[MD] The Quality of Art

[Ham Priday]

Hi Platt and all the Gang --

I hesitate to resurrect a vituperative subject, but I'm planning to discuss
values in my Balance page the week after next and recall your comments about
music -- particularly one that asked "Has music advanced since Mozart?"  (I
think the answer proffered was something like, Who knows how far Mozart
could have gone had the electric guitar been invented in his time?  Way out,
man!)

Inasmuch as what we call "music" and "concerts" today bears little
resemblance to what these terms referred to in the 17th to 20th centuries, I
think we need a new definition for this art form.  I came across the
following Q&A item in the "AskMarilyn" column of my Sunday Inquirer which
clarified some of the mystery for me.  (She's the savante who tells you
everything you need to know but were afraid to ask.)  Do any of you see a
definition in here somewhere?

Q: "Why do entertainers play their music at such high volume in concerts?
I've been blown out of buildings by the noise."

A: "They're trying to generate excitement, and a high level of decibels
accomplishes that goal.  Subjected to such intense sound, listeners' bodies
produce adrenaline and more.  These substances make the heart pound and give
an impression of increased muscle strength.  Not surprisingly, some people
become psychologically addicted to this hormone rush, which is implicated in
thrill-seeking behavior.  What a way to get -- and keep -- fans."

Now, why didn't some of you music freaks explain to me what I've been
missing all these years: the simple fact that it's the INTENSITY, not the
Quality, that gives music value?  I don't know how Amadeus would have
benefited from that bit of knowledge, but I'm sure Beethoven would have
appreciated it.  He was totally deaf by the time he presented his celebrated
Ninth Symphony -- the one with the chorale 'Ode to Joy'.

Happy listening.

--Ham