Josquin des Prez in the Eyes of His Contemporaries - Essay Response

The reading we did in class paints a picture of Josquin as seen by some of his contemporaries.  When taking all of the different view points together I can begin to imagine a little bit about him as percieved from the outside.  He was a very gifted composer, recieving the praise of each person cited in the reading on this account - even from the man who was trying to persuade a certain ruler not to hire Josquin to work in his court.  Besides being a great composer, he was apparently a difficult person to work with at times.  He did not always compose music when asked, but instead worked on his own time table.  When attempting to get hired by the ruler mentioned above he asked almost double the salary as another composer who was being considered for the position.  All of this information taken together points towards a musical genius, self-assured in his own brilliance and importance, expecting to receive special treatment.  But how much of the information from these quotes can really be taken at face value?  We don't really know much about Josquin, about his motives, about what he is thinking (in this reading).  His main voice is in the music he composed, and judging by that alone, he was brilliant and inspired.  We read a little about his methods of teaching composition to others.  He would first teach them how to sing, then if they could master that, he would teach them counterpoint and all of it's rules.  Finally, if they mastered that they could go on to composing their own pieces.  From those composers only one in many would actually create something that Josquin considered a great work.  Basically, it sounds to me like the apprenticeship system.  Those wanting to learn under Josquin are required to learn the fundamentals that he considers the most important.  All along the way he is trying to weed out those who are truly gifted and willing to work hard, and those who are not.  A discussion about this system versus our current education system arose in class.  I believe that in many ways this ancient apprenticeship system is a much better teacher than the education system we use in much of the world today.  First off, in an apprenticeship you learn only what your teacher deems to be important to the field you are studying.  They have already done what you are trying to achieve and so they know at least one path to take that can get you there.  If we are in a college or university we must take the courses that have been deicided for us by some body of people that we have not nor ever will meet.  At face value, we are to take courses from many disciplines in order to become "a well rounded person".  That is a fine goal, in essence to become a "renaissance man" - knowing at least something about many things.  But that is not the reason that most people go to college today, nor is it the reason that most people are told they should got to college today.  We are told to go to college because it is the only way to get a good job, and for many regulated occupations, you must have a degree in order to do anything in that field.  I don't have a problem with needing a degree to work in certain fields, but I think the requirements for most of the degrees could use some updating.  The biggest problem with our current college system is that the old promise - the carrot dangled in front of us - that we just need to get a degree and we'll get a safe secure job afterwards, is no longer true!  Would the apprenticeship system fix this?  Well, in many cases I think it would.  When you apprentice for something you are often working for the person or company that you are hoping to get hired by when you complete your training.  You are learning the skills that are actually necessary, and you are learning them from someone else who uses those skills daily in their work.  Let me make this clear.  I am not against college, or higher learning, or the teachers that are found at those places, but the system is broken.  The cost is way too high for what we actually receive.  I learn a lot at college, and I enjoy my classes (most of the time), but I think I could have learned all of it much faster, without so much wasted time if I was just studying under a master in my desired field (the apprenticeship system).  Back to Josquin to tie all of this together.  He used the apprenticeship system, and it is even possible that he was an apprentice under Ockegehm.  Maybe we should look to history for answers to our current education crisis in America.              

Embellishing the Liturgy

There was a monk named Notker of St. Gall who began writing hymns to add onto the end of the Alleluia part of the mass.  If I understand it right, he did this as a way of helping him remember the melodies of other parts of the mass.  Eventually, the practice of composing new melodies to be added onto the end of the Alleluia became quite popular and common.  These new parts were called sequences.  This was the first step in breaking away from the rigid musical structure that had existed for centuries and in composers being allowed to exercise their creativity.  Soon, writing sequences was not enough, and people began composing entirely new pieces, put to new text.  These new pieces were usually performed right before the official services started (like a prelude) and were called tropes.  Some tropes were even performed like a little play, in that they were being acted out, as well as sung.  The important thing about all of this is that it eventually led to more and more sophisticated compositions, the rise of polyphony, and eventually modern day harmony.

Plato on Music

Is there music out there that causes trouble?  In the reading from Plato that we just did in class, he suggests that letting other people decide what kind of music they want to listen to, is not a good plan.  He believes it should be left up to those who are more educated than the "rabble" of the masses, to decide what music is "good" for them.  His ideas, and how he presents them are rather harsh, but not necessarily old-fashioned.  There are two sides to the argument.  Of course, there are those who say that we should all be free to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong for us.  We don't want anything to step in and take away our choices.  Leave us alone.  There is another side that might argue, but what if certain things are bad for society as a whole?  Don't we then have a right not to let society be hurt by the poor choices of those around us?  What about my family? 
If we are talking about an issue like murder, or theft, it is easy to see which side I fall on.  I feel that these are definitely destructive behaviors, and hurt society as a whole, and the individuals involved in them.  Can I say the same thing about musical interests?  Is there "bad" music out there that can lead people to do "bad" things?  I should take off the quotes around the word bad, because I am a very morally driven person.  I mean to say that I believe there are definite right and wrong things.  I do believe in God, and I believe that certain things can be looked on as universal truths.  Bringing this back to music...some music could have been created by someone who had evil or wrong purposes in creating it.  Music is the tool, but if the tool is attempting to do bad things all the time, then the tool can be bad.  I think there are those who are trying to use music this way.  Let me go back to the other group, the group of people that just want total freedom.  No matter what I feel, I think it must be left up to others to decide for themselves what to do.  Freedom of choice, even freedom to make bad choices, is the most important thing we have as human beings.  So, I say to Plato, you might be right, the masses might choose to listen to music that will break down parts of society, but you can't stop them.  If you force them to do the right thing, then they aren't really doing the right thing.  You can try to warn, and teach, and help the rising generation.