Is a "history of music" possible?
Brian Robinson
to me worth fuller discussion. In case you missed the original query,
the full comment is in "Walton and the Cambridge Music Guide" below.
Mark wrote:
"I'm afraid that seems to be the only option! Philosophically
speaking, I'd say that there are tremendous problems associated with the
kinds of 'music history' which people write. What is more, there's
simply too much music around for any one person to know enough to be
able to construct a meaningful history of it - or for an editor to be
able realistically to collate and integrate *other people's* part-
histories. What's more, many academics 'know' more *about* music than
they know *music*, and *understand* less music than they know. In short,
the kind of 'history of music' we think we want is impossible to write -
which is no real problem, since it would be impossible for us to
genuinely, deeply understand if it were written (for the same
reasons...). " ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean, Mark. Why is music
different from, say, philosophy, about which people write histories, or
painting (see Gombrich for example)? Or even literature? I note you
use the word 'meaningful' - suggesting that you might allow that there
could be histories that are not meaningful, but then what criterion are
you using for 'meaningful'?
Possibly I'm being simplistic, but why could someone not have
illuminating things to say about early music, its forms, its social
role, the society in which it developed, and then move on to later music
and so on ...? And histories _are_ written and published, you can buy
them in shops ...
I suppose in a sense, I might understand you to mean that because
historical events and personalities are constantly being re-evaluated,
are never 'fixed' for all time, that 'history' is therefore not like
solid blocks of concrete facts - there's always the perspective of the
age in which they are being viewed, the time and place where the history
is being (re)written ... And the music is being played (again) and
heard (again).
And I suppose the teaching of 'history' in schools is one of the most
controversial subjects (and maybe why the more recent history of a
country is not so often taught in that country's schools).
I remember several (many?) years ago, there was a wonderful series from
Deutsche Gramophon (?spelling), Archiv, I think it was called, and the
idea was to go right from earliest (western) music up to the present -
if I've remembered correctly. I haven't heard of it for ages - have
they stopped it? Would you allow that there could be some sort of CD-
History of Music? A sort of Open University course?
I'd like to hear other peoples' views as well, if anyone has the time.
And, by the way, even if Mark can't, can you recommend a good, oh dear,
eh, History of Music?
All best
Brian
--
Brian Robinson
mike
news:B8Cl5qBJ...@gbrmusicweaver.demon.co.uk:
Gombrich doesn't work very well (one of my degrees is in Art
History).
> Or even literature?
best to write very specialized literature on specific problems
in
literature. there is no decent history of literature, but
there are very
helpful hints and guides.
> I note you
> use the word 'meaningful' - suggesting that you might allow
that there
> could be histories that are not meaningful, but then what
criterion are
> you using for 'meaningful'?
you read Braudel? he's writing about a specific history of
exchange,
which he can document. the invention of a money instrument is
very like
the invention of a musical instrument. but the effect of the
musical
instrument isn't really talked of in general music history.
when you had
music 101, did your teacher talk of the invention of the
phonograph, and
its effect on music? probably not.
>
> Possibly I'm being simplistic, but why could someone not
have
> illuminating things to say about early music, its forms, its
social
> role, the society in which it developed,
how does anyone show "connections" as meaningful, unless they
are willing
to show society as an aesthetic convention? my music history
dorks
couldn't think of a reason for much of anything. and here, dr.
matt is
denying "talent" as a motive for writing music. from matt, we
could
sumise a music history free of personality... that's ok. we
need to get
away from "great composers" mentality. and that might be the
point: that
each turn of curiosity demands a different account. instead of
"music
history" why not a history of the social uses of music? this
is what's
happening in art history now (gombrich was crypto-freudian).
> and then move on to later music
> and so on ...? And histories _are_ written and published,
you can buy
> them in shops ...
>
> I suppose in a sense, I might understand you to mean that
because
> historical events and personalities are constantly being re-
evaluated,
> are never 'fixed' for all time, that 'history' is therefore
not like
> solid blocks of concrete facts - there's always the
perspective of the
> age in which they are being viewed, the time and place where
the
> history is being (re)written ... And the music is being
played (again)
> and heard (again).
well, there you are. this is fine. and, i like how you say
that music is
a time-dependent activity... that there is nothing except
manuscript and
recorded media to point to, when you say "this is music".
>
> And I suppose the teaching of 'history' in schools is one of
the most
> controversial subjects (and maybe why the more recent
history of a
> country is not so often taught in that country's schools).
>
> I remember several (many?) years ago, there was a wonderful
series from
> Deutsche Gramophon (?spelling), Archiv, I think it was
called, and the
> idea was to go right from earliest (western) music up to the
present -
> if I've remembered correctly. I haven't heard of it for
ages - have
> they stopped it? Would you allow that there could be some
sort of CD-
> History of Music? A sort of Open University course?
how would it be presented, though? as The Truth about music,
or as a
collection of neat things to hear? i like things to be
meaningful, but i
like to feel sympathy with the presentation. what's he called,
"James
Burke", did that with "connections". and leaping lenny helped
me, with
his TV programs.
mark doran
> different from, say, philosophy, about which people write histories, or
> painting (see Gombrich for example)? Or even literature? I note you
> use the word 'meaningful' - suggesting that you might allow that there
> could be histories that are not meaningful, but then what criterion are
> you using for 'meaningful'?
Okay. People do indeed produce so-called 'histories' of all these things.
But first off we should separate philosophy from art and literature:
philosophy is discursive and propositional, hence it can be *summarized*.
Music, painting and literature (or rather, music and the *artistic* part of
painting and literature) are non-discursive and non-propositional, and
communicate by *instantiation*; hence they cannot be summarised, and their
understanding requires 'knowledge-by-acquintance' rather than mere
'knowledge-by-description'. In short, I can tell you what Schopenhauer
meant, but only your own deep experience of Wagner's music can tell you what
Wagner meant. My explanation of what Schopenhauer meant could well be
meaningful, if I summarize him well enough; but any similar attempt to
provide a verbal explanation of what Wagner meant would not be meaningful -
it would be a falsification - however much people might wish to publish and
read it (since for one thing they probably hope to use it as a substitute
for a musical experience which either they can't have or don't want to
bother with or are profoundly afraid of).
>
> Possibly I'm being simplistic, but why could someone not have
> illuminating things to say about early music, its forms, its social
> role, the society in which it developed, and then move on to later music
> and so on ...? And histories _are_ written and published, you can buy
> them in shops ...
...and then you find that the one you've bought leaves Walton entirely out
of account!
Seriously, it is undoubtedly possible to say meaningful things about the
topics you list. Occasionally I even say and publish a few such things
myself! But do think about what happens when a commentator makes the step
which takes them from mere chronology and 'first-order' factuality
('Bruckner was born in 1824 and wrote nine numbered symphonies, the last of
which was not completed') to actual *history* in the interpretative and
explanatory sense that we construe it today (genuine example: 'Bruckner was
dissatisfied with the state of the symphony as he had inherited it, so he...
'). My first example would be impregnably correct and undestructive; the
second is pestilential horseshit, and whoever wrote it (in a textbook I once
tried to use when teaching a class) should be horsewhipped for taking a
first-order factual observation ('Gee, Bruckner's symphonies aren't like
those of earlier writers') and then covertly *fantasizing* a convenient
mytho-biographical motivation to provide the kind of 'cause' which would,
they assume, have produced the 'effect' they detect. If you want an
absolutely horrifying example of how this kind of thing adds up, read Barry
Cooper's new book on Beethoven: in my copy I've underlined hundreds of
passages where Cooper points out that Beethoven has done something, and then
presents AS FACT an entirely fantasized 'reason' for his having done it
('Beethoven thought...'; 'Beethoven decided that...'; 'Beethoven considered
that...').
As for information about 'music's social role, the society in which it
developed', etc, there are similar difficulties: the historian cannot resist
the temptation to tie everything up nicely by presenting a mere succession
of events as embodying *causality*, and mere simultaneity as implying
*kinship*. Thus events in the social field are (mis-)read into events in the
development of composition without evidence being presented (or available).
Plus, a *genuine* 'social history' of music would be a dreary thing from a
musical person's point of view - for the simple reason that *most* of what
goes on musically in a society is nothing to do with the few 'great names'
we tend to care about: a 'slice' of 18th century musical life would be a
weak broth indeed from the standpoint of a person interested in musical
value as manifested in enduring greatness. So what we get instead is all too
often an attempt to explain the *unrepresentative* 'peaks' in terms of the
utterly banal and *everyday*... It is, if you like, mediocrity's revenge on
greatness...
>
> I suppose in a sense, I might understand you to mean that because
> historical events and personalities are constantly being re-evaluated,
> are never 'fixed' for all time, that 'history' is therefore not like
> solid blocks of concrete facts - there's always the perspective of the
> age in which they are being viewed, the time and place where the history
> is being (re)written ... And the music is being played (again) and
> heard (again).
I would say that when the step is taken to make 'history' out of chronology,
what happens is that a whole bunch of fantasies are imported into the
discourse in order that, rather than attempting to describe and account for
the world as it is, the writer can simply and reassuringly paint a picture
of the world as they would like it to be. Unfortunately, that's what the
academic 'humanities' tend to do...
> And, by the way, even if Mark can't, can you recommend a good, oh dear,
> eh, History of Music?
The history, insofar as it's worth having, is *in the music*: you just have
to know, and musically understand, enough of it...
:)
Regards,
Mark D.
mike
news:3c9b7eca$0$8512$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com:
> "Brian Robinson" <br...@gbrmusicweaver.demon.co.uk> wrote in
>>
>> I'm not sure that I understand what you mean, Mark. Why is music
>> different from, say, philosophy, about which people write histories,
>> or painting (see Gombrich for example)? Or even literature? I note
>> you use the word 'meaningful' - suggesting that you might allow that
>> there could be histories that are not meaningful, but then what
>> criterion are you using for 'meaningful'?
>
> Okay. People do indeed produce so-called 'histories' of all these
> things. But first off we should separate philosophy from art and
> literature: philosophy is discursive and propositional,
you're talking about the word manipulation called "logic". logic is a tool of
philosophy, but it is also a tool of history and woodshop. philosophy is just
one more form of literature, as is history.
you cannot posit that there is a "true", only assert that what you are saying
"feels" true.
> hence it can be
> *summarized*. Music, painting and literature (or rather, music and the
> *artistic* part of painting and literature) are non-discursive and
> non-propositional, and communicate by *instantiation*; hence they
> cannot be summarised, and their understanding requires
tottly absurd. the products of any art are to the mind as the products of any
mental activity. it is dillusional to think that, law, for instance, involves
apriori truth. much less to think that any opinion body involves saying true
things. that's the hang-up of religion: that the Book is supposed to be truer
than any other form of literature.
> 'knowledge-by-acquintance' rather than mere 'knowledge-by-description'.
> In short, I can tell you what Schopenhauer meant,
S. was a momma's boy trying to invent being an adult. he completely
misunderstood Hegel, a misunderstanding which enriched the literature of
philosophy, but did nothing for the understanding.
> but only your own
> deep experience of Wagner's music can tell you what Wagner meant.
only your deep experience of a hamburger can tell you what "cow" means.
> My
> explanation of what Schopenhauer meant could well be meaningful, if I
> summarize him well enough;
this is ok.
> but any similar attempt to provide a verbal
> explanation of what Wagner meant would not be meaningful - it would be
> a falsification - however much people might wish to publish and read it
> (since for one thing they probably hope to use it as a substitute for a
> musical experience which either they can't have or don't want to bother
> with or are profoundly afraid of).
>
>>
>> Possibly I'm being simplistic, but why could someone not have
>> illuminating things to say about early music, its forms, its social
>> role, the society in which it developed, and then move on to later
>> music and so on ...? And histories _are_ written and published, you
>> can buy them in shops ...
>
> ...and then you find that the one you've bought leaves Walton entirely
> out of account!
man the lifeboats!
>
> Seriously, it is undoubtedly possible to say meaningful things about
> the topics you list. Occasionally I even say and publish a few such
> things myself! But do think about what happens when a commentator makes
> the step which takes them from mere chronology and 'first-order'
> factuality ('Bruckner was born in 1824 and wrote nine numbered
> symphonies, the last of which was not completed') to actual *history*
> in the interpretative and explanatory sense that we construe it today
silliness. we don't write history like that today, and people who do write that
kind of history are writing for people living in the 19th century. you're
ignoring the social realities of book publishing: why do people want to read?
> (genuine example: 'Bruckner was dissatisfied with the state of the
> symphony as he had inherited it, so he... '). My first example would be
> impregnably correct and undestructive; the second is pestilential
> horseshit, and whoever wrote it (in a textbook I once tried to use when
> teaching a class) should be horsewhipped for taking a first-order
> factual observation
if it were history he were writing, and not music appreciation for retards.
>('Gee, Bruckner's symphonies aren't like those of
> earlier writers') and then covertly *fantasizing* a convenient
> mytho-biographical motivation to provide the kind of 'cause' which
> would, they assume, have produced the 'effect' they detect. If you want
> an absolutely horrifying example of how this kind of thing adds up,
> read Barry Cooper's new book on Beethoven: in my copy I've underlined
> hundreds of passages where Cooper points out that Beethoven has done
> something, and then presents AS FACT an entirely fantasized 'reason'
> for his having done it ('Beethoven thought...'; 'Beethoven decided
> that...'; 'Beethoven considered that...').
>
> As for information about 'music's social role, the society in which it
> developed', etc, there are similar difficulties: the historian cannot
> resist the temptation to tie everything up nicely by presenting a mere
> succession of events as embodying *causality*,
your argument is much more causistic than, say, Braudel's.
> and mere simultaneity as
> implying *kinship*.
again, why are people reading books? imagine the difficulty: they only like to
read in the languages they know. :)
> Thus events in the social field are (mis-)read into
> events in the development of composition without evidence being
> presented (or available).
a great writer can associate phenomena through manipulation of concepts. what
you're missing, in this argument, is the notion of "talent". some writers are
better than others; some readers read for more than emblematic phrases.
>Plus, a *genuine* 'social history' of music
> would be a dreary thing from a musical person's point of view
musical people must be dreary little people then. why do we need to waste time
trying to educate them? they can tootle their horns, and that can be the end of
it.
> - for the
> simple reason that *most* of what goes on musically in a society is
> nothing to do with the few 'great names' we tend to care about: a
> 'slice' of 18th century musical life would be a weak broth indeed from
> the standpoint of a person interested in musical value as manifested in
> enduring greatness.
yeah, but the inventors of music animate the musical life. it's like ignoring
the inventions of Bonaparte when writing about the Napolianic wars.
> So what we get instead is all too often an attempt
> to explain the *unrepresentative* 'peaks' in terms of the utterly banal
> and *everyday*... It is, if you like, mediocrity's revenge on
> greatness...
there are so many teaching assistants needing full time jobs, and so few
positions.
>
>>
>> I suppose in a sense, I might understand you to mean that because
>> historical events and personalities are constantly being re-evaluated,
>> are never 'fixed' for all time, that 'history' is therefore not like
>> solid blocks of concrete facts - there's always the perspective of the
>> age in which they are being viewed, the time and place where the
>> history is being (re)written ... And the music is being played
>> (again) and heard (again).
>
> I would say that when the step is taken to make 'history' out of
> chronology, what happens is that a whole bunch of fantasies are
> imported into the discourse in order that,
history of literature agrees that the writings of any historian are conceptually
inferior to the writings of the philosopher that was their teacher. history is a
nice fiction, and, like any fiction, it can show us something about "life".
"show us" is the problem you seem to be having though, and i share it. how do we
understand an action and then present it as a "fact"? better to do the
philosophy and determine how "facts" relate to anything at all.
>rather than attempting to
> describe and account for the world as it is, the writer can simply and
> reassuringly paint a picture of the world as they would like it to be.
> Unfortunately, that's what the academic 'humanities' tend to do...
>
>> And, by the way, even if Mark can't, can you recommend a good, oh
>> dear, eh, History of Music?
>
> The history, insofar as it's worth having, is *in the music*: you just
> have to know, and musically understand, enough of it...
>
bogus for most listeners. divide listeners into consumers and creators: each has
a different need for music, and, hence, a need for a different kind of "history
of music"... a different "hearing" of the music. might as well just let the
consumers believe in carl haas.
>:)
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark D.
mike
>
>
>
>
Brian Robinson
<do...@dial.pipex.com> writes
>Okay. People do indeed produce so-called 'histories'
Many thanks Mark for elaborating in such detail. I think I do see what
you're saying, but it's too late (GMT) for me to think now! Just got
back from the concert in Birmingham (drove 150 miles there and back,
motivation, enthusiasm!). It was a terrific performance of Walton 2
with the Philharmonia and Hickox, and earlier Joshua Bell giving a
fizzing account of the W. Concerto. Also had, well, OK, it's good film
music, the Henry V suite arrangement (please folks don't all write in!).
About what you wrote, my _very preliminary_ response is that all this is
a bit too intellectual (not that I'm against being intellectual) for
what I'm asking. It may be like an undergraduate asking what philosophy
is about and being treated to a half hour discourse on Derrida complete
with neologisms - no, I'm being facetious, but what I mean is that what
you say may well be true, but _maybe_(?) is inappropriate!
Take another example. An undergraduate asks, 'What is hypnosis?' The
psychology tutor, instead of giving a simple answer, gives an account of
the state/nonstate controversy, and ends by saying, 'So, you see,
'hypnosis', so-called, doesn't really exist'! What the tutor has said
is not necessarily untrue, it's just that his answer is the wrong one
for the purposes of the questioner.
This may be an operational approach to the particular matter I asked
about. I think I may be trying to suggest that there is no 'absolute'
way of answering a question - although the answer must not be
deliberately false, of course: the context perhaps should determine the
_kind_ of answer. Who asked it, why, when, where? What is he or she
going to do with the answer? Why does the questioner _need_ the answer?
And so, I repeat, to the point of perhaps boredom (not mine, but maybe
others') - who is going to help me understand, for example, the origin
of modes, and how and when and at whose hands did they develop into the
diatonic key system, and so on and so forth? I can't become a student
of music and attend tutorials or lectures, I'm probably not in a
position to read or subscribe to the kind of academic journals I imagine
someone like you would do, and I'm dissatisfied with the sorts of bits
and scraps that I do pick up from, e.g., BBC Music Magazine, radio
programmes, newspaper articles and so on and so forth ... (And moving
on from modes, the same, mutatis mutandis, re sonatas, and from there &c
&c...)
I did have, in childhood, formal lessons in theory, harmony &c alongside
the practical instrumental work, but do you see what I'm saying? I'm
seeking to extend my knowledge of the development, over several hundred
years, of western music, yet you _seem_ (unless I've misunderstood you)
almost to be saying that there's no way for me, as distinct perhaps from
the full time student or scholar, to do this - i.e. to do this in a way
much more systematic and organised than I've been able to do hitherto.
Your reply almost sounds like a sort of didactic nihilism, or maybe even
cynicism, i.e. something that goes beyond skepticism. Perhaps like the
novice psychology student asking about hypnosis, I thought I was asking
a simple question. The complex answer did not help the student who
encountered not only textbooks on hypnosis in bookshops, but found many
of his seniors practising something they quite happily, empirically,
called hypnosis!
One more thought before I go. Even if you were to persuade me that you
are right about so-called history of music books, it would not mean that
I should not read them. In fact, I might argue that it could only mean
that I should try to read them _all_. That way, they would presumably
correct one another. The totally wrong information you quoted as an
example (about Tchaikovsky), would be righted by the next book I read.
I would like to submit that someone like you, when, that is, you are
being a teacher, should be encouraging someone like me to think and
evaluate for him or her self, whereas what I seem to hear (and it may
not at all be what you are saying) is that I should just take your word
for it on your authority because you are a musicologist.
But as I said above, it's much too late and I should go.
Bye for now.
- B.
--
Brian Robinson
gm
> how does anyone show "connections" as meaningful, unless they
> are willing
> to show society as an aesthetic convention? my music history
> dorks
> couldn't think of a reason for much of anything. and here, dr.
> matt is
> denying "talent" as a motive for writing music. from matt, we
> could
> sumise a music history free of personality... that's ok. we
> need to get
> away from "great composers" mentality. and that might be the
> point: that
> each turn of curiosity demands a different account. instead of
> "music
> history" why not a history of the social uses of music? this
> is what's
> happening in art history now (gombrich was crypto-freudian).
>
NAXOS came out with a good, and reasonably comprehensive history of
Western Music a couple of years ago. It's 4 discs, or about 5 hours.
Then, of course, there was THE MUSIC OF MAN with Yehudi Menuhin a
couple of decades ago. A history of music could be done even more
briefly then the NAXOS if things were kept strictly at a bird's eye
view of music history. This would eliminate alot of important details
of course, but so what? I assume that the point of the program would
be to attract NEW listeners to classical music. Or at least eliminate
the kind of hostility towards the classics that young people are too
often conditioned to have these days.