[Note - this is an academically-inclined essay, though I wrote it with keen interest and enjoyment in the subject, so do not feel obliged to read it if you are uninterested, and know that it is not so casual as my usual writing in its style, and so may be less pleasant reading, if you do indeed still wish to read it.]
Oftentimes when I
discuss music with my peers, the first thing that comes up is modern music.
They like this or that popular song that played on the radio, and wonder why I don't
like it. I am a musician myself - an amateur vocalist and pianist. It can be hard to please me music-wise sometimes, and I know this. Thus, as a short and perhaps less adequate answer, often I simply reply that
it's just not my style of music. As a full answer, should this aforementioned brief answer not be
enough, I now supply my argument at greater length.
The first thing
that one might notice when contrasting modern pop music to, for example, opera
or classical music is that often the melody of the latter takes up at least
five sheets of music, while the former's melody oft may be summed up in four
bars of music. What does this even mean, though? Even to those who do not read
music and so may not be able to tell this fact for themselves, I believe, the result is
obvious just by listening to the music.
Pop music often
ends up, in no small part due to the lack of melodic development, monotonous or rather childishly simple,
consisting of a grating repetition of patterns quite indecipherable except as a
musical version of a toddler's scribblings or as an unfinished fragment of a
melody. The melodies of opera and the classical works are often rich, keeping a
listener entranced by minutes upon minutes of new, fresh melody that, while
keeping interest, always correlates with what has already occurred musically.
My second peeve
with the rather faulty musicianship of modern music is the - for lack of a
better word - emphasis upon rhythm. The
operatic singer of only a couple centuries ago would have known his or her
singing part inside out; they would have to, because often their rhythms were
so complex and multi-layered, and they would be singing with an equally
rhythmic accompaniment or other complexly-timed vocal parts. Nowadays, the so
greatly convenienced modern singer finds themselves practically singing to a
digital metronome as the so-called 'rhythms' of their songs. They are being
handed the rhythm of the song on a silver platter.
Before I
continue, though, it may seem that I believe the modern song has no complexity
nor any difficulty, and that this is my main case against it. But, indeed, the
modern song is not a simple chanson to pick up in an instant, no. Nor do I
believe it to be so. The modern singer deals with many difficulties and
difficult songs as well as the operatic or choral singer might, and the modern
songwriter may well put as much effort into their works as Beethoven or
Palestrina. And of course there are modern songs which are complex in their own
rite, confusing the beholder upon first attempt at the music. But this does not
refute the point that modern music is lacking in the greatest essential to music:
beauty.
Beauty depends
upon many factors to exist, but primarily upon order and place. Without some
sense of correlation and relevance in the music, the music is not beautiful,
nor even music; it is simply an incongruous collection of noises. Modern music
is perhaps not completely without order; as I have noted, there are still
complexity and difficulty in many modern songs. But modern music is lacking in
order by comparison, and even without comparison is found wanting in other
aspects of beauty, namely, maturity.
Maturity is an
aspect of beauty often left out because there are beautiful things without
great maturity (i.e. children, beginnings, etc). But the distinction is not
that those things have no maturity, but they only have maturity according to
their order. Children are new to the earth, and oft have little maturity
compared to an adult, but this is not because they are lacking; it is because
this is the way they are naturally according to their place in order as
children. And in this, modern music may be distinguished; modern music has the
maturity of an untaught child without that place in order and quite without the
innocence that goes with it. Modern music often bears lyrics of whiny, selfish,
or simply immature proportion, even when those lyrics are attempting to promote
a good message within them. The music is no different; its childish melodies
and violent rhythms are not only immature, but oftentimes only an emphasis upon
the incomplete lyrics.
There is, however, another point, which is often brought up at criticism of modern music; beauty cannot be the only point of music, and so therefore, music can be good music without being beautiful necessarily. This is a contradiction of the concept of music itself, though; music is by nature an art, and the point of the arts is to accomplish beauty by imitation of Divine Art and Divine Beauty. However, the point brings up a concept which also cannot be ignored: beauty, while it is the greatest and therefore most necessary goal of music, is not the only goal.
Music's beauty may be increased by the music
also containing other goods. But what are these goods? I believe that, as with
any art, or any pursuit in existence, really, the ultimate goals are the three
great goods of being: goodness, truth, and beauty. Music may be beautiful in
itself even if it communicates a message quite fabricated and untrue or immoral
(i.e. just as opera oftentimes is beautiful musically, it oftentimes tells a
story that is less than decent or communicates an idea or history that is
untrue), but the beauty of music is enhanced by its dependence upon these other
two goods. Gregorian chant is often far simpler than opera or classical music,
but, at least to my own opinion, it may be considered more beautiful because it
communicates the Truth of the Divine, and because it tends ultimately towards
the goodness of God. Even music without
lyrics can contain one of these other two goods; many of the great instrumental
composers founds ways to put meaning or truths within their music without
adding words (such as Tchaikovsky's Dance
of the Sapphire Fairy from his ballet, The
Sleeping Beauty, was put into 5/4 time to correlate with the five facets of
a sapphire), and thus it is not impossible to accomplish goodness and truth in
music even without lyrics.
My case against
modern music will undoubtedly anger some; debate often does by its nature, but
this does not mean that it is not necessary to establishing the truth. However,
whatever the populace may think of my opinion, and of this argument to which I
firmly hold, I shall continue to firmly hold to it. And I shall conclude by
expressing the hope that my argument has convinced some of my audience and that
it was all in the pursuit of beauty, truth, and goodness, as all arts should
be.
A penny for your own thoughts on the matter? Disagreement is fine (as I said above, I completely anticipate, so don't be afraid to disagree), just please keep it civil, as with any of my debate posts. I would love to hear your thoughts!
