Time Period Review

Following reading for my music essay and the following writing of it. Then revision for my exam it sparked some thoughts and confusion in my mind.

I did my essay on how the social and cultural contexts behind music effected the change from the Enlightenment era, with Mozart and Haydn and the galante style through to Beethoven, to the start of the Romantic era. Writing this caused problems, that i wont go into, with the time periods. A problem that i was going to bring up in the essay but didn't because it is quite controversial and could stir the examiner into failing me hahaha!

typical timeline

Baroque (1600-1700)

late-Baroque (1700-1750)

Classical (1750-1830)

Romantic (1830-1914)

Radical and possibly controversial as this maybe this is my proposed time line from the Baroque era-

Baroque (1600-1730) with Monteverdi- Lully and Purcell etc.

Classical (1700-1760) Vivaldi and Bach and Handel etc.

Enlightenment (1750-1830) Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven etc.

Romantic era (1800-1914) Post Eroica Beethoven to Chopin to Mahler. etc.

Nationalist era (1840-1890)- Verdi, Wagner, Grieg etc.

My opinion is always changing on music history as i read more and more but I'm just curious to know what other's think on this matter.

It did cross my mind to post a poll on this between my line and the traditional one but I won't. I will just read, hopefully, other people's posts on the matter.

defining historic periods must be (apart maybe from defining art periods) one of the hardest things to do when at the same time trying to make everyone and yourself agree on it (and your examiner)

Radical and possibly controversial as this maybe this is my proposed time line from the Baroque era-

Baroque (1600-1730) with Monteverdi- Lully and Purcell etc.

Classical (1700-1760) Vivaldi and Bach and Handel etc.

Enlightenment (1750-1830) Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven etc.

Romantic era (1800-1914) Post Eroica Beethoven to Chopin to Mahler. etc.

Nationalist era (1840-1890)- Verdi, Wagner, Grieg etc.

My opinion is always changing on music history as i read more and more but I'm just curious to know what other's think on this matter.

It did cross my mind to post a poll on this between my line and the traditional one but I won't. I will just read, hopefully, other people's posts on the matter.

Well, a couple of problems with your proposed timeline:

1. It doesn't take into account harmonic unity amongst periods. For example, stating that Bach and Vivaldi were 'Classical' fails to recognize that the harmonic language they used was not the same as that used by the Enlightenment composers. Generally, the Classical composers - as it is often understood - provided the foundational harmony upon which the early and late Romantics used (Common Practice) and expanded upon. Certainly, vestiges of CP were in use during the late Baroque in some composers (the sons of Bach, the composers involved with the Mannheim School, et. al.)

2. I wouldn't list, really, the Romantic Era starting in 1800. Between 1790 - 1810 was an extremely crucial period in music history. You saw a lot of works from both known and unknown composers that really laid the groundwork for the expansive, emotive nature of Romanticism. For example, Mozart's Don Giovanni - perhaps the first opera of the movement. Late Haydn, as well, signifies a move and expansion from refined classicism to expansive Romanticism.

3. While your Romantic Period overlaps with Nationalism (which you oddly start at 1840), I think you would be wise to divide the Romantic Period itself to 1810 - 1850 and 1850 - 1910. That would make a lot more sense, especially given that the music of the later composers in the period was greatly expanded in both harmonic language and time (Schubert/Beethoven vs. Wagner/Mahler - one good example.)

4. The Nationalist Era dates are a bit conflicting. 1840 - 1860, while holding some Nationalistic trends weren't really that eventful in terms of the matter. Generally, the closer you get to the start of World War 1, Nationalism held sway quite roughly. Verdi, also, was not a Nationalistic Composer at all. It was till later in his life that other composers, musicians, and Italians in general decided to transform him into a national symbol. A wonderful book, which I haven't seen in quite some time, on the life of Puccini goes into great detail on the view of Verdi from just 10 - 20 years after his death.

5. Finally, I think your missing quite a few epochs of music history. You fail to mention the Renaissance, Middle Ages, Impressionism, Modernism, Post-Modernism, et. al. These are all important periods of music history that you should acknowledge - especially when trying to make a more thorough list of epochs, etc.

I'm merely suggesting a new idea that i'm going to look at more probably when I have the chance.

But i will respond to some of your, well all of your remarks...

1.Harmonic Unity (brief)

- Baroque Period- Still quite modal and we get hints of a new idea tonality.

- Classical Period (or late Baroque if you dont like my line) Tonality is established by the end of this era. Starting to get very complex.

- Enlightenment Period- is Common practice tonic to dominant relationship? Simple music easy on the ear easy to understand.

- Romantic period- I'm pretty sure is Common Practice but as time goes on we get some nice colours coming in.

2. I would list it as the Romantic Era possibly it is a delicate point. We have the enlightenment period... boom... French Revolution the intellectual elite are inspired they start getting flowery. Beethoven becomes a freelance and can do what he has been dying to do write the Eroica the point where he starts changing things and proclaims himself king of music and father of early romanticism. Haydn and Mozart do both start tickling romanticism but they are definitely Enlightenment composers. Mozart died to young unfortunately or we could have seen some wonderful things.

3. I think you could be correct. split it to Romanticism- Late Romanticism. But I would leave the nationalism one as it stands possibly.

4. 1840-1860 i agree is wrong. 1840-1880 i think would be better now i think about it. Uneventful? really? I think the 1848 revolutions were pretty mahoosive. Its a time of great nationalism and romanticism. We have the risorgimento in Italy fighting to get independence and unification of Italy from the Austrians. We have Prussia trying pull all the Germanic states back together and gain full independence from Austria. Both of these, i think, became unified and independent in the 1870's. This didn't happen in a day it had been kicking off since about 1815 and the Vienna settlement following the Napoleonic War. Verdi as a nationalist is controversial also some suggest he was part of the Risorgimento many don't. I think it would be hard for him not to be.

5. I know but thats because I have no suggestions over changing them simply because pre-Baroque i'm not to read up on. and post Romantic well same really...

If music is changing then its definitely because somethings going on behind the scene's or i believe it to be that way.

I think i've covered a reasonable amount... I think my general history knowledge is too much and it's causing me problems.....

I'm glad people are taking an interest anyways. I'm also glad i'm testing people's opinions i'm hoping this will kick off just like it did in 1848 but with words not swords and gunpowder.

I'm merely suggesting a new idea that i'm going to look at more probably when I have the chance.

But i will respond to some of your, well all of your remarks...

1.Harmonic Unity (brief)

- Baroque Period- Still quite modal and we get hints of a new idea tonality.

- Classical Period (or late Baroque if you dont like my line) Tonality is established by the end of this era. Starting to get very complex.

- Enlightenment Period- is Common practice tonic to dominant relationship? Simple music easy on the ear easy to understand.

- Romantic period- I'm pretty sure is Common Practice but as time goes on we get some nice colours coming in.

The early baroque (much like early classicism/Roccoco period) exemplified more of a transitional period in music. Generally, you have a period of roughly 1 generation (late medieval/early renaissance, late renaissance/early baroque, late baroque/early classicism, late classicism/early romantic, late romantic/early modern). It's generally these transitional periods that make it far more difficult to create a clear classification or timeline of distinct periods within the history of classical music. I wouldn't really say Tonality was fully established by the Late Baroque period - granted some composers did exhibit some qualities of Common Practice - overall though, it's just not the same. I would argue the early classical period say the full establishment.

2. I would list it as the Romantic Era possibly it is a delicate point. We have the enlightenment period... boom... French Revolution the intellectual elite are inspired they start getting flowery. Beethoven becomes a freelance and can do what he has been dying to do write the Eroica the point where he starts changing things and proclaims himself king of music and father of early romanticism. Haydn and Mozart do both start tickling romanticism but they are definitely Enlightenment composers. Mozart died to young unfortunately or we could have seen some wonderful things.

Well, I'm not exactly sure you should say that Beethoven proclaimed himself king of music - and there's literally no evidence to indicate that he considered himself the father of a new musical aesthetic.

4. 1840-1860 i agree is wrong. 1840-1880 i think would be better now i think about it. Uneventful? really? I think the 1848 revolutions were pretty mahoosive. Its a time of great nationalism and romanticism. We have the risorgimento in Italy fighting to get independence and unification of Italy from the Austrians. We have Prussia trying pull all the Germanic states back together and gain full independence from Austria. Both of these, i think, became unified and independent in the 1870's. This didn't happen in a day it had been kicking off since about 1815 and the Vienna settlement following the Napoleonic War. Verdi as a nationalist is controversial also some suggest he was part of the Risorgimento many don't. I think it would be hard for him not to be.

You have to realize, also, that events in music usually represent the events of the recent past. Composers in 1848, while being effected by the events, didn't show the effects of it till the 1860s and 1870s at the earliest! Generally, from my understanding, the Nationalist movement starts around the 1860/70s at the earliest and lasted clearly up to the 1910s - if not longer. One can correlate this historically with the rise in tensions that lead up to WWI from the 1890s to the start of the war. Clear, documented, history.

"The early baroque (much like early classicism/Roccoco period) exemplified more of a transitional period in music. Generally, you have a period of roughly 1 generation (late medieval/early renaissance, late renaissance/early baroque, late baroque/early classicism, late classicism/early romantic, late romantic/early modern). It's generally these transitional periods that make it far more difficult to create a clear classification or timeline of distinct periods within the history of classical music. I wouldn't really say Tonality was fully established by the Late Baroque period - granted some composers did exhibit some qualities of Common Practice - overall though, it's just not the same. I would argue the early classical period say the full establishment."

People obviously didn't wake up and decide that 'today, March 2nd, 1752 was to be- The day Classical Music begins'.

It isn't the same, exactly, thats why i'm suggesting Late Baroque to be Classical. Late Baroque was an advancement of Baroque. I'm not suggesting that there the same its the Harmonic differences that are the main way of defining music era's and composers. The baroque era is funny as around Europe you have so many things going on... Italy is doing its own thing, France, England and Spain aswell.

"Well, I'm not exactly sure you should say that Beethoven proclaimed himself king of music - and there's literally no evidence to indicate that he considered himself the father of a new musical aesthetic."

My sarcasm obviously doesn't come across through typing. Beethoven obviously didn't proclaim himself king and father of Romantic music. I was using it to add some flavour to my argument. He'd need a massive ego to do that. I believe Beethoven to be the kindler of Romanticism though.

"You have to realize, also, that events in music usually represent the events of the recent past. Composers in 1848, while being effected by the events, didn't show the effects of it till the 1860s and 1870s at the earliest! Generally, from my understanding, the Nationalist movement starts around the 1860/70s at the earliest and lasted clearly up to the 1910s - if not longer. One can correlate this historically with the rise in tensions that lead up to WWI from the 1890s to the start of the war. Clear, documented, history."

Well this must be unusual then. In Italy and Prussia at this time of no telephones and censorship music and the arts provided perfect settings for propaganda, subliminal messages and planning. Music and art touch the emotions even the emotion of nationalism. If you have a lot of people in one place its easier to pass messages to a lot of people at once. Austria in the 1840s banned encore's so people did not get to into the music and start running amok. This is pre-1848. The arts are dangerous they can effect the world in the same way the world effects it.

I agree with both of you that it's difficult to draw clear lines between epochs (Baroque, Classicism, et al). A good reason for this has to do with simultaneity of development in different regions of the art world in so many different directions that it easily boggles the mind when using a strictly "quantitative" historical timeline. It's a bit misleading to say, though I've said it before, that Beethoven "bridged the gap" between Classicism and Romanticism, or as was stated before, "kindled 'Romanticism'." In part this is true, but Handel and Bach have just as much to do with that as Beethoven did. So did Haydn in his London Symphonies, nos. 93-104.

Hell, if we really pull away from this effort to marginalize music history into categories for simpler consumption, we could easily argue that Baroque, Classical, and early Romanticism are the bridge from Formal, Sacred music of the Medieval period to the Secular, informal styles of Late Romanticism. It's really all a matter of the level of abstraction, and with it the level of compromise, we're willing to accept regarding the details.

I personally believe it's better to be less restrictive with dates and timelines when dealing with epochs, quite frankly, because quantifiable precision involves the "blending" of qualifiable facts (regarding specific details of music theory, social context, how composers conceptually thought of music absent theory, and so forth). These factors all vary so much that to construct a narrative which isolates these elements into categories comes with, necessarily, compromising on the details and incorporating further exceptions within, limiting the effect of the overall narrative either by compromising on the facts for the sake of understanding or remaining true to the facts for the sake of precision (complicating the narrative, lessening its impact).

So, if I may be so bold, I propose a multi-faceted approach to this that allows for categories to be far more arbitrary. In the way I teach music history, it's very important to create a conceptual framework for what Baroque, Classicism, Romanticism, et al all mean to us now. Then, it becomes a matter of exploring history with different pairs of lenses (presumably to isolate the theoretical concepts being explored with a historical perspective). We really only use this terminology more concretely now than it was ever used during the time periods being explored. As Gamarshall put it, no one woke up one day in March and said, "We're going to start calling all music beyond this date 'classical'..."

I believe this does a great deal more justice to the composers being studied as well, since it's better not to box them into the pedagogy but rather study ways in which they transitioned within it. This is far more interesting as well. We can take Mozart, for example, and examine ways in which some of his works contained elements of "Romanticism" but also "Classicism" at the same time. It's all about creating the lenses in which to examine the music and explore the concepts in a meaningful way.

But that's just me. I was never good with "dating" history anyway, and I never really saw much use for the precision of dates (it was 1819 when he wrote that, not 1814? Bleh...). In the larger picture, nothing significant happens in 5 years that hasn't happened a hundred times before or after the event, usually under similar circumstances (names and places may be different, but quantifying history without qualifying it serves no legitimate purpose in my opinion), but again there will be exceptions to this as well.

So, that's my two cents for what it's worth... carry on.

Yes, I believe the time periods to be good in that they give us something to work from but they also complicate things. As you suggest. But after looking at the history behind the music you notice more and more correlations and problems.

I'm just suggesting a new selection of time periods... Simply because i think it may help to clear things up a bit. At one point I was trying to define the enlightenment era from the romantic era but couldn't, this is historically not musically. But I managed to eventually.

In my time periods i suggest that

Baroque is Baroque- because thats what it is.

Late Baroque is Classical- i think history has been tarnished by the suggestion by Enlightenment scholars as complex hence the name Baroque (derived from barocco) But is the picture given to baroque, misshapen pearl, a suggestion of the music or the fact that there was little unity of the Baroque style's between the regions. They just brandished it all as one large baroque mess because as they wanted something simple they'd keep the baroque style a simple mess.

Enlightenment is Classical- because this was a time of enlightenment idea's...

Early Romantic (following amendments from jawoodruff)- as this was the starting of new idea's which were not oppressed as the composer was now a free man. He was no longer a respected servant but a respected intellectual. The composer wanted to test the tastes of his equals.

Nationalist era- in the middle of the romantic era perhaps a sub genre as Nationalism was born from Enlightenment idea's and fed by Romantic feelings.

Late Romantic- because its late... haha

Just expounding my point a little...

Labeling time periods as one thing or another usually leads to a compromise of precision, as I've already stated. What does it matter that CLASSICISM began in one year or another?? It doesn't, at least not until you incorporate something meaningful to associate that specific year with something significant. But THEN, you're left with all the exceptions to this that need to be explained, and when all those exceptions are explored, new elements begin to emerge that might lead us to question, broadly, what defines CLASSICISM to begin with...

In my view, what you end up with when performing this reductive exercise is a paradox of complexity. The more you attempt to isolate one object (let's call CLASSICISM an object for the sake of this) to the concrete scale of another object (let's call TIME PERIOD another object), the more you must account for all instances where one object doesn't fit with the other. So, you either shape one object to fit the other or find a way to make the square peg fit the round hole and explain away the remaining space. Either way, you're compromising on something, either the accuracy or the comprehensibility of the narrative. The cycle then repeats itself, over and over again.

Either way, it's useless to pander along these lines as far as I'm concerned, at least until we think of these two objects as related but dissimilar.

Radical and possibly controversial as this maybe this is my proposed time line from the Baroque era-

Baroque (1600-1730) with Monteverdi- Lully and Purcell etc.

Classical (1700-1760) Vivaldi and Bach and Handel etc.

Enlightenment (1750-1830) Haydn, Mozart and early Beethoven etc.

Romantic era (1800-1914) Post Eroica Beethoven to Chopin to Mahler. etc.

Nationalist era (1840-1890)- Verdi, Wagner, Grieg etc.

See, the problem with your model is it outlines historical events. The typical model is derived from the music itself independent of history (generally). That's why Bach and Monteverdi (who are a century apart) are grouped within the same category because their music was, in general musical terms, similar. Of course, there's differences within the movement, which is where we get the "Early Baroque" and "Late Baroque" periods. But Mozart, Haydn, and Beethoven's period, the "Classical" was based on a solid harmonic tonality that was no rooted in counterpoint. The dominant-tonic relationship was around for a LONG time before Mozart, but it wasn't defined until then. Then music began to get more and more emotional, and the tonality got freer and freer, hence Romanticism. Then, suddenly everything broke down and Modernism came up. Sometimes there's a correlation between the eras with historical events, and sometimes there isn't. But the point of them is not to fit them into historical events, but to group music and composers together in a convenient model.

No, i've just destroyed my own model.... *sigh* it derives not from music but the relationship of Art, Music, Literature, Drama and architecture thats what the time periods are on.

We have the Baroque display of the Affections people wanted to touch moods and it was all about drama and movement. Hence Monteverdi's seconda pratica which allows you to break the rules of counterpoint simply to enhance the texts of a vocal work. Opposed to the first practice which he believe dominated the text. Which sort of goes right through I think we have late baroque simply because of the next generation- Bach, Vivaldi, Handel etc. In the classical period we have symmetry and simplicity. Bold buildings with big columns similar to that of the Parthenon in Athens. Why we get this galant style and a sort of monody/ homophonic style- rejecting the complexity of polyphony that had dominated previously. eg Mozarts sonata in C- recognisable melody with light accompaniment. Well romantic i'm not sure about the archietecture, but the art was powerful paintings, portraying a scene, heroism, love or death. Literature was full of flowery stuff some things very difficult to understand. Music reflects this and is easier to understand now but at the time was quite hard to follow- Eroica symphony= heroic, Schumanns- Die Wieterreisse= love and well death you could have a few but Chopins Funeral March probably suits. Then Impressionism to modernism etc....

This book might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West -- it used to be on google books, but that's changed i think.

That book will also tell you why it's better to think of things as a continuum than discrete time-eras... You run into the same "wtf" moments that others have been picking at in this thread.

No, i've just destroyed my own model.... *sigh* it derives not from music but the relationship of Art, Music, Literature, Drama and architecture thats what the time periods are on.

We have the Baroque display of the Affections people wanted to touch moods and it was all about drama and movement. Hence Monteverdi's seconda pratica which allows you to break the rules of counterpoint simply to enhance the texts of a vocal work. Opposed to the first practice which he believe dominated the text. Which sort of goes right through I think we have late baroque simply because of the next generation- Bach, Vivaldi, Handel etc. In the classical period we have symmetry and simplicity. Bold buildings with big columns similar to that of the Parthenon in Athens. Why we get this galant style and a sort of monody/ homophonic style- rejecting the complexity of polyphony that had dominated previously. eg Mozarts sonata in C- recognisable melody with light accompaniment. Well romantic i'm not sure about the archietecture, but the art was powerful paintings, portraying a scene, heroism, love or death. Literature was full of flowery stuff some things very difficult to understand. Music reflects this and is easier to understand now but at the time was quite hard to follow- Eroica symphony= heroic, Schumanns- Die Wieterreisse= love and well death you could have a few but Chopins Funeral March probably suits. Then Impressionism to modernism etc....

And that's one of the other problems with building a timeline based on Artistic movements in other disciplines. Composers, while still maintaining a grasp of the trends current to their times, really either followed the trends or sought to create new trends - thereby making it virtually impossible to equate x composer with y trend. Also, splitting a period in the middle of a composers lifetime isn't really a good idea either - since there is a clear, continuity between a composers early work and later work (as exemplified by Beethoven and Schoenberg, much later). Just some extra thoughts on the matter.

I think that it's pretty simple, the whole deal.

Instead of trying to make major "Time periods," it's much easier to take each composer and examine what his music was like. There's people who wrote ciphered bass sonatas well into the 1800s, but you couldn't possibly call the timeperiod "Baroque" because of them. Instead, it's just a majority rule.

You can actually start calling music "baroque" the moment you get ciphered bass, which is the major aesthetic shift that distanced it from the renaissance composers (who were still more concerned about music linearity as opposed to chord formation.) You can call late baroque people who did these things in a time period right previous to the shift to the galant style and rejection of counterpoint tendencies (spearheaded by Händel and followed then by Christian Bach and others.)

And for the sake of isolating what "Classicism" is, it's basically only three composers a little after the galante shift: Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven. Everyone else during that time don't count as part of the "Vienna classic" clique. The label here is actually a misnomer from the romantic philosophy that the old was "classic" and therefore better than anything happening during the present, and it represents the popularity and prominence from these three composers.

Getting over that, you can just say "classic" is anyone who's music style is similar to those three composers, and pre-classic is anyone who writes in galante style and/or weird scraggy like CPE Bach who doesn't fit in any category because he was insane (he has his OWN category, actually. lol.)

The romantic label is basically applied to the extension of the "classic" tendencies, but the characteristics in the music here are important. It's characterized by a change in the way orchestration was handled, piano parts were written and it concerned mostly the use of extremes in that regard. Extreme register changes, orchestration changes, and so on. Orchestration wasn't modular anymore and wasn't necessarily directly linked to changes in form the same way as before.

Likewise, late romantic music (Liszt, Wagner, Mahler, Wolf, Zemlinsky, etc) are recognized as a further extension of the extreme tendencies coupled with new tendencies that had been building up since the beginning of the 19th century, such as the complexity of cadence harmony and the increasing use of non-functional harmony. Wagner's Tristan and Liszt's third year of his "annes de pelerinage" can be used as good examples of this, but are by far the only examples.

And in that same line of thinking, expressionism and impressionism are splitting tendencies from the same "wagnerization," one against and one for, both marked distinctively by the influence of Wagner's prominent use of harmony.

It's therefore not hard to time all this with years, but the more look you'll be having to be more and more precise with each composer. Same reason as you can't say early Beethoven had nothing to do with romantic aesthetic ideals, in reality part of it sure had though musically it's not as evident as in his late music. Were the philosophy not present he would've never gotten to the late works at all anyway, but the division is based on the musical material and it's impossible to mark a specific piece where he suddenly became "romantic."

Instead you can analyze in depth certain aspects, such as his Diabelli variations, and see that it would later pave the way for a very romantic phenomenon known as the "character pieces," as this set of variations escapes the normal model established before just enough to make it something else. The piece itself doesn't need a qualification as "romantic" or not.

Labels are not an exact thing on a majority rule, you can have a system to some degree, but for all intents and purposes you are always dealing with composers individually, recognizing aspects and trends more directly. It doesn't really matter what general labels say in the end, as they're a byproduct of the individual study which is infinitely more important as no composer really fits 100% in any label you assign to them. This is art after all.

SSC, I'm pleased you seem to endorse the notion of a 'pre-classical' period - the galante style - and make a distinction between this and the late classical period of Mozart (and I would include Beethoven). But controversial as it sounds, I'd prefer the period 1730-1780 or whatever to be termed the 'second classical' or even 'second neo-classical' period. The mid-Renaissance has a far better claim to be termed the 'classical' period, as the ruling class were explicitly attempting to imitate the art of ancient Greece and Rome. Lots of proto-nationalist reasons for this. Of course, they didn't have much music to go on: or as my history of music lecturer put it 'nobody actually knew what Greek music sounded like, so they made it up.' But the intention is there - think of all the references to Classical mythology in Shakepeare and his contemporaries, and the subject matter of Monteverdi operas and the earlier masques and spetaccoli. 'Neo-classical' is of course a more accurate description, as people attempted to shoehorn an idealised version of antiquity onto contemporary political and aesthetic ideas.

Well you have to think that music usually lags behind other arts and so on. Like "Romantic" period in music is the late "black" Romantic in literature, for example. Same with the classical period (which would make more sense for it to be alongside the renaissance, but isn't.)

I agree with SSC. The best you can do is mark large periods --- so, the rise of organum was another gigantic shift. Basically going from monophony to polyphony. Interesting thing is the main concern with the rise of polyphony was coordination of voices and therefore rhythm. Pitch accuracy was not as important until the period before the ars sublitor. At which point another invention made a radical change - the invention of a clef by marking the where the starting pitch was on the notated music.

From there we get this ongoing push and pull of complexity/abstruseness versus simplicity/directness, The first to reach a high degree of complexity and then be simplified was rhythm. Note that toward the end of the Renaissance you had a rise in chromaticism - this arose when in the 16th century musicians were exploring alternate tunings and instrument building began to gain much greater sophistication. Of course, there were earlier currents already - the agreement on marking sharps and flats (and yes even in Despres there is an example of microtonal inflection - pretty much what you'd find in blues), music ficta and the employment of false relations among vocal parts.

From there we really can see our history from Monteverdi to present as facing similar elemental problems but in very different contexts and , of course, with a knowledge of the past.

Of course you need to look at composers individually, but one must account for innovations (or devolutions) in notation, instrument building, and philosophical/religious thought. Political currents too may have a profound effect BUT this is a case you must take each composer individually.