Being a music professor, I am often asked what my favorite music is, which is a difficult question to answer. Think about how many things you have a favorite of–one favorite. It’s difficult to do, and that’s a good thing. Most people have categories of favorites, which is as it should be. I think that it’s healthy and mature to have a continuum of interests and a variety of favorites. Most worthwhile things, like music, books, and food, are too rich and varied to enjoy only one of any of them.
Back to the music. Most of us use music as a soundtrack to our lives: in the car, at the gym, biking, walking down the street, etc. Music has the distinction among the arts of being something you can do while doing something else. This is neither good nor bad, it all depends on the activity. Mozart made some good money writing divertimento music (Italian for “dinner music”), and many Jazz musicians do the same thing in restaurants around the world; the wonderful thing is that after you clear the plates, you can put it on a stage, sell tickets, and it’s still great art; too bad that so many jazz musicians (and Mozart in his day) are under-appreciated. So again, what’s my “favorite” music? It depends on what I am doing.
If I’m driving, it’s most often NPR; after that, a variety of pop stations. Occasionally it’s classical, but (and maybe it’s just my 13 year-old Tercel; update, 10/07 – finally got a newer car – 5-year-old Accord – finally feel like I graduated college) it’s hard to hear in the car–takes too much concentration. “Classical” – and I’m using the scare quotes because I mean that broadly, not as the word was intended to be used – I reserve for when I can focus on it more, which means usually with a score (theory is my thing, after all). Admittedly, I engage with classical music the most because of its ideas. That doesn’t mean that I don’t engage emotionally, I do, it’s just that I appreciate classical music for its depth. I can engage with all sorts of music and other arts and everyday experiences emotionally – I don’t need music especially for that. Truth be told, I enjoy ideas far more than I enjoy any one specific type of art or style of music. I think that is why I am drawn to the theoretical parts of music; great music (any great art for that matter) represents great ideas.
Unfortunately, that is why so many people don’t like classical music: it has a depth and richness of ideas that takes time (I’m not saying that it’s the only kind of music that does this). So few people challenge their aesthetics – their ideas – with pieces (ideas) that demand patience. I have to remind my music history class that classical music takes time. There is a certain talent (to quote Sting) in telling a story in three minutes through two verses, a bridge, and a chorus; however, writing a piece that is six minutes (to quote John Corigliano) is not twice as hard, it is five times as hard. The demands of content and form rise exponentially.
Rather than asking what style of music I listen to, I’d rather talk about the function of the music I listen to. What makes it interesting, great, touching, relevant, fun, and enduring. I’m more interested in the idea of music than music itself. That’s why I find the psychology of music so fascinating.
More directly on aesthetics, I like music (and art) that builds. Sometimes, in order to do that, you have to tear something down, and worthwhile music can challenge us by tearing down preconceptions of what constitutes great and relevant art. In the end, though, I think art should build. One of my favorite quotes (as I first heard it) is: “Art is exists to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” (Interestingly, this is a retooling of a quote by Finley Peter Dunne, an early 20th century satirist. The original was: “Th’ newspaper does ivrything f’r us. It runs th’ polis foorce an’ th’ banks, commands th’ milishy, controls th’ligislachure, baptizes th’ young, marries th’ foolish, comforts th’ afflicted, afflicts th’ comfortable, buries th’ dead an’ roasts thim aftherward.” His spelling is for a character he created. Dunne’s point was not that this was a good thing, but that it was an over-stepping of the newspaper’s power. The quote has been parlayed into other versions, like the one above, that apply to broader issues.)
Referring to art in this dual role succinctly describes the function of art in society: sometimes it is reflecting us, helping us process and filter, and sometimes it is pricking us. Too much of either or the lack of either would not be good.
When you say “I like music (and art) that builds,” it’s not clear what you mean. For example, the first movement of the Bruckner 9th builds stronger and higher than just about any other musical structure ever. Is that what you’re referring to? Or are you perhaps referring to composers such as Schoenberg, whose role in musical history was to “build” a new musical church, a new 12-tone dogma, which profoundly influenced other composers, as Bruckner did not?
More the latter. I’m referring to art that builds cultural structures – community, tradition, rituals, etc. that create connections between people, ideas, etc. Art that challenges preconceptions is a worthwhile endeavor as it allows us to build anew – I’m thinking not only of Schoenberg, but someone like John Cage. Thanks for your question.