Appropriate Music in Our Lives

The choirmaster stood at the pearly gates;

His face was worn and old.

He stood before the man of fate

For admission to the fold.

"What have you done," Saint Peter said,

"To gain admission here?"

"I've been a choir master sir," he said,

"For many and many a year."

The pearly gates flew open wide.

Saint Peter touched the bell,

"Come in," he said, "choose your harp."

"You've had your share of hell!"'

Yesterday marked two years since I left the podium of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Lest you think my recitation of that poem means that I do not appreciate the privilege that was mine to conduct that amazing organization for all those years; I say simply that I am among the most blessed of men to have spent the bulk of my working life in such fortuitous circumstances. The satisfaction continues and even grows as I see the organization moving ahead on the foundations that my associates and I attempted to lay for its future. Indeed there is more joy in retrospect than there was in the moment.

I have spoken on this campus several times through the years. Today I'd like to return to a subject I treated some fifteen years ago. There are at least two reasons for indulging in this repetition. First, I assume that outside of a few faculty and staff, none of you were here then. Second, "appropriate music in our lives," continues to be a concern, and my perspective on it has been enlarged through my experience. Unfortunately, the attempt to identify specifically what music is "appropriate" usually deteriorates into a question of what music is "good" and what music is "bad". This game has been played for centuries and to my knowledge no one has given a conclusive answer. I promise you that this is not going to be a tirade against the popular music of our day.

The humorous and sometimes sarcastic columnist Dave Barry made an observation that goes something like this:

In spite of the sad truth in his comment, there is a great deal of room for discussion on this subject. Let's begin by considering what some the great thinkers have said about music.

The Spanish cellist/composer/conductor and musical entrepreneur Pablo Casals was once asked to explain the purpose of music. He answered that if he could do so with words we wouldn't need music, implying that music affects us in ways beyond our left-brained, cerebral capacity to intellectualize about it.

That music has inherent power is demonstrated in this seemingly simple statement by Rudger Clawson, an early twentieth century Utah civic leader and churchman:

Even more explicit are the words of one of America's great composer/teachers, Dr. Howard Hanson, who for many years was the director of the prestigious Eastman School of Music:

Since music apparently has potential for both good and evil, how can the average person determine whether specific music is appropriate? James M. Whistler, while speaking of the arts in general, observed that:

Well then, here we are. I, by virtue of my education, experience and supposed wisdom should probably be in a better position than most of you to determine what music is appropriate for life, but both Dave Barry and James Whistler raise questions not only about my ability, but also about my right to make judgments for you. At the same time Howard Hanson warns that the amorphis elements of this thing we call music are so powerful that they can be either highly beneficial or terribly dangerous. The only conclusion I can draw is that the evaluation of music's appropriateness is an individual experience and must be approached with sincerity and honesty.

Evaluation implies exposure-exposure to lots of music of different genres and styles. Some fundamentalist thinkers find danger in exposure, but I can't conceive of evaluation without at least minimal exposure to the vast amount of music available in today's world. I believe exposure is healthy, if well managed and thoughtful. In fact it is virtually impossible to escape exposure to at least some music because of radios, televisions, stereos, grocery stores, restaurants and elevators-and all this without any overt attempt to participate in concert halls or other places where music is formalized. It is nearly impossible to avoid exposure! If we can't avoid, or choose not to avoid exposure to music, we must for our own protection establish a matrix for its conscious and unconscious inclusion in our lives. One might think of this as a filtering system. And this, for the most part, is an individual process.

Intellectually, depending on ones background, questions like these might be asked:

How many of you feel capable of prosecuting this kind of evaluation? Let's be honest! Few of us intellectualize this much about the music to which we are exposed. Usually we are either oblivious to it or we're reacting at an almost subconscious level.

One influential music manual has implied that music should be evaluated in terms of the circumstances surrounding its performance and the nature of the audience for which it is intended. It advises that we should remember that propriety is always relative to the particular occasion and the particular people to whom the music is being presented. The question, then, is not simply a matter of musical genre, that is, sacred vs. secular, classical vs. jazz, or folk vs. rock. There are good and bad elements in all of these genres. Some modern classical music can be just as offensive as a piece of hedonistic hip-hop, especially if it has a program that is easily identified with something that is generally controversial. As a result one should be concerned not only with the quality of the music itself, but also with the appropriateness of the music to the time, the place and the circumstance. This has everything to do with its affect on the listener. What does the context in which the music is presented cause us to feel, to think, or to do? Here are two very contrasting examples of this phenomenon:
In 1913 the musical climate of the city of Paris was torn by a serious artistic schism. For several decades a group of French composers had attempted to de-emphasize the traditional major and minor harmonies that had been the backbone of music for some 200 years. Conflicting opinions about new forms and styles generated lively debates among musicians, in learned journals, in the public press, and even within audiences. The introduction of a new Russian ballet by Diaghilev set to the music of Igor Stravinsky resulted in one of the most scandalous opening nights in the history of modern music. The combination of Stravinsky's avant guard music and the subjects portrayed in the dancing assaulted traditional sensibilities so violently that people screamed, hooted and slapped at each other. A near riot ensued. In fact considerable damage was done to the theater and to some of its occupants. The event was considered by many in the audience as an attempt to destroy the art of music. This avant garde music and dance, challenging for even the most forward looking consumers of that day, was injected into an already divisive philosophical arena causing it to explode. Today "the rite of spring" is considered one of the masterpieces of so-called modern music and is often heard in orchestra concerts or in dance theaters around the world. In 1913 the music was wrong for that time and that place. It was simply out of context, like strawberry pie as an entree or filet mignon as dessert. Both filet and pie are delicious foods if the context is right.

Here is another context. Some twenty years ago I programmed a little piece of Scottish folk music for the broadcast of the Tabernacle Choir. The song "Loch Lomond" is much beloved by Scotsman, but for reasons I didn't then fully understand. A few days after our performance a Scottish friend called to tell me this story:

A ninety-five year old Scotsman had lain gravely ill for several days from the effects of old age. He awoke unexpectedly one morning to the surprise of family members who were attending him. Scarcely able to speak, he asked what day it was. When he learned it was Sunday, he asked what time it was. When told it was almost nine-thirty, he smiled and said, "Oh good! I haven't missed the Tabernacle Choir broadcast". The television was turned on and he listened intently to "music and the spoken word". Near the end of the program the choir began to sing "Loch Lomond". Now that's the context of this performance, but you also need the context of the song itself to appreciate its appropriateness. The song tells of two Scotsmen who are imprisoned in England. One is to be released the next morning, but the other is sentenced to die for treason against the crown. Traditional folklore contends that if a Scotsman dies while away from his homeland, his soul returns to Scotland through the underworld. In anticipation of their parting the man who is to die sings to his friend, "Ye'll take the high road and I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland afore ye". When the choir sang those words on that particular morning, at that particular time in the life of an aging Scotsman, the old man used the last of his waning strength to raise himself up on one elbow to sing vigorously with the choir, "and ye'll take the high road and I'll take the low road, and I'll be in Scotland afore ye". Then he lay down, went to sleep and was soon gone from this life.

Do you see the importance of the context here? What may have otherwise just been the performance of a pretty little song became a poignant moment in time in the lives of an entire family, simply because the moment and the medium came together to create a meaningful context. In both these examples, "the rite of spring" and "Loch Lomond", the music had less to do with the appropriateness of the outcome than did the circumstances that created context.

Now we must ask the question, why does context make such a difference to the appropriateness of a given piece, kind or style of music? The answer is rather complex because we as human beings are complex organisms. To understand the affect of music on this organism is to understand something about the nature of man as a species. Philosophers and theologians have devised many theories. I'll outline just five of the most obvious. As I discuss them be aware that these are the "Reader's Digest" abridged versions of otherwise very complex models that attempt to explain the human condition. Be aware, also, that I use the term "man" generically to include both male and female.

One school of thought contends that man is a bad-active being. This means that man by nature goes about doing bad things unless something in his environment becomes active to change him.

The opposite of this theory is that man is good-active; that he will do only good things unless acted upon to do otherwise.

Then there are those who propose that man is by nature instinctive; instinctively impelled to act on his environment in any way that seems appropriate to the occasion.

The Tabula Rasa or neutral theory proposes that man comes as a clean slate to be written upon, making him a total product of environment.

The most commonly accepted theories propose that man is a dual being comprised of mind and body. Some interpret the mind in this duality as the metaphysical or theological spirit that has the power to exercise control over the body as it reacts to its environment. Others say that the mind and body work in opposition, vying for control.

Whichever theory one accepts leads to the realization that environment plays an important role in human behavior. This assumption leads to another important question. Through what mechanisms do the myriad musical stimuli that exist in today's world affect us?

I believe that the human organism accepts music on at least four levels of consciousness. Further, I suggest that you might consider these levels as tools for choosing appropriate music for your lives.

First, the physical, visceral or gut level where the organs of the body simply react to music in the same way an amoeba reacts to a chemical introduced into its environment. This is a simple physical reaction that is largely controlled by basic instinct. In human terms it might be characterized as a state of abandon with only the most fundamental elements of the environment exercising any influence on the resulting behavior. For example, consider the jerky, uncoordinated movements of a person under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If one attempts to place a value on this level of reaction, it might be considered hedonistic and self-serving. In an appropriate context, however, physical reaction may be as benign as a toe tapping unconsciously to the rhythm of a march.

Second is the emotional level where we begin to incorporate the mind so that the body responds with both physical and emotional reactions. Much has been written in recent years of the heart as a sentient or feeling organ in addition to its instinctive physiological functions. This implies that humans are by their physical nature "feelingful" beings that can react either positively or negatively.

Next is the third or intellectual level where our full consciousness begins to analyze the stimulus and exercise some control over our emotional reaction to it. Our cerebral evaluation of the stimulus provides logical information about how to handle our emotional reaction to it.

The fourth and final level is what I refer to as the spiritual level where all the previous levels are synthesized. It is here, when a stimulus has been subjected to our physical, our emotional, and our intellectual powers that we subject it to one final scrutiny. It is here that our value systems come into play to mitigate the imbalances, the instinctive reactions and the misconceptions we may have about the input. It is here that we manage the stimulus with all the tools we have to determine its worth. In my opinion this is the level where we are not only safest, but also where we derive the most benefit from the stimulus.

Now, let's bring all this back to our subject, "appropriate music in our lives". I'd like to offer an opinion. Remember this is only an opinion, but it is based on decades of thought and experience. Music may be considered to be "bad" music when its inherent quality and/or the context of its performance forces one to absorb it at too low a level, that is, only viscerally or emotionally. Music may become more appropriate or move toward being "good" when we as listeners subject it to scrutiny beyond the physical and emotional levels to include our intellectual and spiritual powers. Music becomes "appropriate to our lives" whey we discriminate between what the music is doing for us as opposed to what it is doing to us. What does it cause us to think? What does it make us feel? What kind of behavior does it encourage? If the answers to these questions are negative then the music is not appropriate. If one is honest about putting the music to which he or she listens through the filters of ones personal value system, a wonderful leveling takes place. By making the issue personal instead of hiding it behind imposed standards of social or artistic judgment, it becomes a much less argumentative issue. But it's only fair to point out that the personal approach works only if the individual is honest about the values he or she has espoused, considers the contexts, and admits that sometimes one needs a little outside input to make proper judgments.

One more comment about context. Have you ever considered what the music you are enjoying is doing to others? Are you interfering with the aesthetic space of a roommate? Are your parents distraught with the decibel level, the distortion, or the subject matter your music is flooding into their home, into their conscious space, into their decision making processes? Perhaps you should give this some thought before you bless the atmosphere with your choice of sonic serenity.

Granted, evaluating music is not an easy exercise. It requires a commitment of physical, mental and spiritual energy. It requires the desire to find appropriate contexts. It may even require, heaven forbid, a little more thought and education if we, and those for whom we have responsibility, are to comprehend what music is really all about. Music has some heretofore unknown and astonishing dimensions that are currently being explored through the social and natural sciences. Accordingly, when we chose "appropriate music " for our lives, I believe we must remember that music is not just entertainment, but a life force that can enrich or degrade the quality of our lives in both dramatic and subtle ways. It behooves us to give music more than physical, visceral or animalistic attention.

Let's get out of the business of debating what is good or bad music. It's a dead-end street. Rather let's look for the music that is good for our souls, whether we like it immediately or not. And let's learn to evaluate whether music is being heard in an appropriate context.
In conclusion, let's revisit Dave Barry's quote with a slight change in his rather brittle perspective: