I can't remember what book I was reading where this took place between the characters, but here's part of the story, as paraphrased and re-written by me:
Two finely skilled musicians were to play a piece of music of great difficulty. Each played the piece in front of the judges, which were audience members, as one side, and a computer for technical merit as the other side. The first musician was talented, and played the piece perfectly, but couldn't engage the audience. The second engaged the audience, but made technical errors.
The musicians tied, so they had to play another round, this time in front of other professional musicians. Instead of playing individually, they played a duet. Playing together, the first man not only sounded better, but he played the piece perfectly again. The audience and the computer both picked the first man, because of the techinal merit, and the high improvement made. The judges were over-ruled; though, because a panel of professional musicians believed that the second man was the tool that the first man needed.
The book stated that the second man was like a new instrument for the first man. The second man made the first man sound better, like picking up a silver flute, instead of one crafted with extra parts like you would find at the dollar store. Interesting, don't you think?
With that said, I think part of music is the ability to express yourself, and the other part is teaching others to appreciate the beauty of what you create. What good is listening to Bach if the music falls on closed ears? My sister cannot appreciate this, but I'm sure if one of the Backstreet boys managed to learn how to play Bach, she would realize how good the music actually is.
Quote:
Originally posted by rm'
Is it about the aural images? The actual sounds? Harmony? Polyphony? Melody? The theory? The sound?
|
Great music has survived throughout time. Notice I said great. The crappy music (if there is such a thing), created by stablehand #3 isn't remembered, because the cost of remembering that music is too much for the human to spend on something that "worthless." I think the same thing will happen. While there will be people who remember stupid songs, I'm sure the 'hit' songs that stink will fade and over time, they will be lost.
Quote:
Originally posted by rm'
Or is it about the cultural image? Social movements? The political message? The commentary on the human condition? Does talent count? Does the creator of the music have to be down-to-earth and authentic for the music to be good?
|
Music is what society can appreciate. With more people having access to listen to music, it has become "mainstream." Remember, centuries ago, music wasn't understood by much of the poor class, and was only seen is Mass where pslams, scripture, and prayer were the focal points of the music. Most people didn't have any opportunity to hear or see secular music performed. Now, people have the ability to see and hear the music that they like.
This could be described as progress, or as an approach to mediocrity. Personally, I think that music is meant to be enjoyed, and as long as people like to hear it, it shouldn't be considered a bad thing.
I hope that I answered the question through my incoherent ramblings.
Lots of Love,
Mea
