746: 1742: 1739: 1704: 1663: 1662:OK by me. -- 1636: 1613: 1583: 1493:Ernest Bloch 1462: 1414: 1412:]</s: --> 1343: 1334: 1327: 1315: 1308: 1291: 1277:Carl Ruggles 1255: 1236:Harry Partch 1223: 1210:Scott Joplin 1200:Pierre Henry 1195:Lou Harrison 1151:George Crumb 1146:Henry Cowell 1128: 1124:Frank Bridge 1111: 1096: 1093:Brutal cull? 1049: 978: 935: 907: 864: 860: 823: 770: 713: 676: 630: 622: 618: 614: 610: 605: 596: 560: 553: 538: 531: 520: 499: 456: 395: 389: 384:Music portal 317:project page 302: 249:WikiProjects 232: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 4213:Sourcecheck 4128:Jerome Kohl 4080:Jerome Kohl 4050:Jerome Kohl 4012:Jerome Kohl 3973:sensible.-- 3930:Jerome Kohl 3837:Jerome Kohl 3791:Frank Zappa 3682:John Rutter 3283:Alfietucker 3278:War Requiem 3256:War Requiem 3224:Jerome Kohl 3201:Alfietucker 3178:Jerome Kohl 3136:Jerome Kohl 3099:Jerome Kohl 3039:Jerome Kohl 2789:Jerome Kohl 2589:Jerome Kohl 2545:Jerome Kohl 2521:Jerome Kohl 2464:Jerome Kohl 2424:Jerome Kohl 2358:Jerome Kohl 2320:Jerome Kohl 2299:Jerome Kohl 2212:Jerome Kohl 2163:Jerome Kohl 2128:Jerome Kohl 2081:Jerome Kohl 2025:Jerome Kohl 1888:Jerome Kohl 1841:—Preceding 1776:Jerome Kohl 1725:Jerome Kohl 1691:Jerome Kohl 1642:Jerome Kohl 1567:Jerome Kohl 1549:Jerome Kohl 1441:Jerome Kohl 1395:Jerome Kohl 1379:Terry Riley 1336:Jerome Kohl 1257:Terry Riley 1079:Jerome Kohl 1053:Frank Lynch 1031:Jerome Kohl 957:Jerome Kohl 894:Jerome Kohl 847:Jerome Kohl 804:Jerome Kohl 756:Jerome Kohl 664:Jerome Kohl 623:basic facts 579:Jerome Kohl 509:Jerome Kohl 402:music genre 148:free images 31:not a forum 4273:Categories 4260:Report bug 4004:Roy Harris 3922:postserial 3781:Kurt Weill 3751:Joan Tower 3524:Roy Harris 3385:Arnold Bax 3216:guidelines 2663:Antandrus 2616:Antandrus 2593:Once again 2239:Antandrus 2208:Luigi Nono 2202:, look at 2039:References 1949:Luigi Nono 1918:Minimalism 1884:minimalism 1489:Arnold Bax 1340:Antandrus 1190:Roy Harris 1006:Antandrus 940:Antandrus 635:Antandrus 566:Antandrus 561:everything 406:guidelines 313:guidelines 4243:this tool 4236:this tool 3796:John Zorn 3731:Josef Tal 3672:Ned Rorem 3608:Arvo Pärt 3598:Carl Orff 3474:Brian Eno 3265:communism 3243:communism 2161:article.— 2021:MLA style 1880:John Cage 1637:bruitisme 1287:Josef Tal 1268:Ned Rorem 845:another.— 502:20 August 469:Archive 1 237:is rated 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 4249:Cheers.— 3887:Deskford 3815:Deskford 3341:Deskford 3335:link to 3317:Jubilee♫ 3163:Jubilee♫ 3118:Jubilee♫ 3080:Jubilee♫ 3053:Jubilee♫ 3018:Jubilee♫ 2998:Jubilee♫ 2979:Jubilee♫ 2959:Deskford 2935:Jubilee♫ 2897:Jubilee♫ 2754:Jubilee♫ 2724:Jubilee♫ 2636:Jubilee♫ 2491:Jubilee♫ 2436:See the 2380:Jubilee♫ 2263:unlinked 2175:Look at 2045:Jubilee♫ 1997:Jubilee♫ 1970:Jubilee♫ 1937:rejected 1922:Jubilee♫ 1855:contribs 1847:Parmadil 1843:unsigned 1821:Rigaudon 1806:Rigaudon 1751:Jubilee♫ 1595:Folantin 780:Cheers, 457:Archives 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 4199:checked 4176:my edit 3991:History 3912:exactly 3321:clipman 3167:clipman 3122:clipman 3084:clipman 3057:clipman 3022:clipman 3002:clipman 2983:clipman 2972:Tidy up 2939:clipman 2901:clipman 2758:clipman 2728:clipman 2640:clipman 2495:clipman 2384:clipman 2328:impasse 2001:clipman 1974:clipman 1926:clipman 1755:clipman 1747:Candide 1587:WP:NPOV 1413:etc. -- 1071:Roxanna 1067:Andrzej 827:Flux712 625:? See 239:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 4207:failed 3917:Ligeti 3309:around 3034:became 2844:, and 2666:(talk) 2619:(talk) 2438:inline 2242:(talk) 2156:. The 2100:. See 1959:, and 1800:, not 1543:, and 1527:, and 1389:, and 1009:(talk) 943:(talk) 680:Teenly 656:WP:NOR 638:(talk) 569:(talk) 554:Using 500:Since 245:scale. 126:Google 4000:other 3184:Klein 2918:Klein 2691:Klein 2599:Klein 2571:Klein 2543:say.— 2527:Klein 2448:Klein 2406:Klein 2334:Klein 2269:Klein 2183:Klein 2135:Klein 2112:Klein 2055:Klein 1993:WP:CS 1707:Klein 1666:Klein 1616:Klein 1465:Klein 1417:Klein 1346:Klein 1069:, or 981:Klein 910:Klein 867:Klein 861:every 790:email 782:KGill 741:email 733:KGill 226:This 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 4203:true 4147:talk 4132:talk 4112:talk 4084:talk 4069:talk 4054:talk 4038:talk 4016:talk 3979:talk 3934:talk 3891:talk 3864:talk 3841:talk 3819:talk 3345:talk 3287:talk 3245:and 3228:talk 3205:talk 3189:zach 3140:talk 3103:talk 3043:talk 2994:here 2963:talk 2923:zach 2885:box. 2856:and 2825:and 2793:talk 2696:zach 2659:here 2604:zach 2576:zach 2560:here 2549:talk 2532:zach 2468:talk 2453:zach 2428:talk 2411:zach 2362:talk 2339:zach 2303:talk 2274:zach 2216:talk 2188:zach 2167:talk 2140:zach 2126:Ah. 2117:zach 2085:talk 2060:zach 2029:talk 2019:and 1916:and 1892:talk 1882:and 1874:and 1851:talk 1825:talk 1810:talk 1780:talk 1745:and 1729:talk 1712:zach 1695:talk 1671:zach 1646:talk 1621:zach 1599:talk 1571:talk 1553:talk 1470:zach 1445:talk 1422:zach 1399:talk 1351:zach 1083:talk 1057:talk 1035:talk 986:zach 961:talk 915:zach 898:talk 872:zach 851:talk 831:talk 808:talk 787:talk 760:talk 738:talk 721:talk 700:talk 684:talk 668:talk 619:Agon 606:what 601:WP:V 583:talk 556:this 533:Sing 525:and 513:talk 505:2007 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 4217:). 4205:or 4190:to 3222:".— 2632:not 2565:all 2206:or 888:or 540:Cal 176:TWL 4275:: 4215:}} 4211:{{ 4149:) 4134:) 4114:) 4106:— 4086:) 4071:) 4056:) 4040:) 4018:) 3981:) 3936:) 3893:) 3866:) 3843:) 3821:) 3347:) 3289:) 3230:) 3207:) 3142:) 3116:-- 3105:) 3045:) 2965:) 2957:-- 2933:-- 2840:, 2836:, 2829:) 2821:, 2795:) 2591:: 2551:) 2470:) 2430:) 2364:) 2305:) 2218:) 2169:) 2131:-- 2087:) 2079:.— 2031:) 1955:, 1951:, 1947:, 1943:, 1894:) 1857:) 1853:• 1827:) 1812:) 1804:. 1782:) 1774:.— 1731:) 1697:) 1648:) 1601:) 1573:) 1555:) 1539:, 1535:, 1515:, 1511:, 1507:, 1503:, 1499:, 1495:, 1491:, 1447:) 1401:) 1385:, 1381:, 1377:, 1373:, 1369:, 1365:, 1338:, 1085:) 1059:) 1037:) 963:) 900:) 853:) 833:) 810:) 762:) 723:) 702:) 686:) 670:) 585:) 529:. 515:) 156:) 54:; 4262:) 4258:( 4245:. 4238:. 4226:Y 4145:( 4130:( 4110:( 4082:( 4067:( 4052:( 4036:( 4014:( 3977:( 3932:( 3889:( 3862:( 3839:( 3817:( 3343:( 3285:( 3275:( 3253:( 3226:( 3203:( 3138:( 3101:( 3041:( 2961:( 2955:. 2871:/ 2791:( 2547:( 2466:( 2426:( 2360:( 2301:( 2214:( 2165:( 2083:( 2027:( 1890:( 1849:( 1823:( 1808:( 1778:( 1727:( 1693:( 1644:( 1597:( 1569:( 1551:( 1443:( 1397:( 1081:( 1055:( 1033:( 959:( 896:( 849:( 829:( 806:( 758:( 719:( 698:( 682:( 666:( 581:( 511:( 416:. 251:: 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index