Talk:Classical period (music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Dates of the Classical Period[edit]

This article suggests a start date of 1750 and a finishing date of 1820. The Oxford Dictionary says roughly 1750 to 1830, however someone has been putting a start date of 1730 into related articles. Should we make all the articles consistent? How about using the Oxford dates unless we have good reason to adopt different dates? (I'm letting the Classical Music project know about this issue.) --Kleinzach 03:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

We should clarify that not all sources are together with the dating and that the dates are approximate (there being no clear break between periods). If we need to set a strict timeframe to the article than 1750-1830 sounds fine with me. Many sources use 1750 as a starting point.. what sources use 1730? I think 1830 is a pretty clear finishing date as well. ThemFromSpace 06:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we need more sources? The dates will be arbitrary, of course, but I think they should follow major reference books. --Kleinzach 08:33, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
The traditionally accepted start of the Classical period is 1750 because it is the year of J.S Bach's death, this marking the end of the Baroque Period. This is consistent across almost all resources I've referenced (including Oxford) Comradeyeltsen (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It naturally goes without saying that stylistic changes are not the immediate process that the 1750 start date makes it out to be, of course. Domenico Scarlatti's sonatas are in a style that could be described as proto-classical, after all. It is true that they do not yet display every characteristic of the Classical style, but even if we were to delineate the Classical period simply by the first and last masterpieces written in that style over a continuous period, it would have to start at 1777 with Mozart's KV 271 and end at 1828 with Schubert's D 960. Double sharp (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Where does F.X.Brixi fit in?[edit]

F.X.Brixi is "somehow" missing. He is (much) more "classical" than e.g. Boccherini and even Stamitz. He is clearly important in the transition phase from Baroque to core Classical, and he also paved the way for Mozart in Prague. IMHO, he should be mentioned before e.g. A.Soler (whom I do not know, in contrast to Brixi's - but that may be my Viennese education ...). --haraldmmueller 08:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


It seems to me that Albrechtsberger should be mentioned also - first as a teacher and friend to many important classical composers (Beethoven, of course), but then also as a composer of the transition period. His works are important as an example of that playful, experimenting time - standing out are of course his concertos for Jew's harp(!), mandora and orchestra. --haraldmmueller 08:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldmmueller (talkcontribs)

"close paraphrasing" warning[edit]

There was a "close paraphrasing" warning in one section. A look at the results of the Duplication Detector report gave the following:

and art music traditions list of music students by teacher music theory music notation music patronage music rehearsal v t e music history
main article major melody metal minimalist music movement music genres music theory music traditions music videos musical forms musicians musicology notes opera orchestra
(3 words, 18 characters)
hop music pop music soul music rock music heavy metal music punk rock performance ensembles choir concert band conducting instrumentalist musical ensemble musician
original overture percussion performance piano sonata piece pitch played popular music punk rock radio ragtime record reggae rhythm rock and roll rough guide
(3 words, 15 characters)
traditional music blues country music jazz folk music popular music hip hop music pop music soul music rock music heavy metal music punk
free documentation guide is licensed guide to world guitar harmony hip hop music home improvisation influence interval isbn karaoke main article major melody
(3 words, 13 characters)

What happened is that the detector matched the huge list of links at the end of the article, especially the "Music" section, with something at Google - and voila, "hip hop music" and something else both turned up. Useless, therefore removed. --User:Haraldmmueller 07:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope. The "detector" was my human eyes.
But I thank you! As you may have noticed, I was unsure of your standards.
Now I know better.
/Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This feminist infestation needs to stop...[edit]

Why is there a seperate chapter about how marginalized and neglected women were?

The truth is probably, like even today, that most great composers are male. Whether it's talent, emotional drive or ambition that is the cause of it is an interesting topic - for a neuroscientist and a psychologist.

The ideological narrative about how women are so neglected everywhere is feminist indoctrination, and has no place in an article like this. (talk) 11:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Yes, it is an interesting topic, but for some reason you cite exactly the wrong specialists - it's simply that men are predominant and privilege other men. Have you ever worked as a composer or professional musician for some time? - if you look at the behavior of men there with open eyes, you will notice this in so many places. --User:Haraldmmueller 12:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the reason might be, this section is very bad regardless. For one, the "role of women" in the classical period is not a synonym for "role of women composers." There were very many highly respected (and highly paid) women performers, primarily singers, and this section mentions none of them. A great number of upper class women in this time period were also very important in both performing music themselves, or patronizing it. Furthermore, the entire section conflates the "classical period" with classical music in general. (I really wish we could have called this time period of music the Neoclassical period.) The quotes by the scholar talk about the 19th century atmosphere of music- where symphonic works were seen as the most elevated form of music. However, many "intellectuals" in the real classical period (late 18th century, first two decades or so of the 19th century thought that large scale vocal music (oratorio, opera) was the most elevated form of music. Clara Schumann is a romantic composer. Also, one of the sources is a blog-like post "RVA News" which looks questionable at best and has numerous innacuracies, logical fallacies (meet in the middle fallacy) and misspellings. This entire section could be replaced with: "During the classical period, women did not generally compose large scale works." This is an encyclopedia, not an essay on the reasons for gender disparities. (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Deleting the section was the right thing to do, in my opinion. There might be scope in this article to discuss the role of women composers, performers and patrons during the Classical period. The section you deleted was not even close to fulfilling that task properly. The section looks to have been copy-pasted from the "Women in classical music" section of Classical music without any apparent thought as to whether it would be an appropriate fit for this article about a discrete period in music history. Syek88 (talk) 10:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)