Why didn't classical composers give traditional names to their pieces?

[aeon135]

Why didn't classical composers give names to their pieces like modern musicians do? Is that a distinctly modern idea?

I realize some pieces do have names, like Moonlight Sonata or Raindrop Prelude, but the grand majority of them seem to have names that are more descriptions then anything else, like scherzo in F or Fugue in C minor.

The answer to this is probably very obvious but I haven't figured it out.

aeon

[megadodd]

The name "moonlight" and "raindrop" dosn't come from the composers, but from people which I don't know who they are, trying to explain the pieces in some way.
So someone thought all the a flats in prélude no. 15 sounded like raindrops, it has been commonly known as the raindrop prélude because, it fits, actually.

Why anyone would name it the moonlight sonate, I don't know. But I suppose s/he had reasons for it. But for all I know, it was not the composers idea.

Why they didn't name them themselves with more "individual" names, I don't know.

Hope this was helpful.

[akasimone]

Not sure, but I wonder if it has to do with the Classical period's stricter adherence to the rules of each form?  (Which wouldn't include Chopin, I guess, but maybe the tradition stuck for a while.)

Also, maybe it was just economical.  If you were an editor, you wanted to know right away what it was you were going to print, because your musician buyer is going to want to know, too?

[werq34ac]

Who says that the moonlight sonata depicts moonlight? Beethoven certainly didn't. You could tsay it depicts something quite different from moonlight. The pieces are much more open to interpretation when they don't have a title.

And if you look at Debussy's preludes, he puts the title at the END of the piece so that the name does not interfere with the pianists' interpretations of the piece.

[philb]

The name Moonlight came from Ludwig Rellstab apparently. I don't think they need to give their pieces names. Each one presents something different to each person, and that's the beauty of it.

[brogers70]

And if you look at Debussy's preludes, he puts the title at the END of the piece so that the name does not interfere with the pianists' interpretations of the piece.

At least not the very first time the pianist runs through the piece....

[ramseytheii]

Do you realize that you asked why "classical" composers didn't give "traditional" names the way "modern" composers do?

Walter Ramsey

[aeon135]

Do you realize that you asked why "classical" composers didn't give "traditional" names the way "modern" composers do?

I do, and what is traditional now is to name pieces.

[countrymath]

Because no one thinked on it.

[pianoplayjl]

didn't think about it?
too busy composing?
perhaps couldn't think 'outside the square'?

[cjp_piano]

It's up to the performer/listener to relate the music to their own stories, feelings, characters, etc. The generic titles like sonata show that they adhere to a specific form, but not a specific story.

Music in the Classical period began having multiple emotions, feelings, characters in each piece rather than one "affect" like in the Baroque period. Think of a Mozart sonata that has different themes and motives throughout, compared with a Bach prelude or dance that is pretty much one mood throughout. Of course, Baroque pieces had generic titles, too!

Others are correct that "moonlight" was just a nickname given by a critic who was describing the sonata 30 years later.

[werq34ac]

didn't think about it?
too busy composing?
perhaps couldn't think 'outside the square'?

Couldn't think outside the square? Are you a dumbass? Of course they though outside the square, but they didn't want to just tell pianists what to play. They left it up for interpretation, and that is one of great things about classical music. It's different every time

[outin]

I think this quote from Chopin's letter (1841) might give some idea about his opinion on naming pieces:
  "... As to Wessel, he is a fool and a cheat. Write him whatever you like, but tell him that I do not intend to give up my rights to the   Tarantella, as he did not send it back in time. If he sustained losses by my compositions, it is most likely owing to the foolish titles he gave them, in spite of my directions..."

Maybe composers in general thought the music should speak for itself and there was no need for descriptive titles (apart from the form of the composition).

[zolaxi]

The answer is of course that 'classical' composers did give traditional names to their pieces.

If Bach wrote a prelude/fugue/toccata, that's what he called it. Mozart or Beethoven wrote sonata/concertos/symphonies. Well, that's what they called 'em! This was the tradition.

There are interesting exceptions. "The Four Seasons" concertos of Vivaldi, "Pastoral" Symphony of Beethoven, and maybe even "The Hebrides Overture" of Mendelssohn spring to mind.

I think others have mentioned this already, but Debussy in his Preludes put the descriptive title at the end on the piece, not at the start.