Recantation

Well, if I'm going to recant, I might as well do it properly I guess.

*ahem*

That was a lie in which I said music has no power to change a life. For that might have been truly said, were music only the sounds of notes; but music also holds the power of words, and when combined with truly inspiring language, becomes a method of transforming the human heart more powerful than either on its own.

Alright, no more imitating Plato, I promise. It sounds too stilted anyway. I've just been wanting to use that line ever since I read it. :D Anyways, Marisa brings up a good point in her post when she uses the hymns as a counter-example to my blanket statement that "there's no way to get any specific message across" in music. I'll admit, this statement is a pretty good example of what I mean by a spherical chicken. I didn't bother to fully explain myself, when obviously explanation was needed. Contrary to what this statement seems to say, I love music. My roommates can attest to the fact that I can burst into random song from any phrase you give me.

Essentially, I see music as divided into a hierarchy. In the top of this tier is music with words. This is a category that hymns fall under, and I have to agree that a well-written hymn often has greater power to move the soul than anything else I know. The words to such a piece are poetry on their own--poetry is the predecessor of music in that it has rhythm and tonal qualities. Just ask someone who knows Greek to read the Illiad to you in the original tongue. (Thanks, Dr. Griggs!) There's a rhythm and pitch to the words that arises from the way the syllables are set just so. Music is merely an extension, an amplification of poetic qualities in this case, enhancing the meaning of the words that are there. Indeed, in one of my classes we theorized that Adamic probably has musical qualities to it which allow additional meaning to be conveyed outside the words. I would place music with words at a higher expressive level than even poetry by itself.

Next in my estimation comes music with a story. By story, I mean either that the music itself is a narrative (Peter and the Wolf, for example) or that has a history behind it (Cristofori’s Dream, or even Fur Elise). This music conveys a less specific meaning than music with words, and requires some outside knowledge in order to be enjoyed. When you listen to one of these pieces, you might think it is "nice" or interesting, but until you find out the story from an outside source, it's unlikely that you will gain the specific nuances of meaning intended. As you might deduce from this, the lowest music on my hierarchy is music without a story. Sure, it creates a general atmosphere, but you can't communicate any very specific idea with any hope that it will be reliably conveyed to your audience. You can create sadness, but not very well the distinction between grief, loneliness, and rejection. I believe these differences are important, so music without a story just seems useless to me.

My point I guess is that, as a form of expression, music is incomplete. Music is great at creating an atmosphere and even at painting a general scene. However, it is unable to provide a direct and specific message without the assistance of words. But I willingly grant that music can greatly enhance the power of words. Maybe the reason I get annoyed with it so often is because I don't really understand how to create it and why some pieces are more powerful than others, unlike words, which are more democratic because everyone can see how they work.