Talk:Music

Genres
Human, I'd disagree that Rock should be subsumed under the label "Pop". I'd define popular music as that which is packaged in a way that is suitable for play on the radio (or MTV). While rock often is packaged in that form, as a genre it goes way beyond that, employing a great deal of improvisation, experimental forms and includes pieces that are far too long for airplay in the standard radio format. I'd suggest rock is more similar to blues and jazz, both of which have influenced the genre, but is unique in its ability to include and/or combine other forms of music. Blues were once played on the radio as popular music, as was early jazz. Robert Johnson has been cited as the first blues musician to plan his compositions specifically for recording. Before him pieces often ended very suddenly as the warning came that the wax was about to run out. Rational Ed think! 14:44, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Well, I wouldn't argue the point too finely with you. However, as soon as "rock" is added, so must rap or hip hop (for the very same reasons), and then why not other less radio-friendly genres?  If they are all subsumed into "pop" (which should say "popular"?), the contrast with classics, folk, jazz and blues are obvious.  It is also obvious from the "canon" that many, many inter-genre works exist.  Keeping the list short is slightly justified by the comment that the list could be expended ad infinitum if not kept short.  Rock is also similar to and influenced by country, western, rockabilly, motown/soul/R&B, pop ballads, hip hop/rap, reggae, the Great American Songbook and English Music Hall, and, and, and... these are all aspects of "pop" music. I think the reason Jazz and Blues are no longer part of "pop" is that they aren't very popular any more, but have very distinct approaches that are reasonably well-defined (as much as a genre can ever be) and have survived in their niches. human  14:55, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I only see the contrast with folk and blues as "obvious" if you consider old recordings. But once it was recorded it was poplular music by definition. Your point about how long the list would be and what would be on it is well-taken. I just think the whole "popular music" distinction is a bit arbitrary and artificial. And a bit elitist, as well. I don't think it makes sense to include so many different genres under the label "popular music". All dance music is popular music in one sense. But a lot of old dance music is now classical, jazz and blues. Do we have to wait until it isn't popular to give it a genre of its own?  Rational Ed think! 15:06, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I suppose the only "non-elitist" way to divide the "genres" would be a clear definition of some sort (like the one that de-planeted Pluto). If we both accept "classical" and "folk", is it because of time?  IE, whether they are in vogue at any given moment "today", they have survived for some arbitrary time period.  The then justify Jazz and Blues, that time period must be at most about 70-80 years.  Another interesting point, regarding to an extent your mention of recording, is that those four are all performance-based, whether pre-written or not, I think.  Now, while many pop artists are incredible performers (and often better live than in the studio), narrowing all the rest down to "pop" does leave out at the very least what I would call (not as a genre, as a discussion point) "art rock" - music that is within the general structure and style of "pop" that tries, and sometimes succeeds, to transcend the triviality of selling a bunch of 45s (or mp3s, etc.) to teenagers.  But to call it "rock" in this day and age then begs the question of what Ice-T and Public Enemy (to name two of thousands) were/are making?  Of course, here I am also committing the minor crime of starting with my results and making definitions to justify them.  perhaps we should start from scratch with clear definitions, and see where the apples fall?
 * Another approach, of course, would be to include as many sub-genres as we can think of ;) and perhaps use the clade diagram template that is somewhere on the site! human  15:20, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I've tried and failed to work up a system of categorization that works for every case - which is why the discussion interests me. Some rock, for example, could be called folk, jazz, blues, latin or whatever, depending on what genre had been "rockified". And then you get rock that is blue-grassed, classicalled, reggaed or jazzified. Or worse yet, New Agified. Which academy, in the final analysis, makes the final decision regarding when some kind of music has graduated from pop to its own genre? Not that it really bmattrers :-)  Rational Ed think! 15:46, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree, it's not cladistic. There may be a common ancestor, but species are free to interbreed across huge genetic gaps.  I've seen diagrams with hundreds of overlapping arrows, etc., just defining the sub-genres in punk alone! human  15:50, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * PS, even "classical" is hard to really define in any useful abstract way. If you say "using a certain range of acoustic instruments", does that mean to play 3:41 (or whatever it's called) you have to be playing all those rests on a piano or violin?  Surely it could be played on a theremin or a kazoo, or, for that matter, on a banana? human  15:52, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Classical is easy to define. It's European art music composed between the Baroque and Romantic eras. The genre section doesn't need a lot of hyper-precision, though, since it is basically just a buildup to the "shit your parents hate" bullet anyway.
 * Having said that, though, if you people don't get off your asses and include Atlantic Canadian kitchen music in its proper place, I shall take my popsicle sticks to a place far from here, and never come back. Sheesh, you guys are even less reliable than a certain wiki encyclopaedia beginning with W. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Very funny, I'm surprised it took us old codgers this long to add that! 23:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I expanded the genre section ever so slightly based on what I know from hanging around a lot of professional musicians. I've specifically mentioned that a full description is beyond the article so I don't really want to go more in depth, but the Church's affect on music is actually quite interesting and could do with some expansion. I mean, there's the argument that Bach was "inspired by God" to creat such great stuff, but I have the counter-argument that the Church overworked him and actually stifled his creativity - as evidenced by the fact that he reused a lot of material (the Christmas Oratorio is almost completely rehashed from other stuff) and a lot of his sacred stuff is relatively bland compared to eveything else. 23:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Losing "Mommy kissing Santa Claus" is appropriate, but I abject to the dismissal of an entire musical category. Muzak is, or used to be, recognizable standards orchestrated without much dynamic range, deliberately made unengaging. We called it syrup back in the day, although it felt like right now at the time. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, Muzack is so omnipresent & bland that it's definitely a genre of its own. 00:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My classically trained other half agrees that it's its own genre. I don't think it counts as broad as those others, of course. 00:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Counting as broad as those others" may be difficult to quantify. There have been entire days where the only music I have heard has been lift music unless I, you know, puckered my own lips, and blew. Sadly, Lauren Bacall never asked me to do that, but on the bright side, I haven't died of lung cancer. "The style of music used was deliberately bland so as not to intrude on foreground tasks, and adhered to precise limitations in tempo and dynamics."
 * If you consider ambient music, easy listening, and such, "syrup" covers a lot of ground. Plenty of links about it, without even straying out of wikipedia. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Mission
I see that this carries a "mission doubt template" and, while I personally gave up using this template some time ago, it would seem to be a good question. What does this article have to do with our self-described mission?--Bobbing up 15:11, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, unless we're writing an article about the effect of music on children in the womb or on psychiatric patients, I can't see the relevance. But I'm enjoying the conversation with the human.  Rational Ed think! 15:13, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Needs to be mission-ified of pole-axed.PFoster 15:20, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * How about if we use a clade diagram as I mentioned above? We can mention music's abuse as a torture device, and its uses for political protest/artistic statements about social conditions? human  15:22, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Why not discuss the controversial aspects of music, or how various movements have used it as a straw man/point in the culture wars? For example, uptight conservatives disregard "pop" music because its themes include everyday things they consider unseemly for young people to talk about, like love, sex, and how life sucks (or so said my distinguished high school English lit. teacher).  -- 15:29, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I took a very interesting class in high school called "Popular Music as Literature" which was a rather odd course indeed. And @ RA, yeah, we should get into that.  Describing what music is is only a start. human  15:35, 19 May 2008 (EDT)


 * I added some missionary and doggy-style to the article. I copied Ed's comment up to our discussion of genres. human  15:49, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Every new form of music is condemned by conservatives, whether its Beethoven or B.B. King. That makes it an RW topic, doesn't it? And I like the military application angle. They played loud music to drive Noriega batty when he was holed up in his mancion in Panama during our invasion there.  Rational Ed think! 15:52, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Please to add that to the section I added on abuse? Sorry I tend to write without footnotes, it's a bad habit I picked up on conservapedia! (while writing about music!!) human  15:54, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

IMHO, everything before Music as Torture can be gotten rid of. The elements, genres, etc. headers are pretty pointless, and I think it's fair to assume that most people know what music is. Otherwise, we look like a bad version of Conservapedia. However, the Music as tortue, music in politics, etc., are right on mission. Removing the beginning points will make the article more on mission. ThunderkatzHo! 16:11, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I see no reason not to define music before talking about it. I would, however, acquiesce to the deletion the section that says "we play both kinds..." human  16:16, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree. Let's just start with abuse of music, etc.  Rational Ed think! 16:21, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * I still disagree. We usually start articles by briefly defining what we are talking about, before getting into the "mission" guts.  I have, however, pruned things to make them take up less space on the screen and on the TOC. human  16:25, 19 May 2008 (EDT)
 * Thanks. That's a good start, though I'd still like to at least get rid of genres.  ThunderkatzHo! 16:28, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Equal temperament vs. just intonation

 * "Do not be afraid to be out of tune with the piano. It is the piano that is out of tune. The piano with its tempered scale is a compromise in intonation." --

From the "Sound healing" section in the current rev of this article:
 * ... equal temperament is inherently worse than just intonation, some even saying that today's equal temperament music -- almost all music of Western origin -- negatively affects people's souls because it's impure.

I have not run across a source for that "impure" claim (added by Swerve in Dec 2013, with helpful apologetic remark) but I can testify that "equal temperament is inherently worse than just intonation" not because it negatively affects people's souls, but because it sounds like shit-flavored pablum. It is a bowdlerization of tonal music, an exercise in intellectual wankery, a mathematical neutering of the diatonic system, all in aid of keyboard players being able to from key to key without producing the effect of a wolf farting in a Victorian parlor. Ask me how I really feel about it...

I am tempted to snip that list item in its entirety. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I am tempted to snip at least the first part myself also... PacWalker 15:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * {{sofixit}} PacWalker 08:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why yes, me, that's a great idea. I'll go ahead and do that now. PacWalker 08:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Really a first-rate change, dear sir. Walker Walker Walker 07:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * May just anyone join this conversation? I endorse what the previous two contributors have done. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh. Walker Walker Walker 02:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

RW is not an encyclopedia
Walker, before you go investing a lot of effort into furbishing up the music-theory content of this article, the question needs to be asked: how does this support the mission? I appreciate what you're doing here... still, there have been discussions about how deep RW needs to go into basic science articles. This may be a similar case. Alec Sanderson (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Grumble grumble mumble mumble stares at CP:Music grumble mumble well it doesn't exactly grumble mumble actually, let me ponder my answer to that for a moment. I may or may not make a half-assed attempt at justifying some of this. <font color=#006600>Walker <font color=#55AA55>Walker <font color=#AAEEAA>Walker 02:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)