# Power of Music: The true power is beyond the words



## ChristianTrader

*The Pop-Culture Wars*

The Pop-Culture Wars Public Discourse
_
If we take seriously what is said by Plato and Aristotle, then we must also pay attention to what is being said by the likes of Taylor Swift and Kanye West._

*What’s Really the Matter With Pop Music?*

What’s Really the Matter With Pop Music? Public Discourse
_
Popular music shapes us and our culture, but not only through its lyrics._

This two part series of articles makes the case that music is a force for good or for evil outside of consideration of the wording, and that this view has been maintained for millenia and did not begin as a recent conservative movement against rock and rap.


----------



## py3ak

And that case would be accurate. Allan Bloom made a similar point in _The Closing of the American Mind_, and you can find arguments about music itself without regard to the words before rock and rap came on the scene. Richard Weaver and R.C.H. Lenski both have condemnations of jazz. Verdi's _Requiem_ caused a controversy because some considered it too operatic for ecclesiastical music.

Also, the Bible makes it clear that music, without regard to the words, has an impact on the human personality when David plays with his hand and the evil spirit departs from Saul, and when as Elisha listens to the playing of a minstrel the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him. In neither case were words involved, so to maintain that it is only the lyrics that can be judged for the morality and profitability of their impact is to close one's eyes to Scripture, history and plain fact, and to walk down a blind alley that leaves you helplessly repeating the inane question, "So which chord, exactly, is sinful?"


----------



## Christusregnat

If you are going to bind people's consciences, you had better be sure you have a higher authority than natural men, and Christians who have repeated them.


----------



## Bern

Whatever you do, never play E and Bb together.


----------



## steadfast7

> Also, the Bible makes it clear that music, without regard to the words, has an impact on the human personality when David plays with his hand and the evil spirit departs from Saul, and when as Elisha listens to the playing of a minstrel the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him. In neither case were words involved, so to maintain that it is only the lyrics that can be judged for the morality and profitability of their impact is to close one's eyes to Scripture, history and plain fact



I would think that those instances of music affecting things in the spiritual realm were entirely supernatural in nature. This doesn't really prove scientifically that rhythms and tunes are inherently good or evil conjuring in themselves.



> "So which chord, exactly, is sinful?"



This is precisely the right question to ask, if in fact the charge against tune and rhythm is being launched.

Most of the article cited above deals with evils that come as a result of unwholesome lyrics. Regarding tune and rhythm, the author writes



> The contention made by Aristotle and Plato is not that music can, in so simple a fashion, cause people to act a certain way. Rather, they contend that music moves the passions, and that this power, exerted repeatedly over time on people who are immature and impressionable, can produce a certain disposition under which it will be either easier or more difficult for reason to see, and for the will to choose, what is right.



I think all music, including classical pieces, would have to be judged by these standards, if it's simply an issue of passions being stirred up. Also, it would have to be shown that passion is somehow inherently wrong, or outside of God's character, which I don't think it is.


----------



## MW

The music contains a cultural association in the mind of the person listening to it; that is whence its power is derived. As one of their own poets have said, "You've got the music in you." Christians really ought to learn to read their culture and stop living in the deceptive bliss of their naivete.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> I would think that those instances of music affecting things in the spiritual realm were entirely supernatural in nature. This doesn't really prove scientifically that rhythms and tunes are inherently good or evil conjuring in themselves.



If you consider the case of Elisha more closely, you will see that the agency of the minstrel and the work of the Holy Spirit are distinguished quite clearly: Elisha prophesying was supernatural - the minstrel playing was not. And again, if you consider the circumstances under which David was brought to Saul's court as a musician, you will recall that when an evil spirit began to trouble Saul his servants suggested getting a musician. Either they thought that all musicians had supernatural powers, or they did not think that supernatural powers were required. 
Your second sentence raises three or four straw men and hay bothers my allergies.



steadfast7 said:


> This is precisely the right question to ask, if in fact the charge against tune and rhythm is being launched.



No, it isn't, because it involves an absurdly reductionistic view of music. One note or one chord by itself is not music. Like words, the elements of music must be combined into a context, and that context influences each one. The fact that the letter "d" is not evil does not mean that it can't be used in evil ways, when placed into the wrong combinations.



steadfast7 said:


> Most of the article cited above deals with evils that come as a result of unwholesome lyrics. Regarding tune and rhythm, the author writes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The contention made by Aristotle and Plato is not that music can, in so simple a fashion, cause people to act a certain way. Rather, they contend that music moves the passions, and that this power, exerted repeatedly over time on people who are immature and impressionable, can produce a certain disposition under which it will be either easier or more difficult for reason to see, and for the will to choose, what is right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all music, including classical pieces, would have to be judged by these standards, if it's simply an issue of passions being stirred up. Also, it would have to be shown that passion is somehow inherently wrong, or outside of God's character, which I don't think it is.
Click to expand...


Unless I've overlooked something in this thread or in the articles, no one said we ought to judge only a handful of pieces by this standard. In evaluating the propriety of music, cultural association and individual impact both need to be considered. But it is treating music as not actually being an art at all, to deny that without words it is capable of having an impact upon the human personality. There are few musicians who would be content to be represented as making no impression on their audience. The simple fact that people want to get down to the beat shows that music exerts an influence. In a world with real morality, real opposition between good and evil, it is inevitable that the direction of that influence will sometimes be a moral decision - even before words are brought into the equation.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> The music contains a cultural association in the mind of the person listening to it; that is whence its power is derived. As one of their own poets have said, "You've got the music in you." Christians really ought to learn to read their culture and stop living in the deceptive bliss of their naivete.



Yes, but the same thing can be said about so many things, even things that became distinctly Christian. For example, off the top of my head (and I'm willing to stand corrected on these) ...

El - originally the name of the Chief deity of the Canaanites
covenants - a common practice in ancient near eastern culture
Deuteronomy - patterned off Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties
Logos - a Greek concept of an impersonal rationality behind the universe
theos - generic Greek word for god, applies to the gods of the Roman pantheon

In other cultures,

Allah - the arabic word for God, predominantly Islamic in use, but used in Arabic and Indonesian bibles
Shang di - A chieft deity in ancient Chinese religion, used for God's name in Chinese bibles
Hymns of Charles Wesley and others - tunes borrowed from popular english bar tunes, sailor songs, popular music.

All of these things did and may still produce unbiblical cultural associations. So many of the triumphs of Christian history testifies of culture being appropriated and redeemed.

I think it's hard to critique culture from a biblical vacuum; we live in culture and are already immersed in it. 



> f you consider the case of Elisha more closely, you will see that the agency of the minstrel and the work of the Holy Spirit are distinguished quite clearly: Elisha prophesying was supernatural - the minstrel playing was not. And again, if you consider the circumstances under which David was brought to Saul's court as a musician, you will recall that when an evil spirit began to trouble Saul his servants suggested getting a musician. Either they thought that all musicians had supernatural powers, or they did not think that supernatural powers were required.



God, in this instance, used the music to make a spiritual impact, but not all music need have this function. the servants in this story may have been right in this instance, but they are not divine oracles and the bible is not trying to make a universal truth out of their statements.

Yes, I fully agree that music has an impact on the emotions. Even David was presumably listening to music as he twirled with all his might before the Lord. I'm just saying that it's difficult to derive a universal moral truth from it. if so, we'd have to be able to unanimously and objectively judge each piece of music and deem it morally appropriate or inappropriate. I think this would be impossible.


----------



## Grillsy

Actually that Charles Wesley thing is a myth. Just saying.


----------



## steadfast7

Grillsy said:


> Actually that Charles Wesley thing is a myth. Just saying.



Really? Interesting ...

Do you have a source? It's a big myth that many people think is common knowledge. Do share if you know something.

thanks


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> Yes, but the same thing can be said about so many things, even things that became distinctly Christian.



Yet the only example you provide is that of terminology. Language must be shared. Music might be used or not used. The two are not of the same nature.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the same thing can be said about so many things, even things that became distinctly Christian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet the only example you provide is that of terminology. Language must be shared. Music might be used or not used. The two are not of the same nature.
Click to expand...


This brings up the question of whether there is such a thing as a pure art form that is unshared and has no overlap with secular art. My study of art has shown that there are no works that were not inspired or borrowed from another source - with the exception perhaps of the cave paintings of Lascaux!

Were not many Psalms sung to known Hebrew tunes that do not seem to have any religious function? I'm sure the same was true of Gregorian chants and the like.

Was there ever any Christian music that were so unique that it had no associations with anything found in culture? My guess is no.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> God, in this instance, used the music to make a spiritual impact, but not all music need have this function. the servants in this story may have been right in this instance, but they are not divine oracles and the bible is not trying to make a universal truth out of their statements.
> 
> Yes, I fully agree that music has an impact on the emotions. Even David was presumably listening to music as he twirled with all his might before the Lord. I'm just saying that it's difficult to derive a universal moral truth from it. if so, we'd have to be able to unanimously and objectively judge each piece of music and deem it morally appropriate or inappropriate. I think this would be impossible.



The idea of the servants, an idea borne out by the subsequent turn of events, and with an additional witness in the Elisha narrative, is that music impacts the human personality, and in these cases, did so in a positive way. Given that this is a fact that is observable daily all over the world, and is furthermore transparent to reason, that seems like quite a sufficient body of testimony.

But there are more options than, "Explicit revelation dictating in exhaustive detail everything that may not be done" and "Morality is not involved in this area at all". In addition to these things, there is the role of wisdom and sense. If we believe that a man is as he thinks in his heart, we must also believe that it is not a matter of indifference what influences his thoughts.


----------



## Pergamum

In the Bible I see many instruments mentioned in the worship of the Lord but never a piano. However, when many depart from the piano for more modern music (it all was modern at one time), many people get upset.

Music does have a power. It is hard to define what is good or evil music. Much of it IS culture. Even much "classical music" is rife with backbeats and syncopated rythms.

Only going to the EP doctrine would be a solution, but I am not EP, but I can see how it would be tempting to go EP to make this difficult area more plain. Doing away with music is one solution, but I do not believe a Scripturally-commanded one, and so we are stuck to some degree with the ambiguity.


----------



## py3ak

The question of church music is rather off-topic for the thread, and EP isn't a solution to the matter of tunes so much as it is a restriction of content (plus EP has its own subforum so we can't get into it here). For our culture where almost everyone can afford to listen to music they enjoy on a daily basis, the music heard in church will probably be only a small portion of the music that impacts them.

The articles speak of the role of music in shaping personality, and argue (correctly) that deeming there to be a moral element to musical questions is not an innovation developed by people who couldn't appreciate rock 'n roll. That much can only be denied by dint of diligent ignorance.


----------



## steadfast7

Colours have been shown to have an impact on the emotions as well. By looking at certain colours, one may be inadvertently allowing his passions to be illegitimately influenced and stirred up.

Shall we then not look at colour?

Incidentally, many of the early Puritan and anabaptist tradition agreed with this line of thinking, even some to this day.

Does anyone else think this is a tad extreme?


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> The question of church music is rather off-topic for the thread, and EP isn't a solution to the matter of tunes so much as it is a restriction of content (plus EP has its own subforum so we can't get into it here). For our culture where almost everyone can afford to listen to music they enjoy on a daily basis, the music heard in church will probably be only a small portion of the music that impacts them.
> 
> The articles speak of the role of music in shaping personality, and argue (correctly) that deeming there to be a moral element to musical questions is not an innovation developed by people who couldn't appreciate rock 'n roll. That much can only be denied by dint of diligent ignorance.



So, let me summarize your reply: Music is moral, but let's not talk about it in reference to church. We can't agree on EP and are not allowed to talk about it here anyway. "Church Music" (whatever that is) is only a small minority of all music. And, stating the assumption again, music is moral and if you don't agree you are diligently ignorant (purposely stoopid).


Here is a reply:

Music is made for purposes. Purposes must match the music. Playing a funeral dirge at a military march might not be so much moral or immoral but just inappropriate, and playing the polka at a funeral might be morally neutral, but also inapropriate. 

Even more than any supposed moral/immoral argument, a "fit versus non-fit" category would descibe music better. 


King Saul was soothed with fitting music. We get married to other music that is fitting. We dance to other music that is fitting. Music must match its intended purposes. 

This theory also takes into account cultural preference as well. 

At a sports game, it is more fitting to play techno than a dirge, but I think it is a mistake to try to attach a moral "good" or "bad" label to everything.


All things need not be good or bad; some things are just different.




P.s. Plato's Republic also was fairly totalitarian, and in the Symposium Plato argued for the army to be made up of gay lovers....I care not even for the majority of his advice.


----------



## ChristianTrader

steadfast7 said:


> Also, the Bible makes it clear that music, without regard to the words, has an impact on the human personality when David plays with his hand and the evil spirit departs from Saul, and when as Elisha listens to the playing of a minstrel the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him. In neither case were words involved, so to maintain that it is only the lyrics that can be judged for the morality and profitability of their impact is to close one's eyes to Scripture, history and plain fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would think that those instances of music affecting things in the spiritual realm were entirely supernatural in nature. This doesn't really prove scientifically that rhythms and tunes are inherently good or evil conjuring in themselves.
Click to expand...


A priori why do you think such effects were some just miracles and can tell us nothing about the power of music? There is nothing in the text to imply that Saul's "helpers" decided to call someone to play for Saul and to help soothe him because God miraculously told them to do some random action.



> "So which chord, exactly, is sinful?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is precisely the right question to ask, if in fact the charge against tune and rhythm is being launched.
Click to expand...


That might in fact be a good counter to some forms of this argument but if your read the two articles linked above, you should see that this does not cut it.



> Most of the article cited above deals with evils that come as a result of unwholesome lyrics. Regarding tune and rhythm, the author writes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The contention made by Aristotle and Plato is not that music can, in so simple a fashion, cause people to act a certain way. Rather, they contend that music moves the passions, and that this power, exerted repeatedly over time on people who are immature and impressionable, can produce a certain disposition under which it will be either easier or more difficult for reason to see, and for the will to choose, what is right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think all music, including classical pieces, would have to be judged by these standards, if it's simply an issue of passions being stirred up. Also, it would have to be shown that passion is somehow inherently wrong, or outside of God's character, which I don't think it is.
Click to expand...


The author is willing for all music to be held to the same standard. As far as passions go, I think one can make a case for either different levels or types of passion. There is a passion that one has when one believes that they are doing something important. One concentrates harder, etc. to make sure that things are done right. There is also a passion that can be stirred where reason is bypassed and one just acts instinctively. For example, when one is afraid, very angry etc. one will find it hard to think or act in a reasonable manner. I think the set of articles attack the later form.

CT


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> Colours have been shown to have an impact on the emotions as well. By looking at certain colours, one may be inadvertently allowing his passions to be illegitimately influenced and stirred up.
> 
> Shall we then not look at colour?
> 
> Incidentally, many of the early Puritan and anabaptist tradition agreed with this line of thinking, even some to this day.
> 
> Does anyone else think this is a tad extreme?



Colour is present everywhere for the majority of people: not looking at colour is not an option. But if you are aware that a pattern of turquoise and vermilion squares makes you nauseous, I would credit you with the sense not to paint your living room in that particular scheme.

It would be quite interesting to see you produce one early Puritan arguing that we should not look at colour. I await the citation eagerly.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> The music contains a cultural association* in the mind of the person listening to it*; that is whence its power is derived.



This, I think, is where conscience comes into play. In one man's mind, something is defiled. For him (and him only), therefore, it would be sin to participate in such a thing.

How many things has our culture defiled? How many things have ancient cultures defiled? Language? Check! Sex? Check! Marriage? Check! Divine Worship? Check! The Name of God? Check! Music? Check! Writing styles? Check!

If we were to follow the rule of cultural defilement, I think we would be in a bad way.

Men have gone wrong with women, with the moon and the stars; shall we abolish women?

Cheers,


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of church music is rather off-topic for the thread, and EP isn't a solution to the matter of tunes so much as it is a restriction of content (plus EP has its own subforum so we can't get into it here). For our culture where almost everyone can afford to listen to music they enjoy on a daily basis, the music heard in church will probably be only a small portion of the music that impacts them.
> 
> The articles speak of the role of music in shaping personality, and argue (correctly) that deeming there to be a moral element to musical questions is not an innovation developed by people who couldn't appreciate rock 'n roll. That much can only be denied by dint of diligent ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, let me summarize your reply: Music is moral, but let's not talk about it in reference to church. We can't agree on EP and are not allowed to talk about it here anyway. "Church Music" (whatever that is) is only a small minority of all music. And, stating the assumption again, music is moral and if you don't agree you are diligently ignorant (purposely stoopid).
> 
> 
> Here is a reply:
> 
> Music is made for purposes. Purposes must match the music. Playing a funeral dirge at a military march might not be so much moral or immoral but just inappropriate, and playing the polka at a funeral might be morally neutral, but also inapropriate.
> 
> Even more than any supposed moral/immoral argument, a "fit versus non-fit" category would descibe music better.
> 
> 
> King Saul was soothed with fitting music. We get married to other music that is fitting. We dance to other music that is fitting. Music must match its intended purposes.
> 
> This theory also takes into account cultural preference as well.
> 
> At a sports game, it is more fitting to play techno than a dirge, but I think it is a mistake to try to attach a moral "good" or "bad" label to everything.
> 
> 
> All things need not be good or bad; some things are just different.
Click to expand...


No, not quite. In order to be helpful, a summary should be accurate, and your summary fails that test on the following counts:
1. You are quite welcome to talk about music in reference to church - but this specific thread isn't about church music. When related topics are brought up before the main point is discussed, threads often fail to realize their potential usefulness.
2. EP has its own subforum for a reason: bringing it up here is more likely to get the whole thread moved than to shed any light on the general topic. Personally I would prefer that the discussion not be shut down because of the point of order concerning forum rules.
3. My post said that it requires diligent ignorance to believe that the idea that there is a moral element to musical questions is an innovation. In other words, the diligent ignorance comment refers to the history of the discussion of music's morality, but you attached it to quite the wrong notion.

When I grant that music, intrinsically considered, ought to fulfil its intended purpose, I haven't removed the question "Should I listen to ________ or not?" from the sphere of morals. Without fully distinguishing all possible lines of approach, it is obvious that there is the artistic question of whether the music succeeds or not, and whether its failure is due to accidental reasons or an internal flaw; and there is the moral question of whether its intended purpose was good or evil. Thinking about what is fit or appropriate is undoubtedly very helpful; but it neither eliminates the moral category from the equation nor suffices to clarify all doubts.


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> The question of church music is rather off-topic for the thread, and EP isn't a solution to the matter of tunes so much as it is a restriction of content (plus EP has its own subforum so we can't get into it here). For our culture where almost everyone can afford to listen to music they enjoy on a daily basis, the music heard in church will probably be only a small portion of the music that impacts them.
> 
> The articles speak of the role of music in shaping personality, and argue (correctly) that deeming there to be a moral element to musical questions is not an innovation developed by people who couldn't appreciate rock 'n roll. That much can only be denied by dint of diligent ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, let me summarize your reply: Music is moral, but let's not talk about it in reference to church. We can't agree on EP and are not allowed to talk about it here anyway. "Church Music" (whatever that is) is only a small minority of all music. And, stating the assumption again, music is moral and if you don't agree you are diligently ignorant (purposely stoopid).
> 
> 
> Here is a reply:
> 
> Music is made for purposes. Purposes must match the music. Playing a funeral dirge at a military march might not be so much moral or immoral but just inappropriate, and playing the polka at a funeral might be morally neutral, but also inapropriate.
> 
> Even more than any supposed moral/immoral argument, a "fit versus non-fit" category would descibe music better.
> 
> 
> King Saul was soothed with fitting music. We get married to other music that is fitting. We dance to other music that is fitting. Music must match its intended purposes.
> 
> This theory also takes into account cultural preference as well.
> 
> At a sports game, it is more fitting to play techno than a dirge, but I think it is a mistake to try to attach a moral "good" or "bad" label to everything.
> 
> 
> All things need not be good or bad; some things are just different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, not quite. In order to be helpful, a summary should be accurate, and your summary fails that test on the following counts:
> 1. You are quite welcome to talk about music in reference to church - but this specific thread isn't about church music. When related topics are brought up before the main point is discussed, threads often fail to realize their potential usefulness.
> 2. EP has its own subforum for a reason: bringing it up here is more likely to get the whole thread moved than to shed any light on the general topic. Personally I would prefer that the discussion not be shut down because of the point of order concerning forum rules.
> 3. My post said that it requires diligent ignorance to believe that the idea that there is a moral element to musical questions is an innovation. In other words, the diligent ignorance comment refers to the history of the discussion of music's morality, but you attached it to quite the wrong notion.
> 
> When I grant that music, intrinsically considered, ought to fulfil its intended purpose, I haven't removed the question "Should I listen to ________ or not?" from the sphere of morals. Without fully distinguishing all possible lines of approach, it is obvious that there is the artistic question of whether the music succeeds or not, and whether its failure is due to accidental reasons or an internal flaw; and there is the moral question of whether its intended purpose was good or evil. Thinking about what is fit or appropriate is undoubtedly very helpful; but it neither eliminates the moral category from the equation nor suffices to clarify all doubts.
Click to expand...


Ok, agreed.



If we do not consider lyrics, very much becomes subjective and while one can assert that music can differ in morality versus immorality, finding objective rules to determine it as such are difficult if not impossibile if we are not judging lyrics.

What are the objective rules by which you would judge the morality of music?


One reason why some dismiss rock and roll as being "inferior" to classical music is because rock and roll is simpler than Mozart. There were even efforts to prove that Mozart was better for the brain but this is junk science (millions were spent trying to help baby-brains with Bach). Simpler cannot be equated with less moral, however, and appreciating simple ditties to complex multi-instrumented works is not a matter of morality.

Even backbeats and syncopated rythms serve many purposes well. 



One area where I have often thought differently is in the matter of "spooky music themes" like the Twilight Zone Theme or the theme from Halloween movies or horror movies. That music, I have supposed, instinsically "sounds scary" but I am hard pressed to prove that this is a "Universal Scary Sound" across cultures and I believe that even this is largely a matter of cultural conditioning about what sounds scary.


----------



## steadfast7

> Colour is present everywhere for the majority of people: not looking at colour is not an option.



In the same way, I think we do not have the option of listening to or using music which has no cultural ties or associations with the world.



> It would be quite interesting to see you produce one early Puritan arguing that we should not look at colour. I await the citation eagerly.



My bad for the confusion, I wasn't arguing that the Puritans discouraged looking at colour. Only that in they did have a certain theology of modesty that affected their colour choices, especially in their wardrobe.


> The author is willing for all music to be held to the same standard. As far as passions go, I think one can make a case for either different levels or types of passion. There is a passion that one has when one believes that they are doing something important. One concentrates harder, etc. to make sure that things are done right. There is also a passion that can be stirred where reason is bypassed and one just acts instinctively. For example, when one is afraid, very angry etc. one will find it hard to think or act in a reasonable manner. I think the set of articles attack the later form.



Good point. As long as everything is judged by the same standard. I was fearing that the argument was going to tend towards the age-old classical music is superior just because debate. I completely agree that music moves the soul. I'm just not yet convinced that this is inherently a bad thing. 

btw, Can anyone enlighten me on what EP is?


----------



## py3ak

There is subjectivity involved in considering lyrics, also. In matters of wisdom, which have to do with applying general rules to specific subjects, subjectivity is not a spectre to be avoided, but an ineluctable part of the landscape.

For myself, I would take my starting point from personal impact. If Elisha could call for a minstrel as preparation for the reception of God's word, then it is a fair question to ask myself: does this music so work upon me that I am rendered more or less receptive to God's word? Obviously that is not the only question that could be asked: as with any activity, we can ask in terms of glorifying God or in terms of loving God. With music specifically you could also ask if this influences you towards proper or improper (nostalgia, irritation, vain regrets, sentimentality, loneliness, etc., etc.) emotional patterns. In so doing, it might be that we come to find that some of the disagreements over music are actually disagreements as to what patterns of thought and sensation a Christian should be encouraging within himself.


----------



## Pergamum

Those subjective impacts vary widely based on the person.


----------



## au5t1n

steadfast7 said:


> Good point. As long as everything is judged by the same standard. I was fearing that the argument was going to tend towards the age-old classical music is superior just because debate. I completely agree that music moves the soul. I'm just not yet convinced that this is inherently a bad thing.



Oh, but on that note, there is plenty of classical music that would fall under the "forbidden" category if we are to forbid particular rhythm and pitch patterns (which I think is silly). Stravinsky's _The Rite of Spring_ caused a riot - as in fist fights - at its premier. If you've never listened to it in full, the first time you do it will scare the snot out of you!

And I have yet to hear anything more heavy metal than the Dies Irae movement of Verdi's Requiem.

-----Added 10/16/2009 at 11:30:24 EST-----

[video=youtube;ZDFFHaz9GsY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDFFHaz9GsY[/video]


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> In the same way, I think we do not have the option of listening to or using music which has no cultural ties or associations with the world.



Music is far more at your discretion than sight, but of course music has cultural associations. That doesn't mean that the cultural associations are all positive or neutral.



steadfast7 said:


> Good point. As long as everything is judged by the same standard. I was fearing that the argument was going to tend towards the age-old classical music is superior just because debate. I completely agree that music moves the soul. I'm just not yet convinced that this is inherently a bad thing.
> 
> btw, Can anyone enlighten me on what EP is?



I think you'll have to wait a long time for someone to try to convince you that it's bad that music moves the soul - the question has to do with _where_ does music move the soul.
EP=Exclusive Psalmody.

Explaining why classical music is better would take us from the moral question the thread is about to an artistic question, so I will only say that if you would like to know why classical music is better, some helpful hints can be found in Aldous Huxley's short essay "Brahms" in _The Weekly Westminster Gazette_ for February 18, 1922.


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> Those subjective impacts vary widely based on the person.



Which is where wisdom and sense come in.


----------



## Pergamum

I would beware of taking Huxley's advice - he was the author of Brave New World. Utopians keep getting referenced on this thread for some reason (first Plato, now Huxley).

Chapter 5 of Brave New World seems to link the chord A Flat,and maybe saxophone-ish sounds with Utopian bliss:



> The saxophones wailed like melodious cats under the moon, moaned in the alto and tenor registers as though the little death were upon them. Rich with a wealth of harmonics, their tremulous chorus mounted towards a climax, louder and ever louder–until at last, with a wave of his hand, the conductor let loose the final shattering note of ether-music and blew the sixteen merely human blowers clean out of existence. Thunder in A flat major. And then, in all but silence, in all but darkness, there followed a gradual deturgescence, a diminuendo sliding gradually, through quarter tones, down, down to a faintly whispered dominant chord that lingered on (while the five-four rhythms still pulsed below)



I have no idea what a gradual deturgescence is, but I guess Huxley linked it with his utopian paradise.

-----Added 10/16/2009 at 11:53:36 EST-----

By the way,

The Star Wars Darth Vadar theme song (dum dum da dum dum da dududum dum da dum du dududum dum da dum di dum dum di dum) sounds instrinsically sinister I will grant, But even this sinister-sounding entrance theme for my favorite movie villain is probably culturally-conditioned. It could sound regal and gay for some some cultures I suppose but it is hard to believe that it just doesn't sound "menacing" in tone.


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The music contains a cultural association* in the mind of the person listening to it*; that is whence its power is derived.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This, I think, is where conscience comes into play. In one man's mind, something is defiled. For him (and him only), therefore, it would be sin to participate in such a thing.
Click to expand...


In a world of pop culture, the pop conscience comes into play. If music represents rebellion against parents, as in the rock of the sixties and the metal of the seventies; or, to use the words of one of the poets I have quoted, "you've got the music in you" is an incentive to stay out all night and go clubbing, then it is impossible to divorce the music from those vices in our culture.


----------



## Pergamum

I thought we were talking about the music itself and not the lyrics.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> I thought we were talking about the music itself and not the lyrics.



We are. You cannot divorce music style from the message that style conveys to our culture.


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> In a world of pop culture, the pop conscience comes into play. If music represents rebellion against parents, as in the rock of the sixties and the metal of the seventies; or, to use the words of one of the poets I have quoted, "you've got the music in you" is an incentive to stay out all night and go clubbing, then it is impossible to divorce the music from those vices in our culture.



If this is your conscience, you have a duty to avoid the forms of music which you find to trouble you. For instance, you should avoid most all Renaissance, Enlightenment, tribal or other forms of music as well, correct?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## AThornquist

Personally, if I considered a set of sounds and beats immoral because of their connotations or typical culture, I could not listen to any music at all. Every bit of culture is damaged and ugly because of sin. There are musicians of every kind that make wicked music of every kind.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Christusregnat said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a world of pop culture, the pop conscience comes into play. If music represents rebellion against parents, as in the rock of the sixties and the metal of the seventies; or, to use the words of one of the poets I have quoted, "you've got the music in you" is an incentive to stay out all night and go clubbing, then it is impossible to divorce the music from those vices in our culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this is your conscience, you have a duty to avoid the forms of music which you find to trouble you. For instance, you should avoid most all Renaissance, Enlightenment, tribal or other forms of music as well, correct?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Sir, 

Why exactly is music and its effect consider a great deal more subjective than for example, loud sounds and contaminated water? Let say someone says, "If someone listens to music at a certain level for a certain period of time they will lose their hearing, slowly but progressively". Would anyone response, "Well that is just you and your hearing, don't try to tell me how my body and ears operate. I can handle it."

Or lets say someone says, "If you drink water containing X, Y, and Z, you will get disease X and die within six months." Would anyone respond, "Well that is you and your digestive system, don't pretend to tell me about the effect on me and my body."

CT


----------



## OPC'n

Music is bad bad bad and if you listen to it backwards you find out that you really don't get your wife, dog, and house back instead you find out that you've been worshipping satan all along! Mawawawhahwahhahw!!!


----------



## Skyler

> Or lets say someone says, "If you drink water containing X, Y, and Z, you will get disease X and die within six months." Would anyone respond, "Well that is you and your digestive system, don't pretend to tell me about the effect on me and my body."



Frequently natives of undeveloped countries have immunities to the "bugs" in the water, so this is a completely possible scenario.

I think the case against "evil music" is similar to the case against alcohol--both are said to have harmful effects and are therefore "evil". The Bible doesn't forbid any specific form of music(that I've found, anyway). However, it does forbid drunkenness(which I think can be generalized as "conscious-dulling" or "inhibition-removing") and being placed under the power of something(i.e., addiction). Music sometimes seems to have both of these powers--and different music does sometimes have different effects on different people, just like some people are more affected by alcohol than others.

As far as lyrics go, though, I think this quote from Adolf Hitler makes my point: "If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it."

edit: Also I would caution against aesthetic relativism. If God created beauty(which I think we'd all agree about), then it stands to reason that He gave men a sense of what was "beautiful" and what was not. If some culture's sense of beauty is twisted, it's because of the harmful effects of sin.


----------



## Peairtach

*Quote from armourbearer*


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Pergamum
> I thought we were talking about the music itself and not the lyrics.
> 
> We are. You cannot divorce music style from the message that style conveys to our culture.



E.g. Disco style music and worship is inappropriate for worship services and if persisted in will affect our view of God - adversely.

We'll start associating the Lord with entertainment and being entertained, and with all the things we associate with disco.

The same goes for this sort of music:-

[video=youtube;4-R9zZj-5zI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-R9zZj-5zI[/video]


----------



## Pergamum

There is no music that can be divorced from culture. There is no culture that can be divorced from sin. Therefore, all music would then be sinful, or at least reflect a sinful culture.

However,

There is no culture, however marred by sin, that does not reflect some common grace and beauty. Therefore, there is no culture that does not have some sort of beauty in its music.



If we say that we cannot have moral lyrics to an immoral form or divorce music style from the message that it conveys to our culture, can one then try to say that there can be no form of rap music or music by Christians with an accented back-beat or syncopated rythm that does not lead to immorality? 
 
....Sounds awful Bill Gothard-ish to me.

-----Added 10/17/2009 at 07:28:24 EST-----



Richard Tallach said:


> *Quote from armourbearer*
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Pergamum
> I thought we were talking about the music itself and not the lyrics.
> 
> We are. You cannot divorce music style from the message that style conveys to our culture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> E.g. Disco style music and worship is inappropriate for worship services and if persisted in will affect our view of God - adversely.
> 
> We'll start associating the Lord with entertainment and being entertained, and with all the things we associate with disco.
Click to expand...


But this is not a queston of moral/immoral but a question of "fittedness." 

The music simply does not "fit" the cultural context, just as a funeral dirge would not fit at a wedding.

Much of today's praise music is very upbeat and has solid words and moves many of the younger generation to a more worshipful spirit. And these praise songs (many with better lyrics than the ol' 1920's hymns) have drums and rythms.


Is it percussion that is the enemy? The Bible speaks of praising God with tambourines. Those are percussion instruments. Is it repetitive words that is the enemy? Well, the psalms are pretty repetitive. Is it raising of the hands? This has biblical precedent too.


----------



## Peairtach

There's biblical precedent for individual men raising their hands in prayer, not for the whole congregation to wave their hands during a praise song, as if they were at a concert.

I don't want to get into the subject of a cappella EP, but their is no New Covenant basis for our formal worship sevices being mediated through instruments without life, like drums, nor for setting aside God's Hymnbook for the inferior creations of man.

But I appreciate I have strayed here, and this is a thread about the immorality/morality of music _generally_ and also about the respective moralities of different types of music.

On that subject, I didn't buy evangelist/apologist John Blanchard's argument that music that is 

(a) Loud

(b) Has a strong beat

(c) Is repetitive

has an association with sexual intercourse.

I like pipe music, which has all of these features, but I've never associated it in my mind or any other way with copulation.


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> I would beware of taking Huxley's advice - he was the author of Brave New World. Utopians keep getting referenced on this thread for some reason (first Plato, now Huxley).
> 
> Chapter 5 of Brave New World seems to link the chord A Flat,and maybe saxophone-ish sounds with Utopian bliss:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The saxophones wailed like melodious cats under the moon, moaned in the alto and tenor registers as though the little death were upon them. Rich with a wealth of harmonics, their tremulous chorus mounted towards a climax, louder and ever louder–until at last, with a wave of his hand, the conductor let loose the final shattering note of ether-music and blew the sixteen merely human blowers clean out of existence. Thunder in A flat major. And then, in all but silence, in all but darkness, there followed a gradual deturgescence, a diminuendo sliding gradually, through quarter tones, down, down to a faintly whispered dominant chord that lingered on (while the five-four rhythms still pulsed below)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what a gradual deturgescence is, but I guess Huxley linked it with his utopian paradise.
> 
> -----Added 10/16/2009 at 11:53:36 EST-----
> 
> By the way,
> 
> The Star Wars Darth Vadar theme song (dum dum da dum dum da dududum dum da dum du dududum dum da dum di dum dum di dum) sounds instrinsically sinister I will grant, But even this sinister-sounding entrance theme for my favorite movie villain is probably culturally-conditioned. It could sound regal and gay for some some cultures I suppose but it is hard to believe that it just doesn't sound "menacing" in tone.
Click to expand...


Regarding Huxley. _Brave New World_ is not a utopian book, although Huxley fancied himself as something of a social reformer (at one stage in his life). The essay I cited has nothing to do with utopianism: it is an essay about Brahms. A gradual deturgescence is a slow removal of the swollen quality that something possessed, and the paragraph you cited is Huxley describing a musical climax and aftermath. 

Music does have an impact, and good (in the sense of competent or _musical_) musicians know how to achieve their desired effect with the majority of their target audience. The fact that nearly everyone at a Hannah Montana concert is screaming, or that audiences at the Sala Nezahualcóyotl have a general agreement in demanding an encore shows that while there are undoubtedly exceptions for accidental reasons, music has a definite tendency. So, for reasons of personal history, Mendelssohn's cheerful violin concerto is rather melancholy to me - but it is not an intrinsically melancholy piece of music.

I'd like to suggest that it would be a simpler procedure to listen to what people on this thread are saying, without raising spectres of what other people have said. The point of the articles cited in the original post is that thinking about the moral influence of music has a long and distinguished pedigree, and so lumping in all points about the morality of music in with Bill Gothard is to make rather a dog's breakfast of the topic.


----------



## Pergamum

What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?


Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.


Would you say that Brahms is "superior" in a moral sense to something with a drumbeat? Are you then not mistaking structural complexity and moral superiority?



Summary for me:

Here is my position,

It seems that music is largely a product of cultural preference, available instumentation,and lyrics. We all agree that music has effects on people. Separated from lyrics and also the "fit" for which it is made, it is futile to try to determine the morality of a tune without its words. 

There is perhaps an ounce of objectivity in a sea of subjectivity regarding musical "morality." The Darth Vdar theme at a wedding seems a "bad fit" and I guess there is an element of morality to poor taste. 

I reject that some musical styles of music are "evil" just due to the beat and not due to any words. I have heard this done many times, usually in relation to "modern Christian music" and its supposed immorality. 

If we charge that some musical beats mimic copulation-rythms, then we could counter with the claim that music makes work easier and much work is rythmic and repetitive (tribals often chant while chopping woods, hoeing gardens, etc, and I suppose railroad men might also sing as well, as they worked. The Dwarves whistled while they worked).



On the missions field, we are putting the Gospel into tribal chants, local musical forms and using local instrumentation. 

I have had one of my supporters bemoan the fact that pianos were so heavy that they could not easily be transported "over there" - I suppose this supporter's desire was that I should teach "those people" more about "real music" - but I am perfectly content to use the local forms as a fit vessel for the Gospel to be communicated.

Finally, in my experience, many of those advancing theories of music where some forms are moral and other forms are immoral usually are propping up a theory that Western Culture is the pinnacle of advancement and thus their arguments usually find the music of 18th century Christian Europe to by the height of advancement.


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?
> 
> 
> Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.
> 
> 
> Would you say that Brahms is "superior" in a moral sense to something with a drumbeat? Are you then not mistaking structural complexity and moral superiority?



Are you talking to me or to Richard?


----------



## Pergamum

Both. This thread is interesting and you both raise interesting points.


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?



As I said, I'd take my starting point for myself (since I'm not legislating to others) from its impact on me. It's also as well to point out here that of course you can resist the impact of a piece of music, and when you listen to something critically you often do resist it. So for instance it would be possible for someone at a rave to sit in a corner and sulk - but that's not what the music there is for. The question is not "can this music overpower my guard?" but "what is the effect of surrendering to the music?"



Pergamum said:


> Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.



I'm not sure I understand your paragraph here but I enjoy Wagner in small doses and with the right performers.



Pergamum said:


> Would you say that Brahms is "superior" in a moral sense to something with a drumbeat? Are you then not mistaking structural complexity and moral superiority?



Brahms is superior to many in a musical sense (though he is not one of the greatest composers, so it is also true that many are superior to him). People sometimes have trouble distinguishing between artistic skill and morality, or between terms of artistic evaluation and terms of moral judgment (see Orwell's _Benefit of Clergy_). A great artist may be a very evil man, and a very good man may be a worthless artist. A lot of excellent pieces have a drumbeat - Baroque composers like Bach and Handel understood the use of percussion instruments extremely well, as did Beethoven. I suppose the real question comes up, because art that is bad in an artistic sense is often regarded as demoralising, but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking.



Pergamum said:


> Summary for me:
> 
> Here is my position,
> 
> It seems that music is largely a product of cultural preference, available instumentation,and lyrics. We all agree that music has effects on people. Separated from lyrics and also the "fit" for which it is made, it is futile to try to determine the morality of a tune without its words.



Not quite: if we all agree that music has effects on people, then we can look at how piece M affects subject H and render a wise judgment on whether H should listen to M.



Pergamum said:


> There is perhaps an ounce of objectivity in a sea of subjectivity regarding musical "morality." The Darth Vdar theme at a wedding seems a "bad fit" and I guess there is an element of morality to poor taste.



You'd have to define what you mean by poor taste. Some people lack social graces, and while this is a real defect it might not be a moral failing. But deliberately offending expectations for no reason is hardly living at peace with all men as much as lies in us. To illustrate, in comparison with other people, I have a deficient palate, because I physically and intensely loathe many flavours that others find delicious. I am not persuaded that this is immoral of me, but it is a defect: Christ, after all, ate fish, while the prospect of a fish dinner seems to me like adequate reason for despair and maybe suicide. I can hardly say that Christ was deficient in liking fish, though, so it must be I who am below par in this regard. So if someone is incapable of enjoying Boccherini, that is sad for them, but not necessarily an indication of depravity.



Pergamum said:


> I reject that some musical styles of music are "evil" just due to the beat and not due to any words. I have heard this done many times, usually in relation to "modern Christian music" and its supposed immorality.
> 
> If we charge that some musical beats mimic copulation-rythms, then we could counter with the claim that music makes work easier and much work is rythmic and repetitive (tribals often chant while chopping woods, hoeing gardens, etc, and I suppose railroad men might also sing as well, as they worked. The Dwarves whistled while they worked).



I think your rejection and your counter are both a little mistaken. If a beat has a tendency to impact people in a certain way, then the morality of exposing yourself to such an impact is a legitimate question. 

Your rejection actually supports your hypothetical opponent's case. Manual labor is often carried out communally, and if people must use their muscles together music is a practical way to co-ordinate them - hence the use of a drum to make oarsmen stroke together, or to help soldiers march in unison. And that makes it clear that some rhythms are helpful to some activities: the phenomenon of mix CDs to "set the mood" should serve as evidence that other rhythms are helpful to other activities. So in acknowledging that some rhythms help people work, you've established the point that rhythms make an impact. It's not a counter - it's additional evidence!




Pergamum said:


> On the missions field, we are putting the Gospel into tribal chants, local musical forms and using local instrumentation.
> 
> I have had one of my supporters bemoan the fact that pianos were so heavy that they could not easily be transported "over there" - I suppose this supporter's desire was that I should teach "those people" more about "real music" - but I am perfectly content to use the local forms as a fit vessel for the Gospel to be communicated.
> 
> Finally, in my experience, many of those advancing theories of music where some forms are moral and other forms are immoral usually are propping up a theory that Western Culture is the pinnacle of advancement and thus their arguments usually find the music of 18th century Christian Europe to by the height of advancement.



Many of the people I've heard propounding theories that some forms are moral and others immoral couldn't recognise good music when it slapped them upside the head, and had an attenuated appreciation of 18th Century Europe. But if you do think that cultures advance and decline, obviously, SOME point has to be the pinnacle so far. In other words, I get the feeling that you think identifying that as a pinnacle is absurd, but I wonder if that isn't because you are uncomfortable with the whole idea of a pinnacle to begin with.


----------



## steadfast7

Richard Tallach said:


> There's biblical precedent for individual men raising their hands in prayer, not for the whole congregation to wave their hands during a praise song, as if they were at a concert.


There isn't really a biblical precedent for closing our eyes, folding our hands and bowing our heads in prayer as well, but we do it, and it aids us in our piety.



> I don't want to get into the subject of a cappella EP, but their is no New Covenant basis for our formal worship sevices being mediated through instruments without life, like drums, nor for setting aside God's Hymnbook for the inferior creations of man.



In order to pull this argument off, notice what needs to be done:
1. Define biblical worship only in terms of the "New Covenant". By this, do you mean New Testament?
2. Distinguish instruments with "life" and those that don't have life. Where do we find this distinction biblically? Between tambourines, trumpets, harps, lyres, 10-stringed instruments, and hand claps, which have life and which do not?
3. Distinguish "formal" worship vs. informal or spontaneous, when really biblical worship includes all of these modes.
4. Assume that anything created by man is inferior. Do remember that at one point, David's psalms were simply his own personal collection of poetry set to tunes which he himself _created_. He even exhorts worshippers to sing unto the Lord a new song. The NT speaks of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, which I don't believe are given in order of rank.

With all these frameworks unnaturally pressed upon the biblical teaching on worship, then yes, you might be left with nothing but EP.


----------



## py3ak

[Moderator]*EP is off-topic for this thread, and EP is to be discussed in its own subforum only. Any further posts relating to EP will be violently and irremediably deleted.*[/Moderator]


----------



## Grillsy

steadfast7 said:


> Grillsy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that Charles Wesley thing is a myth. Just saying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Interesting ...
> 
> Do you have a source? It's a big myth that many people think is common knowledge. Do share if you know something.
> 
> thanks
Click to expand...


Alot of the bar tunes were added later. It is an odd history. I'll search out the sources and add footnotes or something. Sorry for not having the ready, sincerely.


----------



## Skyler

Would it be fair to say that the only way for something to be universally evil--i.e., wrong for every person--is if God sets such as a moral law? Murder, for instance, is wrong because God forbids it, and is therefore wrong for everyone without exception. If this is the case, then for a certain kind of music to be universally "wrong", it would have to be because of a moral law which God set up, would it not?

So if someone were to argue that a particular form of music is universally "wrong", they would have to show from Scripture that God forbade that form of music. No one I've heard has done so.

The other side argues that music is an amoral issue and is neither right or wrong. Well, yes, but I would argue that there is no such thing as an amoral _action_. So _listening_ to that music is not an amoral issue, even if the music itself is amoral.

With that said, I think it's reasonable to believe that music has an effect on people. In some cases, the effect can be powerful--and in other cases, it can be completely mundane. But if the effect that the music has on us causes us to violate one of God's commands, either in thought or in action, then our _listening_ to the music is wrong. 

In fact, I think those who take the far left view(so to speak) that listening to music is an amoral issue would often agree with my reasoning, except that they would disagree that music actually has this kind of power over us.

Is that your position, Pergamum?



py3ak said:


> [Moderator]*EP is off-topic for this thread, and EP is to be discussed in its own subforum only. Any further posts relating to EP will be violently and irremediably deleted.*[/Moderator]



Isn't that "disemboweled"?


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, I'd take my starting point for myself (since I'm not legislating to others) from its impact on me. It's also as well to point out here that of course you can resist the impact of a piece of music, and when you listen to something critically you often do resist it. So for instance it would be possible for someone at a rave to sit in a corner and sulk - but that's not what the music there is for. The question is not "can this music overpower my guard?" but "what is the effect of surrendering to the music?"
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your paragraph here but I enjoy Wagner in small doses and with the right performers.
> 
> 
> 
> Brahms is superior to many in a musical sense (though he is not one of the greatest composers, so it is also true that many are superior to him). People sometimes have trouble distinguishing between artistic skill and morality, or between terms of artistic evaluation and terms of moral judgment (see Orwell's _Benefit of Clergy_). A great artist may be a very evil man, and a very good man may be a worthless artist. A lot of excellent pieces have a drumbeat - Baroque composers like Bach and Handel understood the use of percussion instruments extremely well, as did Beethoven. I suppose the real question comes up, because art that is bad in an artistic sense is often regarded as demoralising, but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite: if we all agree that music has effects on people, then we can look at how piece M affects subject H and render a wise judgment on whether H should listen to M.
> 
> 
> 
> You'd have to define what you mean by poor taste. Some people lack social graces, and while this is a real defect it might not be a moral failing. But deliberately offending expectations for no reason is hardly living at peace with all men as much as lies in us. To illustrate, in comparison with other people, I have a deficient palate, because I physically and intensely loathe many flavours that others find delicious. I am not persuaded that this is immoral of me, but it is a defect: Christ, after all, ate fish, while the prospect of a fish dinner seems to me like adequate reason for despair and maybe suicide. I can hardly say that Christ was deficient in liking fish, though, so it must be I who am below par in this regard. So if someone is incapable of enjoying Boccherini, that is sad for them, but not necessarily an indication of depravity.
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I reject that some musical styles of music are "evil" just due to the beat and not due to any words. I have heard this done many times, usually in relation to "modern Christian music" and its supposed immorality.
> 
> If we charge that some musical beats mimic copulation-rythms, then we could counter with the claim that music makes work easier and much work is rythmic and repetitive (tribals often chant while chopping woods, hoeing gardens, etc, and I suppose railroad men might also sing as well, as they worked. The Dwarves whistled while they worked).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think your rejection and your counter are both a little mistaken. If a beat has a tendency to impact people in a certain way, then the morality of exposing yourself to such an impact is a legitimate question.
> 
> Your rejection actually supports your hypothetical opponent's case. Manual labor is often carried out communally, and if people must use their muscles together music is a practical way to co-ordinate them - hence the use of a drum to make oarsmen stroke together, or to help soldiers march in unison. And that makes it clear that some rhythms are helpful to some activities: the phenomenon of mix CDs to "set the mood" should serve as evidence that other rhythms are helpful to other activities. So in acknowledging that some rhythms help people work, you've established the point that rhythms make an impact. It's not a counter - it's additional evidence!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the missions field, we are putting the Gospel into tribal chants, local musical forms and using local instrumentation.
> 
> I have had one of my supporters bemoan the fact that pianos were so heavy that they could not easily be transported "over there" - I suppose this supporter's desire was that I should teach "those people" more about "real music" - but I am perfectly content to use the local forms as a fit vessel for the Gospel to be communicated.
> 
> Finally, in my experience, many of those advancing theories of music where some forms are moral and other forms are immoral usually are propping up a theory that Western Culture is the pinnacle of advancement and thus their arguments usually find the music of 18th century Christian Europe to by the height of advancement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many of the people I've heard propounding theories that some forms are moral and others immoral couldn't recognise good music when it slapped them upside the head, and had an attenuated appreciation of 18th Century Europe. But if you do think that cultures advance and decline, obviously, SOME point has to be the pinnacle so far. In other words, I get the feeling that you think identifying that as a pinnacle is absurd, but I wonder if that isn't because you are uncomfortable with the whole idea of a pinnacle to begin with.
Click to expand...


Good thoughts. I think I agree.


Also,


I'm sorry that fish makes you suicidal.


----------



## py3ak

Well, now you know something not to make if you have me over for dinner!


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> If this is your conscience, you have a duty to avoid the forms of music which you find to trouble you. For instance, you should avoid most all Renaissance, Enlightenment, tribal or other forms of music as well, correct?



This simply ignores the point I made about "pop conscience." If the music itself did not teach specific messages why would advertising agents, propaganda artists, and movie makers utilise it the way that they do? They are not selling raw emotion, but an idea, and the music is seen as integral to the idea they are selling.

I don't need to avoid any music. I am arguing that the music must be discerned for the message it conveys. Then I can make an informed decision as to what I *choose to enjoy*.


----------



## Christusregnat

ChristianTrader said:


> Sir,
> 
> Why exactly is music and its effect consider a great deal more subjective than for example, loud sounds and contaminated water? Let say someone says, "If someone listens to music at a certain level for a certain period of time they will lose their hearing, slowly but progressively". Would anyone response, "Well that is just you and your hearing, don't try to tell me how my body and ears operate. I can handle it."
> 
> Or lets say someone says, "If you drink water containing X, Y, and Z, you will get disease X and die within six months." Would anyone respond, "Well that is you and your digestive system, don't pretend to tell me about the effect on me and my body."
> 
> CT



I think you are drawing parallels that are not there. The parallel you draw poisons the well by things that are clearly damaging physically to things that are not necessarily so morally. It is a begging of the question.

Perhaps your argument is like contaminated water, and by listening to it, I've been poisoned 

-----Added 10/18/2009 at 06:44:12 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is your conscience, you have a duty to avoid the forms of music which you find to trouble you. For instance, you should avoid most all Renaissance, Enlightenment, tribal or other forms of music as well, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This simply ignores the point I made about "pop conscience." If the music itself did not teach specific messages why would advertising agents, propaganda artists, and movie makers utilise it the way that they do? They are not selling raw emotion, but an idea, and the music is seen as integral to the idea they are selling.
> 
> I don't need to avoid any music. I am arguing that the music must be discerned for the message it conveys. Then I can make an informed decision as to what I *choose to enjoy*.
Click to expand...


Actually, it is a question regarding "pop conscience". Surely you recognize that the Renaissance had a popular conscience, and pushed certain ideologies using all of the arts and sciences.

I was simply wondering if you were selective in which pop consciences you would condemn, and so far I have no idea, as I did not clearly ask such a question. So, are you selective in which popular consciences you avoid, or are you consistent in avoiding other godless cultures in times past?

Cheers,


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> Actually, it is a question regarding "pop conscience". Surely you recognize that the Renaissance had a popular conscience, and pushed certain ideologies using all of the arts and sciences.



Of course, it *had* a popular conscience. Once it has entered the halls of the past it fails to exert that particular influence over the present. It now speaks to the modern mind with "classic" voice.



Christusregnat said:


> I was simply wondering if you were selective in which pop consciences you would condemn, and so far I have no idea, as I did not clearly ask such a question. So, are you selective in which popular consciences you avoid, or are you consistent in avoiding other godless cultures in times past?



I've just finished saying that I don't need to avoid any music and you follow up with a question asking me what music I need to avoid. Clearly you are ignoring what I am saying.


----------



## JBaldwin

I ran across this while thumbing through my Trinity Hymnal this afternoon:



> [Addressing the instrumentalists who play the hymns, emphasis mine]
> 
> "As you play the organ, piano or other instrument, you are assisting in the worship of God. You have the tools to bring hymns to life on the lips and in the hearts of the people. *Your manner of playing interprets the truths of the hymn texts so that thoughts, as well as feelings, are more completely engaged*...Prayerful analysis of each hymn (both tune and text) will enable you to play each stanza with sensitivity to its unique content."


Even the men who compiled the Trinity Hymnal recognized that a musician's approach to a piece of music has an impact on the person listening to the music. 

When I was a teenager, a choir visited our church. They were selling recordings of some of the hymns they performed. We bought one. I liked the music, so I listened to it a lot. One thing I noticed, however, was every time we got to one particular song, whoever happened to be in the house at the time would get irritated and start to yell or show signs of irritation. Since we had bought the recording because we liked that song, I decided something else had to be going on. A year went by and the group came back to visit our church. I told the director of the group the story about the song and asked him if he had any idea why that would happen. He replied to me "It's funny that you ask that." and he began to recount to me how much trouble they had getting that song recorded. Nothing would go right, the choir members were getting cranky and irritable, people were making stupid mistakes, etc. He said that no one was really happy with the recording, but since they got it down with no mistakes, they decided to go with it. 

My question: Did the musicians communicate their irritation through the music on the recording? While it's possible something else was going on (I can think of several possibilities), it certainly appeared to me that the irritability was transferred through the music. 

I know that I have always possessed the distinct ability to communicate my moods through music and it often drove my mother nuts when I was living at home, especially if I happened to be angry when I sat down at the piano.


----------



## steadfast7

py3ak:


> As I said, I'd take my starting point for myself (since I'm not legislating to others) from its impact on me. It's also as well to point out here that of course you can resist the impact of a piece of music, and when you listen to something critically you often do resist it. So for instance it would be possible for someone at a rave to sit in a corner and sulk - but that's not what the music there is for. The question is not "can this music overpower my guard?" but "what is the effect of surrendering to the music?"



JBaldwin:


> One thing I noticed, however, was every time we got to one particular song, whoever happened to be in the house at the time would get irritated and start to yell or show signs of irritation.



I can sympathize with the effect that music can play on individuals, but it cannot be argued that the same effect applies to all individuals. Some people may commit heinous crimes while listening to classical music, and I know of one guy who became a Christian after listening to Strongarm - a Christian heavy metal band. 

Another problem with the argument thing is that the emotional effects which are produced by certain sounds are given moral weightage. Happiness, calmness, rage, boredom, passion, zeal ... can we really say that these emotions are good or evil - in and of themselves? Well, it depends on the context and situation. Even God (whether anthropomorphically read or not) displays rage, zeal, jealousy (though not of the same kind as ours).



> Brahms is superior to many in a musical sense (though he is not one of the greatest composers, so it is also true that many are superior to him).



It's hard to base this claim (of any composer or artist) on objective grounds. It's like saying that Michelangelo is superior to Monet or Warhol, which may be true according to some predetermined criteria and tastes, but not to others. These are different artists, during different media, in different eras, with different philosophies, portraying different things to different audiences. It is simply not enough to say that Michelangleo is superior in the "artistic" sense - that is simply too vague and narrow and diminishes the artistic contributions of other eras. the study and appreciation of art did not end in the Renaissance.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Pergamum said:


> What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?
> 
> 
> Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.



Not sure what this says about me but Wagner's _Lohengrin_ is probably my favorite opera.


----------



## JBaldwin

> JBaldwin:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing I noticed, however, was every time we got to one particular song, whoever happened to be in the house at the time would get irritated and start to yell or show signs of irritation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can sympathize with the effect that music can play on individuals, but it cannot be argued that the same effect applies to all individuals. Some people may commit heinous crimes while listening to classical music, and I know of one guy who became a Christian after listening to Strongarm - a Christian heavy metal band.
Click to expand...



The point I was making here was not that music affects all people the same way, but rather I was pointing out that the state of mind of the musician when he/she is performing can and often does affect the state of mind of the listener. I have been a performing musician most of my life, and I have witnessed this effect (both postitively and negatively) numerous times. 



> Another problem with the argument thing is that the emotional effects which are produced by certain sounds are given moral weightage. Happiness, calmness, rage, boredom, passion, zeal ... can we really say that these emotions are good or evil - in and of themselves? Well, it depends on the context and situation. Even God (whether anthropomorphically read or not) displays rage, zeal, jealousy (though not of the same kind as ours).



I would agree that you cannot argue that a certain sound affects everyone the same way. What I would argue (as I did above) is that the emotional state of a musician coupled with a style can affect the listener more than most people realize. I have a young piano student who was adopted as a small child from a Chinese orphanage where she was abused. For some reason, she cannot stand to hear or play slow music in a minor key. Just yesterday as I was teaching her, she commented that 1) the song I had assigned made her sad when she played it (it was in a minor key), and 2) When I played it, it didn't sound sad. Oddly enough, the song while it sounded sad to me, it didn't make me feel sad. It made me think of the many clear, cool Autumn days when I walked slowly to school so I could drink in the beauty of the day. I loved the song. My point again is that it's not just the music but how it is played that affects the listener. 

No one can deny that music is powerful. Personally, I would disagree with those who say that music is either good or bad. I believe that it would be more accurate to say that the elements of music can be fashioned into a tool for good or evil and each musical tool formed becomes more or less effective based on the person who's using it. An example would be a simple chorus taken from the words of Scripture. A congregation can sing the chorus once or twice, and it can be a blessing. The same chorus sung 30-40 times can be used to hype the congregation into an emotional frenzy. I've seen it done. 

At the same time, I do believe that the music we play and listen to as believers should reflect the order and beauty of the God we worship. Music with abhorent and sinful lyrics should not be part of our listening libraries, and neither should music which in and of itself relects disorder and chaos. Those guidelines cover a wide range of style and musical form. This takes the whole discussion back to the definition of what music is in the first place which is a topic for yet another thread.


----------



## tlharvey7

before i was regenerated i played loud lead guitar for rock bands.
i was arrested and put in prison for various crimes in 1988. my conversion took place at this time. when i was released in 1990 i would not even touch a guitar. my calouses turned to mush and my skill was all but depleted... i cared not, because my love for the One who rescued me was my main concern.
2 years went by and i picked it up again. i love to play... i love to play in church and i love to "jam" with other people. i was even privledged to tour with a black gospel band for a couple years
when i began to play again, i became a "worship leader" 
i fell in love with Hosanna Integrity music because much of it was simply scripture set to music.
but i noticed a trend back then (early 90's) the music was starting to have a grunge, edgy rock style to it. though i liked some of the music, it seemed out of place in worship.
now that is the normal thing you see in churches today... 20 somethings with tatoos and cool hair, clothes, ect. it lacks reverence. a teenage rockgroup should not be "leading worship" that is my opinion. i think playing music for fun or entertainment is fine. but there needs to be a sensitivity towards what we do in the house of God.

i have a good friend who is a "reformed hip-hop" guy his music is gritty, urban and loud.
the stuff is outstanding
this guy is also a pastor, and he does not 'rap" from the pulpit, because he knows that this particular medium has a place and purpose... and it's not during the worship service.
but again.. these are just opinions


----------



## au5t1n

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?
> 
> 
> Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what this says about me but Wagner's _Lohengrin_ is probably my favorite opera.
Click to expand...

Ahhhh! Wagner! *Runs away and hides*

Seriously, we probably wouldn't have had Nietzsche or Hitler without Wagner first. Makes one wonder...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

austinww said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?
> 
> 
> Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what this says about me but Wagner's _Lohengrin_ is probably my favorite opera.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhh! Wagner! *Runs away and hides*
> 
> Seriously, we probably wouldn't have had Nietzsche or Hitler without Wagner first. Makes one wonder...
Click to expand...


Probably the biggest "sneer" I ever got was suggesting that Julius Wellhausen and German Higher Criticism sowed the seeds which grew the Third Reich.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> I can sympathize with the effect that music can play on individuals, but it cannot be argued that the same effect applies to all individuals. Some people may commit heinous crimes while listening to classical music, and I know of one guy who became a Christian after listening to Strongarm - a Christian heavy metal band.



It also cannot be pretended that individuals are not both social creatures, and similar in many ways. Otherwise, no musician could ever pretend to have "connected" with an audience: do a little reading on Regina Spektor if you think that communication with music doesn't happen.

People tend to drive more quickly while listening to Wagner.

That someone became a Christian after listening to Strongarm can't be construed as divine endorsement - unless the fact that it is from the Cross that redemption flows to us is construed as endorsement of murdering God incarnate.



steadfast7 said:


> Another problem with the argument thing is that the emotional effects which are produced by certain sounds are given moral weightage. Happiness, calmness, rage, boredom, passion, zeal ... can we really say that these emotions are good or evil - in and of themselves? Well, it depends on the context and situation. Even God (whether anthropomorphically read or not) displays rage, zeal, jealousy (though not of the same kind as ours).



I mentioned previously that I'm allergic to hay.



steadfast7 said:


> It's hard to base this claim (of any composer or artist) on objective grounds. It's like saying that Michelangelo is superior to Monet or Warhol, which may be true according to some predetermined criteria and tastes, but not to others. These are different artists, during different media, in different eras, with different philosophies, portraying different things to different audiences. It is simply not enough to say that Michelangleo is superior in the "artistic" sense - that is simply too vague and narrow and diminishes the artistic contributions of other eras. the study and appreciation of art did not end in the Renaissance.



It's only hard for relativists. On your ground, the artist himself wouldn't be able to say "This is a better work" or "I failed to achieve my goal in that instance". Technical excellence and accuracy and comprehensiveness of philosophy, to mention only two points, are most certainly points of difference. Consider again what the Bible says about Bezaleel and then tell me if all craftsmen (and crafstmanship is not the least part of artistry) are created equal.


----------



## au5t1n

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what this says about me but Wagner's _Lohengrin_ is probably my favorite opera.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhh! Wagner! *Runs away and hides*
> 
> Seriously, we probably wouldn't have had Nietzsche or Hitler without Wagner first. Makes one wonder...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Probably the biggest "sneer" I ever got was suggesting that Julius Wellhausen and German Higher Criticism sowed the seeds which grew the Third Reich.
Click to expand...

I never thought of that before.


----------



## Peairtach

armourbearer said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> If this is your conscience, you have a duty to avoid the forms of music which you find to trouble you. For instance, you should avoid most all Renaissance, Enlightenment, tribal or other forms of music as well, correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This simply ignores the point I made about "pop conscience." If the music itself did not teach specific messages why would advertising agents, propaganda artists, and movie makers utilise it the way that they do? They are not selling raw emotion, but an idea, and the music is seen as integral to the idea they are selling.
> 
> I don't need to avoid any music. I am arguing that the music must be discerned for the message it conveys. Then I can make an informed decision as to what I *choose to enjoy*.
Click to expand...


This then shows the importance of education in aesthetics and the media from a specifically Christian perspective for all Christians.


----------



## MW

Richard Tallach said:


> This then shows the importance of education in aesthetics and the media from a specifically Christian perspective for all Christians.



Good point. More fundamentally, I think it shows the need for professing Christians to be converted in the biblical sense of turning away from idols to serve the living God. Regrettably today many Christians do not turn away from cultural practices or ever begin to confront culture in service to God.


----------



## Gloria

armourbearer said:


> The music contains a cultural association in the mind of the person listening to it; that is whence its power is derived. As one of their own poets have said, "You've got the music in you." Christians really ought to learn to read their culture and stop living in the deceptive bliss of their naivete.



What is your culture?


----------



## (^^)Regin

*An experience*

I would just like to share an experience:

There is a sax solo from a song that I really like, it was played by George Furlow; 'I worship you oh God'; I played the same solo on a 'praise and worship night' on a friend's church. For me, while I was playing it, I get emotionally attached to the message of the song.

But after performing the music, a friend of mine from the assembly told me that it reminds him of some sensual film about a man having sexual intercourse   . 

Though I did not have any intention to play the solo it as he interprets it; his response was based on his past and current experience associated to the one I was playing.

From this experience, I observed that a person's experience in life greatly affects how one would receive and or embrace the music he or she hear.


----------



## MW

Gloria said:


> What is your culture?



That is a broad question. To borrow from Herman Dooyeweerd, it is a chaotic stage of transition between the spirit of ancient civilization (Greece and Rome), Christendom, modern humanism, and antihumanism.


----------



## Josiah

tlharvey7 said:


> before i was regenerated i played loud lead guitar for rock bands.
> i was arrested and put in prison for various crimes in 1988. my conversion took place at this time. when i was released in 1990 i would not even touch a guitar. my calouses turned to mush and my skill was all but depleted... i cared not, because my love for the One who rescued me was my main concern.
> 2 years went by and i picked it up again. i love to play... i love to play in church and i love to "jam" with other people. i was even privledged to tour with a black gospel band for a couple years
> when i began to play again, i became a "worship leader"
> i fell in love with Hosanna Integrity music because much of it was simply scripture set to music.
> but i noticed a trend back then (early 90's) the music was starting to have a grunge, edgy rock style to it. though i liked some of the music, it seemed out of place in worship.
> now that is the normal thing you see in churches today... 20 somethings with tatoos and cool hair, clothes, ect. it lacks reverence. a teenage rockgroup should not be "leading worship" that is my opinion. i think playing music for fun or entertainment is fine. but there needs to be a sensitivity towards what we do in the house of God.
> 
> i have a good friend who is a "reformed hip-hop" guy his music is gritty, urban and loud.
> the stuff is outstanding
> this guy is also a pastor, and he does not 'rap" from the pulpit, because he knows that this particular medium has a place and purpose... and it's not during the worship service.
> but again.. these are just opinions



Hi Thomas,

This thread, as well as your post reminded me of a point that Darryl Hart had made about Christian rock and roll music and how the music affects the mind of the church. some time ago about in an article written for the Nicotine Theological Journal. It reads: 



> Just Grow Up
> April 23rd, 2009 by Darryl G. Hart
> 
> (From NTJ, January 1999)
> 
> A recent visit to Yale, complete with watching a Yale-Princeton hockey game, reminded us of the suffocating ubiquity of post-1950s popular culture. Being some twenty years removed from college life it was curious to see Yale undergraduates participating in the rah-rah spirit that college students of our generation studiously avoided in the name of being independently cool. Even more surprising was to see the overwhelming support for the Yale band, an extracurricular activity that certain boomers associated with losers and nerds. But here we were, in 1998, watching kids supposedly indoctrinated in the dogma of political correctness and postmodernism not just playing in but singing along with the band. Perhaps even more remarkable was that these nineteen- and twenty-year olds knew the words to the songs the band played. The Rolling Stones, the Beatles and Credence Clearwater Revival – it didn’t matter. These students sang along. The scene was almost surreal. These college students were joining in the singing of music that in our generation was supposed to be a pronounced statement against joining anything. Of course, one of the great myths of popular culture is that of the solitary individual who does his own thing, even while two-thirds of the teenage population are doing exactly the same thing.
> 
> But aside from revealing the conformist side of pop culture’s individualism, this scene also spoke volumes about the triumph of rock ‘n roll. Who could have imagined college students in the 1960s and 1970s singing with the college band to popular songs three decades old? Would any of us have known the words to the songs of Frank Sinatra or the Andrews Sisters? So why then won’t John, Paul, Ringo and Mick just go away? Perhaps, an even more pressing question is why people are not embarrassed to continue to live like teenagers even when they are in their forties and fifties?
> 
> One way of considering this question is to contrast the Rolling Stones’ relatively recent tour (lots of 1970s bands are doing retrospective treks, we understand) with what Frank Sinatra did for almost all of his life and with what Tony Bennett continues to do – that is, sing the songs that made them stars. It was not the least embarrassing for Sinatra to sing his kind of music because it was and is adult (don’t ask for a definition; it’s like p0rnography). It may not be Mozart or Vaughn Williams, but the way of singing, combined with the ethos such songs create, do not require listeners or adoring fans to act like teenagers. In other words, no one thought Frank silly singing his songs into his eighties. The same cannot be said for Mick Jagger. In fact, one cannot think of a more laughable sight than a man who is a grandfather acting like he is still the high-school deviant whose only care seems to be questioning all forms of authority.
> 
> *Which raises a further question – why the triumph of rock ‘n roll in most sectors of Christian worship? Why has perpetually adolescent music become appropriate for expressing praise and adoration to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? This is not to suggest that ballads like those made popular by Sinatra would be fitting. Our preference runs to the Psalms of the Old Testament set to tunes that are either singable by all generations or chanted. But the triumph of rock ‘n roll, whether soft or not, seems to run contrary to the apostle Paul’s instructions in Titus where he told older men to be temperate, serious, and sensible, and older women to be sensible, chaste, and domestic. If this is indeed conduct fitting sound doctrine, in fact, if gravity and self-control are virtues that sound doctrine is supposed to produce, then why has Christian worship become the arena where the musical forms of the Stones, Beatles and CCR, already domesticated, are now baptized?*
> 
> *Of course, our culture has many problems, but it does not say good things about our churches that by failing to see any difference between serious and frivolous music they are also in danger of losing the ability to distinguish adolescence from maturity. Of course, churches who follow the lead of pop culture may become as mainstream and as ubiquitous as the Stones, but they are likely to look just as silly when they turn fifty.*


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Not to be totally  but the reason us kids are still singing the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc is that modern "rock n' roll" is just plain terrible and extremely over-produced. The era of 1964-1979 is just unrepeatable as far as quality and "ground roots" go in music and lyrical history.


----------



## Gloria

> finally, in my experience, many of those advancing theories of music where some forms are moral and other forms are immoral usually are propping up a theory that *western culture is the pinnacle of advancement *and thus their arguments usually find the music of 18th century *christian europe *to by the height of advancement.



bingo.

-----Added 10/20/2009 at 09:10:57 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your culture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a broad question. To borrow from Herman Dooyeweerd, it is a chaotic stage of transition between the spirit of ancient civilization (Greece and Rome), Christendom, modern humanism, and antihumanism.
Click to expand...


LOL...m'kay. *smh*


----------



## steadfast7

> It's only hard for relativists. On your ground, the artist himself wouldn't be able to say "This is a better work" or "I failed to achieve my goal in that instance". Technical excellence and accuracy and comprehensiveness of philosophy, to mention only two points, are most certainly points of difference. Consider again what the Bible says about Bezaleel and then tell me if all craftsmen (and crafstmanship is not the least part of artistry) are created equal.



Using the term 'relativist' in a discussion about art, are we? I immediately read moral relativism into that (not sure if that's your intention). sneaky. We are still in the process of determining whether the formal elements of art and music necessarily have a moral component or not. The jury's still out as far as I'm concerned. Unless, of course, you don't mean relativist in a moral sense.

Technical excellence, accuracy, and comprehensiveness (however they're defined) are criteria that can be used to judge art and music, but they are not the only ones. At a certain point of human culture, they are revered as the basis for judging art, but times and cultures change. I could even argue that the meaning of those words 'excellence' and 'accuracy' have a range of meaning which may be context-specific and have changed as well. See, you have chosen those specific criteria based on your personal tastes. What about the criteria of expressiveness, psychological effect, philosophical exploration, political activism, creativity, uniqueness? 

by your definition of artistic excellence, we would assume that no work of art found outside of the acedemies and _salons_ of Paris would ever be considered good; in which case, say goodbye to Picasso, Monet, Cezanne, the abstract expressionists, the photographers, etc.

In another sense, excellence in accuracy, comprehensiveness, line, form, colour, symmetry can be found in graffitti art splattered on walls and trains. People of certain cultural backgrounds would ridicule and never appreciate that form of art - and I think the reason is personal preference and upbringing.


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> Using the term 'relativist' in a discussion about art, are we? I immediately read moral relativism into that (not sure if that's your intention). sneaky. We are still in the process of determining whether the formal elements of art and music necessarily have a moral component or not. The jury's still out as far as I'm concerned. Unless, of course, you don't mean relativist in a moral sense.



Yes, it would seem we are. Your subsequent remarks make clear that it is an appropriate term, because you are arguing that the standards of artistic judgment are relative. At this point we are not discussing morality, because you objected to me asserting that Brahms is artistically superior to many other musicians. The two discussions are distinct.



steadfast7 said:


> Technical excellence, accuracy, and comprehensiveness (however they're defined) are criteria that can be used to judge art and music, but they are not the only ones. At a certain point of human culture, they are revered as the basis for judging art, but times and cultures change. I could even argue that the meaning of those words 'excellence' and 'accuracy' have a range of meaning which may be context-specific and have changed as well. See, you have chosen those specific criteria based on your personal tastes. What about the criteria of expressiveness, psychological effect, philosophical exploration, political activism, creativity, uniqueness?



I think you may have overlooked that I said "accuracy and comprehensiveness of philosophy". That philosophy is certainly susceptible of judgment, moral as well as artistic.

I've always considered public psycho-analysis to be a little impertinent, but it so happens that you are wrong about why I chose those two points to mention. I selected them because most people are capable of recognizing pretty readily that there are objective differences with regard to them. There are objective differences with regard to philosophy, because the Bible is true and what contradicts it is not. So if a work expresses a partial or an incorrect philosophy, it is objectively inferior in that regard to a work that expresses a more thorough and a true philosophy. And there are objective differences in technical excellence, because some people can't draw a straight line, or hit a note in key, or write a clear sentence. Exhibit A - Ken Lee:
[video=youtube;fkrC9P1IvIE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkrC9P1IvIE[/video]

None of the other criteria you mention are insusceptible of critical or moral analysis, although some of them are incidental to the quality of art. 



steadfast7 said:


> by your definition of artistic excellence, we would assume that no work of art found outside of the acedemies and _salons_ of Paris would ever be considered good; in which case, say goodbye to Picasso, Monet, Cezanne, the abstract expressionists, the photographers, etc.



When I hold up the French Academy as the standard, you may then tax me with this implication. However, the term "good" is meaningless if it can be applied to anything. And if the standards themselves change, we need only wait long enough and anything will be eventually be good - and then in turn be bad again. The same thing results if a work is to be judged only by a standard emanating from itself: in that case, it is automatically good, because it sets the standard. But "good" at that point is equally useless as a descriptor. 



steadfast7 said:


> In another sense, excellence in accuracy, comprehensiveness, line, form, colour, symmetry can be found in graffitti art splattered on walls and trains. People of certain cultural backgrounds would ridicule and never appreciate that form of art - and I think the reason is personal preference and upbringing.



The fact that judges may be limited and partial does not mean that judgment is intrinsically impossible. And it sounds like you're admitting that here, because you said "can be found" not "must be found". In other words, it is possible for graffiti to be the awkward and badly-executed expression of a paltry idea formed in a degraded mind.


----------



## steadfast7

I agree that being in tune is generally a good test of quality when it comes to singing. Singing out of tune is considered "bad" for that particular venue because tone is something that the judges are actually looking for as a criteria for judgment. but consider the following Jackson Pollock work:

http://artmiser.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/30pollock_lg.jpg

There is a technical excellence that is achieved in this type of art which is of a different sort than what is found in a renaissance piece, for instance. the different traditions have their own standards for quality. No worthy art critic says, "well, that doesn't look like anything, therefore it's bad."

In terms of innovation, Pollock's work has arguably made more of a contribution to art than other artists.

suffice it to say that I think there is an interplay of culture and tradition that gives us our understanding of quality. Perhaps there are standards held universally, but the diversity far outweighs the similiarities. biblically and theologically, nothing seems clearly defined when it comes to what is artistically good - the Bezalel example affirms that beauty does exist. When it comes to an authority on the criteria for quality, I've only heard Aristotle cited, but why does he get to have the final say?


----------



## py3ak

The view that innovation is automatically a good thing is inherently flawed.

I have never once referred to Aristotle on this thread, so asking me why he gets to have the final say is simply irrelevant. Of course the question could be turned around and you could be asked, "Why _doesn't_ Aristotle (or Longinus, for that matter) get to have the final say?"

You have admitted that beauty exists, and involved in that is the idea that a work can partake of or approach to beauty to a greater or lesser extent. You also constantly _behave_ as though judgment is possible ("greater contribution"..."worthy art critic", etc.). And yet you maintain that the standards change, and seem to imply that they depend on the judges ("tone is something the judges are looking for"). I think some of this confusion is likely due to a failure to distinguish between fashions and standards (though perhaps that is what you are driving it with suggesting that there may be some standards that are held universally). But the way you put it expresses, in general, an agnostic view about the standards. It may also help to point out that fashions may themselves be judged, and that something can be liked or admired without therefore being good. So someone, _a worthy critic_, could maintain that something is outstanding, and it's no more good art than a used Kleenex is.

Aesthetics are not neutral, and a generally sound aesthetic consciousness is not unattainable. When Paul commands us to think on things that are lovely (Philippians 4:8), when the OT commends the beauty of a given woman or the splendour of a building it is clearly held out that such concepts are valid. Our grasp of that aesthetic standard may vary in culture and time, and from person to person, but that no more changes the standard than the fact that some people derive crazy things from Scripture is a reflection on Scripture itself. That Valentina Hasan thinks she can sing doesn't mean that she can, or that Rolando Villazón can't, nor even that we can't be sure which of them is actually worth listening to.


----------



## steadfast7

py3ak said:


> The view that innovation is automatically a good thing is inherently flawed.
> 
> I have never once referred to Aristotle on this thread, so asking me why he gets to have the final say is simply irrelevant. Of course the question could be turned around and you could be asked, "Why _doesn't_ Aristotle (or Longinus, for that matter) get to have the final say?"
> 
> You have admitted that beauty exists, and involved in that is the idea that a work can partake of or approach to beauty to a greater or lesser extent. You also constantly _behave_ as though judgment is possible ("greater contribution"..."worthy art critic", etc.). And yet you maintain that the standards change, and seem to imply that they depend on the judges ("tone is something the judges are looking for"). I think some of this confusion is likely due to a failure to distinguish between fashions and standards (though perhaps that is what you are driving it with suggesting that there may be some standards that are held universally). But the way you put it expresses, in general, an agnostic view about the standards. It may also help to point out that fashions may themselves be judged, and that something can be liked or admired without therefore being good. So someone, _a worthy critic_, could maintain that something is outstanding, and it's no more good art than a used Kleenex is.
> 
> Aesthetics are not neutral, and a generally sound aesthetic consciousness is not unattainable. When Paul commands us to think on things that are lovely (Philippians 4:8), when the OT commends the beauty of a given woman or the splendour of a building it is clearly held out that such concepts are valid. Our grasp of that aesthetic standard may vary in culture and time, and from person to person, but that no more changes the standard than the fact that some people derive crazy things from Scripture is a reflection on Scripture itself. That Valentina Hasan thinks she can sing doesn't mean that she can, or that Rolando Villazón can't, nor even that we can't be sure which of them is actually worth listening to.



The Aristotle thing was not in reference to something discussed on the thread, sorry for the confusion. Your views of aesthetics and his are well aligned though. Yes, I do believe that beautiful and lovely things exist, I'm just a little skeptical about our ability to systematize it. We run into problems of authority, culture, individual taste. it seems that things that are objective should be impervious to matters of taste and preference, like moral laws and biblical truths. We should be able to articulate it infallibly as a propositional truth, but aesthetics is another kind of animal altogether.


----------



## Peairtach

The above painting is a pattern, and patterns don't _have_ to have meaning but can be just there to entertain.

On the other hand the artist could be saying "There is no meaning" which is an unchristian thing to say.

But if the artist had been a Christian, he/she could be saying "It sometimes feels as if life is meaningless/purposeless" which could be compatible with Christian faith and not be promoting a message of "everything is meaningless" and nihilism.

What I'm trying to say is that you cannot always read an artwork by its cover. There could be good motivation behind _some_ apparently nihilistic works (?)

But the pervasive movement of modern painting and other visual art is clearly linked to the spiritual decline of the West.

....................................................................................

I see the Jackson Pollock has disappered. I hope no-one's gone off with it!

Whether you like him or not, it's money that's the most important thing!


----------



## py3ak

steadfast7 said:


> The Aristotle thing was not in reference to something discussed on the thread, sorry for the confusion. Your views of aesthetics and his are well aligned though. Yes, I do believe that beautiful and lovely things exist, I'm just a little skeptical about our ability to systematize it. We run into problems of authority, culture, individual taste. it seems that things that are objective should be impervious to matters of taste and preference, like moral laws and biblical truths. We should be able to articulate it infallibly as a propositional truth, but aesthetics is another kind of animal altogether.



The Fall has made a lot of things more complicated both because it messes with our abilities and because it creates extreme and unusual circumstances (as has been observed, "even love is a source of pain" now). But that complexity is something we deal with in everything. Moral laws are universal - but how often do you find specific deviations from one point or another of moral law, not just in practice but even in theory? We are pilgrims on the way, and our grasp of truth is not equal to that of the beatified. That's no reason not to keep walking on the way.

But given those complexities, _praise because things are_, is a vital point: there ought to be delight in that things exist, and in the specific quality that God has given to them (even when God is not expressly acknowledged). Now because of the Fall that does sometimes take on startling expressions, as in bitter, acerbic books that attack the current order for the wrongs it perpetrates. That does not at first glance seem like love or gratitude or joy, but anger because of oppression is an expression, in the face of injustice, of a recognition of the value of God's creation. You can compare it to the rather odd phenomenon of the existence of apologetics and elenctics as a distinct branch of theology. Theology is fundamentally positive and affirmative, it asserts that God is and God has spoken and God has done: it is proclamatory of exceeding greatness; but at times theology takes on a negative and at times a defensive posture. That is anomalous situation. The cherubim in Isaiah 6 are not engaging in polemics; but in the context of infidels, heretics, blasphemers and errorists of various stripes, the refutation of error and defense of the truth becomes necessary. And so in the celebration of God's creative activity, stories inevitably have to reckon with the fact of sin, and no moderately observant person can escape flights of intense indignation for the degradation of the world. And so Chaucer's delight in a May morning and Orwell's description of life in a Paris slum, different though they are, stem from a love of the good. On an artistic level they have not chosen negation or randomness or meaninglessness. Like Juan Sanchez Cotán, they proclaim that being is good:


----------



## Christusregnat

armourbearer said:


> I've just finished saying that I don't need to avoid any music and you follow up with a question asking me what music I need to avoid.



So, do you listen to heavy metal? To grunge? To rap? To rap-core? If you don't avoid them, do you listen to them? The original post was infusing an ethical element into certain styles of music. I misread your posts by putting them into that context. So, if you don't avoid certain styles of music, do you consider all styles of music lawful, but to be carefully listened to (while not avoiding) for the sake of the heathen's pop conscience?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Peairtach

> Which raises a further question – why the triumph of rock ‘n roll in most sectors of Christian worship?



I think a lot of people in these churches just assume without thinking about it very much that the Apostles along with the whole first century Church were into Rock.  Maybe some of them even think they watched their favourite golden oldies on Youtube.


----------



## MW

Christusregnat said:


> So, do you listen to heavy metal? To grunge? To rap? To rap-core? If you don't avoid them, do you listen to them? The original post was infusing an ethical element into certain styles of music. I misread your posts by putting them into that context. So, if you don't avoid certain styles of music, do you consider all styles of music lawful, but to be carefully listened to (while not avoiding) for the sake of the heathen's pop conscience?



It is impossible to engage culture and to avoid these kinds of styles. In fact, it seems I cannot even go shopping today without having such noise thrust upon me. But, having heard these styles and discerned them for their cultural message and influence, I must say, I do not enjoy them, and I find it surprising to hear that other Christians find them enjoyable. When one considers what these styles represent to our young people (and to our never maturing older people, as Darryl Hart has pointed out), for a Christian to enjoy these styles of music indicates that they are not engaging or confronting their culture, but standing very much within it as a participant of it.


----------



## ChristianTrader

[video=youtube;wstgO2kHtTM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wstgO2kHtTM[/video]


----------



## timmopussycat

py3ak said:


> And that case would be accurate. Allan Bloom made a similar point in _The Closing of the American Mind_, and you can find arguments about music itself without regard to the words before rock and rap came on the scene. Richard Weaver and R.C.H. Lenski both have condemnations of jazz. Verdi's _Requiem_ caused a controversy because some considered it too operatic for ecclesiastical music.
> 
> Also, the Bible makes it clear that music, without regard to the words, has an impact on the human personality when David plays with his hand and the evil spirit departs from Saul, and when as Elisha listens to the playing of a minstrel the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him. In neither case were words involved, so to maintain that it is only the lyrics that can be judged for the morality and profitability of their impact is to close one's eyes to Scripture, history and plain fact, and to walk down a blind alley that leaves you helplessly repeating the inane question, "So which chord, exactly, is sinful?"



Does anybody know where one can obtain Weaver's and Lenski's comments? 
It would be interesting to know what they objected to in jazz and why they did so. It is unlikely to be the purely improvisational element, an element which was a part of Western baroque and classical music at the time when it was written.

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 08:55:50 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> Those subjective impacts vary widely based on the person.



While subjective impacts vary based upon the person, they tend to promote a common emotional affect. If you listen to music written for the same purpose by composers of different nationalities you will discover that the music achieves similar emotional affects across national cultures and time by the use of similar means. Listen to marches by Strauss (Radetsky March), Fucik (Entrance of the Gladiators), Pierre Leemans (Belgian Paratroopers), Alford (Colonel Bogey), and Sousa (Stars & Stripes) in sequence and you'll hear what I mean. Those composers knew the emotional affect they wanted their listeners to experience and in each case, the chosen musical means accomplish that goal.


----------



## Pergamum

timmopussycat said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that case would be accurate. Allan Bloom made a similar point in _The Closing of the American Mind_, and you can find arguments about music itself without regard to the words before rock and rap came on the scene. Richard Weaver and R.C.H. Lenski both have condemnations of jazz. Verdi's _Requiem_ caused a controversy because some considered it too operatic for ecclesiastical music.
> 
> Also, the Bible makes it clear that music, without regard to the words, has an impact on the human personality when David plays with his hand and the evil spirit departs from Saul, and when as Elisha listens to the playing of a minstrel the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him. In neither case were words involved, so to maintain that it is only the lyrics that can be judged for the morality and profitability of their impact is to close one's eyes to Scripture, history and plain fact, and to walk down a blind alley that leaves you helplessly repeating the inane question, "So which chord, exactly, is sinful?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does anybody know where one can obtain Weaver's and Lenski's comments?
> It would be interesting to know what they objected to in jazz and why they did so. It is unlikely to be the purely improvisational element, an element which was a part of Western baroque and classical music when it was written.
> 
> -----Added 10/21/2009 at 08:55:50 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those subjective impacts vary widely based on the person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While subjective impacts vary based upon the person, it is not perhaps such a wide variance as you might expect within a dominant musical culture. If you listen to music written for the same purpose by composers of different nationalities you will discover that the music achieves similar emotional affects across the cultures by the use of similar means. Listen to marches by Strauss (Radetsky March), Fucik (Entrance of the Gladiators), Leemans (Belgian Paratroopers) Alford (Colonel Bogey) and Sousa (Stars & Stripes) in sequence and you'll hear what I mean. Those composers knew the emotional affect they wanted their listeners to experience and in each case, the chosen musical means accomplish that goal.
Click to expand...


Yes, I cannot deny that - even without lyrics - some music has a predictable effect. 

These differing effects are useful for different purposes. 

For instances, I love heavier music to work out to (making sure the lyrics are sanitary....plus, by "heavier" I mean medieval music or Scotland the Brave, etc), but this heavier music would be inappropriate for church. 

Armies use marches and not lullabies to motivate men into battle for a reason. It is frightening that many are listening to "battle music" while they are driving on our freeways.


I do not think that a classification of "moral music" and "immoral music" without regard to lyrics is easy to make, and maybe even not possible for sure, but I do agree that music influences emotions and - if the intended effect is not good - than music may "grease" one's path towards immorality.

And, some music is not fit for certain contexts, but is A-Okay outside of that context. The Darth Vadar theme is perfectly moral in its context, but would be terribly amiss if we played it as one's pastor ascended to his pulpit.


----------



## ChristianTrader

Christusregnat said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sir,
> 
> Why exactly is music and its effect consider a great deal more subjective than for example, loud sounds and contaminated water? Let say someone says, "If someone listens to music at a certain level for a certain period of time they will lose their hearing, slowly but progressively". Would anyone response, "Well that is just you and your hearing, don't try to tell me how my body and ears operate. I can handle it."
> 
> Or lets say someone says, "If you drink water containing X, Y, and Z, you will get disease X and die within six months." Would anyone respond, "Well that is you and your digestive system, don't pretend to tell me about the effect on me and my body."
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are drawing parallels that are not there. The parallel you draw poisons the well by things that are clearly damaging physically to things that are not necessarily so morally. It is a begging of the question.
> 
> Perhaps your argument is like contaminated water, and by listening to it, I've been poisoned
Click to expand...


Actually one could use positive parallels if you wish, that aspect is incidental to my point. 

Let us go back to your first post in this thread. 

"If you are going to bind people's consciences, you had better be sure you have a higher authority than natural men, and Christians who have repeated them. "

Those that make the case that one should not listen to certain sounds are just as natural men as those that make the case against listening to certain music. Yet you object to one group binding consciences vs. not objecting to the other. Why?


----------



## (^^)Regin

la la la fa do la fa do la

Why not lets make a test, I am willing to be your guinea pig, give me music files that you would like me to listen to and I will report what happened to me afterward like my behavior, thoughts, body temperature and the like .


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks for the above Hell's Bells thread. I pretty much agree in principle with its observation that music has power.

Just wanted to add though that the music industry and the power it wields to move and control people is a complex of many factors. The tunes, beats, and lyrics are significant, but the power of media, the psychology of group dynamics at concerts and clubs, and the grandiosity of celebrities are big factors in the debate as well which cannot be separated from the music alone. I would argue that these forces are even more influential in producing negative behavioural results than the music itself. It would be too simplistic to say that the musical notes and the accompanying beat is primarily to blame. This is akin to saying that the Roman practice of selling indulgences was the sole and defining cause of the Reformation.


----------

