Talk:Browse people by time period
Shouldn't Hannon be in the Romantic period or is it argued too much that he's classical? (1819-1900)
No offense to Hanon, but I don't think he's really anything (period-wise) lol. So it's really not a big deal (could be either). On the other hand, that's a really nice graph you got there :) I'll put it on the both time period pages. --Feldmahler 11:11, 5 November 2006 (EST)
Police of period
I think the police of period is very little. I had not see the link ! I undestand that "modern" is narrow but it would be possible to write the name of period out of the color. So, the user will see better the link under the text of period. --Coulon
why are they no longer linked?
- It looks fine to me. The one on this talk page isn't linked, but the main one seems fine. --Feldmahler 20:07, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
Romantic period 1815-1910?
I don't agree with calling this whole period Romantic. From 1848 onwards there are many -isms, schools, developments and it is simplistic and misleading to call them all Romantic. I know that it is taught like this in American high schools, but I think IMSLP should adopt a neutral definition - one that is not controversial. Thanks and regards. -- Kleinzach 22:57, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
Looking again at the chart, I see we have 20th century - so why not 19th century? -- Kleinzach 23:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
- Yeah, your proposal for a 19th century label is a little better for two reasons:
- while all those -isms didn't cover 100 years starting from around 1800 and ending a century later into some new major tendency, those rather covered 100 years from 1850 on, which makes it difficult to label. Well, not in America, but do you know how all these are taught in Romania? We say there was Romanticism, which determined two directions: in mid-western Europe, composers already had some experience through the strong legacy they had from their ancestors, so they and Wagner :) started heavily mocking tonalism as of 1859 (Tristan und Isolde). The other direction, which determines all these contradictions you're complaining of, was that of musical nationalism, where countries that never had composers with an obvious original direction started building their own. This varies very much for each country's reach for these tendencies. It is Russia where Glinka was born in 1804, but Finnish Sibelius died no sooner but 1957. While all those new composers had their day in their homeland for what we call late Romanticism, France and Germany had their time for new experiments, which start round the turn of the centuries and are a little easier to understand, having in mind the situation other forms of art had. Here, only Impressionism and Expressionism were a little more obvious, while Surrealism, Dada and other experiments are really hard to notice. And Expressionism barely started before 1900, but that holds for fine arts, but not for music. Impressionism gives us the impression it started even a couple of years earlier (Debussy), but it is still non-representative for most of the 19th century. And Neoclasicism was another novelty, but only for countries that already had some experience with composition, and that was more likely to be after 1900.
- Romanticism indeed is considered to have started very slightly after 1800 with some of Beethoven's early symphonies (i.e. much before 1815) and this is the only reason I'd accept to change the "Romanticism" label for a "19th century" one, as Romanticism really covered all the 19th century. And just for a thought: if Socialism was a Romantic invention, it brought musical nationalism, but it also brought those avant-garde ideas for conductorless orchestras and serial music, where notes and musicians were all equal- And all those belong to the 20th century, like they projected Socialism in the 19th century and applied it in the 20th century. And don't forget of the Romantic feel Impressionism always implies - we could rather call it "modal Romanticism" :), where modalism was the only real novelty, but this accentuates even more the Romantic taste for what was called "evasion in time and space". You get the conclusion, but it is quite the same if we call it like it is now (Romanticism) or "19th century", but Romanticism is a little more precise. And subdivisions here would be the worst thing. After all, we still live in some kind of musical (and not only) Romanticism.
- - Impy4ever 01:30, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
- Oh, and you should have a wider look at it, the "20th century" label was modified some time ago. And this is the most precise and concise timeline we could ever get. Impy4ever 01:31, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Well, I know one thing: this is a topic that musicologists will argue all day and night about without coming to an agreement. The only way to come to any sort of "objective" conclusion would be to only take into account date of birth and death; though I'm not too sure whether that will be of interest to many people; for example, Haydn died in 1809, but he's certainly not a Romantic or even 19th century composer. Or the case of Rachmaninoff, who is usually classified as "late Romantic" despite the era he lived in. Or the crazy Renaissance-period composer (whose name I forgot) whose extremely dissonant music sounds like it was written a few years ago (the dissonances are not in any way resolved or rationalized in the manner of the Renaissance). I had the pleasure of sight reading a piece by him :)
The original point of that genre classification was just as a very rough guide; I do not think it either possible nor efficient to try to make it "correct". This is especially because I know that there will never be an answer everyone agrees upon (or else there won't be an issue in the first place). Stravinsky called Beethoven "modern", which I am sure is only the tip of the iceberg of weird classifications (not that Beethoven isn't modern; I'd have agreed with Stravinsky in the context he said it).
Or, you can just reply the way my professor does when asked about styles: "What's 'style'?" I tend to agree with him. 'Style' does not exist in the music; it exists in our minds purely because we like to classify things. Regardless of whether Beethoven is "Classical", "Romantic" or "Modern", the classification does not change his music in any way. Beethoven never said "my music is written in the style called 'Classical'". Therefore it is in my opinion really pointless to try to use "style" classification as anything other than an extremely rough guide.
In any case, I would suggest two options: either keep the existing (rough) genre classification system, or just banish it altogether... I just don't want us to argue extensively about something that would have no conclusion anyway :) --Feldmahler 05:43, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
- I too agree with that point your teacher says about style in music, I do believe the same thing, but this guide can be useful here, as long as those who add new composers won't chose a "style" just as an effect of this timeline (so that Stravinsky becomes Romantic and Sibelius, an innovator!), but of their own knowledge in every composer's influences and interests. Rather than banning this timeline, I think we'd better check all composers here on IMSLP, whether they were bound to some appropiate period and style. Impy4ever 07:18, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
- Thanks for taking the time to answer my comment in so much detail. I agree with almost all the points made above. IMO using the labls 19th century/20th century is neutral and unproblematic. If we use 'Romantic' - especially after 1848 - we have difficulties. If the cut-off date is as late as 1910 then surely it's even more controversial. -- Kleinzach 07:31, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
Should be capabilities to place composers in multiple periods
I think there should be a way to place composers who while technically of one period were essential in the move to the next period in both periods in which they were important. ex. Beethoven is technically in most music history/theory text listed as a classical composer who played a vital role in the movement towards the romantic period he gets listed often as straddling both periods with his earlier works being clearly classical, his middle works being somewhere in between and his later works being more romantic then classical. Avianne 10:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)