I heard that there are fewer people majoring in history now. A girl applied for the History Department and was criticized by a professor as "a stupid liberal arts girl was born", "because literature, history and philosophy are the source of illiterate people". According to a recent report by "Wen Wei Po", Wang Hao, deputy director of the Pudong New Area Education Bureau, participated in the preparations for the establishment of New York University in Shanghai at East China Normal University. At that time, we hoped to offer popular majors such as finance and law, but the United States insisted on offering history, philosophy, etc. In terms of disciplines, New York University serves Wall Street. They believe that undergraduates cannot become talented without studying history and philosophy.

Perhaps in the eyes of some Chinese people, history is nothing more than reciting people, events, places and objects. In a modern society where information is readily available on the Internet, this is outdated. However, in European and American universities, history is still the foundation of the foundation. It is more common for law school graduates to have more than half of their undergraduate studies in history. In a rapidly changing modern society, why is history so important that it is still the cornerstone of Western university disciplines?

Let me illustrate with a roundabout example.

The composer Alexander Goehr (1932-), who is nearly eighty years old, is an important representative figure in the British music scene after World War II and has witnessed the changes in the music culture of Great Britain for half a century. At that time, he went to Paris to study with the master composer Oliver Messiaen, which not only broadened his technical horizons, but also became a trend-leading avant-garde when he returned to the UK.

But for Guoer, what impressed him most during the year he studied in Huadu was the one-day class report on music analysis.

“When I first arrived in Paris, I felt that since this was the center of new music, everything should be avant-garde and required rigorous theory. Once it was my turn to report on a Mozart work, and I carefully went from beginning to end of the piece. I sorted it out at the end, analyzing all the phrases, rhythm, harmony, musical form, etc.” When Guo Er was confident and explained in front of the teacher and classmates, “I didn’t expect that when I said, ‘In this section, the music will transfer to the next section. "Minor chord," the professor bluntly said "wrong" on the spot!"

Goer naturally felt very embarrassed when he was caught making a mistake on the spot. As he continued his report, he looked at the chord again - wait, that's right! This is obviously a subordinate minor chord!

Did the teacher make a mistake? Guoer cleverly changed the subject and mentioned it again; but before he could finish speaking, the professor still said "wrong"!

It is really ugly to be corrected twice by the teacher in the same place. No matter how sure Gore was, that chord was the subordinate minor key, and he did not have the courage to mention it again. But what would that chord be if not a subordinate minor? After finally getting to the end of get out of class, Guo immediately asked the teacher for advice.

"In that section," the professor said lightly, "Mozart casts a shadow in the music."

When Gore said this in his speech, the whole story The audience laughed. When a student asked him what he thought, he replied: "It's ridiculous! I came all the way to Paris to learn this!" Hearing what he said, everyone laughed even louder.

"But, everyone, I don't think it's ridiculous now." The conversation changed. This time, it was Goer's turn to say calmly, "Because when Mozart wrote that section, he was absolutely thinking It won’t be about entering a subordinate minor tune, but it will cast a shadow in the music!”

I will never forget Gore’s words - is there any better reminder than this? Every generation has different opinions on how music should be written, discussed, and analyzed. But don’t forget what the composer and conductor Mahler repeatedly emphasized, “In music, the most important thing is not in the notes.” Not reading music scores will certainly lead to a lack of understanding of music; but if you only read music scores, you will not think that music is the most important thing. To be anything other than musical notes is also a big mistake. For this most abstract yet direct art, we need various methods of getting close to, understanding, and discussing it. Not only do you need to understand the works, but you also need to understand the culture behind the works, the things beyond the musical notes. And history is the cornerstone of understanding culture.

This is true of Mozart’s abstract, wordless instrumental music, and so is his most realistic and explicit opera.

Many people think that it is enough for a singer to have a good voice, but they do not know that in order for a singer to interpret a role well, he not only needs to study a lot in vocal art, but also needs to read widely and use historical knowledge to help him integrate into the role and the era. Just like the Russian court drama "Boris Godunov" (Boris Godunov) written by Mussorgsky based on Pushkin's poem and play, the story tells the story of the powerful minister Godunov murdering the prince to seize power. In the end, the country was in turmoil and rebellions broke out. He died of madness due to his conscience. There is a section in the play: the old monk Pimen writes a chronicle of Russia in the monastery, and records in detail the story of Guodonov stealing the country and usurping the throne. It's just a monk writing in his room. What kind of big deal is that? Many singers regard this section as an old man's condemnation and lamentation of the current situation, singing it in a desolate and helpless way, which is in sharp contrast with the plot.

In terms of logic or dramatic effect, this is certainly a reasonable method of expression. However, if you have a deeper understanding of Russian history, you will find that this scene is not actually the case - in Guodonov Previously, Tsar Ivan had issued an order prohibiting the writing of any chronicles, and violators would be punished. Even if he was writing in a monastery, if his manuscripts were discovered, Pimen would be dead. Therefore, the reason why Pushkin arranged this scene is definitely because of his strong resistance. If the singer knew this Russian historical fact, or had an in-depth understanding of Russian literature, the monologue of the old monk Pimen would not be just calm and sentimental, but would be an angry and passionate one with his life as a bet. This is a completely different way of interpretation, and the knowledge of interpretation does not come from score interpretation or vocal skills, but from literature or history~