The question posed in this first exercise is whether or not I agree with the definition of music given by The Concise Oxford Dictionary:
'the art of combining vocal or instrumental sounds (or both) to produce beauty of form, harmony, and expression of emotion'.
At face value, it seems I'd agree with the above, and it's only when I explore each point separately that I feel that it's an impossible task to assign a single definition to a phenomenon that is not static, and is constantly evolving and almost organic:
Beauty - I'd struggle to call all music beautiful, and in many cases I expect that is not even the composer's intention. Lacrimosa from Ligeti's Requiem for example sounds downright malevolent.
Form - Although huge swathes of music were written with a particular form in mind, in my limited experience there is also plenty that are free-form, such as improvised music, and open form music.
Harmony - What about monophonic music, such as a piece for solo flute or solo voice?
Expression of emotion - This is the point where I think the dictionary gets to the crux of the matter. Music, any music, attempts to convey an emotion, or a range of emotions. This could be elation, fear, anxiety, foreboding, joy, excitement, love, authority, power, and many more.
I think the pertinent question is "When does noise become music?". Everyday noise is all around us, but it could hardly be construed as music. I think noise takes on the role of music when the intention to provoke an emotion or emotions is attached. Whether beautiful or not, with form or without, harmonised or lonely, in my opinion "sound + emotion" is what makes music.
No comments:
Post a Comment