MUSIC
IN THE WESTERN WORLD
Music may be
continuously changing from generation to generation, but it doesn't necessarily
change for the better. There would no more
seem to be a straightforward progression in music than in any of the other
arts. What one may hear in the context
of twentieth-century composition does not, as a rule, signify a progressive
refinement upon the music of earlier centuries.
On the contrary, it signifies the inevitability of change, the
overwhelming concern of modern composers to compose differently from their
predecessors. The essential
qualification for a modern composer is that he should produce compositions of a
different nature from those of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et al. The originality of his approach to music
should, in large measure, justify his claim to compositional authenticity.
Some people, including several contemporary composers, have
maintained that the sense of beauty changes from age to age, so that what was
regarded as beautiful by the people of one age may appear as anything but
beautiful to those of another. The
conclusion one should draw from this is obviously one that will justify the
often cacophonous sounds of contemporary composers in terms of a different
sense of beauty among the moderns! Yet
beauty isn't something that is one thing now and a completely different thing
later, in some other age. Beauty is the
same in any age which has anything approximating to a serious culture. A beautiful face will remain distinctly
beautiful for specific reasons, including form and texture, whether it belongs
to a person living in the seventeenth century or to one living today. The capacity to achieve and judge the Beautiful
may of course vary from age to age, but beauty will remain a constant
nonetheless.
Like any other fine art, music is capable of attaining to great
beauty, of arousing one's aesthetic admiration through the fact that sounds
have been organized in the best possible way or, failing that, in an
indisputably ingenious way. There is a
maximum aesthetic height to which music can aspire, a maximum potential of
well-ordered sound, which lends it the distinction commonly known as great
music. But great music, like great
beauty, isn't something that is one thing now and another and completely
different thing later. Great music is
great for all time, because it signifies the best possible combination of
sounds. The only real alternative to
such music is poor music, i.e. music that is petty, bogus, ugly, and
insignificant - call it what you like.
The greatest music will be that which signifies the Beautiful most
commandingly. The worst music, by
contrast, will fail even to approach the Beautiful. Its composers will scorn the criteria of the
Beautiful as being arbitrary, contingent, transient, subject to whim. Instead, they will apply other criteria,
which they'll consider to be more tenable than traditional criteria, and, ipso facto, people
will be expected to believe that the age has acquired a different sense of
beauty. Music will have 'progressed' to
new concerns, and aesthetic ingredients formerly considered sacrosanct will be
systematically discarded in the interests of continuous experimentation. A musical idea that is broken off before it
can become a phrase will be deemed representative of the new beauty, and the
polished phrases of Haydn, Mozart, and other such classical composers duly held
up, by liberal academics and radical composers alike, as choice examples of
historic beauty: an approach to beauty strictly appertaining to the aesthetic
criteria of a former age.
I have stated that there is a maximum aesthetic height to which
music can aspire, a height commensurate with the most commanding representation
of the Beautiful. It is now necessary
for me to define beauty in terms of specific aesthetic criteria, the most
obvious of which being the best possible organization of melodic sound. Fundamentally music is melody, an arrangement
of sounds according to pitch and rhythm, the one presupposing the other. You do not make music when you tap a finger
on the table to a given rhythm, and you mostly make only a very uninspiring
type of music from notes (variations in pitch) which are all the same duration. Clearly, to get the most satisfactory results
it is necessary to combine pitch and rhythm in the best possible way. For although pitch usually takes priority
over rhythm, it cannot achieve anything really notable without some form of
rhythmic assistance. Thus the finest
music will inevitably contain the most enjoyable melodies, and it will flout
these melodies with all the assurance of their intrinsic beauty, or
proportion. In the hierarchy of
compositions, the more ingenious melodies will take precedence over the less
ingenious ones, the more aesthetically-satisfying melodies over the less
aesthetically-satisfying ones, and so on.
But melody by itself, even when beautiful, does not make for
great music. It requires the support of
harmony, the enrichment of its line by combinations of notes which both define
and embellish its modality, adding flesh, so to speak, to the notational
skeleton. The very word 'harmony'
presupposes something congruous, a combination of notes which complement one
another. Discords do not form a harmony,
and the phrase 'discordant harmony' would be a contradiction in terms. If the notes combined are not concordant,
they can only be discordant, and the resulting effect on the eardrums will be
suggestive of cacophony - the opposite of harmony.
Thus great music will require a primary ingredient and a
secondary one: the most satisfying melody supported, though never dominated, by
the most appropriate harmony. And with
this indispensable combination of musical ingredients there will, of necessity,
arise considerations of logical or congruous form, to be followed, in the
hierarchy of compositional ingredients, by considerations of tone and touch,
modulation within a logical framework, tasteful instrumentation,
carefully-balanced sound, subordinate virtuoso passages, etc., which form the
icing on the cake, as it were, of great music.
However, there will never be more icing than cake in such music, and,
consequently, virtuoso passages will always be subordinate to the leading melodic
ideas. A composition where this is not
the case can never make for the finest music, just as Paganini and Liszt, for
all their instrumental brilliance, don't make for the finest composers.
Likewise, a composition which takes little or no account of the
natural hierarchy of musical instruments but, for the sake of novelty or
experimentation, gives its leading melodic ideas to lesser instruments ... will
never make for the finest music, either.
Strictly speaking, the violins take precedence over the violas, the
violas over the cellos, and the cellos over the double basses in all great
music centred in or employing strings.
Now this same hierarchy, based on pitch and tone, applies equally well
to the woodwind and brass sections of an orchestra, where flutes and trumpets,
respectively, take the leading roles.
But there is, in addition to these separate hierarchies of
individual instrument families, an overall hierarchy which is even more
important in the logic of great orchestration, and which descends from the
strings to the woodwind, and then from the woodwind to the brass, with other
instruments, such as timpani, harp, celesta, etc., positioned at the base of
the instrumental edifice. Of course, I
do not mean to imply by this that strings are technically superior, per se, to woodwind,
or woodwind technically superior, per se, to brass, but, rather,
that the higher strings (violin, viola) are technically superior to the higher
woodwind (flute, oboe), the higher woodwind technically superior to the lower
strings (cello, double bass), the higher brass (trumpet, horn) technically
superior to the lower woodwind (clarinet, bassoon), etc., so that
considerations of pitch and tone also cut across the three main instrument
families, thus making the final choice of instrumentation a very difficult yet
still definite art.
Now, in addition to the final choice of instrumentation, a
decision must arise concerning the total number of instruments to be employed,
the greatest music almost invariably making use of a specific number of the
best instruments, and no more! For just
as 'too many cooks spoil the broth', so, in orchestral terms, do too many
instruments spoil the music, and nothing genuinely first-rate can be expected
from them. But, as I hinted above, it isn't
enough that orchestras should be of the right size; they must also contain the
right instruments and the best possible combination of them, if first-rate
results are to be achieved.
We therefore have before us certain indispensable criteria for
determining the general nature of great music, criteria which cannot be set
aside without producing or resulting in degenerate compositions. The most beautiful or ingenious melodies, to
briefly recapitulate, should be supported by the most appropriate harmonies,
the combination thereby established being accorded a logically satisfying form,
and the form itself, which is essentially a product of the artful linking-up of
diverse melodies, duly being articulated with the best possible combination and
number of musical instruments. If this
is not achieved, then there is scant possibility of truly great music being
produced!
It stands to reason, however, that in addition to a hierarchy
of instruments, there must also be a hierarchy of compositional forms, a hierarchy
starting with compositions for single instruments and extending up the scale of
chamber and concerto music to the noblest and grandest form of them all - the
classical symphony. Beyond the symphony
at its greatest there is nothing higher, nothing which evokes a stronger
challenge than the artful combination of numerous instruments, and so it is
inevitably in the realm of symphonic composition that one will find the
greatest music. The concerto,
particularly for piano, will come next in line, and behind this will follow
large-scale instrumental compositions, opera, ballet, chamber music, piano
sonatas, sonatas in general, miscellaneous piano compositions, songs, etc. Naturally, this hierarchy of compositional
forms does not imply that the finest piano sonata, for example, is of necessity
musically inferior to the weakest piano concerto, but that, generally speaking,
the great sonata will stand lower in the scale of musical forms than the great
concerto, even if it towers above the weakest concerto on account, for
instance, of its superior melodies and harmonic accompaniments. But even if, to extend our argument, there
are great piano concertos which are musically superior to various second-rate
symphonies, it is my firm conviction that no piano concerto, no matter how
great, can be considered musically superior to a really first-rate symphony -
the crowning glory of all serious music.
I do not know how many of my readers are familiar with
Spengler's The
Decline of the West, or indeed with any of his other major works. But I will say, for the benefit of those who
are, that I wholeheartedly subscribe to the veracity of his thesis concerning
Western decadence, and am in complete accord with his contention that Western
music has been steadily on the decline since approximately the end of the
eighteenth century. In the transition,
defined by Spengler, from 'Culture' to 'Civilization' of the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries, there set in a systematic attack within music, as within
most other things, on the preordained cultural forms. Instead of signifying a continuous expansion
on the forms brought to perfection in the classicism of Mozart, musical
composition has increasingly signified a disruption of them, a gradual reversal
of that which grew to perfection in the prime of 'the Culture' and could not be
improved upon.
Thus a majority of serious compositions in the nineteenth and,
more especially, twentieth centuries signify an aesthetic regression rather
than a straightforward cultural progression, an aesthetic regression
paralleling that from Christianity to liberalism, and thus from beauty and love
to ugliness and hatred. It is, above
all, in the music of Vivaldi, Corelli, Scarlatti, Couperin, Rameau, Purcell,
Telemann, Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, and the early Beethoven that we hear the
progressive growth of Western civilization.
But already in the late Beethoven, in Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn,
Berlioz, and Chopin, the seeds of revolution which were sown towards the end of
the eighteenth century are beginning to sprout in the form of romanticism, to
be cultivated to a much greater extent by Wagner, Liszt, Bruckner, Brahms,
Saint-Saëns, Massenet, Franck, Tchaikovsky, Dvorák, et al., in the latter-half
of the 19th century. It is in
romanticism, which (to use a Spenglerian phrase) is essentially 'musical
socialism', that we find the voice of 'the Civilization' beginning to assert
itself over the classically-inspired 'Culture' from which it sprang, and with
increasing boldness from decade to decade.
For socialism, as outlined by Spengler in The Hour of Decision,
is fundamentally nothing less than the systematic destruction of Western
civilization by means of a gradual undermining of its slowly-evolved
traditions, a destruction as apparent in the class struggle and the resultant
growth of the Labour Movement, as in the anti-Christian polemics of any
rationalist philosopher; as apparent in the rise of feminism and the resultant
demand for equal opportunity (as a springboard to female dominance for a creature
rooted, inflexibly, in a XX-chromosomal genetic integrity), as in the
cacophonous music of the avant-garde. It
is a fact of contemporary life, not something to be condemned as though it
shouldn't have happened but, on the contrary, understood in the context of the
transition from 'Culture' to 'Civilization' through which Western society is
passing and out of which it should emerge, if total chaos is to be avoided, in
a new and anti-socialist guise. At
bottom we are all socialist in certain respects, even if only to the extent of
despising Christianity or admiring the music of Liszt, when socialism is thus
comprehended as the process of undermining everything that was systematically
evolved and considered sacrosanct in and by 'the Culture'. But this process, I shall argue, was
inescapable, a phenomenon to be encountered in various guises in the
corresponding epochs of former civilizations, and not a contingent anomaly
peculiar to Western Europe alone.
Thus it transpires that the growth of romanticism - which,
despite changes in terminology, has continued virtually unabated since the
early decades of the nineteenth century - is not something to be foolishly
condemned in a spirit of philistine ignorance, but, on the contrary, accepted
as an historical inevitability, and its chief exponents perceived as victims of
time's dictatorship. If classical music,
brought to perfection by Mozart, signifies the musical Right, to adopt a
political analogue, then the Romantic Movement inaugurated by Beethoven very
definitely signifies the musical Left, or the gradual undermining of classical
criteria in terms of a development which was aesthetically regressive, as from
poetry to prose. Of course, there are
classical elements to be found in all romantic composers and, conversely,
romantic elements in even the most classical ones, Mozart not excepted. But such elements very rarely play the
leading role, particularly in the music of late-nineteenth-century and
early-twentieth-century composers, where the distance between 'the Culture' and
'the Civilization' is greater than it was for either the late classicists or
the early romantics.
It should be evident from the foregoing remarks that serious
music began to decline from an all-time high of classical perfection throughout
the nineteenth century. The criteria of
musical greatness, stemming from the brilliance of melody writing and
extending, via a variety of channels, to the manipulation of the best possible
instrumental combinations, were being increasingly discarded in the interests
of the romantic Weltanschauung. Where, formerly, the parts of a given
composition were strictly subordinated to the interests of the whole and
perfection of form was considered of consummate importance, the whole gradually
gave way, as in political socialism, to the interests of the parts, and form,
if and when it appeared, duly acquired a much looser guise. Where the sonata form, hitherto the basis of
sonatas, concertos, and symphonies alike, was seen as a foundation and help by
classical composers, the Romantics mostly regarded it as an imposition and
hindrance, to be supplanted by leitmotivs, idées fixes, and other such
recurrent themes, which would enable them to explore the passions and
simultaneously extend the range of virtuoso playing to an unprecedentedly high
level of instrumental complexity.
Likewise the growth of melodic complexity throughout the nineteenth
century signalled an inversion of the cultural standards, and harmony, hitherto
largely confined to a secondary and subordinate role, increasingly began to
dictate the direction music should take, in defiance of melodic
sovereignty. And with the corruption of
harmony as a support for melody came the corruption of harmony as harmony,
and the gradual incorporation of discordant and inharmonious elements into its
formerly congruous structures - an exact musical parallel, it seems to me, with
the phenomenon of feminism within the necessarily anti-Christian structure of
liberal freedom.
But if melody, formerly a relatively natural and
straightforward ingredient of musical perfection, and harmony, its subordinate
component, could be radically altered to suit the romantic Weltanschauung, then
there was very little to prevent composers from radically altering everything
else as well, and to do so, moreover, under the illusion of continual
progress! Thus arose the use of extremes
in pitch, volume, and tone; the use of unprecedented combinations of
instruments; the ever-increasing size of orchestras; the important roles played
by instruments which stood relatively low in the instrumental hierarchy; the
greater attention to virtuoso playing; a preference for large-scale works, and
other such radical alterations in composition which contributed, step by step,
to the progressive degeneration of music from the classical zenith attained to
by Mozart. For musical beauty, to
repeat, is ever a mean, a product of instruments which have been combined in
the best possible way to produce the most satisfying aesthetic results, and
whenever that mean is tampered with, be it to extend the range of pitch to its
extreme depths or heights, or to utilize greater extremities of tone and volume
than ever before, or to score parts for combinations of instruments which
appeal to the sense of novelty rather than to a profound aesthetic charm, the
only possible consequence is a disruption of the delicate balance of harmonious
relations which make for beauty and their replacement, to varying extents, by
less-harmonious and less-balanced relations of sound that make for ugliness.
Thus we find that, throughout the nineteenth century, musical
ugliness is slowly and painfully gaining the ascendancy over musical beauty, an
inevitability of the times largely brought about by the impossibility of
improving upon earlier composers, who had set definitive standards of musical
greatness. Here, if anywhere, is
evidence of the fact, acknowledged by Arthur Koestler in his retrospective book
Janus
- A Summing Up, that the various fine arts don't necessarily progress in a
straight line of increased perfection or greatness from generation to
generation, but are largely conditioned by the standards set by precedence,
which may or may not allow for artistic improvement. In the case of Western music from Beethoven
onwards there has, I repeat, been a steady decline, an aesthetic regression
from the standards set in the eighteenth century, which could not be improved
upon. Hence every romantic composer was,
to a greater or lesser extent, consciously or unconsciously, coerced into
producing worse music than his immediate predecessors. He was compelled not to respect his
predecessors' innovations, but either to extend them or dedicate himself to the
formulation of other innovations and thereby produce his own music. But his own music, unlike that of the great
composers who had been engulfed by 'the Culture', and therefore composed at its
theocratic behest, was predominantly a matter of his own doing, an indication
of the musical anarchy, born of democratic freedom, which gradually turned composers
from service of 'the Culture' to service of themselves, in an effort to
transcend the standards set by their predecessors and thus attain to musical
originality.
One might say that where, formerly, the macrocosm of 'the
Culture' had governed the microcosm of individual composers, this process was
gradually reversed throughout the nineteenth century, and the microcosm of
individual composers began to act increasingly like an autonomous whole in the
vast stream of Western music, paying less and less heed to the macrocosm of
'the Culture' against which it had been forced to rebel in the interests of
constant change, particles superseding wavicles. Naturally, it is fair to say that some
composers were more conservative than others vis-à-vis the radical changes
which stood for the onslaught of 'the Civilization' and its collective
values. Nevertheless, even they were
irreversibly caught-up in the swift current of musical socialism that bore
everything along in the direction of greater dissolution and anarchy. Even Brahms and Bruckner indicate a more
anarchic turn-of-mind than Mendelssohn and Schumann, their two outstanding
predecessors, and these latter composers are certainly less conservative, in
their turn, than either Beethoven or Schubert, and are veritable radicals when
compared with Haydn and Mozart! But if
such classic-romantic composers appear conservative or reactionary when
compared with the more fervent musical socialists such as Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner,
Chopin, Franck, and Dvorák, they are still significant contributors to the
continuous march of musical regress, a march which was to find an even firmer
footing in the twentieth century, as free enterprise gained in momentum to the
detriment of centralized patronage.
Thus far, twentieth-century music is chiefly characterized by
two disparate tendencies: the tendency, on the one hand, to further the rot of
romanticism initiated by Beethoven, and the tendency, on the other hand, to
stem the rot either by indulging in a form of neo-classicism or, alternatively,
by subscribing to the incorporation of jazz elements. Let us examine the first tendency first.
The attack on 'the Culture's' leading representatives is much
fiercer in the twentieth century than at the time of Brahms, Saint-Saëns,
Massenet, and Bruckner. By comparison
with Mahler (the first really powerful voice of the twentieth century),
Stravinsky, Bartók, Prokofiev, Ives, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Varèse,
Sibelius, et al., the music of even the most radical late-nineteenth-century
composers seems beautiful or conservative or classical, depending on your
viewpoint. The discords used by
composers of the previous century seem tame and sparing when compared with
their more radical use by the representatives of 'the Civilization' in the first-half
of the twentieth century. And the
melodies, whether complex, elongated, or fragmented, of those same
late-romantic composers likewise appear beautiful when compared with the
greater complexity, elongation, and fragmentation of melodies composed during
the early decades of the twentieth century.
In virtually all aspects of musical composition, late-romantic works
have been made to seem conservative, and the ongoing aesthetic degeneration of
serious music has more than kept abreast of the stupendous technological
advancements being witnessed by modern man.
(It hardly needs emphasizing that while the capacity to progress has
been inhibited in certain contexts, it has by no means been inhibited
everywhere, so that the continuous improvements on the design, for example, of
the automobile is achieved at the cost of the continuing regression of music
from a maximum beauty towards a maximum ugliness. The technological advances of this century
are generally paralleled by its cultural retreats.) Not only have orchestras become even bigger,
viz. Mahler, Strauss, Holst, et al., but the traditional combination and
balance of instruments has been still more radically altered, and, with this,
the parts played by the various instruments.
Even the, by classical standards, excessive importance attached to the
double-bass parts by Brahms, whose father was a bassist, is moderate when
compared with certain more recent scores, where the bass parts, besides having
extra work to do, are further strengthened by the incorporation of additional
bases! And, similarly, the brass
sections, which many musicologists would claim to have been used excessively by
Franck, Bruckner and Saint-Saëns, have undergone a transformation of importance
and acquired a stridency of effect that could only have horrified any late
nineteenth-century composer.
However, just as there were relatively conservative composers
and even relatively conservative compositions occasionally being written, in
the nineteenth century, by composers who were anything but conservative, so
there were like-composers and tendencies at work in the first-half of the
twentieth century, and for similar reasons.
Considering that England had been musically rather quiet for at least two
centuries, it isn't altogether surprising that some of the most conservative
neo-classical tendencies should have come from there, and nowhere more notably
so than in the guise of Elgar, many of whose works, including the immensely
popular Enigma
Variations and the Cello Concerto, belong spiritually
to the late-nineteenth century and not to the steady upsurge of atonal
cacophony which was destined to dominate serious composition throughout the
subsequent decades. But if the Catholic
Elgar may be considered less musically socialist than a majority of his
contemporaries, he was still compelled to pay court to the twentieth century
and be carried along, willy-nilly, in the direction of greater aesthetic
dissolution. In
In the case, for example, of Ravel, who, for all his
innovations, was fundamentally more conservative than his two great
compatriots, the dissolution into the cacophony of large orchestras that was
fast befalling many contemporary composers was partly avoided by a
concentration on lighter music and the concomitant use of smaller ensembles,
the music occasionally veering in the direction of Jazz, a direction which
Satie was also to take in a number of compositions, most notably his Ragtime Parade. However, in Debussy's case the introduction
of the whole-note pentatonic scale lent his music a more radical bias than that
of his musical contemporaries, and the impressionistic haze of sound that
resulted from this should be seen as a greater concession to the romantic
debunking attitude underlining modern developments than can be found in either
Ravel or Satie, romantic though much of their music undoubtedly was! But even in Satie, who regularly endeavoured
to simplify his music to the utmost possible extent, the romantic attitude of
debunking the classical norm was not without its radical overtones, as we
discover in his predilection for jazz rhythms, strange harmonic and enharmonic
juxtapositions, odd combinations of instruments, and unprecedented tonal
effects. The overwhelming distinction
between Bach's legendary Prelude and Fugue in D Minor and
Satie's Ragtime Parade looms gigantic over Western music,
though the only real alternative to this is not to be found in Elgar's Enigma
Variations, nor even Prokofiev's 3rd Piano Concerto, but in
Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. For
the continuing expansion of romanticism into still greater melodic and rhythmic
complexities has inexorably led to the cacophonous triumphing over both
neo-classical and romantic-jazz composers alike, with an inevitable consequence
that modern composition has brought music the furthest remove from the
classical height attained to by Mozart and plunged it deeper and deeper into
the overriding decadence of 'the Civilization'.
Whether or not music can become even more degenerate, even more
anarchic, with the passing of time is something that remains to be seen or,
rather, heard; although it does seem unlikely, at present, that it will either
come to a complete standstill or retrace its steps. If the world is not destroyed in a nuclear
apocalypse, then there is a fair chance that the leading composers of
contemporary Western civilization will appear relatively conservative to the
ears of a future generation, whose foremost composers may have regressed beyond
mathematical and electronic investigations of sound to some completely
unforeseen investigation that will take music a still further remove from the
aesthetic 'gold standard', from which it was initially plucked in the early
decades of the nineteenth century, and drive it deeper and deeper into musical
anarchy.
I stated at the beginning of this essay that beauty is a
constant quality, not something that changes from age to age. It requires a certain number of components to
be arranged in a certain order, too many or too few inevitably disturbing the
overall balance and, depending how they are arranged, making for a less
beautiful or even an ugly effect. Thus
beauty is ever the product of a golden mean between components and the way they
are arranged, a golden mean ultimately dependent upon the taste and discretion
of its creator, the composer. For if its
creator lacks a capacity to appreciate and formulate a high standard of the
Beautiful, then nothing but a second- or third-rate composition can be expected
from him. Great works require great men,
not mediocre men who are willing to work hard.
And great works can only be created during a limited period of time,
while the possibility of progressive development prevails, not after both the
best materials and the best means of exploiting them have been exhausted. Once a given soil has been properly
cultivated, it is necessary to move on to the cultivation of another soil, even
if it be less good and can only supply a limited number of rather seedy-looking
crops in consequence. As in agriculture,
so in music!
This, I think, is sufficient to explain the revolutionary
changes which Western music has recently undergone, and to point out the
reluctance in some people's minds to admit to the constancy of beauty. For they were born too late to witness the
creation of real beauty, and can only look back with mixed feelings of envy and
wonder at the quality of music created while 'the Culture' was in its
prime. If they are not to feel unduly
sorry for themselves or to despise themselves on that account, they will make
some effort, no matter how reluctantly, towards overrating the efforts of
contemporary composers, even if this entails the deception of a shift in their
sense of beauty! But, deep down, there
are few cultured people who would consider the breaking off of an uninspiring
musical phrase in mid-flight superior to the completed, not to say inspiring,
phrase of earlier composers. Or the use
of random atonal 'harmonies' superior to the use of carefully-calculated tonal
harmonies. Or the reiteration of banal
rhythms without apparent melodic development superior to the beautiful melody
whose rhythmic content follows naturally and inevitably. For it is, above all, to the sense of novelty
that so many of these modern developments appeal, supported, as they usually are,
by the democratically fashionable, though fundamentally superficial, notion
that art primarily exists to wake one up to new creative possibilities, instead
of, as traditionally, to arouse one's admiration through the strength of its
aesthetic charm. But when the aesthetic
charm is lacking because it can no longer be attained, it is easy to see why
such a notion becomes so important in the realm of art dogma, and why so many
people are gradually brainwashed into believing it! After all, it was only with the twentieth
century that notions of that order became necessary, and it was possible for
various artists to formulate eccentric theories relating to the nature of
beauty and ugliness.
In one such theory, it was alleged that art made from ugly
materials and focusing on ugly subjects could be just as good, i.e.
artistically meritorious, as art made from beautiful materials and focusing on
beautiful subjects - quite as though beauty and ugliness were equal qualities
and not subject to the value differentials which accrue to all antitheses,
where the positive component of the duality, viz. beauty, is qualitatively
superior to its negative component, viz. ugliness! In this instance, the value-differential
focuses on the pleasant effects created by the Beautiful and, by contrast, on
the unpleasant effects created by the Ugly.
The face of a beautiful woman will arouse a very superior emotional
response in most men to the face of an ugly one, to a woman who, instead of being
admired for the pleasure she brings, will be despised for creating a
disagreeable and even painful effect.
Now, by a similar token, the spectacle of a painting which depicts a
dirty backyard, where dustbins are crammed to overflowing with rubbish, will
engender, if not an outright disagreeable emotional response in the viewer's
mind, then certainly a less agreeable response than that engendered by the
spectacle of a painting which depicts a beautiful sunset over an
aesthetically-satisfying landscape. Clearly,
the latter painting would be qualitatively superior to the former both on
account of the subject it employs and the response it evokes. The only instance in which an ugly painting might be considered
artistically or, at any rate, creatively superior to a beautiful one ... would
be if the latter was much smaller and thereby testified to less effort, on the
part of its creator, than the former.
Then it might be possible for one to judge the respective creative
values of the two paintings chiefly on the strength of the amount of work and skill
apparent there, even if the ugly one - a canvas, say, depicting overturned
dustbins infested by rats - evoked an inferior emotional response to the
beautiful miniature. And the same, I
venture to guess, could be held true of musical compositions with a similar
compositional differential. But in two
works of identical size and length, wherein an approximately equal amount of
work had been put into each, and where one testified to a preoccupation with
ugly materials or subjects while the other, by contrast, bore testimony to a
preoccupation with beautiful materials or subjects, it is only logically
possible to conclude the latter artistically superior to the former, since
beauty is ever qualitatively superior to ugliness.
Yet in an age which, to a significant extent, has been deprived
of the creation of beautiful work because virtually all of the possibilities
relating to it have already been exploited, it is virtually inevitable that a
kind of Nietzschean "revaluation of all values" should also manifest
itself in art theories, and that the leading artists of the day should do their
best to elevate the few scraps of creative possibility left them to an absurdly
pretentious level! If the art propaganda
initiated by progressive artists has had the desired effect in the service of
their free enterprise, i.e. has been generally accepted by the so-called
culture-loving public, then it should be possible for people to conclude the
works of Bacon equal in value to those of Rembrandt, or the works of Stockhausen
equal in value to those of Mozart, and perhaps even superior to them, depending
on the culture-loving public's readiness to accept new criteria without
criticism (its being generally understood that professional artists and critics
know best, and that lay criticism of the new topsy-turvy doctrines is therefore
apt to be superficial!)
Thus when modern arts propaganda is successful, the
progressive degeneration of the Arts is seen as progress, and the concept of
art as novelty, or something that wakes one up to new creative possibilities,
becomes the overriding concern of a majority of artists, who, by classical
standards, are really anti-artists with the sole intention, consciously or
unconsciously, of furthering the rot that set-in with 'the Civilization' at the
beginning of the nineteenth century, and who will doubtless continue to wage
war on everything 'the Culture' evolved until such time as they are unable to
regress any further and a new age begins to dawn on the Western world. It was not Henry Miller who initially took
literature off the 'gold standard', and it is not Miller who has taken it the
furthest remove from there. A
comprehensive history of Western literature and anti-literature, art and
anti-art, sculpture and anti-sculpture, music and anti-music, has still to be
written. It will doubtless be done by
men of a future epoch or civilization!
But let us return to the present and, more specifically, to the
subject of music, which is the branch of the Arts we are most concerned with
here. Simultaneously with the continuous
decline of Western music this century, another music began to arise, not an
African or an American phenomenon but a phenomenon of the black man in North
America - in short, the music of the American Negro. It arose out of the Civil War, when the
newly-emancipated Negro was obliged, in a large number of cases, to consider an
alternative means of earning a living and, if he had musical predilections,
began to acquire and learn how to play whichever musical instrument most took
his fancy or, more probably, came most readily to hand. It developed quite steadily throughout the
remaining years of the nineteenth century, and shortly after the
turn-of-the-century it split into two distinct forms - namely, the Blues of the
solo performer and the Jazz of the group.
Throughout the early decades of the twentieth century Blues and Jazz
continued to develop quite steadily, the one emerging as the music of the
underprivileged Black, the other as the music of the intellectual Black. Thus within a relatively short space of time,
from the end of the Civil War to the beginning of the Second World War, i.e.
within three generations, the American negro had evolved his own equivalents of
white popular and serious music, and had succeeded, moreover, in making the
impact of these forms felt throughout the greater part of the Western
hemisphere. Not only did blues and jazz
elements find their way into white serious music - as, for example, Ravel,
Satie, Gershwin, Copland, et al. - but Blues and Jazz began to acquire general
acceptance among the white populations of the various Western countries as an
alternative or supplement to their own musical forms and, no less importantly,
one to be imitated by white musicians who were interested in spreading the
gospel, so to speak, of black creativity.
Now, since the Second World War, this revolution in music has
conquered even the English and German nations, hitherto among the most
conservative peoples in their attitude towards Negro music. However, it is also true to say that, in the
past fifty or so years, black music has itself undergone a profound
revolution. For not only have the blues
and jazz structures been radically altered in accordance with evolutionary demands,
but Blacks have increasingly felt the impact of the white world upon themselves
and modified their music accordingly.
Thus one finds a situation arising whereby Blacks and Whites play in the
same band and create a type of fusion music from the combination of Rock
(sophisticated pop, adulterated classical, etc.) and Jazz, or, broadly, white
and black musical forms, whereas formerly, in the early decades of the
twentieth century, segregation obliged black musicians to keep to themselves in
the creation of their own specifically jazz music. But if the Blues, initially the music of the
underprivileged Black, has itself undergone a radical transformation in recent
decades and re-emerged in the guises of Soul, Funk, Funk-Soul, etc., the music
of the average rather than necessarily underprivileged Black, then the
transformation of Jazz into Modern Jazz and/or Fusion Music has been just as
radical, and the intellectual and predominantly instrumental Black has
continued, with the aid of Whites, to develop his own essentially serious
music. Hence, broadly speaking, Blues
and Jazz have been transformed into Soul and Modern Jazz - the black
equivalents of Pop and Classical. We are
primarily concerned, in this essay, with serious music, so let us leave the
black pop equivalence out of our investigations and take a more detailed look
at Modern Jazz.
There are, in this sphere of creativity, two distinct
tendencies at large. On the one hand,
there is what could be called the Dionysian tendency towards excess and, on the
other hand, the Apollonian tendency towards refinement. In varying degrees, this duality has always
existed in serious music, whether we are dealing with a symphony by Beethoven
or an extended improvisation by Charlie Parker.
There are the loud and the quiet passages, the quick and the slow, the
heavy and the light, the rough and the smooth, the emotional and the
intellectual, etc. Every extended
serious composition demands this alternation between Dionysian and Apollonian
elements, and even in the classicism of Mozart it is unthinkable that an entire
symphony or concerto could be all quick or all slow, all loud or all
quiet. However, it is also possible for
us to generalize, where different types of music are concerned. For although we are aware that classical
music-proper, viz. Haydn, Mozart, the early Beethoven, is not entirely
Apollonian, we should be entitled to consider it essentially such in contrast
to romanticism, which, especially from the time of Liszt, we should regard as
distinctly Dionysian. In fact, we should
have no hesitation in categorizing everything that stands in opposition to 'the
Culture' in terms of the Dionysian, even though we are aware that Apollonian
qualities may well be in evidence. As
regards Modern Jazz, however, the categorization or generalization towards
which we are led is decidedly the Apollonian, inasmuch as, stemming from a
non-European source, Modern Jazz doesn't signify an attack on 'the Culture' so
much as a new voice which happens to find itself juxtaposed with the
down-dragging musical currents of contemporary Western civilization. Modern Jazz is not the music of 'Faustian'
man, irrespective of the number of 'Faustians' (Westerners, in Spenglerian
parlance) it may enrol in its service, but the music of Afro-Americans, and, as
such, it signifies an upward growth analogous to that of a new culture. It has, to be sure, certain Dionysian
elements within the overall framework of its structures which maintain, as in
other musical forms, a balance with its Apollonian elements. But the equilibrium thereby established need
not prevent us from generalizing it into an Apollonian, upwards-growing
phenomenon which, willy-nilly, stands in stark opposition to the down-dragging
Dionysian phenomenon of contemporary Western music!
I think this factor is of crucial significance in explaining
both the abrupt rise and the immense popularity of black music, whether popular
or serious, within the traditionally white nations, a large number of whose
inhabitants have been enabled to take refuge from the regressive musical trends
of their civilization in the shelter provided by a relatively young, exuberant,
and progressive subculture. In this
context, the finest examples of Modern Jazz could be thought superior, in
musical terms, to the compositions of avant-garde composers, and would provide
a spiritual crutch for the jaded sensibilities of Western man who, by
compromising with the music of a subculture not strictly compatible with 'the
Culture' from which he springs, is enabled to acquire a modicum of defence
against the Dionysian plague which threatens to completely engulf him and to
deprive him, inevitably, of even the faintest intimation of genuine music.
But if the contention implicit in the Apollonian/Dionysian
confrontation of Modern Jazz with the avant-garde ... leads us to the
conclusion that the former is musically superior to the latter, we must
nevertheless endeavour to provide tangible proofs which will lend credibility
to such a conclusion. For it must be
acknowledged that even though Modern Jazz pertains to a growing subculture, it
is unlikely that it has yet grown to full maturity and thereupon fully realized
its dormant potential. The concept of
Jazz as an art form is of comparatively recent origin, stemming, in the main,
from Charlie Parker, whose breathtaking performances on the saxophone in the
nineteen thirties and 'forties fairly revolutionized the then-existing position
of Jazz in the Western world. Now, since
him, many other great musicians, including Bud Powell, John Coltrane, Miles
Davis, Oscar Peterson, and McCoy Tyner have likewise contributed towards the
growth of Jazz as a serious art-form.
Thus the past five decades have witnessed an increase in sophistication
of both techniques and compositions - an aesthetically progressive rather than
regressive development.
Regardless of this progression, however, it has to be admitted
that only a small percentage of the total jazz output of any one decade
actually aspires to the status of fine art, and that, partly in accordance with
the Afro-American predilection for rhythms and melodic reiterations, the bulk
of it remains firmly attached to the fundamentally 'primitive' criteria from
which it initially sprang. For it must
be remembered that, even in an exuberant and progressive context, genius is a product
which cannot be manufactured in bulk - a majority of the musicians currently
engaged in the production of Modern Jazz being anything but men of genius! However that may be, the element of genius
which can be found in this
context is sufficient to lend weight to our contention regarding the musical
superiority of the finest jazz compositions over the Dionysian compositions of
contemporary so-called 'classical' composers.
The criteria upon which we can base our argument are manifold, but it
will suffice if we list only the main ones.
Thus the first and most important consideration in favour of
Jazz is the prevalence of melody, sometimes of a very beautiful nature but
almost invariably, in the better compositions, of an attractive or
aesthetically-satisfying nature. The
second consideration must entail harmony, not cacophony or the dissolution of
harmony into the inharmonious, but genuine diatonic harmony used in a
subordinate and largely supportive role.
The third consideration must bring to our attention the prevalence of
form, sometimes of a simple nature, sometimes of a fairly complex nature, but
generally appertaining to a recognizable pattern of congruous import. These three primary considerations, which
constitute a sine
qua non in the hierarchy of compositional value, we investigated earlier,
and to them were added subordinate considerations, such as instrumentation,
tone, volume, number of instruments, etc.
In like manner, similar subordinate criteria may be applied to Modern
Jazz, so that a composition, for example, with the best possible
instrumentation will usually make for a more successful result than one where
the logic of instrumental values or positions in the overall hierarchy has been
overruled, not to say inverted, in the interests of novelty, change,
socialistic radicalism, etc. Similarly,
the instruments combined together in a jazz ensemble will make for a better or
worse effect depending on the total numbers employed.
Of course, these criteria cannot be taken in a literal classical
sense. For although the number of
instruments employed and the way they are combined appertain to the basic
criteria of classical music in general, great divergences exist in terms of the
particular. Thus, for example, the
number of instruments appropriate to the finest classical music is vastly
different from the number most suited to the best jazz compositions, in which
the use of only a few electric instruments can make for a greater volume of
sound than could be obtained from a large body of acoustic instruments being
played as loudly as possible, and for which it is therefore imperative to use
fewer instruments in order to obtain the most effective or satisfying
results. And even the best combination
of instruments differs in particulars from the classical ideal, to the extent
that we are dealing with a subculture originated by negroes, who were
fundamentally spiritual outsiders in relation to the dualistic integrity of
Spengler's 'Faustian' man. If Jazz attaches
more importance to the use of percussion than does the serious music of the
white man, it should be seen as partly deriving from the fact that drums of
various shapes and sizes constituted such an important role in the music of the
American negro's African ancestors, in consequence of which the urge and
perhaps even the ability to play them was culturally inherited. To be sure, there is nothing in the entire
history of Western music which corresponds to the Negro predilection for
complex rhythms: the percussion parts relating to virtually all orchestral
compositions being frankly elementary when compared with the rhythmic
complexities continuously being utilized by the finest jazz drummers, a
majority of whom are black.
Indeed, one might expect an orchestral percussionist to
criticize Jazz for the - to his way of thinking - overwhelming amount of
percussion relating to it. Though such
criticism would testify to a misunderstanding of the vastly different
importance attached to percussion by the leading black exponents of the
American subculture, whose African ancestry would seem to have endowed them
with their own rather more rhythmically-oriented scale of musical
priorities. For Jazz does not imply an
excessive use of percussion. On the
contrary, it entails an African-derived use of percussion which appertains to a
different and arguably older cultural ideal.
But Jazz is not, of course, an African phenomenon. It is a hybrid resulting from the
amalgamation of black and white cultural trends into a new synthesis. The American Negro was induced to add a
greater consideration for melody to his ingrained store of rhythmic
vitality. Thus he produced Jazz. And so arose a subculture under the nose of
the Western ideal.
To this has been added, in recent years, a still greater
integration of black and white cultural elements, the Afro-American no longer
producing Jazz simply because his forebears had been brought under the white
man's influence, but also influencing and being further influenced by him, so
that, in the course of time, a new music arose which blended the predominantly
black Jazz with the predominantly white Rock.
The fact that there are many white drummers in today's world is ample
testimony to the influence of Jazz on the white man, just as the number of
black keyboardists and guitarists in it testifies to the ubiquitous influence
of Western civilization on Blacks. But
if Jazz and Rock were to some extent already hybrid forms on that and similar
accounts, then the coming together of the two into yet another synthesis has
resulted in an even greater hybrid - namely, that of Fusion Music.
Now this term need not imply that Blacks and Whites invariably
play together in the same band, even if this is the usual implication of
it. The essential thing is that Jazz,
with its emphasis on rhythm, should be further combined with melody and harmony
than would otherwise be the case, if it remained purely jazzy. The improvisatory qualities of the form are
still there in some degree, if generally confined to a more subordinate role,
and, by a like-token, the qualities extracted from Rock, such as vocals,
harmony, persistent melodic motifs, clear-cut form, etc., are likewise 'watered
down' to blend-in with the new compromise commonly known as Fusion Music. Admittedly, the term Modern Jazz has also
been used in this context, though one might argue that it chiefly appertains to
music which has remained predominantly Negro, with a stronger emphasis on
rhythm and improvisation. However,
irrespective of whether or not one chooses to differentiate between these two
tendencies, there nevertheless remains a constant interplay between black and
white elements in this subculture, and I venture to guess that even the most
jazzy of the moderns is, deep down, probably less self-consciously black, in
his intentions, than were his predecessors in the early decades of the
twentieth century.
But it should be evident that if we are to compare recent jazz
trends with the regressive trends of contemporary Western music, and to contend
from such a comparison that the former is musically superior to the latter, we
must base our contention on factors which relate more closely to the essence of
the 'Faustian' soul than to that of the negro soul. In other words, it is necessary to pit a
music with fine melodies and appropriate harmonies against a music which lacks
these essential ingredients of musical value - as most contemporary Western
compositions do - if we're not to get ourselves caught in futile
cross-references between one culture and another.
Now if we are to differentiate between Modern Jazz, as being
predominantly rhythmic, and Fusion Music, as signifying a greater compromise
between rhythm and melody, then it must be the best examples of the fusion form
that we are most entitled to compare with and consider superior to contemporary
Western compositions, rather than those examples of Modern Jazz which adhere to
very different criteria and more or less go their own way in the interests,
primarily, of the American negro soul.
If, as the term suggests, Fusion Music is closer to the Western soul
than the predominantly black Modern Jazz, then it is, above all, from this
closeness that we are enabled to draw comparisons with traditional musical
developments and, in accordance with the musical superiority of that tradition
vis-à-vis the decadence, pit these comparisons against the degenerate sounds of
the avant-garde. Thus it is from the
finest compositions of fusion composers such as Jean-Luc Ponty, Jan Hammer,
John McLaughlin, Chick Corea, Herbie Hancock, Barry Miles, Stanley Clarke, and
George Duke that we should look for the diatonic alternative to the mostly
cacophonous sounds of the Western world's contemporary composers, who have been
compelled, willy-nilly, to drive serious music a still further remove from the
cultural 'gold standard' set by Mozart and Beethoven than did their immediate
predecessors. For it is largely on
account of the fact that the best elements in both the black and white cultures
have joined forces to produce Fusion Music, that the Whites most affected by
this synthesis have not followed the downhill path to atonal cacophony of their
more academic cousins but, on the contrary, have retained a melodic, harmonic,
and diatonic approach to composition commensurate with the rhythmic essence of
Jazz.
But if many of the essential criteria of high-quality
composition are to be found in Fusion Music, how, then, does it compare with
the best traditional manifestations of Western music - with the compositions,
for example, of Mozart and Beethoven? The answer to this question is, I believe,
that it doesn't compare too well. Or,
put more comprehensively, the best of today's Fusion Music is probably
musically superior, note for note, to the worst of the compositions of the
great composers, but by no means superior to their finest compositions. For, although I have listened to an abundant
supply of the most outstanding Fusion Music, from Return to Forever
and The Mahavishnu Orchestra to Weather
Report and The Mothers of Invention, I haven't heard
anything to match or surpass, for sheer beauty and creative profundity, the
finest music of Handel, Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann,
Mendelssohn, Weber, et al., which sprang from the depths of the 'Faustian' soul
when 'the Culture' had not yet degenerated into 'the Civilization' that we are
now witnessing. To be sure, most fusion
composers may utilize more genuinely musical means than their partisan
contemporaries of the avant-garde. But
they are still essentially products of 'the Civilization' and, in many
respects, its materialistic victims, lacking the great spiritual and
intellectual depths to be found in the works of the greatest classical,
classical-romantic, and even romantic composers.
It is only with the twentieth century and, most especially the
latter-half of it, that one can seriously turn one's back on contemporary
Western composition in favour of the, by classical standards, second-rate
achievements of the most outstanding fusion composers, whose music is, I
contend, genuinely superior. (It is
interesting to note that, in Hermann Hesse's classic novel Steppenwolf, Harry
Haller found Jazz in the nineteen twenties "repugnant ... and yet ten
times preferable to all the academic music of the day." - It was not by
pure chance or creative whim on the part of Hesse that Haller's cultural heroes
were Mozart and Goethe, the men who represented 'the Culture' at its prime, or
that he found both Wagner and Brahms striving for redemption in the 'purgatory'
of the 'Magic Theatre' for the crime of "thick orchestration" which,
so we are told, was "a fault of their time.") Naturally, one's taste and temperament may
lead one to prefer Chick Corea or Al DiMeola to Mozart or Beethoven. But, in the light of objective criteria, that
would be no reason for one to seriously consider the music of the former
composers inherently superior to the music of the latter! In musical criticism, there are certainly
more considerations to bear in mind than those relating to one's personal
taste, significant as that may be up to a point.
But even if the finest Fusion Music does not and cannot,
through historical necessity, attain to the standards set by those composers
born when Western civilization was in its spiritual prime and not yet far gone
in materialistic degeneration, we should at least be grateful to its leading
exponents for the work they are doing to keep melody and harmony alive in a
world increasingly beset by atonal cacophony.
Who knows, but humanity may not have heard the last note yet from a
music which, if history is to record, could well transpire to have been the
noblest cultural achievement of the twentieth century?