Where Is Music Now?

For my humanities class, I am required to take something we discussed in class and do some research, then write up my thoughts about it. Here is an example that I thought would be interesting to share here.

I find it rather curious that a lot of people think that music is all about feeling. Although I acknowledge that emotion is an important part of music, especially for music on the romantic side of the spectrum, I don't think it is the only thing that gives music its value. I think that music can also have meaning in its various levels of structure. Before I was a Humanities major here, I was a music major at Snow College. I have studied a lot of musical structure, from individual chords to the way chords function with each other (or don't function) to overall form. Thus, it sounded a little strange to me last semester when students at the beginning of Music 101 could only think of the feeling of piece as a musical merit.

So what's my point? I think that as far as music, we are still generally romantic, and Dionysus still has the upper hand. It is true that our music is generally less grandiose than 19^th century Romantic music. (Movie music is a notable exception.) It is true that 19^th century Romanticism was still within the common practice period of music, whereas composers from the Impressionist movement on have succeeded in completely overthrowing the rules of harmony and rhythm in art music. However, I would argue that the general musical world is still essentially in a romantic stage. We have yet to see another major classical, Apollonian movement. It seems like what was almost a Dionysus/Apollo pattern in musical history has been broken.

The common practice period of music began with the Baroque period, an essentially romantic, Dionysian movement. Then, the neoclassical period came as a reaction to the perceived excess art and decoration. Reason, balance, refinement, and natural expression were valued in art, music, and thought. When the Snow College chamber orchestra played a piece by Mozart, our instructor told us how the expression was like love at a distance. It's never quite fully expressed like in romantic music. In spite of this seeming lack, Mozart, as we all know, was a genius. Neoclassical music was very well structured, as a rule, and one could make sense of it.

Then in the Romantic era, EVERYTHING was expressed over the top, and old forms were tinkered with or discarded. Then Debussy reacted against the huge sound of Wagner and the like. I still wouldn't say he reverted back to classicism. Though the musical emotion and volume wasn't excessive, he broke away from traditional chord functions and the major/minor system. He turned instead to the old church modes, pentatonic and whole-tone scales, and parallelism. Harmonically, his music was very un-structured. Feelings and impressions were an important aspect of impressionism.

Since the beginning of the 20^th century, we have seen several relatively small musical movements, many of them simultaneous. We saw neo-romanticism, expressionism, and another small neo-classical movement. The latter was a reaction to the former two, a return to reason and balance. Still, it was not a major movement, and it became a joke with some composers like Prokofiev. It may be argued that serialism has a classical slant because it is extremely structured. Still, as I mentioned, it is chaos to the ears. It is based on rules that were set up to render tonality and harmony impossible. It falls under the category of expressionism, which constitutes the expression of raw emotion and psychological turmoil not limited by the rules of harmony. (The Scream is a famous example of expressionism in visual art.) Primitivism was anything but Apollonian. It was characterized by driving rhythms, clashing harmonies, and harsh sounds (like today's popular music in a way). The theme was often focused on primitive, backward life before society was refined. Stravinski's Rite of Spring is a famous example.

I'll skip ahead to current pop music. It all sounds the same after awhile because little of it has a melody with a good contour (if any melody), and little of it has an interesting harmony beyond the old “Pachalbel Canon” chord progression (if any harmony). “But it has a good beat!” Yeah, the same one over and over again. The beat makes you feel a certain way. Is that all that matters? “The music video is awesome!” Does it have to have an image to mean anything? The singer looks good, but can't actually sing without a computer. I think that music reflects its culture. What does our music -- and media in general -- say about us? I think too many young people are too caught up in satisfying the senses quickly instead of really delving into the structure and meaning of things. I think it would do us a lot of good to sit down and listen to a symphony, watch an opera, or read a good book, and then talk about it, just like the Athenians used to discuss their plays and tried to learn something from them.

Random Thoughts About Music

My roommate and I were talking about music the other day, and we agreed that music can explain things that nothing else can. Why is that? The ancient Greeks were kind of leery of purely instrumental music because it was so moving, even without words. They couldn't understand how it produced emotions without any words. It wasn't rational. Do we understand any better today? Well, I was glancing through an article about the Doctrine of Ethos a while back. According to this Greek philosophy, the right kind of music makes the right kind of person, and the wrong kind of music makes the wrong kind of person. This is because music is an imitation of character, rather than a mere representation of character, like other art forms. In a visual art, the color red might signify anger, power, war, or communism. When you're listening to a passage from the forth movement of Tchaikovsky's Symphony No. 6, you can feel and relate to the anger, desperation, despair, and other unnamed feelings bearing down on you all at once because you have felt it before or because you have the capacity to feel it.

Well, I guess relating to music all depends on what the composer is trying to convey, and his and the performers' skill. Sometimes, the feeling of the music seems exaggerated or out of place, and then it just makes people laugh. That's alright if it was intentional, of course, but should be intentional. I was watching a chick flick with my roommates about a week ago, and I had to laugh because the music was quite out of place. The hero sees her with another man! Fully diminished 7 chord! Oh my! I don't think it was supposed to be scary -- or funny for that matter. I didn't think they wanted the hero to come across as a creepy stalker, but that's what the music implied.

Speaking of scary movies, I would say they wouldn't be half as frightening without the music. I get pretty annoyed when they play a progression of awful chords that cannot be named, and the tension is building, and I'm expecting the villain to jump out with a knife, and then... nothing happens. I was getting scared for no reason -- except the music.

Now, I guess we ought to take into consideration that everyone has a different character and set of tastes. Some people consider certain kinds of music to be exaggerated or ridiculous, while others can relate to them and enjoy them. Genetically, we have a lot in common, but we don't all have common backgrounds and experiences. Have you ever wondered why your grandparents like music two generations old, but people your age tend to think it's too sappy or cheesy? Naturally, music of that time was a better imitation of experiences people were having then than the ones we're having now.

Still, I have to wonder why strange people like me enjoy old music. As alien as it sounds to modern ears, I enjoy Medieval and Renaissance music. I grew up listening to classical music, and will always love it. I also listen to classic rock. I really don't enjoy a lot of contemporary music. I have unusual tastes, but I know I'm not the only one who listens to orchestral music and classic rock. I think it has to do with my personality, interests, and upbringing. History is one of my main interests, so I get along quite well with music from the past. Along the lines of personality, though, people are amazed to learn that Kansas is my favorite rock group. They're surprised to learn that I even like any rock. I seem like the quiet, conservative type -- and I guess I am. People would probably expect me to like the Sounds of Sunday sort of music. I don't. THe lyrics are great and inspiring, but the music is too wannabe pop music. I just can't take it seriously like I can Handel's Messiah or Bach cantatas. Well, I first liked Kansas because of their lyrics. For the most part, they're deeper and more thought-provoking than most lyrics by pop stars who never graduated high school and never got out of that mentality. Then, as I've been taking music theory classes, I've realized that their music is also deeper. They do much more than your boring old I-IV-V progression. They modulate and borrow chords and pull chords out of thin air -- and they have a violin.

I suppose there are a lot of factors involved in the kinds of music people can relate to -- more than I know how to expound upon. ...And I didn't even go into how music affects character -- if indeed it does. I'm not a psychologist. Maybe music therapy people would know more about this kind of thing. Somebody should do some research and write an essay on it.