The Introduction situates the monodies of Euripides’ late plays in the context of theatrical and musical innovation in Athens in the late fifth century. In plays produced after 415 BCE – in particular Ion, Iphigenia among the Taurians, Phoenician Women, and Orestes – Euripides departs from the model of actor’s lyric established by Aeschylus and Sophocles and followed in his own previous work. Solo song is no longer restricted to women, to royalty, or to situations that call for lamentation; nor is the soloist necessarily closely tied to the chorus. In his late plays, Euripides successively redefines monody: each song takes over a traditional Bauform of tragedy and builds upon it. Monody becomes a site of formal innovation and experimentation. At the same time, solo song facilitates the creation of an individual voice of broad emotional and expressive range.

The group music-making at aristocratic symposia, described in Chapter 1, developed in a sixth-century social context where ordinary people (the demos) were gaining power in ways that threatened elite claims to superiority and oligarchic right to rule. In this cultural environment, sympotic music-making by upper-class men, “gentlemanly lyrody,” served as a symbol of the superiority that elites arrogated to themselves and expected ordinary people to respect. The ability to perform a certain repertoire to self-accompaniment was a badge of social superiority. This lyrody was directly connected to the refined education that aristocratic boys received; when practiced at adult men’s symposia, it represented a display of paideia. The chapter also examines the question of whether nonelites eventually acquired the skills and repertoire of gentlemanly lyrody, which might have robbed it of its social cachet; and what happened to that cachet when increasing numbers of professional musicians came to dominate the entertainment scene, offering a popular new music for the stage that eventually entered the drinking party. The chapter also considers evidence that some elites did not participate in the sympotic musical culture of their class.

During the first decade of the twentieth century, Strauss served at the helm of the oldest and most successful German society dedicated to the performance of new music, the General German Music Society (Allgemeiner Deutscher Musikverein). The chapter examines Strauss’s contribution to the organization’s revival at a time of decline for the ADMV, as he gazed back at founder Liszt’s legacy and looked to the future through his own music and the work of Mahler, among others. His activity is positioned within the context of affiliated composers and dominant issues throughout the ADMV’s seventy-five-year history, from its establishment by Liszt and Franz Brendel through its dissolution under the Third Reich. This essay lays bare the society’s struggles over German identity, musical modernism, and reactionary politics while recognizing its role in promoting the careers of such important figures as Mahler, Reger, and Schoenberg.

This paper explores the impact of acknowledged skill in mousikē (the ancient term which refers to the whole art of poetry, music and drama) on the income, identity and social status of poets, actors and musicians in the classical period. It is argued that the social status of these professionals depended on public recognition of the usefulness of their individual skills and the personal reputations of performers, rather than their economic class or legal order.