Is music history important?

Well, I've been wondering, just how important is studying music history for a composer or any musician for that matter?

I, speaking only for myself, think it's incredibly important to learn music history as a composer and a musician. In addition to the wealth of knowledge about performance practice and the development of music, there are also valuable insights to be gained from music history study. How a particular genre of music arose (such as opera, which was originally trying to get back to the roots of Greek theater) or why we have some of the conventions that we still use to this day, I think being able to see the spectrum of music is vitally important to a musician. I mean, sure you can compose and perform without knowing, but isn't it more enriching to know these things? I know as a performer, I particularly enjoy really digging deep into a piece, knowing what was going through a composers mind, and what was happening in their life that caused them to write the music that they did. I think this gives an overall richer experience, and as a composer, it keeps me grounded.

I think this gives an overall richer experience, and as a composer, it keeps me grounded.

What do you mean by "it keeps me grounded"? In what way?

You can't know where you're going if you don't know where you've been.

What do you mean by "it keeps me grounded"? In what way?

It keeps me humble, but at the same time, it lets me know that where I am and what I am doing has been done before.

Also what Robin said right above this.

Is breathing necessary to live?

Some of the questions on this forum...actually sicken me. They actually - make me physically ill.

qft

You literally can't have music without music history....

Is breathing necessary to live?

Some of the questions on this forum...actually sicken me. They actually - make me physically ill.

Na, na, Nicola, I just don't believe your latter statement at all! Or are you psychosomatically inclined?

Why is a question about musical tradition meaningful? Because its answer is part of our musical identity

qft

You literally can't have music without music history....

An equivocably wrong statement.

On the other hand, history sure as anything helps.

Because its answer is part of our musical identity – as a composer as well as a musician!

And here's why. You can willfully chose to be ignorant of your culture and write outside of that. Music pansies seem to call it "outsider music' date='" and as with any arty wing of music, it includes some hacks, but some very legitimate artists. The two who are mentioned the most that I've seen are Jandek (who I just can't get into) and Y. Bhekhirst (who's hypnotic, if very bad in a traditional sense).

But through an almost adolescent rejection, you can reach the artistic goals you set out to do.

/me believes this because he knows so little history.

An equivocably wrong statement.

On the other hand, history sure as anything helps.

And here's why. You can willfully chose to be ignorant of your culture and write outside of that. Music pansies seem to call it "outsider music," and as with any arty wing of music, it includes some hacks, but some very legitimate artists. The two who are mentioned the most that I've seen are Jandek (who I just can't get into) and Y. Bhekhirst (who's hypnotic, if very bad in a traditional sense).

But through an almost adolescent rejection, you can reach the artistic goals you set out to do.

/me believes this because he knows so little history.

I have always had a strange fascination with Jandek.. but I just can't quite get it. That doesn't mean I don't try.

Yes, it's necessary. You may dislike it, you may be utterly bored out of your mind (like most students who take it), but it is in fact useful and in my opinion necessary.

Besides, at most schools, you can't get your Bachelor's degree in music without it.

qft

You literally can't have music without music history....

That's like saying I can't take a sip of water if I don't know the molecular structure of H2O.

That's like saying I can't take a sip of water if I don't know the molecular structure of H2O.

But as a composer it's like trying to write the theory of relativity without knowledge of Newtonian physics.

Yeah but he asserted that you can't HAVE music without music history. He didn't say you couldn't MAKE music without music history.

That's like saying I can't take a sip of water if I don't know the molecular structure of H2O.

no.. its more like saying You can't take a sip of water without Hydrogen and Oxygen... he didn't say anything about knowledge of music history...

I agree with ferk. You can make music either way. It's just that studying music history will most likely help you get your music to sound how you want it to. Of course, if you don't want to do anything remotely similar to the past (in my opinion, not a good idea, but who knows, it could work), then studying music history is not only unhelpful, but harmful. That's not the goal of most people here.

While I basically agree with Ferk that music can be made either way, I still believe it's something that is very important. It's also been my experience that a lot of composers who reject history/theory tend to write much, much more tradtional music than they really believe they do. They're just too ignorant of it to realize that they're doing something that's already been done for hundreds of years.

How do you know about music? From listening to it.

Therefore, any perception anyone has of music is history, unless they're somehow listening to music from the future.

That was the point I was trying to make, that music is precisely made from whatever history of it we hear and are brought up in (western, eastern, whatever)....

music is a soul ur soul if u feel its part of your soul to learn music history then do.. otherwise ull develop a hate for an important part of music

personalyl i luv music history.. i mean im currently doign a 2000word essay on Prokofievs Montagues and Capulets versus Debussys claire de lune..

history is important without history we would not have today.

music is a soul ur soul if u feel its part of your soul to learn music history then do.. otherwise ull develop a hate for an important part of music

personalyl i luv music history.. i mean im currently doign a 2000word essay on Prokofievs Montagues and Capulets versus Debussys claire de lune..

history is important without history we would not have today.

I hope you spell better in your paper.

I was just about to type the same thing before I saw this post on the top of the 2nd page of the thread. He spelt "Prokofievs Montagues and Capulets versus Debussys" all correctly, albeit a lazy pinky finger if you know what I mean. I think he's legit. I think. ;)

music is a soul ur soul if u feel its part of your soul to learn music history then do.. otherwise ull develop a hate for an important part of music

personalyl i luv music history.. i mean im currently doign a 2000word essay on Prokofievs Montagues and Capulets versus Debussys claire de lune..

history is important without history we would not have today.

I don't believe in souls.

See, but a kid in kindergarten who doesn't know Tchaichovsky from Chopsticks can still make, improvise, even compose music. It's all the same...

Making continuous similes about this is kind of like arguing with republicans...futile and pointless.

What are all republicans inherently boorish and stubborn? I don't buy it, and you should know better than to be so glib.

P.S. Music isn't a part of your "soul". This is 2009 people, enough with the primitive nonsense, no one has a soul.

P.S. Music isn't a part of your "soul". This is 2009 people, enough with the primitive nonsense, no one has a soul.

It's part of my soul... :whistling: