Talk:Neoromanticism (music)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Romanticism?

Seems like the content of this article has nothing to do with the information provided in the romantic music article. There are cites to composers like George Rochberg, Nicholas Maw, David Del Tredici y John Corigliano. Someone could make it clear? Thanks, --Jdiazch 15:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just an innacurate article, in my humble opinion. 19th century German music is romantic. The stuff that leaks into the 20th is post-romantic. Neo-Romanticism, to the best of my understanding, comes around in the 1970's/80's, as a rebirth of "goal oriented music", such as the minimalism of John Coolidge Adams, Crumb, et. al.

I recommend a full re-write, or failing that, deletion.Giamberardino 05:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very inclined to agree - to say that neo-Romanticism was primarily developed in France, and to imply this was the work of Poulenc and Sauguet, is plain nonsense. Far more accurate, IMHO, to say that the likes of Mahler, Rachmaninov, Vaughan Williams and even early Schoenberg were exemplifying late-Romanticism. I'll start a radical rewrite. Alfietucker (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution: The term "neo-romanticism" has been applied in music criticism to a wide variety of repertories (as the current article only vaguely indiates). Your opinion about Mahler, etc. being "late Romantics" is merely a terminological distinction from those writers who categorize Romanticism as extending to about 1860 (attempting to follow art historians), and designate later 19th- and early 20th-century composers who extended the style as "neo-Romantic". Then there is the use of the term for Schoenberg and his like-minded contemporaries, followed by the adherents to Sibelius's symphonic manner, in the 1920s and onward (Howard Hanson, etc.), right down to the "postmodern" neo-romantics of the German Neue Einfachheit composers of the late 1970s and early 1980s. It seems to me that all of these uses of the term ought to be covered in the article, no matter what our personal opinions of their appropriateness may be.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 02:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thank you for the courteous way you have expressed it. By all means, I can understand the need to explain where the term has been used by other high-profile writers to mean other things. However I think in many cases it should to be pointed out that these definitions were from a particular historic perspective and may only confuse the issue if simply presented without such comment. From today's perspective, neo-Romanticism (or neo-Romantics, as some sources have it) is more usually applied to such late 20th-century composers as Corigliano and Maw, and with very good reason IMHO. Alfietucker (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Barber is pretty obviously the most famous American Neo-romantic composer and his work has generally gotten more respect, and performances, than Virgil Thomson's which is more associated with French modernism (Satie, Poulenc, etc.) Pascalulu88 (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do keep in mind that all definitions are from particular historical perspectives, and that this does not necessarily correlate with the period in which those definitions were written. I think that younger writers today (and particularly journalists) are likely to adopt the view that you mention, certainly; writers of my generation, and historians with a broader perspective have been accustomed to using the term to refer to composers from much earlier in the 20th century, and the historians to which I (vaguely) referred who wish to use the term to refer to "late Romantic music" (by your preference) are in fact revisionist historians of fairly recent vintage. (I really must do a little digging and provide some sources).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm a bit confused by your final point, which appears to read that certain revisionist historians would prefer the term neo-Romanticism to be used on what I would call late Romantic music (eg Mahler, Elgar, Rachmaninov etc). Is that what you mean? I ask because it seems to contradict the first part of your reply. Alfietucker (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I have not been clear, but the very point of my first statement is what I meant to clarify by my last remark: writings about an earlier period of music history do not necessarily stem from that period, or from nearer to that period than other sources discussing more recent trends. Does that help, or have I just made things worse?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo

The music of Wagner, Liszt and Mahler "strongly influence" the goth subculture. How interesting.... 84.168.77.218 20:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Neoromanticism (music). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]