Composer Genre Questionable

[allegroamabile]

I happened to notice that Glazunov was categorized in the early 20th century period. I am not familiar with one work by Glazunov that I think would be considered of that period. Besides, more than half of his compositions were composed in the 19th century. I am not trying to make trouble for all of you at IMSLP, but I think it should be brought to attention.

Another thing that I would like to mention is Beethoven being categorized in the classical period. I would not be bothered by that as much but it seems that a large majority of his compositions are listed as romantic. Same goes for Glazunov.

Sincerely,
allegroamabile

[Carolus]

Good point about Glazunov. I changed the composer page (back) to Romantic. Nearly all of the individual works were categorized that way already, which means someone changed the composer page after most were added. Beethoven is a little more complicated in that regard.

[aldona]

Ahh, the eternal question about whether Beethoven was classical or romantic...

Is light a particle or a wave?

[Yagan Kiely]

<OT>

Is light a particle or a wave?

I still don't believe that something with some sort of similarity to an ether could exist.</OT>

[allegroamabile]

I found another composer that ought to be changed. Edward Elgar, early 20th century?

Anyways, Elgar is kind of infamous for being ultra-traditional.

warmest regards

[pml]

One generation's "ultra-traditional" is another's "avant garde". Richard Strauss described him as "England's first progressivist" - and given that Strauss was composing into the late 1940s, should he be categorised as "Romantic"?

PML

[steltz]

I don't know if this helps at all, but my chamber music classes have to do 4 projects in each of 3 periods. For the purposes of this classification, Strauss is in the Romantic period, regardless of when the piece was written. As one of my colleagues says, what the students learn from putting a Strauss work together are mostly Romantic concepts.

For the same reason, my clarinet students aren't allowed to present Saint-Saëns Clarinet Sonata (1921) as a 20th century work.

A truly problematic one is Beethoven, because his early and late works are in different periods, but it's easy enough to look at the opus number. For example, the op.11 Trio has to be presented as a Classical work, the late string quartets have to be presented as Romantic.

It's not always that easy, but there are some guidelines.

If I'm not mistaken, the period is put in separately for each work, isn't it? This should make it easy enough to decide for an individual piece if a composer is truly straddling styles.

[pml]

Steltz, I largely agree with you, and I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about Strauss' chamber music to argue anything to the contrary. :)

On the other hand, when you look at Strauss' operas, there is a clear stylistic divide between say, Salome and Elektra on one hand and Der Rosenkavalier and Capriccio on the other, and I would suggest his œuvre spans more than one classification - as does Elgar's - although the bulk of works under consideration would fall into one category, rather than being divided evenly.

Looking at Elgar's contemporaries - both older and newer figures such as Stanford, Parry, Bantock, Vaughan Williams, Holst - looking at these I feel most of their work stylistically falls into one category or the other in the same way, and yet a significant part of Elgar's music I feel is modernist enough to sit comfortably as "early 20th century".

PML

[steltz]

Is this then a case for entering the period individually per piece?

For example, if I do 2 searches, one "Romantic" and the other "Classical", Beethoven works come up on both, although his page says "Classical".

Or is there room for making the composer classification not restricted to just one choice?

As long as we're on the subject, how broad or limited is the composer classification meant to be? Do we stick to just 6 classifications: Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern (which by now encompasses just under 110 years)? Telemann, for example would be another "problem" composer, if I could put it that way. His transition out of the Baroque started quite early in his career, and much of his output is classified as "galant". Though not really a period, galant style is not Baroque, nor is it Classical. (Same with CPE Bach and Empfindsamkeit.)

[allegroamabile]

With all due respect, just listen to his Enigma Variations, Pomp and Circumstance Marches, The Bavarian Highlands, The Black Knight, Harmony Music for Wind Quintet, String Quartet in E minor (a little Brahmsian but too English to be Brahms), Organ Sonata, La Capricieuse (a nice one to listen to), Romance for Bassoon and Orchestra, miscellaneous piano pieces, and The Spirit of England and tell me in a straight face that Elgar is a progressive composer for his time. I am huge Elgar fan and I appreciate the Romanticism and dramatic overuse of English sound in his music.

Plus, I have been involved with various conversations/discussions at music school about how Elgar's music is conservative.

but that is pretty intresting that R. Strauss described as an English progressivist

[allegroamabile]

If you look into Beethoven's music, not only do his pieces differ in style but movements in his pieces do (e.g. Missa Solemnis, Symphony No. 4, String Quartet No. 9). To be honest with you, I would personally consider the first movement of his String Quartet No. 14, Op. 131 to be early 20th century stylistically.

He is not the only one, Carl Maria von Weber's music overlaps as well.

[Lyle Neff]

[skip -- duplicate post -- see next]

[Lyle Neff]

If one is going to make composer categories for such stylistic trends as "galant" and "Empfindsamkeit," then it follows that all of the trends in art music of the 20th century would need comparable accommodation -- Primitivism, Expressivism, Neo-Classicism, etc. (not to mention Impressionism of the late 19th c.). The lists (and arguments) would be endless, although, for now, there's not much to do with that while modern composers are in copyright.

Besides that, there are situations where a "modern" composer writes a piece deliberately and fully in an older style. The page for that particular work should reflect that stylistic period, even if the composer might not be not so designated.

[imslp]

My opinion about this, and the reason why the categories are what they are now, is that the style category really mostly exist as introduction for non-musicians who do not know music well. I know that at least I myself do not actually think about a composer in terms of historical styles; each composer has his/her own style, and that is that. I do not know if others share my opinion though.

Another reason I did not care about complete musicological precision for time periods is because in many cases not even musicologists agree about what time period a composer or work falls under. Debating such works would only lead to unproductive stalemates since even musicologists haven't come to a conclusion. Therefore, I would rather not worry about absolute precision of categorization, and just accept the popular opinion, or if none exists, something close to what the work should be categorized.

These are also the reasons I would prefer to not expand this category system.

But I'm not against mild discussion as long as it does not turn into a crusade for a certain category change (which has happened with Beethoven once I believe; someone tried to recategorize everything of his under 'Romantic' without consulting anyone).

[Carolus]

I'm surprised nobody has yet mentioned the ever-useful "Post-Romantic" category. With this, you can have your cake, and eat it too - especially for composers like Elgar, Mahler and Richard Strauss. Feldmahler makes an excellent point. The present widely-used designations are only useful as a sort of general introduction, which is probably why they should remain limited in number.