Talk:Musical historicism

Grant Colburn, Tim Crawford, et al.

Editor Galassi has been insisting that the interview with Roman Turovsky-Savchuk included in the Colburn source found in the References includes a statement that the reason listeners had mistaken Turovsky-Savchuk's compositions "for works by masters of the composer's own mythopoeic invention" was their "quality". This source simply does not verify this claim, and Galassi's persistence in reverting my edits, even when I substitute direct quotations from the interview to make absolutely plain what is said and not said, is becoming tedious. If Galassi can cite a passage that I have overlooked in that interview (and I have thoroughly read the version at Polyhymnion that Galassi keeps waving at, vaguely), then I will cheerfully concede the point. As a second line of defense, Galassi has used the word "sprezzatura" to characterize Turovsky's sometimes self-deprecating tone in the interview. I submit that making such an interpretation constitutes Original Research, which is counter to Wikipedia:verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, that is, not whether we think it is true. 'Verifiability' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." The same is true for drawing inferences not explicit in a cited text. Finally, Galassi briefly inserted a reference to a publication identified only as "T. Crawford 2001", saying that it would confirm the connection between the quality of Turovsky's works and some listeners' belief that it was genuine baroque music. I was delighted to see this, but, when I was unable to find any publication by the well-known lutenist Tim Crawford published in that year, and questioned whether it might instead have actually been one of Crawford's publications from 1995, 2002, or 2007, Galassi simply withdrew the citation and accused me of not knowing who Crawford is. (It is of course completely immaterial whether or not one or another editor recognizes the name of some authority—every single reader, whether familiar with the subject under discussion or not, must be able to consult the sources.) I invite Galassi to address these issues here, and make a better case for keeping the questioned phraseology than he has done so far in his edit comments.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Crawford quote is from private correspondence that is PUBLISHED on http://polyhymnion.org/swv/comments.html and thus is reasonably cited.Lute88 (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny that no one has up to now thought to use that reference in the article. However, even though it claims to be quoting someone else, because this is the only source and is Turovsky's own site, it clearly fails WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." It seems to me that the material from Colburn, too, because it comes from an interview with the subject and emanates directly from the subject's statements, and not from Colburn, is perilously close to failing WPS:SPS as well as WP:RS "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is fundamental to the encyclopedia's policies."—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It says SHOULD, rather than MUST. So we'd have to live with that citation for the time being. Why don't you email Colburn, and ask him whether he endorses that citation? He is often enough on the EM list where you are seen as well.Galassi (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not necessarily "have to live with" anything that does not fulfill Wikipedia guidelines (which are the ones that say "should" rather than "must"), and we are not permitted to knowingly retain things that violate Wikipedia policy. As for writing to Colburn, I could do that—I could write to a hundred people and ask their opinions, and so could you—but that would not make any of it a "published third-party source" let alone a "reliable source", and these are the criteria for verification on Wikipedia. You see, it is not me alone that you have to convince, but everyone and anyone who happens to read a Wikipedia article. As it says on WP:PROVEIT "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question" (bold letters are in the original, italic emphases are mine).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I notice that Galassi has once again restored wording that has been challenged and removed under the just-cited guideline. I will add the online link myself, since Galassi seems reluctant to do so, but I reiterate that the word "quality" occurs in the online interview exactly twice, and neither time is it connected with the acceptance by anyone of the compositions as genuine baroque works. The first of these is "I've earned some great friends for whom music's quality is paramount to its pedigree. Not least of these is . . .", and the second instance is "I was surprised at the uncritical ears, oblivious to uncharacteristic elements. Even detractors zeroed in on my alleged immorality, ignoring quality alogether" (my emphases). I ask Galassi to refrain from again restoring this unreferenced material, until and unless a reliable published source can be found.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The quote is restored and properly inline-cited. Any removal thereof will be considered wikistalking, undue weight, and/or vandalism. Your personal vendettas are out of place here, regardless of Turovsky's opinions about Stockhausen. Having said that, I don't want to be too combative and search for OR in you KHS article. I think we could live peacefully, as an ex-musicologist, and an ex-composer [;-)Galassi (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Statements such as these are contrary to WP:ETIQ, WP:AGF, and WP:CIV, and Turovsky's opinions about Stockhausen (whatever they might be) are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. (The article on Stockhausen, incidentally, is not "mine", though I have contributed to it. Since it has recently passed a WP:GA review, I think you may rely on the fact that it contains no OR.) Since you persist in restoring removed claims that have been demonstrated not to be supported by the cited references, and no other editors appear to be involved, I see no better alternative than Wikipedia:Third opinion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was asked to provide a third opinion so here goes. As I see it, Turovsky's accomplishment is notable enough for the article, and the reference is fine, but I'd suggest removing the phrase "of such quality" since it's causing problems here, and also -- having read the reference before reading the full commentary on this talk page -- I admit I also stumbled over the assertion that the source supports it. So an initial suggestion is, "These include Winfried Michel, author of the impressive "Haydn Forgeries," (Beckerman 1994; Lindskoog 1996) and Roman Turovsky-Savchuk, whose original lute and viola da gamba compositions in the baroque style were sufficiently convincing to be mistaken for works by masters of the composer's own mythopoeic invention () and led to accusations of "trivializing musicology" (Smith 2002). -- Hope this helps. I appreciate the work all of you are doing here. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine. No problem with with this wording.Galassi (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me, as well. It was nothing but the claimed connection between "quality" and the "mistaking" that I was objecting to (and not even that, if a source could be found to support it). I hasten to add, since there may be some doubt about this, that I have never questioned the notability in this context of Turovsky's compositions.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

References

"For instance" examples

I have deleted the "e.g." composers added by Galassi to the Contemporary music section on three grounds. First, such examples offered in an encyclopedia article should help the reader to understand the term being discussed, not deepen his/her perplexity. When I substituted better-known names, Galassi reverted my edit, claiming that the comparative unknowns are "closer to historicist music". Even if this is true, this only reinforces my second reason for deletion, because the sentence in question is making the case that even without a particular inclination to historicism, tonality itself may be viewed as historicist. Third, Gavin Bryars was incorrectly offered as an example of postminimalism. The Wikipedia article on him describes him as a minimalist, and his music does not fit the definition of musical postminimalism first coined by Kyle Gann in his article "Minimal Music, Maximal Impact: Minimalism's Immediate Legacy: Postminimalism" to describe William Duckworth's Time Curve Preludes, along with the music of Daniel Lentz, Janice Giteck, John McGuire, and others. Such misinformation can only confuse the reader. Rather than risk provoking a reversion war, I have for the time being decided simply to remove the examples altogether, until consensus can be reached on this talk page about whether they are a good idea at all, or if the linked Wikipedia articles on minimalism, postminimalism, and world music are sufficient.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter Schickele

I notice that Galassi has deleted a paraqraph on Peter Schickele, recently added by Jubileeclipman, with the somewhat cryptic edit summary "wrong century, inapp. for all intended purposes". I don't know whether I agree with this or not, but would like to ask for some amplification from Galassi on this reasoning, which is not clear to me. The paragraph was added to the section headed "Eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries". Since Schickele's work has so far been principally in the twentieth century, the section in which it was placed cannot be what "wrong century" refers to, but if not, then to what? Secondly, why is Schickele—almost certainly the best-known historicist composer of the past hundred years, "inapp[ropriate]" or "inapp[licable]"?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Would you explain how musical comedy in general, and PSchickele in particular fit into the historicist category, without OR? Galassi (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying, first, that this article excludes lighter forms of musical historicism (including comedy)? Second, are you claiming that all of Schickele's historicist compositions (not just the PDQ Bach ones) are meant as comedy? If so, I would like to hear Jubileeclipman's response.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

ummm...

There is music and its notation from ancient Greece, as well as in Linear B. To imply that music essentially started in the middle ages is an afront to all the music that came before it. 108.38.36.17 (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if this article actually does that (which I do not see, frankly), does this have anything to do with the issue of "historicism"? After all, this concept only came to fruition during the 19th century, when a conception of "the modern" changed from a general notion of "present and the recent past" to a specific notion of "nowness" is opposition to the eternally present. Please do not confuse the subject of this article with "music history". While we are about it, could you point me to the musical sources in Linear B? I have never heard of them. I am, on the other hand, quite familiar with the Hurrian cuneiform tablets with music notation.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Schoenberg ..

... was by no means inspired by a historicist mentality. Berg's quote of BWV60 in the VC wasn't either, it had a completely different function. I propose to leave the name S. away for this reason. AlterBerg (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That entire list lacks references, but your unsupported opinion does not contravene the fact that Schoenberg employed neoclassical forms in works such as the Serenade, Op. 24, and the Suite, Op. 29. The real problem is that, as the article presently states, "The term "historicism" has acquired various, sometimes confusing meanings over a wide range of disciplines", and nowhere in the article is it made clear where the boundaries of musical historicism actually lie. As with so many other musico-historical terms, "historicism" tends to be used to mean whatever each author using it intends it to mean (Humpty-Dumptyism). There are two possible solutions that I can see: either we can get our ducks in a row and define (with reliable sources, of course) what we mean the term to mean in this article, or we can simply rely on a number of different reliable sources to tell us, one composer at a time, to whom this term may justifiably be applied, and to whom it may not so be applied.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)