Talk:Classical music

Active discussions

Koji Nakano (composer) -- needs some serious helpEdit

This article is an uncited wall-of-text mess. Any help would be appreciated, even if it's merely decimating the article. Softlavender (talk) 11:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

It seeems the subject's article on the Japanese Wikipedia, jp:中野浩二, was deleted in 2011 for copyright reasons: jp:Wikipedia:削除依頼/中野浩二. The text of the article here is also very close to material at his website. WP:TNT? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Michael Bednarek. I gave the article a massive trim and re-organized it and removed the promo bits. At least now it is not an embarrassment to Wikipedia. (Also, I realize now that I posted this message on the wrong page -- I meant to post on the Wikiproject.) Softlavender (talk) 22:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Is all Classical music Art music?Edit

The beginning of the article states that "Classical music is art music...". However, I don't think all of it is. Art music which seems to refer to the repertoire performed from the "classical canon" does not typically include much of the music written in the classical tradition, but rather what is deemed by scholars to be the best from that tradition. And even then, some of the "less serious" or significant works by the major composers such as Beethoven aren't performed that much as well. The same could be said for a ton of works from that tradition which were composed for functional purposes, such as sacred music. So I want to confirm whether or not all classical music is considered Art Music, and if so, why. Lonious (talk) 03:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The term "art music" in the lead is wikilinked to a specific Wikipedia article which defines the term. It seems to include all classical music. If you disagree, it is up to you to proffer specific examples of classical music that are not "art music", and make a case for (and convince others here) why the specific examples you have chosen are not art music. Also, looking at your edit history [1], you seem to have been beating this drum for a year and a half. Please remember that talkpages are WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Softlavender (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Condensing sectionsEdit

I might be beating a very battered horse but I believe the first four sections could be modified for conciseness and clarity. For example, the section on complexity could be rolled into the discussion of "highly sophisticated forms of instrumental music." The Performance section contains more repeated information on notation, and the Characteristics section repeats "complex pieces of solo instrumental work." The Timeline section also seems to duplicate the small template under the History section. I don't have concrete suggestions for replacements right now but I would like to start thinking about it. Any opinions are welcome. Where is the muffin (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


In the timeline, should Beethoven be listed as Classical or Romantic? I'd say Romantic, but let's discuss. Noahfgodard (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Definitely Classical, IMHO. The labels are basically there because they help better understand the composer, not because of self-identification or anything like that, and Beethoven is much more readily comprehended as Classical in style – paradoxically, more so middle and late Beethoven than early Beethoven. Already in his lifetime he was understood as part of the tradition of Haydn and Mozart, and his music makes a lot more sense when analysed that way (there is a reason why the famous book The Classical Style is subtitled "Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven"). A new era does not begin just because his works are of greater length and volume (Mozart's C major quintet and symphony and Haydn's oratorios would otherwise already be good candidates for Romanticism), but when we can point to a real change in musical grammar and style, and we don't see that significantly in Beethoven. Schubert is a harder case to periodise: you could make a case that he should be moved to the Classical period on the grounds of some of the latest instrumental works (e.g. the G major quartet, C major quintet, and C major symphony), but the songs definitely point to Romantic. Some authors treat him as Classical anyway, though. Double sharp (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This is the trouble with pigeonholes: They demand an either/or decision. Beethoven is commonly regarded as a transitional composer, whose early works (e.g., the Op. 18 String Quartets) are close in style to the Classical Masters (Haydn and Mozart), whereas his later works (from, say, the Eroica Symphony forward) fit more comfortably with the Romantic era. Ideally, the Timeline should have the option of a cross-fade of colour from the one representing the Classical Period to the one representing the Romantic Era, and a corresponding caption. There are of course other composers to which the same observation applies (Du Fay, for example, who is usually regarded as transitional between the Medieval and Renaissance eras, and Monteverdi, who is transitional from the Renaissance to the Baroque). It is a question of oversimplification, which can only realistically be solved by scrapping the Timeline entirely or, at least, removing the period designations from it.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
For a sort of entry-level article, you can hardly avoid pigeonholing. Like it or not, it helps give a basic understanding. So I would argue that for transitional cases like Beethoven or Schubert, we should pick the classification that is the most useful. As Charles Rosen cogently argued back in 1971, Beethoven's music is almost always far more usefully analysed as Classical than Romantic; and if anything, it is the later works (from about op. 31 onwards) that are closer to Haydn and Mozart than the earlier ones. The earlier ones are far more like the early Romantic pieces of Hummel, Weber, and Schubert in their looser construction. Double sharp (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Return to "Classical music" page.