I linked this in my previous post, but thought to myself, “Self, this ought to be brought back out into a more prominent place,” and so here it is.
Bear with me for a bit. This is all about why I’m a fan of classical (though especially Classical–the small “c” is different) music. It’s not (exactly) what you may think. At least, not entirely.
In music, the term Classic Period refers to a period from roughly the middle of the 18th Century into (and perhaps a little beyond) the first decade of the 19th Century during which certain “givens” of musical expression were practiced and the major forms of most of what is viewed as “classical” music were developed. Do note: in architecture, the graphic arts and the like, the period is more likely to be called Neoclassicism.
(That darned small–or uncial–c”. *heh* So “Classical Music” is NOT what most folks think of when “classical music” is said… )
One of the primary reasons I am a fan of Classical (and even much classical) music is not just because the music is complex, beautiful and compelling but because it is the expression of a particular ethos which our society sorely lacks.
Aside from technical matters of form, the principles of Classicism as found in Classical Music were
- balance
- clarity
- accessibility
- expressiveness
- edification
Although two of these principles are still found in abundance in contemporary music (though not in contemporary “serious” or “academic” music, IMO) it is the lack of the others, especially the last, that has seriously harmful effects upon our society.
Mozart was, of course, the ultimate practitioner of Classical Period music, following on Haydn. Beethoven took Classical principles and “revised and extended” them to the point that many (OK, most) consider his later works to be the first real examples of Romanticism. Personally, I think his later works are a period all their own. 🙂
What do these composers offer that can be beneficial to postmodern and post-postmodern society? Our contemporary music has plenty of expressiveness and is exceedingly accessible. But the expressiveness of most contemporary music is vulgar, crude and its accessibility is designed, it seems, to degrade the listener.
The principle of balance is lacking. Balance that recognizes other values besides mere “expression” of emotion or accessibility to a debased listener. Balance that recognizes that expression of emotion alone is unhealthy and that other principles apart from expression and accessibility are also important.
Clarity. How many contemporary songs have you heard that express amorphous emotion in loose, easily mistaken, misheard or amphibolous lyrics? Most? Easily. Good (vocal) music requires good prosody, clear communication of both the ideas and emotions embedded in the song–or at least as clear as the medium allows. (Music may be a language of sorts, but it is a language with an inherently fluid semantic that MUST be ruled by a clear syntax and “phonemes” or else it is mush.) Good music of any kind requires both a clear teleology and the chops to express that teleos with clarity.
Sorely lacking in most contemporary music.
And then there’s the over-riding principle of edification. Does the hearer go away better for having heard the piece… or degraded, debased intellectually, emotionally, morally? Make no mistake: even bad music is a powerful medium, reaching deep into the soul. I guess the most important question one might ask is “Is this music (song) really beautiful? Does it lift my mind/heart? Does it convict me of my lacks, ask more of me in thought and feeling? Does it even have the potential to inspire me to find or create balance, clarity, accessibility, expressiveness and further edification in my own life?
Does it stretch me in good ways? Or does it dull my mind, my emotions, my spirit? Do I come away from hearing it no better–not even potentially–than before?
Good Classical Period music–the three “stars” of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven are a good place to start–and any music that follows the principles, not necessarily the forms and styles, has the ability to positively impact listeners with its values… but not dull-eared, lazy listeners who’ve been enstupiated by most contemporary music.
Oh, there are people today writing music that conforms to all the principles–f not the forms and styles–of Classical Period music. But for the most part, you’ll not find them in top 40 music.
Yes, there are other things I find objectionable in much contemporary music–performers who can’t sing worth a damn, derivative crap promoted as new material, sloppy vocals, instrumentals (promoted as “creative stylings”) that indicate a lack of both talent and the hard work of serious practice to develop real chops, abysmally poor prosody and a complete lack of understanding of musical teleology that’s inherent in any great performer (classically trained or street tutored), apparent inability to hear or reproduce pitches (*blech!*).
But all my musical exceptions aside, what I miss most in the vast majority of contemporary music are the principles that lighted the path for Classical composers and continued at least through the Romantic Period to inform most music.
But especially do I miss the principle of edification: the potential to uplift and improve the life and mind of the hearer.
Yes, yes I know that this bare restatement of these principles is simplistic, but since things like this are largely neglected in public education–and even so-called “higher education” nowadays, simple is a Good Enough place to start, IMO. Heck, even my undergrad music degree didn’t cover this sort of thing, and it was from a school that was then and is still today highly respected for its music curriculum. So it goes. I learned probably about 10X as much about the real nuts and bolts of good music in my first year out of school than in all the years previously–and those included a LOT of performance both with and under the direction of some really amazing musicians and composers in many widely diverse genres.
So it goes.
What you have described could as easily be stated in a different way; if the quality of the music sets something off in your soul, something which raises your awareness of a higher order then that music can be considered Classical style…or am I mistaken.
I’d include Pachelbel’s Canon as it causes me to contemplate the word “perfection” in spite of my limited formal music background.
“…if the quality of the music sets something off in your soul, something which raises your awareness of a higher order then that music can be considered Classical style” Only partially on target, TF. What you describe is a major aspect of the principle of Edification (“building up”–uplifting). The degree to which a work also exemplifies Clarity, Accessibility, Balance and Expressiveness can affect the efficacy of its edifying qualities, however great or small. Of course, that is itself a rather simplistic way of putting it, since clear, accessible, balanced and expressive music will usually also be edifying, but one must remain on guard against clear, accessible, balanced and expressive music that has an apparent aim of degrading its listeners… and such does exist.
Still, while edification may be the single most important element in the creation of beauty–and the very best music will be beautiful indeed–a light, inconsequential piece that simply entertains but does do with excellent use of all the other elements will also be uplifting to at least some degree. What I miss most often in “serious” or “academic” music of the 20th Century is the presence of nearly ALL of these elements, as most of it seems to go out of its way to deny balance, clarity, accessibility, expressiveness and edification in favor of musical parlor tricks and intellectual gymnastics coupled with assaults on the ears. So much seems to have more in common with graphic “artists” who “paint” in feces and urine than with any art whatsoever.
One thing I will say in favor of the manufactured “music” of the recording industry is that it is expressive, even if it is expressive of the lowest common denominator of human experience, for the most part. There are exceptions, but the exceptions only serve to test the rule that most things coming out of the manufactured “music” industry are crap.