Talk:American march music

Comment

I finally got around to it. I will be working on the musicality aspect soon. However, this article is still in desperate need of images. Can someone who's good with placing images find some and add them to this article? Thanks.

My additions also need to be wikified.

--SousaFan88 22:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I am going to be working extensively on this topic for the next couple days. I will try to be as complete as possible with my edits, but please don't mind if theres some incomplete or vague thoughts, as time works against me. I will fix/complete these ASAP. Also, despite my knowledge of this subject, I ask that any musical expert read over my edits and check for any untrue facts or discrepencies. Thanks

• SousaFan88 01:49, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would be useful to separate road marches from concert marches (e.g. Walton's Crown Imperial) and contest marches (e.g. Knight Templar).

SousaFan88 01:25, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This page is just general information about marches. I have already created separate articles for Concert Marches and Screamers in the "See Also" section. Contest marches are yet to be elaborated on simply because I have a lack of knowledge of them seeing I'm American and contest marches are rarely heard anymore. So feel free to create an article dedicated to contest marches.

Please watch "Fife" - people cannot play a land mass.

10 Great Things about Marches

Wow. Really POV. Joyous 05:52, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

Removed the "10 Great things about marches." Content was

10 Great Things about Marches

• Marches are easy to follow
• Marches bring out the best of every instrument section
• Marches have a lot of feeling and motion
• Every march is unique
• Marches are sophisticated, but never boring
• Marches are versatile. They can be played by any band.
• Marches are not so long that they lose the attention of the listener
• Almost every music composer has written marches
• Marches are used in parades, circuses, and many more places.
• A march will stay in the very heart and soul of the listener

Joyous 22:58, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

• They follow Februaries. They are almost springtime. :) Wahkeenah 04:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad it was removed. Puerile and embarrassing. Gingermint (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Mehter band?

I had never heard of it before, but that entry about them being the first marching band has at least a kernel (colonel?) of truth. [1] The original version goes back to the 1200s. However, I think a tad more research would be needed before someone could claim they were the first marching band. Wahkeenah 04:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Americocentric?

I think we need to balance this up a bit as it reads more like America March Music than March Music. Some of the Sousa is probably better off on his page (if it's not there already) and of the marches list most are again American.Alci12 15:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to completely change the article to be titled "American March Music", and make appropriate edits within the article. Perhaps a European music expert can make a separate page for "European March Music", as I have limited information.

- SousaFan88

Certainly it's better with the material presently here to retitle it. Better to have a good American article than a failing international article. However can you leave whatever you remove in the talk page for a good while that way if someone is willing they have some starting content to create an international article and material isn't lost.Alci12 13:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Musicality section needs sources?

I'm not quite familiar on how citation works in this case. The musicality of marches (or any style of music for that matter) is what is is. As long as the technical information is valid and gives examples, does it really need citation or references? I didn't read any achived document that explained the chord progression of a certain march and transferred it into this article. I used the knowledge of theory that I had and came up with all the information. I'm guessing I wouldn't have to cite from what/who I learned theory? I'm sure most of you can give advice. I'm just dumb when it comes to this. SousaFan88 08:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I think technically one would consider it original research, unfortunately. But I think the article's useful whether original research has sneaked in or not. Srwight 04:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nobles chord.ogg

Image:Nobles chord.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Washington Post small.jpg

Image:Washington Post small.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Funky Winkerbean sousa.jpg

Image:Funky Winkerbean sousa.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Content overlap with March (music)

I believe that this page was originally written as the main article for marches but was eventually changed to be specific to American march music. When it was switched over it was not adequately edited to reflect the new title, that is, there is still a large amount of general knowledge about marches here that should probably belong on the March (music) article. Any general information about marches on this page should be used only to demonstrate how American marches either conform or deviate from the general category.

This page also has a big lack of sources---I think most come from the same place---so I'll be doing some research, editing and moving info from here to the main march article. Any suggestions, let me know! Adam Blake (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 15 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. We have consensus against removing "music", which does seem to be in use in sources. As "American march" redirects here, readers won't be lost. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:57, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

---

American march music → American march – According to the discussion at Talk:March (music), "march music" is a made-up name. WP:CONSISTENCY. Timmyshin (talk) 22:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)--Relisted. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Only one person posted an opinion on that so-called discussion and they're wrong. "March music" is the genre and is an accepted term; it's most certainly not a "made-up name". "American march" would suggest the title of a piece of music or a singular noun (e.g. "it's an American march") as opposed to a generic term. The only other possible title would be American marches in the plural. Even the March (music) article begins: "A march, as a musical genre, is a piece of music..." (italics mine). -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment it does appear that march alone is the correct name for the genre. A quick search of the topic shows that the vast majority of genres do not include the word "music" in them. However that that said, it is still often a necessary disambiguator such as March (music) and perhaps even American march (music). I can see how American march alone could cause necessary ambiguity. Tiggerjay (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, the way I see it the opposer's quote actually supports the fact that it is not called march music. The specific term march music is not used and fact that the quote states that a march is a genre of music indicates thst it is a form of music called march otherwise it would have stated that march music as a musical genre. There may be evidence that march music is the correct term but we can't use a clearly misinterpreted sentence.--67.68.23.129 (talk) 06:15, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. "March" may well be the name of the genre when discussing music specifically. In a musical encylopedia, an article about the genre may be titled simply "March" and an article about the (no doubt) distinctively different American genre may be titled "American march". But this here is Wikipedia, not a music-only encylopedia. In the world outside music (yes, there is one), the word "march" has multiple meanings. Therefore, a Wikipedia article about the march genre in American music should be titled "American march music", just as the article about the folk genre in American music is titled American folk music. On the other hand, the words "jazz" and "ragtime" have no meanings other than musical genres, so articles about those genres in American could sensibly be titled "American jazz" and "American ragtime" (actually those are titles of WP categories). Stanning (talk) 09:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. In an encyclopedia the size of Wikipedia, "march," as in a physical act, needs to be distinguished from "march music," the tunes written to facilitate the physical act.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

----

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American march music. 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/20060228050516/http://www.music.vt.edu:80/musicdictionary/ to http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)