WORDS BY CHARLES RAYNOR and comments by ASV

-“History is probably the most complex of studies. For ease of digestion we break it down into various constituents and plan to study political history or social history, economic or military history; we think of the history of art or of science, of literature or of music…He finds that he cannot completely apprehend it without reference at least to some of the others.

-History tends always to become a single study, its boundaries extremely vague because of its vast comprehensiveness. IT IS AFTER ALL A RECORD OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES IN GENERAL, AND HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE NECESSARILY INTERDEPENDENT; BECAUSE THEY OVERLAP, THE UNAVOIDABLE DEPARTMENTALISATIONS INEVITABLY FALSFIY.

-The history of music has departments: harmony, form, texture, instruments, musical organizations, emperors….Music can come to life only in society; it cannot exist, any more than a play can exist, merely as a print on a page, for it presupposes both players and listeners. It is, therefore, open to all influences that society and the changes in social beliefs, habits and customs, can exert.

-Elementary history: evolutionary chain…who is better or more advanced…The pattern which has established itself in the historians’ minds needs no Bachs other than Johann Sebastian, so that Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach, who did as much as anyone to establish sonata form, and Johann Christian Bach, one of the Formative influences on the development of Mozart, seem to have no importance to them….Muzio Clementi as ground plan for Beethoven’s sonata pathetique…..Piano technology

-Stylistic history has been the accepted trend….Authors may be biased…Whether or not the historians whose view of the composer we have mentioned were aware of them, that is to say had read them in score and played or sung them in order to grasp this great and important aspect of his work, they had little opportunity to hear them in the concert hall…”THE TREATMENT OF THE 18TH C MUSIC BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE 19TH DEMONSTRATES THE ATTITUDES OF ONE AGE TO THE WORKS OF ANOTHER. SCHUMANN FOUND IN MOZART’S G MINOR SYMPHONY, TO US ONE OF THE MOST DESPERATE AND FORCEFUL OF WORKS, A FLOWING, SOARING GRACE. BERLIOZ DISMISSED THE SYMPHONIES AND CONCERTOS OF MOZART AS THE NECESSARY HACK WORK OF A GREAT MUSICAL DRAMATIST. WAGNER COULD FIND NOTHING MORE IN THE SYMPHONIES OF HAYDN THAN A CHILDISH PLAYING WITH NOTES. EVEN THE REACTIONARY HANSLICK, WRITING OF PARSIFAL IN 1882, SUGGESTED THAT WHAT THE OPERA NEEDED WAS A NAÏVE COMPOSER, POSSIBLY A KIND OF MOZART, THE ADJECTIVE BAFFLES THE MODERN READER

-History is not merely a chronological record of events; it is an explanation of the past through the present and of the present through the past. Therefore stylistic history does not become less necessary though it is written to show what its author wishes to

show, an aspect of truth which he may take to be the whole truth. It manifests the past as the past stands in relation to certain later activities; the past it shows may not be our past but is as real a past as ours

-Music does not exist in a vacuum

-Music must exist socially. It is written down so that people other than its composer can play it. The bulk of it presupposes the creative and the interpretative efforts of two, three or as many as a hundred performers…(Mozart’s aim: effectiveness/…Schoenberg: audience as distasteful necessity)..In one way or another society creates conditions in which he functions as best he can

-The whole social, political and practical background to musical history is necessary knowledge if we are clearly to understand not only what was done by a large number of composers in a large number of cases, but also why it was done.

-19thc historian : music and meaning; 20th c: music in itself; 18thc- music and society

-Therefore, a social history

*Why did was Beethoven a reasonably successful freelance composer while Mozart, a mere quarter of a century before him, died in extreme poverty although his music was phenomenally popular?

-More important than the dates of history is what we call PRIOR TEXT. Another term would be called CONTEXT. In other words, it seeks to understand the background, foreground or totality of a particular subject. A single note is meaningless unless joined by other notes as well. A piece of music cannot be thoroughly understood unless we study its composer, function, and societal set up of which it was created. In music history, there is no relationship within a list of historical dates unless explained through socio-political aspects such as economy, government, anthropology, etc. Dates are of different species as Levi-Strauss said. They do not form a logical series. What is more significant are its narrative events.

-2 perspectives of history: 1. Diachronic: temporal order of things; chronology; causality

: answers the question WHAT and WHEN 2. Synchronic: social structures which are constant

: answers the question WHY and HOW-As Henry Raynor says: “History is probably the most complex of

studies. For ease of digestion we break it down into various constituents and plan to study political history or social history, economic or military history; we think of the history of art or of science, of literature or of music as separate entities. He finds that he cannot completely apprehend it without reference at least to some of the others.”

-It is after all a record of human activities in general, and human activities are necessarily interdependent

-In music there are departments: harmony, form, texture, instruments, musical organizations, emperors,..etc. But these don’t form meaning unless related to the society. They cannot exist without the social structure. For a piece of music, it needs players and listeners…(exemption: Schoenberg)

-Problem with some history books: EVOLUTIONARY CHAIN..who is better or more advanced…There is no Bach exempt for J.S. Books fail to popularize that J.C. Bach was one of the formative influences on the development of Mozart; even Muzio Clementi. He laid the ground plan for Beethoven’s Pathetique

-Authors have been biased. They only showed what they need to show. This has been a product of the 19thc style of writing history…

-As Raynor says: The treatment of the 18thc music by the authorities of the 19thc demonstrates the attitudes of one age to the works of another. Schumann found in Mozart’s Gm symphony, to as one of the most desperate and forceful of works, a flowing, soaring grace. Berlioz dismissed the symphonies and concertos of Mozart as the necessary hack work of a great musical dramatist. Wagner could find nothing more in the symphonies of Haydn than a childish playing with notes. Even the reactionary Hanslick, writing of Parsifal in 1882, suggested that what the opera needed was a naïve composer, possibly a kind of Mozart, the adjective baffles the modern reader.”

-The more important point in history is the question: WHY was it done?

*Why did Mozart die a pauper when he was extremely popular?