Post on 22-Mar-2023
Approaches to Medieval and Renaissance Historiography
Evaluation of four collegiate histories of Western Music
M i k e l H i l l
May 2nd, 2013
“How do we make the study of music history tangibly relevant in the lives of our
students?”1 Melanie Lowe recently raised this question in her essay, “Teaching Music History
Today.” It is a question that finds significance in all levels of music history survey, especially to
studies of the Medieval and Renaissance periods. The teacher undoubtedly brings great zeal to
these chapters in the story of music. Yet they must also be aware that these periods seem
“impossibly remote from the experience of most college students.”2 Bridging the abyss between
enthusiastic pedagogue and suspicious pupil is a sizeable collection of textbooks and anthologies
ranging from Mark Bonds’ cursory work to the recent megalithic volume published by Oxford
University Press. Each textbook’s approach presents a variety of strengths and weaknesses. Since
there exists as many learning styles as there are students, this essay avoids promoting any single
textbook as a universal solution. What this essay does venture to lay out is a systematic
evaluation of four frequently used textbooks, their coverage of the Medieval and Renaissance
periods, and their effectiveness in relating this history to a largely ignorant student body.a
With no wish to detract from the task of actually teaching the material, I must comment
that evaluating these eminent (and extensive) historiographies was not an easy challenge. In
undertaking this mission, I was greatly assisted by Teaching Music History’s editor, Dr. Mary
Natvig. Together, we were able to identify five key elements that aid effective pedagogy: (a)
clarity of explanation, (b) balance of topical treatment, (c) inclusion of primary texts and musical
examples, (d) graphical support, and (e) discussion of social, religious, (etc.) contexts. These five
elements were used to construct a metric by which each textbook could be evaluated. Numerical
a The Textbooks evaluated in this study are:
Mark E. Bonds, A History of Music in Western Culture, (referred hereafter as Bonds) Burkholder, Grout, and Palisca, A History of Western Music, (referred hereafter as Burkholder) Christopher Gibbs and Richard Taruskin, The Oxford History of Western Music, (referred hereafter as Taruskin) Craig Wright and Bryan Simms, Music in Western Civilization, (referred hereafter as Wright)
A complete bibliography may be found in the Appendix
values were given on a scale from 0—5 on each aspect of the textbook’s treatment of a topic. For
example, Mark Bond’s explanation of the 16th century motet was evaluated as follows:
a b c d e 16th century motet 3 5 4 5 5
In this essay, the cumulative values of each textbook’s topical treatment are shown
graphically and compared to one another. The adoption of this numerical approach is by no
means infallible. The elements chosen and the subsequent method of evaluation is simply one
attempt to provide a systematic overview of a textbook’s effectiveness as a pedagogical aid. I
have approached the four textbooks mainly from the perspective of a current student of music
history. It may be that an experienced educator would take a much different approach. The depth
of this study is also hampered by the absence of a scientific study of how students effectively
learn music history. It is my definite hope that this essay would be a launching point towards a
more thorough and scientific evaluation of music historiography in collegiate textbooks.
Nevertheless, with these limitations in mind, what follows is a summary of the strengths and
weaknesses of each textbook in relation to the five questions that formed this study’s metric.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Bonds Burkholder Taruskin Wright
Is the Topic Explained Clearly?
Is the topic explained clearly?
Kenneth Nott, in his contribution to Teaching Music History, worries that in approaching
the Medieval and Renaissance periods, “There is so much material that is new and foreign to the
average student that many are overwhelmed and even decide early on that music history is
complex and confusing.”3 In light of this challenge, clarity and efficiency are of utmost
importance. Students need precise, readily accessible definitions and summaries in a language
that is sympathetic to an undergraduate vocabulary. The depth of explanation necessary will
vary considerably from the conservatory student on one side to the student at a liberal arts
college on the other. However, with many students bearing the weight of six or more classes per
semester it may be assumed that in the overall collegiate continuum, the student devotion to
historiography will be heavily skewed in the direction of brevity. Thus, a clear and short
treatment of a topic will, on the most part, be more conducive for the student studying for a test
than an exhaustive exposition.
In this respect, as shown below, all but the Taruskin scored admirably well.
Burkholder has taken special pains in the latest edition to provide for maximum readability.4
Sidebar notes on important concepts, highlighted terms, and clearly defined chapter headers all
combine to make the study of Burkholder’s text exceptionally straightforward. Wright, in turn,
consistently demonstrates superb clarity in his writing style, one that is both concise and
informative. Readability is somewhat diminished, however, in this text by the lack of sidebar
annotations and the use of compacted chapter headers. Bonds topical treatment is also clear but
very brief, appropriate for a single-semester survey course but problematic for a more in-depth
curriculum. For example, whereas Burkholder spends an entire 24-page chapter on renaissance
instrumental music, Bonds dedicates a mere seven pages to the subject.
Taruskin recently criticized the Bonds volume as, “following in the latest trends in
textbook publication, [it] has very little continuous text but consists in the main of bite-sized
verbal clumps.”5 True to his ideals, Taruskin’s work contains nothing bite-sized or in my
estimation, intelligible. It was simply a nightmare to evaluate and I certainly extend every
condolence to the student who is asked to study from it. To begin with, Taruskin’s use of
vocabulary is as baffling as it is comical. For example, after sending the student running to find
the dictionary definition of “panegyric” he introduces the clumsy header: “How to Do
Polyphony.”6 Aside from these frequent juxtapositions of academic jargon with colloquialisms,
Taruskin also has the habit of burying topic discussions in a mêlée of postmodern rhetoric. For
instance, in a section promisingly bearing the title, “formes fixes” Taruskin chooses instead to
spend six pages orating on the rise of the bourgeoisie in 13th century France before finally
arriving at a hazy explanation of the three song forms.7 Taruskin’s efforts to create a continuous
narrative and his post-modern approach are to be commended. However, in the current confines
of most collegiate syllabi, Taruskin’s demands for time and patience are simply not feasible.
29%
71%
Burkholder
24%
76%
Bonds
21%
79%
Taruskin
30%
70%
Wright
Perhaps, Taruskin’s work will only be appreciated in the future or, as one reviewer suggested,
“Like the Easter Island statues, the Taruskin/Gibbs book will . . . remain a puzzling artifact of a
long-dead culture.”8
Does the depth of explanation appear in a balanced proportion to the rest of the book’s
material?
Taken as a whole, the proportion of text dedicated to the Medieval and Renaissance
periods is minimal in comparison to the later periods. For practical reasons this is totally
understandable, there is simply not many extant materials from these periods on which to base a
narrative. Nonetheless, it is a pity because these two periods remain the most unknown to the
majority of students and yet their entire cosmos of Western music rests largely on the foundation
of these two eras. Below is a series of pie charts illustrating the proportion of text given to these
two periods.
In reference to the balance of treatment given to individual topics both Burkholder and Wright
score very well with Bonds trailing close behind. Only Taruskin’s approach invokes concern.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Bonds Burkholder Taruskin Wright
Does the Topic Appear in Balance to Other Material?
It must be conceded that this characteristic is difficult to judge. What one reviewer may find as a
sparse treatment, another may find verbose. For example, Bonds coverage of worship in the early
church was less than a paragraph compared to Burkholder’s two pages. However, Bonds’ entire
textbook is a third shorter in length than Burkholder’s and thus a more brusque treatment is to be
expected. In view of this, in marking down imbalances I focused on instances where an author
gave a full and lengthy treatment to one topic and gave a similar topic inadequate space. Such an
instance occurs in Burkholder where he devotes substantial time to the medieval vernacular song
but barely mentions Latin sacred and secular song (versus, conductus, and goliard) and provides
no musical examples, either in the text or accompanying anthology.9 While this imbalance is a
rare occurrence in Burkholder, in Taruskin it is much more prevalent. For example, while
Guillaume de Machaut receives eleven pages of discourse, Philippe de Vitry is briefly referenced
with virtually no accompanying biographical information. The same is true with Taruskin’s terse
mention of Franscesco Landini in comparison to his lengthy explanation of Du Fay’s Nuper
rosarum flores.10 Also in this context it must be noted that Taruskin devotes the least overall
time to the Medieval and Renaissance, as shown in the pie charts above.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Bonds Burkholder Taruskin Wright
Do Primary Texts and Scores Provide Complimentry Insight?
Do primary text and scores provide complimentary insight?
As a student, I find the inclusion of primary sources to be very helpful. Exploring
historical figures in their own words expands the scope of the textbook, allowing students to
form opinions based on original sources rather than merely the views of the textbook’s author(s).
In this category, each of the four textbooks fair generally the same with Wright showing a
slight advantage. Burkholder regularly includes partitioned “Source Readings,” some of which
are quite extensive. Bonds similarly provides “Primary Evidence.” Wright directs readers online
where they may read over sixty primary sources. Taruskin provides the largest amount of quotes
from primary sources but does not partition these as the other textbooks do. This maintains the
flow of Taruskin’s narrative but makes it difficult to study or to reference. Taruskin does provide
an excellent array of scores, perhaps the most of all the textbooks evaluated. The primary
shortcoming of Taruskin’s inclusion of music scores is the absence of supportive markings. This
is true for the other texts, with notable exceptions. It is quite helpful for explanations and
narratives to be supported by accompanying scores. Yet, on more than one occasion the
textbooks do not graphically indicate what the student is supposed to be looking for in the score.
Such is the case in Wright’s explanation of isorythm.11 He provides the score’s tenor line
containing the color and talea but does not offer an illustration of how the tenor line relates to
the original chant or to the motet’s complimentary voices. This is an exception to his otherwise
excellent approach such as in his demonstration showing the parallels of Perotin’s organum,
Viderunt omnes, and the construction of Notre Dame cathedral.12 The inclusion of musical scores
is helpful but it is not enough to make for a clear explanation without the addition of graphical
indicators. Each of the textbooks follow this guideline yet not with complete consistency.
Are illustrations (timelines, pictures, maps) provided to support textual content?
The contemporary textbook is a great deal more than a laborious exposition of prose.
Timelines, partitioned biographies, pictures, maps, and illustrations all support the learning
process and help to break up the monotony that endangers comprehension. Each of the four
textbooks evaluated display superior use of graphics, none showing any significant deficiencies.
The primary reason for a less than stellar review came by reason of poor organization. I found
that although graphically depicted, some outlines were more confusing than helpful such as
Taruskin’s pictorial portrayal of the development of the Motet.13 In this instance, four
manuscripts are shown but without modern notational translations and without any graphical
indication showing the original clausula and how it was used to construct the subsequent motet
form.
0
50
100
150
200
250
Bonds Burkholder Taruskin Wright
Are Illustrations Provided to Support Textual Content?
Timelines are included in all four texts, each with a slightly different format. I find the format
used by Bonds to be the most clear and helpful. The timeline is shown horizontal with musical
events above and historical events below. It seems that this format is more effective than the
vertical orientation adopted by both Burkholder and Taruskin. Wright’s timeline, while extensive
and in the horizontal orientation is somewhat crowded and oddly organized making its study
difficult.
Another excellent use of graphics in all four texts appeares in relation to instrumental
music. One of the intriguing aspects of Medieval and Renaissance music is the exotic array of
instruments that it contains. Burkholder takes advantage of this attribute, showing several finely
labeled depictions of period instruments such as the shawm, viola, and lute. Wright likewise
makes excellent use of period graphics showing multiple instruments. Bonds and Taruskin
devote significantly less time to the genre of instrumental music but nonetheless manage to
display several supportive examples of Renaissance instruments.
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Bonds Burkholder Taruskin Wright
Is the Topic Related to a Broader Social Context?
Is the topic related in a broader context (historical, social, religious, etc.)?
In order to realize Melanie Lowe’s ambition to make “music history tangibly relevant in
the lives of our students,”14 it is absolutely vital that we relate the story of music in the context of
its historical, social, and religious environment. Patrick Macey relates that, “A survey of the
music of the Middle Ages and Renaissance will maintain a clear focus . . . if one keeps the
social context for music making to the fore.”15 Students, who are given an animated description
of the people and events that gave birth to music they are asked to study, will be far more likely
to engage with the subject’s material than otherwise. The approach to providing this context is
likely the most distinguishing factor differentiating the four textbooks. Bonds and Taruskin adopt
a mural-like approach while Burkholder and Wright paint individual portraits. The chart below
illustrates my conviction that Burkholder and Wright’s more intimate approach provides for a
better learning experience. However, certainly a variance of opinion exists on this point and this
must be taken into consideration when viewing these comparisons.
Bonds’ description of the Medieval and Renaissance periods is quite clear and in-depth.
However, he chooses to write a single extensive section for each period, placing them at the
forefront and then proceeding to the period’s musical aspects. The issue with this approach is
that the student, while given an excellent context for the period’s aesthetic, is disconnected from
this context immediately upon entry into the musical portion. For example, in Bonds introduction
to the Middle Ages he covers nearly a millennium in one section, beginning with the fall of
Rome until the dawn of the Renaissance.16 Thus, in the musical subsequent section, when the
student begins their study of 13th century polyphony in Paris, they must either recall or re-read
the section describing the historical context for this period. In contrast to this approach, Wright
describes historical and musical events in the same section, with only a brief historical prologue
beginning each chapter. Burkholder, in turn, further animates his text by frequently including
composer profiles. These bring the text alive, putting a face of the music being studied.
Taruskin is somewhat of an outlier because he entirely disregards traditional
compartments of history. For example, the reader will not find a chapter header and description
of the Renaissance. Instead, Taruskin discusses “periodization” and how identified eras of
history are constructions of later historians and do not reflect reality.17 Taruskin is absolutely
correct but his unwillingness to adopt conventional labels makes his text doubly difficult to study
for students who are only familiar with a traditionally segmented history. Otherwise, Taruskin’s
weaving of historical context and musical events is remarkable. Regrettably, the length of his
narrative makes a complete reading of it practically impossible for the busy undergraduate and
unfortunately this is the only way the text can be completely effective.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Bonds Burkholder Taruskin Wright
Overview
Summary
It is difficult to proclaim any form of final judgment on these illustrious texts. These are
monuments of our academic world and an infinite amount of scholarship has been poured into
each one. Though I have been critical of Taruskin’s recent publication, I in no wise stand in a
place conducive to rebuke. I merely represent a student who finds difficulty in his novel
approach. I would definitely recommend Taruskin’s volume as an aid to graduate students and
faculty, though offering reservations about its use as a quick reference. It is truthfully intended to
be read more as a novel than as an encyclopedia. As for the other three volumes, I would highly
recommend Bonds as a resource for a music survey course at a liberal arts college. Though it
tends to be brief in its explanations and at time sparse in its coverage, its language is accessible
and it covers the essentials with both clarity and efficiency. The Wright and Burkholder have
become staples of my undergraduate studies and I can give the highest recommendation for both
of these as collegiate textbooks in more in-depth courses at universities and conservatories.
Below is a graphical summary, combining the scores from the individual elements discussed
above. I earnestly hope that this preliminary outline can provide the framework for a more
comprehensive study and pave the way for a more effective historiography.
Appendix
Bibliography
Bonds, Mark E., A History of Music in Western Culture, Upper Saddle River, NJ.:
Pearson Education, 2006, 2nd ed.
Burkholder, J. Peter, Donald J. Grout, and Claude V. Palisca, A History of Western
Music, New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2010, 8th ed.
Elliot, Robin, “Taruskin and Gibbs, Oxford History of Western Music (College Edition):”
Book review, Journal of Music History Pedagogy, Vol. 3, no. 2, (online), 195-201.
Lowe, Melanie, “Teaching Music History Today: Making Tangible Connections to Here
and Now,” Journal of Music History Pedagogy, Vol. 1, no. 1 (online), 45-59.
Natvig, Mary, ed. Teaching Music History, Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2002.
Taruskin, Richard and Christopher H. Gibbs, The Oxford History of Western Music, New
York: Oxford UP, 2013, college edition.
Wright, Craig and Bryan Simms, Music in Western Civilization, Boston: Schirmer
Cengage Learning, 2010, media update.
Notes
1 Melanie Lowe, “Teaching Music History Today: Making Tangible Connections to Here and Now,” Journal of
Music History Pedagogy, Vol. 1, no. 1 (online), 45. 2 Patrick Macey, “Providing Context: Teaching Medieval and Renaissance Music,” in Teaching Music History,
ed. Mary Natvig, Ashgate Publishing, 2002, 15. 3 Kenneth Nott, “Teaching Baroque Music to the Bright and Interested and Ignorant,” in Teaching Music
History, ed. Mary Natvig, Ashgate Publishing, 2002, 15. 4 J. Peter Burkholder, Donald J. Grout, and Claude V. Palisca, A History of Western Music, W.W. Norton and
Company, 2010, 8th ed., xxv. 5 Richard Taruskin, “Non-Nationalists and Other Nationalists,” quoted in a book review of Taruskin by Robin
Elliott. 6 Richard Taruskin and Christopher H. Gibbs, The Oxford History of Western Music, Oxford UP, 2013, college
edition, 36. 7 Ibid, 55-‐61. 8 Robin Elliott, “Taruskin and Gibbs, Oxford History of Western Music (College Edition):” Book review, Journal of
Music History Pedagogy, Vol. 3, no. 2, (online), 201. 9 J. Peter Burkholder, Donald J. Grout, and Claude V. Palisca, A History of Western Music, W.W. Norton and
Company, 2010, 8th ed., 71. 10 Richard Taruskin and Christopher H. Gibbs, The Oxford History of Western Music, Oxford UP, 2013, college
edition, 118,121-124. 11 Craig Wright and Bryan Simms, Music in Western Civilization, Schirmer Cengage Learning, 2010, media update,
84. 12 Ibid, 64-‐65. 13 Richard Taruskin and Christopher H. Gibbs, The Oxford History of Western Music, Oxford UP, 2013, college
edition, 81. 14 As quoted above. 15 Patrick Macey, “Providing Context: Teaching Medieval and Renaissance Music,” in Teaching Music History,
ed. Mary Natvig, Ashgate Publishing, 2002, 3. 16 Mark E. Bonds, A History of Music in Western Culture, Pearson Education, 2006, 2nd ed., 18-‐27. 17 Richard Taruskin and Christopher H. Gibbs, The Oxford History of Western Music, Oxford UP, 2013, college
edition, 124.