Talk:Neue Musik

Untitled

Shouldn't this article be merged with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th-century_classical_music ?

There should be a section Neue Musik in that article, and this one for sure is a stub.--༄U-ji (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Periods of new music and how they are called

"Roughly speaking, new music is divided into two periods: the first from about 1910 to the Second World War, often referred to as modern times, and the second, perceived as a "radical" reorientation after the Second World War – usually apostrophized as avant-garde, up to the present. The latter period is sometimes subdivided into the 1950s, 60s and 70s, with the last three decades not being further differentiated (the overall term postmodernism has not prevailed)."

I plea for deletion, because that naming is not established and there is no respectable source, as far as I can see. I personally disagree. If there is no objection, I'll delete it within the next days. It is also introduced in the german Wikipedia without source, and there also, I disagree. The article in the german Wikipedia is, in my opinion, over-extended, and redundant to 20th century music. On the other hand, an article on 20th century music in the german Wikipedia simply doesn't exist (see redlink in the introduction of the article Neue Musik [1], de.wiki.) The second sentence: Subdividing decades is typical for any kind of historical overview, but not necessarily Neue Musik. The sentence is therefore obsolete.--༄U-ji (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, particularly because of the lack of a reliable source. I recently added Christoph von Blumröder's 1981 book on the subject to the "Further reading" section. It has been a long time since I read it but, if memory serves, it deals admirably with questions of periodization, amongst other things, and should serve well as a basis for discussion of Neue Musik as a specifically German concept.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Clarification

"Neue Musik arose from the impression [clarification needed] of the twelve-tone technique at the beginning of the last century." "Impression" should point out that not everybody making New Music in the beginning of the 20th century was a twelve-tone musician. Maybe another formulation is more appropriate? Then also, it should say that the whole historical climate was aligned towards a new music.--༄U-ji (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean. Of course, no one at all was using twelve-tone technique at the beginning of the 20th century, though the conception of "twelve-tone thinking" (that is, considering the chromatic totality of pitches as the basis for music, as opposed to "diatonic thinking") is documented already in 1915 by Arthur Eaglefield Hull for the period after about 1880. Certainly this needs to be re-formulated, though I'm not sure exactly how.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I'm just waiting what comes out of it. I myself have no other idea.--༄U-ji (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)