Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four-part harmony

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Star Mississippi 02:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Four-part harmony

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Has been tagged for "expert attention" since 2015, further proving the uselessness of that tag. Disregarding that, the sources given are all music theory studies that can't even agree on what "four part harmony" even is. Furthermore, these seem to be worksheets and not reliable sources.

I've found tons of books using the term "four-part harmony", but none explaining it as a concept. As the talk page bears out, this has been the subject of heated discussion on Wikipedia since 2015, but it's just a bunch of people bantering back and forth about minutiae, not trying to improve the article. Attempts to synthesize it with related concepts such as counterpoint and barbershop quartet are unsourced at best and WP:OR at worst.

The concept of "four part harmony" does exist for sure, but there doesn't seem to be any scholarly or encyclopedic attempt to explain what it is other than "harmony with four voices". At best, this deserves a small section on harmony; as it stands, it's a completely muddled and incoherent WP:DICDEF Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:12, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ~~Harmonization~~ Harmony or Vocal harmony, possibly? Hyperbolick (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now. Hyperbolick (talk) 11:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support a Merge to Harmony. Oppose the proposal to merge to Harmonization: according to the lead sentence, harmonization is "the chordal accompaniment to a line or melody", which 4-part harmony is not. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 00:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC) I was unsure previously, which is why I only commented on which page to merge to, but I will now vote Weak Keep, since the article passes WP:DICDEF as it isn't a term describing harmony with four voices, but a technique. The article essentially needs a complete rewrite, though, from its lack of sources.[reply]
- @Mcguy15 I see there is Vocal harmony as well, though its focus seems oddly specific. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:COSTLY. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; but to what article? This has been the main topic of discussion in the talk page of the article in 2015 (it stopped after that). My suggestion there, which I can only repeat here, was that the articles to be considered included Voice leading, Four-part harmony, Polyphony, Harmony, Counterpoint, SATB, Choir, Chiavette, Quartet, String quartet, Woodwind quartet, Saxophone quartet, Barbershop quartet, A cappella, Cantu a tenore, Gospel quartet, Klapa, and probably severall others – some of these also may be in need of merging together. —Hucbald.SaintAmand (talk) 10:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: vocal harmony is a completely unrelated topic, no merge to that please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I notified project Classical music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Four part harmony is perhaps the most prominent types of harmony and definitely deserves its own article. It is the standard arrangement for choral music, the most analyzed type in in music theory, and has specific rules not seen in other general modes of harmony. Just because the article's sources are lacking does not mean this is not a notable term. I hesitantly agree that the article SATB can be merged into the page, but the other suggestions by User:Hucbald.SaintAmand don't really make much sense (especially the suggestion that the different types of instrumental and vocal quartets/ensembles can be merged even though all have their own unique styles, history, and repertoire). Some sources that specifically talk about four part harmony from a cursory Google search: [1];[2];[3];[4]. I think that this article can stay as it has a substantial amount of formal research about it and deserves to be split from the Harmony article. More sources from a basic search: [5];[6];[7].Why? I Ask (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't believe this one. Four-part harmony is and has long been the basis of most of the theory and practice of orchestration and music arrangement. A very important topic indeed! And no shortage of sources, obviously. Andrewa (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Final chorus of *Giulio Cesare*, 1723, British Library

Weak keep on the basis of subject matter. Four-point harmony is relevant to the four-part chorales of J. S. Bach, which are heard in his passions, oratorios and cantatas. The concluding four-point chorale harmonisations are described in each of the cantatas, e.g. Herr, gehe nicht ins Gericht mit deinem Knecht, BWV 105. There's also separate material on their history as well as a list-article. They're available in paperback version of Albert Riemenschneider. Similarly the operas of G. F. Handel usually end with a four-part chorus, e.g. Giulio Cesare, "Ritorni omai nel nostro core".[8] And so on. Mathsci (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, four-part harmony (as Andrewa mention above) serves as the basis for a lot of Western classical music, especially beginning with Bach's era as you probably know. This is the sort of stuff that's covered in Music Theory 101, so I don't understand why it needs deletion (aside from the poor article quality which another editor mentioned resolving through WP:TNT). Why? I Ask (talk) 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: @Mathsci: I stripped the unsourced content and drive-by tagging ffom 2015, but the article is still in dire shape. Are either of you willing to put the leg work in? Because it seems so far, this is just turning into another endless loop of "We should do something!" "Should we do something?" "We should do something!" "Should we do something?" Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the material you've axed; but the article can still be salvaged by adding WP:RSs. Riemenschneider is an example, particularly for realising four-part harmony from melody + figured bass (the 69 chorales). There's also "Continuo Playing According to Handel: His Figured Bass Exercises" (ed. David Ledbetter). Please ask for input from User:RandomCanadian, who's recorded a four-part hymn on a Canadian organ. Mathsci (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I can't promise it will be my top priority, and if someone beats me to it that is likely, and good. We are a collaboration.

I note that you are the one who proposed this for deletion. But were we to delete it as you proposed, it would make Wikipedia a laughing-stock among those with any knowledge at all of the common practice period (another article needing work) and related music. Wikipedia is not perfect. We have made some colossal blunders over the years and continue to do so. Hopefully we can avoid this one. But as others have commented, this discussion has already diminished the reputation of Wikipedia.

Ask yourself, if you were someone with good knowledge and access to sources in this field of study, would this discussion encourage you to contribute to Wikipedia? Or would you think, hopeless, I'm not going to waste my time, just to see my work thrown away by those without the slightest knowledge of the field? It is that bad.

There are ways to develop and encourage our cadre of volunteer editors, so as to improve articles including this one. But this nomination was not one of them. If you wish to give editors such as myself more time to improve it and others, I suggest you consider simply withdrawing the nomination. Andrewa (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: TenPoundHammer withdrew the AfD a while back. However, Chris troutman edited twice to reverse TPH's closure, writing: "I see how the collective cowardice has begun as !voters shift toward what they think is emerging political consensus.". Mathsci (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to simply note that the reversal was done under a wiki guideline, WP:WITHDRAWN, not completely opinion. — Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 21:55, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep − The term is covered in numerous books about musical theory: see here. Tim riley talk 16:59, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently, the r/musictheory subreddit got wind of this [9]. I thought some of the comments were amusing, so here they are. Why? I Ask (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article is currently of poor quality; deletion is not the appropriate solution to that, since the concept does warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tim riley. Grimes2 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per main arguments above. Also, re nom, if appropriate expertise isn't forthcoming, the answer isn't to say "well let's just delete it; it can't be that important". Atchom (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tim riley.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common enough musical term. Article is short, but there is no dearth of music theory books that deal with the concept and could be used to expand it. --Jayron 32 12:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.