I’ve been interviewing Dan Goeller over the last couple of weeks (Part 1, Part 2), whose recent album Sing Praise To The Lord I previously reviewed. Here’s installment #3.
CHEDIAK: It seems that academia (i.e., the music department at a University) approaches music differently than the general evangelical public. You seem to compose for a general (non-academic) Christian audience (i.e., churches), yet it seems to have a classical quality to it. We often think of “classical” as less accessible to the common person. Where does your music fit in?
GOELLER: As I mentioned previously, I often think of my music as an “equal opportunity offender.” I try to defy standard conventions of style. Since common labels like “contemporary” and “traditional” just don’t seem to apply, some people have difficulty classifying my music. Evangelicals think that I am composing traditional, academic music while academics think I am composing warm-fuzzy evangelical music.
So much music, in both popular and academic circles, goes wrong when an agenda is attached to it. By this, I mean that the artistic and communicative quality of the music becomes a secondary consideration behind an ideological goal. In my opinion, evangelicals and academics both often fail in this regard. They are like two sides of the same coin: Academics sometimes produce music that is inaccessible to performers and listeners because their agenda is to impress others with their intellectual prowess. Evangelicals sometimes produce music that seems watered down and heavy handed because their agenda is to ineffectively overstate their message while attempting to imitate the popular music of secular entertainment culture.
My goal is to create beautiful and honest music. I spoke previously about how music should contain three important elements: truth, goodness and beauty. I hope that my music will encourage and convict others because it is artistic and innovative while remaining accessible. This is a delicate balance of competing elements, but when achieved, ensures that one’s music will be an effective way to profoundly communicate and connect with both listeners and performers.
CHEDIAK: With regard to composing, are there any historical examples that you seek to emulate?
GOELLER: With each piece I compose, I am looking for a musical context that will most effectively communicate the message of the text. In purely instrumental music, my goal is still to effectively communicate, but in a more abstract way. Perhaps Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said it best: “Music is the universal language of the mind.”
The list of musical influences on my musical output is extensive. I find that I must continually challenge myself to discover more about the craft of composing if I am to continue writing music that will encourage others. I am inspired, in this endeavor, by studying the music of great composers. This never-ending process of learning invigorates the desire to create new and, perhaps most importantly, meaningful music.
I think finding good musical influences is one of the important components in making meaningful music. People often comment that my music is “visual.” I think part of that sensory stimulation, beyond the scope of the auditory, is based on the fact that effective composers understand how to use sound to communicate ideas. What I believe makes music unique, as a form of communication, is that it communicates on three planes simultaneously: cognitive, affective and spiritual.