Talk:History of sonata form

Clean-up
No references ... and it sometimes seems as if we drift into the 'hisotry of the sonata' as opposed to the history of sonata form. Also we seem to get sidetracked on questions like "what exactly is the romantic era" ... material ok, but surely belongs somewhere else. Lol &mdash; Stumps 11:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Undone reversion of "markers" copy edit

 * By requiring that harmony move with the themes, 19th century sonata form imposed a kind of discipline on composers, and also provided markers as indicators for the audience where in the course of the formal musical argument by following the appearance of recognizable melodies. However, the sonata form, as an inherited "mold", also created a kind of tension for Romantic composers: the desire to combine poetical expression and academic rigor that were often seen as being in conflict.


 * vs.


 * By requiring that harmony move with the themes, 19th-century sonata form imposed a kind of discipline on composers, and also allowed audiences to comprehend the music by following the appearance of recognizable melodies. However, the sonata form, as an inherited "mold", also created a kind of tension for Romantic composers: the desire to combine poetical expression and academic rigor, which were often seen as being in conflict.

The second is preferable because "formal musical argument" is undefined, "markers" is poorly defined, and the grammar of the entire sentence is incomplete. The second version says roughly the same thing as the first could (if it happened to be complete sentence), and does so more succinctly. The other change from "that" to "which" is grammatical. If "that" were to appear there, it should at least have a "the" in front of "poetical expression and academic rigor", but my preference is to the never version. - Rainwarrior 22:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The second version is risably inaccurate. Previous works in sonata form (eg Haydn) hadn't been incomprehensible to audiences. "Marker" is "something used to identify position", and as such is used in discussions of music theory. See for example "Tonal Markers, Melodic Patterns, and Musicianship Training Part I: Rhythm Reduction," Laurdella Foulkes-Levy Stirling Newberry 10:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing
Once again I note that noetic and rainwater are engaged in inaccurate POV pushing and gang reverting. Both of these are against policy. It is not our job to decide how many movements are in a sonata or whether sonata form applies to one movement type (traditional), several (much of modern musicology), or the entire work (which is a recurrant usage in both criticism and in reference works). It is also not our job to decide whether single movement sonatas are sonatas or not, but to document the arguments and who said what. Liszt believed in one movement sonata forms, and he's written more great work that the both of you and is a more important POV. Scriabin believed in one movement sonatas, as have others. It is not our job to pick a POV and push it, but to document the range of POVs and note which ones are the most prevelant and accepted in usage. In science it is different where there is a much sharper line between what is scientifically tenable and what is opinion or common misapprehension, but in the arts it is not so.

Stirling Newberry 13:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to date made one edit to this article, for the reasons outlined above. What POV am I pushing? There is no point of view in that edit, it is more or less a grammatical improvement which I thought was wrongly reverted by you. - Rainwarrior 23:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Lying on edit summaries
I am also protesting Noetica's lying on an edit summary. I did not revert Noetica's previous edit, but offered substantially different language in order to find a middle road. Lying on edit summaries is expressly against wikipedia rules. I would appreciate it if Rainwarrior cease to engage in this behavior. - Stirling Newberry 13:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Obviously, no one is reading this except the people involved, and obviously the situation looks very different than you describe to bothe myself and Noetica. If you would like to talk out specific changes, let's talk them out, but refusing to allow others to copy-edit your work and responding to it with wild accusations and rampant reversion isn't any way to improve an article. If you lack the ability to discuss the specifics of these edits and argue their validity, then you should either refrain from editing, or if you cannot then at least initiate some sort of RFC. Complaining about vague issues in the edit history and talk pages will get you nowhere. - Rainwarrior 23:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, I was going to ignore this. Truly! But when I look through the edit summaries, I can't see where I do anything at all resembling "lying on an edit summary". Where do I do that? I am ready to move on. But honestly, it seems reasonable for me to request that this charge of lying be withdrawn forthwith. It is a strident and weighty accusation, and one that leaves me quite mystified! – Noetica 13:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

General comment
I've been asked to have a look at this and other articles related to sonata, since some conflict has developed.

The best way to proceed -- and forgive me for being short, and a little schoolmarmy -- is to ignore, as best as possible, anything that seems like a personal attack, and focus on the article issues. We can all start with the two versions in the latest revert war. They're not that far apart. Antandrus (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Beethoven
I can understand that although Beethoven seems more Romantic than Classical in his works, his early works show at least some mastery of the Classical style. However, his middle to late works have more in common with those of the early Romantics, among them Paganini, Weber, Schubert, and Schumann, than they do with the works of CPE Bach, Gluck, Haydn, and Mozart. I suggest that if possible, we should at least come up with a more objective approach to Beethoven and his works. I tried including Beethoven more in the early Romantic period, which is in his proper place, but if any of you have the time and effort to make things clearer and more consistent, I strongly suggest that you users put it in. Classicalfan2 (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Others may well have a more intelligent response, but I suspect that the general response you will receive is that classical is meant in both idiomatic and structural terms. This has been well-explored by scholars like Charles Rosen. Eusebeus (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is only one source for the entire wikipedia article, and although the link works, it is outdated. There is only one reference in the article, making the majority of information covered not sourced. — Devinweckstein (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2nd preceding paragraph above is specious. Musicologist Charles Rosen in his book "The Classical Style: Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven," considers Beethoven a fully Classical composer, not someone with "some mastery" of the Classical Style. Beethoven was actually critical of the early Romantics for their expanded harmonies and loosening of formal structure and did not at all identify with their practices. His work is a continual effort to realize and expand the possibilities within Classical style. His life's example may have defined the Romantic artist as a solitary tragic figure who struggled against fate, but this is distinct and different from the formal content of his music, which was Classical throughout. If it be said that Beethoven expressed Romantic-type emotional content, this is also true of some of the last works of Mozart, whom no one would describe as a Romantic composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:C400:E:596D:4D7B:33DE:849A (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)