So I was perusing youtube recently trying to find certain pieces of piano music for my class when, in the right portion of the screen where all the related videos are (and in this case was mostly just pictures of sheet music since the videos for these pieces are often just follow-alongs in the music) I spied an unusual piece of sheet music which inspired me to investigate.
I learned that this piece of music was a part of Sylvano Bussotti's piano sonata, "Pour Clavier". I also learned that this piece did absolutely nothing to persuade me to the cause of this form of "modern music", despite the uploader's assurance that it was "a monolith of the modern piano repertoire", even rivaling other piano sonatas "in terms of sheer greatness". After a listen, I posted this comment in review: "In my opinion, the less distinction a piano piece has from, say, a piano left out in the middle of a hailstorm, the less reason it has to exist." In reply, the poster of this video wrote "In my opinion, the more incapable a listener is from differentiating a piece of music from a piano in a hailstorm, the less that person is worth. Period." after which he blocked me from further reply. I was indignant at first... I was upset that this person was getting away with shameless two-fold hypocrisy - one for unambiguously depreciating the value of a human life for no other reason than that person forming an opinion of art different from his own, while at the same time vehemently defending the very ideal of subjective interpretation of art, and two for assuming the position of professional art critic while childishly mocking those who gave negative comments. Previous to this time I had somewhat firmly established a philosophy on art and music, but this experience helped me to refine that philosophy.
One of the comments accepted by the poster of this video brought up a point: "This is not even a matter of pretty or ugly. We're talking
about music here, and thus a way to express what you consider an approach. Way
more an approach than 'ugly' or 'pretty'. Why not 'small', or 'big' ? or 'blue' or 'yellow. Probably
because during all your life some have taught you to measure art with a somewhat
absurd concept of 'pretty' and 'ugly'". Ok, so it's all up to the person what they get out of this music. And sure, you could say that this music is small and yellow. Heck, you could say it's anything. So meaning is derived not from the form of the art but instead from the observer. Or you could take the opposite argument from the very poster of the video - meaning comes straight from the form of art; why else would he criticize my apparently erroneous understanding of the music? If this music is supposed to have form that is so drastically distinct from a piano in a hailstorm, then there is significance in every second of silence, every note played, every line and - dare I say - scribble on the sheet music. Were one note moved a half-step off, would the purpose of the whole piece be frustrated? Anyway, the point is that both sides of the argument demonstrate different facets of art, i.e. both form and interpretation could be argued as important to art and to different degrees. So, as I thought about this, I had the thought that the distinction between true art and everything else was what it suggested to the observer. I suppose even if a work of art is in the form of something we consider normal or natural (i.e. form doesn't matter), the suggested interpretation of it could be significant. For example the poem "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" employs a very natural and familiar setting, but makes suggested interpretations of this setting that indeed have great potential to expand one's life experience. But in the world of non-vocal music, the medium of communication is the instrument, so suggesting something must, as a language must, be understood by the listener in order to mean anything and thus have positive potential. In a way it is akin to telling a joke, in that the context is important for people to understand in order for the full effect to take place. If you create a brand new form of notation that is not intuitive and must be explained to everyone, that's like telling an inside joke - which is fine until you assume that everyone who doesn't get it must be dull or ignorant.
