Talk:Classical period (music)/Archive 1

Article title
The title of this page seems stilted and unnatural. I'd like to think of a better one but I can't. UninvitedCompany 17:40, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * What about "Classical Period (Music)" or some such. It's still not to late to do a move and fix.Stirling Newberry 02:09, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Uninvited, and think Stirling Newberry's alternative seems reasonable. By Wikipedia formatting rules I believe you're supposed to leave noninitial words lower case where possible (hence "Classical period (music)").  Opus33 21:41, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've heard "Eighteenth Century Classicism" a lot. Just throwing it out there. -DVM

Considering that all of the other periods are labeled: PeriodName_music, I think that's the best solution. So, we should call it Classical_music. It's simple, effective, and in the opening paragraph you can explain that it's a period of music as well as a blanket term. --5:52pm PST, 2008.07.18

The blanket term "Classical music" encompasses Baroque, Romantic, and Modern classical music as well. There already is a link at the top of the Classical music page leading to Classical period music, although I do agree that this page should be named Classical_music to consistently match the Baroque and Romantic music pages. Perhaps the "Classical music" page could be renamed to "Classical music (blanket term)"? Musicguyguy (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seguing of melodic and accompanying voices
Switched is incorrect, it implies a sharp break. Haydn's innovation is the effect where it is not clear when the moment of transition occurs.Stirling Newberry 17:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)//

Seeming innovations
It's an innovation or it isn't. Stirling Newberry 17:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of recent suggestions
Stirling, I have been concerned to preserve what is good in this article without adding much content of my own. I have therefore edited with a view to clarity, style, correctness of spelling and orthodoxy of punctuation and the like, and set aside my own expertise in the content area. I pass over certain alterations that you have made, not because I think them unexceptionable, but because life is too short. I do comment on these matters, however:


 * I should also note that if you have substansive material of your own to contribute, that you should. Stirling Newberry 23:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. More than once I have put "led" in place of your "lead", as the past tense. Please do not restore "lead", since it is plain wrong English.

2. I replaced your comma with a semicolon because a comma is not apt between independent clauses (unless there is also a conjunction). Please leave the semicolon alone.

3. You comment: "it's an innovation or it isn't". Wrong. The very point being made is that though the individual features may appear to be innovations in the work, they are not. Rather, what is striking is the work's collocation of "every part of the Classical style". That's why "seeming innovations" is apt. Would you strike out "alleged" from "alleged thief", because everyone is either a thief or not?

4. You have: "During this decade Mozart would compose his most famous operas, his six late symphonies which would help redefine the genre, and a string of piano concerti which still stand at the pinnacle of these forms." I say that, because of the inelegant wording at the end, it is unclear whether you mean that the piano concerti still stand, or that the operas, symphonies, and the piano concerti still stand. Just possibly a minute weighing of contextual considerations could settle for matter for a reader; but why not say directly what is meant? That's why I put, as a rough approximation to what might be best: "Many in each of these categories are still acknowledged as among the finest of their kind." If you want the text to mean something other than this, alter it! So long as the meaning is unambiguous. The mere fact that one discerning reader cannot work out what you mean shows that restoring the original is not enough.

5. Do you understand my point about the difference between "unclear" and "indeterminate"? If you like I will explain. It would be best if you understood before restoring "unclear". The same applies to my proposed omission of "momentary".

6. I think I understand why you want "segue"; but I still think "switch" is more idiomatic in the context, and that the meaning is easier to grasp if it is used instead of "segue". I leave the point to be examined by any interested others. --Noetica 22:08, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * "Switch" is misleading, it implies an abruptness which is the opposite of the case, and it does not differentiate between Haydn's practice and previous classical practice.


 * "Seeming" is likewise, immensely poor use of language. Seeming implies that something is not what it seems. If you must add a qualifier, please find one which is not misleading.


 * I will also note for the record that I didn't restore the semicolon specifically, I simply reverted the previous round of changes because they were stylistically ugly. I don't share your extremely high opinion of your writing skills.

Stirling Newberry 22:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, I have more edifying things to do, so I'll move on. Others may judge the matters here amply laid out before them. But I would suggest that you restore the semicolon, if, as you claim, you reverted to the comma simply by carelessness. And the same for your incorrect past tense "lead", which should be restored to my correct "led". --Noetica 23:18, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well you certainly need edification, so I will happily let you move on. Stirling Newberry 04:27, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why is this on there at all thats not the classical period. -Dan

Why I don't like this title
Not much of a reason, but classical music era just doesn't ring right in my ears. Maybe because music, a noun, is being used to describe era, which is the proper function of an adjective. It's not a big deal, really, since it's clear and descriptive, and I can't think of anything better -- classical musical era is bad, classical era in music worse. I'm fine with the title until something better comes along though. Tuf-Kat 01:51, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've just gone through most of my music history books to see what the consensus is--it seems that "classical period" and "classical era" are the two most common ways the era is named (Richard Crocker, in his History of Musical Style, cops out and calls the whole era "The Extension of the Triad" but I hate his book anyway). Since Wikipedia is about more than just music, we seem to have added the extra word to distinguish between the classical era in music and the one referring to Ancient Greece and Rome.  How about Classical era (music), or Classical period (music)?  I agree with you that Classical music era is dissonant in the ears.  Antandrus 02:02, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to parenthetically disambiguate, but after some reflection, I'd prefer either proposal. I suppose period is probably better than era, since I think of eras being very long, whereas a period can be of any length. Tuf-Kat 23:00, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * And I just noticed (maybe I should read the whole talk page once in a while!) that Stirling proposed exactly this, in July 2004. Is anyone else watching this page?  How does Classical period (music) sound?  Antandrus 23:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Either option sounds good to me. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 01:50, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled on this page: I'd go for "Classical period (music)". I don't think "era" has the right ring - it sounds too long a stretch of time. Myopic Bookworm 16:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks like one of those things we discussed but never actually got around to doing. Unless I hear any strong objection in the next day or so, I'll move it.  Anyone have an opinion on this?  Antandrus  (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Restoring Haydn
I've put Haydn into the Big Three, partly because it's my impression that this is the common view, and partly based on a quick Google search:

Joseph Haydn	2,510,000  Josef Haydn	1,190,000  Ludwig van Beethoven	2,020,000  Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart	1,850,000  Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach	250,000  Muzio Clementi	109,000  Johann Ladislaus Dussek	9,420 Mozart	17,000,000  Beethoven	13,600,000  Haydn	4,350,000

Charles Rosen's book The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, which is probably the most cited general work in this area, might also be taken as support for including Haydn.

Opus33 15:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Factual Errors
Czerny was Liszt's teacher, not Hummel. Liszt's father Adam found Hummel's fees way too exhorbitant compared to Czerny's. It is also regrettable that not much is being mentioned about Dussek in this article, who was one of the true creative spirits and neglected geniuses besides Hummel that led directly and provided the 'missing link' from Mozart to Chopin, Liszt or even Schumann - DT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.186.9.2 (talk • contribs).


 * You should sign your comments, and if you want to include more material on Dussek - by all means do so. Stirling Newberry 23:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I would have to argue for his inclusion. His work certainly does show influences from other composers of his time and while his later works are essentially Romantic rather than Classical, his early works are very much the opposite. His life straddles the 1800 bench-mark almost equally, though considering the continuity of styles from the Classical and Romantic periods, it would be hard to classify his works as distinctly Classical or distinctly Romantic. So yes, he is in the transitional period between, but we can't very well create a "Beethoven period" and/or "Beethoven genre" article and remove all reference to him from the Classical and Romantic articles; he was very much a part of both periods. In addition, he's frequently included in books on the Classical period, which to me discounts any attempt at exclusion from this article. For example, right now I'm looking at my copy of Classical Music: The Era of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven by Philip G. Downs. For these reasons, therefore, I suggest that we leave him where he is. Kaelynn 05:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Kaelynn is correct; Beethoven should always be included in discussion of either the Classic or Romantic eras, just as Monteverdi belongs in both Renaissance and Baroque. Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(side note) It states that Beethoven studied in his youth under Mozart, but this is unverified, and is still greatly speculated. (User:Comp-soer8) —Preceding comment was added at 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Instrumentation of the classical Period
How come this artical has so little on the actual instruments of this time period... someone should add information like that...Is it Steak?&lt;Xiaden&#39;s Homepage&gt; 17:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Important events from the Classicl Period
If anybody has an important event post it here. I am writing a paper on it.

What did they call it?
Back then, in the past, in this era? What did they call the music, genre-wise? Instant classical music? Predictably classical music? Presumptively classical music? VolatileChemical 12:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Well, I'm guessing they called it "modern music" back then... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.134.64.243 (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Contrasts between Classical and Late Classical periods
I am a GCSE Music student, and in the syllabus these are treated as different musical eras (c. 1750-1800 and 1800-1830 respectively). However, no difference is shown between these in the 'main characteristics' section. Although I consider Orchestral Landmarks one of my weaker ares of study, I am still aware that there are a number of differences between the two, so perhaps this could be rectified by someone who knows more about it than I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.69.110 (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Complete lack of refs?!?
I am horribly surprised by the fact that this article still (being 5 years old) contains no inline citations, and very few books on the reading list. This situation needs to be rectified immeadiately. There are an enormous number of authoritative texts that discuss this period, by both modern authors and contemporary authors. I'll do what I can to make a start. --Jubilee♫ clipman 20:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a few books to Further reading. Should help us find decent citations.  --Jubilee♫ clipman  21:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)