Talk:Impromptu

While putting the year in parentheses is the standard form of disambiguation for movies in video and dvd guides, I wonder if its the standard form here. I would expect something more like Impromptu (movie), but given that their are two impromptu movies, Impromptu (movie, 1991) seems a litttle clunky. I don't know, I'm just asking. 141.217.70.178 15:50, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Character of impromptu described in article often fails to match actual impromptus.
I find a bit of a problem with this article: it seems to imply strongly that most impromptus are free-form compositions, as suggested by the idea of spontaneous improvisation, but in fact some of the best-known impromptus mentioned in the article appear to be perfectly orthodox textbook forms, such as those by Chopin and Schubert. For instance, most of those by Chopin are in a perfectly orthodox ternary form, with the individual sections also structured in quite an orthodox manner for an individual section of any piece. Similarly for many of the Schubert Impromptus: one is a set of variations, with nothing obviously unusual from a structural point of view, and at least some others are in a normal ternary form. I don't see anything free-form about these pieces.

I feel the article should mention this, and (if an explanation can be found) explain why there is the discrepancy between the free-form suggested by the title "impromptu" and the fact that many impromptus are in fact perfectly orthodox in form. In short, is it known why so many composers chose the title "Impromptu" when their pieces are quite orthodox in form and not at all suggestive of improvisation? But I do not know of actual sources that explicitly discuss this, to cite, so I cannot amend the article myself. M.J.E. (talk) 15:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)