Over the last several years, I have been contemplating the universe of music. I think this forum is a good place to discuss this, as we have many musicians, composers and thinkers lurking about. Some highly educated in music, some not (in the traditional sense). I think views of both are equally important in relation to this subject.
There are experiences that I have had over the last several years that have brought questions to my mind.
Having a member of my family become obsessed with a style of music that I can’t stand (I only refer to the music itself, not any other social aspects associated with the music)- Its not that I just don’t prefer it, I really, truly can’t listen to it, I have to wear ear plugs. It causes me physical distress. On the other hand, this family member can hear all kinds of qualities in this music, melodic lines, expert playing, etc. (this person has analyzed this style of music in depth). Also, another family member says that this same style of music makes him happy, and gives him comfort. How could the exact same music give the feelings of peace and happiness in one person, and be so absolutely opposite to another, creating nausea and headache?
In church- sometimes there are musical numbers presented in a way that takes away the spirit for me, yet brings the spirit to others. How is that possible? Isn’t the spirit either there or not?
A conversation with the highly educated- I had the opportunity to work with very highly educated, respected performers last weekend (with prestigious colleges degrees and many years of study). In discussing audiences with them (or the lack of audience rather) they tried to explain why: that music composed and performed on the highest level draws the smallest audience. They explained it by associating it with learning math. When a person is young and just starting to learn to think, they learn the very basics of math. Addition. As they get the idea, they learn multiplication. Later, when they are ready, they learn complicated equations. Those who dedicate their lives to understanding math study, research, and come to know the most important, complicated math of all and how it relates to the universe. However, those who are still only doing addition can’t be expected to understand on the highest level. Is the understanding of music like this, is this a good analogy? In a lesson with one of these highly educated people, she told me that her job as a musician isn’t to interpret the music herself, but to do her best to recreate the music that the composer intended. In fact, I mentioned to one of them after a concert that I liked their interpretation of something (which I realized later could have been considered derogatory).
Conversations with the uneducated- When discussing music with those who don’t have a traditional education, say- folk musicians. They learn from hearing others play the music that they have heard their whole lives. They enjoy it and it is embedded into their entire being. It represents their culture, life experiences and even gives them identity. They don’t know what key or mode they play in, or how to even read music. Top folk musicians in the field are extremely skilled players, just as skilled at playing their own music as no. 3 above.
Conversation with Jazz musicians, who are also highly educated- They consider themselves successful if they can take a tune or song and give it their own interpretation that will inspire some sort of sentiment in the audience (and with each other). Their whole purpose in music is to give their own interpretations through improvisation with the music changing every time it is performed. Like a moving river.
Conversation with school teachers- In our district, the school administrators are cutting the orchestra program, which I have been working hard with others to establish in the schools. We currently have a very strong band and choir program, which aren’t getting cut. The administration sees music as music, to cut the “fringes” to save money in hard economic times. Is orchestra a fringe music. Is orchestra more of a fringe music in our society than band or orchestra? Also, an interesting phenomena- the students who are serious about their academic studies are also drawn to strings classes (orchestra) over band and choir (as much as people don’t want to admit it, it’s true). What does this mean, if anything?
The funny thing to me is, each of the above categories of people think they know what music is, and what it is for, and most of them will never agree. So what is music? Is it something to be studied and understood (which is the only real way to fully appreciate it)? Is it something that should be measured by how it makes a person feel? Is it something that exists as an avenue for people to express how they feel or think?
It is interesting for me, to have the opportunity to associate with all sorts of musicians from different universes. Each thinks they have the real vision of what music is, and the purpose of it. Perhaps there is no such thing as music at all. The only thing the exists is people’s perceptions.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"that music composed and performed on the highest level draws the smallest audience."
ReplyDeleteI agree, but would add that perhaps the words "highest level" could be interchanged with "specialized." For instance, I would compare the art of opera singing with Chinese Kabuki theater. It's very culture-specific, it has certain rigid guidelines (if you sing with a certain range of qaulity, you're a soprano. Another voice quality is an Alto. Tenor, Bass, etc.) Also the way it's performed is very regulated; the acting has a certain style different from any other type of performance, and the techinique itself is specialized down the the nanosecond (eg, vibrato can only have a certain, narrow range to sound attractive to an Opera audience).
It is extremely difficult to perform within these narrow perameters, and so it is a very high art and skill level that can produce this kind of performance, unless you're a natural (which is rare).
So yes, a smaller audience for a higher level of artistry, but perhaps these specific parameters also exclude a larger chunk of audience, whose preferences vary a bit more than what the type of music/style/performance calls for?
Perhaps this is why popular music is, well, popular. It varies. Quite often the person singing sounds pretty natural, normal, almost closer to a speaking voice than say classical singing. And so perhaps it apeals to a wider audience's tastes. But then, there are those who have come to prefer the artistry of a much more difficult skill level of performance, and so the more general performance falls flat for them?
This is a discussion I have had with myself countless times.
Anyway, I'd call myself half-educated. I've had some theory, years of lessons on various instruments, but I've not gained a degree or tried to compose anything, so I'd like to hear what someone truly educated might have to say about this issue, too. :)
Sorry, not Alto. Mezzo. Got to get my terminology right :)
ReplyDeleteI have a little education about music. (Like Nibley's gas law of learning: A little amount of knowledge, no matter how small, can fill up a vacuum, no matter how large.)
ReplyDeleteA lot has been said and asked. I'll throw in a few responses.
Your analogy with mathematics is useful. I think that's true with some aspects of music. Another analogy might be observing a chess game. Bryce and I were reviewing some famous world champion matches. We watched the moves unfold, and I couldn't figure out why anyone was doing anything. And then, all of a sudden, in the middle of the game, one of the players conceded, but I couldn't figure out why. Music can be like this--there can be a group of initiates who have put in a lot of effort and learned it hard. I have seen this not only in "classical" styles either.
But as true as that is, that is not at the heart of music for me. There is something that moves me, and it goes back to my childhood. It might be in a famous piece or in a simple piece. But the most real aspect of it is a musical reality deep inside a person.
Also, a note about popular music (it could be rock, country, rap, metal, whatever; folk music is also related, but is deeper, and there are some other facets to it.). Maybe the common denominator is that the listener doesn't have to make much of an investment in it--in fact it is made that way on purpose. I notice that in this type of musical world, the beat (an accompanying physical response) and the words are most important to people.
Spiritual music is in the realm of submitting to God. Otherwise it's not really spiritual. And I don't know if the scriptures even have the Western European idea of "art music" as a separate valued endeavor, etc.
Those are just some intitial ramblings. Your post really asks for some systematic and deep thought.
"Also, a note about popular music (it could be rock, country, rap, metal, whatever; folk music is also related, but is deeper, and there are some other facets to it.). Maybe the common denominator is that the listener doesn't have to make much of an investment in it--in fact it is made that way on purpose. I notice that in this type of musical world, the beat (an accompanying physical response) and the words are most important to people."
ReplyDeleteWhat should be the most important thing about the music?
A lot of "classical" style musicians might think that if a listener doesn't have to make an investment in the music, the music isn't worth anything. Taking it a step further, that the people listening that haven’t made an investment (because they simply aren’t interested) means they are less intelligent. But what is this idea based on, the judgments of classical style musicians? Say, Brittany Spears comes out with a new song that sells millions of records, and sells out hundreds of shows across the country. Lets just say that 50% of the population hears and likes her song. They sing along with the radio. They lip sink it with their friends. They enjoy this new song to its fullness. They experience joy. Say, the International Double Reed Society commissions a new piece and has the top double reed players premier it at the next international conference. Say 700 people hear it (mostly professors). And out of those, say… 100 people really understand it. Out of those, 25 people actually enjoyed listening to it, with the music making some sort in connection to the soul. Now true the double reed players are highly specialized and can understand complicated music. But in reality, which music is more “valid.” Or I could say, which kind of music is more artistic (and who gets to decide that?). Should music really be about having to work at it, in order to truly enjoy it?
Now, just because I’m bringing up this view doesn’t mean I have anything against classical style musicians. Remember that I am one (though I’m not educated as much as some in the family).
“But as true as that is, that is not at the heart of music for me. There is something that moves me, and it goes back to my childhood. It might be in a famous piece or in a simple piece. But the most real aspect of it is a musical reality deep inside a person.”
ReplyDeleteThis statement is true for me too, well said.
What kind of music do I love and consider beautiful? Well, I love great classical pieces, but the ones I love most are the ones I have actually PLAYED. I think that is because after rehearsing them and performing them over and over again I finally understand them and they become mine. I don't know how much Stravinsky's Petrouchka or Shostakovich's 5th would move me if I hadn't played them, but because I have, they have the potential to move me to tears.
ReplyDeleteOn another note, some pieces, the very moment I hear them, touch me. I heard a song by a local band the other day, and the instant it began, a huge wave of melancholy nostalgia washed over me. I had never heard it before, but it was instantly familiar and beautiful to me and I had to buy it. I don't know why this is?!
I tend to agree that most pop music is so simplistic that it is easy for everyone to understand. verse chorus verse chorus, bridge, final chorus. Everyone can understand that and the simple chord progressions and harmony, plus an irresistible beat... our culture wants everything easy. Instantly comprehensible. And I think that is the fault of the people patronizing the music-- if we accept so much of that trash (like Britney Spears who is really just dancing to a beat without wearing very many clothes and singing with her computer-altered bad voice... sorry, I don't like her :) ) then they will keep producing it. I think we as a pop culture need to demand more of our artists. I don't know that we will, though. Every once in a while, there is a treasure that emerges...
About how some music sounds absolutely horrible to you, but someone else loves it... I don't know! I don't get it either! Maybe someone is lying to themself because of the social context of that type of music...
To add to what I just wrote, I have to also say that there are some pieces I have played and become familiar with that I still find absolutely tedious and boring. So it's something more than familiarity that does it for me.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I was thinking about Petrouchka, and remembered that it was actually very beautiful to me almost instantly when we started rehearsing it. I think maybe that is because of Stravinsky's heavy use of folk tunes-- folk melodies seem to speak to the collective unconscious and be reminiscent of something, even if you haven't heard them before.
So much to think about...
Alright! I'm here to represent the wholly uneducated side of music appreciation. Now I know I can't claim complete unawareness of classical-style music, having been raised by the parents I have, but I am the only one in my fam (besides Bryce who has his own take on music I'm sure) who never did band, never had any desire to be in a symphony, still doesn't care to put forth the effort to understand all the ins and outs of music theory, and who only plays two instruments at a minimal level of functionality (to accompany singing usually). And here it is... my opinion, that is- the majority of music played by bands and orchestras bores me to tears. And I have no interest in trying to understand it further or 'investing' myself in it. If I think it's pretty, or more importantly, if it transports me back in time to a memory or feeling of my childhood, then I might listen to it with attention. Otherwise... I might as well be at a Britany Spears concert bopping around to a stupid but catchy beat (not that I'd really ever do that).
ReplyDeleteNow, obviously I'm just a normal person with my nose in a snit because I think classical musicians are as snooty as it gets, but really I don't know anyone who likes to be called less intelligent just because they don't identify with a certain type of music (I know Aunt C, you're not calling me less intelligent, you were just stating how some people think). I know this post wasn't meant to turn into a bash on any one philosophy, but it is a subject that really hits home for me because I consider myself a person who is greatly effected by many types of music- and I consider myself very willing to invest myself in music when it appeals to me.
Something I've noticed (as I've been a silent attendant to countless classical musician conversations) is that the term 'classical' is just a term for less intelligent normal people(non instrument-playing, I mean- listeners only), to kind of blanket the many types of orchestral music there is. In fact, I'd hate to be the one to inform some unfortunate person who likes to think of himself as a classical music appreciator, that the top 100 classical 'hits' they enjoy do not qualify them in any way for the label of 'person who understands classical music.' It is my understanding that in order to really be accepted in the educated musician's club, one has to 'understand' and appreciate music that makes no sense at all, is a series of bleeps and bloops and has no pattern whatsoever but is played with great emotion... on a tuba. Hmmm... musicians experimenting with their instruments- sounds familiar to me. I find it interesting that my response to music like this gives me approximately the same response as Aunt C's to that unspecified type of music that she talked about. I realize this paragraph has shown how truly ignorant I am.
I liked nosurfgirl's comparison of opera to Japanese Kabuki because it illustrates a very important point to me. If you've ever watched any Kabuki you'll know that it is not exactly the most comprehensible thing in the world right away. Actors in extremely elaborate costumes move around with very stylized movements and speak in a sort of yowling speak-sing voice while drums beat uneven rhythms. That's the gist of it for a first timer anyway, I think. Now, my experience with Kabuki (and as a Drama major I endured much Kabuki exposure) is that, yes, the more I saw, the more I understood, but that doesn't mean I would ever choose to watch it of my own choice. I appreciate its intrinsic beauty and, historically, I know it means a lot more than I grasp, but that still doesn't make me enjoy it. Others have had entirely different reactions. They see one Kabuki play and something in it reaches out and grabs them and they seek more, making it make sense to them in ways I cannot see. Does this make me less intelligent? Or just not touched? Does my fascination with melodies around the world- especially middle eastern- qualify me for any credit in the music world, or is there only one way to measure music intelligence? Does the musician who never learned to read music but thrills listeners by the millions get any credibility? (I'm referring to Paul McCartney here, actually, not Britney Spears.)
Okay, so my venty, self-defensive ramblings boil down to a few concepts for me:
1)People listen to music for different reasons (i.e., emotion, structure, etc.), and listen for different things (i.e., melody, beat, words, intricacy, etc.)
2)EVERYONE is a know-it-all in their special little area and everyone else is a little lower than them on the able-to-understand-and-appreciate scale- it's all about knowing more than someone else
3)I respect all musicians, even the ones I can't stand, as doing what they understand- and if they appeal to a lot of people they deserve some recognition of their ability to connect.
It seems to me that posting twice in a row is the trend here so I'd better add another note.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry about the tone of this post- if it seems judgemental it is from years of feeling like I don't fit in with certain crowds, but I really didn't mean to make anyone feel like I think they're snooty. I'm sure I can get real hoity toity with some of my theater friends about acting or other equally trivial stuff, so I really believe in the point I made about how knowing more than others makes it hard not to act superior. Feel free to blow me out of the water:)
Ha ha! Perfect post Camilla! I love it. For some reason, some (and I emphasize some, not the wonderful Blackhams because we think outside the box) think there is some mystical quality to classical music (Camilla, thanks for defining what classical music means), that if you don’t not only understand it, but understand it and LIKE it, it means you are not on the same level of Zen as the others (which could be applied to any musical attitude in any style including folk). However I think it needs to be said that just because a person doesn’t like a style of music doesn’t meant it isn’t valid. All music is valid, even Brittany Spears, isn’t? I just had a long talk with Adele on chat about all this (Adele is one of the most insightful people I know). Also, I had a long conversation with my folk music pal a few days ago. He read the posts today and said this, in regard to the phenomenon of pop music.
ReplyDelete"There are so many people out there, every single one with different tastes, that in order to appeal to all or most, you have to take it down to the lowest, most basic, common denominator. You can't specialize much to appeal to the majority (musically speaking)."
I think this is true, if your goal is to appeal to the masses (reaching as many as possible, for whatever the reason). However the lowest common denominator is still valid. Addition is still valid. If we were all liberal thinkers (which most of us aren’t here, in comparison to the main stream liberal thinkers of our day), we would consider all music as equal, which is the opposite of those who claim (and are proud) to be liberal thinkers in the professional music world (like my classical friends).
Two quick notes:
ReplyDelete"Intelligence," whether musical or otherwise is hard to put your finger on. I believe the human mind and personality (not to mention spirit) has a great many facets--it is often said that it is the most complex thing we have ever encountered in the entire universe. I think there are a lot of things that might be called intelligence.
There's a study (using MRI technology) that shows that when a person participates in music, all areas of the brain are involved. So music has a lot of connectsion to a lot of things in us. No surprize it would be different things to different people in different ways, and a discussion of it could go in just about any direction.
Two quicker notes:
ReplyDeleteCamilla, your words declare yourself "uneducated," and don't understand music theory, but music you have written declares otherwise.
As with most things in life, there is a payback for making an investment in music.
"if it seems judgemental it is from years of feeling like I don't fit in with certain crowds, but I really didn't mean to make anyone feel like I think they're snooty."
ReplyDeleteMe too. I was totally afraid I'd come off this way... I've totally been burned by the "I'm a classical singer so I'm worth more than you... I hate folk or coutnry music cause it sounds terrible" crowd. I have a really hard time when people bash Janice Kapp Perry (though I've come to appreciate her a little less, I think) because I think JKP serves a purpose for some of the audience.
What I hope is that people like Gladys Knight (SUV all the way!) Will continue to open people to another possibility of sound and arrangement being spiritual for some. Anyway. Thanks, Camilla, for giving voice to my concealed angst. :)
I wonder how many have the same sort of feelings as Camilla and Sarah. I wish Josh, Ryan, and others would comment. It would be very interesting to see Carlene's view (from the perspective of a folk musician who had a classical upbringing). Has she ever contributed to this blog? And of course, my significant other, probably the least educated in music of all, and has been to more than anyone’s share of concerts. And Michele, maybe the most musically educated in all the family (she may surprise us all with a twisted view).
ReplyDeleteYou said: "Having a member of my family become obsessed with a style of music that I can’t stand (I only refer to the music itself, not any other social aspects associated with the music)- Its not that I just don’t prefer it, I really, truly can’t listen to it, I have to wear ear plugs."
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to figure out if you're referring to Michele or Ethan.
So, you think I'm an uneducated musical dunce. All I know is I've come away from performances I've thoroughly enjoyed, only to have to endure you and Michele go on and on criticizing every little thing. I'm left thinking, "I'm sure glad I don't know so much so I can just sit back and enjoy, instead of having to analyze every little thing.
Just don't make me sit through any more interesting musical performances, please.
BTW was Camilla calling me Snooty? I think I'm offended!
Back in the old days, before any of us had left Hanford, Ca, there were people who called the members of our family "musical snobs." Were we? Or were we just in a world of our own that we loved? Or do those two somehow become the same thing? The competitive social aspects of music strike me as sad, especially in the context of music itself, which can be so wonderful.
ReplyDelete(p.s. An earlier comment I made about popular music not requiring a large investment got morphed into ideas about being not intelligent or educated. That is not how I meant my comment. There are a lot of things that people don't invest in, for whatever reasons they may have.)
If I remember right, it seems like mom and dad laughed and maybe even had a little pride in being perceived as musical snobs. But I’m not sure about that, I was pretty unaware. I just remember people laughing about it. What Dean said is funny and so true. Perhaps we are more critical of things classical, just because the focus seems to be on the perfect reenactment of something. Perfect tone, perfect technique, perfect non-interpretation. It lends itself to being criticized. Isn’t that what a teacher does to their students at each lesson? Isn’t that what they are supposed to do, their job? But when a person goes to a folk music concert, perhaps they are more likely to just sit back and enjoy, since there is no right or wrong. Actually, that probably isn’t true either. There are plenty of folk musicians that think the music should never be altered from the original and must be performed stylistically accurate for the region, etc. And people who do alter it are traitors to the tradition. If nothing else this conversation has been enlightening for me, to see that there are a lot of views about this.
ReplyDeleteMy husband- gosh, you gotta love him for his spunk (I live an exciting life). We have had this discussion a billion times. I should have known better than to ask for his opinion :-)
Carolee: despite your experience of musical differences in taste, music is substantially "inter-subjective". Usually if one person enjoys a musical item, there will be a large number of other people who also enjoy it, and an even larger number who at least recognise it as being musical.
ReplyDeleteThis observation doesn't solve the problem of which music is "better" than other music (i.e. in relation to your original question "Is all music created equal?"), but it does suggest that "music" can be robustly distinguished from "non-music". As long as we beware of people who listen to non-musical sounds and mischievously declare them to be musical, such as John Cage and his infamous 4'33''.
That's what I love about music. Everyone I know likes music of some kind. Different kinds for different moods and diferent levels for everyones taste. Even our likes and dislikes change over the years. We can always be discovering new kinds without ever hearing everything ever sung, heard or created. There is one thing I know for sure; there will be music in heaven of a kind we cannot even now imagine.
ReplyDeleteBTW Classical music IS the very best kind of music. That makes ME the musical snob!
ReplyDeleteHere is one perceived answer to the question of whether or not all music is equal:
ReplyDeletehttp://musicthatmakesyoudumb.virgil.gr/music.php
Ah HA!! Everyone should go to that website and see what music the most intelligent people listen to. Girls (Michele and Natalie). You could ask your dates what music they listen to and then go and check to see how smart they are. This could be important!!!
ReplyDeleteOne of my philosopher friends told me once, "the only reason you don't love someone is because you don't know them." I think this applies (somewhat) to what we're talking about here. (By the way, I hope you know that we have all proven ourselves to be musical snobs by the very fact that we are having this conversation.) Maybe the reason you don't love a certain style of music is because you don't "know" it.
ReplyDeleteI used to think John Cage's work was weird (though I didn't hate it) so I studied it. And now I LOVE it. (Yes, beware of me... Philip Dorrell, whoever you are!)
By the time I was a sophomore or junior at BYU I realized that I didn't really like listening to classical music (music of the Western European tradition) for all of the same reasons people have written about here and especially after having been forced to play, analyze, and write papers about it every single day of my life. I never listened to classical music if I had a choice. But recently I have changed my attitude! This year I have been teaching music theory to college freshmen. I've had to study really hard to stay ahead of my students (I realized early on that it helps if I know more than them) and am finally starting to understand it. The other day I caught myself stopping on the classical station on my car radio and listening attentitively. I'm starting to like classical music! I have been enjoying my orchestra rehearsals! How WEIRD is that? Anywho, I have seen this pattern in many areas of my life and you probably have too.
So if my mother hates death metal music she should pick it apart, analyze it, and then see how she feels about it. Or... not. I have also learned that when you don't WANT to love something--which can be a good thing in the case of death metal--you will have a hard time getting to know it and understand it.
Also, in reference to "common denominator" music, it makes sense that so many people love it, because it is so easy to understand. This is true of other art forms and mediums too. I like to call it consumer art. Those of us snobs who have a deeper understanding of music and art are annoyed by it because we, um... well--we're snobs.
As a side note: I think the problem is that our society only champions a few types of genius. I'd argue that everyone is a genius at something, and there could be a million different types of genius out there. But in this elitist society, the Western European tradition has been elevated to a superior status and those who are attracted to and talented in that particular genre/philosophy/scholarship get to be in the special club. What I mean is that Western classical music is taught in the universities, and professional symphonies and opera companies get a lot of support from the upper class. If you have season tickets to the opera, you are HIGH CLASS. So far, you can't get a BM in death metal performance at any university that I know of. And in this world if you can't get a degree in it, it isn't as valuable as the other subjects. In an alternate universe maybe some other type of music would be superior.
Part of the reason why Western European classical music evolved to it's elevated status could be because it's roots go pretty far back, to the days when only monks and other types of educated people could write. That was the style of music they played and sang and notated. People were singing popular music back then, it just wasn't recorded and has since remained (and evolved) within the realm of untrained/folk/popular music.
Anyway, the bottom line is that classical music is hard to understand and even harder to play. Even the most famous musicians don't always do it justice. People who invest time studying it (it's easier for some than others due to their natural inclinations) will enjoy it better. Other types of music don't require as much of the same TYPE of investment.
I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, "I don't have anything against God, it's his fan club I can't stand". I think that is similar to what some people think about classical music--they don't have anything against it, but the fan club really annoys them.
You will find an elitist in every category. But music is different because it is subjective, and you can't prove who is right, wrong, better, or best and the problem is that the elitists (or those in the special club) are acting like they can--and they are getting away with it.
In the end, I think Aunt Linda's comment is the best: everyone likes music of some kind, different moods and different levels to suit everyone's taste.