What is Music?: Part III-A "Conclusion"

Here is the conclusion to my attempt to answer the question "What is Music?". After rambling on about music and noise and the West against the World I have come to some terms by which I classify music.

First, not everything is music, but everything can be music. Context is everything. If a composer writes music that includes sounds that you might not normally think of as music, then those sounds are music. (I actually played a wind ensemble piece that included recorded whale song...but that's a whole other story) If the purpose is for sounds to be music, then they are music while in that context. Otherwise, some sounds are just that...sounds. This isn't meant to take away from the beauty of sounds; I love hearing my cat purr, my brother laugh, the rain pour down on the roof, and the wind rustle dry leaves on an autumn day. They simply aren't music all by themselves.

Music is organized sound. If you were to break apart a Beethoven symphony you could end up with the argument that the entire thing is single sounds mashed together. But these sounds are put together in a very specialized way. Composers work very hard to create works that utilize sounds so that audiences can understand them. Composers might choose to follow certain techniques of music or break all the rules, but either way, the end result is the same.

The rules are different throughout the world. Indian ragas are just as beautiful as a Brahms lullaby and African percussion music is just as amazing to listen to as a Gospel choir. Music doesn't have to come from your own culture to be wonderful. The fact that someone is creating that music, putting part of their soul out there for you to hear is the key. Who cares if they're using parallel fifths or following a completely different system of rhythm? Just because the organization changes doesn't mean the final work is anything less than astounding.

Music is sound that is intended for an audience. I can't think of a single composer who wrote works that they never wanted anyone to hear. Some of them wrote single pieces that weren't intended to be heard (Berlioz tried unsuccessfully to destroy his own Missa Solemnelle) and some wrote works that weren't intended to be heard during their lifetimes (Cowell felt audiences of his time wouldn't understand his pieces), but no composer has ever had an entire life's work that wasn't meant to be heard by at least one person.

Music has purpose. Whether its supposed to make you happy or sad, nostalgic or excited for the future, whether its for celebration or mourning, healing or hurting, or even if its just there to make you think, music has a purpose. I brought up John Cage's work 4'33" in part I. This work is both music and not music at the same time. I personally do not think that audience sounds are music. Scuffling feet, heavy breathing, and sneezes are not equal to Moonlight Sonata. But at the same time it is music because it is sound with a purpose. Cage wanted his audience to think about their personal definition of music. It was meant to make others question the boundaries between music and sound, and because of that, it is undoubtedly music.

You can agree or disagree with me, but that's not the point. It makes no difference if the music is good or bad. It makes no difference if the music is from the West or the World, or if it seems like just noise. Music is there for you because someone wanted it to be. Music is another person's way of communicating what they could not say with words. And that's what music is.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

 •    •    •    •    •    •    •