when we make music what is it we have made?

boethius in his description
of the three kinds of musicians
holds the highest level
to that of those who can consider
musical problems with philosophical discourse

the lowest level are the players
which he states "are not really musicians at all"
because they have merely a technical knowledge
of how to play an instrument

the middle level of "musician"
are the composers
those who know how to make sounds
work together and how to explore
musical possibilities
yet they still may not have the ability
to enter into conversation
as to what in fact music is doing
and how it effects the listener
and how meaning is conveyed
by this most ethereal of artforms

when wisdom is added to the the various
elements that go into music making
the issue is forced into a discursive dimension
wherein the subtleties and the possibilities
are made apparent

in this light i wish to describe
two specific experiences with
two musicians both of whom
betray some level of third order
musicianship

at the spring festival presented by
holy trinity monastery in st david arizona
we have provided for two principle stages
for performance
the one - the chapel
is a quiet space where the performer
is granted the benfit of quiet from
which he or she can bring forth the intended
musci for the attentive listener

the second venue is the outdoor stage
not really a stage at all
but a garage port with a roof hanging over
the concrete pad
and a tent under which the audience is
offered a place to sit and listen
this space is exposed to the
various sounds of the festival to some extent
and thus the performer is forced to accept
that ambient sound is part of the performance atmosphere

it has been my encouragement that acoustic performers
accept that there will be no sound enhancement
there are those performers who cannot imagine
making music without a sound system
they can do what they will once they find the
electrical outlets
these performers wish to convey "their" music
much beyond the confines of the immediate stage
and to project an unnaturally loud sound into the ears
of the immediate hearers
which i will admit in our day is a most disturbing state of affairs

the performer i will consider first
is a master of the banjo
plays a very proficient style of guitar
and is also adept on the mandolin
as well as singing attractive compositions
both of his own crafting and of a broad repertoire

he performed in the chapel on the first day of festival
and the audience was treated to musical charisma
and his virtuosic displays
they sat enwrapped in the sound he created in
the room
on the second day he was scheduled to play the
main stage and expressed to me some
reservation about not being able to project his sound
very far
first he requested the chapel stage
this was impossible
next he suggested that some form of amplification
be used
i convinced him it would be fine
i had played that stage the day before to
an audience who sat attentive
and responded graciously to the music
i and some friends presented
with absolutely no electrified enhancement

he went ahead and played for the 30 or so
people sitting right in front of him
and they again were entranced
despite the reality of the surrounding noise
of the festival

the second performer
played the outdoor stage on the first day
and just charged into his musical agenda
with no caution whatsoever
the people were impressed
they clapped and asked for more
he sang songs primarily of his own composition
which he risked making them heard
amidst the voices the clatter the human
noise of a hot spring day
and the people who were in immediate hearing range
not only heard
but heard well the guitar and voice
conveyed in aesthetic nakedness

the next day this very artist
put himself in a very uncertain position
musically for which he should be highly commended
he presumed not to entertain
but to improvise with musical ideas
and he did this in the quiet space of the chapel
he provided and explanation of his
"project"
and then commenced upon what turned out to be
15-20 minute expostulations of musical themes
and completely spontaneous experience both for
the artist and the audience
this he did with extraordinary deftness and sensitivity
he created a sound atmosphere within the silence of the room
which is likened to the atmosphere of meditation
rather than entertainment
the audience fluctuated
some were moved at first and then moved on
others came later and were moved to sit and listen
out of curiosity
which was the risk he took at the beginning
the risk of stating something spontaneous
something completely new
something that may never be repeated
and givng in sufficent aesthetic merit
for anyone willing ot listen
and that is the key
it was a form of music which required
a very deliberate and attentive listening
a quality which is unfortunely ever more rare in our day

to be sure
there was also "noise" in the chapel
the rustling of plastic bags
coins being dropped into a slot
at one point a cell phone rang
( and the performer entered into
a spontaneous unconscious irritainment )

thus the question is begged:
what are we actually doing when we make music?
if the motive is the conveyance of self
or some aspect of self
i fear the possiblity of descending into mediocrity
is always present
the chances are not impossible
but the potential for creating something
really moving really memorable are diminished considerably

when the self is removed
when an effort is made for music making
which at least intends to a purified mode of apprehension
the possibilities for the miraculous
do increase

perhaps then it is left to be said
that the sounded note is the ultimate
paradigm for all music making
think about it
at first the sound is not there
then the note is sounded
by a plucked string
a voice
a breath forced through a hole
then the sound is heard
then it disappears
and is left only in the memory

can music be an avenue to wisdom?