Because the analogy he makes is with Romanticism, a specific trend/movement, for which 1800 is roughly a good reference point, whereas 1600 is not.

▲

ggm 5 hours ago | parent [-]

And my point is that it's a label on a cyclical trend. But sure, he wanted to reason about romanticism specifically. He cuts off very early in the new century, and the romanticism presaged a 50year cycle of revolution and revolt against the congress of Vienna. The tide swung back and forth.

	▲	coldtea 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>And my point is that it's a label on a cyclical trend Not so sure about that. Romanticism isn't related to Millinarianism conceptually or otherwise. The former was a re-adoption of a hollistic medieval stance on life and nature. If you mean "some cultural things change every now and then, so a trend changing is nothing new", maybe, but it's a much smaller claim than that we see a rebirt of Romanticism specifically.
	▲	defrost 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm not convinced Beethoven had contemporary groupies tossing him their muffs. Liszt, however ... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisztomania * (NSFW?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peJ_ncxXung