introduction

What does it mean for music to have vitality? What is the significance of its alleged “loss?” Is it possible to analyze and quantify that mysterious ingredient which defies the normalization of theory and yet persists in the casual discourse of musical culture? At first, any investigation into such an obviously overblown and conspicuously subjective topic would seem Quixotic, if not ill-advised. In fact, the subject of vitality is problematic both from a formalist view as well as a social-critical view: for the former, such soft and anecdotal hearsay is not much help in the task of identifying patterns in sets, structures and techniques, and for the latter, the idea that music should even have the capacity to contain or lose a “vital essence” would make it dangerously immutable to skeptical criticism. And yet, it is precisely in this space that I wish to present the problematic yet stubbornly ubiquitous concept of vitality.

The idea that there is, could be or should be vitality in music is not something of my own invention. Rather, it has been a nagging topic throughout documented musical history. This study does not begin with a wishful, laden assumption that vitality either does or does not exist in the music, nor is so simple a conclusion likely to be reached. The germ of this investigation is the very real discussion among composers, performers and audience members over many years where verifiable tension has existed. Hot spots for such remarks are especially prevalent in times of stylistic transition, the self-conscious maintainance of performance practice of historical literature and the inter-generational process of music education.