Talk:Music of ancient Greece/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Music of ancient Greece. 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 |
I have started to expand this article as requested. I cut the bit of text that was here already and wrote a new lead plus part of a section. The other sections are in outline form with "(in progress)" to indicate that I am working on it. I put in a bibliography section that will serve for refs and notes and futher reading. I left the original references at the bottom since they may serve for the article later on. All help is welcome. Jeffmatt 07:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I expanded the original item, added a few trial photos, and have started referencing and notes. It is a long way from finished, but is, I think, no longer rudimentary, and possibly useful to readers even as is; thus, I took off the tag. I have also left "in progress" notes at various points in the text. Jeffmatt 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I added a "ancient music" footer at the end as opposed to a musicbox at the top. Trying to make these "Ancient music" items into a series. Jeffmatt 14:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Although there is a reasonable consensus among musicologists that "there is no evidence that the sequence of notes in any given scale "naturally" corresponds to a particular emotion or characteristic of personality" it is still not one that would be considered as universally excepted. Although I shall not edit I'd recommend either changing "no evidence" into "no strong evidence" or at least referencing someone who conforms the claim. 220.240.54.185 13:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable, I've changed it. Tuf-Kat 17:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- accepted, not excepted. Adam Cuerden talk 14:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there is more than just a degree of doubt on this matter. In Aristotle's 'Politics' 1338a-1340b[1] he discusses how Mixolydian, Dorian and Phrygian 'represent different states of character'. --Jlowther91 (talk) 03:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
- True, Does Aristotle say that these names (Mixolydian, Dorian, and Phrygian) refer to "the sequence of notes in any given scale"? I don't think so. He refers instead to the Mixolydian, Dorian, and Phrygian harmoniai, which is a rather more problematic concept.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I never quite understood the concepts of harmonia and tonoi, neither did, it would seem, the Greeks themselves. I haven’t done any original research on the topic but according to Isobel Henderson (referenced below) the contemporary writers themselves used these terms to mean different things without explanation[2]. However, weren't the tone species themselves named 'Mixolydian', 'Dorian', 'Hypodorian' etc? I'm not writing in order to try and correct you. I'd like an explanation myself.--Jlowther91 (talk) 00:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure that some of the Greeks understood both concepts, and the distinction (if any) to be made between them. What must be kept in mind here is that the surviving Greek writings touching on these terms cover a span of at least five hundred years. Greek music itself cannot have remained fixed for this entire period, and some terms changed their meanings as well (how many modern-day jazz players would understand the word "sight" as Leonel Power did?). Recent scholars (Barker, Mathiesen, West, etc.) favour the view that in Plato and Aristotle's writings, harmonia refers to a generalized melodic style, whereas later writers seem to equate (or nearly equate) tonos and harmonia, while others appear to use the former either to refer to octave species or to transposition level (as Ptolemy does). Transposition level of an entire system can in turn be interpreted as change of octave species with a fixed, central octave. Cleonides tells us that tonos is used with three distinct meanings, and so on. Remember, too, that besides being technical musical terms, these words may have had everyday uses in ordinary Greek. Not only this, but there is no reason to suppose that terminology was uniform in all locations (e.g., Syracuse as opposed to Athens) even at the same time in history.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the article is mistaken to claim without qualification that the Dorian mode was thought to be 'harsh.' In Politics 8.5, Aristotle associates it with a "middling and settled condition." [djr]
References
- Well-written: Check, though 'Aristoxenus said, essentially, that since you can't hear the "music of the spheres", anyway, why not just sing and play what sounds good and reasonable to us? That simple philosophy underlay the entire later movement to tempered scales and even bears comparison to the recent abandoning, in much 20th-century music, of traditional rules of harmony in favor of what simply "sounds good".' is not particularly encyclopedic language
- Accurate, verifiable: Check
- Broad in its coverage: Ah, not so much. Ignores the means of marking ancient Greek music completely. The description of major and minor scales, "It is difficult for the modern listener to relate to that concept of ethos in music except by comparing our own perceptions that a minor scale is used for melancholy and a major scale for virtually everything else, from happy to heroic music.", is somewhat superficial of an analysis of major and minor.
- NPOV: Seems slightly in favour of Plato's views, but not in any significant way. Pass.
- stable: Check
- Images: Check.
I'm not sure. Maybe I'm being too harsh on the broadness. I'll leave it for the next reviewer to decide. 14:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Isn't "Ancient Greece" a title in itself, like Rennaisance Europe? I have *never* seen ancient uncapitalised in this phrase outside of here. Adam Cuerden talk 11:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that considerable effort has been put into this article, which I appreciate. I'm sure anyone would learn a lot from the article.
However, the main problem is the stand the author is taking through the article. Anything statement that seems to take a Point of View must be referenced. It starts with Much of what defines western European culture in terms of philosophy, science, and the arts has origins in the culture of ancient Greece. I might not disagree, but I think sentences like these should be toned down. There are other examples. Already in lead, e.g. The very word music, itself, comes from the muses, the daughters of Zeus and patron goddesses of creative and intellectual endeavours. should be toned down as The word music comes from muses, the daughters of Zeus and patron goddesses of creative and intellectual endeavours. -- and it should have a reference added.
The word we and our is used a lot in the text. Who is "we"? In general, avoid this word.
The author is wanting to make a point also with this sentence: People, almost universally, seem disposed to recognize as consonant, for example, intervals of octaves, fifths and fourths.[3] They don't know--and don't care--that the arithmetic ratios that describe those intervals are 2:1, 3:2 and 3:4, respectively. which must be considered inappropriate since it isn't referenced. The first sentence is, but not the second sentence or the rest of the paragraph. Did Trehub actually say that people don't know and don't care about the arithmetic ratios?
There are probably other examples, but you get the point.
The use of images could be improved. Best not to put images on both right and left side on the same paragraph (see WP:MOS#Images) -- these is a reason for this, you can see a screenshot from my screen here. Disturbing for me to try and read that section....
Fred-Chess 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
154.5.129.105 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)----154.5.129.105 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)----154.5.129.105 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)----154.5.129.105 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)----154.5.129.105 01:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, such personal opinions as " People, almost universally, seem disposed to recognize as consonant, for example, intervals of octaves, fifths and fourths.[3] They don't know--and don't care--that the arithmetic ratios that describe those intervals are 2:1, 3:2 and 3:4, respectively." are completely inappropriate and are likely motivated by a desire to fabricate a peerage for some contemporary music or view of music. Dreadfully out of place here, and rank historical revisionism as well, for something striking about ancient Greece is how much, and with what great precision, practical musical mathematics WERE documented. Apparently the author of this statement does not realize that the ratios discussed apply to string lengths, frets, placement of finger-holes on aulos, etc. In other words, yes "people", including the ancient Greeks, most certainly do and did care to stop a string at the halfway point (ratio of 2:1) in order to sound an octave, rather than just stick their finger any old place and hope for the best (not that such behaviour is always inappropriate in other circumstances. Or so I have heard). Frank Zamjatin (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Amazing how much very non-NPOV editorializing (and exhibition of lack of knowledge) has floated for so long in this article. Time to clean up...Frank Zamjatin (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive me for barging in on an article long in the making, but I really thought an article on Music in Ancient Greece should have an image from Greek antiquity at the top (hence the new image of Apollo there). I enjoy seeing the interpretations of later periods, but I think it's especially dubious to lead off with one with a whacking anachronism when there are so many images available to illustrate musical instruments in their own time period. I moved the Piero di Cosimo image to a space farther down, and also attempted to adjust the smaller images on the page to align better with the relevant text, including placing the panpipes with the image of pan. Not sure I succeeded in my aims, so apologies if I've been precipitous. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Having experimented further, I would suggest that what the page needs is an image gallery of Ancient Greek Musical Instruments, which would clear out the image clutter from that section. I've never created a gallery, so if it's a worthwhile suggestion I'll leave that to the primary caretakers of this page, or maybe attempt it later if it's wanted. For a gallery I would suggest a search of Wikicommons for more Greek and Roman art that would actually illustrate the instruments as they were seen in their cultural context. A double aulos is shown in Image:Plat reliure Apollon thyase.JPG and in many other images that come up with an "aulos" search, as the one I've put here.
It might also be worthwhile to swap out for an image of the Muses from antiquity. For instance, Image:Muses sarcophagus Louvre MR880.jpg; single muse with lyre, Image:Muse lyre Louvre CA482.jpg and Image:Mousai Helikon Staatliche Antikensammlungen Schoen80 n1.jpg, with nice cutout full view of vase at Image:Mousai Helikon Staatliche Antikensammlungen Schoen80 full.jpg Cynwolfe (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
should we add a section on things like the Epitaph of Seikilos?
I'd like to suggest moving the sections on Harmonia, Melos and Ethos from both Musical_mode and Musical_system_of_ancient_greece to this page since the discourse here is about culture broadly speaking and the discussion in the two aforementioned more technical.Mwasheim (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a geat deal of "personal essay" writing here. Now, I happen to agree with quite a bit of what is written, but that is not the point, and this style is not appropriate to Wikipedia. So, I will try to remove the most blatant personal-essay writings here, but try to keep its content in the cases in which it can be clearly and cleanly supported by mainstream academic literature.
At the top of this talk page, I noticed that the article was previously for GA status- albeit a decade ago. I saw the link for the revision of that tine, that was evaluated [and rejected], on the bottom left of the template. The the actual assessment appears to be deprecated, or is at least not accessible per any of those links. But perhaps I'm simply not seeing it.
Thus my question: Does anyone know where I might find the Good Article assessment subpage? Should it still, I mean. I'd like to the reviewer's comments as a jumping off point for any further expansion/revision. Thanks in advance to the helpful person who can provide some direction in this regard. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- You might try checking the "GA thoughts" and "Failed GA assessment" sections, about halfway down this Talk page. I think those are the comments referred to in the GA rejection notice.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
- I did see those. Wasn't much to go on, so I thought there might be another page which went more into detail, a la the more modern assessments. A lot of sysops have been posting such organised material from the years of 2006-2009 on several of the talk pages I've visited recently- the original pages were deprecated (they existed, often, on a separate page which was linked to the article talk space) and have since been removed. User responses and all.
- Thank you for the reply. And your patience. But if this is all we have to go on... Might it perhaos be worth it for another GA review, if the rest of you think it's worth it? Couldn't hurt to get some feedback, IMHO. Quinto Simmaco (talk)
- I see your point. I have taken a random stab at trying to determine the state of the article at the time of the original GA assessment in 2006 and, frankly, I don't see a huge amount of change since then (exactly one footnote reference has been added in the intervening ten years, for example). I would say that resubmitting it for GA review might be premature. A peer review might be more appropriate first, unless you feel the article really is nearly GA quality. I'm not sure I do, but would want to spend some time scrutinizing it. You will have noticed that I have been tidying up some trivial inconsistencies, but I can't help the feeling that there is something fundamentally flawed about the article's presentation. Perhaps just running down the list of points in the PR and GA-review lists will suggest something.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- You might try checking the "GA thoughts" and "Failed GA assessment" sections, about halfway down this Talk page. I think those are the comments referred to in the GA rejection notice.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Music of ancient Greece. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061005205839/http://www.culture.gr/2/23/232/epked/en/00_standard_menu/00a_ydraulis/00a.htm to http://www.culture.gr/2/23/232/epked/en/00_standard_menu/00a_ydraulis/00a.htm
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: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
On the face of it, this appears to be a false disjunction. If a prosodion usually preceded a paean then, in such a case, it was followed by a paean. I am tempted to assume that a prosodion preceded or followed a paean but what, then, is the implication of "usually"? Did the prosodion usually precede a paean or, less often, follow it? Or is it simply the case that there was usually (but not always) a paean, either before or after the prosodion? GrounderUK (talk) 13:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- It was badly written, to be sure. The cited source is clear, however. It appears that there is only one surviving complete example of a prosodion, and not only does it include music as well as text, but it happens to be connected to its paean, which it follows. This is the Second Delphic Hymn, by Limenius.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
- Thank you for fixing my edit, Jerome. The cited source is not in my library, as it happens. Your other edits are appreciated too. Keep up the good work!--GrounderUK (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2018 and 18 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harmonjm.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
