# Timeline - Major Composers - Question



## WalterJ (Dec 24, 2007)

I came across a book I forgot I had “Pocket Music Dictionary” and it had a timeline in it of composers by era and I was wondering how these era lines up with what others think. Also some appear to overlap

Middle ages 1250 – 1450
Renaissance 1450 – 1600
Baroque 1600 – 1750
Preclassical 1740 – 1790
Classical 1770 – 1830 
Romantic 1820 – 1910
Modern 1900 – 2000

And of course it puts composers in above these dates by date of birth and death.

This of course then puts Mozart between preclassical and classical and Telemann in Baroque and preclassical and Bach in Baroque and Beethoven in Classical and so on for all composers.

First does this sound right and second why would this be important (other than for history and historical categorization purposes)?

Or have I just opened a can of worms I will regret for a long time to come?


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

I'll start with your second question.

Categorization is useful because there are certain generalities that can be drawn about each era. For example, we can usefully say that in the middle ages, melody was the main focus, composed based on modes. Harmony, where it occured, was chiefly unisons, octaves, and fifths, with the very occasional third (major or minor) thrown in to create "dissonance..." etc. By using such categories, when we talk about music of a specific composer, we don't have to reiterate the musical idioms of the age; we can merely state that "Tomás Luis de Victoria was a Spanish composer of the Renaissance era" as a kind of shorthand, and from there perhaps talk about where he diverged from the musical language of his day.

As for the first question: Those dates sound about right, although I've rarely seen reference to a "preclassical" era (I'd fold that into Classical), and once you get to Beethoven and beyond I'd say there is considerably more overlap. Also, as a matter of personal preference, I tend to split the Romantic era into two largely overlapping categories of "classical Romatic" (e.g. Mendelssohn, Brahms) and "progressive Romantic" (Liszt, Wagner, Dvorak), where the difference is more determined by style than chronology.

In assigning individual composers to these eras, there must necessarily be a degree of flexibility. Beethoven ushered in the Romantic era, yet he lived almost entirely in the chronological Classical era. As with almost any art form, there will be some at the creative forefront who have more in common with the era to follow. Conversely, near the beginning you will always have some who look back to a "golden age" and attempt to recreate it rather than follow what they may see as a trend that bastardizes their art.

It's an interesting question, and one that has been around for at least a century. I doubt a definitive answer will be soon forthcoming...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I could see a pre-classical category - a transitional period when Style Galant was overtaking counterpoint as the hippest thing. It would cover everything from C.P.E. Bach through Johann Stamitz and the Mannheim school. It would be music that has all the frou-frou ornamentation of baroque, but without quite so much emphasis on counterpoint. My least favorite time in music history currently.

I wonder what period we are in now? [Please don't tell me "post-modern."  ]


----------



## phoenixshade (Dec 9, 2008)

Weston said:


> I wonder what period we are in now? [Please don't tell me "post-modern."  ]


Or perhaps "modern and post-modern at the same time..." 

(If you read a certain page I linked in an earlier post, you'll get the joke...)


----------



## WalterJ (Dec 24, 2007)

phoenixshade said:


> I'll start with your second question.
> 
> Categorization is useful because there are certain generalities that can be drawn about each era. For example, we can usefully say that in the middle ages, melody was the main focus, composed based on modes. Harmony, where it occured, was chiefly unisons, octaves, and fifths, with the very occasional third (major or minor) thrown in to create "dissonance..." etc. By using such categories, when we talk about music of a specific composer, we don't have to reiterate the musical idioms of the age; we can merely state that "Tomás Luis de Victoria was a Spanish composer of the Renaissance era" as a kind of shorthand, and from there perhaps talk about where he diverged from the musical language of his day.
> 
> ...


Thank You that was very informative



Weston said:


> I could see a pre-classical category - a transitional period when Style Galant was overtaking counterpoint as the hippest thing. It would cover everything from C.P.E. Bach through Johann Stamitz and the Mannheim school. It would be music that has all the frou-frou ornamentation of baroque, but without quite so much emphasis on counterpoint. My least favorite time in music history currently.
> 
> I wonder what period we are in now? [Please don't tell me "post-modern."  ]


Thanks and as to your question... I can admit here and unequivocally state beyond any shadow of doubt that I have absolutely no idea


----------



## Kuhlau (Oct 1, 2008)

The list of periods in art music (beginning, of course, with sacred music) that _I've_ always used goes like this:

1100-1300 - *Gothic* [Composers include: Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179), Perotin Magnus (c.1160-1240) and Adam de la Halle (c.1235-c.1288)]

1300-1430 - *Medieval* [Composers include: Guillaume de Machaut (1300-1377), Francesco Landini (1325-1397) and Johannes Ciconia (1335-1411)]

1430-1600 - *Renaissance* [Composers include: Johannes Ockeghem (1410-1497), Thomas Tallis (1505-1585) and Giovanni Perluigi Palestrina (1525-1594)]

1600-1750 - *Baroque* [Composers include: Jean-Baptiste Lully (1632-1687), Archangelo Corelli (1653-1713) and Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750)]

1750-1820 - *Classical* [Composers include: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756-1791), Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809) and Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827)]

1820-1910 - *Romantic* [Composers include: Hector Berlioz (1803-1869), Richard Wagner (1813-1883) and Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov (1844-1908)]

1910-1960 - *Modern* [Composers include: Dmitri Shostakovich (1906-1975), Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951) and Benjamin Britten (1913-1976)]

1960-now - *Post-Modern/Contemporary* ... and this is where it all starts to get more complicated, as it's a question of where 'post-modern' ends and 'contemporary' begins. I'd suggest a cut-off point at around 2000.

FK


----------



## Guest (Dec 25, 2008)

As pheonixshade pointed out, some composers were transitional in that they led the Classical period into the Romantic I.e. Beethoven, Schubert and Hummel so if you had to categorise them where would you put them, I think I would favour Romantic.


----------



## Lang (Sep 30, 2008)

Yes, I like early Romantic and late Romantic as sub-categories. There is a big difference between Schubert and Strauss.


----------



## Kuhlau (Oct 1, 2008)

Of course, we also need to factor in Nationalism, which occurred later in the Romantic period.

FK


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> 1100-1300 - *Gothic* [Composers include: Hildegard von Bingen (1098-1179), Perotin Magnus (c.1160-1240) and Adam de la Halle (c.1235-c.1288)]


Never heard of it called Gothic and I did a semester on it.


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

I got one of these posters, which I think smartly keeps the categories fairly broad.... just as an illustration. The debate about where composers actually fit always gets immediately quite sticky once you step in it, but I agree that period categorization is helpful in a larger sense.

I think Kahlau detailed it about right - if you start getting too granular and creating additional 'hard lines' you only wind up creating many more classification difficulties. Its a bit like trying to assign a genre to an 1950s song... is it Rock & Roll? Blues? Doo-***? etc etc...

http://www.carissimi.com/mainframe.html


----------



## Kuhlau (Oct 1, 2008)

Thanks for that link, SPR. I might even buy that poster to hang above my classical CD collection. 

I've attached two PDFs that do a similar job to that poster. 

FK


----------



## SPR (Nov 12, 2008)

Yeah, I have thast timeline. ;-) Without hijacking this thread - more information on that poster here on the following link. Its a nice piece of wall art.

http://www.talkclassical.com/3821-composers-poster.html


----------



## WalterJ (Dec 24, 2007)

Thanks for all the info. 

I tend to be more into the history than arguing about what composer was in what period but I do see it as a nice way to categorize things

And the charts are great 

Again thanks


----------



## JSK (Dec 31, 2008)

I was always taught there was a lot of overlap between periods and that these periods could be divided into more specific styles, for instance "modern" would contain things like "2nd avant garde" and "minimalism." Also, the fact that we're in the "modern" period in general doesn't mean that there aren't present-day composers composing in a purely romantic style.

Medieval - c200 - 1450 - chant, Leonin, Machaut....
Renaissance - c1400-1600 - Dufay, Josquin, Palestrina....
Baroque - c1600-1750 - Bach, Handel, Monteverdi....
Classical - c1750-1820 - Beethoven, Mozart, Haydn....
Romantic - c1800-1910 - Schubert, Wagner, Brahms....
Modern - c1900-present - Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Schoenberg....

Some people like to add "impressionism" at about 1900 (mostly Debussy and Ravel).


----------



## princeton13 (Nov 5, 2009)

Originally Posted by Weston 
I could see a pre-classical category - a transitional period when Style Galant was overtaking counterpoint as the hippest thing. It would cover everything from C.P.E. Bach through Johann Stamitz and the Mannheim school. It would be music that has all the frou-frou ornamentation of baroque, but without quite so much emphasis on counterpoint. My least favorite time in music history currently.

I wonder what period we are in now? [Please don't tell me "post-modern." ]

Unfortunately, we are now in the 'post-modern' period. I've just had to write an essay on post-modernism! I'm curious as to when this period started, and what the next one is going to be called! Maybe we used the term 'modern' too early!


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

princeton13 said:


> Unfortunately, we are now in the 'post-modern' period. I've just had to write an essay on post-modernism! I'm curious as to when this period started, and what the next one is going to be called! Maybe we used the term 'modern' too early!


We aren't in any period now. Classical music is dead.

*runs and hides*

Or maybe we are in the middle of the "Myspace Music Renaissance".


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

From what ive heard of contemporary composers, and not just the well known ones. It seems to me that music is slowsly shifting towards a more tonal, melody based style. There is still a fair share of avant composers but the percentage has shifted towards the ear-friendly


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Well, if modern music was atonal and we are now shifting back toward tonality, I suppose post modern does apply then. I'm not sure that's what the term means exactly. Actually I've _never_ been sure what the term means exactly.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

You can have several styles existing simultaneously, this doesn't just have to happen in transition periods. That's why when you had composers like Liszt and Mendelssohn around at the same time I think you may need parallel periods. As someone said you could call one romantic classicism (a continuation of classicism) and the other another name. The problem with that is where do you say romantic classicism starts? Mozart's 40th symphony or fantasia in c minor might be said to belong to that too, maybe his requiem as well. 

The modern period continued with this existence of styles side by side, with the continuation of romantic classicism, the more extreme romanticism (Scriabin, impressionists maybe), the avantgarde sound of Schoenberg et al. Styles might even get mixed together somewhat with romantic classicism being used in a more rhetorical and 'modern' way. Ultimately history tends to be wrote to give prominence to whatever someone has a bias to and as leading to some inevitable final position.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Weston said:


> Well, if modern music was atonal and we are now shifting back toward tonality, I suppose post modern does apply then. I'm not sure that's what the term means exactly. Actually I've _never_ been sure what the term means exactly.


Everything is modern. It's an ever-present, ever-changing word:

Ars Antiqua and Ars Nova.
Stile Antico and Stile Moderno.

The thing is, the early 20th century seems to had a fascination with codifying, regulating and fixing terminology. Therefore, when Stravinsky was called "modern", it stuck as a genre label, even a century later. This has allowed any later composer that feels sufficiently different from Stavinsky (and Schoenburg etc....) to call them self post-modern. In this sense, it literally means, after the Modern (although mordern, in this sense is a dated genre, rather than an accurate relative-temporal description).

In other contexts, post modern means a whole lot more. In philosphy it is (roughly) the question of philosphy itself, and whether the axioms (foundational beliefs) of philosphy and science are trustworthy. It's up to the composer himself as to whether or not he wants to associate himself with this school of though when he calls himself "post modern". If you ask me it's all a load of pretentious rubbish! -_-


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> From what ive heard of contemporary composers, and not just the well known ones. It seems to me that music is slowsly shifting towards a more tonal, melody based style. There is still a fair share of avant composers but the percentage has shifted towards the ear-friendly


I don't understand this concept of ear friendly (no insult intended). We simply like what we've been trained to like. I imagine if a 6 year heard an awful lot of Schoenberg he would be very bored with Mozart.

Sorry for going off topic, though.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Fair point Luke, while there are always exceptions in our society as you pointed out, the general amount of people find the same harmonies pleasant (i.e. triads), and this is obviously the basis of our harmonic system here in the west. Im not sure as to the scientific reasons behind this though.

It is true in other cultures they have different musical systems which at first may sound terrible to us. However people from that culture have grown up with and enjoy the sounds produced. It may even be genetic for all i know! (though I doubt it)


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I think that by the very least a child who had never heard any music would prefer Mozart over Schoenberg. Consonant intervals are mathematically simpler and thus feel more "natural" to us than more complex ones. Dissonance is more of an aquired tase; you get bored of too much simple and consonant intervals. It's not a coincidence that the pentatonic scale is used in folk music all over the world that have evolved completely independently of each other. It's based on simple intervals. Some music is also more repetitive, has more clear patterns that are easy to predict, more homophonic etc. which make it easier to follow. Overall I don't think the "difficulty" of music is completely relative and arbitrary.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Yes, pentatonic scales were easier to devise. Therefore, that was the system everyone used. And if you are born into that system, than it is "ear friendly" to you. I don't think there is any natural "ear friendly" set of scales, just conditioning.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Pentatonic music uses 5 tones while Schoenberg's uses all the 12 PLUS penatatonic scale is based on simple ratios. Which means pentatonic music is more predictable. If you claim that it's JUST conditioning then you're a really stubborn relativist (notice that I don't deny that condition has its effect too).


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

I don't mean to be stubborn, but what does predictability have to do with being "ear friendly"? The fact of the matter is that if a child heard only atonal music, and he was told how great it was, he would agree with how fantastic some of it is.

People are intelligent, but we are rather easily manipulated. It seems like we can't help but be a product of our environment, which is a pretty scary thought.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I actually doubt whether a child would prefer Schoenberg over Mozart even if he had heard only atonal music, but that's more complex point to argue so I won't debate about that now. Now I'm only objecting to your claim that it's just about conditioning. 

Predictability has to do with being ear-friendly, because part of the beauty of music is hearing patterns rather than just incoherent random noise. Even if there are patterns music can sound like that if it's too complex. Thus more predictable music is more accessible.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

The whole essence of tonality is that notes resolve to other notes, and cadences pull strongly towards the tonic etc.. etc.. its all about predicting what happens next.


----------



## Guest (Nov 6, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> The whole essence of tonality is that notes resolve to other notes, and cadences pull strongly towards the tonic etc.. etc.. its all about predicting what happens next.


Well said, anticipation is so important


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

But does it truly make a difference? Were we or were we not conditioned to anticipate progressions because of the easily accessible music we grew up hearing?


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

you can't be surprised if you don't have expectations...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Rasa said:


> you can't be surprised if you don't have expectations...


Not to sound condescending, but what does that have to do with it?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> But does it truly make a difference? Were we or were we not conditioned to anticipate progressions because of the easily accessible music we grew up hearing?


I think the upbringing and conditioning definitely plays some part. However if we think of notes as sound at its fundamental level, a wave with a frequency, wavelength and amplitude.

Consonant chords are consonant because their frequencys have a simple ratio to one another. For example a triad has the simple whole number ratio of 4, 5, 6 HZ.
The well tempered system we use is dependant on nice ratios, if we had decimals nad complicated fractions we would go into microtones.









"A major triad, using just intonation. The timescale is 100ms. The curves are: 4sin(2x), 4sin(2.5x), 4sin(3x), 4sin(2x)+4sin(3x), 4sin(2x)+4sin(2.5x)+4sin(3x)"


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

IN case that image isnt working it can be found here:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Major_triad.svg


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

emiellucifuge said:


> Consonant chords are consonant because their frequencys have a simple ratio to one another.


Yes, I hear this all teh time (and agree with it) but the question WHY do intervals simple-ratio'd pitches sound pleasant? I mean, most people find a pure sine wave to be thoroughly irritating, and that's the "purest" and "simplest" sound you can get.

I'm afraid that observing a correlation is not enough to decalre a causal link.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Correlation is usually more than a casual link.

Maybe a sin waves pitch is just too high, and we are adjusted best to hearing things around 430 hz


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Wow this has really gone off topic!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

emiellucifuge said:


> Correlation is usually more than a casual link.
> 
> Maybe a sin waves pitch is just too high, and we are adjusted best to hearing things around 430 hz


I'm sorry, but that is a very loose assumption to be making. There isn't any evidence to support that, and you seem to want to assume beforehand that accessibility or simplicity has anything to do with being acceptable to the ear.

On the other hand, a massive amount of a child's thought process is conditioned by his/her environment. Therefore, I say it is the most well supported theory as of now.

But you are completely free to think otherwise.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

emiellucifuge said:


> Correlation is usually more than a casual link.
> 
> Maybe a sin waves pitch is just too high, and we are adjusted best to hearing things around 430 hz


A sine wave can be any pitch. In the equation y=a sin(b), varying the value of 'b' changes frequency ('a' varies the amplitude).


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Ignis Fatuus said:


> A sine wave can be any pitch. In the equation y=a sin(b), varying the value of 'b' changes frequency ('a' varies the amplitude).


Yes sorry that was a stupid error.

Luke! I did not make an assumption there, different species have a different range of hearing and 440hz is around the center of our range. the frequency range is 20hz - 20Khz but at higher frequencies the ratios differ. 440hz is the A near middle C, the tuning pitch.

And sorry it is 440 not 430


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

I don't really understand what this debate is...
Surely appreciation of somethign as complex as music is partly pysical-physiological, and partly social.

No talk of frequency ratios can explain why sonata form is so nice to listen to.

And I struggle to believe that any hypothetical human society could stumble upon an appreciation of atonal music without a musical history resembling our own.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

You are right Ignus, the frequency discussion only arose in relevance to why triads sound nice and minor 2nds sound awful


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Weston said:


> Well, if modern music was atonal and we are now shifting back toward tonality, I suppose post modern does apply then. I'm not sure that's what the term means exactly. Actually I've _never_ been sure what the term means exactly.


I don't think modern music was ever completely atonal. And if there is a parallel movement towards a warmer more 'romantic' sound it probably started in the later 80s with the popularity of pieces by Gorecki and Taverner.


----------

