Bands on the road

[caldrail]

During our UK meet in York I noticed the healthy state of local music, and wondered about how it might have been in roman times. Musicians and performers in roman culture aren't allowed much status, and they seem to lack the dynamic stardom attributed to successful sportsmen and fighters.

 

In fact, many musicians would have been slaves, attached to their owners and used to entertain guests. Is it possible an enterprising man rented out his troupe for performances? I also wonder if reputable musicians toured the provinces in much the same way as today?

 

I'd like to open this for discussion because roman music gets little attention.

[Northern Neil]

Heres something that discusses the technical side of Roman music: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/1452/ROMAN.HTML

 

Although this article is interesting from the technical point of view, it does little to address the question as to wether or not individuals musicians had any status for their art. I would speculate that they didnt. I say this because the music on offer in Roman times appears to be a background accompaniment rather than a central theme in any entertainment, a bit like tribal music, or the 'house' music one hears in discos etc.

 

Judging by the paucity of actual melody, it is hard to say whether the fusion of poetry and music (songs!) had occurred by this time. As far as I am aware there are no poems short enough to have been songs, and no references to poems or verse written specifically for this purpose. In the Celtic world, however, the situation may have been entirely different.

 

In theatres, musicians provided an acompaniment to plays much like the pianist accompanied silent movies in the early 20th century.

[Northern Neil]

Heres something that discusses the technical side of Roman music: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/1452/ROMAN.HTML

 

Although this article is interesting from the technical point of view, it does little to address the question as to wether or not individuals musicians had any status for their art. I would speculate that they didnt. I say this because the music on offer in Roman times appears to be a background accompaniment rather than a central theme in any entertainment, a bit like tribal music, or the 'house' music one hears in discos etc.

 

Judging by the paucity of actual melody, it is hard to say whether the fusion of poetry and music (songs!) had occurred by this time. As far as I am aware there are no poems short enough to have been songs, and no references to poems or verse written specifically for this purpose. In the Celtic world, however, the situation may have been entirely different.

 

It is interesting that Plato wanted to ban the Ionian mode, as it is the standard c major scale. In mediaeval times the Church banned the Aeolian mode as they believed it was inspired by the devil. This is understandable as minor chords can be derived from this scale.

 

In theatres, musicians provided an acompaniment to plays much like the pianist accompanied silent movies in the early 20th century.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Northern Neil

[caldrail]

Heres something that discusses the technical side of Roman music: http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/1452/ROMAN.HTML

 

Although this article is interesting from the technical point of view, it does little to address the question as to wether or not individuals musicians had any status for their art. I would speculate that they didnt. I say this because the music on offer in Roman times appears to be a background accompaniment rather than a central theme in any entertainment, a bit like tribal music, or the 'house' music one hears in discos etc.

 

Judging by the paucity of actual melody, it is hard to say whether the fusion of poetry and music (songs!) had occurred by this time. As far as I am aware there are no poems short enough to have been songs, and no references to poems or verse written specifically for this purpose. In the Celtic world, however, the situation may have been entirely different.

 

In theatres, musicians provided an acompaniment to plays much like the pianist accompanied silent movies in the early 20th century.

Music as background accompaniement does seem to be the general case. Evening dinners, even gladiator fights, are set to music to heighten the mood. I like the comparison with modern 'house'. However, surely there were musicians who were sufficiently talented? Nero after all went on stage competitively, singing alongside his lyre. Ok, so he was bound to win no matter how good or bad he was, but he apparently went to some effort to improve his ability. That indicates to me that musicianship was something that was taught and practiced, that one could achieve some recognition for in these arty competitions (not to mention awards). Is it such a big step to have troupes of musicians playing for hire? I would say not, but the romans, as you confirm, did not assign any real status to these people. Yes, they enjoyed it, they applaud, now what was it you where saying? For a culture that prided itself on the enjoyment of finer things it seems strange to me that musicians got such a raw deal. Thats why I think there's a possibility that musicians sometimes did better than we realise. I would love to find references on this subject.

[Northern Neil]

Here is another interesting Link: http://www.ancestral.co.uk/romanmusic.htm

 

Again, it tells us a fair bit about the technical side of Roman Music, but does not enlighten us as to wether or not anyone became famous or rich for pursuing a career in music. I have trawled the internet in search of individual Romans who are known simply for music, but have found not a single one. My books also draw a similar blank. The general view of Nero is that, although he was very conceited, he was actually quite a good musician. So, I suppose that, for now, we have to say that Nero was Rome's most famous musician. But like Woody Allen (a very capable Jazz clarinetist) his fame was not earned through music, which appears to have been a hobby.

 

A question for people who have more knowledge about Nero than me: Was he influenced a lot by Greek literature, poetry and music? It appears that the Greeks took music quite seriously, studying its tonal qualities and relating it to spirituality, whereas the Romans seemed to have used it just as background to other things.

Edited April 17, 2007 by Northern Neil

[The Augusta]

A question for people who have more knowledge about Nero than me: Was he influenced a lot by Greek literature, poetry and music? It appears that the Greeks took music quite seriously, studying its tonal qualities and relating it to spirituality, whereas the Romans seemed to have used it just as background to other things.

 

While I wouldn't go quite so far as to say I'm an expert on Nero, he certainly did seem to be influenced by all things Greek, and as we know, he toured the province not long before his death. The interesting thing here, in terms of the actual music, is that earlier on - certainly - Greek poetry was actually sung to the accompaniment of the lyre or kithara. Now I have no idea at all as to when this practice ceased - or even if it did - in Greece itself, but it is certainly something to be researched, as it may throw some light on what the Romans considered a 'musician' or a 'poet'.

 

I am not sure I can totally agree with Neil when he says that the length of a poem prevented its being sung. Even in some cultures in India today there is a lasting tradition of 'story-telling' which is sung, and Homer's epics may well have been sung in excerpts by bards.

 

I will do some digging and see what I can come up with about this in terms of sources. (My assumptions come from a course I did on Homer a few years ago)

[The Augusta]

I've found this so far - regarding the fact that epic poetry was originally sung, but I will keep on looking to see if the practice of sung poetry lasted into Roman times.

[caldrail]

The impression I get is that romans were essentially musically ignorant, and that such entertainment was something very greek. Since the romans didn't like the greeks as people and regarded their culture as of lowly status compared to their own, then musicians are being tarred with a brush. I read some mentions of pipe, harp and cithara players, I know that singing was practised in Rome. I also note that the lyre seems to be an instrument intended to accompany singers rather than a musical instrument in its own right, rather like the guitar strumming of street buskers today. Drums just don't make the scene, and the romans really don't use them in any capacity other than curiosities. What intrigues me is the water-organ, an upright piano-like construction that uses water pressure to create sounds.

 

I can well imagine a wealthy man inviting guests to a supper and having them entertained by these greek-style diversions. For the most part these would have been slaves. I wonder if their ability to play got them a higher price at the slave market at Delos? Would a wealthy man buy such a slave and keep him (or her) permanently for entertainment, or simply hire them as required from another owner? It isn't beyond the realms of possibility than a few romans were earning tidy sums renting musicians out, and thats really the sort of thing I want to uncover if it went on.