Talk:Postmodern classical music

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this redirect or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Major rewrite needed

The quality of this article is appaling, and it clearly needs to be deleted or rewritten from the ground up. The section on the emergence of postmodern eclectic styles stands out as an example; between its fire-breathing neo-Hanslickian POV and its abject absurdity even as an unabashedly subjective piece of commentary, it's particularly bad (obviously, the section already contains a number of "citation needed" tags, but I really feel the need to stress this). Additionally, the list of composers is, even when taken as highly incomplete, equally strange and arbitrary (Sorabji? Bartók?). It should be seriously expanded and overhauled. That said, the entire article is clearly in dire need of revision, especially where POV and citations are concerned. I don't feel qualified to do this, but I urge anyone who does to try. EdwardTattsyrup (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reminding me about this section. I had placed most if not all of those citation needed tags last September, and I reckon nine months is a more than generous opportunity to find sources to support these histrionic and mostly ridiculous claims ("fire-breathing neo-Hanslickian POV", indeed!). I have surgically removed each unverified claim and, probably to no one's surprise, this turned out to be the entire section. I agree that the remainder of the article isn't a lot better, but I shall have to stop for breath before considering what I might contribute.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't take very long to catch my breath, after all. Having now removed the remaining long-challenged neo-Hanslickian claims, and challenged some other remaining ones, I have recast the lede paragraph to reflect the difference between "postmodernity" and "postmodernism". What this article most sorely needs, however, are some references, and I am off in pursuit of some, before proceeding any further.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what? Something has been nagging at the back of my mind ever since you (EdwardTattsyrup) called my attention to this mess. It only just occurred to me what the problem is. Why on earth is this a separate article from Postmodern music, which is a much better article, covering exactly the same ground (as far as I can see)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Under the circumstances it might make the most sense simply to redirect this article to the one on postmodern music. EdwardTattsyrup (talk) 17:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or rather merge the two... Jubilee♫clipman 14:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I propose merging Postmodern classical music and Postmodern music. Either title would be fine, though the articles do primarily discuss art music. Jubilee♫clipman 14:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. I am already on record in favour of this merger. I would propose keeping the simpler and more inclusive title, "Postmodern music".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]