Here is a quick crash course in western music history. I am not just aimlessly providing a two minute dissertation for my health. I do have a point- I promise.
500 AD: The main purpose of music was to drive church liturgy . Pope Gregory assumed his role as the big man on campus and declared that it would be named after him. Music wasn't viewed as art, and had a medieval Weird Al existed, he would have undoubtedly been excommunicated for piddling with the chant.
Around 800 some bigwig at a meeting of bigwigs decided that they needed to assert a little more control over things because they had self-esteem issues (my own speculation). They decided that having things written down might be a good idea. A few rebels (Frenchies) started getting antsy over having to listen to the same music for several hundred years and opted to throw in a line of harmony, and BAM! Polyphony became the new girl in town.
Polyphony was, understandably a great deal more attractive than the preexisting monkish music, and several schools popped up to develop this emerging genre. At some point, non-churchies wanted in on the action and realized that not only was it pretty swell to listen to, but a skilled composer could win the affection of the ladies. Enter: Wandering, perverted minstrels.
Contrasting to the religion-centric times of the Medieval period, Renaissance music marked the first serious outbreak of expressive, passionate music that no longer was confined to church ideals. Music was still fairly restricted to simplicity in the sacred setting (paranoid of a half cadence corrupting young, impressionable minds) but the invention of various secular music genres went absolutely bananas.
After about two hundred years, all of the cool kids reverted to sitting around the lunch table talking about the olden days (Ancient Greece) and how they'd really had it goin' on. The loosy-goosy Renaissance tunes were for backward thinkers- form and order were much more liberating and fashionable, and thus, we had the Baroque period... Which would have been perfect for the OCD composer. The Classical era followed, but began to add complexity to the Baroque form because people started melting and bending brass in new ways because they were tired of the harpsichord and violin. Who could blame them?
Jumping into the historical arena next was the cocky, older brother who was a little experimental and not afraid to be passionate- and helloooooo Romanticism. Music was bigger, badder, and certainly louder than ever before (Berlioz's 1000+ piece orchestra had to be SOME kind of fire hazard). That brought us into the twentieth century: much of whose music I would prefer not to acknowledge as being musical.
Over the past hundred years, we have transitioned away from trained musicians creating the bulk of music. Today, in 2012, much of the musical output is being created and spread by unskilled, inexperienced, often self-taught people who settle for mediocre music. As we look back at the history of music, it strikes me how much music reflects the culture it was a product of, and conversely, how the values of a culture can be seen in the music of a given period.
What will musicologists 100 years from now deduce of our society on the representative music of our time? We have had more participants and variety in our music than ever before thanks to technology, and with a greater production offers a clearer window into the soul of our society. Frankly, I am scared.
No comments:
Post a Comment