Monteverdi

[Violoncello]

I'm in dispute over whether Monteverdi is a baroque or renaissance composer. As he was one of the early opera composers, I would have thought baroque. Any views?

[Will Kirk]

seems like he falls between Barouqe and Reinassance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claudio_Monteverdi

http://w3.rz-berlin.mpg.de/cmp/monteverdi.html

http://www.npr.org/programs/specials...onteverdi.html

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Violoncello

I'm in dispute over whether Monteverdi is a baroque or renaissance composer. As he was one of the early opera composers, I would have thought baroque. Any views?

Open a book (or Google him)

He was both.

Check out the Artusi arguments (Google Artusi Monteverdi and see what you get) in addition to the WIKI link provided.

Same issue with Beethoven. Classical or Romantic? Both.
Richard Strauss. Romantic or 20th Century? Both.

Many composers (like Artusi) seem to be stuck on the stylistic period in which they lived when they were in their formative stages, and other composers seem to keep evolving throughout their lives.

I think trying to classify Monteverdi as either is like trying to classify Cornbread as an Appetizer, Side Dish, or Dessert. Depends on who you talk too! I think it would be more instructive to investigate how his charateristics evolved within his compositional output, and during his lifetime.

And it's too bad that he's not as well recognized as he deserves. Hopefully this discussion will get a few more people to take a more intense look at his music - both styles. :-)

Steve

[ttw]

Up until December 31, 1600, Monteverdi was a Renaissance composer; after January first, 1601, he was a Baroque composer.

Of course, terms like "Baroque" or "Renaissance" are ex-post labels created by musicologists for convenience. Composers write as they wish; classification comes later (usually posthumously.)

Neither Baroque nor Renaissance are a property of a piece of music or of a composer.

[reith]

Though I'm ok with the Renaissance I'm not too knowledgeable on the Baroque. I know M wrote operas but he also wrote a lot of church music so I suppose he knew how to get his bread buttered while experimenting with this new theatrical thing. Good bit of fence-sitting!

[stevel]

Originally Posted by ttw

Up until December 31, 1600, Monteverdi was a Renaissance composer; after January first, 1601, he was a Baroque composer.

Steve

[Ballaw de Quincewold]

Originally Posted by ttw

Up until December 31, 1600, Monteverdi was a Renaissance composer; after January first, 1601, he was a Baroque composer.

Is this a joke? I hope so.

Before you can classify him you need to define or draw a line between the two "styles."

[ttw]

Originally Posted by Ballaw de Quincewold

Is this a joke? I hope so.

Before you can classify him you need to define or draw a line between the two "styles."

I did draw a line. Midnight, December 31, 1600. Actually, it's a point, not a line.

Monteverdi himself wrote about composing in two styles which he called prima pratica and seconda pratica. There's a contrast between a style emphasizing balance among the parts, prepared dissonance, etc., and the style emphasizing bass and melody and outlining the texts, etc.

[Peter Bolton]

I have been lambasted before for rejecting Monteverdi as a Baroque composer although he was certainly not regarded as such in my youth. Music usually seems to trail behind architecture in terms of dates, so I think 1600 is much too early for the beginning of Baroque in music. Personally, I think there is a strong case for calling him a Mannerist, especially with regard to some of his effects (e.g the echos in the Vespers). As for opera, I have never heard the music for Peri's 'Dafne', the first opera (1597), so I cannot comment on its style, which may or may not be Renaissance.

[stevel]

Originally Posted by Peter Bolton

I have been lambasted before for rejecting Monteverdi as a Baroque composer although he was certainly not regarded as such in my youth. Music usually seems to trail behind architecture in terms of dates, so I think 1600 is much too early for the beginning of Baroque in music. Personally, I think there is a strong case for calling him a Mannerist, especially with regard to some of his effects (e.g the echos in the Vespers). As for opera, I have never heard the music for Peri's 'Dafne', the first opera (1597), so I cannot comment on its style, which may or may not be Renaissance.

I think the same is true of Beethoven. In my youth Monteverdi was Renaissance and Beethoven was Classical. Period. It seems like the spread of information these days have helped many people to see the subtleties of stylistic boundaries.

I think one thing we often forget is that there are always a fair number of people who composed in X style and continued to do so well into a period of time when styles around them were markedly different. Bach comes to mind immediately - most people rever him as the epitome of Baroque counterpoint but in truth he was really old-fashioned. At the time when CPE and JC were writing "pre-classical" (Galant style, or "Rococo"), papa Bach working on The Art of the Fugue was really from a previous style.

It's like the new Jerry Lee Lewis album. Still sounds like the 1950s.

I much prefer composers who are able to evolve with their surroundings (like Monteverdi and Beethoven). The others I consider "throwbacks" and in most cases, their music IMHO reflects their own narrow-mindedness and unwilling-ness to adapt.

Steve