Talk:Waltz (music)

Examples

The examples must be cut down. It is unencyclopedic to list every person who has composed a waltz. People who are notable include only those who are known for writing waltzes or who have popularized waltzes, etc. Smaller names who simply have a few songs in 3/4 time do not deserve mention in this article. Glassbreaker5791 02:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Haha. I just came to the talk page to say the same thing - nearly two years later. Especially the contemporary waltzes have too many examples. Rigaudon (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC) funny

Now here we are, two years later, and things have gotten far worse instead of better. Maybe it is time for some action. In addition, there are items listed as "from the 1980s" and "from the 1990s", and then there is this "contemporary waltzes" section which includes items going well back into the 1970s.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I would not mind at all if the entire "Contemporary waltzes" section was either deleted or folded in part into the "Popular song waltzes" section. A section titled "Contemporary waltzes" was outdated from the start, as you all know, because every year that passes makes those waltzes less and less "contemporary." -L.Smithfield (talk) 02:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a mess. Just because a song is in 3/4 doesn't make it a waltz.Straw Cat (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed some of the most blatant non-waltz examples, but there are a great many titles in there with which I am unfamiliar. More help is needed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, so at at last I have boldly gone where no one has gone before, and removed all the titles that are not clearly waltzes. I suggest if anyone wishes to restore a title, they include a citation verifying that the piece actually is a waltz.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Your edict is too broad. What is the relevant criterion? Is it not enough that a song has been included on many record albums with the title "waltz" in their name? Here are some artists who have recorded such albums: Steve Lawrence, Guy Lombardo, Lawrence Welk, George Melachrino, Mantovani, Connie Francis, Francis Scott, Roger Williams, Patti Page, the Longines Symphonette, Bobbi Baird & Mike Renzi, Freddy Martin, Warren Barker, David Rose, Helmut Zacharias, Wayne King, Jose Bethancourt, Frank DeVol, Andre Kostelanetz, Stanley Wilson, Frank Chacksfield, the 101 Strings, David Carroll, Carmen Cavallaro, Billy Vaughn, Joe Reisman; and there must be others. This suggests that each of these recording artists and their major-label recording companies believed the term "waltz" to be synonymous with "three-quarter time" song. Therefore, any three-quarter time song is suitable for inclusion in this article. If this is a serious issue, then perhaps the article should be split into waltz (classical music) and waltz (popular song). Bellczar (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hang on a second here. If (and I say "if") these songs have been published qith the caption "waltz", then that is good enough for me. However, there was absolutely nothing on this page to prove that this is the case, and many of the songs known to me are not waltzes by any reasonable definition. Second, and this is really the main point here, why is it necessary or desirable to list every waltz that ever was? There are thousands upon thousands of them. It seems to me that the purpose here ought to be to give the reader two or three familiar examples, in order to clarify what a waltz is. Beyond that, and we have stepped over the line into making a trivia list.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article should not catalog every waltz song ever written. When I added the popular waltz section to the article more than half a decade ago, I included a small number of examples to make the very point that there were once (i.e., 1900s to 1940s) many waltz songs, and by the 1970s there were only a few. However, the nature of WP is to catalog things; some users see a liszt (sorry) and they feel compelled to add to it until every corresponding fragment of their memory (and any reference books that are handy) has been cataloged. That led other users to greatly populate the list. But once that has been done, I don't feel it is my place to simply prune the list arbitrarily. Who is to say there can only be five examples listed from each decade? Even if that is the case, who then can say which examples are notable (and by extension, which others are irrelevant)? Like I said, the nature of Wikipedia is for anything that resembles a list to be turned into a catalog.

Nevertheless, I am willing to personally remove only those listings which are obviously not in 3/4 time and reject your pedantic categorization that seems to be only those songs whose WP articles state that they are waltzes are worthy of inclusion. To buttress the case for those Irving Berlin songs that you are eager to remove, Berlin published (in 1945 and 1947) two volumes titled "Irving Berlin Waltzes No. 1" (here: http://ebid.s3.amazonaws.com/upload_big/0/0/4/1256759015-18097-0.jpg) and "Irving Berlin Waltzes No. 2," (here: http://ia600802.us.archive.org/zipview.php?zip=/32/items/olcovers263/olcovers263-L.zip&file=2635252-L.jpg) each of which contained ten songs in 3/4 time.Bellczar (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Then we are in agreement that the examples are excessive, and something needs to be done about it. How about this, then: For every item restored to the list, at least two others must be removed. Further, the reasons why the one to be added is preferable to the two or more others to be removed should first be stated here for possible discussion by other editors who may disagree on the relative merits. This should provide a dynamic mechanism for eventually reducing this indiscriminate pile of rubble to a tidy set of examples that might actually be useful to the reader. BTW, I am not insisting ("pedantically" or otherwise) on Wikipedia articles identifying "songs" as waltzes. To the contrary, Wikipedia may not be used as a reference for itself. All I am saying is that even the Wikipedia articles on these songs fail to call them waltzes. Keep in mind that "the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the article is in such bad shape that it needs major revision. The "decades" section is manageable; in counting them, it doesn't even list as many as I thought it did. What is unwieldy is the "contemporary waltzes" section below it that is not only verbose but violates the organization of the decades section. That section could stand to be integrated with the decades section. I again suggest that the article be split into Waltz (classical music) and Waltz (popular song). No doubt classical music purists teem with rage when they see Chopin's waltzes and Strauss's waltzes mentioned in the same page as "(How Much Is) That Doggie in the Window" and "Three Times a Lady."Bellczar (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

There is certainly a question whether a "song" in "waltz time" should actually be regarded as a waltz at all (even one with "waltz" in the title—it is hard to imagine a ballroom full of dancers whirling about to "The Tennesee Waltz", for example). However, I would prefer to leave that issue aside for the moment. I believe (and at least three other editors agree with me, to judge from the discussion further up the page) that this article really is in bad shape, and precisely because it includes way too many examples. The mere presence of "decade-by-decade" sections guarantees this. I would suggest that half-century groupings, with no more than five examples per 50-year span would be more than adequate. At the same time, I am astonished by the fact that some of the best-known waltzes from any period of history (real waltzes, not songs in waltz time) are not mentioned at all. I am thinking in particular of Sobre las olas ("The Skater's Waltz"), which I would nominate to replace at least ten of the titles presently in the list. And this does not solely apply to the "popular-song waltzes", by the way. How do Joseph Lanner and Francisco Tárrega stand up against Juventino Rosas (the composer of Sobre las olas) in terms of waltz notability? Not very well, I would say.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor nit-pick: Sobre las Olas and The Skaters Waltz are different compositions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 12:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooh! You're right! In my high-school Spanish class, we were taught that Sobre las olas was called The Skater's Waltz in English. Now I'm wondering whether we we given the wrong waltz to listen to!—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that if a song is in 3/4 time and it's danceable, then it's a waltz. My wife and I take lessons and attend dances at a local dance studio and they have no problem playing popular songs in 3/4 time and everybody gets up and dances. Faster songs do tend to scare off the neophytes, but something like the Tennessee Waltz would draw a crowd. I think that one seriously valuable use for this page is to give waltz dancers ideas for new music - especially at non-studio dances where Kiss from a Rose or Breakaway might be on the DJs playlist, but any mention of someone with the last name of Strauss would just get you a blank look. I would vote to get rid of the Contemporary section and exclusively use the decades section, with a reasonable limit of perhaps 5-10 songs per decade. Dfmclean (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Minuets are in 3/4, passepieds are in 3/4, sarabandes are in 3/4, basse danses are in 3/4, galliards are in 3/4, the lavolta is in 3/4, and many courantes are in 3/4. These and many other dances are quite distinct from the waltz, both in choreography and in musical form. Do not confuse music to which waltz steps can possibly be danced with music composed as a waltz, which has certain characteristic accompanimental patterns and phrase structures suited to waltz choreography. For example, the persistent hemiola patterns characteristic of courantes and galliards are very disruptive to someone trying to dance a waltz, and attempting to waltz to the music with the very fast tempo of a lavolta or passepied is almost certain to result in serious injury! Apart from this, I can only agree with you about the "contemporary waltzes" section: it is preposterous, especially since it presently has items in it dating back as far as 1956. One problem about limiting each decade to a reasonable number is how to decide which five or ten tunes from, say, the 1970s to include. When that limit is exceeded by a new addition, is there some reasonable way to decide that it is more significant than the waltzes already in place? Is it plausible to say that every decade has about the same number of really important waltzes?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I am more convinced than ever that this article needs to be split. I am finding it hard to believe that someone could really argue that "The Tennessee Waltz" (which existed as a dance number before a lyric was written for it c. 1951) is not a waltz. The fact that many dance bands not only devoted entire LPs to waltzes (as I mentioned above) but also indicated on the cover which songs were waltzes and which were some other style (e.g., fox trot) serves as irrefutable proof that people really did dance to popular songs in 3/4 time. The demand for 50-year intervals makes sense in the classical milieu but none at all in popular music. Entire genres come and go in the space of six years in popular music. Therefore, in order for the content of this article to make sense in both milieux, it will have to be split. Bellczar (talk) 01:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

You may be right. It could be argued that the waltz proper is one thing, and songs in waltz time are another (if related) genre. FWIW, the Tennessee Waltz is generally classed as a "slow waltz", which is really is quite a different creature from what the Strauss's would have recognized by the term. The jazz waltz is yet a third classification, and so on. On the other hand, perhaps it would make better sense to keep the article whole, but to explain how the waltz evolved into new territory over time. On another point, while it is perfectly true that things move very rapidly indeed in the field of popular music, this has not really changed so radically since the mid-19th century. It is a matter of perspective: we tend to exaggerate the importance of things we have experienced in our lifetimes, and all the more so for our most recent experiences. If you take a good look at the changing styles during the era of the Strausses (who, BTW, were "popular", and not "classical" musicians) I believe you will find that six-year intervals probably make just as good sense then as a hundred years later.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, after about a 100 years of examples, one may assume that the waltz as a dance and a form has become stabilized to the point where subsequent examples are superfluous. Anything one says about a waltz and the article is likely to be construed as opinion, so we have little alternative than to be arbitrary about where we cut off the examples, no matter how dear they are to whichever of us is inserting them. If the genre were to evolve into a 'Neo waltz' or something, we might want to establish at which point the mutations began to occur. I guess I'm supporting what some people above are saying. User:Arch5280 2014 July 11 — Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles like this need to be written by erudite musicians. There are several dance-music genres in 3/4 time besides the waltz. The waltz grew out of the landler, and there are different types of waltzes. Jazz renditions of waltzes are not "jazz waltzes" as made famous by people like Dave Brubeck and Henry Mancini, which has a specific beat pattern slightly different from a waltz in that it is syncopated. The Monk example is barely discernible as any kind of waltz, in fact, it is not one at all. Other 3/4 dances are Menuet, Polonaise, Mazurka, Landler, and more. Furthermore, each dance genre has a specific tempo, melodic outline, characteristic form and cadences.Baron D. Z. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Issues of definition, etc.

For a Wikipedia article on one of the most famous dance types in Western music, this article has some serious issues, not only with respect to the overgrowth of given specific examples as noted above, but also with the fundamental (unsourced) definition of a waltz which is given at the outset.

A waltz is by definition in triple meter, but need not be notated in any specific time signature; while it is true that waltzes are most frequently notated in 3/4, there is no need to list any additional possible time signatures, because waltzes can be notated in 3/8, 6/8, 6/4, 12/8, 9/8, etc., ad nauseum. Also, on what basis can it be claimed that waltzes are "generally in a slow tempo?" Slow is a relative term. Slow compared to what? A waltz is faster than a minuet, but slower than most scherzo-type movements. This statement is particularly troublesome.

I am not sure it is wise to assert that waltzes "typically" have one chord per bar. It is far from uncommon to find a change of harmony on beat three; and there is no sense in saying that the root of the chord is the first note of the bar--for starters, this would imply that waltzes are somehow always monophonic; not to mention that, if the chord is in inversion, the bass note on beat one will not be the root.

I do agree with you that waltzes can change key part-way through a bar, but one of the most recognizable features of a waltz is that um-cha-cha chord that stays throughout the bar. I don't claim to be an expert, but most of the waltzes I've ever played changed key part-way through bars infrequently, if at all. It seemed to be more of a method for linking two different sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.113.53 (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Nothing is written of the origins of the waltz (from German ländler), and the details regarding its incorporation into art music are unsourced and seem to be selectively put forward.

I'm willing to do some research and attempt a cleanup; I at least wanted to point out what I consider to be some significant issues. --Cantseetheforest (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Technical Error?

The article states, "The left hand accompaniment is known as an "oom-pa-pa" beat and consists of one of the major chords, C, F or G." However, I believe a waltz can be in any key, and need not contain any specific chords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.114.187.18 (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right, of course; the statement that only chords C, F and G are used is absurd and I am removing this at once. 91.105.13.247 (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Chopin

Do we know that Chopin's waltzes were "clearly not intended to be danced to"? They're all quite danceable if they're played at the right tempo. Walzking (talk) 21:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Seeing the footnote number at the end of the paragraph, I assumed I would find verification of the claim there. Not only was that not the case, but the linked item appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for a recording. I have left it in place for the time being, just in case I have overlooked something. Your point is very well taken, and has led to uncovering one of those proverbial nests of worms. Thank you for pointing this out. In fact, this whole article looks like a worm farm. I think I'll go fishing.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Viennese?

What is a viennese waltz? Could someone who knows the answer create a section? 90.196.67.198 (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Volta

Aren't the two connected, linguistically? Ema--or (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Tárrega / Nokia's Ringtone

I think it would be both instructive and statistically valid to mention that around 2008, when 38% of phones were Nokias, all therefore had (and most kept) Francisco Tárrega's Gran Vals as their ringtone. Like it or not, it may indeed be the most recognizable waltz out there. That linked article says in 2009 it was played 1.8 Billion times a day, about 20,000 times a second. Take that, Schubert! –Mrcolj (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)