Music for Musicians?

With a forthrightness not often found in conversation, an acquaintance asked me why musicians seem to prepare and perform music for other musicians. Confused by the question, he asked me why so much of the music we perform is in a foreign language or in a "language" that is out of the experience of most listeners. He was asking me if we have fallen into a trap of teaching and performing music that is only meaningful to other musicians.

If this is true, and it may be to an extent, is it really a problem? After all, great art generally has a small audience. If art does reach the masses and becomes popular, are we then suspicious of its greatness? The wider the influence the likelihood of its commonality? If so, then mediocrity is sustenance of culture, the food of society, the oxygen of our lives. The better the quality, the smaller the audience. Achievement in the arts is then less about acknowledgement and more about meeting the criterion of no popularity. Taking this to its logical conclusion, a work of art that has no appeal is the finest piece ever created. Perhaps this means that no art is the best art. Ah, the joys of nihilism.

But perhaps as Aristotle encouraged, we should find a middle ground for excellence. Or maybe, just maybe, popularity in and of itself does not automatically degrade the essence of excellence or quality. Maybe, in fact, the lack of popularity does not demonstrate any kind of quality. Surely there is a middle ground somewhere in this murky discussion of mass appeal versus limited appeal. In some ways, the danger of politicians is to cast such a wide net hoping for enough votes to win the election, that they sacrifice their integrity and ironically find themselves on a tightrope with a long fall beneath them. So a politician hopes to establish his position, his views, and his steadfastness and still reach enough voters in support to carry him to the next level.

Back to music. If trained musicians compose and perform music for a vast appeal, they will most likely need to pare down their creative spirit with regard to melody, rhythm, and especially harmony. Not that music for the masses is lacking in creativity, but to a trained musician, it often feels a little simplistic and quickly accessible. But if a trained, academic musician only composes and performs for other musicians, then there is little regard for how music can change lives, reach people, minister, make an emotional impact, or simply entertain. In some ways, this type of attitude about music resembles a sad Ponzi scheme that eventually falls apart for lack of any substantial support or real lasting value. There is simply not enough audience to sustain it. It may make a few people feel good and it may have great worth to some, and it may have a certain educational spirit, or academic strength, but it does not have broad appeal to support it over time.

Speaking of time, maybe time is the ultimate test of worth. In 100 years, what music being written and performed today will still be performed? Will it be those works that seem to appeal to a few musicians or will it be those who find a wider sphere, a larger audience? Will Mozart's 41st symphony always enjoy mass popularity (if it does!) or will there be a time when audiences are generally ho-hum toward another performance of the great work? How will the unforgiving and harsh test of time treat popular music of today?

But it does somehow seem elitist and snobby for trained musicians to concentrate all their attentions on performing music for a select few skilled appreciators. There is a balance needed in music curriculum and a consideration of all types of genres in music. To narrow the output to music that is acknowledged as the "great" works would be likened to watching only those movies deemed of the highest quality such as Casablanca or Citizen Kane or only reading Milton and Shakespeare. There is a lasting niche for the great works of art but to do only the great works and thereby limit the audience is to be comfortable living in a vacuum.

With these thoughts, I call to battle those trained, skilled, and academic musicians willing to put aside their inherent selfishness and work diligently and comprehensively toward an inclusive curriculum. A curriculum that does provide music merely for the musicians but also provides music for the people. In the end, it may not be time alone that determines quality, it may be the freedom and joy that comes from music for everyone. Quality art is art that is loved by many both yesterday and today. It is time to fish on the other side of the boat for more fish using large nets and not be satisfied with catching just a few. If our music only appeals to a few, we may be selfishly and irresponsibly rejecting our calling.