Back to the topic (I know it’s long, but I think this is a pretty good post. Give it a shot):
I actually think classical music has a distinct disadvantage in regards to being the best possible form of music, relative to some (not all, mind you) more modern approaches. Allow me to explain:
As I said above, a music can be judged by the strength of emotion it elicits. Now, granted that’s a very subjective measure (aren’t all measures, though, necessarily?). However, I do think that perhaps there is something in human psychology, embedded in each or at least in most of us, that makes us react to music the way we do. Music could potentially be looked at, from this point of view, as a psychological phenomenon. “The best music” is the music that most effectively elicits the kinds of emotions desired by the musician. Obviously every person would react to the same song in different ways or to different degrees, but there may perhaps be some level of consistency between all humans, some semi-universal aspect of music that all people or nearly all people are genetically inclined to find enjoyable.
One of the common distinctions I hear about what separates classical music from modern music is that modern music is more “beat-based” if you will. Modern music, as opposed to classical music, is notably quite repetitive – choruses, loops, etc. Many modern songs (successfully) use a loop that may be only 2 to 4 seconds long, looping throughout the entire song, with very little or sometimes no variations on top of it. This often has the effect of putting the listener in a trance-like state, sometimes called a “groove,” expressed often as the tapping of the feet or bobbing of the head.
Classical music, in contrast, does not have a comparable level of “looping” if you will. I think it would be pretty agreeable to describe classical music as more cerebral. Classical music can also induce the trance-like states, but they’re of a completely different sort I think.
I consider myself a fairly intellectual guy. I read, I converse about philosophy, I’m interested heavily in the topics of rationality and logic and science, etc. Compared, I think, to most people, “cerebral” would be an apt description of me. BUT, in music, this is exactly, EXACTLY, what gives classical music the disadvantage to modern music.
Nietzsche distinguished between the Apollonian and the Dionysian, and he notably put music in the Dionysian category. Dionysus, the god of wine. The Dionysian was correlated with emotions, with fun, with partying, with drinking. The Appolonian, on the other hand, was…well…cerebral. If Music is supposed to be the Dionysian art, then modern music is notably more Dionysian. Just go to a club. Can you imagine people dancing like that to classical music? There may be some small scattering of classical songs that one can imagine people grinding to, but…it’s quite small. What modern music offers is that Dionysian side – it’s DANCEABLE! It’s beat-based. It’s got that groove. The trance it offers is often a very social, outward trance, as opposed to the solitary inward trance of classical.
If music is supposed to be Dionysian, then I would say certain modern kinds of beat-based music (not all, mind you) are fundamentally more pure music than classical. Forgive me if this sounds silly, but perhaps it harkens back to the time when our ancestors sat around in a drum circle, prior to the invention of the violin, the cello, the plethora of variants on the saxophone, etc. Perhaps something in us, something we got from our tribal ancestors, makes us respond in a very strong way to this beat-based music. It appeals to the tribal part of us. Perhaps.
There was a time in my life where I noted how repetitive modern music is, and compared it to how classical music seemed to have much more complicated variations. At that time, I liked the complication of it, I appreciated that. I didn’t want to be part of the lowly proletariat class who’s so easily amused by the repetitive, looping garbage of modern music. I much more preferred to be of the noble sort who listened to the complex harmonies in classical, that only repeated in subtle ways, constantly changing, constantly evolving.
I was about 15 then. I’ve since found that there’s something about the repetition that cannot be overlooked. One cannot just stick ones nose up at it. You can pretend like you’re better than it, but it has this appeal, this fundamentally human appeal, this Dionysian appeal. For all your thinking, you cannot resist a good beat. Hence the motif in music videos of a whole bunch of stiff ass holes in suits hearing a beat and they all, in unison, start tapping their feet. You can tell, something in them doesn’t want to like it, but something else in them, perhaps something more powerful, doesn’t care.
And so, tying this back in with what I said at the beginning, trying to relate music to a psychological experiment – the repeating beat may, it just may, have a psychological power greater than the meandering melodies of classical. It may appeal to something psychologically in us that’s embedded much deeper than our intellectual side. This is the disadvantage of classical music – it’s certainly Dionysian, but it perhaps isn’t Dionysian enough.
When I think of repetitive music that puts me in a groove trance, I usually think of this song first, just thought I’d share. See if you can get into the groove of it, it’s quite enjoyable when that happens:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwjUyrp7-aI[/youtube]