Chapel Royal
As the title Music at Court denotes, this article discusses the history and evolution of music in England’s royal households. In the early centuries, a group of selected chaplains had always formed a part of the royal household. However, these chaplains generally served as advisers and their roles were primarily political than musical. Nevertheless, these priests also assisted at the ceremonial occasions by some three or four clerici who possessed good singing voices and were drafted into the chapel for such occasions. As time went on, the occasional recruitment of these musical clerics ceased to satisfy the needs of the sovereign and a more permanent, concrete set of musical retainers were selected; a self-contained department of the household called the capella regis, which included chaplains, clerks and choristers.
Beginning during the reigns of Edward I and Edward II (1272-1327), a specialized body of liturgical musicians called the “Chapel Royal” began to take shape. The Chapel Royal were a special group of musically inclined personnel maintained by sovereigns of England within the royal household, to perform divine service in the monarch’s presence. The Chapel Royal were in constant attendance to the sovereign and travelled with the royal household and discharged its duties in the chapel of whatever place the king then happened to reside. From these modest beginnings, the chapel eventually developed into one of the foremost secular liturgical choirs in Europe with kings maintaining 40-50 voices in the choir to project the king’s image and conspicuous display of his wealth, resources and creative talent. From this talented tool of musicians came some of the pre-reformation composers of England. From 1558 on, the Chapel Royal went through several periods of ups and downs depending upon the interests of the then current sovereign. For example, under the patronage of Elizabeth I and her immediate successors, the choir flourished and became the largest and finest in the country with musicians receiving a salary 3 times the national average, composed many pieces and anthems, and even establishing a choir school for boys. However, under William and Mary, the Chapel Royal, like all royal institution, went into decline. Since 1702, the Chapel Royal has been the smaller of the two royal chapels in St James’s Palace and still performs services to this day.
Secular Music
The secular aspect of the Royal Music changed in two fundamental ways in the reigns of Henry VII and Henry VIII. First, the medieval distinction between haut and bas instruments was intensified by the establishment into a distinction of Presence Chamber, the public areas, and the Privy Chamber, the private living and working areas of the monarch. Second, the solo or duet minstrelsy of the Middle Ages gave way to fixed groups playing sets of polyphonic consort instruments. This structure established in the 1540’s remained relatively unchanged until the Civil War and even beyond. The Tudor court was the largest musical institution in England, and as such employed many important composers of its time. Due to a fire that consumed the palace where many of the musical sources were stored, only a few importance pieces exist. Some of the surviving manuscripts are the Tudor songbooks and the Fayrfax Manuscripts. During the early-to-mid 17th century a number of monarchs made small changes to the Royal Music but the essence stayed the same. Under the reign of James I, the main changes to the Royal Music that occurred was concerning the violin, mainly the enlargement from 7 to 12 in the consort. Prince Henry combined separate consorts into a single group and Prince Charles combined James I’s Privy chamber with his musicians to make a new group. Then the Royal Music was abruptly dispersed at the beginning of the Civil War in 1642, leaving royal musicians to fend for themselves. After the Civil War and the Restoration in 1660, the Royal Music was reestablished exactly as it stood in 1642, though changes were soon made to accommodate the personal tastes of the monarch, Charles II. The Royal Music went into decline beginning during the reign of William and Mary in 1689. It became apparent that the Royal Music would only serve on an occasional basis and the musical life of England would be taken over by London’s commercial theatre’s and concert rooms. The Royal Music’s duties were reduced to attending Royal Weddings, baptisms, State banquets, and State Concerts etc. where they continue to perform their roles today.

Article Summaries
1.
Carse A.. ‘The Prince Regent's Band’, in Music & Letters 27 (1946): 147–55
Where I found it: JSTOR Online Journal Database, www.jstor.org
Summary:
In this article, the author Adam Carse chronicles the history of George IV’s personal band called “The Prince Regent’s Band”. He first documents much of the praise of George IV given by his biographers and historians. However, much of the praise may be skewed positively due to the liability of producing words displeasing to the Prince. According to the historians, Prince George was a gifted cello player that “few amateurs could equal him” and that he was gifted with a refined musical taste and highly rated musical knowledge. As such, the Prince patronized all the theatre’s and concert houses in his vicinity. Though much public concert-going occupied his leisure time, George’s personal interests laid with his own Private Band which was entirely his own personal affair. The band was known by several different names such as Prince of Wales’ Private Band, Prince Regent’s Band, and finally as the King’s Household Band. This band was composed entirely of skilled musicians regardless of nationality. The author then talks of the composition of the band instruments, noting how the early renditions favored the brass while woodwinds came to prominence later on. Carse then introduces quick sketches of some of the prominent musicians that have been in the Prince’s band. The band was soon disbanded after the death of George IV. My Impression:
Though I found the subject matter somewhat interesting in the beginning, I soon lost interest when I began reading the latter half of the article. I thought that the author spent an unnecessary length going in detail about the lives of some of the band members which detracted from the overall subject of the article. The author could have spent more time talking about the accomplishments of the band in general instead of what each of the members where doing. The article could have been written more concisely.

2.
Flood, W. H. G.. ‘The Beginning of the Chapel Royal’, in Music & Letters 5 (1924): 85-90.
Where I found it: JSTOR Online Journal Database, www.jstor.org
Summary:
The author states that many writers claim the origin of the Chapel Royal at the beginnings of the 15th century, but dismisses such statements as absurd. He then lays down examples of how the Chapel Royal existed well before then. Some of which are: the existence of a Chapel Royal at Windsor in 1351 as confirmed by Letters Patent of Edward III, and even further back is a reference from the Red Book of the Exchequer of an English Chapel Royal in 1135. Flood then cites numerous more references to the existence of the Chapel Royal in the 14th century. Following which begins a chronicling of many of the callings of position within the Chapel Royal in the 1400’s.
My Impression:
I thought the article articulated its point of the existence of the Chapel Royal but did so too repetitively. I thought only a few detailed examples and then a reference to the others would have sufficed. Also I did not see the need for the author to include the latter section on the various posts and callings within the Chapel Royal given the theme and subject matter of the article.

3.
Mabbett, M.. ‘Italian Musicians in Restoration England (1660–90)’, in Music & Letters 67 (1986)
Where I found it: JSTOR Online Journal Database, www.jstor.org
Summary:
The author Margaret Mabbett writes on the less recognized Italian musicians of the post-Restoration Court era of 1660-1690. During that time, though the court musical establishment was largely shut down, many foreign musicians came and went privately. Originally the Italian musicians came when Charles II was keen to establishing an Italian opera to England. Mabbett then produces documents from the time showing the breakdown of costs of hiring Italian musicians. Charles set about hiring and bringing over talented Italians musicians, but the opera never became popular in England. However, the Italian musicians where employed in other uses. One of the first Italian musicians Charles brought to London was Francesco Corbetta, a virtuoso guitarist. Instead of giving Corbetta an official musical role, he was assigned to various gentlemanly positions and much of his musical activities were performed on a private, informal level. Despite having large salaries, life was not easy for the Italian musicians as they had a hard time being paid by the King due to his insolvency, often not being paid for years. Mabbett relates the experiences of some of the Italian musicians and their troubles of trying to obtain rightful compensation.
My Impression:
I thought that this article was well written and presented a good view of how the Italian musicians lived in England during the time of Charles. The author introduced relevant examples from contemporary texts and included interesting facts and figures about the salaries of different types of musicians.

4.
Philipps, G. A.. ‘Crown Musical Patronage from Elizabeth I to Charles I’, in Music & Letters 63 (1977): 29–42.
Where I found it: JSTOR Online Journal Database, www.jstor.org Summary: In this article, the author Philipps, attempts to show the readers the different ideas of employment and patronage during our time and the time of the Elizabethans and the complex maneuverings and the many sources of income that were necessary to finance court life. Generally there were three ways in which a musician can receive royal patronage. First, musicians were able to receive income through grants of honor, peerage and knighthoods. These honors were very rare to be bestowed upon musicians as not many monarchs held then in that high of a regard. The second source is through receiving an office or position in the royal household and receiving a salary. The third source of revenue is through gifts of the Crown. The most common method is through the holding an office in the royal household. These salaries received from the Crown were ample but not generous in themselves. However, the ability to hold multiple offices allowed these musicians to receive several salaries amounting to a respectable sum. This is called pluralism. For example, Thomas Lupo, a Milanese violinist, received 40 pounds a year, he also held posts of “composer for our violins,” Musician in Ordinary and Composer of His Majesty’s Music. These four posts allowed Thomas to effective have 4 times his original salary and allowed him to live a financially comfortable life. Philipps also introduces a number of other musicians who were also employed in a variety of offices in the Royal Household. Musicians can also practice pluralism outside the Royal Court. As the popularity of paper music flourished in the late 16th century, another method of receiving income was discovered by musicians in the form of patents.
My Impression:
I thought that this article was well written and did a good job of explaining the way musicians made money during the Elizabethan period. The author introduced relevant examples that helped to understand how each of the methods worked, especially pluralism and patents. However, I did feel that the author should have included some of the problems musicians have actually getting paid from the monarch, for example, during periods of insolvency.

5.
Shaw, W.. ‘A Cambridge Manuscript from the English Chapel Royal’ in Music & Letters 42 (1961): 263–7.
Where I found it: JSTOR Online Journal Database, www.jstor.org
Summary:
“A Cambridge Manuscript from the English Chapel Royal” is a study on 20 pages in 5 fragments of manuscript consisting of outline organ short scores of English sacred music. The author finds that in the fragments there are two pairs relating to each other. The first pair, through comparison of existing manuscripts, the author is able to find who the original author was, Rev. William Tucker, and that the fragments represent parts of an organ book used in the Chapel Royal from 1670 on. The other fragments, though evident that they belonged in a Chapel Royal songbook, their origin remains unknown.
My Impression: This article was very hard to read and very confusing. It did not present very much detail or depth about the manuscripts and simply laid out some possible origins of the different pieces. I felt that the author could have implied better methods in research and presentation of the material.