Do we really need more music ?

[m1469]

From one standpoint in my mind, I wonder, why does the world need continuously fresh music ?  Is it a matter of gratification ?  Constantly giving our ears something "new" to listen to ?  I suppose there are infinite combinations of timbres and colours and such, but, do we really need them all to betterappreciate Music ?

One of the things that strikes me is that, these days, with all the music that is already in the world, an individual scarcely has enough time to truly know, let alone appreciate, all the music that is already out there.  If music is so important that we feel the need to keep the field "thriving" by producing more and more of it, and more performers of it, why is it acceptable for the world to not truly appreciate all of what is already out there to be appreciated ?

Sometimes it seems we are sitting at some huge buffet table where one just loads up the plate and may not actually savour anything vs. sitting down to a beautiful meal with beautiful friends and savouring every bite with the perfect bottle of wine over hours of thoughtful conversation.

Maybe it's about personal expression then ?  Is that what music is about ? And is what an individual has to say really that important to the world ?  And, has it truly not been said before, even if in some other way ? 

Was it different for people like Bach and Mozart ?  There was less music in the world already that was considered to be "great", or at least these days, "we" act like that was true.

I don't know, as musicians of whatever sort, why shouldn't we be thinkig more about these things ?  I realize that some people already do.  But sometimes, it just feels like a somewhat frantic situation to me.


m1469

[dave santino]

That's a good question and an excellent poin, and one that I'll try to answer as best I can. Although "classical" music has been around longer than anything else, its evolution has been over hundreds of years. However, non-classical/jazz/popular/whatever music has evolved over a period of just one hundered years, which leads me to believe that musical evolution in all genres has sped up, due in part to the opening up of music to all classes that began with jazz. Therefore, it is now the whole demographic of society that is creating music, and  as such there are fresh minds being applied to music, which will inevitably bring about new devopments in music, whatever style or genre that is. This to me validates any new music WITH THE EXCEPTION of the shitty pop music that does nothing for music WHATSOEVER except deaden people's minds, and consequently I would argue that we need no more of this music.

Dave

[abell88]

Maybe it's about personal expression then ?  Is that what music is about ? And is what an individual has to say really that important to the world ?  And, has it truly not been said before, even if in some other way ? 

Whether or not it's important to the world, it's vital to the creator to be able to say, "This is mine. I made it." And hopefully they will also have the courage to be able to share it with at least one another person, "This is a part of me. (implication: handle with care)"

[ted]

I suppose it depends on the relative importance one assigns to ends and means. I just enjoy the act of creation, the means, for its own sake. The means usually result in ends in the form of compositions, improvisations and recordings. If these interest other people then so much the better but it has nothing to do with the primary impulse.

So to answer your question, yes, I need a hell of a lot more of my own music. I enjoy a sprinkling of other people's music and indeed, listen to it and play it often, deeply and eclectically, but for me again it is not essential.

I think the pronoun "we" in your question prohibits a meaningful response because the question can only be answered at the individual level and not collectively. It's like asking how many more books "we need", how many more recipes, anything. It's actually a problem I have with modern workplace jargon. The boss says, "We need...." I reply, "No, it isn't a question of 'we need'. What you are trying to say is that 'you want'. I do not 'need' anything of the sort. My needs lie outside your knowledge and jurisdiction"

[alzado]

Well, I'm not sure that we "need" more music, but if people enjoy composing, let them.

We can play some of their compositions, and if we like them, great!

Another way to approach this is to research the music of the past. 

There are many fine composers less famous than Beethoven, Mozart, or Bach.  Or whoever.

I realize that researching less-known composers and their works is time consuming, and may not be for everyone. 

Good luck--

[m1469]

Thanks for your response Dave.

Whether or not it's important to the world, it's vital to the creator to be able to say, "This is mine. I made it." And hopefully they will also have the courage to be able to share it with at least one another person, "This is a part of me. (implication: handle with care)"

This is a good point.

I think the pronoun "we" in your question prohibits a meaningful response...

Well, actually, your response was quite meaningful to me    and I feel convinced, even though you may not have been trying to convince me nor anybody else of anything.

m1469

[asyncopated]

For me, this is a very strange question. 

It's like asking.  Why do we need more ideas.  Don't we have enough?

The question only comes about if you think that music is a limited medium.  Which could not be further from the truth.  Music is an abstract form that plays on a person's intellect and emotions.  It is not we that play music --  the music plays us.

al.
 

[prometheus]

What a bizarre thought. Some music traditions go back more than two thousand years. Is this a reason to stop and forget about all of it?

[Torp]

And is what an individual has to say really that important to the world ?  And, has it truly not been said before, even if in some other way ?

I have been in the habit of quoting Goethe lately, but his words seem to say much of what I'm thinking these days.

All truly wise thoughts have been thought already thousands of times; but to make them truly ours, we must think them over again honestly, till they take root in our personal experience. Goethe

I cannot think of a better way to explain my thoughts than that quote.

Jef

[Tash]

look at it from a historical perspective. if right now we were all just like well there's already an obese amount of music to listen to so we'll just give it a break, then how will today's style of music be represented? in 500 years time there would be this gap in the 2000AD's, and music textbooks would be like 'in the 2nd millenium there was a decline in musical composition so we can't really say much about it. so screw the individual, it's not about them- we need new music to represent the era, to make comparations between geographical, religious, etc. contexts so in the future some uni student can go write an essay about it!

otherwise, if you think we have too much music, and too much of everything else, the best thing to do would be to blow up half the world so you just get rid of it and future historians are left to make guesses, as they always are

[ted]

An obese amount of music

Tash, you're delightful ! Don't ever stop creating those expressions. God, I could apply that metaphor to a few people I know !

[Tash]

ah what can i say i'm just a naturally delightful person it's just one of those words me and my friends started obsessively using because we like to exaggerate everything:)

[m1469]

I suppose it depends on the relative importance one assigns to ends and means. I just enjoy the act of creation, the means, for its own sake. The means usually result in ends in the form of compositions, improvisations and recordings. If these interest other people then so much the better but it has nothing to do with the primary impulse.

So to answer your question, yes, I need a hell of a lot more of my own music. I enjoy a sprinkling of other people's music and indeed, listen to it and play it often, deeply and eclectically, but for me again it is not essential.

I think that this characteristic of JS Bach is fascinating; quoted from "The Lives of the Great Composers" by Harold Schonberg :  "Nothing could interfere with his vision of music and his drive ---no, his compulsion--- to saturate himself in his art, to improve himself, to study, to absorb everything that could be absorbed."

What I find fascinating about it, in light of this conversation, is that he had a very strong desire and will to have music his own way, yet, it was very important to him to know as much about the other music out there as he could.  Also, I presume that he must have viewed the act of getting to know other people's music as a form of improving his own understanding of the art.

Also, at that time, it was common practice to basically disregard and even discard the music of the previous cantor's.  From the same source it reads : "... he bundled up all his predecessor's music, storing it somewhere (although it seems that he carefully read everything through before getting rid of it), and he knew that his successor would just as summarily get rid of whatever Bach manuscripts were around.  It was the cantor's job to present music that he composed not the music of another man."

I have known this before and read this very thing before, but it stands out to me now as particularly interesting.  I wonder if it was like that with other things at that time as well ?  For example, visual art or creative writings.. ?  Perhaps not, as music in this context was considered less as art for the sake of art (were other arts considered strictly as art at that time ?), but more for the sake of service within the church.  Maybe that would make a difference ?

I have been in the habit of quoting Goethe lately, but his words seem to say much of what I'm thinking these days.

All truly wise thoughts have been thought already thousands of times; but to make them truly ours, we must think them over again honestly, till they take root in our personal experience. Goethe

I cannot think of a better way to explain my thoughts than that quote.

Jef

I can appreciate that.


m1469

[BoliverAllmon]

I have been in the habit of quoting Goethe lately, but his words seem to say much of what I'm thinking these days.

All truly wise thoughts have been thought already thousands of times; but to make them truly ours, we must think them over again honestly, till they take root in our personal experience. Goethe

I cannot think of a better way to explain my thoughts than that quote.

Jef

that is a great quote.

[leahcim]

All truly wise thoughts have been thought already thousands of times; but to make them truly ours, we must think them over again honestly, till they take root in our personal experience. Goethe

More poetic than "I have a proof, but the margin isn't big enough, honest guv" I guess

[tolkien]

The world doesn’t necessarily “need” new music, except meaning in the superstitious kind of way that contemporary society wants everything replenishing constantly and consumed ad infinitum. That’s another issue altogether, that plagues many forms of contemporary life, including music of course.

People will always need, however, to express themselves through music, whether the public wants to hear it or not. As a form of expression, artistic musical creation is, I believe, indispensable for ourselves and society, whatever the products might be. Good ones usually pass the test of time with flying colours.

One can choose to delve into music much like in a big ocean, deep, but narrow or wide but shallow (or even, narrow AND shallow, God forbid! ). Time constraints (and a certain avoidance of effort and thinking, I might add, by many of us) make sure that a deep and wide knowledge and appreciation of music is, however desirable, seldom attainable.