 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Merger proposal
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- To not merge on the basis that they are not synonymous terms, and that the target is more specific and less well known than the article to be merged. Klbrain (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I propose to merge Stile antico into Prima pratica since they are synonymous terms as the article prima pratica points out. LazyStarryNights (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think they are synomys, but may be wrong. I see Prima pratica as a style, while "stile antico" (old style) was the use of this style later when it was already old-fashioned. I don't see what the reader would gain from a merge. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- I have the impression that both terms are very old and have been used similarly since Monteverdi times at which time the old-fashioned-ness of stile antico was probably not yet established or at the very least disputed.
- Also if the same style is still used long after its heydays are over it is not necessarily a different style or is it?
- An additional argument for a merge is consistency: Stile moderno is already a redirect to Seconda pratica. LazyStarryNights (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is that all terms saying "modern" and their opposites are only valid for a certain time. I confess that I had never heard of "prima pratica", but see "stile antico" often when Bach uses old style, for example in the Gratias of his Mass in B minor. You could not say "prima pratica there", and a link to this article as it is now would not help much, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
- I agree entirely with this last. "Stile antico" is the common term, at least when speaking of Baroque music. Merging the two would be subsuming a common term under a more obscure one. Furthermore, Gerda's point above, that they don't seem to be truly synonyms, is well taken. Gould363 (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is that all terms saying "modern" and their opposites are only valid for a certain time. I confess that I had never heard of "prima pratica", but see "stile antico" often when Bach uses old style, for example in the Gratias of his Mass in B minor. You could not say "prima pratica there", and a link to this article as it is now would not help much, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In answer to the statement "if the same style is still used long after its heyday... it is not necessarily a different style", it most certainly is. One only needs look at the term NeoClassicism to describe Brahms, or the use of modality in twentieth century works, borrowed from, but not identical to, Medieval music. The use of a style fifty years after is has passed out of use is not the same as using it when it is new and "fresh". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CE35:D550:226:8FF:FEE2:A39D (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)