Music: the quest, the cage.

Goose bumps. Herds of musicians submitted themselves to a wide array of chemicals, switched instruments, bands, identities, or even committed suicide. Psychologists have studied and researched themselves into oblivion and their reports can easily stack up a library wall. Masses enroll music academies, seemingly even more graduate and dive down into the music market. They are all preoccupied with or rather obsessed by the very same question: what makes the body move and causes goose bumps?
As yet, this question remains unanswered. Some music just works that way with some, and different music seems to have the same effect with others. It's a maze that still isn't fully uncovered, which in itself incurs the preceding questions: why is it easier to unravel our DNA than our response to music? And what is music to begin with? There is no matrix, no general, overall answer. At best, you can try to answer it for yourself. Here's a little hand on how to do that.
First of all, what is music? There are many definitions in the minds of beholders, but the only one that really fits the bill is: induced organized noise. Modern music is vested on three pillars: rhythm, harmony and melody. This is just an application of how music essentially comes to be. The African tribes trance dancing on a rhythm, the medieval minstrel singing and bringing the news, the Tibetan monk meditating on a single tone, the blind Afro-American singing the first blues on a self made guitar - these are examples of 'incomplete' music as one or more of the pillars missing. Still music though!
There are common denominators in circles of people regarding their music preference. My rock music for instance is and has always been profoundly and firmly detested by classical music adepts. Years ago, a keyboard player I once worked with had the courage to compile an anthology of some of my rock compositions into a classical setting. Re-exposed, the classic adepts were at awe thinking it was some sort of Bach-remake. Evidently, a lot is not about the music itself, but about the way it was arranged or sound shaped. This is commonly referred to as style. Here the original composition wasn't designed to be classical, but that didn't matter as it was appreciated just by having been disguised that way. In a broad sense, this earns big time! Purists call this 'muzak', I call it Music Morphing for Marketing and Money (4M). Which would bring us to the big schism in music: entertainment versus art.
But before that, when can music be called an artistic expression? Again, this is highly subjective. Some will proclaim that music will only qualify as art, and its creator as artist, when 'new styles' are explored. They will advocate that music has to be 'new', or at least contain 'novelties', proving the artist to be 'intelligent' or, in the case of punk music or its derivatives, 'socially engaged'. I deliberately put all qualifications in parentheses, as they're intangible and essentially devoid of any substantial meaning. Western music only contains 12 tones, and each combination (chords) or sequence (melody) has already been applied; and each rhythm has been beat, especially in the 4/4 department. So there can be nothing new in that sense. Others will proclaim that music can only be art provided that the composition is 'authentic' and played by musicians having a high skill level. Technically, being authentic is anything that hasn't been made before, so by that in itself any non-covered piece of music would automatically be art, including the worst pieces of 4M s**t that everybody regardless of the bloodline would wholeheartedly agree to disqualify as art. As for instrumental skill, that's just a matter of training and keeping your ears open. Then there are those who say that music 'with a message' is art, referring to the lyrics, which is poetry, not music. Poetry put on music, the latter being the wardrobe and the former being the coat, constitutes a different form of art altogether. On the other hand, the adverse can't be entirely true either. Like I said, highly subjective and partly submitted to the individual musical preference. Few if not nobody will argue with me that Jimi Hendrix was a true artist. But his guitar playing wasn't anything Jeff Beck hadn't already done years before him (and more skillfully too, from a technical point of view) and his music was nothing more than a smart bluesy blend of The Who and The Yardbirds. Jimi died and became a legend, with which the 4th definition is added: the true artist suffers. I would personally, arguably, define artistic music as contemporary sound expressions that are still appreciated after a trend change.
Having said all this, is there really a schism, or conflict if you like, between musical art and musical entertainment? Yes there is, but not always and not necessarily. Some art gets widely appreciated, thus obtaining entertainment value. In the 80's, U2 was widely acknowledged as being art. They became a mega-selling act and were deprived of their artistic status but continued doing what they believed in. Early in that same decade, old-timer Quincy Jones had cooked up something (new!) that turned Michael Jackson's Thriller album the best selling ever, almost single handedly saving the starving record industry at the time but it was never recognized as art. Nowadays, a band like Limp Bizkit blends every contemporary soundscape found in rock music field, but it generally doesn't get art recognition mainly because front man Fred Durst has Bill Gates tendencies. Max Cavalera essentially performs the very same trick with Soulfly, but he's more obscure, not so cleverly marketed so he sells less - he's an artist! The Beatles sold a record or two, but were only generally granted the artist title only after they split up. John Lennon was killed, sure enough he became the greatest artist within The Beatles.
Back to the million-dollar question: what makes the body move and causes goose bumps? By generating a strong pulsating beat below 80 Hz and get a house party license? By writing a poem and put it on a C major melody scale? By shaving your hair, wear Gucci and Serengeti and look mean? By copying the latest trend and suck up on a record company? By trying to be yourself before finding whoever that is, but good enough as long as it's different?
I'm trying to make music I like for myself, I believe in what I'm doing and I'm working hard to be damn good at it. Without instrumental skill, I'd never be able to enhance whatever it is I want to get across the way I intend it. If I don't like what I'm doing, who says anyone else does? I firmly support song concepts, multitudes of enhanced chords and mid tempo rhythms. And I don't care if it qualifies for art, and what style it is. But I'm still a sucker for a gig so who says I'm right. I certainly don't!
The question should be rephrased into how to cage a bird and make it sing.

Latest Messages

Conversations

Subscriptions

Friends

Kairo has no Friends

See all Friends

Followers

Kairo has no Followers

See all Followers

Bookmarks

This user has no Bookmarks

See all Bookmarks