Bob Draper wrote:

>One of the problems of the Baroque is that covers such a large timespan
>150 years approx.  Thus, all of the above are correctly described as
>Baroque composers.  But then so is Monteverdi who doesn't even get a
>mention in any tier.

Perhaps it's because Monteverdi is such a transitional figure? At any rate,
I used to have an old music history textbook (ca.  1940s) that said all
the usual nice things about good ol' Claudio, but didn't really cite any
specific musical examples, except the Lamento d'Arianna.  I guess in those
days it was normal to tip the old hat his way, but actually performing or
listening to his music was another matter.  That of course, is changing
nowadays; it must be, if Paul McCartney cites Monteverdi as a source of his
inspiration!

>I think that to compare Monteverdi, Purcell and Bach within the same
>category is folly.  Whilst the music categorisation may the same the
>compositional idiom is quite different in each case.  For the purpose
>of comparism it might be better to divide the baroque into 3 periods.

I believe this has been done in some music history tomes, which talk about
Early, Middle, and Late Baroque.  But overall, I tend to agree with you.
It doesn't occur to me that a similar large "lumping" occurs in the other
arts--e.g., putting Shakespeare, Dryden and Pope within the same era, or
Rembrandt and Gainsborough.  Or am I incorrect in this?

Bill H.