Acknowledging Greatness in Music

A recent post and subsequent comment has shaken me up a little and made me do some further examination and careful rumination on the issue of respecting and acknowledging the remarkable qualities of certain composers and certain works of music. The author of the comment related great music to great literature. The argument seems to be that by blurring the new with the old or by not making a distinction between popular, entertainment music for the masses and more elite music for the educated or the enlightened, we then somehow denigrate or lessen the music of the masters. Yet, logically, this does not add up for me.

The eclectic practice of using all kinds of music or literature from great to average or even less than average simply reaches a broader spectrum of people. It is ultimately time and the collective acknowledgment of experts that determine excellence and quality in music or literature. This makes it difficult, maybe impossible, to make a bold statement of something being "great" by historical standards of greatness that just came out recently. While I believe Philip Roth's book "The Human Stain" is indeed great and will withstand the test of time for excellence, in truth, I cannot determine that factor due to its relatively short lifespan. Yet my saying that I also enjoyed reading Dean Koontz' "The Good Guy" does not lessen the value of "The Human Stain," nor does it lessen "Hard Times" by Charles Dickens. By the same token, my recent reading of a John MacDonald novel from 1985 cannot be compared to reading Goethe's "The Sorrows of Young Werther." Both of these books were meaningful to me, but it is easy to give literary credence to Goethe's work over MacDonald's work by virtue of its place in time and its literary achievements not to mention its remarkable emotional depth that seems to stay active within the human psyche.

Can I or should I attempt to compare and contrast the music of Stevie Wonder with that of Johannes Brahms or the rock opera "Tommy" with the operas of Mozart? The musical depth aside from any textual implications is radically different upon a precursory glance. But a closer look reveals some fundamentally unifying elements in areas of harmony, melody, and even formal structure. A basic Schenkerian analysis of prolongation and reduction ultimately concludes cultivated music and music for mass consumption are not radically different from each other. With this truth, however, must come some sort of discernment between the two. I recall the odd analysis of Clementi melodies and Beethoven melodies. Clementi, whose reputation seems to rest solely on a few small piano pieces used for didactic purposes for student pianists, wrote beautiful melodies supported by idiomatic musical phrasing with subtle and charming moments of creativity and originality. Beethoven, similarly, composed nice and shapely melodies with underlying harmonic surprises not so different but certainly more colorful than Clementi. But, for the most part, the two composers approach melody in a similar fashion. So why do we acknowledge Beethoven as a grand master of composition, and Clementi as a relatively unknown composer of pedagogical piano music?

The difference lies in Beethoven's departure from traditional and expected forms and Beethoven's inventive and emotionally impacting development sections. He took the tools at his disposal and created something new and vital, something that continues to make a difference in the world through its complexity and power. Like an artist who with the same colors and canvas available to him as any other artist, asserts his individuality and creates something new and unique, so can a musician using the same available notes and rhythms invent a musical world that is fresh, expressive, original, and emotionally powerful.

Since it is combination of extensive time and the qualified opinion of trained expertise that determines superb art and music, it is not justifiable to meld or compare the music of Beethoven and the music of Lionel Richie. While each has its place and its purpose and each elicits a different kind of response, we do not have the luxury of 200 years to examine the music of Lionel Richie. But, at the same time, it is narrow and backwards to avoid music of today simply because it is too new for qualified assessment. Remember that Beethoven was once new as well.

I elect, therefore, to pursue truth by acknowledging the greatness of the past, by learning from the masters, and by recognizing the consistent reaction of great music. At the same time, woe is the musician who rejects the new automatically without considering its role in contemporary society and more importantly its potential to uphold the test of time. Very few love the music of Mozart as much as I, and there is little doubt as to its place in the college curriculum. Yet, maybe there is something magical about the music of Stevie Wonder and maybe it is worth including in the curriculum. Only time will tell the ultimate story.