Talk:Arrangement

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

{{WikiProject banner shell |class=C|vital=yes|1= {{WikiProject Music/Music genres task force} }}

Definition[edit]

Arrangement means to arrange somthing with others and change to make an arrangement means to make a change

Not unless the set of instruments is the orchestra--which does not normally include voices. Moreover, orchestration is obviously also involved in writing an original piece for orchestra. This is not to suggest that the article's opening sentence is acceptable as it now stands. Here it is: "In music, an arrangement loosely describes rewriting a piece of pre-existing music for a specific set of instruments or voices, often in harmony or with additional original material." I don't think describes is the right word here, and I don't know what is meant by "in harmony with". TheScotch 09:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription[edit]

Is a work for one instrument, written so it can be played on another, an arrangement or a "transcription"? Dysprosia 00:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good question. My guess: Generally it is a "transcription", the defining factor being whether a piece for say, clarinet in C, has the word clarinet crossed out and violin written in, or whether the piece was is reinterpreted to be more idiomatically correct, violinistic, or just different.Hyacinth 00:46, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No, a good transcription takes the new instrumental combination into account. An arrangement includes new musical material. TheScotch 09:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see this is old, but it's probably good to understand it. I'm not a pro, but in common usage transcribing music is changing the key (you transpose it, when you write it down you transcribe it). On a piano the key of C is all white keys, change it to E and you get a bunch of black keys, and the music must be rewritten with new chord changes and sharp and flat fingering. CDEFG becomes EFshGshAB, CFG chord changes become EAB, etc.. On the guitar it can get complicated. It's more than that, but it's really just rewriting it, on some level. Arranging music might change chording to more colorful things, switch instruments, add movements or solos, and much more. Arranging is like customizing a car - it's still the same car, but it has your stamp on it, too. Surely some here might quibble with this, but it's the sense that the musicians I've known think of it in. "Trans-scribe" - change writing Jjdon (talk) 02:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jjdon, you're merely talking about Transposition. 124.244.5.237 (talk) 06:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legality[edit]

Are arrangements of copyrighted works legal or illegal, either in non-commerical or commerical uses? Bayerischermann 23:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

see here: http://www.menc.org/information/copyright/copyr.html it seems that arrangements can only be made by the author/composer while the copyright is still in effect.

integrate[edit]

Since this article is about arrangement in music, couldn't it be integrated and all the extra bolded instances unbolded? -Acjelen 04:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The sections are about arrangement in music, but they should be merged because sections should not be one sentence each. Hyacinth 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

In computational geometry, the term 'Arrangement' refers to an Arrangement of hyperplanes. I'd like to propose a disambiguation page that distinguishes Arrangements (music) from Arrangement (geometry). The title of this new page would be 'Arrangements', and so I'd need to rename this page itself, something that I don't think I can do.

If you aren't able even to sign your posts, obviously you can't.

Arrangers List[edit]

The list of arrangers is longer than the article proper itself! It should be whittled to just a few, and either those few should be mentioned for illustrative purposes only or else they should stand in stature head and shoulders above all other arrangers in their particular genre--which needs to be specified. A list of big band arrangers, for example, might be limited to Fletcher Henderson, Duke Ellington, and Gil Evans--something like that. TheScotch 08:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "For a more complete list, see: List of arrangers" I haven't counted, but offhand it seems to me this "more complete list" is about the same size as the list in this article, which makes one of them (at least) redundant. Taking this into consideration and also that no one has disputed what I say above, for now I'm just going to delete the list of arrangers in the article and leave the link to the external list intact (except for the necessary rewording of course). This is not to suggest that I see any purpose to the external list either. An encyclopedia is not supposed to be a book of lists, I shouldn't think. It's true that if you look up "arrangers" in the Yellow Pages you'll get an alphabetical list, but that's so you can hire one if you like (phone numbers are supplied and pretty much only live and available arrangers are represented). TheScotch 07:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Something is amiss. The separate article List of music arrangers was started back in December 11, 2003, while your comments are three years older. Just what is wrong with having a long list of arrangers? Likewise, what would be wrong (in your opinion) with complete lists of writers, poets, painters, athletes, scientists, Nobel prize laureates, inventors, Astronauts, Presidents, explorers, actors, singers, criminals, politicians, or members of the USSR Politburo??? Ultimately, who said that A LIST in an Encyclopedia must be limited by size, in order to be just "representative"? Who said that lists should not be comprehensive? If this issue could be voted upon, I would vote for the latter option, by all means. --AVM (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Original Research"[edit]

Here we go again with the compulsive, manic obsession to accuse any knowledge to be "original research" and to tag innocent, well-meaning articles accordingly. In this case, though, whoever put the infamous tag might be right: the article, in fact, does include or mention original research by people like:

To be sure, all of the above musicians and/or musicologists, mentioned in the article, have been guilty of doing "original research" at a given moment in their lives. Not so the authors of this article while writing it.

Also, the article mentions a copious wealth of verifiable sources, so the other accusation ("This article needs additional citations for verification") is false. I've removed the offending tags. --AVM (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:VERIFIABILITY it's very clear on the matter. Wikipedia is the one place on the internet where people can be cautioned regarding the potential inaccuracy of information presented as fact. Citations are necessary to improve the quality and authoritativeness of this encyclopedia. It should not be up to the reader to cross reference information in order to verify factuality. Also, readers may not be specialists, so it is important to start from this premise and provide thorough support if at all possible. In the case of this article, it would be very easy to reference just about every statement; as the information is readily available to an interested editor. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe it's that easy, why don't you do just that, instead of choosing the easy way, tagging the article and hoping that others do the job? I think such annoying tags blemish the appearance —and undermines the dignity— of articles. Also, one gets tired of it: it's like a plague. Currently, the whole of Wikipedia is infested —with tags. --AVM (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is of such concern to you please improve it. If the articles you list above also have verifiability issues please place the appropriate banner on the offending page. The cosmetic appearance of the article is of little consequence if it contains potentially misleading and inaccurate material. As stated above, Wikipedia is the one place on the internet where people can be cautioned regarding the potential inaccuracy of information presented as fact. Citations are necessary to improve the quality and authoritativeness of this encyclopedia. It should not be up to the reader to cross reference information in order to verify factuality. Semitransgenic (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 12:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research?[edit]

What information may be supported by original research in the article currently rather than citations? Hyacinth (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional citations[edit]

What information in this article currently needs additional citations for verification? Hyacinth (talk) 00:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that is pretty clear. Any uncited information can be deemed WP:OR as per WP:VERIFY. Do not assume the reader has prior knowlege of the subject matter. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty clear what needs citation now that you have specifically tagged some of that information. Please see Template:Original research: "Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page". Hyacinth (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, wasn't aware of that note. Semitransgenic (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing like author was referring to The New Harvard Dictionary of Music, Don Michael Randel, 2003. If someone has it handy they can verify this citation. --Blehfu (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I can read now. --Blehfu (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Redman did what?[edit]

Regarding Don Redman, the article says, inter alia:

He introduced the pattern of arranging melodies in the body of arrangements and arranging section performances of the big band.

Please explain what this means, or how it differs from previous practice. What was the nature of his innovation or change? yoyo (talk) 09:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a quote from the Don Redman article which might form the basis for an answer to my request:

His importance in the formulation of arranged hot jazz can not be overstated; a chief trademark of Redman's arrangements was that he harmonized melody lines and pseudo-solos within separate sections; for example, clarinet, sax, or brass trios. He played these sections off each other, having one section punctuate the figures of another, or moving the melody around different orchestral sections and soloists. His use of this technique was sophisticated, highly innovative, and formed the basis of much big band jazz writing in the following decades.

However, I don't know which parts of this are most important to a general article - perhaps the last two sentences could be summarised briefly? yoyo (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sections[edit]

Hi there guys,

I have been assigned some Wikipedia work for my class at Berklee College of Music. I notice that the arranging page is particularly low on content. With your agreement of course I would like to propose some additional categories to which I and others can add more information.

They are as follows:

Arranging by instrumental group:

Big Band:

Horn Section:

Strings:

Orchestral/Ensemble:

Rhythm Section:

Synthesizer:

Vocal:

Other:


By Genre:

Film Score Arranging:

Musical Theatre Arranging:

Popular Music:

Popular Instrumental Music:

By Decade:

10s through 2010s


As I also have a particular interest in the Australian music industry I would like to add an "Australian Arrangers" section with some appropriate names listed.

Australian Arrangers:

John Foreman

David Pritchard-Blunt

Timothy Sexton

Daniel Denholm


As this is a rather major change I thought it would be best to post to the discussion page before making any alterations. I would appreciate your suggestions. I will wait a couple of days to alter the page, and will not remove any of the information currently posted.

All the best,

Pdougherty1 (talk) 01:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added "Arranging For Instrumental Groups" and "Strings"[edit]

Hi guys,

I have begun some work on the article. Hope it is acceptable.

All the best, Pdougherty1 (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Arrangement" definition[edit]

I'm not sure the current definition is correct. I believe "arrange/arrangement" is commonly used to describe the process of working out what instruments play what parts in any composition, whether it's an adaptation of an existing composition or not. A band, for example, will work out the arrangement of an original song.

Here are some reliable sources that use the term "arrangement" differently from how Wikipedia currently uses it:

Popcornfud (talk) 11:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arrangement&oldid=1219693350"