People often ask me how I am able to enjoy so many different types of music yet retain my own standards for excellence. Running the risk of a total lack of discernment, I have developed a system of determining and classifying music according to its harmonic complexity and general balance. This is not to say that rhythmic interest, textual inflection, dynamics, poetry, orchestration, form, melody, development, texture, phrasing, or counterpoint are not powerfully significant but it is to say that I am drawn to a creative use of harmony over the elements of music. While my opinion is simply my own, I will admit to certain degree of responsibility due to my position as a Dean of Fine Arts. While restraint of my own views is probably wise, I often negate that wisdom in favor of expressing myself when it comes to music.
With harmony being at the forefront of most of my evaluation of music, it explains how I am able to embrace an eclectic music world and not necessarily reject any one genre or style of music. Granted, rather than evaluate the totality of music based on its harmonic interest, I prefer to listen and assess music based on its own parameters of expression. In other words, in spite of the harmonic simplicity of Irish Folk music (and most folk music), I still have a deep love and respect for the music as it stands. I choose not to compare folk music with symphonic music or Praise and Worship music with Bach organ works due to the difference of purpose, time periods, and basic philosophy.
With this in mind, it is easy for me to compare the music of Vivaldi with the music of Bach since they both lived in Europe during the Baroque period of music. It is also easy for me to compare the music of Bon Jovi with the music of White Snake since they both achieved much of their fame during the 1980s. By the same token, I enjoy comparing the music of Stevie Wonder with Barry Manilow or Elton John. The music of Mozart invites comparison with Haydn and the music of Mahler is fun to compare with the music of Richard Strauss.
While most would argue that music should be heard without comparison and that the early masters of music should be respected for their contributions and that their music should stay alive as the "canon" of music literature, I, instead, choose to retain a harmonic expectation that lifts some music above others regardless of the fame or historical significance of any composer. This practice, however, is weak and not always fair due to the fact that not every piece of music by any one composer is the same and no one piece is representative of any composer's output. I may disparage the music of Meyerbeer but that is based on the few works of his within my knowledge base. I may lift up the music of Brahms, but in truth, I am not familiar with his entire production and am basing my admiration on the concertos, symphonies, songs, and choral works. Such is true of all the composers and music that I blatantly lift to a higher level, they do not make the Tucker list out of extensive study but rather out of preference for the harmony of certain music. This approach is weak at best and serves little value either as an academic exercise or as acknowledgment of excellence.
Yet, in spite of the obvious challenges of presenting my favorite composers or even songs based on harmonic interest, it does seem to be true that music which withstands the test of time or that which continues to be vital today is that with more harmonic interest than music of great simplicity. Thus we see the music of Chopin being more meaningful than the music of Gottschalk. Or we find the music of Richard Rodgers to sublimate that of Gilbert and Sullivan. Preferring music with harmonic interest does not always relegate other music to "graveyard" status and a strong performance can often carry the day even with music of little harmonic complexity. Such is true of the music of Vivaldi, predictable and pompous at best, who is treated to stunning performances by Philip Jaroussky. In other words, Jaroussky improves Vivaldi, making his music acceptable and meaningful.
A performer's ability to turn a phrase or to communicate musical meaning is a gift that supercedes quality of craft, harmony, or any of the elements of music. But given that few performers have achieved the ability to make me forget about the lack of harmonic interest in music, I always return to the music itself for my judgment. This indeed makes me a snob of some sort and a musical elitist with an agenda. I am comfortable with this label to an extent since my elitism is not that of preferring one genre over another or insisting my views are superior to others but is rather based on a particular set of sound criteria--that being harmony.
One other argument against my harmonic interest criterion for judging music deals with the idea that most people are not aware of the difference between music that contains harmonic variety and music that relies on a few chords expressed entirely through diatonic means. Yet I will maintain that knowledge of harmony does not have to be direct but is intuitive and natural to the human response. We may not understand why the weather is uncomfortable but our bodies certainly know how to react to extreme temperatures. We may not know why something tastes satisfying, but our lack of knowledge does not interfere with our enjoyment of the food. We may not know why a particular song or even symphony seems dull, but that does not change our ho-hum response to boring music.
In contrast, when people respond to music positively, I posture that it is partly due to music that contains variety and interest. This factor alone makes the music of Stevie Wonder, Chicago, and Coldplay more interesting and therefore superior to the music of Miley Cyrus or the Rolling Stones for example. Not that I reject their music outright but if given a choice, I prefer music with greater harmonic variety. In my city of music I prefer late Mozart over Haydn, Beethoven over Weber or Mendelssohn, Wagner over Verdi, Brahms over Dvorak, Cole Porter over Irving Berlin, Lady Gaga over Beyonce, Ravel over Debussy, Steve Reich over Philip Glass, Alan Jackson over Garth Brooks, and my list continues.
Back to my electicism that is difficult for some to embrace, it all comes down to harmony for me. Please know that my views are my own and not intended as anything revolutionary nor even influential. This is intended as an explanation for my own variety of music I enjoy.
No comments:
Post a Comment