Talk:20th-century music

Title change to 20th-century popular music?

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

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

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

Aglo american centered

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

disco and hip hop

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

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

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

Order

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

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

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

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

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

Shortened footnote template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pop Chronicles

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