Motifs Have Consequences

As my first real post on this new blog I thought I would upload an essay I wrote two years ago for a class in college.  It reflects on a common issue I face in my thinking - How does God look at today's popular music?  It takes a look at how the purpose of music has shifted in the modern era - going from honoring God and "charming the ears" (as Mozart put it) to pure entertainment.  This is "Motifs Have Consequences: An Analysis of Popular Music and its Affect on Society."

Motifs Have Consequences:
An Analysis of Popular Music and it’s Affect on Society

“Most people use music as a couch; they want to be pillowed on it, relaxed and consoled for the stress of daily living.  But serious music was never meant to be soporific.”
-Aaron Copland

“The aim and final end of all music should be none other than the Glory of God and the refreshment of the soul.”
-Johann Sebastian Bach

                At the Brooklyn Summer Day Camp it is tradition to have a talent show each summer to give the students a chance to express themselves creatively with the help of their counselors.  For one group of students, boys ranging from nine to ten years of age, the consensus was to do a skit parody of television’s American Idol.  During the skit there was a line written that read as follows:  “I have more talent than Madonna, Beethoven, and Soulja Boy combined!”  Musically, Madonna (a popular music star) and Soulja Boy (a one-hit-wonder rap artist) are hardly fit to be in the same sentence as Ludwig van Beethoven.  However, when the script was handed to the student who would read the line, there was only one name that he did not recognize nor know anything about.  The ten year old student knew by site the names of a risqué pop star and a womanizing, offensive rap artist.  The nine-year-old, however, he claimed to have no recollection of the man who is quite possibly the greatest musician to ever live; the musician who had a greater impact on music than any other human being.  The student not knowing Beethoven is not just an indication of the need for education reform; it cries out with a loud voice of the depreciation of music that has gripped American society and culture.

                Whether or not one sees this lack of recognition as an issue at all would come down to their philosophy on what the purpose of music is.  Plato, one of the most notable philosophers in human history, had a great deal to say about music.  Writers and philosophers of Ancient Greece, Plato included, believed that music could affect ethos, one’s inner character.  The harmony in music reflected the harmony of the soul, and therefore had the power to restore it.  He felt so highly of music that he believed it should be taught to the young to “discipline the mind.”  Music was under no circumstances merely for entertainment.  He was cautious of music, endorsing only the forms that encouraged temperament and courage.  Plato believed other forms, those that used complex scales or mixed incompatible genres and instruments, led to “license in manners and anarchy in society.”  Plato’s views have withstood the test of time, bringing about condemnation of such modern genres as jazz, ragtime, rock ‘n’ roll, and rap from those interested in preserving the sanctity of music.

                In the sixth century, St. Augustine, another great philosopher and early church father, gave input on the realms of music.  Augustine was very aware of the greatness of music and the dangers it presented.  He believed that the potential good overcame the potential bad in music, and that it should be included in worship service.  In his Confessions, Augustine talks about the joy music brought him when he first received his faith and how deeply it moved him.  On the contrary, he says the following of when it can pose a danger: “Yet when it happens that I am moved more by the song than by what is sung, I confess sinning grievously, and I would prefer not to hear the singer at such times.”   Like Plato, Augustine knew firsthand the problems music could pose while acknowledging the wonder it held.

                Throughout the twentieth century there have been far more genres and styles than in Plato or Augustine’s time. Popular music in the twentieth century has evolved from ragtime, to blues, to jazz, to rock and roll, to hip hop and all other varieties of music mainstream culture puts forth today.  The concerns of these early philosophers should be even more prevalent, but they seem to be even less.  This development of new genres of music also ushers in a development of new philosophies of music.  By most, music is no longer listened too based on its aesthetic beauty or its contemplative value, but merely for its entertainment.  Popular music has become a thing of preference that brings about desired emotions and nothing more.

                The problem in popular music is not in its theoretical manifestation or its rhythmic passages, but rather in the way it is listened to.  There is no problem in music merely bringing about raw emotion and entertainment, so long as one realizes that if this is all a piece of music is doing than it is not living up to its classification.  To understand what is meant by this, one could look at Neil Postman’s view on television.   Postman is very much opposed to the television and the unintended consequences it has brought about.  His biggest concerns, however, are not with the shows that can easily be seen as rubbish, but rather with those that profess to be intellectually stimulating.  He is most concerned with those that put on a façade of not being rubbish.  To him, television is not nearly as daunting so long as one realizes what he is watching is not nearly as stimulating as, for example, a form of typographic media. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with popular music (that avoids excessive violence and vulgarity) as a means of pure entertainment; in fact, that is the purpose of popular music.  The problem begins in the ignorance of how much more can be obtained from music.

                According to Ludwig van Beethoven, “Music is one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind, but which mankind cannot comprehend.”  If one listens to popular music alone, then there is no chance for this high acknowledgment of music to be instilled.  Watching television would not be a problem so long as it did not attempt to replace more valid and stimulating mediums; the problem is it is the only thing people absorb.  Likewise, if one listens to more than just popular music, than listening to popular music is not a problem. So often, though, this is not the case.  People in today’s culture listen to popular music without recognizing it for what it truly is, just as they watch television without analysis.  What has come of this is if given the choice between Beethoven’s Third Symphony and any Kelly Clarkson tune, one would be hard-pressed to find people who would select Beethoven.  What is further troubling is that most people would explain said preference by arguing classical music is “boring” while Kelly Clarkson is much more stimulating and fun.  This should be absolutely appalling.  The degree of complexity which anything Beethoven composed possesses makes it so he does not even deserve to be in the same sentence as any of today’s popular music stars.  Complexity alone, of course, does not make music aesthetically worthwhile.  Likewise, the fact that popular music is so exceedingly simple is not what makes it trash.

                The heart and soul of the problem is the way people today treat music.  Society has turned music into an ordinary thing that is simply there for humanity’s petty amusement.  Music has become television, quite literally in the case of music videos.  The fact that it is impossible for a person lacking the desired level of sex appeal to become famous is the greatest indication of this.  Society listens to music in the same way it watches television: like mindless drones.  If the music on the radio is too complex, takes too long, is not easily understandable and relatable, or does not stir about instant emotional feedback, then it is simply not worth a person’s time.  This is an insult to everything music is.  Beethoven sums the situation up perfectly: “When I open my eyes I must sigh, for what I see is contrary to my religion, and I must despise the world that does not know that music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy.”

                If God gave music to humanity purely for entertainment, with no expectations for it to be one of the most powerful and moving aspects of mankind, then there is nothing wrong with today’s culture.  If music is merely auditory television that tells a story in less than four minutes and stimulates quick and easy emotions, then society is right on.  However, if music is one of the most sacred mediums of human expression, having the power to transform lives the way Michelangelo transformed marble, then society is gravely mistaken and needs an attitude readjustment.  Society cannot claim to love music while popular songs are all that reach its ears anymore than it can claim to love books while television dominates its eyes.  “Men profess to be lovers of music, but for the most part they give no evidence in their opinions and lives that they have heard it,” the words of Henry David Thoreau, could not more accurately encompass the culture.  The solution is to no longer just hear music, but to listen to it; to absorb music as the deepest of mediums which God has given humanity, not just as mindless entertainment, for as Confucius wrote, “Music produces a kind of pleasure which human nature cannot do without.”  Music is meant to be more than heard, it is meant to be enveloped with every inch of one’s being, and to do anything less is a slight to its wonder.