Talk:Timeline of musical events/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Subjective line

[...] various reasons - including music downloading and possibly a decline in quality of pop [...] A decline in quality of pop seems very subjective to me, and it even sounds like something impossible. I think we should delete the part, and leave it on music downloading, which is such a big thing that it would explain the case already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjoerdboersma (talk • contribs) 06:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why is this page in accuate

It says Madonna's album "Hard Candy" has sold over 5 million copies that's a big lie it sold over 3 million and there so much more wrong stuff here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.112.0.85 (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

This page should be deleted

I'm really sorry, but this page is a load of crap. The sections on the 90s and 2000s are completely distorted and make very little sense. Why the special links to British music?

It in no way represents a world wide view. As a 'Timeline of Anglo-Western pop musicical events' it would still be heavily debatable.

It's a load of crap, and it should be split up into different decades, with a critical representation of the different timespans. In this form, it has no place in a encyclopedia. --Looskuh (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Evanescence and Linkin Park

These bands are *not* world-events in music; the person who stuck their names by the side of the years may like the bands, but some perspective is needed: this isn't a teen fanclub site. -- Anonymous

Same thing can be said with most of the albums posted on here, next time just put significantly influential albums(Probably Pre-2000 at the best) instead of sticking some cheap pop hit on there 74.129.138.108 04:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Some of the dates labeled for "musical career begins" I know were wrong. For example: 1923 was the year Bessie Smith first made commercially issued recordings, but she'd been a professional singer for some years before that. 1922 was the year that Louis Armstrong moved to Chicago to join King Oliver's band, but he'd been a professional musician since 1919, but wouldn't record until '23. Also, the Memphis Blues most certainly was not the first Blues published ("I Got The Blues" for example predates it by some 5 years). -- Infrogmation 18:14 Jan 18, 2003 (UTC)

Years in Music

There are now a lot of "X's musical career begins" or "Y forms" entries on the Years in Music pages. Should there be a separate heading for these type of entries? Group Beginnings perhaps or something similar? What say ye?
-Tubby

I think these fit fine under "events", but I could handle a separate section for "group beginnings" (I don't really like the name but can't think of anything better). It might be useful, but I don't think it would be worth the effort of changing the format for such little gain. Tokerboy

Pop tunes

I've been finding lots of pop tunes in the Hits section (for the years in the first half of the 20th century I've been working with) have in the credit of by just the name of the lyricist but not the composer of the tune! Were these imported from some other list, but only the first name listed included? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation

I never did get an answer on this, but have been bit by bit cleaning them up; much remains to be done. --Infrogmation

Word 'by'

On checking, it seems that for years 1935 in music and before the "by" lists composers, and from 1936 in music on it lists the best known recording artists. Perhaps we should always use "composed by" and "recorded by", never simply the ambiguous "by". --Infrogmation 23:36 Feb 12, 2003 (UTC)

64.175.250.205

Uh, 64.175.250.205, why do you think those commercial links are relevent to this page?

Wording

Sorry but I changed the wording about Pictures in 1874 - in general I don't think "releases" is the right word for a piece like this, it being a verb that sounds to me tied to the world of recordings. I can see it's a problem - for example you can't say "composes" because it might have taken him the previous 10 years to do that, you can't necessarily say "publishes" because that might not be precisely what happened. Maybe it needs checking - was it publication, 1st performance or what? - and maybe for the time being the way I have put it will have to do pending someone thinking of something better. I suppose it exposes a general problem with classical music dates where it is sometimes difficult to nail down precisely what the date is - if someone says Bach's Foo Bars of 1721 it doesn't really tell you what it was that happened then, other than that it was a key "1st" of some kind for the pieces. Also this is not in any way to impugn the work of Dwheeler in adding another early event to the list, something I was delighted to see. :) Nevilley 08:32 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Sources

Just a note: I don't know what you guys are using for a source for these events but be careful if you are using any online "history in review" webpages. I've found that many of these events are flat out wrong or at least very misleading or misplaced (this is a sytemic problem that I've seen with every one of these types of webpages). These websites seem to copy each other back and forth and mistakes accumulate (this is worse than playing telephone). So each day I check the accuracy of every event I would like to list that is on the day page of my source (OnThisDay.com). I do this by performing a Google search on the month name, year and the subject of the event. If I get a bunch of hits on non-"history in review" websites then I can be reasonably sure that the event and its date is correct. But much of the time the only hits I get are 'history in review' webpages. So I don't use those events. --mav

Year in Art?

I was wondering why wikipedia has this great Year in Music pages, but no Year in Art pages? They could include births, deaths, major works, exhibits... There could also be a similar listing for architecture, of years that buildings were completed. I suggest a set of Year in Art and Architecture pages. Astarte

As is usual here, Wikipedia has pages because someone has bothered to create them, and doesn't because noone has yet. If you have ideas for good pages about art and architecture, go for it! -- Infrogmation 19:18, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Useful?

Does anybody find this page useful and/or think that the captions have a hope of being neutral in this format? I don't want to rehash the old argument now located at Talk:Timeline of trends in music, but I still don't like this page. Tuf-Kat 08:03, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)

If we're going to have "year in music" articles, I think a page listing them is usefull. The captions for individual years are certainly going to have to be judgement calls. I think in concept they're defensible as a sample of the type of thing going on in particular eras. -- Infrogmation 15:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That's the point of having e.g. 1969 in music - to explain what was going on in a particular year. Could we at least delete the captions until someone comes up with a neutral way of selecting which events to include? Tuf-Kat 03:46, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know that there is such a thing as a strictly neutral way of selecting them. While they're bound to be imperfect I think they're okay for this article as I stated above. I think we should have a sampling of significant events, not too oriented towards particular styles or artists over a period of many years except to the extent that they were particularly dominant. Other opinions? -- Infrogmation 18:15, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In all honesty, these ARE a bit biased. Some of them (The Beatles stuff, Michael Jackson, Woodstock) are obvious--but was Simon & Garfunkel's album release really the most important musical event of 1970? --FuriousFreddy 15:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bridge Over Troubled Water was a hugely successful album. It deserves to be there. I am personally more worried by the number of references to Ace of Bass. Can somebody with more of a clue than me please put in a new entry for 1994?

what about Siomon and Garfunkel's concert in Central Park, NY? Can we include that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.64.15 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Decade split?

If nobody is seriously opposed, I am going to start consolidating the lists of music pre-1900 into decade lists, and pre-1400 or 1500 into centuries. I'll start with ancient history and move onwards. Opinions? Goodmanjaz 20:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Goodmanjaz, thanks for considering ideas to improve Wikipedia - but I do have some questions/concerns. Do you mean to create the decade or century articles in addition to the individual year in music articles or in place of the individual year in music articles? I would prefer not to lose the pre-1900 individual year in music articles - I believe that there is still content that can be added to these. Also, as you are a normal editor, rather than an admin (as far as I can tell), you would not be able to simply delete the individual year articles after consolidating the content - they'd have to be put up on WP:AFD. Can you please clarify your intention a little more, and maybe give your rationale for why it would be an improvement? Thanks, Lini 04:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that in the older periods, it seems to me that they would be better served as decades because not a whole lot happens in individual years. Perhaps 1900 as a starting point is a bad choice, but certainly in the very early things, like the 1500s, where some years are completely blank. I didn't really start thinking of the logistics of it until after I proposed the idea. Perhaps the individual years could be merged into a single article (if this is possible). Editors could still add content to the decade articles of course, should they be created. Anyway, just an idea to toss around. --Goodmanjaz 10:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Replace, don't delete

Many people delete the notes on each year: the purpose of these notes is to show the most significant musical event of the year. Even if nothing very major happened, having something is better than an almost-blank article like the present one. EamonnPKeane 14:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to delete them, too. They are random at best. Who decides what events are important enough to be listed here in addition to the respective article about that year? Some entries like the murder of John Lennon or Live Aid are obvious, but what is so significant about the birth of some rapper in contrast to other well-known musicians or a new Oasis album in contrast to other bands new albums? It's enough to list these events in the year's article. I'd rather have a list that only contains links to the individual "yearX in music" articles than what we have now.--Sylvia Anna (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Early Years

Since this index only goes back to 1570, what would be the best way to add information for years previous to that? Should I add a new decade section, for the 1560s, for example, with all ten years linked, or should I create decade or century articles, and link them in the Early Years section? - Geoffg 09:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I added the Rolling Stone Top 20 albums, and removed some of the less significant deaths (only Elvis, 2pac, John Lennon and Kurt Cobain are remembered for their deaths imo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EamonnPKeane (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

It needs a little love

What the page really needs is a little clean-up, and someone to go through it and research musical history. Furthermore, I believe it would benefit from a little "de-westernisation" and leaving out the blank years in order to reduce page size to improve loading. 78.86.75.13 (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Decade articles

Are Music in the 2000s and Music in the 1990s standard? I had put Music in the 1990s up for a deletion and then reconsidered when I saw the other. However, now I see the have the same creator? Are these types of articles following an accepted pattern? --Clubmarx (talk) 03:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Carl Ruggles

However important he undoubtedly is - the timeline should give an idea of what were the definitive headlines and hilights characterizing any year in music. As we have 2 or 3 lines for a year, I expect to have them filled with important births and deaths plus the definitive major compositions, events, and developments. So it makes water from wine if Ruggles' complete (!) Oeuvre (even with links marked up red) is listed here. More adequate in the single year articles .. (Der Geo-Graf on de-wp) --93.232.251.2 (talk) 06:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

This is of course a serious problem with any summary list of this sort. As it stands, it looks like the most important events overall are deaths of various pop musicians. Somehow it seems to me that accomplishments ought to be more important—as you put it, "definitive major compositions"—than the morbid recounting of fatal results of accidental drug overdoses, plane crashes, heart attacks, suicides, etc. The present issue really boils down to the question "who is the most important composer/musician of year X?" This is not going to be easy to manage, especially if this becomes a contest between, say, composers of opera and blues guitarists. I restored Ruggles not because I believe him to be the absolute tippy-top most important composer of all time (which I do not), but because I have seen no objective criteria for his exclusion or inclusion.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

to all of you old people

Stop deleting recent music bands as Linkin Park, They sold 30 million copies of one album, That's more than what your Metallica does, now shut up and obey the law of wikipedia! this is a public encyclopedia. That means: It's not only for old bands / artists. I agree that recent pop is not as good as it was in the old times, Their album sales are not as good as their youtube views so they can't be there, for exemple Lady gaga, she as the top views on Youtube but her sales are not the top ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.186.146 (talk) 03:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)