Are they seeking a musical experience? What should a musical experience be?
These questions rose to the forefront of my mind again this week upon reading an article on the decline of the contemporary Christian music genre. One of the arguments the author made was that contemporary composers could not hope to compete with the almost 2000 year old tradition [his time frame] of great hymn writing. He argued that certain hymns are “timeless,” come about rarely, and the fact that they survive is evidence of their greatness. It sparked my interest because these arguments are often used to justify the continued performance of Mozart (or Haydn or Beethoven or Mendelssohn). But is music truly timeless?
I argue that our relationship with Mozart’s music (especially instrumental music) is quite different from the experience of Mozart’s contemporary audience. I posit that today’s audience finds Mozart very pleasant. Today’s audience does not perceive evidence of conflict or cognitive dissonance within the music. Instead our perception is one of well-balanced phrases; beautiful, lyrical, flowing passages; perhaps a recognition of contrasting statements; and perhaps a recognition among the more “in-the-know” audience members of some genuinely inventive development. In other words, I think today’s audience experience of a Mozart symphony is a fairy dispassionate appreciation of beauty and musical form.
Worse, I think audiences come away from that experience thinking “ah…, this is what music should be…beautiful, balanced, not too disruptive.” Yet, what did well-informed listeners of Mozart’s own time hear? I think the experience was quite different. The listeners of the time would be familiar with the common musical tropes of the era---and the emotions with which they were associated. They would have understood that if a trope associated with agitation was pitted against a trope associated with sadness that there was some kind of cognitive dissonance in need of resolution. Hearing elements of one of these tropes being adopted by the opposite theme somewhere later in the piece would have a deep significance to the listener. Like listening to a joke in a foreign language with which we have only passing familiarity and little social context, much of Mozart’s humor, sadness, ferocity, unexpected twists, emotional turmoil is entirely lost on us today. We simply do not have the social context or cultural inculcation to respond to it.
Is music timeless?
Certainly elements of well-crafted compositions will withstand the test of time. We can appreciate a painting for its composition and balance even if we don’t understand it’s cultural context. The same is true of music. Yet, music should do more (well, at least it can do more) than simple be pretty wallpaper to adorn our silences. [There is a terrible meme on Facebook: “Art is how we decorate space---Music is how we decorate time.” Makes my blood boil every time I see it.]
If there is an argument for Symphonic Orchestras and classical soloists of all stripes to consider abandoning Mozart and Haydn and Beethoven and Mendelssohn (and perhaps a whole slew of other dead white European composers) perhaps this is it. Music may have timeless components, but for music to speak to its audience it must be of its audience’s time.
I have no doubt this blog could lead to a spirited debate. I always welcome hearing differing opinions. Leave a response if you wish.