Content deleted Content added
Tag: 2017 wikitext editor |
ClueBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Solidest/Archives/2023/August. (BOT) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=User talk:Solidest/Archives/|format=Y/F|age=2160|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=User talk:Solidest/Archives/|format=Y/F|age=2160|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
||
== [[Oramics]] == |
|||
@[[User:Solidest|Solidest]], @[[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]], would oramics qualify for music genre infobox? It's a rather unique technique, and the situation is not unlike that Japanese extreme "[[Onkyokei]]" genre, where they also employ a set of specific techniques and the resultant sound is whatever comes out of their experimentation. I also ask the same question for [[Drawn sound]], looks like a giant (approach-wise giant) yet overlooked experimental music genre. Same question also goes for [[spectralism]] and every other experimental academic music movement out there. [[Special:Contributions/178.121.11.149|178.121.11.149]] ([[User talk:178.121.11.149|talk]]) 11:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:Does the academic community refer to these as genres? Otherwise, they are just unusual techniques for making music. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 14:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
::I dont know yet, I will look and tell you later [[Special:Contributions/178.121.11.149|178.121.11.149]] ([[User talk:178.121.11.149|talk]]) 14:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
: I think it's also important that articles should describe and have a title about the music itself, not just about the abstract movement or technology of its production. Then it's worth checking with sources whether such music can be labelled as a genre or not. For example, the article is called [[spectral music]], not [[spectralism]], and there could probably be an infobox there, while [[Oramics]] only describes the technology, then it shouldn't be there. I noticed that articles about academic music follow this rule. Despite this, such articles are still placed in the category about music, like [[Impressionism in music]] has no infobox but is placed in the [[:Category:Impressionist music]]. Although there should probably be a separate hierarchy of musical movements that does not overlap with music genres categories. [[User:Solidest|Solidest]] ([[User talk:Solidest#top|talk]]) 16:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Catalogue → Opus in infoboxes == |
== Catalogue → Opus in infoboxes == |
Revision as of 03:26, 7 November 2023
Catalogue → Opus in infoboxes
Hello, Solidest ~ Per our chat yesterday, I have gone back to my various work on Jean Sibelius, Leevi Madetoja, Uuno Klami, Ernst Mielck, Lars-Erik Larsson, and Dag Wirén to convert the inboxes accordingly. There are several Sibelius opus-numbered compositions pages that still lack an infobox, although if/when I even get to them, I will add inboxes accordingly. From your perspective, are inboxes generally useful on composition articles? If so, I can make it a point to add them sooner rather than later (i.e., not waiting until I undertake expansions of the articles). Warmly, ~ Silence of Järvenpää 19:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
- Hello. Thanks for the edits. I was going to do this myself a bit later as we discussed yesterday, but I'm glad you got ahead of me. Yes, I think infoboxes are always useful in such articles. I know that some users take (or have taken) the opposite approach regarding classical compositions, and this optionality seems to be even written into the guidelines as far as I remember, but I don't really get the point of it. The infobox is actually a brief summary of the subject of the article, and can always be filled in, and it will always be useful to the reader. Solidest (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)