In many pieces of scholarly writing in music, primary sources are seen as the ultimate reliable source, and when making an argument, it is a wealth of congruent evidence that can give an opinion authority. The ultimate primary source in music is the music manuscript; without it, a complex discussion of music would be difficult if not impossible. After the manuscript itself, the opinions of the composer are considered as important though not authoritative. These opinions are often deduced from looking at the letters a composer wrote either about the piece or in the time period surrounding the writing of a piece. In the article on Beethoven’s Hammerklavier Sonata, the author explains the discussion surrounding the differing opinions about the ideal tempo of the piece. In order to fully explain, the author provides this graph:
(Morante, pg. 259)
The sheer wealth of information in this graph shows the need in music scholarship to support argument with much primary source information.
In another article about Beethoven’s Jewish Contemporaries, multiple letters from Beethoven are used to prove that different acquaintances of Beethoven were close enough to him to be considered friends and influences. This shows a concern not only for primary sources from the composer but also for the amount that is needed. (Miller)
The deep need for overwhelming congruence in evidence in music scholarship may find its root in the nature of the study: the academic discussion of art is inherently made up of strong-willed yet biased opinions, and so to separate opinion from fact is difficult and often impossible.
to Drop the Beet(hoven): Audience
to Expertise: Who gets the final say
The Treehouse - Schirmer 