Section 1: Introduction - Music #1

We now move into the really great part of this introduction, the part where we get to talk about the subject of my whole blog: music. Now since it is a form of art, music carries much of the same basic description I talked about earlier. Music is anything created to stimulate the intellect, senses, and emotions. It simply does this using the medium of sound, and specifically only stimulates our sense of hearing.

And when you think about it, music really is just sound. I've thought about this a lot in the past. Really, the same thing is happening to you when you hear noisy construction down the road and when you're listening to Camille Saint-Saens' "The Swan". Your eardrum vibrates to moving air. So naturally, this got me thinking: what is the difference between music and regular noise? Because there certainly is one.

I came to the conclusion that music is just noise with a structure. Take the pounding of that hammer in the construction site and give it a definite beat and you basically have a drum. Organize the pitches of the car horns in the busy traffic into patterns and you could make a tune. Music, I concluded, must simply be structured noise.

This is very important. I feel that any piece of music must have these two basic structures: rhythm and key. They are the fundamental differences between music and noise. (Hence the picture up there...) I do think these merit a little bit of discussion.

Rhythm, according to Dictionary.com is "the pattern of regular or irregular pulses caused in music by the occurrence of strong and weak melodic and harmonic beats". I think that's a pretty good way of thinking about it: patterns of accents in a beat. Take a 4/4 rhythm, for example. We get a rhythm like this from taking four evenly spaced beats and accenting the first and third beats. 6/8 would be six evenly spaced beats, with accents on the first and fourth. The list goes on.

Now here's an interesting test: try thinking of any song you know and take out the rhythm. Just imagine the notes without any pattern in the beat at all. It's very hard to do. (Which should tell you something about how music and rhythm are joined.) But if you can manage to think of it, I believe you'll find it doesn't sound very good. It becomes random pitches without any organization of timing, and it's impossible to detect any tune. So music, I think, must have a rhythm in it to be music. It just becomes a bunch of noise without it.

Now key is the part of musical structure I find the most interesting. It's a little more difficult to define, or even really describe. But I think that Dictionary.com did okay on this one, too: "The relationship perceived between all tones in a given unit of music and a single tone or keynote."

I think that's a good way of putting it. Key is the relationship between one note and all the other notes of a piece of music. It's how the notes react together, and the conclusions they naturally lead to when put in relation to one particular note. When we say such-and-such a song is in the "key of C", we mean we figure all the notes around the note "C". And each key is different. The key of C major has certain notes that appear in it naturally, and certain notes that don't. F-sharp minor is a little different. But in each key, the notes follow a logical procession from that starting note. (The actual reason for all this is very technical and a little confusing. I believe it has something to do with things called 'overtones', but I'm not really sure about all that. So I won't talk about it too much.)

Let's stop here and try and apply the same test we did with rhythm, only with key this time. Just try and imagine that same song with a logical rhythm, but without any logical pattern in the notes at all. Just random skips and jumps. Again, the results are less than pleasing. There's no tune, and it's just like a bunch of noise.

So to sum this post up, I think we could say that music is an art form that utilizes sound, structured with rhythm and key, to stir the mind, emotions, and sense of hearing. In my next post, though, I'll go a little further and talk about the other thing that music is, that really has no definition. So be sure and check that out! :)

Section 1: Introduction - Art #2

In the previous post, I stated what I consider to be the three main driving forces behind art: the intellect, the senses, and the emotions. I believe any work of art could be placed into any combination of these categories. And I think a diagram like mine is good, because it allows us to categorize works by their purpose, which is key in appreciating art. However you think of art, whether with my circles or not, it's always good to know why a work of art is. But more on that later.

I had an interesting conversation with my dad a while ago, after he read my last post, where he brought up the question: is there a spiritual side to art?

Now from a Christian standpoint the answer is an obvious yes. Art comes from man's creativity, which in turn springs from our being made in the image of a creative God. God creates, so we like to create. Naturally our creations don't quite compare. God created the universe, and we can't do that. But we do have an inward desire to create nice things.

Here we reach an important point when talking about art. Art, since it ultimately comes from God's creativity, should reflect His creativity. To put it in Biblical terms, since everything God creates is "very good" (based on Genesis 1), what man calls art should also be good. I like what Bob Jones University has inscribed over the door on their Fine Arts Museum: "Think on these things." An appropriate reference to Philippians 4:8. Art should be true, honest, just, pure, lovely, of good report, virtuous, and praise-worthy, because when we create, we reflect what God creates. God never creates anything bad. Only good, wholesome things; things of value. (To give you a little taste of what's to come, I'll do a lot of talking about value when I get to modern art...) I guess one could almost put another circle enclosing my other three, and label it: "Reflecting God's Creation".

Also, to put it frankly, a work of art doesn't necessarily have to have God in it to be good art. Some Christians may get confused here. To go back to a previous example, a hotel room painting is not a bad piece of art. It's purpose is simply to provide something beautiful to look at, which is good, and reflective of many things God created. Schumann's "Traumerei" is beautiful both to the senses and the emotions, and is good art.

This, in turn, brings us to another important point, already stated: art often plays on the emotions. In light of what has been said, we can see that we must be careful of any art which might promote a message that is wrong. This is one reason to watch for the purpose of a particular work, and be sure we are not influenced by it. Tchaikovsky wrote symphonies that he himself said represented fate's overpowering grip on our lives. So we can appreciate the rousing beauty in his pieces, but we have to be careful of its purpose and message. And naturally, some things that some people might consider to be art are simply against the mandates of God's Word, and fall outside even of the larger, all-encompassing circle of reflecting God's creativity and eliminate themselves from being true art.

Well, I guess that concludes my thoughts on art as a whole. To sum it all up for you, I think of art as something created to stimulate the senses, intellect, emotions, or any combination of the three. And I place all this against the backdrop of reflecting of God's incredible creativity. It is an exploration of the talents and creations God has given us, and when used properly, it is uplifting and good. Art is healthy for people because, like I said, humans just like to create things. So I think it certainly merits a discussion such as this.

I encourage you to do some thinking on this subject, and form your own opinions. I think I've hit all the main points and I do believe my opinions do a good job of explaining things, but like I've pointed out, some of this stuff is subjective. What do you think art is? Do you agree with my conclusions?

Section 1: Introduction - Art #1

Art is very difficult to define. Dictionary.com defines it as being "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance". Wikipedia says it's "the process or product of arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions". Webster's Online Dictionary says art is simply "the product of human creativity". I've tried to define art before, and it's very hard to do. All of the above definitions are right in a way, but all say something a little different.

I think it's safe to say that in today's society, people would generally agree that whatever art is, it must be something very high and lofty. We use phrases like: "He's raised such-and-such to an art form!" meaning he's achieved a certain status above the other people who do the same thing. On the other hand, some would call a canvas splattered with paint a masterpiece of art. (Frankly, however, I often think I could splatter my paint better than some of those guys.) So what is it then? Is art something beautiful? Is it something emotional? Something intellectual?

Before I get into my answer, let me say that I'm not sure one could stick an all-encompassing definition on art. I think we can describe art, but I don't know that one definition could ever cover all that it is. So this is my description of art. And looking it over, it does cover a lot of what art is. So I think it's a good description.

Anyway, in answer to my above questions, my description of art says: all three. I think of art like the above picture. There are three intersecting circles each representing a different aspect of art. They intersect, because pieces of art seldom contain just one of these aspects.

The first section is that of intellect. Art is something intellectual. Good art is often thought-provoking. A great mystery novel is artistic in its ability to baffle you and then surprise you with how simple the conclusion was all along; a great painting or photograph makes you wonder about the subjects of the painting; A great speaker can motivate you to make a choice, or a piece of music can stimulate you to study it and find out how all its pieces move and fit together, like one of Bach's fugues. But like I said, few works of art, especially music, would be for the intellectual stimulation alone. Which brings us to circle two: emotions.

Art's emotional purpose is the one most people think of when defining art. And it does cover a great deal of the art we have today. A painting or sculpture can take us to a spot and ask us about the emotions we feel there, or an artist will even splatter paint all over a canvas in order to say what an emotion would actually look like. A speaker's ability to intellectually stimulate his audience comes from his ability to move them emotionally to one side of an argument. And there's no denying that emotions are very often the driving force behind a piece of music. Composers thrive in finding what sounds excite which emotions in people. Just think of all the movie music that aids in heightening the emotion of a film.

Circle three is senses. This is probably the second most common answer people have when defining art. They say art is beautiful. And again, they'd be right. I'll never understand just why the human senses are naturally attracted to certain things. Certain intervals, for example, in music, are to me some of the most beautiful things to listen to. Certain colors are simply attractive to the human eye. However, I would like to put here that art is not necessarily always beautiful. I think it's safer to say that art just plays on the senses. Something artistic can be either beautiful ... or ugly. Generally ugly art would be used to motivate us intellectually to a decision about something. But it is art nonetheless.

These three circles, as I said, are intersecting because very few pieces of art can fit into only one of these circles. Some could. Hotel room paintings could probably be stuck right in the "senses" circle. They're just pretty to look at. It's more difficult to find a work of art that is only in one of the two remaining circles. Maybe a funny limerick could be fit into the "emotions" circle. I'd place most fugues in the crossing section of senses and intellect probably. Although the Toccata and Fugue in D Minor could certainly be played with a lot of emotion, which I say puts it right in the middle of the diagram.

And this is where all the really great art is found: in the middle. The Mona Lisa for example; a beautiful painting that is attractive to the senses, plays on the emotions, and makes you think. You could sit there and think about her smile for as long as you want and she'll never tell you what she's so happy about. Same thing with Edward Hopper's lonely, lovely painting: Nighthawks. (Who are those people and what is the woman thinking about?)

As you can see, any piece of art can pretty much be fit anywhere on my diagram, so I use this when I think of art. And it's all subjective like I said. I might fit a piece where you do not. That's why art is cool. Where would you put your favorite piece of art? :)

My Blog

Welcome to my blog! As the title suggests, this is pretty much a collection of the many thoughts I have had and conclusions I have come to about music. I know that sounds like a broad topic, and it is, really, but that's why I've decided to make this blog: so I can organize all my thoughts, and also share them with whoever wants to read them.

Just so you're aware, this blog will follow a chronological procession. Since music is, as I've said, such a broad topic, I've decided to talk about it from a historical standpoint, starting from a long time ago, and going up to nowadays, tracing music's progression through the ages, and sharing my observations as I go. This means that what I talk about will likely build on itself, and topics that happen come up at one time will probably come up later. So it's best to start at the beginning so you get it all.

I've decided to divide my blog into 5 sections:

Section 1 will be a sort of introductory section, explaining what I think of art and music as a whole,

Section 2 will begin the historical overview of music, starting with the Baroque period and a few of the composers who wrote Baroque music,

Section 3 covers the Classical period and composers from that time,

Section 4 covers the Romantic period, and goes through composers during that time, and

Section 5 will wrap it all up in the Modern, or Contemporary period, and I'll explain what I think about all that.

Each section, as you can see, will cover a few composers. Naturally, it would be impossible to cover them all, so I'm just going to hit the highlights, like Bach and Schumann and Tchaikovsky. If you know composers, I'm sorry if I don't get to your favorites... And these time periods are really broken up just how I happen to break them up. People differ in their opinions of when each of these periods actually was and which composers were in them. This is just how I happened to write it.

I guess you could say this blog will end out something like a 'music appreciation' study. I'll talk about why I like or don't like certain things, why some things are like they are, etc. But keep in mind these are my own thoughts, and most of what I talk about is subjective. This is basically just my way of jotting down my conclusions and letting you read them.

Hopefully this blog will get you interested in music if you're not, and if you are, maybe you'll be encouraged to think about some of these things for yourself and make your own conclusions. At any rate maybe you'll just like to read what I have to say. Enjoy!