lets get positive...positive.
positive musicology. what does it mean to you? what does it mean to me? well, for a while i thought it was something that maybe carl and i had made up. however, it seems that it is not. it has been suggested that i cover three points in my discussion of the topic:
1. you should explain what it is.
2. what you have experienced as a student and
3. what it means to you, and how you would like to change it.
let's start with number 1: what is positivist musicology?
well, i do not know the true definition. maybe i'll look it up and post it at another time. but this is what it means to me (and i think it is more important this way since i may or may not have re-defined it):
positivist musicology is the analysis of music from a historical analytical perspective. actually, that is what musicology is. what makes musicology 'positivist' is the fact that musicologists refuse to take into consideration the society that the music developed in. when we study history, we should always look at the socio-political-economic impact. let us take for example, the developement of communist theory. there are several ways we could analysis this but we want to do so from a historical perspective. so, we would probably try to take into consideration what was happening in the world at the time that Engels and Marx were forming these ideas. we would probably be interested in where Marx and Engels fell in the society, were they members of the elite? or were they propety-less and members of the poor class of society? of course, we would probably try to understand exactly what communist theory means in and of itself. we might also ask how it effected society throughout history. this, in a nutshell, in a historical analysis. i think i could be leaving stuff out, but that's the basics.
in musicology, we tend to forget to to focus on the social atmosphere of the times. take for example Jean-Baptiste Lully. Lully is known as the father of French opera style. we are familar with his music. in a music history class we might learn about how he used dotted rhythms in his overtures because it reflected the fact that the king and nobles would usually walk in at this time. oh and by the way the king was Louis XIV, but thats not really important. or is it? in positivist musicology it really makes little difference where the music came from. it's just music. oh yes, there are some differences in choice of rhythm or structure or forms, maybe you might find a frotolla in italy but not in germany. however, that is all.
in my opinion, the study of music, if we are going to do it from a historical prespective should include the actual history. i go back to my example about Lully. if we knew anything about the french court during the 18th century we might understand why Lully uses the dotted rhythm in his overture. yes, the king would come in a sort of procession. but, Louis spent a lot of money on entertainment and indulged his court by putting on elaborate operas, performances, etc. however, he did not do this just because he liked all of the entertainment. it was because Louis knew that his nobles were concerned simply with status and reputation. by keeping them entertained with operas and ballets, they would not be concerned with what Louis XIV was doing politically. the question is whether or not that shows up in Lully's music. the answer is yes. often Lully and the librettist Moliere teamed up to promote ceratin views on the kingdom. for example, early on, Louis wanted to appear as though his monarchy was very strong militarily and so through the operas by Lully and Moliere, we find themes that might reflect military success. furthermore, the fact that Louis was a ballet dancer played a significant role in this opera-ballets. Louis was often cast as a Greek God or as a paternal figure.
does this make Lully a bad person? no, not really. I mean, Lully was probably just trying to make a decent living. however, he allowed himself and his music to become a political tool. this is important. in positivist musicology, such information is seen as irrelevant. i claim that it is not irrelevant. i claim that in order to fully under music and it's place in history, we must first discover what influenced the composer to write such music. in the case of Lully, he was influenced by the king of France to write in a specific way.
i think that there are musicologists/historians that do focus on the socio-political aspect of music history. however, i find that it is not widely accepted view. i do not think this problem is something common throughout history. i think it has its root in the 19th century, with so many other thing that i have problems with...
what i mean is that much of what we are seeing now, in the world, is a result of many actions the empowered nations of the world took place during the 19th century.
i know my views on the subject are fragmented and have some faulty reasoning. but it's a topic that i have a lot of difficultly with and i am still trying to suss it all out.
i'll read this over tommarow maybe and see if i can clear things up or try to tighten it up a bit. here are some final remarks:
i think that many people do not want to think of music as being influenced by the world that it lives in. i think that people want to believe that all music is beautiful and created for the sole purpose to be beautiful. i think that people think of music as an escape from reality. however, i think that music is not anything like that. i think that music is not always beautiful and i do not think music is created so that it makes people think, "oh that was pretty." i think that music, like other forms of entertainment, is a reflection of society. i think that when we can start focusing on how music reflects society, it is then that we can fullly understand it.
look for my next post as i answer question number 2: what have i experienced as a student in regards to positivist musicology?
by the way, the blisters from my sunburn are going down. still rather painful though. oh and yes, i really am enjoying those recordings! thanks again paul!
1. you should explain what it is.
2. what you have experienced as a student and
3. what it means to you, and how you would like to change it.
let's start with number 1: what is positivist musicology?
well, i do not know the true definition. maybe i'll look it up and post it at another time. but this is what it means to me (and i think it is more important this way since i may or may not have re-defined it):
positivist musicology is the analysis of music from a historical analytical perspective. actually, that is what musicology is. what makes musicology 'positivist' is the fact that musicologists refuse to take into consideration the society that the music developed in. when we study history, we should always look at the socio-political-economic impact. let us take for example, the developement of communist theory. there are several ways we could analysis this but we want to do so from a historical perspective. so, we would probably try to take into consideration what was happening in the world at the time that Engels and Marx were forming these ideas. we would probably be interested in where Marx and Engels fell in the society, were they members of the elite? or were they propety-less and members of the poor class of society? of course, we would probably try to understand exactly what communist theory means in and of itself. we might also ask how it effected society throughout history. this, in a nutshell, in a historical analysis. i think i could be leaving stuff out, but that's the basics.
in musicology, we tend to forget to to focus on the social atmosphere of the times. take for example Jean-Baptiste Lully. Lully is known as the father of French opera style. we are familar with his music. in a music history class we might learn about how he used dotted rhythms in his overtures because it reflected the fact that the king and nobles would usually walk in at this time. oh and by the way the king was Louis XIV, but thats not really important. or is it? in positivist musicology it really makes little difference where the music came from. it's just music. oh yes, there are some differences in choice of rhythm or structure or forms, maybe you might find a frotolla in italy but not in germany. however, that is all.
in my opinion, the study of music, if we are going to do it from a historical prespective should include the actual history. i go back to my example about Lully. if we knew anything about the french court during the 18th century we might understand why Lully uses the dotted rhythm in his overture. yes, the king would come in a sort of procession. but, Louis spent a lot of money on entertainment and indulged his court by putting on elaborate operas, performances, etc. however, he did not do this just because he liked all of the entertainment. it was because Louis knew that his nobles were concerned simply with status and reputation. by keeping them entertained with operas and ballets, they would not be concerned with what Louis XIV was doing politically. the question is whether or not that shows up in Lully's music. the answer is yes. often Lully and the librettist Moliere teamed up to promote ceratin views on the kingdom. for example, early on, Louis wanted to appear as though his monarchy was very strong militarily and so through the operas by Lully and Moliere, we find themes that might reflect military success. furthermore, the fact that Louis was a ballet dancer played a significant role in this opera-ballets. Louis was often cast as a Greek God or as a paternal figure.
does this make Lully a bad person? no, not really. I mean, Lully was probably just trying to make a decent living. however, he allowed himself and his music to become a political tool. this is important. in positivist musicology, such information is seen as irrelevant. i claim that it is not irrelevant. i claim that in order to fully under music and it's place in history, we must first discover what influenced the composer to write such music. in the case of Lully, he was influenced by the king of France to write in a specific way.
i think that there are musicologists/historians that do focus on the socio-political aspect of music history. however, i find that it is not widely accepted view. i do not think this problem is something common throughout history. i think it has its root in the 19th century, with so many other thing that i have problems with...
what i mean is that much of what we are seeing now, in the world, is a result of many actions the empowered nations of the world took place during the 19th century.
i know my views on the subject are fragmented and have some faulty reasoning. but it's a topic that i have a lot of difficultly with and i am still trying to suss it all out.
i'll read this over tommarow maybe and see if i can clear things up or try to tighten it up a bit. here are some final remarks:
i think that many people do not want to think of music as being influenced by the world that it lives in. i think that people want to believe that all music is beautiful and created for the sole purpose to be beautiful. i think that people think of music as an escape from reality. however, i think that music is not anything like that. i think that music is not always beautiful and i do not think music is created so that it makes people think, "oh that was pretty." i think that music, like other forms of entertainment, is a reflection of society. i think that when we can start focusing on how music reflects society, it is then that we can fullly understand it.
look for my next post as i answer question number 2: what have i experienced as a student in regards to positivist musicology?
by the way, the blisters from my sunburn are going down. still rather painful though. oh and yes, i really am enjoying those recordings! thanks again paul!
1 Comments:
rewrite the grout...eww. i have to say, that i have read the grout. it's pretty terrible though. i don't know why it became a standard. best person to ask would be dr. baker i think.
Post a Comment
<< Home