Talk:Sinfonia concertante

Sinfonia concertante is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Wikipedia. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre articles

Classical 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

Haydn

The section on Haydn is odd. There's mentions of the concertante-like elements Symphonies 6-8 but no mention of the late work in B flat for violin, cello, oboe and bassoon. Also, counting 6-8 as being 'sinfonia concertante' is strange. They were not labeled as such and many Haydn symphonies featured concertante elements. Furthermore, the comment about Mozart's works being more "symphonic" is also strange as K364 feels like a double concerto and K297 is of doubtful authorship. I think this section needs a rewrite. DavidRF (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate you on having decipered what that section actually meant! My first thought was that there probably were two falsely attributed sinfonie concertanti in Hoboken, which were then all included haphazardly, and the reference to Mozart made simply to assure of their superiority. In any case, those symphonies are not Haydn's contribution, so I took the liberty of completely rewriting it, adding a little bit on his competition with Pleyel (whose s.c. ought to be mentioned here as well, but I do not know them well enough), and mention the symphonies 6-8 as examples of symphonies with extensive writing for soloists. I think its okay that they are mentioned in particular, as I have often seen them singled out; I believe James Webster is especially fond of mentioning them in this way. Sirion123 (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecise definition

The "Sinfonia concertante" refers in different eras to distinct musical genres, not to a single genre transformed over time. The most consistent usage (and thus the best candidate for the subject of this article) refers to a French genre popular in Paris and several other European cultural centers (Bonn, Mannheim, Vienna, London to name a few) between about 1770 and 1830. Furthermore, it is correctly identified by the French name "symphonie concertante". Other works of a symphonic nature with soloists generally fall into more ambiguous categories, like Harold in Italy or 20th century "sinfonia concertante". The point is that using "Sinfonia concertante as a broad catch-all designation today is convenient, but ignores the term's specific meaning from the 18th and 19th centuries.

The "concerto grosso", while superficially similar, represents a completely distinct genre, and the author's comparison between the Baroque concerto grosso and the Sinfonia concertante is anachronistic and problematic, at best. The term is used incorrectly and inconsistently throughout musicological literature. The fusion of the symphonic and concerto genres was actually pioneered by the French; the German contribution is limited essentially to Mozart's Eb Sinfonia Concertante (the Italian spelling is an arbitrary publishing decision) and Beethoven's Triple Concerto, which is a symphonie concertante through and through. Consult Barry S. Brooks's authoritative articles on the genre (including his entry in the New Grove/Oxford dictionary of Music). The article as written here is very vague and in need of improvement. 24.118.58.247 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Origins?

The lead states, "The form was developed by Joseph Bo(u)logne, Chevalier de St. George." This is not mentioned again in the main article and there is no source for this (rather surprising) statement. I am tempted to remove it but will wait for comments here. Opus131 (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comments, so I'll delete the statement. Opus131 (talk) 07:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]