Talk:List of classical music composers by era

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical music

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Composers

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Composers, a group of editors writing and developing biographical articles about composers of all eras and styles. The project discussion page is the place to talk about technical and editorial issues and exchange ideas. New members are welcome!ComposersWikipedia:WikiProject ComposersTemplate:WikiProject ComposersComposers articles

Archives

Archive 1

Alphabetical list

Text had this as alphabetical, which it may once have been. An alphabetical list is needed. algocu (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the 1879 cutoff?

Why are there no composers listed that were born after 1879? --67.150.123.5 (talk) 00:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know, but there's a smaller graphic at Classical composers time-line which covers only the most important composers since about 1440. We wanted one graph and realised that going back to 1150 would probably make the graphic far too wide and/or tall for most browsers. Comments welcome there. We also need to decide on the relevence of having two different timeline articles covering very similar things. Thanks --Jubilee♫clipman 22:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That page seems to be distinctly overlapping with the initial section here.

(That section is an embedded copy of Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous (not currently used anywhere else, though it could potentially be used at Outline of music and Portal:Music and other places...?)).

I'd recommend merging that new article into the template. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we need to include composers after 1879 - not only does the overview omit them, but there is no timeline for the last section of the list either which adds to the problem. Regarding the overview, I made a few changes to the Renaissance, Baroque and Classical era entries a few weeks ago, but would want to consult before attempting to remedy the later eras. Perhaps I should weed out one or two of those designated 'Romatics' and substitute one or two later ones to begin with? Initial suggestions for deletion/addition to the overview template please.... --(RT) (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now extended the overview timeline to 2000. Further suggestions welcome. --(RT) (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD of Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous

Note that the overview timeline discussed above has failed TfD. --Jubilee♫clipman 17:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Holst

The composer Gustav Holst (1874-1934) seems to be omitted from the list. 203.56.168.143 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added Holst to Template:Timeline Classical Composers Romanticism Late. MichaelMcNeilForbes (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Vaughan Williams

Ralph Vaughan Williams (1872-1958) appears to be missing from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.158.146.227 (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Gabrieli should be translocated between Lassus and de Wert

In the RENAISSANCE ERA list, the composer ANDREA GABRIELI (b 1532/33) should be translocated between ORLANDE deLASSUS (b 1530/32) and GIACHES deWERT (b 1535). ANDREA GABRIELI, among the prominent founders of the Venetian School, was a contemporary and friend of deLASSUS, who in the present list appears 20 years after ANDREA GABRIELI. Antoniouwik (talk) 11:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean the Renaissance composers timeline displayed here. Andrea Gabrieli's dates and position are now amended. (RT) (talk) 17:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   REGARDING ANTONIO BERTALI

Is there still room for ANTONIO BERTALI (1605-1669), born same year as CARISSIMI, in the Baroque Era Composers timeline? His MISSA RESURRECTIONIS has been recorded live by Yale's Schola Cantorum in a fine atmospheric production (Dec 2005), whereas recordings of several other works of him are also available. Antoniouwik (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm familiar with a number of recordings. Bertali is in the much longer List of Baroque composers (see the middle section)—this list links there. I believe there is a technical limit how many names can be included in a single timeline but it is certainly possible to add to any of them. (RT) (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing and typo

How exactly is one supposed to edit this page? Anyway, "Antonin Dvorák" should be replaced with "Antonín Dvořák". Toccata quarta (talk) 20:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the timelines are embedded templates—presumably as, in some cases, they are used in more than one article. I have now edited Template:Timeline Classical Composers Romanticism Late to correct Antonín Dvořák. You might find Help:EasyTimeline syntax useful if you want to make substantive changes. (RT) (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not smart enough to figure out how to correct it myself, but John Cooper (end of Renaissance Era) links to the John Cooper disambiguation page rather than http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cooper_(composer).

Fixed (I fixed the link in the template). Thank you for pointing it out. Antandrus (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ommited composers

Is Georges Bizet not important enough to get into the list? I really don't think so. Other composers like Fučík, Porumbescu, Michna etc. are also left out. --Highschoolpuppettier (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bizet should probably be included, but I don't think the other composers are significant enough. --Toccata quarta (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done! At long last after two years, inertness has become inertia. Willem (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Fučík's most famous piece, Entry of the Gladiators, has over one million views on youtube. --Highschoolpuppettier (talk) 18:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlando Gibbons is also missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.23.135.59 (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see John Barry in the 20th century list I think he is definitely suitable86.188.253.206 (talk) 08:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find Cui, Mussorgsky, or Balakirev, despite their being three out of The Five --krutulism (talk) 05:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find Manuel de Falla. Is there anyway to make this page searchable? To locate a composer you really need to know their date of death.

Leopold Koželuch from the late Classical period is also missing 78.30.15.184 (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I know that I could participate myself but I barely understand how I even added my message here, and suggesting yet another composer here after 4 years feels awkward, but I was looking for Enescu George Enescu and he was not there. It feels he became quite important for the 20th Century, maybe it would be good to consider his name in the list. Thank you to anyone with better wikiknowhow! 180.150.109.164 (talk) 09:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prokofiev

I don't see Prokofiev — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:7C4A:9236:C2C6:D9E3 (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Zappa

You have to be kidding me. Frank Zappa. Even A-ha wrote better music than him — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.215.192 (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LINK PROBLEM

When you click "Johann Fuchs" in the second section of Romantic era, you will access to a German sprint canoer page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix Modernssohn (talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted.

Overview

Somebody decided that Fazil Say was noteworthy enough to be included in the overview timeline. I disagree and took it upon myself to remove it. If someone really wants to add someone born after 1950, the best-known and most noteworthy candidates would probably be Tan Dun, Thomas Adès, or David Lang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MargotThe (talk • contribs) 07:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again there's been a strange addition at the end of the overview list, which I decided to remove. I still say that the three composers I mentioned above are probably the most prominent representatives from their generation. — MargotThe (talk) 02:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also occurred to me that the overview was becoming so detailed to the point that it wasn't much of an overview any more, so I've cleaned it up:

Deleted Ortiz, Galilei, Guerrero, Frescobaldi, Gibbons, Biber, Marais, Torelli, Jacquet de La Guerre, Tartini, Graun, Dittersdorf, Boccherini, Kozeluch, Pleyel, Woelfl, J Strauss I, Bruch, Widor, Lyadov, Shebalin, Sviridov, Henze, and Denisov. Honestly I only kept Cavalli and Froberger because of a large gap between Schütz and Lully. I would be happy to see this overview cut down even more but I decided to focus my deletions on names I thought most people would agree are quite minor figures.

I also deleted unnecessary first initials or names, while keeping those that distinguish composers with the same last name.

Changed classification of Ysaye, Delius, Cage to romantic, romantic, and avant-garde, respectively.

— MargotThe (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not searchable.

I don't know if there's a way to easily make this searchable without drastically altering its structure, but ctrl+f doesn't search the composer names. Jacq 06:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jajobi (talk • contribs)

Agree that making the "graphs"/lists searchable would be an improvement, if keeping (or improving, although that's subjective) the current visual layout. I don't know whether that is possible though, sorry. --Treetear (talk) 21:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm joining this plea, list definitely should be searchable, please. --109.81.215.30 (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. You provide a list of composers, but then you can't search the list for a particular composer. So, let's start at the beginning of the list and slowly work our way down...Nei1 (talk) 16:36, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated template

The template for "Lists of classical music composers by eras" that appears at the upper right of this article/list is partly out of date. Lists now exist for composers of the Modernist and Postmodern eras, and these need to be added to the template. The 20th and 21st centuries don't really belong on this list as currently titled, but can be retained along with Modernist and Postmodern if the title is modified to read "Lists of classical music composers by eras and centuries". I would update the template myself if the customary V.T.E. buttons were at the bottom, but they are missing and I know of no other way to do the edit. Maybe some editor or administrator is trying to protect the template from being updated even by registered users like myself. ~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing failure

I attempted to add Wanhal to the Classical era template, but merely broke it and so had to revert. I don't know what went wrong; the reported error was in a section of the file which I hadn't touched. (If that edit had been successful, I was also planning to add Vieuxtemps, Balakirev, Bruch, Massenet, Moszkowski, Chaminade, Vierne, Reger, Dohnányi, and Myaskovsky to their respective periods. But now I don't dare.) JBritnell (talk) 04:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add Medieval composers to the overview?

One of the biggest benefits of doing so would be to have Hildegard of Bingen included, as well as some other medieval composers who aren't as popular as her but are still significant. Also, the Medieval era preceded all of the other eras in the overview and thereby had influence on them.

However, the medieval era is less known than every subsequent era, and will span back the overview by at least hundreds of years (depending on who you start with), up to potentially twice the overview length.

So what do you guys think? Should we do it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sandbox so we can see what it's like. It's far from perfect but just for the example I added a couple of composers as well as one transitionary composer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikieditor662/sandbox Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more potential composers to remove

@Gor1995 I already removed some composers who should definitely not be there, but the others I'm not so sure about

Perhaps some Renaissance composers, I'm not sure if all of them belong there

I don't know if Luigi Cherubini should be on there, his music isn't very well known although he may have been somewhat significant

Granados's music is more well known than the others we may need to remove not as well known or significant as the other people in his time period

Boulez and Messiaen are no doubt significant for their contributions for things other than their pieces, but are their pieces are significant enough to be on there?

So what do you think? Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the inclusion of Cherubini and Granados is appropriate, and I have no issues with the Renaissance composers listed as it stands right now. The two figures that seem most out of place to me in the overview are Tárrega and Ysaÿe. Certainly arguments can be made for eliminating a couple dozen names that aren't quite as important (including Cherubini and Granados) but those two seem the most egregious.

Also, regarding the possibility of adding Medieval composers to the overview - while their inclusion on the timeline gives a visual sense of the relative anonymity of composers of that era and their chronological distance from composers that followed, I think that the overview is more about the relation of names in close proximity to one another rather than the relationships of the eras - in other words, for me personally, including those names is distracting to the rest of the overview timeline. MargotThe (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Ysaye.

I am very confident that we should not remove Francisco Tárrega as his pieces are pretty recognizable and far more well known than some of the other composers on there, especially that of ones like Luigi Cherubini. He also has his significance when it comes to classical guitar pieces. I don't see a single good reason to remove him. Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also here are some composers I consider adding (the ones I'm certain about I'll do without asking, if you guys don't mind)

Johann Strauss I - father of Johann Strauss II, and more importantly, his Radetzky March is pretty well known.

Enrico Toselli is known for his Serenata 'Rimpianto' Op.6 No.1, which is pretty recognizable.

We could also add Franz Lehár, Alexander Scriabin and Krzysztof Penderecki; they and their music are somewhat well known (in the classical music world, probably not for the average person) I suppose.

As for movie composers (and other things which are only somewhat classical), for a compromise I think we should only have the biggest ones on here like John williams and Hans Zimmer. If you want to include more, we could add ones like Alan Silvestri, Danny Elfman, Thomas Newman - who also wrote tracks for movies nearly everyone knows, and others.

P.S. we should also consider removing composers like Alfred Schnittke Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I removed La Monte Young as his music is not at all recognizable, but perhaps we should consider bringing him back as he had somewhat of an influence on Minimal music Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great ideas, Wikieditor662. I'd like to preface my thoughts by saying: I'm coming at the overview section from a perspective that the inclusion of a composer in the overview is more about the historical/musical significance of their body of work rather than the recognizability of some of their pieces. So to use the examples that we've been discussing...

I would say Tárrega only has significance when it comes to classical guitar pieces, and his influence on wider classical music is minimal. Because of this, I don't think he merits inclusion in the overview (in contrast to Fernando Sor, for example, who wrote in other genres and expanded idiomatic writing for the guitar in the same way as Paganini or Liszt - though for what it's worth I include Sor and Paganini in the dozen or so "names that aren't quite as important" I mentioned earlier).

Cherubini doesn't have any particular pieces he's well-remembered for today but he was a very influential figure of his time period (which, by the way, is more than I can say about another name that is included, Bortniansky) - I think it's important that Cherubini stay in the overview.

I would recommend against adding Johann Strauss I and Enrico Toselli - their influence even in Viennese and Italian music is negligible and in my opinion including composers that wrote one or two well-known pieces is not useful for the overview section.

But I think the inclusion of Lehár, Scriabin and Penderecki would be warranted, and I'm actually surprised I didn't notice their absence in the overview. Each of these three composers represent a particular style that has had a large impact on the development of classical music and are very useful to have in the overview.

As for movie composers... I think including Hans Zimmer would really be stretching the definition of classical music, so I'm against including him. Bernard Herrmann and John Williams are already fair compromises for inclusion in terms of both style and influence and I think that's plenty (I'd even argue for potentially removing Rózsa and Goldsmith).

As for the avant-garde composers... I would say Penderecki is more influential than Schnittke, but I'd argue Schnittke could be included and we could even include Babbitt, Berio, Carter, Crumb, Takemitsu, or even Peter Maxwell Davies. Their work is frequently included in anthologies of 20th-century classical music. I think removing La Monte Young is fine, as far as I can tell, he didn't have nearly the impact as the composers I've just mentioned.

As for the composers you added recently... I favor not including Einaudi - perhaps his music will be more influential to classical music in the future but right now I'd argue that his work is more in the popular sphere than the classical sphere. In the same vein, Yiruma is firmly in the realm of popular music and his body of work isn't even as influential as someone like Einaudi. MargotThe (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And I would also keep Boulez and Messiaen on the list. MargotThe (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, it's nice having other people considering this along with me.

I would argue that recognizable musicians or ones with well known pieces are also more likely to be influential, as other composers are influenced by a piece that they would recognize. To use an extreme example, even if Mozart didn't have a broad direct influence over later composers (he did, this is a hypothetical), he should still be added to the overview.

As for Tarrega, I don't see the distinction between him and Sor or Paganini like you mentioned. (Liszt did much more than piano however, he influenced a number of composers such as Wagner) Another example would be Chopin, who wrote exclusively for piano, yet there is no debate as to whether he should stay in the overview.

I don't mind not adding Strauss I and Toselli. I added Lehár, Scriabin, and Penderecki.

I removed Rozsa and Bortniansky. I'm not sure about Goldsmith, he also inspired John williams. As for Hans zimmer, I don't see why we should williams but not him: Williams was definitely more recognizable, but Zimmer was still significant. I also don't see why Einuadi/Yiruma can't be both popular and classical.

Another thing is that I'm not sure if we should add composers who were significant themselves but who's music was not so influential. If we did this, then we would also need to add some other composers such as Ignaz Moscheles.

Also I labeled Moondog, Terry Riley, Arvo Part, Steve Reich and Philip Glass as transitionary from Avant garde to Minimalists because their work include both movements. Do you think that makes sense or should they be exclusively minimalists?

P.S. I would greatly appreciate it if you could link to the composers you mention so that I can find them more easily. Also, do you know any other contemporary composers (born after John Adams) that we could add? Thank you :) Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point with Tárrega is that he wrote pieces for guitar that are known by classical guitar players and audiences but have not become widely influential in classical music in general. Sor and Paganini both had a wider influence on the music written for their primary instrument and a wider influence on other composers (see, for example, the number of variations of Paganini's Caprice No. 24) though I think it's fair to say that Sor is less influential than Paganini. Chopin's is an excellent example of what Tárrega is not, because his influence is enormous: not just for his expansion of idiomatic repertoire for the piano (which was also a much more influential instrument in classical music history than the guitar) but for his particular musical expression and command of (and innovation in) classical forms, as well as being an important figure in musical nationalism - so he was a huge influence on his contemporaries and music history in general. Tárrega doesn't have any of that going for him to be included in an overview of classical music. He wrote some pieces that some people know, but that's not enough of an influence to be significant to his contemporaries or to music history. Chopin wrote many pieces that quickly became preeminent examples of their genre in music history and changed the way people thought about writing for the piano, and how they thought about harmony and form. Paganini was the first major instance of a virtuosic performer/composer and redefined what people thought was possible on the violin. Many classical musicians since have been influenced by Chopin, some have been influenced by Paganini, but very few have been influenced by Tárrega.

I think we should include Williams but not Zimmer in this overview because Williams writes classical music and Zimmer does not. Zimmer has certainly established himself as one of the most famous composers of our time, just not of classical music. Goldsmith also generally wrote classical music, but I think he has had less influence on classical music of the 20th and 21st centuries than Herrmann or Williams.

Riley, Pärt, Reich, and Glass should be exclusively minimalists because, along with John Adams, they essentially define the genre. Moondog is an interesting case because he was an influence on the New York minimalists, though I wouldn't say that makes him a transitionary composer. Moondog was kind of doing his own thing influenced by a few different musical traditions, and certain elements of that were influential on the minimalists. Frankly I wouldn't include him on the overview because I don't think he's that significant, but at the same time he's unique enough - without really being avant-garde - that I can easily see why people would want him to be included.

I think the significance of a composer, for the purpose of an overview, is intrinsically tied to their influence. How often was/is their work performed and recorded, relative to other composers of their era? How often is their work referenced when people write about the development of classical music? A composer with a well-known piece or two doesn't have nearly the significance in these contexts as a composer who was/is frequently performed and whose work changed the way musicians and audiences thought about music.

Einaudi certainly *could* be considered both popular and classical someday, but for now he's not influential on the classical side of things. And Yiruma certainly isn't part of the classical world. He writes for solo piano rather than electric guitars and synthesizers, but they're essentially instrumental pop songs, and I'd argue his work has barely any influence on the people writing, performing, and programming works in the classical tradition.

For me personally, the list is complete ending with John Adams anyway. In my opinion, composers born after 1950 haven't been around long enough to be "canonized" into an overview of classical music. MargotThe (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with @User:MargotThe, although I am somewhat uncomfortable with arbitrary time-based cut-offs and with the somewhat arbitrary nature of the list in general. Here is where a survey of histories and their indices in combination with some algorithmic approach to the literature as a whole might be useful. But all of that would be taxing, in poor taste, and inevitably unfairly privilege some music. The approach in the case of commercial pop has been simply the number of listens in the age of recording and streaming, which is simple enough. And in fact there are similar lists of classical music on Spotify, in which, naturally, the Romantics would be most represented—Mascagni over Lully, for example. There would be surprises, like Webern receiving more streams than Berg. The most likely conjecture is that concise, often analyzed music is more repeatedly listenable than long German operas. I suppose English Wikipedia page views are another possible criterion, which might be contentious but arguable. Any method would be questionable.

Some recent histories have also innovated in various ways, focusing on modernist innovations or women, including composers based in Asia or South America amid globalization, polemicizing (sometimes very fundamentally) against the historiography previous histories, and so on. These raise important questions. There is often an implicit geographical bias, now usually US v. European but sometimes still rather national, that pervades all literature, which is often simply down to the contributors' locations. Both academic literature and concert repertoire are influenced to some degree by funding, the former by innovation, and the latter especially by funding (often ticket sales in the US compared to more state subsidy in Europe) and also by genre (symphonic or quasi-symphonic and operatic music is often better covered or treated as more significant). Some of this is perhaps readable in the list as it stands. There's always a certain reductionism to movements, too, from which mavericks, outliers, or isolated individuals typically emerge diminished, if they somehow survive at all.

In general, this is messy, as anyone might tell from reading about music Pulitzers and other prizes. It's probably doomed to poor talk-page consensus, largely because many informed people probably don't care to waste time on this (there is so much other work that could be done), even as it's assigned mid-importance.

In the present list, I'm surprised to find Lehár but not Puccini. That's a particularly glaring omission.

I don't think you can have a coherent history without Messiaen or Boulez, and this may be the most important thing in considering a general tradition (even one reacted against). Also, it is very difficult to get away from nationality, which is not just some question of land, but of identity, language, religion, culture and diffusion, institutions, subsidies, and shared experiences and ideas. So for coverage of the Soviet Union, I think you need Schnittke and Gubaidulina (who was removed, although she is often covered and relatively often performed among living composers). Among those born before 1950, I am a little surprised at the omission of Babbitt and Carter (relative to Boulez and Stockhausen), Grisey and Murail as well as L. Andriessen (somewhat relative to US minimalists), Crumb (perhaps that's as US-centric as Ives or as English as Vaughan Williams, which is to say, what does it matter), Lutoslawski (comparable to Penderecki), and Ferneyhough (New Complexity). Maybe Birtwistle.

I tend to favor inclusiveness, and I don't particularly like that composers born between 1950–1970 (50+ years ago) are excluded. Would there have to be many of them at present, given the wide and divergent scopes of interests in the literature and repertoire? There's the question of practicality, I suppose. Nonetheless, Rihm, Saariaho, Neuwirth, and Chin spring to mind as unfortunate and arguable omissions by this unfortunate measure. I'm sure there are others.

Anyway, maybe this is helpful for building consensus here. Anyone who argues their point is be unlikely to change another's opinion. This is doomed to be perspectival, even if you resort to a method or algorithm (which itself would be arguable). In this comment, for example, you can see that I favor the inclusion (or restoration) of more recent, US, and neither simply tonal nor simply dodecaphonic composers (which is something of an unfortunately polemic binary, in my opinion), as well as Puccini. I think that's more representative, balanced, and helpful or informative to the reader who comes across this list.

I also think that the larger the list, the fewer people would complain and all get along. But I may well be wrong, because it would probably just invite more opinions ("such and such is an unimportant [bad] composer"). MONTENSEM (talk) 04:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Puccini is there, sorry. It's not a very user-friendly list in some ways. MONTENSEM (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other curious omissions, though. Bellini is not listed, but Donizetti is. This is defensible in a way, but should we choose between "Casta diva" and "Regnava nel silenzio"? Why omit the composer of Norma, Puritani, and Sonnambula? Would we have the same Troyens, Rigoletto or Traviata, Lohengrin, parts of Rheingold, or Walküre (the love duet)? The same Liszt transcriptions? The same Liebestod without the final passage from Norma? Would Chopin have written the same florid, vocal passages with only Fields, Rossini, or Donizetti, and not also Bellini?

Same for Berg, the composer of Wozzeck and Lulu, the Chamber Concerto and Lyric Suite, and one violin concerto, all enduring 20th-century landmarks. His oeuvre is small but consistently high-quality, and his influence is considerable. Without Berg, would we have the same Bartok quartets (Nos. 3–4), Lady Macbeth or Nose, Porgy, Grimes and Turn of the Screw, Volo di notte or Prigioniero, Henze Whispers, Boulez Èclat, Soldaten, much of what characterizes Carter's style, Jakob Lenz, so much Nicholas Maw (e.g., Odyssey), American Lulu (Neuwirth), Alchymia (Adès), or the same Perle music and his theory of interval cycles? And that's not all.

In my opinion, when there are gaps like this, it makes the tradition less coherent, less concrete, and less specific. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm not very active anymore, you guys can do as what you think is best. Personally, I think including too many composers can actually have the opposite problem and lead to people adding random composers... And then there could be as many composers in the overview as there are in all of the other sections combined which would make the overview meaningless and / or very difficult to read Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate and would like to hear your thoughts @Wikieditor662, @MargotThe, @Aza24, or anyone else. This is an area where some discussion and explicit consensus would be helpful: it is very broad. I agree that the overview timeline should not approach the period timelines in detail. I can't say that I think it does, though. I wish there were some comparable overviews to use from authoritative sources, if anyone has ideas.

My overall orientation or informal algorithm in approaching the overview is to try to consider it from the usual scholarly (but not uncriticized or necessarily ideal) perspective of [stylistic] history (documenting continuities, variations, notable distinctions or exceptions, innovations, and so on). The goal then would be to have a fairly incremental historical overview that is pluralistic but more cohesive than arbitrary. Maybe some selected names among the overview could be bolded for emphasis or as a nod to their fame or special importance.

There is a seemingly infinite number of composers now and in history (granting the anachronism of the term in some contexts), many of them well represented in recordings and literature. I kept wondering where more names had gone from the Baroque and Classical periods and was surprised (or disappointed) to find that many had been culled by @MargotThe. It looks like this list was at one point more detailed until then, when Frescobaldi, Gibbons, Biber, M Marais, Tartini, Graun, Bruch, and Delius (among as many others). I have to say, at least these don't strike me as small names, and I wonder about restoring them. Cavalli, Keiser, and Meyerbeer are three I might like to add. Lèhar, too, given his importance to operetta's "Silver Age" after Offenbach. (I'm also not sure how to edit the individual period timelines, where some of them are missing and could perhaps go.)

In other words, I don't think this should be about current fame or status in the symphonic concert repertoire (this is liable to be a particularly poor and often regionally fluctuating index). Sometimes a composer's music does not survive or is not currently much in the repertoire of symphony orchestras or operas, but their musical contributions are nonetheless important from a scholarly or stylistic-historical perspective. Reputations often fluctuate over long or very short intervals (even JS Bach's has varied historically; Rameau has been sort of saved from the dead fairly recently; Meyerbeer and Spohr were dropped from the repertoire after their deaths; nothing is permanent). Sometimes a composer's inclusion is an effective gateway into a particular period (for example, Cacchini and monody leading into Monteverdi, which is why initially I positioned Cacchini at the top of a column). MONTENSEM (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughts too. To get to the individual timelines, you have to edit the template. For example, Template:Timeline Classical Composers Baroque. I do think that these templates are pretty difficult to get to though.

Personally, I would strongly recommend to only include the most significant composers to the overview. I don't think someone like Delius would qualify, but I could see the argument for Meyerbeer or Ignaz Moscheles. And I think many (if not the vast majority of even all except the Medieval) of the composers recently added should be removed. Also, Rameau influenced many other composers, and his significance doesn't only occur for recent times.

Although Giulio Caccini and other composers influenced or even led up to Monteverdi, the latter's influence over the creation of the baroque era was arguably far greater than anyone else's. Same goes for Dufay for the Renaissance, (Classical era was murged with the baroque, if it wasn't then Haydn for it [With Gluck for its opera]), Beethoven for the Romantic, and Debussy for the Modernist era. That's not to say there weren't others who played a role, but those were the most significant ones, which is why they should be at the top of their lines if we sort them by eras.

P.S. are there any other articles similar to this which are featured or at least GA? Maybe we can use that to figure out what to do.

Thank you all,

Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify briefly on Rameau, yes, we agree as to why he should be included. (My point was that his case is one of the great examples of the weakness of repertoire as an index.)

The goal here is to provide an overview from the individual timelines. It is necessary to omit the vast majority of notable composers to provide an overview. To do an accurate overview (to reliably represent the vast majority of notable composers of the period with any accuracy) requires selecting figures of noted historical or stylistic distinction or importance from among the given periods. But it exceeds the purpose of an overview (and ventures into contentious territory) to determine who among the vast majority of notable composers are most significant. To include only those who are "most significant" would diminish the overview's historical and stylistic coverage and general reliability. MONTENSEM (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I agree with the last part. You could reserve the other composers who are significant but not extremely significant to the era's timelines. For example, a significant romantic composer like Amy Beach would be in the romantic timeline, and an extremely significant romantic composer like Schubert would also be in the overview.

We should first establish where the cutoff is -- which could be difficult, but once we do that the rest should be more manageable. Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost any cut-off will work better the more examples there are. Consider this. Are the Schuberts, Beethovens, Mozarts, Haydns, Bachs, Brahmses, Tchaikovskies, Stravinskies, Bartoks, and Schoenbergs sufficient to form an adequate overview of composers, or do you need more to do it justice, especially in terms of history and style? What are you missing with only those? If you need more, then you cannot limit yourself to those who are "most significant" (which may well be undefinable and gets into contentious canonic status disputes). This is an overview, not a canon. (Even the idea of enduring musical as opposed to theoretical "significance" in this way is something very much of the nineteenth and early twentieth century, though it has its merits.) An overview should be representative. Concision is necessary but insufficient, and omissions can be harmful. It's not necessary or helpful to omit Bellini simply because Donizetti or Rossini are present, for example.

There are studies, approaches, and algorithms out there on this topic, but they are all limited, highly speculative, and unavoidably problematic as I outlined initially: there is no method for this that would not be arguable. Mostly, in fact, the most algorithmic ones are derivative curiosities with strange results compared to more scholarly treatments. The most durable model in scholarly treatment and in compositional practice has been the stylistic-historical one. It's often supplemented with distinctions of nationality and more recently race and gender in order to be more representative.

In general, the more you include, the better your overview will perform, and the less question there will be of its inadequacy to the task. For our purposes, it is probably enough that the overview in form not exceed and at least comprise a certain number of composers (probably around 200, or 175–250), and that each period receive some minimum allotment c. 20–50 composers (medieval, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, modernist, contemporary, probably trending toward increased numbers the later in time esp. since the 19th c. for a variety of reasons, including the increased survival of composers' works, increased population, and globalization). The greater the numbers, the less dispute about who is or is not "most" significant. But in terms of content, mere significance alone is tricky because it is an inherently relative concept, and distinctions come in many kinds. A good way to establish relevance and representativeness would be to anchor composers against some larger trend, distinction, or milieu they represented, e.g., Lehár for operetta's Silver Age. MONTENSEM (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, I think of the overview as a map. The larger and more detailed the map, the more readable it is, the less granular and lacking it is, and the better and more usefully it represents the territory. I am more interested in a useful, representative map of an overview as a summary of the stylistically-historically periodized timelines, not as a concise, contentious list of the biggest names and inevitable (even more?) arguments over significance and exclusivity, and to what end? MONTENSEM (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how adding a very large number of composers will get rid of the problem you mention. Are you suggesting that we shouldn't have any standard for how popular a composer is? If so, then what's preventing people from adding thousands of composers? And if you say that we should have a standard, then how will we decide which composers manage to make the cutoff? Also, if the cutoff point is very low or nonexistent, then what is the point in an overview when there are already large timelines for every single era?

I would actually argue that raising the bar for how significant composers have to be would actually help with the problem. To use an extreme example, if we could only have 3 composers on there, then it would be easy: Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. If we had 4 composers on there, we'd have these 3, and there would only be a few options for the fourth one. However, if we had 200 composers on there as you say, then the majority of them would be controversial, as well as hundreds of other composers. As you can see, having to debate over whether to include each and every one out of hundreds of composers is nearly impossible to do, but the number would decrease the less composers we have on there. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One could attempt something of a notability-anchored survey of scholarly surveys like at List of prominent operas as I mentioned earlier (and I wouldn't say that it would be measuring popularity, no), but it would still be perspectival, arduous, and arguable even if one took such an algorithmic approach. Maybe someone will. I don't particularly want to myself. Justin London's "Representative Corpus" (https://cdn.carleton.edu/uploads/sites/721/2021/12/London-2013-MP-Representative-Corpus.pdf) attempts something like but not quite this approach and has major weaknesses.

So the interim approach would be to impose arbitrary formal restraints in terms of quantity and to treat this more like a historical, stylistic map of composers. Then the overview would be more useful, informative, and representative, at least covering the necessary terrain as most people would, albeit with more loose ends and divergences which would shift here and there, probably with no more or no less controversy than would be the case if the overview were too limited. It would satisfy the function of an overview.

Past a certain point, most people care less, so long as a sufficient territory is covered. Whether there is someone wanting to add or remove a composer, there may be debate. I imagine fewer contentious debates over content (and quality), given sufficient space (quantity).

Given the entire range of about one thousand years of history within the tradition, even ~175–200 is quite a selective cut-off. That's about one composer every three years since 1400. The timelines are maybe three or four times as large (seems like about 600–700 at a glance) and could use more (and more stylistic-historic subdivision); other composer lists across Wikipedia are several times as large. There will always be more composers than anyone can ever know (and more music than anyone can ever listen to). Something like 100 would be fair but quite impoverished. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about the "map" sounds good in theory, however I'm not sure how we would implement it as there are so many influential composers in so many different areas.

Are you suggesting that we leave it the way it is now? Because I would argue that there are way too many composers in the overview currently. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that, and what is your argument? MONTENSEM (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my thoughts a couple of posts ago. This seems to be a difficult problem on which we cannot agree, perhaps we should go to dispute resolution to see what other people think? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have considered, repeated, and elaborated my thoughts in many ways, many times for clarity and understanding, my own as well as others'. I think we owe it to one another (and to others' time) to do this, because my impression is that dispute resolution involves more or less this very same process. (Also, there is some precedent as to how we may proceed in List of prominent operas.)

I'm also not really sure what dispute there is to resolve yet, because I am still trying to understand you better and to help you understand me better. I am not asking questions like "why do you think that" and "what is your argument" that to waste time or to try to defeat you, but to try to better understand you and find common ground. I was hoping for less strict, specific contention and more for ideas how to improve this entry more generally. That's why I tagged people who had recently edited the list.

As far as I can tell, you contend that too many composers in the overview will encourage the addition of still others to the overview, who you contend should not be there. I have suggested that a simple ceiling would suffice, within which the content could shift here and there in the interim, because it is difficult to determine more durably who and who should not be there absent an algorithm that is connected to scholarly literature. My interim concern, as far as removing composers, is that too few composers in the overview will undermine the utility and function of an overview, making it less cohesive and summative, and leaving it with significant gaps. Essentially, the overview is merely arbitrarily summative with only consensus to guide us so long as there is no standard, as you say, or defined algorithm.

So if you want to remove some of those composers, go for it. From a consensus-based perspective (correct me if I am wrong), it is my understanding that you should not remove composers who a majority of editors have added or re-added. So, if only I added them, you're free to remove them. If two people have added them, then my understanding is that it would take at least two people to remove them. This is what I alluded to when I mentioned that without an algorithm, such matters would be doomed to poor talk-page consensus. (Of course, to even an agreed upon algorithm, there might be exceptions, even defined ones.)

You also appear to contend that the "recognizability" (elsewhere you have mentioned popularity) of specific music that a composer wrote is your among your chief criteria for inclusion, even over or prior to influence, history, or style. How would you define and determine recognizability? I ask this because—

My overall sense is that disputes as to who should be included are not something that will be resolved in any durable or stable way absent someone taking an approach like at List of prominent operas, which uses a defined algorithm, or to use your language, a standard. (Otherwise, there will always be endless back and forth and looseness, which would be more permissible or less meaningful were the number of composers in the overview not so strictly delimited as you appear to envision.)

If we were to take an approach based on recognizability, it should be explicitly defined and stated. Perhaps the title of the article could then be "List of prominent classical music composers by era", with a proviso in the overview defining a method, standard, algorithm, or what have you. Then you can proceed in a way that is more durable. One could even build on other lists, like List of prominent operas. But I can't think of how to do that without running into surveys of genre, thus restricting the overview to composers writing in prescribed genres and privileging them. I have already alluded to the problems of trying to use concert repertoire, number of streams, and so on. This is a very difficult task.

I can imagine using some algorithm involving period-specific (e.g., pre-, intra-, and post-common-practice) as well as general scholarly history surveys. It would be very time-consuming and still arguable as a matter of consensus. MONTENSEM (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is no "simple glass ceiling", and that many options will be unclear no matter how many composers we include on there.

And no, I don't think we should necessarily choose recognition above significance. My point is that they're all connected, and an extremely well-known composer is more like to have been (and still be!) influential. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing is that I think there are too many categories at the moment, especially the "spectralist" one which only applies to one composer right now. Perhaps the overview should contain one per era-- and we could leave the individual movements to the individual timelines, for example the avant garde to the 20th/21st century timeline but not the overview. Wikieditor662 (talk) 06:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I didn't write anything about a glass ceiling, which is a separate concept.

To the point about quality/quantity or content/form, yes, we seem to agree that a standard or defined algorithm would be helpful and should be implemented.

But we have both made arguments about the interaction of these things.

My chief contention is that a higher number performs better precisely because of the lack of standard or defined algorithm (and also because of the arguable nature of any standard or algorithm, although any modification would then nonetheless require sources were such an approach taken). Specifically, I have argued that by paring down the quantity/form too much (well below that of most published full-spectrum overviews or surveys) in the interim (i.e., until someone standardizes the list), the overview will necessarily be less representative of (and accurate about) almost anything it purports to do (which is essentially undefined or vague in the absence of a standardized or algorithmic approach to sources that determine content/quality and thus open to endless contest here, which is the real problem here).

Another problem is that there is a certain anachronism in the current title, especially when looking so far back (and to a much lesser extent, forward, hence the arguments over composers who are essentially working in crossover styles). Art music could be a useful substitute for classical music here. (There is probably no getting around the slight anachronism of using "composer", which is fine.) MONTENSEM (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To your concern about categories, and given the definition of the article in its title (era), I would support an all-encompassing label of composers whose music is simply "Post-1945". MONTENSEM (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how many of the composers currently on there, especially the recent ones such as Thomas Adès are even remotely significant enough to be on the overview.

Also, why should we use post - 1945 instead of postmodern when the other ones are named after their eras instead of their years? Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: individual composers, it may be worth pausing discussion of them and attending more to the more general issue of selection as below. (FWIW, Adès was not my addition, but I think his inclusion here is valid.)

Re: postmodernism (and avant-garde, for the matter), I am sympathetic to it, but these are unfortunately somewhat contested labels as to music (and likely do not so simply apply to many composers whose music comes after 1945). These labels may mean any number of things more than or even despite what they literally denote; they are perhaps more burdensome than truly informative in many cases. The title of this article refers to eras, and those happen to be widely described in terms of a broadly shared style or spirit of the times. Modernism in music is still often held to be polystylistic, and music after 1945 perhaps even more so. But Romanticism in music is also polystylistic, only less distinctly so in distanced retrospect. These labels are partly just historiographical instruments or glosses for the eras they represent. MONTENSEM (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say the sources support postmodernism in music. Just go to google scholar and search up "Postmodern music period" or something like that, and there are plenty of scholarly articles written on it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we figure out the larger issue: I am sympathetic to the proposal on the whole (and have read some of its advocates as well as its critics). It might shine in the case of some or much of Cage's, Eastman's, or Rochberg's work, for example, or Stockhausen's Stimmung, but I don't know that it's so effective and accurately descriptive as to label the entire period since 1945 with it. Some composers have rejected the label, and some of the same music has been labeled as both modernist and postmodernist. Some have argued that it's just a modified (expanded and exaggerated) modernism, and some have argued that may be in a sort of in-between state. Its resistance to clear definition has a sort of worrying circularity and exciting openness about it to others. Some have argued that Mozart or Reger are polystylistic within single compositions and are thus postmodern. In other words, there doesn't appear to be emergent consensus (it's contested), and so I don't see the need to define music post-1945 in any kind of overarching way. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, why post - 1945? Was there a significant change in the main style of music around that time? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will start a new thread since this one is getting so long. MONTENSEM (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New thread: This is a great question, and one that could be answered at substantial length. What follows is a very rough, maybe longer sketch. Yes and no. All such demarcations are somewhat arbitrary. Musically there is a mixture of continuity and discontinuity, because culturally, politically, and socially, there was massive displacement and disruption during the 1930s–1940s as the US and the Soviet Union divided Europe. Thus some prominent music historians, who have written or contributed to texts often used in academic settings, have drawn the mark at 1945 with the end of WW2.

But that is sort of the earliest possible mark and perhaps has much to do with Darmstadt seeming to constitute a real break. It is increasingly a more dated and arguably, perhaps, an Anglophone view, but not necessarily inaccurate. The more interesting question is, what is it that "Darmstadt" represents. Most of the time it's serialism and aleatorism, but that is more of a convenient simplification. Also, there were many deaths before this time (e.g., Berg, Gershwin) and then shortly afterward (e.g., Prokofiev, Strauss, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams, Ives, Bartók, Schoenberg, Webern). So there was a generational break. Webern's death in 1945 and Schoenberg's in 1951 are usually emphasized, because many young mid-century composers in the US and Europe first took up from where the Second Viennese School and other early modernists had been, and went to all sorts of places where they hadn't. US composers like Babbitt, Crumb, Martino, Perle, Sessions, Wuorinen went forward with various things from Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Dallapiccola, Hindemith, Varese, Stravinsky, Bartok, Debussy, or even Brahms. Carter proceeded from Ives, Wolpe, and the European early modernists. Many composers, eventually throughout the world, and even including figures like La Monte Young, were struck by Webern. But Messiaen, Debussy, Bartók, Stravinsky, and others were also important. For example, one might look to Messiaen and Bartok for Xenakis. These earlier composers' approaches seemed new, distinctive, and interesting, and were relatively simple enough to be easily generalizable or adaptable by many. Many composers (e.g., Britten, Goehr, Birtwistle) looked to early music. Late Stravinsky in this context also turned to Webern and early music within his own style.

But to the aleatorism and minimalism, there was Cage and Riley, among many others, especially in the US. There are other interesting but more isolated early figures like Yves Klein and Scelsi. There was also electronic music, which is an entire subject unto itself as a medium. Here there's probably a stronger case for postmodernism, especially in the mid-to-late 1950s and 1960s with Berio's Sinfonia, Stockhausen's Stimmung, Boulez's aleatoric music, Pousseur's Crosses of Crossed Colors, some of Nono's most overtly political music (from which Lachenmann comes in part), the US minimalists proper and similar European developments in the 1960s and 1970s, instances of pop crossover (ranging from Konrad Boehmer to Julius Eastman), more interest in Berg (who was maybe the most eclectic or pluralistic of the SVS), Rochberg's and Schnittke's turns, the New Complexity and New Simplicity, etc. Sometimes Ades or Neuwirth are more recently described as surrealistic. There was also spectralism since at least Murail and Grisey. But not all of these figures and maybe even only some would identify themselves as postmodernist, and many historians are not so eager as to try to label this all so easily. Also, even all this represents only an infinitesimal fraction of composers who's written music since 1945. So, it's very complex, but this is or was a common historical treatment in US pedagogy and is actually the one reproduced in the contemporary classical music article. MONTENSEM (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, we can do that.

How should we go about in deciding who matches that era? Is it just for anyone who composed music after 1945, and if they did both before and after then they're transitional? Or is there some other criteria we need to determine if someone goes on there? Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is secondary to or part of the larger issue of discursive framing and selection below. I came across a debate some time ago on a similar Wikipedia article, one that preceded the current ones on prominent operas and opera composers. Before anyone puts so much effort into it as did the person who began those articles, we would need consensus on that larger issue. The people who participated in that related discussion might be interested in this one, but I'm not sure whether or how to involve them or begin it.

Like @Aza24, I have some vague ideas on how to proceed. I mostly agree with them on the need to frame the history first discursively in the form of an article with supplemental timelines, which could then perhaps be simply assembled into one single historical overview timeline (perhaps without even invoking style or period within the timeline, since these are not always clear or helpful categories). So I am a little less convinced that a simple, summarizing timeline presentation necessarily constitutes OR, but I am not sure that one wouldn't.

In fact, today I am more pessimistic about the matter (and its utility or value), insofar as much of any such effort would say as much about the current, arguably transitional or contested state of musicology, as it would about any history itself. Some have written about this directly (Fink comes to mind as an early example; so does, more recently, Harper-Scott/Samson et al in Intro to Mus Studies and elsewhere). It's reflected in the sheer variety of critiques and criticisms of Taruskin's Oxford History and his revisions to prior approaches. Also in the somewhat arbitrary nature or situatedness of 1945, above. Also in ongoing, somewhat successful (how much remains to be seen) attempts to at least broaden the canon to include marginalized composers (globally, racially, sexually, etc), if not somehow to move beyond (or at least to reconceptualize) canon- or style- history by taking a different approach entirely (usually a more social and contextual one). To get at any of this, you need more than a timeline, which does not, perhaps, easily bypass these matters so much as it presupposes them. MONTENSEM (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standardizing the list (proceeding from point of agreement)

Does anyone have ideas on how to standardize the overview and timelines in terms of content and quantity per each? The simpler and easier to implement, the better.

I'm not sure whether there some admissible way simply to determine the entire number of mentions in books, scholarly (and hopefully other) periodicals, or databases. Probably not, since that bypasses the extent of the mention and its reliability. But it makes the matter potentially very simple and effectively gauges notability. (This would unfortunately privilege composers whose work simply has more published literature, but that strikes me as a problem fundamental to the Wikipedia project.)

So we would probably have to select a number of music surveys, peer-reviewed journals, and other significant periodicals. Encyclopedias are unlikely to be very useful in this context, because they are comprehensive. Multiple languages would be ideal, given the unavoidably cultural nature of this subject.

My thinking is that each music period/"era" can simply have a notability threshold as at List of prominent operas, since each era is so different.

From that, the overview could be determined by using a higher threshold per period/"era". Unfortunately, "composers" denotes a far broader area than operas, but this is where the periods/eras can simplify matters. MONTENSEM (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind, there will always be issues with an " Overview" section, which seems destined for WP:SYNTH or WP:OR. Grove has subject guides that list important personalities, but they are seemingly quick efforts which don't seem to have had much discussion over who to include vs who not to. Aza24 (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you mean, but can you elaborate? MONTENSEM (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See [1]. I'm guessing there are probably similar lists elsewhere but I can't recall any. Aza24 (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry! I meant the SYNTH/OR concern. MONTENSEM (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see! Yes, well, this is a natural problem for any list like this, but particularly in said overview section. Ideally, we would be sourcing other lists of composers from reliable sources. If we assemble our own based on various evidence from different sources that's essentially original research, specifically WP:SYNTH, because we are systematizing and arranging otherwise unrelated source material ourselves. I.e. we cannot interpret secondary sources, only summarize them. That's why you won't see a list like this one for artists, authors, philosophers etc.—because it's difficult to escape a sense of OR. Aza24 (talk) 22:44, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Yes, I see exactly what you mean (about overviews, too). I felt somewhat uncomfortable with the idea (as above, 'any methodology would be arguable'). But then I wondered in light of the List of prominent operas. A list is something of a valuable thing in a limited way. I agree that it would have to rely on similar lists as at Grove (which seems geared a little more toward historical innovations, perhaps—hence Boyce and Sammartini are present, but not Rachmaninoff). But how would you then reconcile such lists as at List of prominent operas; wouldn't that itself constitute an operation by which there is sufficient prominence to be listed, if not to say an argument? MONTENSEM (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I see, looking more at Grove and what you've written, what you may mean about the overview as derived or extrapolated from their lists, too. That's why I almost think of the overview as necessarily having to be thorough at minimum. It's essentially summative in the case of a list unless you have a more summarized list or are arguing that some cases are secondary to or representative of others. MONTENSEM (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have this sort of timeline for other categories like philosophers or painters as you said, then how come we have this one? And @MONTENSEM as for the prominent operas article, it isn't featured so we can't use a basis on it, that article could be just as problematic as this one if not even more. Wikieditor662 (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'd say that both the prominent operas & prominent opera composers would have difficulty surviving AFD (if at all). At least for prominent operas there are lists being followed (although those lists themselves are synthesized!); the prominent opera composers is a more of a stretch, going mainly of lists of works rather than composers. Really both opera lists could/should be replaced by an Opera repertoire article, where the topic is discussed in prose and perhaps eluded to by sparse/selective lists that are supplementary to text. Aza24 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I considered that thought of how an article format might solve or at least avoid this problem myself. But it strikes me as something of a radical proposal and maybe even too strict an interpretation of SYNTH (cf. "not summary", "not numerical summarization"), not that I feel very certain about it. If I were to try to be as charitable to my feeling of unease as possible, I might say: it seems strange and circuitous to substitute an article format of the information for a list/timeline presentation of the information, only to then reintroduce something like the latter on the basis of the former. Does that make sense?

Nonetheless, an article format would represent an improvement, albeit at the expense of the admittedly limited but distinct utility of lists and timelines such as these. After all, there are many texts treating this information in terms of stylistic or cultural history, but maybe not so many presentations of it in the format of lists and tables. MONTENSEM (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It hurts me to say this but I'm not sure if the overview let alone this entire article should exist. If there's no scholarly way to determine which composers deserve to belong and which don't then the decision would be ours and would fall under original research.

If we did determine that this article should exist, then it might make sense to create these sorts of timelines for other things as well. Likewise, if we decide to delete this, then we should consider doing the same for the other timelines on wikipedia for the same reason/s. (Note: please don't bring up the Wiki:OTHER policy, I know what it is and it's not what I'm referring to here). Wikieditor662 (talk) 22:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I think this is more or less about WP:CATSPECIFIC and precision and recall. If you are concerned about recall, you run into problems of length; if you are precise, you run into necessary problems of WP:CATSPECIFIC, including WP:DEFINING, WP:NPOV, WP:OC, and then secondarily possible (but as @Aza24 says, likely) problems of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH (especially to try to avoid the former problems). MONTENSEM (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also very relevant guidance at WP:COP. MONTENSEM (talk) 00:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your insights, views, and discussion @Aza24 and @Wikieditor662. There is no rush to decide the matter and probably great benefit in considering it at length, especially if others join. I have been thinking about this more out of a sense of duty than real desire, admittedly, but I am more excited to think about what more this timeline could be. I apologize for the length of this.

Outside Wikipedia, there are similar timelines especially in some items used pedagogically (Aza24 cited Grove; Burkholder's, among other surveys, also comes to mind). But Burkholder's surveys (and later editions of his series) are not usually restricted only to composers; they often include other items such as works, events, etc. So they supplement style-period histories or are included within surveys that, if memory serves, almost invariably somewhere acknowledge their selection, especially of composers, as inevitably arbitrary. (Even the "representative corpus" article above is therefore acknowledged as an "attempt".) In digression, an example besides those of Bach and Rameau already offered: Even Beethoven's centricity and universality have been undermined and challenged, for example, sometimes with broader concerns (e.g., the future and framing of classical music, the composer as transcendent genius). Cherubini "sneezed at" his brusque modulations and vocal writing; Spohr and Mendelssohn expressed misgivings about the Ninth; for Chopin, he became a mummy; Brahms may have preferred Mozart; Debussy expressed some distaste and emphasized his distance. Taruskin considered the framing of Beethoven, i.e., his "packaged greatness" and especially the universality claim, as vices (sharing some acknowledged affinity with feminist and "New" musicologists in the US, and somewhat polemically as part of his broader disagreements with some British and especially German musicologists).

The extended discussion with @Wikieditor662 was helpful for the back-and-forth over postmodernism, which, as much more than a style-period, can be seen in some of the recent, especially more relativistic paradigm shifts within musicology and in the contested or unstable nature (or at least broadened, more open or cautious state) of any mainstream, canon, or boundary of or within "classical music". Histories and simple, easy narratives are probably regarded, more than ever (and rightfully so), as never omniscient or totally reliable, but inevitably perspectival or relative, and impossible to sustain without recourse to important exceptions and qualifications.

So I would continue to argue that any attempt to make this article somehow select only some "most significant" composers would be rely on earlier, more limited conceptions or else fail the "arbitrary" condition, even if it relied on other lists in some way. More importantly, I think it does a disservice to the reader, who surely already knows something of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms.

I'm more agnostic (if sympathetic) as to the broader, maybe imprecise, issue of OR/synth, mostly because I have the faint (possibly wrong) impression that Wikipedia editors habitually equate a preponderance of agreeing sources roughly with scholarly consensus and importance, at least in some contexts (often disputes over news items, it seems). It appears that this is the principle upon which the List of prominent operas attempts not only NPOV, but also, implicitly, that much more (scholarly consensus and importance). Strictly it does "synthesize" sources. Whether it is tantamount to OR may depend more on its crudeness and the degree of its difference with most scholarly sources, to all of which it thus attempts to adhere very closely. (Only somewhat ironically, what is very common, obvious, and settled consensus or shared perspective is not always so much clearly stated and torn into so much as simply presumed, interwoven, alluded to, or stated faintly—perhaps to avoid disturbing it in trying to define it!) So to beware "synthesis" too much may defy common sense. But the solution applied there would be difficult to apply in the case of composers, mostly because they are not the sole focus of musicologists.

Somewhere there is some kind of exception for common cultural practices in some relevant Wikipedia policies or guideline. Not only in deference to this, stipulating common narratives or defined canons (of most significant composers) relative to those who have endorsed them or who are said to have endorsed them could and should be done perhaps in a brief discursive overview. These have pedagogical value, and some may be of historical (and contemporary!) interest. But they should be signaled as such in the source (possibly a review of a contemporary survey) and presented with attributions. The overview should not limit itself to any one narrative or (cultural) perspective. What occupies this talk page, in trying to select too precisely (by commission or omission), is essentially some mixture of latent culture, historiographical, or style war, which may be thus reported in the overview. But it should not be presented as somehow definitively decided selectively in the timeline (not even based on talk-page consensus as it is currently). Rather, it should be concisely summarized or tightly condensed, though this can be far more difficult to do with fidelity than it may seem.

I think this timeline could be more like Timeline of punk rock or Timeline of chemistry, something closer to a historical index and more detailed chronological component to or of Outline of classical music, de-emphasizing the current simplistic style-periods and composer-centered framing and focusing more on person(s) and events (action, result). But I continue to think, as in my comments above, that one for classical music (broadly defined) would require a far more liberal, pluralistic, or eclectic attitude toward "recall" (toward summary comprehensiveness), given the dangers of attempting "precision" (as in precision and recall) in the absence of any non-arbitrary standard, which I think would likely prove to be more or less untenable (i.e., culturally, historically, and increasingly idiosyncratically relative). This strikes me as far more within the spirit of the Wikipedia project.

It would likely require and benefit greatly from a group effort. So perhaps it could be reframed and reworked as a Timeline of classical music and thereby be more comprehensive and informative, supplementing the articles on history. For example, Sammartini, among others, could then be noted for his contributions to the symphony as a genre with specific examples as concrete anchors. Mattheson could be noted not only for his contributions to the Affektslehre in Der vollkommene Capellmeister [de], but also for his application of it in writing Cleopatra and in praising (and performing) Handel's operas (e.g., Almira). Mendelssohn could be noted not only for his revival of Bach (the St. Matthew Passion) in the history of Bach's reception, but also for his innovative orchestration (to depict the fairy world and the rustics), expressive melodies, and use of musical narrative in Midsummer Night's Dream of the same year. Lorenz Christoph Mizler, a student of Bach's, could be noted for his founding of the Correspondierende Societät der musikalischen Wissenschaften [de] in his pursuit of formal, scholarly approaches to music during the Baroque period and Age of Enlightenment, and in his attempt to interest JS Bach in the society. There would still be the question of selection, but I think it would be less contentious as something far less parallel with canonization and less dependent on any one central historiographical narrative (or thread common among narratives) in this context. MONTENSEM (talk) 03:05, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your plan is certainly ambitious, and if we follow through with it then I'm not sure how much I could help with it as I'm not very active on here anymore.

Anyway, I would suggest hearing multiple other opinions and achieving a strong consensus before going forward with this plan. Wikieditor662 (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, we should also consider whether Hildegard of Bingen should be the first composer on the overview, or if we should start at the beginning of the Medieval era as that is where classical music begun. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest figure whom I've seen histories attempt to paint as the "first" is Notker the Stammerer, but before Machaut, I find any attempt to pinpoint specific personalities as especially central a bit unconvincing. For the list's comprehensibility sake, it might be best to start well-before Hildegard though. Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is another reason to expand the list-scope to events as well. Missa Caput, for instance, was hugely influential but its author is unknown. If the author was suddenly discovered, they would suddenly be among the most important Renaissance composers (assuming they aren't already). Earlier periods struggle to paint accurate pictures when relying on individuals in an age of anonymity. Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I completely agree with this (as above, to my concern about the term "composer" being anachronistic, very 19th c). MONTENSEM (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24 How could Notker be the first composer when he was born in 840 AD while the Medieval era started in either 400 or 500 AD? Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of known composers in the early stages of the medieval era is due to things like the predominance of oral traditions, the anonymity of religious musicians, the gradual development of musical notation, the poor preservation of early manuscripts... — Gor1995 𝄞 19:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do we know that that's the time period when the musical medieval era started if we don't know who or what caused it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience's sake, we typically date the start of medieval music to the beginning of the medieval historical era (c. 500). We have no substantial sheet music before the Carloginian era (800–888), and really no/very-few known European composers between 500–800. We have plenty of texts that we know were sung, but they're preserved without notation or authorship indications. We know that Christian church music, traditionally considered the first classical music, did not appear out of nowhere in c. 800; earlier forms existed since the 1st century.

The medieval period is a bit of an outlier when compared to others: it is enormously long (900 years!) and comprising of many highly distinct and disparate overlapping movements. In all, it is something of a paradigm shift; by then Greco-Roman music was mostly forgotten, and its music theory (which did survive) was routinely misunderstood, while Christianity had deeply penetrated its ongoings. Aza24 (talk) 20:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If Christian music existed since the first century, then why doesn't the Medieval era start then? Do musical eras have to start at the exact same time the non musical eras start? Wikieditor662 (talk) 03:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western classical music historiography is deeply rooted in very old conceptions of the world, and has changed surprisingly little. There's no good answer to your (completely valid) concern other than to cite tradition and scholarly practice. Certainly early Christian music is a direct lineage and has been much discussed, particularly in recent work by James McKinnon.

As for musical eras have to start at the exact same time the non musical eras start – typically they don't. Another exception for medieval music, which is, again, more a chronological umbrella period than a stylistic one. Renaissance art, for instance, is usually dated to begin in the 1300s, where as Renaissance music is dated to start in the 1400s. Many other movements struggle to have an exact musical-art equivalents; Baroque art/music are relatively similar, but Classical music struggles to have an equivalent artistic movement, and Romantic art/music have very different timelines. After the common practice era, any obvious similar movement chronologies largely fall apart. Aza24 (talk) 07:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]