History of Museums of Classical Music

Introduction

It is no secret that in the 20th century, Western music went through critical and definitive periods. During that era, there were many uncertainties surrounding the world of the art of arranging sound. For instance, Burkholder (1983) states that composers could not agree on general trends, and the number of experiments was astounding compared to what was written before. This moment originated in the 19th century when the main goal was to leave a mark in the music museum. The change in musical culture has affected the performance of concerts, the paths musicians take, and the commercial outlook toward melodies. The combination of innovative, revolutionary, and experimental solutions in the music industry was an impetus to various difficulties, obstacles, and limitations within the framework of classical music.

The Historical Context

The Emergence of the Musical Canon

Primarily, it should be remarked that concerts were prominent in the 19th century when music was used for the aristocracy. Before this period, music was predominantly performed among the nobility, and during the rising popularity of concert culture, audiences knew works mostly of dead composers (Burkholder 1983). For example, before presenting the symphony, Mozart had to arrange the concert himself to perform the new work, and this concert happened once (Frisch 2012). The previously known long acts from songwriters became obsolete as concert hall culture arose. One century later, this exclusive interaction among upper echelons of society and musicians has gradually vanished. In addition, many composers desire to create and to be free from all restrictions in music has become apparent later. The situation changed in the 19th century when musicians, like their musical compositions, they were fast being liberated from the traditional power and restraint of ecclesiastical and aristocratic dignitaries (Goehr 2007, 206). If, before, musicians were treated as if they belonged to musical institutions, the 19th century allowed them to liberate themselves from this notion. Composers moved to urban cities and began creating new music, where their choice was valid.

The Factors and the Ways

Moreover, the factors such as the dynamics of changes and transformations in spiritual, cultural, and social needs, the reassessment of views, values, and preferences in music, as well as the formation and development of historicism as the movement led to the emergence of the musical canon (Burkholder 1983). The appearance and manifestation of such traditional elements and motifs in music led to revolutionary phenomena in terms of a clear distinction between popular melodies and earlier compositions (Burkholder 1983). In this way, classical music has acquired special meaning and a degree of seriousness, becoming something ideal, outstanding, and valuable for society.

The Music and Reception of Ludwig van Beethoven

The prominent figure embodying innovation was Beethoven, who demanded freedom and independence in music. According to Goehr, Beethoven showed his contemporaries and descendants that modern, liberated composers differed from their predecessors in having a choice& (2007, 208). His symphonies and works became extremely significant, and they significantly influenced the performance of music in concert halls. Furthermore, most pieces performed in the mid-19th century were Beethovens works (Frisch 2012). Even after his death, this author was highly regarded, and his works were recited frequently.

The Analytical Context

Once the idea of musical museums became more prominent, the new generations of composers started chasing the ideal rather than innovating. One of the contributing factors was the rise of infinite memory in concert halls. The change in the culture of concert halls and the retrospective approach towards works previously composed has hindered the emergence of new music. The latest music had to deserve its place among the works of old composers and emulation of said work. As a result of a desire to emulate and achieve perfection in music, the emerging generations of composers are unable to or discouraged from experiments and creation of new music.

While the 19th century marks the liberation of musicians, the amount of autonomous work has since declined. Rationally, one would assume that freedom from musical institutions and restrictive patronage would create more work, but it did quite the opposite. Apart from the rising prominence of concert halls, one of the explanations for this phenomenon is the prominence of Beethoven. Earlier in this essay, it was mentioned that Beethoven was among the greatest innovators in the music industry of his century. During the liberation, he was one of the most vocal artists. The popularity Beethoven gained through music has created a shadow encompassing all new composers. This shadow has made it nearly impossible for contemporary composers to create music, which was Beethovens central message; instead, it swayed them towards serial emulation and recitals. For instance, while working on his symphony in the second part of the 19th century, Brams claimed that he must live under Beethovens shadow; he was not ready to release his symphony due to the possible comparison between the two. Critics were often savage, comparing new symphonies unfavorably with the masterwork by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven (Frisch 2012, 178). The condemnation of new work and constant comparison to masterworks has discouraged composers. It is paradoxical how Beethovens desire to innovate has led future generations to emulate his work over and over.

The works of critics were not the factor in Beethovens continuing prominence but also the divine figure created by others. Beethoven was described as God, whereas Bach was Saint (Goehr 2007). Statements creating the divine image in combination with critics harsh words against new work in music have created this vacuum-like structure, claiming that every piece slightly different from great composers did not stand a chance. This framework puts a question mark on whether musicians were more complimentary before the 19th century.

The collective response towards music performance has also hindered innovation and creativity in music. Before the concert culture, music was regarded as an individual experience, whereas now it is a collective experience, with people going through the same emotions (Burkholder 1983). The same sentiment was expressed by Stravinsky, who once stated: I admit the commercial exploitation of a musical composition, but I do not admit its emotive exploitation (1924, 2). The same emotional response to music through a collective has become a norm derived from the culture of musical museums. Stravinsky shows discontent regarding that emotionally exploitative order, in which music can be felt in one way rather than individually. Another author also agrees with these judgments and facts, defining compositions as a product of individual and collective perception (Temple). Thus, Temples works combine classical and modern musical elements, respecting both established canons in creativity and innovative approaches.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the supposed innovativeness has restricted the music industry, especially new composers, who were forced to perform under the shadow of several great songwriters. The liberation of musicians, where Beethoven was highly vocal, was a great initiative and allowed some songwriters to open new ways for creativity and imagination. In this case, music has become less restricted for the rising middle class. At first sight, these aspects should have made music more diverse, but the results were different for the art of arranging sound. Moreover, the prominence of concert culture has led to the emergence of collective responses to the music, in combination with harsh criticism against anything other than emulation of the great composers. Today, many authors are intimidated to present their symphonies; they continue to live in the shadow of the greatest, with new limitations on inventiveness.