By Cody Thomas

In our last issue, my close friend and fellow Troubadour founder Dominic Marcella wrote a stimulating piece on contemporary composition. This is a response to his argument regarding the decline of contemporary music in the academic world.

I’d like to preface my response by noting one thing that my partner and I agree upon. What someone else thinks of the music you listen to does not matter. If you think it is valuable music, than it is. This would seemingly assert that the music you find void of value is, in fact, not valuable, which presents us with an obvious contradiction. As unpractical and unnecessary as it may seem, this provides many academics the excuse to attempt to define music, or at least discover the boundaries of music. Marcella offered his boundaries, and now I’ll offer mine.

Organization of sound by a human mind is a popular way of describing music. But this raises some questions. Take the following video for example.

Elephant Orchestra

In many cases, the elephants were given instruments and were allowed to improvise. The result was a sonic experience that any unknowing listener would mistake for a beautifully composed piece from an Asian ensemble. Should this not be considered music? What about the more natural processes? Whale calls, rolling waves, and the ambient noises of the forest are all considered emotionally provocative sounds by many individuals. Is a chorus of wind chimes music? Why shouldn’t it be?

My point is that there are only two qualifiers of music. First, it must be a sound or many sounds. This simply differentiates music from other forms of art. Second, it must elicit some form of emotional reaction from at least one individual. If one person thinks it’s music, than it’s music.

Music need not be performed in a group. The endless hours of fiddling alone in my dorm room on my Yamaha keyboard and my Warwick bass guitar are more important to me than any live performance I’ve ever seen. Those sounds are intimately involved with my psyche and my emotional being, and they artistically represent more of myself than any song I’ve written with any band.

Music can never be unsuccessful unless no one is emotionally affected. As long as one person has gotten something out of a musical experience, even if it’s just the lone performer, that music has successfully performed its function.

Music does not need to move anyone, if by move you mean all of the connotations of beauty that go with the cliché. If an encounter with death metal (not to stereotype death metal, which is not frightening by any means to many fans) has truly frightened an unsuspecting listener, than it has elicited an emotional reaction. Not a moving one, but a reaction nonetheless.

Music does not need to intellectually stimulate. Background music plays an incredibly important function in society. The term Soundscapes is now being used to describe an entire genre of music. As long as it adds to the scenario, even the simplest background music is as valid as a mathematical masterpiece.

At the same time, music can benefit greatly from mathematical and technical principles. Being brainy and dodecaphonic can in itself give a piece of music emotional charge. Awe over intellectual and technical ability is an emotional reaction.

Just because a certain piece of music did not move you as a listener does not mean it cannot move someone else. “Imaginary Landscape No. 1” moves me. To think that John Cage has influenced music to such a great degree, but to credit his actual compositions as experiments and not music seems contradictory. “4’33” is successful for this listener. The ambient noises can become very musical and emotional if interpreted as such.

Separating the traditional composers of the past from modern composers is also problematic. Why does tradition have to mean ancient past? Didn’t Cage compose in the past? He’s already composed, and his compositions already exist in history. So why can’t they be more of an influence for someone than Mozart? Conversely, people aren’t influenced by everything just because everything exists. If you don’t like jazz, you won’t be influenced by Gershwin, no matter how historically significant the composer was.

The idea that Cage plays a specific role for all listeners alike, different than Beethoven’s role, is highly subjective and simply incorrect. Webern gives me more emotional satisfaction than Beethoven or Bach. The following Webern string quartet is a delicate, provocative masterpiece.

If a critic suggests that people listen to Beethoven because of its emotional value and listen to Cage for entirely different reasons, than that critic is only looking at music as it appeals to them.

I will agree that not being open to all tools, including historical and traditional composers, is a deplorable act. Any composer should understand the value of all music. But actively choosing to only use certain tools is intuitive and natural. How would music have any diversity if artists didn’t pick and choose their influences?