Talk:Classical music/Archive 8

What is wrong with this?
Classical music is broad enough to display a large influence on most social related musical narrative; including:
 * Religious music: like gregorian chant and other choral music, church instruments like the organ and moralistic opera plays and music theater like Richard Wagners parsifal.
 * Dansmusic: from the Baroque period was often called a suite, though the meaning of the name was later changed. Well known dances from this period are the Bourrée, Sarabande and the Minuet. A more artistic and theatrical vorm of dance is ballet; divided in three types called classical, neoclassical and contemporary ballet. Modern folkish dances that closely influenced the classical tradition are the waltz and the polka and many composers have written dances in these forms including Frédéric Chopin, and other composers of folkish music have become classics like Johann Strauss II.
 * Narative music or the musical tale: Combining music with literature, theater and poetry has been done since classical greece and it was this culture that influenced rennaissance Europe to re-create this foursome and artistic combination calling it opera or operatic theater. Musical genre's closer to pure music are the lieder or romantic song, the medieval music of the bards, music of common theater and sometimes purely instrumental works can be placed in this catagory; see the piano works by Robert Schumann.
 * Abstract music: Music without a clear narative or social function; but which still has the force to entertain or losen emotions, feeling or enjoyment from a person. Because of the nature of language most of these musical constructions are not vocal, but instrumental. Examples are the works of Bach and Brahms the music of both composers suggest emotions and images, but not a story or a purpose.
 * Avant-garde or Experimental music: Music with the purpose of innovation and developing new musical ideas. Most excellent composers working within this context do not become populare because they move away from the the populare ear and taste. Exceptions are the composers Johann Sebastian Bach, Richard Wagner and Olivier Messiaen.

85.146.24.65 (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It may be interesting in some way, but it suffers from several problems:
 * I have no idea what "social related music narrative" is.
 * It is not written very well (grammar and spelling problems abound). If English is not your first language, I'll be happy to work with you improve the writing to the point where at least I think it might be usable.  (In order to do that, we'll need to understand what you're trying to communicate, though.  See previous bullet.)
 * The section you put it in is "Characteristics". The content does not (to me) describe characteristics of classical music. If you are trying to describe different types of classical music (or something else), perhaps a new section heading would be appropriate.
 * Magicpiano (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, delete it. This is far to academic for wikipedia. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC) But don't delete this from the talk page because it might be interesting to other people who will use some of the subjects i wrote about, in this article piece. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing material is deleted from Talk pages. -- Klein zach  03:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will delete it from the article page. If someone can find a better place than where it is now, great. Magicpiano (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics
Much of this article especially the following paragraph in the characteristics section sounds very much like a person speaking how he/she likes classical music but is tired of hearing stereotypes like 'it is for snobby people'. The tone of the article takes a very personal and subjective view. It is not encyclopedic as an encyclopedia should sound objective. I suggest a revision. I bolded the sections that were particullary bad. Of course there are no sources cited for any of these claims either.

"Vague descriptions are plentiful, such as describing classical music as anything that "lasts a long time," a statement made rather moot when one considers contemporary composers who are described as "classical;" or music that has certain instruments like violins, which are also found in bluegrass music, Broadway music, and other genres; or "relaxing" or "background" music for affluent people, descriptions which are probably only accurate when describing court music from the Baroque and Classical periods; indeed, many people do not find modern or avant-garde composers and works such as Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima by Krzysztof Penderecki or Black Angels by George Crumb to be very relaxing or "snobby.""

I suggest possibly removing this kind of language and adding a section about sterotypes, however that would not be neccesary.

--Spencer Firchau (talk) 00:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This article could indeed do with a lot of improvement, but it's a tough undertaking, especially if this is your first Wikipedia edit. What reference books do you have to refer to, may I ask? -- Klein zach  04:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, Spencer! Thanks for your input for the article. Remember that editors are encouraged to be bold when editing - when you see a problem, just go ahead and fix it if you can. By no means are "reference books" required to improve an article. I've now emoved the bolded text. Jafeluv (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Nationalism and whatnot
"There was also a rise within Europe, ... as composers such as Edvard Grieg, Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, and Antonín Dvořák echoed traditional music of their homelands in their compositions."

I don't think Rimsky-Korsakov was European. But I don't know how to change the sentence and make it sound good. Should this mention all of Могучая кучка instead of just one of them? I mean, their whole point was to make nationalistic music, and it seems kind of silly to single out one just one. 128.194.39.250 (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Link
Could http://www.classicalmusichomepage.com be added to the list of URLs? It is a great resource with classical music news, reviews, jobs and lots of reference materials. Thanks. Ndifrancesco (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Instrumentation Minor Cleanup
"such as symphony orchestras, which often contain as many as 5 different types of string instruments (violins, violas, cellos, double basses and harp); 7 or more types of woodwind instruments; 4 types of brass instrument; and many percussion instruments, sometimes as many as 10 different types."

The repetition of type numbers should be kept to a minimum. Perhaps a more detailed view of each section should be put in place? At the very least, "4 types of brass" and "as many as 10 different types" hardly describe what Classical Music has been written for.

"Both classical and popular musicians have experimented in recent decades with electronic instruments such as the synthesizer, electric and digital techniques such as the use of sampled or computer-generated sounds, and the sounds of instruments from other cultures such as the gamelan."

True, musicians have experimented with these, but wouldn't this fall under the scope of modern music, not classical? Any opinions? ClarinetistJuan (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
This article mentions that by the late 1900s Classical music was on the wane. Does this mean 1909? Or the late 20th century? I think it would be more instructive to replace 1900s with 20th century. Tiberius Curtainsmith (talk) 00:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of composers
the timeline is hideous 82.194.62.200 (talk) 03:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Classical composers timeline

This timeline is so typographically ugly that I think it's best to remove it altogether. In any case I'm taking it off the article for the present. Comments? -- Klein zach  01:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you help me with this timeline? I wanted to add messiaen but it went wrong. See the history to see what i mean. 85.146.24.65 (talk) 03:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The timeline is ugly, but it was helpful. I feel strongly that removing it was a mistake, and I think it should be reinstated. If no one disagrees with me, I'm going to put it back. 64.122.56.143 (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. As the previous person said it's hideous. Of course if you can fix it that would be excellent, but in its present form it discredits the encyclopedia. Thanks. -- Klein zach  03:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have the knowledge to fix it, otherwise I would. Although Kleinzach makes a good point about the unattractiveness of the timeline, it isn't doing anyone any good by taking it down. I specifically come to this entry to look at that timeline, and frequently, as it's useful to see how the lifetimes of different composers overlap. Anyway, I'd like to get some feedback on this issue. It definitely needs improvement, but the question is, do we leave it up in its current state until it's modified? Or do we take it down completely? I think this should be decided based on more than the opinion of two people. 64.122.56.143 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I put the time line back up again since no one's made it better yet. I like the timeline, ugly or not. It's helpful. -- Sarah 97.116.23.44 (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you tell me what it is helpful for? That way we can think of the best way to fix it. -- Klein zach  07:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll bite. It's useful as a guide to people who aren't familiar with classical music, and don't understand the temporal relationships between various composers and composition styles (information I don't think is readily apparent elsewhere in this article).  I grew up immersed in the stuff, and I'm sometimes surprised by who was writing what when (and by how much I don't know...).
 * That said, should this be replaced by Timeline_Classical_Composers_Famous, also seen in List of classical music composers? (The main difference is that it only covers Renaissance to Romantic.) Alternatively, it could be removed, and replaced by a further (or similar template) pointing to the composer lists at an appropriate place.  Magic ♪piano 14:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A graphic showing temporal relationships could be worthwhile. Unfortunately the present one is typographically so inept. and in any case so truncated, that I don't think anything meaningful can be seen. Many minor names are included: Harant, Torelli, Bortniansky etc. We are also up against the width of the screen which makes large graphics difficult to use. I agree Timeline_Classical_Composers_Famous is preferable to the one at the top of the page. -- Klein zach  04:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think there is enough meaningful information within the graph to justify its existence, ugly though it is (e.g. one can see that Beethoven was born before Mozart died). I am in complete agreement with Kleinzach that this timeline can be greatly improved; however, this is not my area of expertise, so I don't think I can help with the creation of a new or improved graph.64.122.56.143 (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As I see it, the problem is that there are too many names. I did a bit of hunting online for a good timeline, but I couldn't find one. The best ones to me are timelines like http://www.danmansmusic.com/composers.htm which have far too many names to be displayed graphically.


 * Therefore, I think we should re-do the timeline so that there are only about 30 or so major composers (maybe chosen by a poll) and then somehow make the timeline harder to change or even lock it. I don't know enough about Wikipedia to know how to lock this, whether it can be locked, or whether it is something that is lock-worthy; maybe locking is going too far and is violating Wikipedia's core principles. I think people keep adding one or two names each, thinking that they are being helpful, when actually the composers they are adding are far too minor for this timeline. Squandermania (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that would be a way forward. What do other people think? -- Klein zach  03:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This timeline is absurdly incomplete and suspiciously biased and I wonder why. And I don't say about absence of some composer more or less important. I'm saying about trascendental importance of composer for the development of classical music. For example: The 3 great influential teachers and pioneers of organ music were Antonio de Cabezón, Jan Pieterszoon Sweelinck & Girolamo Frescobaldi. Cabezón is the only that doesn't appear. The Renaissance Giants (Byrd, Josquin, Palestrina, Tallis & Victoria) neither Victoria nor Tallis are showed. The most important composer of Medieval Age music and the author of the earliest known complete setting of the Ordinary Mass Guillaume de Machaut is ignored. Is more important for classical music Gerald Palm, Harry Partch or Stockhausen than Victoria? Absolutely not. Certainly ridiculous. Bizarre 06:22, 18 March 2009 88.3.253.46

Firstly, I think the timeline should stay - it is a key part of the article. Though flawed it is a great start and my thanks go to whoever introduced it. Classical music is essentially about classical composers and this is the only part of the article that deals with composers at any length. It's also really good to put them in temporal context and to have a graphic in such a text-heavy article. Secondly, the smudgy typeface is indeed bad. I wish I knew how to fix it. Surely someone on wikipedia has the technical knowledge. Also, the key to periods should be raised by a few lines as a matter of urgency.

It seems to me there is a bias towards including obscure and/or difficult composers whom the average lover of classical music is unlikely to know or care about. The names I would cut out are: Harant, Salieri, Bortniansky, Field, Czerny, Offenbach, Palm, Ysaye, Vierne, Partch, Henze, Birtwistle, Riley, La Monte Young, Crumb. No doubt, these have their ardent supporters, but (Offenbach aside) when is the last time you heard their music?

There are some obvious omissions from the list: Soler, Couperin, Boccherini, Borodin, Sibelius, Rodrigo, R. Strauss, Resphigi, Granados and de Falla. However, before we all pitch in with our favourite neglected composer, I suggest that we frame some criteria for inclusion, eg known to most people interested in classical music, of historical importance, popularity, and held in esteem by professional musicians. This last is the least important, as some composers seem to write for the benefit of other composers.

Also, the inclusion of both Shoenberg and Vaughan Williams as "modern" makes the label meaningless. Soler97 (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved the legend up (which worked OK) and increased the font size (which is not so good because now the names overlap in places). If you think I've made it worse, please revert it at template:Classical composers timeline. Soler97 is right that we need to come up with some criteria, then a list of composers, then fit them to the template. Bluewave (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO this has bot technical and content problems and it may help to look at these separately. The design certainly can't support the amount of information that has been crammed into it. Maybe we should find someone who can make a different kind of graphic, maybe a jpeg? -- Klein zach  10:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I think that before we embark on redesigning the template, though, we need to agree the list of composers. It has already been suggested that we apply some criteria for inclusion. Soler97 suggested the criteria of: known to most people interested in classical music, of historical importance, popularity, and held in esteem by professional musicians. It has also been suggested that we reduce the total number (Squandermania suggests 30). I'd agree with this...I think the purpose of the timeline is to give a rough outline that is useful to the non-expert, rather than giving an exhaustive list. Anyone like to suggest a list? Bluewave (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The present list has about 100 names. Perhaps reducing to 30 is overambitious? I'd suggest 50 or 60. -- Klein zach  11:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you suggest your list of 50 or 60 names and see what people think? Bluewave (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh...and the other criterion that we should consider is getting a reasonably even spread across the timeline (which may be difficult as a lot of the currently "popular" composers are in the Romantic period. Bluewave (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll do my list. Coming up shortly . . .-- Klein zach  11:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

List of 60 composers
Here is my suggested list of the 60 main composers:

*François Couperin
 * Hildegard of Bingen
 * Johannes Ockeghem
 * Josquin Des Prez
 * Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina
 * Claudio Monteverdi
 * Heinrich Schütz
 * Jean-Baptiste Lully
 * Dieterich Buxtehude
 * Arcangelo Corelli
 * Henry Purcell
 * Antonio Vivaldi
 * Georg Philipp Telemann
 * Jean-Philippe Rameau

*Antonio Soler *Domenico Scarlatti
 * Johann Sebastian Bach
 * George Frideric Handel

*Johann Christian Bach
 * Christoph Willibald Gluck
 * Joseph Haydn
 * Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
 * Ludwig van Beethoven
 * Carl Maria von Weber
 * Gioachino Rossini
 * Franz Schubert
 * Hector Berlioz
 * Felix Mendelssohn
 * Frederic Chopin
 * Robert Schumann
 * Franz Liszt

*Jacques Offenbach
 * Richard Wagner
 * Giuseppe Verdi

*Anton Bruckner *Camille Saint-Saëns *Edvard Grieg *Jean Sibelius
 * Johannes Brahms
 * Georges Bizet
 * Modest Mussorgsky
 * Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky
 * Antonín Dvořák
 * Giacomo Puccini
 * Gustav Mahler

*Enrique Granados

*Manuel de Falla *Anton Webern
 * Claude Debussy
 * Sergei Rachmaninoff
 * Arnold Schönberg
 * Alban Berg

*Leoš Janáček *Kurt Weill *John Cage *Hans Werner Henze
 * Maurice Ravel
 * Richard Strauss
 * Béla Bartók
 * Igor Stravinsky
 * Sergei Prokofiev
 * Dmitri Shostakovich
 * Olivier Messiaen
 * Benjamin Britten
 * Karlheinz Stockhausen
 * Arvo Pärt
 * Steve Reich
 * Philip Glass
 * John Adams (composer)

-- Klein zach  12:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done! No doubt, everyone will now want to add their own favourites to the list! I'm disappointed not to see Tallis, Byrd or Dowland on the list, but I wouldn't want to remove, say, Monteverdi or Schütz to make space for them. [And maybe my judgement is clouded by the fact that I'm just off to play some Tallis, Byrd and Dowland with a Viol consort!] Bluewave (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I can suggest a process? Can we invite people to strikeout any names that they think are not essential, and only if desperate (!) add names. That way I hope we may end up with a more or less 'top 50'. Thanks. -- Klein zach  00:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the above list is good - there are no glaring omissions. However, I have a few suggestions for deletions and additions (in bold). Maybe we should aim for about 70? Soler97 (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the number depends on Bluewave. How many legible names can be fitted into the new graphic? -- Klein zach  04:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is not so much with the number of names as with the width of the columns. Maybe we should split the table into two, as that would remove all the formatting problems? Soler97 (talk) 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Splitting it has already been tried. Let's see what Bluewave says — assuming he is willing to do the graphic. -- Klein zach  09:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think about the names I added? I think that at least Scarlatti and Sibelius should not be left out. Soler97 (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, the problem isn't the list of names. Anyone can compile a list easily enough. The problem is the graphic. -- Klein zach  10:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If we put the five composers before Dunstaple into a separate box then we'd have room to burn. The problem is the combination of the long time-frame of 900 years and the bunching up of names in the last quarter of the period. In fact, in your new list it is only the first three names that cause the whole problem. The first three names in your list cause the other 57 to be bunched up. Hence I am very much in favour of splitting off the names before 1500. What do other people think? Soler97 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Bluewave doesn't seem to be around now. Why not do an example in your own userspace? -- Klein zach  13:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (Back now!) Cutting off the first 5 names would make it begin at 1400, wouldn't it? That looks practical. Cutting at 1500 would remove the greatest composer who's ever lived ;-) [That's Josquin, by the way.] I'm happy to have a go at a new graphic but was going to leave it at least for a few days for other people to comment. If anyone else wants to have a go instead, please feel free. Bluewave (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Despite what I just said, I tried putting the new list into the old template, just to see what the spread looks like....I can see the argument for ditching the pre-1500 ones! Bluewave (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the same thing cut off at 1500:

I slightly changed where the column breaks are too. Bluewave (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks really good to me. I prefer a 1500 cut-off, but the other one is also good. Let's leave this up for a few days and see what other people think. Soler97 (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks better than I expected. Can I make three suggestions? 1. Can we cut off the unused grey area on the right? This will reduce the width of the graphic, and also make it clearer that some composers are still living. 2. Can we delete the initials from the names (spelling out the ambiguous ones: Richard Strauss, John Adams, Domenico Scarlatti) as the initials are redundant (and not used elsewhere in the encyclopedia). 3. Make one 'Post-modernist' group replacing Avant-garde and Minimalist? -- Klein zach  22:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. The problem with the 1500 cut off is that it looks as though J Des Prez was born in 1500. -- Klein  zach  23:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I just had another idea - what about making it a single long table? Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soler97 Soler97 (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think a long single time line works — unless the table is very wide and that is not an option here. -- Klein zach  23:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the long vertical table is not so good. I think we can find a number of worthwhile but minor improvements to make to the 1500-2000 timeline above, such as those mentioned above. At this point I think we need to commit to the architecture ie do we go with the table above? Soler97 (talk) 23:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Every time I look at the present timeline, I think "why"? Not only does it look horrible (even on my wide screen high def monitor, lines over lap), it also serves no real purpose, IMO. People are bound to argue forever about who should be there (Walther von der Vogelweide wasn't even a musician, primarily: he was a poet); all of the composers have been arbritarily placed into "Categories" even though many (eg CPE Bach, Beethoven, Rachmaninov, Adams) could be in several of the other categories; many don't even appear to be notable as composers (Jan Gerard Palm, Eugène Ysaÿe). The proposed replacements are better (though they omit the Medieval composers), but the question remains: why? At least, why include it on the main page? Why not put it on a separate page where it could be easliy made to fit even with 1000 composers, if you make the timeline go down rather than across. --Jubilee♫ clipman 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This template is only used here for this article. But Jubilee♫ has a good point: why use it at all? I certainly won't object if it is deleted. -- Klein zach  01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the changes suggested by Kleinzach (surnames only; cut off right; use of "post-modernist"). However, I, too, won't object to deletion. Bluewave (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. it's improving . . . anyway let's hear what other people think. Should we persevere with it, or give up and just delete it? -- Klein zach  12:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I still say either delete or move to a subpage. However, I note Kleinzach originally included Cage then removed him: surely he almost above all the other C20ths needs to be included, if the list stays?  Alongside Stravinsky and Schoeberg, he is probably one of the most important composers of all time.  FWIW, I would also make sure the following are included: (Perotin, Machaut, DuFay), Josquin Des Prez [use the full name: no-one knows him as "Des Prez"], Palestrina, Monteverdi, Rameau, JS Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, R Schumann, Liszt, Wagner, Verdi, Rimsky-Korsakoff, Debussy and Ravel.  You'll notice obvious gaps (Handel, Chopin, Tchaikovsky etc) but these will no doubt be there anyway.  The unbracketed names I suggested are all undeniably among the most important and influential of composers.  Those in brackets are the most visable or best known composers of imporant schools prior to 1500 and will be dropped if the list starts at 1500.  It is impossible to assess composers who started writing after 1960 yet: they are, first,  mostly still active and, second, too recent for unbiased opinion.  After all, Louis Spohr was once thought to be more important than Beethoven, JS Bach was highly revered as an organist in his lifetime but almost unknown as a composer (unlike JC and CPE), and, similarly. Liszt was far better known as as a wizz pianist that a composer of serious music in his time.  But then, others will probably disagree with my assessment: another reason to avoid the whole affair and drop the list...  --Jubilee♫ clipman  23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIW I didn't cut Cage, that was someone else. (Bit horrified that Schubert isn't at the top table, shudder, shudder. ) Anyway this is becoming like a radio programme game. I'm going to remove the timeline from the article and see if that takes us forward. Thanks to all contestants! -- Klein zach  00:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, Cage was there! Anyway, I hope to God that no-one sees fit to revert you (again)...  Good night and thanks for listening to What's my melodic line?  (BTW, I forgot Brahms, too...)  --Jubilee♫ clipman  05:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone object to making it a sub-page? I don't want to start a major discussion but I was intrigued by the statement that Cage is "probably one of the most important composers of all time". I'm curious how this statement can be substantiated. His music is hardly ever played and he is mainly remembered for a Duchamp-style gesture, the silence.Soler97 (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sub-page: I suggested that and think it is the best compromise. John Cage: he might be remembered almost exclusively for 4′33″ (of audience noise, traffic noise, animal noises, ie every sound happening around the performance - not "silence"), but his use of chance (especially utilizing the I Chang), his "happenings", his electroacoustic music and his prepared instruments were all highly influential and major contributions to the art.  His influence is yet to be fully appreciated and assessed, IMO. --Jubilee♫ clipman  13:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added the 1400 version of the time-line as a sub-page of the article. Any comments? Soler97 (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I am going to comment on the talk page of the new subpage, see Talk:Classical composers time-line. -- Klein zach  14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

All further discussion of the time line is now at Talk:Classical composers time-line. Soler97 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)