Talk:Romantic music

20th century section

This section appears hopelessly OR and NNPOV. It seems to be extending the idea of 'romantic music' to 'anything thst has a tune' and renders the concept of 'romantic music' as a musicological idea almost worthless. Should be deleted.--Smerus (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

(Belatedly). I agree. --Kleinzach 10:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

from Reza

• "Music is a thing with no definition...its the state of being happy in time."

One may agree. Dictionaries ones buy, borrow, read, write, believe, cite, and more look, like most of the roster, music has a definition by words. One can agree music is a thing. It may appear aerial. One may also agree it is definable. One may agree it is yet to occur, like or unlike The Great American Novel, or scaling Mt. Olympus. One may ask if one is happy, is it in time, and is it music? Is it a state? Is music a continuation when it is occuring? Is it possible to be happy only with it? Is happiness from music? Is it only from music?Is time continual and music the only happiness during the continuation of time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.204.128.45 (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Social History?

We need more on the social history of classical music during the Romantic period. Big names and style aren't even half the story. Someone with knowledge should at least add info on economics, institutions, and audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.108.85.80 (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I agree that a social history is important, but I think that should be a separate article.Bansai618 (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Date war

We seem to have a date war going on! Can both editors explain the reasons for their dates here? Thanks. --Kleinzach 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there are more than two editors involved. I have been attempting to maintain Antandrus's position (in his edit of 5 September 2009) that the content of the article is not consistent with the date-change persistently being made since at least early last summer by Labrynthis9856. For the moment, I have decided that what is required is an authority, to settle this question once and for all. This article is already burdened with a huge amount of unverified claims, amounting to original research. The least we can do is find a proper source for the most basic definition of the boundaries of an historical period.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problematic article. Perhaps Labrynthis9856 can explain her(?) point of view? --Kleinzach 00:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Beginning section

"More appropriately, romanticism describes the expansion of formal structures within a composition, making the pieces more passionate and expressive."

This sentence, and indeed most of the section, really bothers me. The words "more appropriately" seem like padding (I can't see what they mean), and the sentence is highly debatable at best: it's hard to see how the structure of romanticism is directly linked to greater expressivity when compared to (say) Bach before it, or greater passion than Stravinsky after it. I'm insufficiently expert to rewrite this, but I think it needs dealing with. Xgretsch (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC) by the rated r super star egde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.118.222 (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Misleading

Why and where does this article contain misleading content? How does it need to be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for prompting me, Hyacinth. At least some of the tags on OR and CN material was mine, and dates back as much as a year. I have removed it all, and the applicable banners as well.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)