Iterations of an interesting question have been milling around in my head for a quite a while and it is my belief that I am not the only one that has pondered this question at one time or another. It¹s a question that has no real or set answer and therefore is open-ended, full of diversions and theories that can relate directly or indirectly to many theories about music, art and human behavior.

The question, or at least one simple way of putting it, is: how do we know if new music, contemporary music, art music of the 2oth and now the 21st century, (what ever we shall call the genre at any given time) is, well, good or bad or of any relevance to our personal and collective sensibilities? In other words, how do we translate what we are listening to into language that we can understand and inform ourselves of how we relate and respond to a musical piece. I know that the terms good and bad are simplistic and don¹t begin to tell the whole story of an experience we might have with music that we are hearing or have heard but for a point of reference they are terms that are basic ideas of our response. The first thing that our unconscious wants to know is if we like or dislike the experience that we are having. There are things far beyond like and dislike that are very much a part of our conscious and unconscious experience and dialogue that are very important too.

Granted, the question and arguments are in a large part intellectual and vast. I asked a friend and colleague this question and told him that I was thinking of writing about it. He said it sounded like quite a large and complex subject and could easily be the subject of a doctoral dissertation but it started an interesting dialogue between us. Still this question about art music (as opposed to pop) and the implications of a relationship with new thought and ideas are as much tempting as they are perplexing.

Some implied questions here are; can we make cohesive sense out of the overall state of contemporary art music? Do we need to? If so, how do we and what are the major pitfalls in attempting this? Why would we want to do such a thing in the first place? Perhaps taking stock of the state of the art is useful, just as knowing trends in thought are, but another interesting underlying question is why are so many people not able to relate to this music at best and at worse are categorically dismissing it? In this question we seem to be asking about the effect, and result but the why question, the cause, is more illusive.

Over a period of time one thing that started to come into focus for me in reading the literature, documentation and CD notes about music written say within the last 40-50 years or so is that the conceptual language of contemporary art music; the language that composers, critics and listeners use to design and describe the music, has grown and changed astoundingly. The lexicon of musical concept, and practice; the way we describe music is ever pushing the limits and now seems as vast as individual and collective imagination. Even if one is paying close attention it is very difficult to stay up on it.

Another area, that we also have to consider firstly, is the practical and conceptual language that we have, or had, grown accustomed to that we now find, that we are in fact, not finding as much. In the world of contemporary music much of the familiar trappings are sometimes all but disappeared and in their place are often more unfamiliar elements. Take the most basic and simple of concepts; melody. Melody is an idea ingrained in our psyches. Of all the elements of music it is the one most of us consciously or unconsciously gravitate toward first. In western culture we have listened to and grown familiar with the melodies of a vast body of work spanning a wide spectrum of period and style starting with ancient Gregorian chants and early polyphonic singing. In looking at the whole of musical lineage and practice, the importance of melody to composers and listeners is a serious consideration. So what then happens when a era comes along in which the concept of melody is morphed? When the nice diatonic tunes which our ears have been trained to pick up on become atonal, or when melody becomes a faint cipher, or when (as we have known it) it is virtually nonexistent in a piece? How does one relate to and make sense of something so different and new. In careful study of this question one would have to at least admit that the answer is: maybe not so easily.

Shall we therefore, by extension, grant the other prime tenets of music; those of tonality, (which is an extension or the result of melody and harmony especially as it relates keys both major and minor), and harmony and rhythm, the same specification, as far as their having a changing presence and role in music, as we have to melody. Interestingly, the element of rhythm is often even the most strikingly changed idea and devise of musical composition and practice of all.