Why study Music History? – A student perspective

It’s true, I took the title from Dr. Hanning’s introduction to the Norton Textbook in which she states that the study of music history is important basically because it is out of past styles that present ones emerge, sometimes out of influence and sometimes out of rebellion. In addition, because there is such an immense amount of material that has surfaced recently as well as methods of disseminating that information it makes the present a prime-time to study the past. Far be it for me to contradict the opinion of such an accomplished writer. But if we examine the study of music history from a practical perspective; knowledge in the subject will not really help you execute 32nd note quintuplets in a concerto, nor will anyone say: “wow, you really know your stuff about isorhythmic motets, here, let me hire you for our film-score.” In fact, on the surface, if your goal is to be something other than a music historian, you might very well come to the opinion that the three hours in class and nine hours doing homework is something of a distraction from practicing those 32nd note runs or networking to get that soundtrack gig. Why then, should students be locked in to such strenuous examinations which seem to have little if any “professional” value?

Of course, we know (or should know by now) that there is imminent professional value in the study of music history. Let’s say the student’s ambition is to be a performer, as many students aspire to this end. I think it is safe to say that virtually all great performers of the 20th century could speak eloquently on the historical value that their music played. Glen Gould was an extremely successful performer before he retired, but he is notable mostly for the amount of film-work and recordings he did that mostly had to do with an historical perspective, works such as “The Alchemist” are considered standard viewing for those who would pursue a professional piano career. Same thing with Jorge Bolet, who was known for making decisions in his playing that contradicted what people thought of as historically accurate execution, Bolet’s response to this was simple “I have studied the pieces more than the composer, therefore my decisions come from an educated place.” This is really the thrust of the whole argument, someone who understands style, compositional practices and philosophies that were popular during a piece’s composition, and still decides to take liberties in a performance, does so not haphazardly out of ignorance, but rather from a place of well founded study. The difference is all too noticeable for those of us who have ever heard a piano student’s first attempt a Bach, where overly dramatic dynamics, damper pedal and varying tempo are all too common.





For the composer, this becomes a two-fold necessity. I think it is safe to say that the twentieth century produced more strain on those who write music than any other century in history. The need to individualize one’s self against the past as well as individualize one’s self against colleagues has made for a very diverse musical landscape. Here again, we see the most influential musicians coming from a place of very intense study of history. There is a story about Nadia Boulanger; that she made all of her composition students memorize the entire WTC before they could officially begin their lessons, therefore, Copland, Glass, Piazolla, Blitzstein, Villa-Lobos and Ginestara (just to name a few) were all incredibly well versed in contrapuntal practices used in the past, even if they chose not to employ them in obvious ways (such as Glass or Blitzstein). Of course, most of the prominent composers did choose to implement historical methods in their composition which speaks volumes as to how successful they became. Even great popular musicians who only recently have been associated with “art” music spent great lengths in study of the musical past. John Coltrane and Ornet Coleman were both well known for their interest in past and current trends in musical composition, indeed I don’t think it is too far of a stretch to say that the piece “Giant Steps” could ever have been written without a firm grounding in Hymn-style homophony (or counterpoint for that matter).





I shouldn’t really need to write why music educators need to understand music history, imagine a teacher trying to educate a student on Bach’s two-part inventions without knowledge of meantone tuning practices or for that matter, knowing nothing about the harpsichord or clavichord. Or trying to discuss the music of Liszt without discussing the music of Beethoven – this venture would be absurd. But does the study of music history for educators go beyond the study of music? In a word; “yes.” We are fortunate in art history (but particularly in music history) to be aided by real divisions in style and thought. Baroque music is not like Classical music and so on, there are genuine thoughtful divides that happened not only in art but also in society as a whole. Therefore art history has the opportunity to be the best representation of world history because art (and music) are not only representations of how society thinks, but also how society is supposed to think.

In the final analysis, studying any subject intensely will never harm you, it will only help – the degree of which is largely up to you. So while really knowing why Gesualdo might be considered the first “modern” composer wont land you that permanent gig in the orchestra, or playing at that swinging club on the weekends, it will allow you to access an incredible reservoir of tools that will aid in your studies to get there. In a best case scenario, it might give you the edge in what is otherwise the single most competitive field on the planet.