Jump to content
 







Main menu
   


Navigation  



Main page
Contents
Current events
Random article
About Wikipedia
Contact us
Donate
 




Contribute  



Help
Learn to edit
Community portal
Recent changes
Upload file
 








Search  

































Create account

Log in
 









Create account
 Log in
 




Pages for logged out editors learn more  



Contributions
Talk
 



















Contents

   



(Top)
 


1 Simon&Garfunkel's "Scarborough Fair"  
1 comment  




2 [Untitled]  





3 Why doesn't "Mashup" reference this page?  
1 comment  




4 thirteenth century?  
1 comment  




5 1712 Overture  
1 comment  




6 What about what the dictionary says?  
1 comment  




7 Quodlibet requirements, intentional and unintentional.  
6 comments  













Talk:Quodlibet




Page contents not supported in other languages.  









Article
Talk
 

















Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 








Tools
   


Actions  



Read
Edit
Add topic
View history
 




General  



What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Get shortened URL
Download QR code
 




Print/export  



Download as PDF
Printable version
 
















Appearance
   

 






From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Simon&Garfunkel's "Scarborough Fair"

[edit]

That's a Quodlibet as well, isn't it?

--188.194.212.40 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


[Untitled]

[edit]

uh... 'libet' does not at all mean 'freely'; rather, libet = is pleasing

Why doesn't "Mashup" reference this page?

[edit]

I'm not sure what the difference between 'Mashups' and regular quodlibets is.

Could that be a new reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionnbharr (talkcontribs)

I think the term "quodlibet" is traditionally from classical music. People who make mashups might not know the term, though it might be an interesting way of describing what they do. There's also a difference in that mashups sample actual recordings, while quodlibets in this article involve taking part of another song and actually playing it on your own instruments within your own composition. --Grace 01:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thirteenth century?

[edit]

The article says "popular through the thirteenth century (1300s)"

The thirteenth century was the 1200s. The 1300s were the fourteenth century. Who originally wrote this sentence? Which is correct? --Grace 01:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1712 Overture

[edit]

Does PDQ Bach's parody of the 1812 Overture, where all of the melodies are replaced by similar but easily recognizable tunes (notably the nursery rhyme "Around the Mulberry Bush") count in this category? --Anansii 02:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but one must also ask about some of the other Schickele works, such as the "Eine Kleine Nicht Music" and the "Chaconne a son Gout".

What about what the dictionary says?

[edit]

I came across this word in a completely different context different from the explanation pertaining to musical terminology. In the Mirriam-Webster and other dictionary I found that Quodlibet also means a subtle argument within philosophical/scholastic/theological traditions.

Doesn't this alternate meaning of the word warrants for at least a reference to this alternate explanation? --85.145.121.149 (talk) 11:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quodlibet requirements, intentional and unintentional.

[edit]

A great deal of edits are removed due to the referencing of an intentional construction (ie: Musicals). However the main page cites no necessity for lack of intent. As such, could such a requirement be added with citation, or could the removal of edits on these grounds cease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceCorgi94 (talkcontribs) 01:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's right there in the definition -- "In a simultaneous quodlibet, two or more pre-existing melodies are combined". ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite so. When various tunes from a musical are later combined in the same score, it is called a medley.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "One Day More" from Les Misérables is just a medley. It sounds more complicated than that. I think it's similar to the "Tonight Quintet"" from West Side Story. Then there's Irving Berlin's "You're Just in Love" from Call Me Madam – a quodlibet or just a duet with independent melodies? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, 'medley' wouldn't fit, as the themes are interlocking -- but the key thing that makes them not a quodlibet (from how I've already understood the term) is the fact they aren't pre-existing. I'm sure someone who is better than me at this sort of thing may be able to find a good source that talks about that. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The melodies in "One Day More" are pre-existing when that number is sung at the end of act 1. Same for the "Tonight Quintet". In "You're Just in Love", both melodies are introduced separately, then combined, so they are pre-existing at that point. The article "Quodlibet" in Grove Music Online by Maniates, Branscombe and Freedman opens with: "A composition in which well-known melodies and texts appear in successive or simultaneous combinations." -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quodlibet&oldid=1209279825"

Categories: 
Start-Class Literature articles
Low-importance Literature articles
Start-Class music genre articles
WikiProject Music genres articles
Start-Class Music theory articles
Low-importance Music theory articles
WikiProject Music theory articles
Start-Class Poetry articles
Low-importance Poetry articles
WikiProject Poetry articles
 



This page was last edited on 21 February 2024, at 03:56 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 4.0; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.



Privacy policy

About Wikipedia

Disclaimers

Contact Wikipedia

Code of Conduct

Developers

Statistics

Cookie statement

Mobile view



Wikimedia Foundation
Powered by MediaWiki