Talk:Romantic music/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Baroque Period

I was pretty sure the last time I had checked that the Baroque era ended in 1750. The same year that J.S. Bach died. In here it is written that the Baroque era ended in 1760. Jon Dillinger 07/12/07 11:33 AM

I agree. His death does mark the end of the Baroque Period. Though the year of his death isn't exactly clear the majority of scholars do agree that it was in 1750. Distorted Poet 03/13/08 08:50 AM

Changing to 19th Century Music

Obviously a few of you are thinking about changing the header of this page, but I think it's not the best idea. Every music book I have ever read has described the general 1810-1900 period as the Romantic period. There actually is noticeable difference between the Classical and Romantic periods.

Classical composers seemed much more interested in a balance between expressiveness and formal structure in their music while Romantic composers strived for greater freedom of form, which can be seen in many composers works. Many composers of the Romantic Period had an immense interest in art, and sometimes created close friendships with artists. Many romantic composers used fascinations of far away lands and the distant past, moonlight and other mystical things to base their music on.

As for those of you debating about the main composers of the era they are: Beethoven, Weber and Schubert (Influences); Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Schumann, Liszt, Wagner, Verdi, Smetana, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Grieg, Rimsky-Korsakov, Elgar, Albeniz, Mahler, R. Strauss and Mussorgsky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.132.136 (talk) 07:40, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Albeniz a major Romantic composer? I think not. And why is Bruckner not on your list? Or Bellini, Glinka, Borodin, or Bizet? 90.205.92.246 (talk) 07:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The main thesis of this article is that Romanticism in music is different from Romanticism in the other arts. This is untrue. The composers of the 19th century were involved in everything happening around them, not just the development of Romanticism but everything else. Would we call every book written between 1815 and 1910 Romantic? No. -- Kleinzach (talk) 03:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sibelius

Although Sibelius has roots in Late Romanticism I feel he shouldn't be included in the list of Romantic composers. His mature most representative music (from Symphony No.3 onwards), may be described as having elements of Classicism, and even Modernism ('Tapiola', for example). Harmonically and texturally his music is as far from Romanticism as Debussy's - perhaps even further. 90.205.92.216 (talk) 04:53, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps he should be removed from Template:Romanticism? -- Kleinzach (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion he should be removed, yes (I am the author of the above comment). Christopher Melen (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Polyseme?

'The expression "romantic music" and the polyseme phrase "Romantic music" have two essentially different meanings.'

I'm not sure the first sentence of an article should ever force readers (or at least the majority of readers) to have to immediately consult another article (polyseme). It doesn't strike me as good stylistic practice - I often find myself distracted from the article I originally intended to consult by interesting links like this! And the sentence is tautologous, anyway...

Also, why does there have to be discussion of 'romantic music' (in the sense of music expressing feelings of love, romantic longing, attachment, etc.) at all? If such a subject is worthy of comment then perhaps it should have an article of its own, with the appropriate disambiguation provided. Christopher Melen (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems awfully pedantic. I'd remove the term. ALTON .ıl 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You could have if you would have. Hyacinth (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Template Edit

I have removed Beethoven and Schubert from the template, and added Berwald, Saint-Saëns, Elgar and Richard Strauss. I suspect a few people will strongly disagree with the Beethoven/Schubert removal, but I have never, in all my years studying and teaching music, at any time doubted that - despite adumbrations of Romanticism in their music, and their unquestionable influence on succeeding generations of composers - these composers belong firmly within the Classical period. If Rachmaninoff is included in the template - and he died in 1943 - then Elgar and Strauss should also be, I feel. Even though they lived well into the Modern era their music is stylistically still very much informed by Romanticism. The same cannot be said for Sibelius, however, whom I have also removed. 90.205.92.47 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Schubert at the very least belongs in the template. To suppose that the composer of Winterreise and Schöne Müllerin is "Classical" rather than Romantic is deeply misleading at best. But ultimately our opinions are irrelevant--it's what others have written which we must use. The chapter on Schubert in the Prentice-Hall series is in "19th Century Romanticism in Music", not in "Music in the Classical Era."

It's no secret that whether Schubert fits into the classical or Romantic eras is a hotly debated topic: the first sentence of the "style and influence" section in the New Grove article on him says exactly that. But if even part, and a major part at that, of a composer's output is as influential on future developments on Romanticism in music as was Schubert's, the least we can do is put him in the template. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Schubert is a difficult case, and I admit that I thought twice about removing him. I still feel very uncomfortable about including him, however. I am not convinced that a composer should be included simply because he is hugely influential on later generations (if so then surely Beethoven should be put back in). And whilst it might be true that pieces such as Schöne Müllerin and Winterreise belong spirirtually to the Romantic era, Schubert's musical language was, right until the end, rooted in the harmonic and melodic norms of Viennese Classicism. The Encyclopeadia Brittanica includes him in the Classical Period. 90.205.92.26 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica begins their article on Schubert with the statement "Austrian composer who bridged the worlds of Classical and Romantic music..." I suggest that composers who bridge two eras, as Schubert clearly did, be included in both templates. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I just quickly looked at the article on the Classical Period, didn't look at his article. That's a nice description of him, however. There doesn't appear to be a template for the Classical Period, although he is in the list of composers for that era. So as a compromise yes, let's put him in both eras. 90.205.92.26 (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, he's back in the Romantic template. I'd be extremely reluctant to put Beethoven back in, however. Christopher Melen (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ... I'm fine with Beethoven out, frankly. No Classicism Period template?? I think I make too many assumptions about Wikipedia completeness. -- As a musicologist I have to admit that after-the-fact "periodization" makes me grit my teeth anyway; things are never that clear. I deal with a lot of Renaissance/Medieval/Baroque issues, and when people insistently clamor to put people in one or the other bin, as though they were dropping CDs into pre-labeled record-shop bins, it makes me crazy. Best, Antandrus (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Antandrus. And yes, the artificial boundaries imposed by naïve periodization irritate me too (I am a composer with musicological leanings!). I mean, if it were possible to travel back in time and trouble J.S. Bach with the question of what 'style' he composed in he'd most likely reply that he didn't have a style, but composed in many different styles (sometimes even within a single piece, as in the Passions). The question wouldn't have made much sense to him. The whole concept of clearly-demarcated stylistic categories and periods is naïve at best, and ultimately a misrepresentation of the nature of style and the historical development of music. I suppose within an encyclopaedia, however, they are an inevitable, and probably necessary, evil. Christopher Melen (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)