cim1@pyuxv.UUCP (G. Bogatko) (07/18/85)
One of the reasons it is so hard to make a definition of what is good music and what is bad music is the lack, in our time, of objective methods of comparison. In olden days (Pope Gregory, etc.), bad music was music that didn't conform to the church's edicts i.e. if you SANG a tritone (B-F), you were excommunicated. (Thus the flat sign, --b-- was called the "asses sign" because only an ass would need it as a reminder). There was also a hierarchy of intervals to be used. The unison was the best to use. After that, the fifth, after that the sixths and thirds, and lastly, the "dissonant" intervals, the fourth and seventh. The way these were to be used were codified into the rules of "counterpoint", and Palestrina was their priest. The rules expanded, allowing more and more daring dissonant treatment. The (I think) 22nd prelude of BKII of the WTC by Bach is strange to say the least. The rules, however savaged, extended well into our century, until that "great icy wind from Europe" settled in sometime around the late 60's, which is just now thawing. The point to be made here, is that music has always relied on some sort of grammar to maintain consistency. This grammar was imposed either externally (by the Pope or society), or internally, by the composers own rules. Schoenberg is a familiar example of a composer who wrote music based on a internally imposed grammar. Elliot Carter is another. His Concerto for Orchestra (by his own words) is based on a grammar revolving around various permutations of combination of tritones. The problem of deciding what is good and what is bad music then is linked to the listener's ability to decide whether the composer is using a consistent grammar. If the grammar is externally imposed the problem is lessened. Music that relies on traditional harmonic grammar is familiar enough that the listener can tell if "wrong notes" are being played. Anyone who has heard a mediocre club band knows what I am talking about. If the harmonic language is familiar, then the next step is to decide if the stylistic grammars are consistent. Most stylistic grammar is internally imposed. An exception to this would be a film composer who must turn out music that sounds like Mozart. There both the harmonic and stylistic grammar is externally imposed. In this case, it is very easy to tell if the music is bad. If it sounds like Mozart it is good. If it sounds like Schoenberg (and should have sounded like Mozart) it is bad. (And the film composer will not work again for a very long time). The rule that I keep is whether or not the performer or composer maintains grammatical consistency (stylistically and harmonically) throughout the piece. If the piece is inconsistent, I judge it to be poorly constructed, and therefore bad. If the piece is consistent throughout, then I judge it to be well constructed and therefore good. For this reason, I feel that the Sibelius 7th Symphony is one of the most perfect pieces ever composed. There is the possibility of being consistently inconsistent, however it is such a hard thing to pull off artistically that few people (Cage is one), actually succeed at it. The danger with music that uses a grammar that is fully internally imposed both stylistically and harmonically is that the first time listener will more than likely not understand the piece. To take an extreme example, a performance consisting of a man dressed in an ape suit, who comes out on stage, starts a chain saw, puts it down on the floor and then leaves the theater, will undoubtedly cause confusion in the audience (and a lot of heated "is it music" debate). To carry this further, if the performer did not leave the theater, but instead continued to do a whole host of irrelated things, turning the lights on and off, playing bagpipes, leading an orchestra in a Shubert serenade etc. I think the audience would soon grow bored because no thread of grammar or logic would appear. If the performer instead did a host of related things, such as place next to the chainsaw an alarm clock, a player piano, a mixmaster, etc. and then proceeded to smash all of them with a sledge hammer, the audience would probably respond to this because a thread of logic is inherent in the choice of actions. Trying to deal with music that has internally imposed grammars has led to a lot of people just accepting anything that comes down the pike because: a) they don't want to take the time to see if the logic is there or not. b) they don't want to appear stupid. c) nobody, but NOBODY wants to boo the next Beethoven. However, the effort must be made. There ARE bad pieces being composed and played. The BADNESS is almost invariably related to the music's internal inconsistency. The advent of electronic means of score realization has brought a new wrinkle. Before, the composer couldn't get away with truly awful technique and a paucity of ideas, because the musicians wouldn't play it (unless the composer was rich and/or could afford to hire "arrangers" like so many of our popular composers. Look how much of Marvin Hamlisch's music is "arranged"). Now, anybody can create a piece of music by pressing down a triad and turning on the sequencer for an hour or so. During the big European chill, the prevailing maxim was that the worth of a piece was inversely proportional to it's lucidity. We accepted anything composed by someone with a foreign name, or a beard, or a good review in the Times. Publishers signed LIFETIME contracts with the likes of Kagel, and lost their shirts. Now instead of being unwilling to pass judgement on a piece because it is extremely dissonant and incomprehensible, we are unwilling to pass judgement on a piece because it is extremely consenent, level, unchanging, and incomprehensible. There are a lot of masterpieces (Beethoven's Grosse Fuge for one) that are incomprehensible even after much playing and studying. That does not mean that every incomprehensible piece is a masterpiece. In an age where anybody can appear to be creating masterpieces simply by presenting an astute image we must be even more watchful for the charlatan. We should make the effort to decide what is bad art and what is good art and if we decide a piece is bad to say so loud and clear, because simply to think: because no judgements can be made, I can therefore make no judgements will lead us (it has led us) into a black hole of mediocrity, with all pieces being accepted as great, and all composers being hailed as geniuses. -- George Bogatko --