In today’s New York Times, an Op-Ed by Christopher Francese discussed how it was stupid to put latin on diplomas since no-one can understand it anyways:
Latin is a beautiful language and a relief from the incessant novelty and informality of the modern age. But when it’s used on diplomas, the effect is to obfuscate, not edify; its function is to overawe, not delight. The goal of education is the creation and transmission of knowledge — not the creation and transmission of prestige. Why, then, celebrate that education with a document that prizes grandiosity over communication?
In a way, this struck home as analogous to one of my chief concerns with art music composed in the past 100 years. Music has taken on a very complex form at the expense of simply communicating the virtual feelings it is supposed to represent. When most lay-listeners are approached by modern & some post-modern music they get turned off by the sounds written, which are (truth-be-told) a brilliant combination of pitches. The problem is that hearing the brilliance of the work is something that only extremely experienced listeners can hear, and likely only if they have a score to read as well. Having discussions with friends who have perfect pitch and incredible dictation skills, I’ve learned that none of them are able to hear the rows in 12-tone music.
It is very important that music isn’t limited by shunning the complex, we would have never gotten beethoven’s 9th symphony, the Art of Fugue, Peter Grimes, or Wagnerian Opera if we did. I find it sad, though, that we have placed greater value on music being elitest and convoluted as opposed to music being able to express feeling to common listeners. like Mr. Francese says, “Why, then, celebrate [music] that prizes grandiosity over communication?”