Does it really matter?

Will there ever be any consensus on the pronunciation of the Zeppelin classic "D'yer Mak'er?" Does anybody really know what "innagoddadavida" means, or why "the walrus was Paul?" (What does one see looking through a glass onion?) Would Picasso's blue period really be any different if it were green? And what about Chopin's 4th Ballad? I mean...does the coda really make any sense? (Yes, it's glorious and dense, and theorists have their theories concerning the origin of the musical material, but let's be real. Isn't the primary reason for it's existence the fact that it "sounds cool?")

Back when I went through my dissertation defense as a candidate for the doctorate, I had a professor query me for the reason I used a particular pitch in a particular piece I wrote. I looked him in the eye and truthfully replied, "because it sounds good." The professor was not too impressed. He was looking for the analytical reason (or possibly the justification) for a particular note; I provided him with a simple personal preference.

Do we sometimes try to explain and justify art rather than experience and enjoy it? Does reason sometimes take the place of passion? I had heard it once said that true art is the catalogue of history's beautiful mistakes. Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, "If eyes were made for seeing, then beauty is its own excuse for being."

I pity those who have to explain everything. Some things are above explanation. And some things we can enjoy without having to explain them. The beauty of a waterfall is not necessarily related to the cubic feet per second of water flow over the precipice. The mystery of a Webern piece is not found in his serial composition. And, there is no reason for reading anything into "the walrus," (outside of the pure entertainment value).

Art is emotional, and it is often irrational. While I am definitely not against "analysis," I am an advocate for experiencing that which is beautiful and challenging. And it really doesn't matter how you pronounce "D'yer Mak'er."