Tweet
We all know the famous Civil War songs, Foster, Work, Emmet and Root.
But this is not and cannot be all the music that was being played.
I Asked self a question, and ts hard one.
How many people could read music at least to the degree of being able to learn something, if not sightread it straight from the page?
Now a little bit of research shows that in Europe at least, pianos and violins were quite common and I find it difficult to accept the common view that they all played by ear. Especially in view of the massive industry that churned out millions of sheet music copies belonging to Root and Cady and also in light of the large numbers of Blackmars sheet destroyed by Ben Butler in New Orleans.
This leads me to the conclusion that the ability to read music was not as rare then as we expect it to be then, and certainly more common than today.
This is further backed up by the speed at which these tunes became popular and were carried around the country and the purity they retained, music by ear is subject to Chinese whispers too.
Now this leads on to my main question.
If they were able to play all the usual stuff and could basically read, at least well enough to earn the tune by rote, were they playing anything else?
Mendelsohn was the blue eyed boy of Victorian music and tons of his stuff was published and sent about the world. he also engineered the return of Bach as popular music. Now unless one is a very good musician I would not recommend Mendelsohn, but Bach is a different story, especially the manuscript written for his kids from the diaries of Bach, and it is pleasant and easy to play and memorize and had been about for a century before. Thus it may have been played pre revolution along with Purcell and Handel(Composer to king George). Now this baroque music is far more durable than we think and much of it slipped out of popular culture with the arrival of classical or Romantic styles. But still it did not vanish but found a home as Hymn tunes, anyone who has a hymn book handy does not need to look far for these names
I have also had thrown my way music for parade and ball room. Marches by Strauss and Waltzes by Kleiber, Julien, Lanner, Asher and Rossini. which we have danced to in a period fashion. All of whom are contemporary to the time. (Except self and other musicians who have to play)
So are we in fact, while discussing the period music we all know too well, looking a only a small part of the music of the period?
I do not think farm boys would have had access to as big a repetoire as city folk but we may be shocked at just how much city folk were exposed to and where. This holds very true for Europe certainly and may have done for the bigger US cities.
Now I know this to be very true in Europe but lack enough knowledge on American 19th century culture to add any further supposition but would welcome any.
Christian Sprakes
19h Regimental Musician and Bugler
But this is not and cannot be all the music that was being played.
I Asked self a question, and ts hard one.
How many people could read music at least to the degree of being able to learn something, if not sightread it straight from the page?
Now a little bit of research shows that in Europe at least, pianos and violins were quite common and I find it difficult to accept the common view that they all played by ear. Especially in view of the massive industry that churned out millions of sheet music copies belonging to Root and Cady and also in light of the large numbers of Blackmars sheet destroyed by Ben Butler in New Orleans.
This leads me to the conclusion that the ability to read music was not as rare then as we expect it to be then, and certainly more common than today.
This is further backed up by the speed at which these tunes became popular and were carried around the country and the purity they retained, music by ear is subject to Chinese whispers too.
Now this leads on to my main question.
If they were able to play all the usual stuff and could basically read, at least well enough to earn the tune by rote, were they playing anything else?
Mendelsohn was the blue eyed boy of Victorian music and tons of his stuff was published and sent about the world. he also engineered the return of Bach as popular music. Now unless one is a very good musician I would not recommend Mendelsohn, but Bach is a different story, especially the manuscript written for his kids from the diaries of Bach, and it is pleasant and easy to play and memorize and had been about for a century before. Thus it may have been played pre revolution along with Purcell and Handel(Composer to king George). Now this baroque music is far more durable than we think and much of it slipped out of popular culture with the arrival of classical or Romantic styles. But still it did not vanish but found a home as Hymn tunes, anyone who has a hymn book handy does not need to look far for these names
I have also had thrown my way music for parade and ball room. Marches by Strauss and Waltzes by Kleiber, Julien, Lanner, Asher and Rossini. which we have danced to in a period fashion. All of whom are contemporary to the time. (Except self and other musicians who have to play)
So are we in fact, while discussing the period music we all know too well, looking a only a small part of the music of the period?
I do not think farm boys would have had access to as big a repetoire as city folk but we may be shocked at just how much city folk were exposed to and where. This holds very true for Europe certainly and may have done for the bigger US cities.
Now I know this to be very true in Europe but lack enough knowledge on American 19th century culture to add any further supposition but would welcome any.
Christian Sprakes
19h Regimental Musician and Bugler
Comment