Talk:List of Renaissance composers

	This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
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

What is this page for? Does it serve any useful purpose?

It most certainly does: this is the list of redlinks I've been using for the last year to write bios of these people. In order to start a new article, you need to start with a redlink somewhere. A list is one convenient way of doing it.

It also gives the dates of all the composers of the Renaissance. Frankly, I'd rather break it out by country or stylistic group, and order chronologically within (for example, all the Spanish composers together under a subheading) but just haven't gotten around to it yet.

Yet another purpose served by this list is that it is one of the only ways Google can find the articles on these guys since otherwise the articles are orphaned. Personally I'd rather have the list directly in the Renaissance music article since that has a higher Google score overall, and the links therein get higher scores as a result. Antandrus 14:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So these would be the first entries in wiki for the composer? I know you can automatically generate these list by asking for all renaissance composers, so this list is a duplicate in some ways. I prefer organization by date of when the composer fourished. Three broad categories initially perhaps: early Ren., high Ren., and late Ren. DrG 2005 May 3

Well, no you can't automatically generate the list: you can only look at the list of existing composer biographies that have already been added to categories. In order to start a new article you need to click on a redlink: this is an extremely useful feature of lists such as this one.

I added back the transitional composers of the late Medieval era and early Renaissance, with an explanatory note. Most music histories--at least all the ones I have--start the Renaissance generally around 1400, rather than 1450, though they indicate that there is no definitely agreed-upon date, somewhat in contradistinction to the situation at the other end, around 1600. Reese's immense Music in the Renaissance begins with the Avignon repertory, and considers the composers of the Burgundian school to be representative of the "Early Renaissance". I think we do our readers a service by including transitional era composers in both Medieval and Renaissance music lists and articles. Antandrus 15:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding including Dunstable in the Medieval era, I surveyed 4 Renaissance books (Atlas, Brown, Fenlon, Reese) and 4 Medieval books (Hoppin, McKinnon, Reese, Yudkin) and the results were 4 to 4. Their decisions were made by the number of pages in the book, and as long as the next book in the historical series picked up where the previous one left off, there were no porblems. I checked 2 textbooks. One (Stolba) said 1450, the other (Grout) avoided the issue, but started the Renaissance with Ockeghem. I strongly support 1450. Dunstable dies; the 100 years war ends; but more importantly, in my experience as a teacher, students understand and remember it better. Overlapping the composers is better than omitting them. It is possible to chose one book on Medieval music and one on Renaissance music and have no mention in either of Dunstable! User:DrG 2005 May 10

You're right about the danger of picking books that miss the period between 1400 and 1450. I think the safest course is overlapping the lists. I'm fine with 1450 as the start of the "Renaissance" -- though whenever I teach this stuff I make a point about how utterly gray it is starting and stopping eras in even numbered years (think of the Portuguese Renaissance polyphony in the early 17th century, the obviously medieval music in England in the mid 15th century, the Baroque monody in Florence around 1580 ... ) One of these days we should take on rewriting that Renaissance music article, which really could be quite detailed. Antandrus 04:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization by country would be useful as well.

Monteverdi is in this list, but not in the "Renaissance Composers" category. Was it an intentional choice, or might we add him?

(PS - This is probably the case with several other composers on the list, but Monteverdi was the one I was listening to, tonight.) MIP | Talk 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a definite "oops" -- he's certainly both a Renaissance as well as a Baroque composer. I'll fix it. Thanks for pointing it out! Antandrus (talk) 23:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it! :D (*grin* I was actually afraid that there was a very obvious reason for not including him, and that I was asking a really stupid question. :p ) MIP | Talk 00:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else bothered by the ordering by first name? There are other choices, but it's quite a lot of work to fix, so I'm not going to do it without strong encouragement:

Example ordering possibilities:

• birthdate
• country/geographic region, birthdate
• century, surname
• country/language region, century, surname

I think it could be useful to have the Spanish composers together, the Franco-Flemish together, the Italians together, etc. Maybe by birthdate within the groups. When the dates are just "flourished", subtract twenty years from the first of the two dates (admittedly arbitrary, but it usually gets close). Antandrus (talk) 01:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With some help from Antandrus I've reorganised this page to be split into individual countries to make it more useful and practical. IMO the pictures add a lot to the list to making it look pleasant - I initially included more, but removed some to prevent it from becoming over the top and a menace to 56k users.

The convention is to minus 20 to 30 years (at your discretion) from the date of composers who only have a flourished date to achieve an approximate date of birth.

All the birth/death mentions are uniformly formatted, and I'll fix any new ones which aren't if neccessary to make the page neat. If anyone has a suggestion of an improved way to present the dates (eg. no space after circas and/or between the hyphen seperating the b/d years) feel free - I couldn't find any mention of something this pedantic in any style guide. Lethesl 03:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Germany, Spain, Poland and Portugal also need an introduction paragraph and I'm not sure how to write them at the moment.

• Also, should anything be done about music codices and annonymous composers who can be distinguished from others? The German article lists a few - I have been entertaining the idea of a list of music codices for a while, but don't know how workable that would be. It would certainly be of at least some use, plus it's an interesting subject. Lethesl 13:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another long-term thing to work on, in fact the only main issue for the list:

As we cannot arbitrarily declare how many works (or surviving works) are required for entry to this list, I am having to add composers even with only one work extant. This is making the list huge (I am hoping not unmanagably so). While it may not be a problem for making this as a reference, it creates a big problem (IMO):

The composers of substance who have dozens of surviving works are being swamped by people who either have not even been recorded or only have one piece recorded or even extant. Initially this may seem like no problem as it's a list, but this should be a list of some use, and I am unsure how listing all these people is of use. I was thinking perhaps the ones who produced more than a handfull of works could be boldened to stand out or something. For example, many many musicians (opposed to career composers) tended to publish study or practice works, or the occasional mature collection. This is adding so many more insignificant entries.

Another problem is that these one-work composers also need their listing to be explained, as they may be difficult or impossible for a second person to research and verify them (due to their total obscurity). This means that the page is going to get many times more text than is needed for just the composer name and date links, looking a) messy and b) (loading time) big. For example compare the England list (which I am working on at the moment) which is full of caveats and notes, versus other sections. Ideally this information could be put into individual articles for each of these obscurities, but a) that would take (possibly) years to do, and b) some don't even have enough information on them to not have an article on them get proposed for speedy deletion.

This seems a bit like between a rock and a hard place... Lethe 21:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user removed a chunk of English composers due to him considering them belonging to the baroque. Isn't it the case that England's composers was a little late to join the renaissance, and equally reluctant to leave it? Lethe 14:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is legitimate to consider many of those composers "Renaissance", due to stylistic similarities; I don't think they should be removed from here. Also, a lot of the recently added composers of the trecento are most commonly associated with the medieval, not the Renaissance eras. The best way to solve problems like this is to put composers on both lists, when classification is not obvious; for example Sigismondo d'India, another the anonymous visitor removed, can be classified as both Baroque and Renaissance. Antandrus (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on guys, John Ferrabosco, who was born in 1626? He was clearly a Baroque composer. No, though the English Renaissance may have ended late, it didn't end as late as the era between 1650 and 1665. Only if it did, may John Ferrabosco have been a Renaissance composer. Marcus2 (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember it's style not date. For one example, John IV of Portugal (who was a composer, and a good one -- however only two motets survive with a reasonably secure attribution to him, the rest of his work being destroyed in the famous Lisbon earthquake and fire). John IV is covered in Gustave Reese's enormous Music in the Renaissance; I'd recommend reading his article in the New Grove as well. The Renaissance style lingered in Portugal, Spain, and England before anything resembling what we usually term the "Baroque" acquired currency. It's not cut-and-dried. For a famous example of a composer working in the prima pratica in the 17th century, think of Gregorio Allegri and his setting of the Miserere, which appears on many "Best of the Renaissance" collections. It's fully reasonable to put 17th-century composers in the more appropriate category, -- which is often both -- and in the corresponding lists. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Forgive me if ever I sounded rude. Marcus2 (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the Allegri Miserere is an excellent example of a piece in a transitional style. It alternates passages of plausibly "Renaissance" polyphonic texture with declamatory sections that have little to do with Renaissance compositional style, and quite a lot to do with the seconda prattica. Monteverdi has already been mentioned as a composer who straddles both styles, and the prima prattica lingers in his liturgical music right up to the end of hi life. The music of Orlando Gibbons is closer to the style of his late-16th-century predecessors, but even here there are evident techniques (motivic development, modulations characteristic more of tonal than of modal practice) more characteristic of the Baroque than the Renaissance. Of course, if you want to push this far enough, we mustn't forget that Purcell composed fantasies and In nomines in a style more than a little reminiscent of the Renaissance.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transitional belongs in both categories. John IV belongs on this list because Reese covers him -- we can cite it, if you insist -- and Reese is quite specific about the scope of his book: he cuts off where composers adopt "Baroque" characteristics. John wrote motets in a clear prima pratica style, based on Palestrina. Antandrus (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This voice is referencing the wrong person. I think a disambiguation page is needed and since I've never wrote one, i leave this to ppl better than me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wentu (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No DAB page needed, piping the link is enough for the moment. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

was good wit it? veronica —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.37.225 (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does it come Paul Hofhaimer is listed under others and not in the German list? When he lived there was no such thing as an Austrian nation, more importantly Salzburg was an independent state and not connected to Austria back then. There is no reason not to include him into the German composers 188.118.245.215 (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fairly logical to add Paul Hofhaimer to the German section of the list given its current organisation—but trying to classify Renaissance composers by nationality at all is problematic. The Baroque list and Classical list are simply chronological. (RT) (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a problem with an editor adding fictitious birthdates, both to this article and to List of Medieval composers. If all that is known about a composer is that he "flourished" ('floruit') at a certain time -- for example, Jacobus Vide, fl. 1405 -- we cannot infer a birthdate from that. Someone has put "1385" in the table in a hidden template to make the column sortable, and now another person is pulling that date out as an approximate birthdate, but we can only use what is in reliable sources. This entire article now needs to be either 1) checked for accurate dates for each entry, or rolled back to the version before the first edit of Cmach7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / 24.209.139.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I am skeptical of using the table feature, since they seem to demand an entry in the "birth" and "death" columns, where often none are known. People use the "Hs" template to provide a hidden sort key to get the composers to show up in approximate order -- while I can see making a case for this if we say that the numbers entered into the template are arbitrary, and purely for convenience of sorting (particularly of we say that we choose a number "fl" minus twenty years for the birthdate, in all cases) it becomes original research the moment we pull it out and give it as an approximate birthdate. If a scholar on the topic has not provided a guess, neither should we. Antandrus (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is John Dunstab/p/le , 1390-1453 ?

1370–1450 Name Born Died Notes Forest probably John Forest 1365/70 1446 Dean of Wells. One credo setting and six antiphons by him survive in the second layer of the Old Hall Manuscript; two anonymous settings may also be by him. Pycard fl. c. 1390 after c. 1410 Has works preserved in the first layer of the Old Hall Manuscript and elsewhere. His identity is unclear; probably English, but possibly from France. Leonel Power c. 1370 1445 J. Cooke probably John Cooke c. 1385 1442? Nine pieces attributed to him in the Old Hall Manuscript. Damett almost certainly Thomas Damett c. 1389 1436/7 A significant contributor to the second layer of the Old Hall Manuscript where nine of his works are preserved Robert Chirbury fl. c. 1400 c. 1400 Wrote one Agnus Dei to the Old Hall Manuscript Roy Henry fl. 1410 after 1410 Very likely to be Henry V of England (1387–1422) Byttering possibly Thomas Byttering fl. c. 1410 after 1420 N. Sturgeon almost certainly Nicholas Sturgeon fl. 1413 1454 Richard Smert c. 1400 1478/9 Has eight carols for two or three voices attributed entirely to him in the Ritson Manuscript; a further four are jointly credited to Smert and John Trouluffe. John Plummer c. 1410 c. 1483 Henry Abyngdon c. 1418 1497 John Trouluffe John Treloff fl. 1448 c. 1473 Represented in the Ritson Manuscript, by three settings of Nesciens mater for three voices and by four carols. Richard Smert is jointly credited. Richard Mowere possibly the same as Richard Mawere fl. 1450 after 1470 Has two 3-voice settings in the Ritson Manuscript. Walter Frye fl. c. 1450 1474 William Horwood c. 1430 1484 Some of his music is collected in the Eton Choirbook. John Hothby Johannes Ottobi c. 1430 1487 English theorist and composer mainly active in Italy. William Hawte William Haute c. 1430 1497 Richard Hygons c. 1435 c. 1509 Gilbert Banester c. 1445 1487 John Tuder John Tudor fl. c. 1470 after 1470 A number of his works are found in the Pepys Manuscript; the most extended piece, a setting of Lamentations, is incomplete (only one voice part is preserved). Walter Lambe c. 1450 after 1504 Major contributor to the Eton Choirbook. Henry Prentyce Harry Prentes 1450s 1514 Has an extant 5-voice Magnificat setting in the Caius Choirbook. Hugh Kellyk late 15th century 16th century? has two surviving pieces, a five-part Magnificat and a seven-part Gaude flore virginali, in the Eton Choirbook. Edmund Turges possibly the same as Edmund Sturges 1450 1500 Has a number of works preserved in the Eton Choirbook; at least three Magnificat settings and two masses have been lost. --Alf.68 19:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Where is John Dunstab/p/le , 1390-1453 ?

1370–1450

Forest probably John Forest 1365/70 1446 Dean of Wells. One credo setting and six antiphons by him survive in the second layer of the Old Hall Manuscript; two anonymous settings may also be by him. Pycard fl. c. 1390 after c. 1410 Has works preserved in the first layer of the Old Hall Manuscript and elsewhere. His identity is unclear; probably English, but possibly from France. Leonel Power c. 1370 1445 J. Cooke probably John Cooke c. 1385 1442? Nine pieces attributed to him in the Old Hall Manuscript. Damett almost certainly Thomas Damett c. 1389 1436/7 A significant contributor to the second layer of the Old Hall Manuscript where nine of his works are preserved Robert Chirbury fl. c. 1400 c. 1400 Wrote one Agnus Dei to the Old Hall Manuscript Roy Henry fl. 1410 after 1410 Very likely to be Henry V of England (1387–1422) Byttering possibly Thomas Byttering fl. c. 1410 after 1420
etc. --Alf.68 19:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Most, but not all of these names will be found in the List of medieval composers. The question of where to draw the line between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance is not as cut-and-dried as we might hope, but it appears to me that the Old Hall repertory is being regarded as belonging in the medieval category. Dunstaple is obviously a different matter, since he fulfills the criterion given at the beginning of this list, of having "some period of significant activity after 1400". In fact, it seems highly unlikely that he composed any of his surviving music before the age of ten.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dunstaple is listed here, in fact. But for reasons I cannot fathom he is listed as a Burgundian composer instead of an English one. This seems plain wrong to me; though it is consistent with the page on the Burgundian School, which lists Dunstaple as belonging to it. Anyway, it seems perverse not to list Dunstaple and Power in the same place, since they're so often bracketed together. JBritnell (talk)

Absolutely correct! How have I managed to miss this for all this time? Dunstaple's biographical article could not be plainer: he was "was widely influential, not only in England but on the continent, especially in the developing style of the Burgundian School", that is, he was an external influence on that school, not a member of it. I have changed his listing, and will investigate the Burgundian School article. Thank you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that there is a need to change anything, but I've found that there are duplicates. These:

• Arnold von Bruck
• Ghiselin Danckerts
• Joachim van den Hove
• Diomedes Cato
• Melchior Borchgrevinck

-- Harp (talk) 19:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this list would do better if solely chronological, but in a sortable table so sorting by nationality is still possible. This would be aligned with the medieval, Baroque, Classical etc. lists and solve this issue, though I concur that the issue isn't a big one, if it all. Aza24 (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this? I've just generated with a script. -- Harp (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! They would just need to be in order by birthdate by default. I do wonder though if the dates should be combined into a "lifetime" so that the flourished dates can go in those same columns. My other reaction is that the Remark column takes up more space than it is useful. Those notes could perhaps be converted into literal notes, then there might be space for images beside the tables. Admittedly, I'm thinking about this from my formatting at List of medieval composers and List of medieval music theorists, but I think that layout could work here too (though I am, of course, biased!). Aza24 (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know abuout literal notes, but there is just Lifetime column now instead of the 3 columns. I created some new columns, Works currently contains the remarks -- Harp (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a table version of the list User:Harp/rene.

I need some help:

• find out how to improve it
• finding errors
• how to handle the original texts in the sections

I've already got some suggestions from Aza24. Thanks for him.

I've created the table using a Python script from a CSV file. If there is a need for a bigger change with the script, let me know, and if we don't plan any global changesthen we can edit the table manually.

Currently one can order it by family name and by birth date. I've come up with some approximate birth date when just flourishing date or the year of death was given. I tried to find out the family name by the program, but there may be some errors in that.

I don't have too much time on workdays unfortunately, so don't be surprised if I don't answer too frequently.

-- Harp (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion this is already a big improvement, particularly in maximizing sorta-ability and organization. @Antandrus: may have some insight on this. Aza24 (talk) 19:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is an excellent idea! -- I think (without digging into the article history) that this was halfway done some years ago, and then we backed it out for some reason. If we go ahead we should probably just state somewhere how we derive the sort date. That's a problem I have had in the past elsewhere, since it necessarily involves (gasp of horror) "original research". While it won't be perfect such an approach would at least give some consistency -- maybe for all floruit composers, we use an approximate birthdate of earliest fl year minus 25, or even 20. There will be some oddballs ("first half of 16th century" or some such). Antandrus (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Antandrus: I've already used approximate birth date in every rows. Just see the source or the CSV table's last column. I used fourish - 20/25 and death - 30/40/50 If somebody flourished in late 16th century, I thought it is a flourish date 1970, I set 1545 as a birth date. That seemed not too bad. (I wasn't always consequent with this). I found a not too bad date for all the composers as a first dirty approximation. I think that's all right as the date don't show up in the table directly.

E.g. {{sort|1370|{{fl|1390?–1407}}}} {{sort|1545|{{fl|late 16th century}}}} {{sort|1590|died 1622}} So every time we can get a more certain date we can modify it for the given composer.

If somebody goes through the CSV file and checks/modifies the last column (approx. year of death) and sends me back, then I generate the table again. --- Harp (talk) 05:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestions for sort date:

Rules for sort based on approximate birth date

Case	Rule for birth date approximation	Example
No birth date, just flourish (death doesn't matter)	fl - 25	fl. 1670-1680, died 1693 -> 1650
No birth and flourish, just death date	death - 40	died 1693 -> 1653
Lived in a given century	start of the century + 20	16th century -> 1520
Lived in early/late of a century	start of the half century (ends with 00 or 50)	Late 16th century -> 1550, Early 16th century -> 1500

-- Harp (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harp, this looks great, though if someone lived in a given century, perhaps its best to put them in the middle, e.g. 16th century -> 1550, and then maybe late would be adjusted, e.g. Late 16th century -> 1575? Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 I tried to find an estimation for their birth dates. For somebody, who lived in the 16th century 1520 seems to be a better estimation for birth than 1550. The one who was born in 1550 we would categorize as lived in late 16th c., or if the composer lived long he/she can even belong to the turn of the century. An other approach could be to approximate the middle of one's life. Your arguments would be true then. But I would rather not calculate (birth + death)/2 for the composers who has exact dates. Birth date is easier concept for me than the "midlife date". - Harp (talk) 07:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harp, admittedly, your logic is certainly more sound than mine! Per this, life expectancy appears to be between 33 and 55 during this time, presumably on the earlier side considering that range covers the growth from 1400 to 1900. I would say your table rationale and info is looking good, though it would be nice to transfer more of the notes over. I can assist with that, if you'd like? Best – Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 Feel free to insert notes and edit User:Harp/rene as you wish. I am not a native English speaker so I am happy to have help. If you need me to recreate the table with some extra column, just ping me. Harp (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Harp, completely forgot about this thread so apologies for the delay. I hope its okay, I've finished inserting notes so have transferred the table to the main-space. At some point I'll write a longer lead (akin to the one in the List of medieval composers) but unfortunately, because TOC is in the side now, the white space is the only solution at the moment. Aza24 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24 Looks good. I'm happy that it's in the main article now. Harp (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a column for 'rating' to draw attention to the most important composers. Needless to say this is highly subjective. Doubtless the finer points of who should or should not be highlighted in this way will cause much discussion amongst those with greater knowledge than I.

As a simple way to organise the sorting I used the number of recordings available for that composer on [Presto Music]. Star ratings were then assigned on the simple divisions:

• less than 100 recordings
• between 100 and 1,000 recordings
• over 1,000 recordings

The number of recordings is a good indication of how significantly the composer is favoured by the musical community as a whole. If musicians go to the effort to record and release that piece then they must consider it worthwhile. Collectively they are thus passing judgement. This is therefore along the lines of an opinion poll of the global musical community, which is about as close as we can get to an objective answer to the question 'which composers are best?'. It also has the advantage of being verifiable and easily available.

It is worthwhile to have these ratings because it draws attention to those composers for readers of the list. Not every reader is an experienced musician or will know much about classical music so they may have no idea who the important composers in that era are. These lists have become very long and are overwhelming. Without the rating column they are really only of interest to those who care about articles on very minor composers. With the rating column they become of use to the general reader. Agrestis (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]