In the past, when I would write things on this site, or on any public forum, I was always afraid to write the things I mean to say, because I often equate music (and most art) with abstract images and philosophic possibilities, most of which exist solely within my own mind, and can seem strange to people who have never spent time with me.

And though I take a down-to-earth approach to life, I greatly enjoy the idea of a non-material existence. The world that doesn't exist as we experience, but is as real as if it were. For example, our dreams. They happen, they exist, though we can never know them directly, we experienced them, which makes them just as real as the mundanity of our lives.

I've always taken this cathartic view on music, and when it works, it usually means that the music I am listening to succeeds in opening those metaphysical possiblities. Unfortunately, not all music does this. As such, I am beginning to develop a system of categorizing art (for this purpose, "music") that allows for this to happen.

The first category is that of music for the sake of the artist. Now, I believe that all music has a personal quality to it, but this is solely for those in which the music is entirely for selfish means. The point of this, is that the "music" is essentially a vehicle for emotional concerns, political views, monetary desires, or some other reason which doesn't have artistic connotation. This, I feel, is the lowest form of music, as the music is not being utilized for the purpose of art, but rather as a means to an end. That does not mean that what is created is bad, but rather that it does not succeed artistically. For example, I love Jackson Browne, and I love the personal emotion he emits into his songs, and even though the music has personality in it, it's clear that music was a vehicle of expression, and was not treated for it's own sake.

The second category is music for the sake of music. This is when an artist treats music as something to behold, something to be given a chance to be it's own thing, and not merely a tool for some other motive. Often times, lyrics would be written just so there is something on top of the music, though, of course, if the lyrics are important, they are used, on top of their literal meaning, to enhance the music as well. This is where I would place, to use a well-known example, The Beatles, as they (eventually) openly embraced music as something to work with and expand upon. I would also put, say, Rush here, because of their very concerted effort in playing music with a technical ambition to see what envelopes can be pushed while still remaining listenable. However, the reason this is not what I consider to be the highest order of music/art is because the music is still being used as a tool, even if it for it's own sake.

The third category is music which transcends purpose and is allowed to just be. This is the hardest for me to explain, and the hardest for musicians to create, but its results are glorious. Essentially, this is where music is not used for a definite end, but is rather created in an effort find something which exists beyond what we know. Something metaphysical, or not immediately perceived. It has the ability to invade on a subconscious level without ever dissolving into a "here's a note, here's a chord" nature. Instead, the music is an art which does not serve, but is rather something to discover in and of itself. My current favorite examples would be Arcane Sun's "We Stood With Time", Biosphere's "Kobresia", and Ulver's Shadows of the Sun. There is no blueprint for this kind of music, and it's can be the hardest to understand, but intent listening can bring out sensations of almost mythic qualities.

And before anyone comments on how ridiculous all this is, let me be the first to concur. I understand how pompous I may seem, but I truly feel passionate about music, and I long for the day others share the same intense feelings of joy I feel when I listen to "Let the Children Go". Lastly, music is what it is, and it can not be changed, or is subjective in anyway. What does change is the person, and their experience with the music. Any attempt to categorization is open to debate, and anything said concretely is foolish. We may never fully understand the potential of all we do, but that doesn't mean we can't try.

3rd Category: Mike Oldfield "I never wrote music with the guitar. Tubular Bells was mostly written on my grandmother’s upright piano—a real honky-tonk thing or on electric guitar. There was a bit of guitar involved, I suppose. Mostly, my music is written without an instrument. It isn’t really even written. An idea arrives in my head and I hear it. It makes me feel more like a messenger than a performer. I receive ideas somewhere deep in my subconscious. It's conceived there and grows into an embryo and pops out of my consciousness. I don’t know what it is that’s happening. The times I try to sit down and compose are the worst times."

3rd Category: Devin Townsend "Music, I think in a perfect world, should write you. You shouldn't be in control of it at all. So whichever direction it choose to lead you, you should follow it, whether or not it is commercially, or politically, or spiritually, or whatever, appropriate in other people's eyes, it's trying to lead you to something."