Interestingly, the order of those two lines was reversed in the originally-published aphorism (I am using the Latin translation, because I know no Greek, except "papoútsia" which means "shoes;" I had to look this up when my shoes were stolen on an overnight train in Greece 40 years ago… end of digression):
| Aphorism 1, Section 1, Hippocrates | |
|---|---|
| Vita brevis, ars longa, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile. |
Life is short, Art is long, Opportunity is fleeting, Experimentation is perilous, (good) Judgement is difficult. |
What does it mean?
- Well, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, it apparently does not mean what most of us think it means. According to one source, it means that "it takes a long time to acquire and perfect one's expertise (in, say, medicine) and one has but a short time in which to do it". The Wikipedia entry suggests that it "most commonly it refers to how time limits our accomplishments in life."
- The meaning that I suspect most people take from this aphorism is, "life is short, art eternal." •Today's post will explore both meanings, as they apply to music.
1. The clock is ticking.
We tend to have sporadic awareness of our impending demise; we know it's going to happen, but we just don't usually know when. The clock is indeed ticking for us all, which can be a little unsettling if you think about it too much. This is presumably why most of us do not think about it very much, even if we have experienced the death of a loved one. The first meaning above is not a suggestion that we obsess over our impending demise; quite the opposite, in fact!Here is my composer-specific take-away from meaning #1: It takes a long time for a composer to develop a mastery of our craft, and, given that life has a finite time limit, it would be good to put whatever time we have to good use mastering these skills. Compose lots of music! Try to make each piece better than the previous one!
If Schubert (dead at 31) and Mozart (dead at 35) had been more casual about their desire to be great composers, they would not have achieved greatness. Ditto for Bizet (age 37), Gershwin (age 38), Chopin (age 39), and Mussorgsky (age 41).
The clock is ticking… Get busy!
2. Art is eternal. Or is it?
Some art has had impressive lasting power, sustained over hundreds or oven thousands of years. That's very cool!Then there's music…
Unlike visual art or architecture, which produced works capable of lasting a long time, music was not notated for most of human history. The Seikilos epitaph is the oldest surviving complete, notated musical composition from anywhere in the world. It is thought to date from the first century AD, making it about 2,000 years old. That means there is no record of notated music for the previous 198,000 years of human existence on this planet.
For how many of the roughly 200,000 years of human existence have our ancestors been making music? To borrow a common "click-bait" phrase, the answer may surprise you! Archeologists have discovered ancient flutes from approximately 43,000 years ago, which suggests that (a) music was being made 43,000 years ago, and (b) it was probably being made before that as well, since the first forms of musical expression probably involved the human voice and percussion instruments.
There is no record of the actual music made for most of human history, for at least one very simple reason: Then, as now in most cases, music was ephemeral; it was there when people played it, and not there when they didn't; there appears to have been no desire to make it "eternal" (or at least, "long lasting") by writing it down, until the Seikilos epitaph.
Not only that, but, to my knowledge, the Seikilos epitaph did not signal a vanguard in the new practice of notating music; the following 1,000 years or so produced very little notated music. According to Wikipedia, the founder of what is now considered the standard music stave was Guido d'Arezzo, an Italian Benedictine monk who lived from about 991 until after 1033.
In the centuries following Guido d'Arezzo's life, notation became more commonplace, especially so when music became more complex, because the increasing complexity required a system of notation in order to be performed accurately.
Nowadays, despite the1,000+ year history of notated music, most of the "old" music that is performed or recorded was written since the late renaissance, meaning it comes from the past 500 (or so) years.
So, while it is entirely possible that some of the musical art from the recent past will be long-lasting, the inherently-ephemeral nature of music is such that most music, even in this day of easy digital recording, will only last for as long as we retain its memory in our minds, because most music is not recorded. I play guitar practically every day, but I doubt that I have recorded more than about 100 minutes of guitar music over 45 years of playing guitar.
Despite its essentially-temporary nature, however, it is undeniable that some music has lasted an impressively-long time, possibly because it is thought to represent the pinnacle of musical artistic expression, or possibly because a lot of people just like it (Vivaldi: 4 Seasons; Pachelbel: Canon in D); that gives all composers something to aspire to, should they wish to do so.
And even if our music does not make it into the pantheon of musical greatness, there is a realistic chance that at least some of it will last longer than we will, provided we unceasingly strive to write better music.
Anyway, tempus fugit! I need to get back to the piece I'm working on…
Postscript: Experimentation is Perilous?
Hippocrates was a doctor, so when he called experimentation "dangerous," he probably meant that experimenting on a patient could harm that patient. If you are an air-traffic controller, experimenting on the job could have disastrous results; ditto for a military strategist, or an operator of a nuclear power plant.If you are a composer, however, there is no equivalent worst-case scenario that results from a failed musical experiment. Some may not like your experiment, or performers may call it unplayable, but, generally speaking, people are not physically harmed by compositional experimentation. I would suggest that some experimentation, as in trying new things, is essential for an artist.
Posts
27 comments:
It is definitely easiest to take the quote from Hippocrates as meaning "our lives are short, but art is eternal." That is what I got from it, and I do think there is some truth to it especially in these modern times of recordings. While it's possible things will be forgotten completely, I can't see them being wiped from history, but who knows?? We won't care much, because, you know, we will be dead. Although it is nothing on the grand scheme of human history, I still find it quite incredible that I can go to the movie theatre and see a live stream performance from the MET, performing a piece written in 1787 (Don Giovanni). That's over 200 years ago! Isn't that kind of strange and miraculous??
By the way, Mozart wrote it when he was 30 or 31. So to go along with your point, I have a decade to write a Don Giovanni of my own, hahaha... we'll see about that.
When Hippocrates was alive, a lot of people died a lot younger than they do today. As a physician, he would have seen a lot of people die and my guess is that "life is short" might have had a more pressing meaning without the vaccinations, antibiotics, etcetera that we have now to prevent people from dying from certain illnesses.
Another idea on the point of thinking about the steady ticking of time until our inevitable demise is something I read in a blog post about procrastination last week: your life in weeks. It is described at http://waitbutwhy.com/2014/05/life-weeks.html and you can generate one for your own life at http://count.life/. The basic idea is that it generates one box a week for the number of years that it calculates is your life expectancy, and then it colours in all of the weeks you still have to use. It's a very visual way of seeing approximately how far you are through your life, and how limited it is. Not that you will drop dead on the day that is your life expectancy, death could occur much earlier or significantly later, but it gives a general approximation.
Moving on from the death topic, and on to "art is long." I find that a strange statement and am not completely sure what to make of it, but I think the first meaning in this blog post is the most likely. Trying to think about the context of Hippcrates' day, it is hard to imagine what he would have been thinking. If it had been music specifically that he was referring to, I would be more confident in thinking that because music wasn't recorded in the way that it has been for the past couple hundred years, and thus the idea that it is eternal is harder to grasp.
That is, unless you think of it as being the art form that is eternal, in that it isn't specific pieces of art that last forever but the concepts and ideas of art. However, in that context the idea of life is also eternal, for although people die their offspring survive to have their own offspring and life continues. Also, life is necessary for art.
I take the entire passage to be connected to the first statement, that life is short. Art is long, and opportunity is fleeting, so you should use your life wisely and take your opportunities well so that you can progress towards mastery of your art. Especially if you think in vein of pursuing multiple arts, there is a very long process to go through in order to become a master artist.
In terms of experimentation is perilous and judgement is difficult, I think that in the context of a short life and a long art, experimentation in the arts could be dangerous because you could waste valuable time on something that does not help you reach your goal and it might be hard to judge what would be good experimentation (which would help your pursuit) or what would be bad experimentation (not useful). I don't think that this means that we shouldn't experiment, it is often possible to learn from mistakes and I think that since that all your risking is time and potentially some of those fleeting opportunities, the perilousness is not too serious (before modern technology, it could also mean using up expensive materials). Also, the experimentation could lead to finding short cuts and new opportunities!
However, that is ignoring the fact that the Hippocrates Oath was an oath taken by physicians, and the art of mending sick and injured people IS much different then the art of creating music or sculpture with the perilousness of working with people's lives . . .
On that note you can say that performers,composers and teachers have a very active and important role at preserving music. Especially nowadays, with technology evolving so fast and things becoming obsolete. Like since when do they sell laptops with no CD drive!!!! Anyways, I’m just saying we can’t only depend on the hard copies of our music to survive. I think the music and composers we mentioned above made a huge impact on people, which is why their music is ephemeral. If people didn’t care for the art it would never be performed or heard and perhaps quickly forgotten. I think it’s safe to say that as performers, teachers, composers we are essentially on the front-lines to continue to past down new and old music to younger generations. Very interesting read to put things into perspective!
Very interesting to read about the entire historical perspective of music in this way. I for one definitely have not put much thought into the mediums in which music has existed in the past, and how in this day and age we have access to the most forms of experiencing music than ever before. Although music practicioners of the past may not have been documenting music onto paper, this doesn't necessarily mean that there was no desire to do so until the Seikilos Epitaph, yet may signify that the notion of writing down music in an organized way was perhaps irrelevant to them or simply not thought of.
It is also extremely eye-opening to think about the number of very famous composers who died at (relative to present time) such a young age, as well as the amount of music which is made which is never documented simply because it is mindless messing around or what have you. With this in mind, it in a way encourages me to visually or audibly document everything I play or think of, no matter how unconventional or mindless and/or terrible the musical idea my seem. I think that striving to go above and beyond to document music in various ways would definitely benefit in supporting the eternalness of music and art.
The thought of me not lasting forever has become more and more prominent in my work. Particularly, unrelated to music, this summer. I built some things this summer that I hope will last longer than I do. I hope to have left an impression after I am gone whether it's a musical one or not. In regards to music, I wholeheartedly agree that a good way to try to achieve "immunity" is to make something that that stands out. Of course, some are great simply for being great but many of the great composers are known for their differences, rather than their similarities, from the composers that came before them.
It is good to write as much as you can, because you don't know when your life will end, but I don't think it's really good to rush things, either. I often find myself thinking that I am "behind" in composition because of what other composers had accomplished by the time they were my age. Shostakovich, for example, had written his first symphony by the age of 19. Usually, I find this sort of discouraging and end up becoming less motivated to write music. It is more helpful for me to avoid comparing myself to other composers, especially very famous ones. Instead I just try to make each piece I write better than the last. As for experimentation, I think it is definitely helpful to try new ideas. I found that when I first tried to write something atonal, just using the harmonies I thought were interesting instead of using a scale, it was very liberating. I will certainly continue to experiment like this in the future.
I have never really thought about this while writing any of my music, and I wish I had. It is very true that life is short, but art lasts forever. This is a great thought to have while writing because it will have an impact on how you write, hopefully writing to create a lasting impression. Especially with all our technology today, music can last such a long time, and to have something that will continue to remind people of what kind of composer you were after your gone, in my opinion is a gift. I agree with Kristin's comment to try and make every piece you write better than your last. As for experimentation, I believe it is crucial for a musician because there are so many ways to express ourselves, and without trying different ways of experimenting, we will not know how we express ourselves best.
Having read this and after thingking for a while, I have to agree that although we might like to think about art being eternal, it really is not. As Heraclitus, a greek philosopher who lived at the same time of Hippocrates, "one cannot step in to the same river twice". Everything is evovlving and changing. This can easily be seen with historical music. For until recently (within the last fifty years or so) people had lost performance practices of former eras because performance practices evolved over time. People used to play Bach like they would play Brahms. Is a performance of Bach in the style of Brahms really a performance of Bach? Is a historically informed performance of Bach really a performance of Bach? Because of the lack of recordings. Its really impossible to say. So although we have Bach musical compositions, We dont have his intentions. Considering that intentioms make up a large part of composition from the Baroque era, because composers often left out a lot of markings and instructions, and that those intentions are mostly lost, can we really say that the music that Bach wrote is eternal?
I take from this a universal idea that we are all constant learners. This spreads across all professions, not only pertaining to fine arts. We are always changing ways in which we approach things based on social and technological evolution.
However, in regards to art, or even more specifically, music, we must ask ourselves, "why do we play or write music?" Sure, there's an abundance of ways to answer the question, but there is an inherent and unwavering quality within all the answers, and those who are answering may not even realize it's there. We are all telling a story. Storytelling is at the core of human existence, and we can't escape it. With that being at the heart, I feel music, or art, is forever lasting. As long as someone is there to pass along the story, it will never end. If all evidence of Beethoven's life, or work suddenly ceased to exist, his music is still eternal, because we are carrying his story. If some catastrophic event nearly obliterates human existence, someone will be there, suddenly humming a familiar melody, continuing to pass along the story. And, it's not just Beethoven's, it's everyone that Beethoven was ever inspired by or heard, and whoever they were inspired by, and so on. It's a connective being, which has a life of it's own. Music is not something that can be owned by anyone, or any group, or any era.
In regards to the quote, "Ars Longa, Vita Brevis," I take it as a hint to immortality. Life is short, but art is indefinite, and without realizing, we are striving for immortality through our creations. Similar to how parents are immortalized through their children. The values they bestow upon them, the stories they tell, the art they show, which then continues the legacy of art itself and the immortalization of the artist, it is all passed down to them, and so on. This does not mean we must reach a mass audience with the work we make. It is passed through our family and friends, which in turn gets passed along by them.
Anyway, to end this rant, and I do apologize if I strayed the course of the topic, but I find these things fascinating, because there's no real answer. The best thing is to appreciate art, not try to control it, and though life may be short, a story can last for centuries.
I think the life of a piece of art depends on the capacity of storing/passing down it has and value it holds for someone or a group of people. I'm sure many composers would like their music and their name to go down in history and never to be forgotten, but the value and the taste has to be there within the society it's fed to. As a people's values and more specifically musical values change over time, favoured music genres/sounds/textures will change as well. Music tastes are always changing and it is never the same around the world. It's important to keep our minds and ears open to new ideas, and looking back on older music will keep those ideas alive too. Seikilos epitaph has the title of being the first piece to be musically notated, so it is stored as historically important and that is the significant reason it is played and listened to today. That is the value it has for our current society and will be there for everyone ahead, because the title it has and its significance will not change. There are many cases like this and cases like these where we can store the history and it has the significant title, it will help preserve the life of a piece of art.
Being present at a performance was often required to experience music in history. With music notation music became more long lasting and concrete (in what the original composer wanted). Over the last one hundred years with recording technology music is now more accessible than ever. All of that to say, music is becoming more concrete and long lasting than in the past. Thinking about how the significant changes in the mediums of music (music is experienced differently today than in the past) will effect the future of music is exciting.
Making something that will out live you as a composer is very appealing and it is becoming easier and easier to capture a specific moment (performed just the way a composer intend) with the current technological developments.
Certainly a great read if you require a push to hurry up and finish your composition! I agreed with many points, notably the one that explained how everyone's clock is ticking. I recently experienced family tragedy where an extremely close family member of mine passed away for no apparent reason. This really made me think about my own mortality. There are so many things I have left to do (including finishing my composition course haha)! The fact that so many great composers died young without knowing when their ultimate demise was and still created extremely impressive works motivates me to do everything to the best of my abilities. Like Andy Dufresne said in "The Shawshank Redemption", "get busy living or get busy dying.'" As well, I agree that composers should experiment. There is no real tragic consequence to a failed piece, it's just someone's opinion of you that might change. Just words. No one will physically be affected. So why not? Take the leap. Music is a learning process, you can mess up but then learn from your mistakes and become a better musician as a result because you know what to do and what to avoid.
I find the idea of music being different from other art forms in its ephemeral nature super interesting. Music is fleeting, and because of this we don't know what very ancient music sounded like. We have a guess as to what the music of Perotin and his contemporaries sounded like, and an even better guess as to what the music of Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart sounded like. However since none of us were there, it is impossible to know for certain if we can recreate compositions we weren't alive to experience ourselves. We know for certain that the instruments worked differently then our modern instruments, and that tuning systems were different. These factors as well as the fact of amplification technology not existing means that we know modern orchestras put off significantly different performances than the musicians great past composers were writing for.
In that sense, it is presumptuous to assume that "art is long lasting". In the case of live music, it is and art form that is constantly evolving to suit the tastes of the concert-going public.
Many listeners of a musical artist will only ever hear their recordings, making their recordings an integral part of their artistic identity. While most music is ephemeral, the few recordings that artists do create represent a completed artistic idea just as much as a live performance does. This can be examined in the same way as a piece of physical art as it is transfixed in a medium where it can be re-experienced many times in the same state. In the future we will have a much more expansive and detailed history of contemporary music, allowing historians and musicologists to examine the music of our time in the same way that they would examine the paintings or the sculptures of our time. I don’t dispute the idea that composers should attempt to achieve as much as they can in the time that they have. I do believe, however, that recordings will allow the lifespan of these musical achievements (especially one that exhibits some of the qualities listed later on) to increase exponentially. I believe there is now a recorded music canon (of much greater scope and variety) that mirrors the canon of classical music we currently have. The types of music that will make it into this canon are much the same as the pieces that are currently in the classical music canon. Works that represent the peak of a specific genre, are groundbreaking, works that evoke strong emotions, encapsulate a mood/satisfy a craving, were the inspiration for many works, or that represent a specific identity or culture. If a composer manages to fit some of these specifications, it will likely enter the musical canon for many years to come. An example of this would be the Beatles. If the Beatles’ music was not recorded, would they be as culturally significant and omnipresent in western culture as they currently are? Surely, they would have made a mark and created some incredible music, but much of what they created would be wildly different if not for experimentation with recording techniques, the insight of recording engineers, and the support from massive record sales allowing them the financial security to explore new territory. Recording allowed them to achieve major international success, to have their albums heard in the same state they intended long after their creation and allowed them to remain a part of culture. Their success was hugely based on their cultural context, their blending of different sounds from various genres, their continued experimentation which allowed them to flourish and continually push boundaries among many other things. The Beatles show how recorded music has fundamentally changed the way that artists can flourish, create, and enter into the history of music. While context will inevitably change, recordings will allow the creation of culturally significant artists to be experienced in a state that they likely intended, far into the future.
I really liked reading this post. Its not just applicable to composition, but to life as well. As someone who gets lost in their own thoughts a lot, I spend a great amount of time thinking about the finite amount of time I have left, and how I should make the most of it. I knew pursuing music professionally for my education wouldn’t make for the easiest career path. But despite this, I chose music because I thought it would be the most exciting and interesting choice for me. I love being a musician, and working with art in the form of composition. I love that I get to express myself creatively in my education, something I can’t see myself doing in many other degrees (or at least not in the same capacity). Learning more about something that I love each and every day is an enjoyable and productive way to spend my life.
It’s also interesting to think that, by being a musician and composer, I could end up creating something that outlives me. I could create music that people listen to years after I’m gone, and even have an impact on their lives through my music. This is such an inspiring thought to me. If one of the main goals in life is to leave some kind of mark on the world, then I think music is a pretty effective way to do just that.
That is something I often think about whenever I make anything in anything in any context really. Whether it's just a video of a baby playing bongos or composing a piece for a full ensemble there is a solid chance that it will outlive me. For a lot of it, there being at least a year where I am dead and gone but the pieces or video or anything will be continued to be watched or played or listened to is something that definitely adds pressure to anything that you do. Although there is always the nice and easy nihilistic way to look at it that when your dead nothing will really matter on this mortal plane anyway. So the music outliving you kind of becomes irrelevant.
It is interesting to think about the ephemeral nature of music compared to other art forms, especially architecture. Architecture is so physical, whereas music is more intangible. There are physical structures that are thousands of years older than the oldest notated musical composition. Most of the oldest architectural structures that we know about still exist, whereas the Seikilos epitaph is one of the only surviving examples of music from thousands of years ago.
This is a really interesting post.
I would have interpreted "art is long, life is short" to mean the second thing you said - that life is short but art is eternal - but the first idea is even more intriguing to me. I am someone who would much prefer to be a jack of all trades and a master of none, if I’m being honest, so I was thinking about this in a bit of a different way. Your main goal is becoming a master at composition. I do not have this desire about anything, so all I could think about was that I want to learn about so many different things but life is so short. I would like to learn so many hobbies and learn so many facts but I do not have time so I just learn what I can and don’t stress too much about it.
Going into the second point - since I have no desire to master anything, I feel much more willing to experiment. I do not care if my art is eternal because the usefulness of my art ceases when I am done creating it. I am not telling the story of humanity or anything, I am finger painting on a dollar store canvas and it’s all good.
I do agree the experimentation is essential in creative processes - if we didn't experiment with ideas, how would we really create anything new/different? If we did the same thing repeatedly, I don't think we would have come very far in where we are today musically. This being said, of course we build on past ideas to create new, expanded versions of previous thoughts, but I suppose it then becomes a debate of if that is really new or not since it's a variation of something old (I can see both perspectives, but I would argue that in its own context, recycling a variation will make it new despite reused structures).
It's really cool to think about how innate music has become within us and across cultures because it is so old. It's interesting to see how the concept/social context of music changes too - using Celtic/Gaelic culture as an example, a lot of traditional songs have really ancient roots, since music was used to serve the purpose of cultural knowledge education (Seanchas, or oral tradition in Gaelic). That fact that that concept associated with music has survived for this long shows how it might not necessarily be the music that's of importance but the meaning associated to it and how it is used to serve a communicative function. So in beginning to write the music down, we see a change in perception of what is considered important in culture and eventually music. In the perspectives of the composers listed like Mozart, it's definitely safe to say the difference in mortality rates really effected social perceptions around life and creating things; most children would be working and seen as adults because life expectancy was a lot less than what we see today. Since we have the opportunity of time (though we definitely don't know how much time we have), depending on what you value in your music, there might be less urgency in leaving a legacy behind.
The expression Ars Longa, Vita Brevis is not exactly what I expected, I figured much like how you mentioned in your post, that it would be that life is short and art is eternal. I think it is very important to consider that like you also say in the blog that not all art is eternal, yes there are ages where music was not notated, thus it is stuck in time, never to be recovered. I think the more I think about it, the more I disagree with the ideology that art is eternal, there are many modern day pieces and artists that will be lost to the masses, there are millions of people producing music these days, most of those will never make the "big break" should that be their end goal (I feel as though many secretly wish that it is). I tend to never think about the fact that we only have so many sunrises and sunsets, as my father would say, I believe it to be a waste of time to be worrying about the inevitable, instead I think it can be used as motivation to make your mark on the world and show everyone around you what you are capable of by putting everything into what you are doing, so in this instance creating music.
To address the first interpretation of the aphorism, I think it’s interesting to view the time we have to develop our skills as a finite object. However, I think there is an unhealthy obsession with youth in the creative arts, partially because we venerate composers who died young. Are terms such as “greatness” and “mastery” objective enough for us to quantify whether a composer or any creative person did the most with the time they were given? Is it healthy for us to view our development as creatives in this frame?
I quite like the ephemeral nature of music as discussed in the second interpretation of the aphorism. Even now, every performance of any piece of music will be different depending on the performers, and seeing that performance live can only be experienced by those in the room. We now have recordings to reference, but it isn’t the same.
With the rise of recording and notation, I think music has taken sort of a dual form in which we have guidance in how it could be performed, but every performance still has that ephemeral quality to it. I really like the idea of my music outlasting me, and evolving to match the time in which it is performed.
You made philosophical and thoughtful points about the short nature of our lives, the short duration of the music we write, and the infinite length of history. Such reflections communicate the need to constantly explore and enrich our music to leave a mark - a sense of urgency that led the Bach, Brahms, or Mahler to write such immortal music. The motivation you describe is mainly based on the desire to leave a mark, in a way to stay alive, or at least, less transient, so a part of you remains in the world.
However, I do not share this ambition. I enjoy creating music just as much as I enjoy playing, cooking, ice skating, or phone pranking my little brother. The thought of life's shortness inspires me to live in the moment and not invest in personal or artistic growth. After all, what's the point of leaving behind a legacy if I can't enjoy the adoration? Van Gogh was widely ignored in his life, and now his paintings are worth hundreds of millions, yet he can't even buy an apple with that money, because he is dead.
I enjoy experimenting with music when I have time. When I feel peace and security in a situation, there is nothing more fascinating than hearing, playing and writing music that intentionally try to be different from everything else, challenge your own conventions. Then when it sounds weird enough, I could feel like I am spending my life in a more complete way, not because it will stay after me, but just because I got to feel this and maybe share it with my friend. Then I go ice skating.
Something I find really fascinating is the survivorship bias that exists in the way we often think about old music. It could be easy to think that all music in the baroque or classical periods was somehow more significant than all music now because some of the best stuff survived - but I would wager there was a lot of music written in all eras throughout history that was just OK or "meh" that history has forgotten entirely. The fact of the matter is that composers of today and of the past have very little control over how their music is remembered. Something being wildly popular in its day is not necessarily a good predictor of how that same music will be seen to posterity.
I think printed and to a greater extent recorded music have made it possible for music to be remembered long after a composers death. In spite of these possibilities, I think most music written today will not be culturally significant hundreds of years from now on the basis that most music from 300 years ago is forgotten. We remember the very best music from history and forget about the rest - even if it was written down or recorded. Recording technology has existed for more than a century and I'm sure there is lots of recorded music from the early twentieth century that is entirely forgotten today.
The end of this post made me think of something Steve said to me once while talking about recording. To paraphrase, he said that if you mess up a recording it can have serious impacts on the people involved, but at the end of the day, nobody dies. He was basically telling me to take it seriously, but to keep mistakes in perspective when they are made. I think this is a mindset I also try to have when it comes to music and composing. It is important, it can really impact people, yet there is much more in life that is good and beautiful beyond it. I don't really have much interest in leaving an impression with music after I'm gone, I think if it can be meaningful or enjoyable for people right now, this is sufficient. There will always be imperfections in our work or things we don't have enough time in our lives to achieve, but what we can do can be meaningful and important, even if not long lasting.
This blog post: “Generally speaking, people are not physically harmed by compositional experimentation”
Tchaikovsky (probably): “Yes! Finally a chance to try out those cannons I wanted to experiment with…”
In all seriousness, I find both meanings of this translation to be perplexing, and I think they kind of form a loop. Art takes a long time to master, which is difficult to do because life is short. Contrasting life, which is finite, a piece of art can be around forever, so if you want to make high quality art you better get cracking now at mastering those skills. It makes sense that if one wants to truly master art, they must devote a lot of time to their craft. This is great news for somebody who knows they truly want to pursue their art to the highest level. But for someone like myself, with a handful of varied interests and alarmingly little time, this idea can create a good bit of stress. Sometimes I wonder what the point of creating art is if I know that I am probably not going to reach the highest level of compositional skill because I might have another interest I want to split my time with and pursue. If I know that I’m likely not going to 10,000-hours-level master my craft, does that mean I shouldn’t compose at all, because art is forever? Obviously that question is ridiculous, but I feel like it's a common thought that runs through the brains of a busy student composer, or somebody who may want to try composition and not know where to start. Of course, when you are trying to compete in the big leagues, devoting the maximum amount of time to your craft is essential to becoming a master. However, I think there is also so much room in art/music/composition for little league players. Maybe you need to be working for forever to make great art that might live forever too. But as the blog post mentions, not all art lasts forever, and so here I am drawing a new conclusion that not all art needs to be someone’s magnum opus. Even if one can’t find enough time in their short life to devote to mastering their craft, I don’t think that should be a reason for them not to try.
In relation to the two main points that are implied by the 'Ars Longa, Vita Brevis' quote, I think that the 'ticking clock' of life, when it applies to music, is an aspect of the self-improvement journey that is subconsciously felt with anyone who creates art and looks to better themselves. Even though you may not be constantly and explicitly thinking about how much time you have left to create, it is a factor of life that is absolute, and therefore everyone is working around it in some sort of way. Those who accel in their respective fields are usually the ones that see this clock not as a limitation but rather as a reason to improve. If you don't have enough time to accomplish everything you would like to over the course of your lifetime, you have to prioritize the things that mean the most to you and do them as much as you can. For the second point brought up here about art being eternal, music does seem to occupy a unique position in the world of art, with the 'old' music not being nearly as old as the 'old' visual art. Since the act of recording and/or writing came along a lot later for music than it did for other art mediums, it's interesting to think about how that affects our understanding of it. As mentioned, there are tens of thousands of years worth of undocumented musical performances that we will never get to experience. Does this make the art of music less 'eternal' than other forms of expression? More temporary? I have no idea.
In regards to the first interpretation, I believe that time is often our worst enemy, and unlike many things in life, there is truly no possible way to stop or delay the passage of time. It's mentioned that many great composers died young, and that had they not been more passionate about writing great music, they probably would not have gotten good enough to be remembered for years to come. However, it should also be noted that while they were great composers prior to their deaths, there is no telling just how much better they could have been had they not died so young. Society regards Mozart as a "genius" but what if he had lived until 65 instead of 35? It's entirely possible that his work would have continued to improve, and that he would end up being remembered in even higher regard than he already is. As for the second interpretation, I think it's very interesting to think about the impermanence of music. Many composers probably feel a sense of dread wondering if their music will be remembered long after they're gone, and I can definitely empathize with that sentiment. That being said, I wonder if perhaps there is an intrinsic beauty to the way music does not last forever. What if experiencing music as it is created is the truest way to enjoy it, and attempts to preserve it can never 100% recapture that feeling of being there and hearing it in the moment. Even music notation is not a perfect preservation. It only tells what notes occur and how they should be played, but unless you were there when the composer performed it, you can never really know what they had in mind. So with that in mind, while I do think the preservation of art is extremely important, there should also be valued placed into the experience and the inherent impermanence of music.
Post a Comment