I was listening to some Bach today, and a very nice harpsichord solo came up. Nearly 300 years ago, the solo was the same kind of structure as today’s, one instrument playing while the others provide rhythm.
It made me wonder where this concept got invented. I’d think that it wouldn’t be a part of medieval music, for fear of the soloist being considered prideful. Were the words of any Greek or Roman music critics preserved?
Googling music solo origin history got me nowhere. Could it have spread from other cultures?
Nice try, but who was his backing band? I mean solos in the context of a group, of course. Assuming that Ugh the Caveman tootled on a bone for the first time, the first note was a solo by the other definition.
The problem with the question is that the term “solo” is somewhat vague. Are you talking about a section of a larger piece, like jazz and rock solos? Are you talking about a whole piece where one instrument plays a prominent role? If you are talking about the first kind, I think it can be traced to the classical notion of cadenza. While the term dates to around 1500, there was a gradual movement from short improvised flourishes of only a few notes to the drawn-out virtuoso passages you find in romantic concertos.
If you mean the second, then you should look at the musical term homophony, more particularly melody-dominated homophony. In this case, tracing the history is a bit more difficult as a lot of music that could have been in this style was probably never written down.
I’m talking about the first type, I believe, but I will look at your link. I’m working to repair my musical ignorance, my excuse for which is tone deafness. Thanks for the response.
There certainly were medieval styles where individually virtuosity, including vocal abilities, were a high priority. However, comparitively little notation of instrumental music survives from, or even was written down in the first place, that long ago. I don’t know of any treatises which describe instrumental playing in the relevant details - they tend to be about abstract theory rather than practical use.
Purely on a speculative angle, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if improvisation on instruments flourished in many secular environments - don’t credit the general population with too much piety!
Also - doesn’t it matter which society/culture we are discussing? It feels like what is really being asked about is the Western canon, from medieval church music on through symphonic. Is that right Voyager?
In other cultures, for instance India, it is my understanding with some music forms, the songs are not exactly notated, but rather structured, and the sitar player is expected to improvise within that context. If I am framing that correctly, then the concept of solo in terms of improvisation, is there throughout.
With secular, village music, I am under the impression that soloing has always been present, hasn’t it? I doubt they could read music, let alone access sheet music - they just pulled out their drum, and pipe and such and played songs they knew and soloed on top of them, I imagine.
I don’t think this question can possibly be answered, to be honest with you, Voyager. Presuming that man has always been musical — at the very least, rhythmic — there’s just no way to know whether it was Mog the caveman or Mag the tree climber or Mug the fisher or even Lucy herself. You might fare better asking what was the first solo that history has recorded, and even then you run into what texts you would accept and what ones you would reject and how old or reliable they really are and all that. Plus, people tend to forget that there were Asians on both sides of the Pacific who might have been soloing and making records (ETA: in the sense of written or painted records) that have been lost. But good luck if you pursue an answer.
you may not believe this - but I suspect it was the other way around. Locking into the rhythm is the most important thing - it’s the backbone of the music. If you can’t do that, the music falls apart. The solo can dance on top of that and be completely botched and the music itself can keep going. I suspect in tribal or village settings the premium was put on the rhythm.
In my band, I am the better guitarist (not bragging; we pulled the other guitarist from the ranks of “I used to play 20 years ago” because we enjoy sharing a beer with him). My drummer and bassist insist that I play rhythm where possible because I can lock in better with them and if our other guitarist drops a note, the dancing will continue…
I have heard stories about younger brothers becoming lead guitarists because they couldn’t handle the rhythm chores. Angus is younger than Malcolm and Stevie Ray younger than Jimmie - and I think this is true in both cases…note that I am talking about when they were little kids - obviously Angus and SRV have amazing rhythm…
Just a trivial hijack, but I thought I was throw in $.02 worth from my experience…
I know what you mean. Having a drummer that can ‘just’ keep the beat is damned hard to find.
But
Early music, wait a sec
Early Western European music, that is written down, would be church music or court music.
Not a whole lot of dancing, so the concern of ‘keeping the beat’ is less of a concern, probably in my WAG, then say, holding out a chord for the flourishes to be played over.
But solos, like we think of today, were probably in folk music and not written down. So the musicians find their part, according to their skills, and you get solos.
I think the invention of the ‘solo’ coincided with the first time in history that a band had a three hour gig and only two hours worth of music to play.
Actually, I remember hearing in Music Appreciation 101 about, er, 20 years ago (now that’s a cite for ya! ) that the Brandenburg Concerto #5, first movement, was one of the earliest extant examples of an instrument solo written into a larger ensemble piece.
