What Makes a Piece of Music Great? (Part 3)

The final one on this topic, this post probably involves more of my opinions than the first two. Just a warning.

We have looked at how the composer of a piece can affect its reception and fame, as well as how innovation in a piece can give it value and prominence in the world's eyes. I would like to argue a third point in what makes a piece of music great, and that is whether it communicates something and moves a listener in some way. Yes, I realize this is a broad issue, but hang with me here. Think about it for a minute.

What pieces of music do you qualify as being great? Why are they great? I will bet that there is something about each of the works you're thinking of that moves you, that draws you in, keeps your interest. In my opinion a great piece of music communicates a thought or idea in such a way that the listener must respond. A response might be one of nostalgia, sadness, or excitement. Maybe the music moves a listener to deep reflection and thought. Maybe a piece moves someone simply by its virtuosity (of course the performer(s) plays a large role in this). Something about a piece, possibly including the subject or inspiration of a piece, must connect with an audience, or least one listener, for that piece to really be considered great.

If I write a piece that is intended to depict images from my trip to East Asia, and upon listening, you think I took a trip to West Africa, then I would have a hard time calling the piece great. Or if, upon listening, you immediately lose focus and want to take a nap, I would again hesitate to consider this a great piece of music.

I must note that this can not be a sole qualifier in determining whether a piece is great, because it puts so much stock in the listener's ability to understand what is being communicated in the music. A great piece of music might communicate something clearly to a learned listener, moving him in a deep way, while the same piece of music does nothing for another listener.

Also, a piece may take several listenings/viewings before it communicates in such a way as to move a listener. Take for example, the music from the Rite of Spring (Stravinsky), which caused a riot at its premiere in 1913, and is now received as absolutely one of the greatest works in the repertoire. This ballet and its music took some time before they were understood and enjoyed by the public. Now, one could argue that the music of the Rite of Spring did move people, even if to a negative response. True. And this begs the question, could a piece be considered great if it garners widespread negative attention, moving audiences to respond with disdain? It's moving the audience, isn't it? Hmmm.... Well, I'll leave the answer to you.

What do you think? What makes a piece of music great in your opinion?

What makes a piece of music great? (Part 2)

A few weeks back I had the privilege of sharing some great conversation with percussionist Colin Currie, his violinist friend, and my wife. Among the many topics of discussion was the topic of what percussionists value in a piece of music (they must have known I was blogging about this!).

Colin commissions and premieres new percussion works like it's his job. In fact...it IS his job. That's nearly all he does. So one can imagine how much new music he encounters, while also occasionally playing works that have had a few birthdays. As Colin described to me the concerto he was playing that weekend with the Indianapolis Symphony (Rautavaara's Incantations), the violinist friend sensed an implication that percussionists often seemed to value the new in a work. The innovation. The "never been done before".

He asked Colin and me if this was the case, if percussionists value or devalue a work based on whether it pushes beyond the boundaries or not. Of course, two of us cannot answer for the entire world of percussionists, but in my experience, the answer is mostly yes. And Colin, who has literally been around the world many times over, agreed.

As I scan a list of titles in my mind, virtually all pieces that have had a real impact in the percussion repertoire are pieces that have a good deal of new. Rhythmic Caprice (Stevens), for example, was innovative in its use of the shaft of the mallets on the marimba. Many of the sounds of Tan Dun's Water Concerto had never been written into a percussion work, and its newness gave it value (at least in my opinion). I recently saw a premiere of Kevin Bobo's percussion ensemble work, Migraine Sketches, and my opinion of the piece was positively affected by the array of new sounds coming from the ensemble. Percussion works with electronic accompaniment (by Bruce Hamilton, for example) or live electronics are often valued simply because of their innovative ideas.

However, many will agree that novelty and innovation alone do not make a piece great. So in my next post I will attempt to go beyond who composed the piece and whether or not it has been done before to look at what else make a piece of music great.


(Note: I apologize for the 5-week hiatus from updating the blog. WGI and other commitments have moved blogging to the back burner for a time, but I'm back at it -- at least for now!)