Periodization

Periodization can be utilised as a tool for education with varying effects. Sectioning time into these periods will assist in narrowing the broad and often complex concept of history. Marshall Brown has stated that the dividing of history is vital to comprehend the intricacies within the achievements of individual composers. Organising music history into these divisions allows individuals studying such a complex concept to be able to achieve a greater analysis with increased focus on the relevant factors. Thus, the precise focus on specific eras of music can bring forth minute details. Differences also become vastly apparent which provides a considerable advantage of practicing this method within the context of teaching. Periodization is nonetheless

In contrast, many critics of the periodization often denounce the generalised paradigms that this method establishes. "Western civilization courses too often move mechanically from one times lot to another without raising issues of what key factors changed, what caused change, and whether an alternative periodization might be construed." This quote illuminated by Peter Stearns brings forth a prevalent concern that periodization is often a means to teach history in a brief process. This, as the author identifies, abandons an abundance of information that can be detrimental to the timeline of history. Although minute details of popularised composers may be explored within an educational context, outliers are frequently omitted. None of the various aspects of music can be the definitive definition of a period in the same way that no complete works of a popular composer can accomplish this task. As a result, periodization imposes the individual to think in regard to the preconceived notion that certain periods must follow defining musical characteristics. This causes confusion at the beginnings and ends of the divisions as the music does not always follow these restricting views. The evident differences between these eras, however, can