1984Cambridge University Press eBooksRequires access

Author's note

Giorgio Pestelli

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

The present volume contains more and less than the title suggests. More because the account starts from the death of Bach (1750) and therefore includes phenomena and composers that were born and grew up before Mozart, like the galant style, Gluck, C. P. E. Bach and Haydn. Less because there are only passing references here to figures such as Weber, Rossini and Schubert, whose activity, within a year or two, would strictly have to be included in the chronological confines of a ‘Beethovenian age’. The presence of these ‘contemporaries of Beethoven’ within the following pages, however, apart from removing their names from books devoted to nineteenth-century Germany and Italy, would have meant an intolerable size for a volume which, as it is already, has greatly exceeded its original plan. I have not used the terms ‘classical’, ‘classical style’ or ‘classicism’, although they are frequently used to describe the period dealt with here (what would the gap left unfilled between Bukofzer's ‘Baroque Era’ and Einstein's ‘Romantic Era’ in Norton's famous history be called, if not the ‘Classical Era’?); and it is certainly not out of lack of interest in the historiographical and stylistic concepts and all the problems that their definition carries with it, but rather because I considered that those terms were not very useful for an approach that intended to be essentially historical.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The present volume contains more and less than the title suggests. More because the account starts from the death of Bach (1750) and therefore includes phenomena and composers that were born and grew up before Mozart, like the galant style, Gluck, C. P. E. Bach and Haydn. Less because there are only passing references here to figures such as Weber, Rossini and Schubert, whose activity, within a year or two, would strictly have to be included in the chronological confines of a ‘Beethovenian age’. The presence of these ‘contemporaries of Beethoven’ within the following pages, however, apart from removing their names from books devoted to nineteenth-century Germany and Italy, would have meant an intolerable size for a volume which, as it is already, has greatly exceeded its original plan. I have not used the terms ‘classical’, ‘classical style’ or ‘classicism’, although they are frequently used to describe the period dealt with here (what would the gap left unfilled between Bukofzer's ‘Baroque Era’ and Einstein's ‘Romantic Era’ in Norton's famous history be called, if not the ‘Classical Era’?); and it is certainly not out of lack of interest in the historiographical and stylistic concepts and all the problems that their definition carries with it, but rather because I considered that those terms were not very useful for an approach that intended to be essentially historical.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The present volume contains more and less than the title suggests. More because the account starts from the death of Bach (1750) and therefore includes phenomena and composers that were born and grew up before Mozart, like the galant style, Gluck, C. P. E. Bach and Haydn. Less because there are only passing references here to figures such as Weber, Rossini and Schubert, whose activity, within a year or two, would strictly have to be included in the chronological confines of a ‘Beethovenian age’. The presence of these ‘contemporaries of Beethoven’ within the following pages, however, apart from removing their names from books devoted to nineteenth-century Germany and Italy, would have meant an intolerable size for a volume which, as it is already, has greatly exceeded its original plan. I have not used the terms ‘classical’, ‘classical style’ or ‘classicism’, although they are frequently used to describe the period dealt with here (what would the gap left unfilled between Bukofzer's ‘Baroque Era’ and Einstein's ‘Romantic Era’ in Norton's famous history be called, if not the ‘Classical Era’?); and it is certainly not out of lack of interest in the historiographical and stylistic concepts and all the problems that their definition carries with it, but rather because I considered that those terms were not very useful for an approach that intended to be essentially historical.

Key concepts: History, Computer science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Author's note — Research Paper | ScholarLens