Talk:Musical form
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Does anybody really use the phrase "musical form" interchangably with "musical genre"? I can't recall ever coming across an instance of that use. However, I think that people do mean two different things by "musical form":
I think this would be a more sensible way of dividing up the article than is done at present. Does anybody agree, or am I being silly? --Camembert
Hyacinth 20:27, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC), User:Hyacinth/Outlines.
Hi! If you want to expand that outline you could explain to us what each of those "vs." things are. I am a musical layman. Jaberwocky6669 18:05, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
Ta-da. Hyacinth 05:47, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ta-da as in, "Duh, you're really dumb." or "Hey! That's a really great idea!" Lol Jaberwocky6669 16:30, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
The second one, like I Dream of Genie, see article and outline above. Hyacinth 21:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
To quote String quartet:
Also, to quote Musical ensemble:
This however is a bit confusing: an ensemble is at least three musicians, but yet duet is mentioned here as a form of chamber music, a music, which I assume is played by an ensemble. The question is then, where does something like a string quartet, symphony, concerto, or in reference to the above quote, a cello sonata, fall under: Musical form, or otherwise?I apologize if this is all very pedantic. I would like to hear other people's POV. Thanks, --bleh fu 03:14, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)
I'd like to "de-mystify" this article so it's more friendly to the person who wants to know what musical form is. Begining the first section with the sentence "Forms and formal detail may be described as sectional or developmental, developmental or variational, syntactical or processual (Keil 1966), embodied or engendered, extensional or intensional (Chester 1970), and associational or hierarchical (Lerdahl 1983)", and you've lost most musicians, let alone non-musicians who come to the encyclopedia wanting to learn something about musical form.J Lorraine 05:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Musical form needs first relating to the general concept of FORM, "a shape; an arrangement of parts" (Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1995) or "the shape and structure of something as distinguished from its material" (Merriam-Webster, online 07 October 2012). Then the conventional wisdom about MUSICAL FORM needs to be problematised: why does musical "form" seem only to denote the episodic arrangement or shape of constituent elements over time and neglect the arrangement or shape of constituent elements in the extended present? Distinctions are in other words required between the episodic, extensional, diachronic or "horizontal" and the intensional, synchronic or "vertical" aspects of musical form. To exclude the latter and focus solely on the former is illogical since episodic form cannot exist if there is no variation or repetition of synchronic form on which it can be based. Calling one main aspect of musical form "form" and the other something else, as if it were not also form, is misleading and inaccurate. "Texture", a term sometimes used to refer to synchronic musical form, covers only one of its features. Synchronic form also involves movement, space, depth and volume, as well as the inclusion of musemes that are not all necessarily anaphonic. Tagg (2012: 383-385) suggests renaming the conventional episodic aspect of form "diataxis" and calling its synchronic aspect "syncrisis". That way neither type of form has a misleading monopoly on the term and unequivocal reference can be made to these essential aspects of musical form. [Tagg, Philip: Music's Meanings. New York & Huddersfield: Mass Media Music Scholars' Press, 2012]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etymophony (talk • contribs) 14:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To give a specific example of the incomprehensible jargon in this article, I must ask, what is the meaning of "apodigm"? This word is used in section 4, titled "More recent developments". I can't find apodigm in any dictionary or reference book. Perhaps someone with musical expertise could add apodigm to the wiktionary?71.207.203.133 (talk) 12:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I haven't read the book which is being cited, it appears (from reviews) to be about politically correct language in Britain, which seems rather incongruous as a source for this article. If no one objects, I am going to remove both the sentence and the citation. (The current sentence with citation reads: "In fact, pop music is much more complex in terms of musical form than all types of classical music (Browne, A. The Retreat of reason, 2006).") J Lorraine 07:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A broad perspective: several works by various avantgarde artists (also notable in the mainstream popular music) usually regarded as ambient, cosmic, new age, electronic music, such as Brian Eno, Tangerine Dream.... can't be cathegorized as "songs" or simply "instrumentals", becouse such music features complex structures and patterns that can be referred to as musical forms; examples: Eno's (Discreet music or the long cosmic compositions by TD. Dr. Who 03:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is regarding Categories related to Form in Music.
I'd like to see everything together, but also a separate subcategory for Form in the compositional sense (period, transition, cell, cadence...etc.). These subjects might get lost in the myriad "Dance Forms" (tarantella, sarabande...etc.).
Any ideas on how to do this efficiently? There's so much material scattered everywhere!
Can someone combine the "Musical form" and "Musical forms" categories automatically?
--Roivas 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The numerous and repeatedly wikilinked references to Popular music give the appearance of an attempt to confer some merit on a genre which lacks it. This is bad stylistically and also (in some cases anyway) unfair, and the statements are poorly referenced. I'd suggest that the subsection on popular music currently near the lead - which section essentially says that pop music is too trivial to merit formal assignment - should be moved to the bottom to avoid distracting from the discussion of what is at root a method of classification of classical music. Discussion of contemporary popular music is of tangential relevance only to the subject o musical form, and most of the early music forms, and a good deal of the classical repertoire, were popular music in their day. So it's an arbitrary, poorly supported, poorly referenced and apparently gratuitous intrusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.214 (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is entirely about the Western European historical tradition. It would be greatly enhanced by adding information about musical forms of other cultures on other continents. In short, a little ethnomusicological influence... Esn (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing on Cyclic form in this article.
As to the term cyclical as used in this article, is it common or is it some editor's idea? The so called cyclical forms mentioned in this article (mass, ballet, opera, suite, etc.) are not really "musical forms" (as in sonata form, binary form, etc.). You might as well then include concerto and symphony among "musical forms". Contact Basemetal here 06:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle Little Star. What's provided is AABB, but in general each couplet is a unit, not two units of form. So AB would be more correct. The second phrase of the first couplet is NOT the same as the first, at any rate -- so AA would be impossible even if one wished to be so granular as to deem each couplet two units of form. The song is usually considered ABA, including the repeat of the first couplet. Yes, B consists of two identical lines. But you don't let that determine that you're going to be phrase-granular, and then be just dead wrong about A. rasqual (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "thought-form" artwork is pretty, but it seems to have nothing to do with the subject matter of the article. Does this picture belong here? 130.226.142.243 (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest that this section be removed, or completely retooled. For one, there's nothing at all that connects the title of the section to its content. What "The formalist trap" is is never explained, nor is it at all clear what the content of the section has to do with "escaping" it. It seems to me that the basic thrust of the section is "you can just like develop things instead of relying on a predetermined form." But it uses unnecessarily convoluted language to make that point, and frames it in terms of a strange and, it seems to me, largely irrelevant polemic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:C500:88A0:3453:5C42:CA36:80B8 (talk) 06:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Musical form. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, everyone! Newbie on a wiki-ed project here... Noticed that there is a book called "The Ninth Juror" in the further reading section. It is, um, not about music. Shall I go ahead and remove it? Ekkobekko (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem to me that the ketawang structure illustrated in the lead of the article describes a musical form. As the complete description of the image says, this is a "ketawang colotomic structure", and a colotomy is "a description of the rhythmic and metric patterns of gamelan music." Following the circumference of the circle indeed describes a repeating rhythmic pattern, forming a kind of ostinato played by four instruments. (The letters along the circumference denote instrument names.) Such an ostinato pattern cannot really be considered a "musical form", IMO. — Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 09:20, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Levels of Organization" section is perplexing. It is mostly unsourced, and the terms "passage," "piece" and "cycle" -- where is this from? Is there a music theory source that uses these terms in this way? I can't find a source that does. It reads as if the author means "phrase" "movement" and "full work," but that is both Eurocentric, and leaves out other levels. Above the phrase, there should be the level of section, before we get to a full piece. This should be edited in brought in line with standard sources in music theory and maybe ethnomusicology. Caper2112 (talk) 16:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
According to section headings, popular music is largely unrepresented. The heading "Common forms in Western classical music" is the only section describing the different sectional forms. It also omits to mention many of the common popular forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musomox (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the purpose of the gong diagram at the top of the page... Adamilo (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
it refers to the structure of a musical composition 103.161.60.87 (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]