Modern Music Survival Guide: What is good music anyway?
Understanding and appreciating modern music can be a daunting task for any music lover. I have invested a fair amount of time in exploring and trying to understand some modern music, but I'm certainly no expert. In fact, while I've been able to develop a view towards modern music somewhere between reluctant tolerance and cautious acceptance, I've yet to be really moved by a piece of ultra modern classical music.
The fact that I've never really cracked the secret code of modern music is partly why I wanted to write this series. I've had the college level intros to modern music, and while such education can help to understand the mechanisms of modern compositions, it did nothing to make the music more non-academically satisfying. So, I want to try to develop a set of tools that anybody can use to help make modern music more approachable and enjoyable.
On a side note, if it seems I've been imprecise with the term "modern", I have been. The term is naturally imprecise (in reference to music). Chronologically modern doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as stylistically modern. In the subsequent posts in this series, as I start referencing specific pieces of music, I will attempt to come up with a better definition of what I'm referring to as modern music. For now, let's generalize it as any music which cannot be readily understood/appreciated through the standards of traditional classical music.
I think before you can decide if any piece of music is good (modern or not), you must first have criteria to make that decision. Modern music shouldn't be universally accepted just because it makes you look smart, nor should it be universally rejected just because it's too weird or untraditional. Modern compositional techniques are just another path to musical expression (not an end in themselves), and each modern piece must be able to stand on its individual merits. More traditional music (Mozart, Beethoven, etc) is generally approachable on an intuitive level, so it doesn't take much analysis to enjoy it. However, when I really look at the pieces of music I like, I am able to come up with several characteristics they share. These are not the only criteria for judging music (and honestly they probably aren't even the only ones I use), but they're definitely near the top of my list. Most of these are very subjective, and many overlap with each other. Some seem obvious while others are frustratingly difficult to define. Of course, this is what makes thinking about music so fun! Here goes...
Is it interesting or intellectually stimulating? The kind of music that really speaks to me always has some intellectually interesting aspect to it. This can take many forms. It could be something more general such as the harmonies or the counterpoint, or it could be the way the instruments are used or the way the themes are developed/varied. The main issue is whether or not some aspect of the music makes you think beyond its face value. For example, when listening to a really good piece by Bach, I don't just think about the piece. It inspires me to think about the nature of counterpoint or harmony. Paganini's violin music makes me think about the possibilites/potential of the violin, and more broadly about mankind's incredible ability to technically and espressively master a musical instrument. Bolero amazes me in the way that, even without any traditional aspects of structure, it can be so captivating. This criteria is easy to take for granted because most of the classical music that has survived and remained popular is inherently interesting/stimulating. However, if you ever hear a poorly written piece that has nothing interesting to say, it's obvious that this is an important characteristic.
Does it get better with time and repeated listenings? This one is pretty closely linked to the first criteria. To me, the best music is that which becomes more interesting and profound over time. One composer that quickly comes to my mind is Brahms. I often find Brahms a little complex/dense at first, but with repeated listens his music opens up, revealing ever deeper levels of meaning. Great music will become infinitely more satisfying if we are willing to invest time in exploring it. I'm sure we all have pieces of music that we could listen to over and over again and always find something new and wonderful to ponder.
Is it enjoyable? This criteria is difficult to define, and is often scoffed at by "artists" who feel their goal isn't to please their audience, but to "challenge" them. To me, I have to enjoy a piece of music if I'm going to listen to it (seems obvious enough). Now, by enjoyable I don't mean happy, pretty, or easy to digest, etc. In fact, many of the pieces I love are highly dissonant and even abrasive at times. What enjoyable means is completely subjective. I don't claim that everyone should enjoy the same things. However, I contend that if a piece of music is unpleasant to listen to, it's okay to not like it (it doesn't mean you're dumb or uneducated). I accept that art doesn't necessarily have to be enjoyable to be considered art, but I'm not talking about the definition of art. I'm talking about deciding whether or not you like a piece of art. Cooking reality shows (which I love watching) are a good example of this principle. Every cooking reality show has at least one hot shot, avant-garde chef who creates weird dishes with unusual and occasionally unpleasant results. Such chefs will often defend their dish on the grounds that they were "pushing the envelope" or "thinking outside the box". However, if nobody wants to eat their food, what's the value of all their lofty innovation? Music is the same way. If the goal of music is to communicate some sort of idea to a listener, then the music must aim for some basic standard of palatability.
Is it cohesive? This is often one of my biggest problems with modern music: Its perceived lack of structurally or thematic cohesion. I'm actually very open minded in terms of harmony and most other aspects of music, but lack of structure is difficult for me to appreciate. There are numerous ways that a composer can create cohesiveness in a piece of music (through clearly developed form, through melodic invention, through rhythmic motives, through the tone of the piece or feelings it evokes, etc). A piece doesn't require a formal classical structure to make sense to me, but there needs to be some recognizable organization.
Is it transcedant? This is probably the most difficult to define, and the rarest quality. Transcendance to me means that the piece seems to suggest something greater than itself. This can come from a variety of a ways. A piece can be so emotionally potent that it seems to speak to the suffering or joy of the whole world. A piece can be so perfectly structured that it suggests an otherworldly sense of order and meaning. Some music is so epic and grand that it seems written in the stars. Other music is so poignantly simple yet deeply affecting that it hurts. This transcendance comes from a deeply personal relationship with and understanding of a piece of music. Not all music can possess this, but in my mind it's definitely the highest goal of any art form.
Is it memorable? I think really good music should be memorable and instantly engaging. There are many pieces that, with repeated listening, you can grow to appreciate. Then there are those pieces that grab you from the first listening and stick with you forever. You don't have to grasp the whole song from one listening, but there should be something about it that makes you want to return and explore it further. This criteria can be seen as the cumulative effect of the degree to which the other criteria have been satisfied.
Hopefully, these criteria (or whichever you come up with for yourself) will provide a framework for analyzing modern music. If modern music is seen as a different language, our goal will be to focus on the big picture and not get bogged down in the unfamiliar grammar (at least not at first). The key to decoding it is to search for those things which do speak to us.
That's my theory anyway. We'll see how it pans out...
*image "digital flower" by Riyas Rasheed
