Introduction to the Next Chapter
It was classical music, and a few movie scores, that I loved most as a child. My father owned a few records with some popular classical compositions, including pieces like opening movements of Mozart's 40th and Beethoven's 5th symphony. I remember, for example, how I listened with amazement Beethoven's 5th symphony, so greatly developing. Listening to these pieces, for those few minutes I learned what music is about – the truth of natural musical progressions and the intensity of atmosphere.
Yet together with these lessons, those same heralded pieces also gave me the first idea of what music is not. Repeating once again the main theme, Beethoven suddenly does an unnatural, ugly, wrong move. I immediately lifted the needle from the record and lost interest to listen further. I didn’t listen to the piece throughout for 20 years afterwards. But when being much older I ran through the whole piece, too hear more magnificent ideas, and what is more, which were completely compatible, right vice-a-verse the main idea. What I wondered as I child, I wondered again: why did Beethoven do such an obvious mistake? Why someone who can conceive and naturally develop such music, makes such a cheap mistake? If there wasn’t for it, that delight I had as a small child would be complete – something that, now when I look back, I doubt I ever had.
Funnily, another piece I know from this earliest childhood, Mozart's 40th symphony, had the exactly same problem – again after the great theme repeats two times, there is an ugly and unnatural transition after which I stopped listening. It mystified me. Especially the resemblance of the mistake: both Beethoven and Mozart, after they repeat main idea two times, suddenly do this strange unnatural transition. Why? I remixed both pieces on a computer into a more natural versions, comprising all the good and necessary parts, and wondered why it wasn’t done like that immediately.
Maybe the highlight of the mystery and disappointment was reached when I discovered that these impressions are not expressed in musical literature that I had the chance to read. So I discovered that the musical truth is actually nowhere written and that, after all those glorious centuries of musical development, there is much unsaid. Great part of notions of musical beauty still resides only in the hearts and minds of music lovers.
Actually many people through history were sharing these impressions of mine. Take a look at following excerpts from The Musical Times and Singing Class Circular, Feb. 1st, 1858, drawn from the article "Truth about Music & Musicians. On Modern German Composers in General," translated from the German by Sibilla Novello (original author is not mentioned; of the “modern German composers in general" Beethoven, Mozart and Haydn are mentioned among other):
Most of our modern composers are deficient in clear, ascertained, and intimate knowledge, respecting the aim and resources of their art.
...in modern works, we miss regular and, therefore, beautiful form, and find, in its stead, formlessness -- that is, a heap of ideas thrown wildly and promiscuously together, without order and without meaning.
...When listening to modulation roaming into every possible key, on every possible occasion, I can but suppose that he who misemploys these is not aware that modulation of key is merely an echo to modulatio of sentiments, and should only represent and reflect back the varying emotions of the human breast.
...The ignorance of appropriate musical coloring is also displayed in the extravagant use of instrumental masses occasionally, as a general habit, and occasionally, for inappropriate passages.
...Why do the moderns err so constantly in like manner? (...) All wish to be free, and consider every rule as a shackle. Not only are ancient theories suppressed (against this I have nothing to object), but the eternal laws of truth and beauty, that alone can satisfy, are rejected, and thus ensues, not freedom, but license.
...Besides other evils, two extremes disfigure our modern music: firstly, it is too heavy and unmelodious.
...Another evil is the mania of originality which causes writers, deficient in all which constitutes true originality, to substitute it for unnatural, harsh modulations, violent and unconnected phrases, unheard of harmonic combinations, and an utter disregard of all rule.”
Written more than 150 years ago, these words are perfectly conveying the impressions I had as a child when encountering those mistakes that I spoke of, even in some of the best classical compositions. These same complaints (about imperfections of classical scores) emerge from generation to generation. These words exactly capture what still bugs as all about some classical scores, even many that are regarded as masterpieces.
With time things got only worse. The musical truth, that was even in the golden times of classical music not quite protected as it should be, became completely obscured, and pieces that the writer of above excerpt rightfully calls faulty are more than ever hailed as flawless masterpieces. Strange and wrong traditions, such as the one noticed by Dvorák: “...affirmation of the general rule that symphonies are written too long”, are still pursued. Musical essence is little dealt with. Today, as since always, musical institutions are dealing with basic musical gifts and abilities such as absolute hearing and unmistakable distinguishing between chords, or unmistakable keeping of tempo, as well as with musical theories that constitute the grammar of musical language - scales, tonality, counterpoint, formal canonic frames, musical styles and other; but not with precious beauty created with blood, brains and divine inspiration. Works of beauty are often deprived of rich words of praise, description and explanation that they deserve; and so musical beauty through musical history was more often than not left unsung, and while entering hearts of those who hear them, they were not resounding where they foremost should, in circles of people who deal with music. Concepts of universal worth and beauty were throughout musical tradition more implied, never clearly articulated.
This left much space for many deviations in music writing to appear. Awfully a lot of misunderstandings about what is musical quality arouse during the course of XX century. As the time progressed, the term of complexity was more and more abused, as well as vague concepts of “good” vs “likable” music, music that is “easy to listen to” vs more serious music etc. Today, the way we feel about music has little to do with the way music is talked about in any presently established musical circle. There is a need to correct this state, and the most important thing is to introduce truthful speak about musical virtues, both formal and in meaning. That talk has to stand true to what we intuitively feel as listeners. Our intuitive understanding must be the base, and rational understanding – speech – has to come after that, on top of that, as an analytical break-down of those impressions; and not to come first, and ignore our intuitive understanding, or even go against it. Music lovers have to use language to explain analytically what they vaguely felt intuitively, and not to use language for analyzing pieces down the lines of some formal theories. If one who loves some piece of music intuitively, starts caring to understand it analytically also, then he reaches for musical theories; and not vice-versa, to be forced to first get to know with musical theories, in order to experience a musical piece.
So maybe more than ever, there is a need to remind ourselves what are the true musical virtues, regardless of any particular musical style and scene. What are those qualities, more particularly than just “beauty”, that made music into great art which doesn't need social and institutional push to become great, whether “popular”, “academic” or “movie”?
Universal quality of music comes down to two things: natural form and musical storytelling.