In the last several postings I have been discussing music and have presented a theory of musical taste. I shall be modifying this theory but first let me restate its central thesis. Music appreciation is, I believe, comparative: when we encounter a ‘new’ song, we compare it to the songs that we already know, that we have stored in our mental repertory, and evaluate it on that basis. Because everyone has different experiences of music and different preferences, this encounter varies from person to person. For everyone however, a new song combines qualities of the familiar and the strange.
The idea that when we listen to music we listen for the patterns we recognise from other songs might seem odd. The reason why it seems odd is that this process is largely unconscious. Only occasionally do I, for instance, hear echoes of a tune of other tunes– although I do do so from time to time. For me, the second movement of Beethoven’s Concerto No. 8 in C minor sounds very similar to the signature tune in “An American Tail”; Clementi’s Sonata No. 5 closely resembles “A Groovy Kind of Love”. I believe that the musically gifted hear allusions and echoes everywhere in the music that they listen to. One reason why ordinary listeners do not hear such plagiarism is because most melodic constructions are so common that they cannot be associated with any particular song.
If we accept that musical appreciation necessarily involves a comparison between the song we are listening to and the others we know, however, it can resolve some puzzles. For instance, I used to perplexed as to the reason why a composer should choose one key and not another for the song he has written. Why should Mozart’s Fantasia in D Minor be in D Minor and not A minor? The patterns of tonic, subdominant, dominant etc. would be the same. My confusion resulted from a faulty understanding of music: I thought a piece should be understood in isolation from the rest. But if we suppose that we ‘hear’ a piece against a background of other songs, this puzzle is easily resolved. Consider guitar-based music. In this music, the keys most usually chosen are A, E, C and G, probably in that order, because these keys involve chords with open strings. Consequently, when we hear a song like Radiohead’s “Exit Music” which is in B minor, we compare it to songs in other keys. The plaintive and jarring emotional quality of this song can be partially explained by recognising that the Em chord occurs in this song, not as the dominant or tonic, but as the subdominant.
I would now like to turn to another aspect of the theory. In my previous postings I have implied that listeners prefer the familiar to the strange. This is what I should like to modify. I think it more probably that we like a new song when it combines aspects that we are familiar with and like, a lack of aspects that we are familiar with but do not like, and something novel. It is the novel aspect that makes the song sound fresh and original to us; and we prize this quality. ‘Good taste’ is not objective, but I think we can distinguish between conservative and progressive taste. Those with conservative taste prefer songs to be only a little odd; those with progressive taste can tolerate a great deal more eccentricity.
I would like to make another observation on the relationship between the familiar and the novel. Generally, in popular songs, the ‘familiar’ repetitive aspect of music is usually the chord progression and choice of instruments; blues songs, for instance, always utilize the same chord patterns. Novelty occurs through such aspects as vocal quality or rhythm. For instance, a reason that I like “My Oh My” that I neglected to mention in the previous posting is that David Gray’s voice is quite distinctive, having a world-weary rasp that perfectly suits the song. When I hear a John Lennon song and recognise John Lennon’s voice, I immediately like the song, partly because I am conditioned to like Lennon’s music and partly because I compare it (albeit unconsciously) to all the Beatles’ songs I like. Vocal quality is an example of a ‘salient feature’ that one commits to memory and uses in later appraisals of songs.
On a final ‘note’- I have been reading some philosophy of music lately. On one hand, my reading suggests that perhaps I haven’t gone quite deeply enough into why people like music. On the other hand, I noticed that the philosophy of music seldom delves into musical theory. None of the philosophers I’ve read have come close to presenting the ideas I have in this blog. My theory, although not comprehensive, may very well be original. Perhaps I should copywrite it?