Is classical music really better?

[TheInquirer]

During his humiliation, I will concede the possibility he was not visually the paragon of beauty.

"Concede the possibility"??? Are you allowing Scripture to shape your thinking or not?

After looking through your posts, I see a whole lot of dogmatic assertions that are loosely connected to Scripture and seem to be more in accordance with Plato's theory of forms and pagan philosophy than biblical Christianity. For instance, you quoted David Hume far more than you have quoted Scripture to back your assertions.

I've established Christologically that things are either more or less beautiful insofar as they reach to him or are far from him.

You have not "established" that at all, you have merely asserted it. Neither have you demonstrated that one genre of music "reaches" for Christ more than another. You have failed according to your own standard.

Additionally, there have been quite a few disturbing things in your posts including praising male "beauty", claiming a symphony makes you feel closer to heaven than you have ever felt (as if that means anything at all), claiming "more experienced people" are necessary to help us see divine beauty, and then charging us with not "countering" your arguments.

If you want to turn on classical music and admire nude male statutes that is your choice but stop trying to convince everyone else who doesn't want to do that that they simply don't have the kind of "divine" taste in beauty that you do.

I personally find it difficult to trust you as an honest broker in this conversation.

 

[Ploutos]

"Concede the possibility"??? Are you allowing Scripture to shape your thinking or not?

After looking through your posts, I see a whole lot of dogmatic assertions that are loosely connected to Scripture and seem to be more in accordance with Plato's theory of forms and pagan philosophy than biblical Christianity. For instance, you quoted David Hume far more than you have quoted Scripture to back your assertions.



You have not "established" that at all, you have merely asserted it. Neither have you demonstrated that one genre of music "reaches" for Christ more than another. You have failed according to your own standard.

Additionally, there have been quite a few disturbing things in your posts including praising male "beauty", claiming a symphony makes you feel closer to heaven than you have ever felt (as if that means anything at all), claiming "more experienced people" are necessary to help us see divine beauty, and then charging us with not "countering" your arguments.

If you want to turn on classical music and admire nude male statutes that is your choice but stop trying to convince everyone else who doesn't want to do that that they simply don't have the kind of "divine" taste in beauty that you do.

I personally find it difficult to trust you as an honest broker in this conversation.

Would you consider if this post is a bit too incendiary?

I agree with you that Logan has not established a good Biblical warrant for his position, but if you read his last post, he seems to be coming around to that realization for himself.

 

[Pomopu]

"Concede the possibility"??? Are you allowing Scripture to shape your thinking or not?

After looking through your posts, I see a whole lot of dogmatic assertions that are loosely connected to Scripture and seem to be more in accordance with Plato's theory of forms and pagan philosophy than biblical Christianity. For instance, you quoted David Hume far more than you have quoted Scripture to back your assertions.


You have not "established" that at all, you have merely asserted it. Neither have you demonstrated that one genre of music "reaches" for Christ more than another. You have failed according to your own standard.

Additionally, there have been quite a few disturbing things in your posts including praising male "beauty", claiming a symphony makes you feel closer to heaven than you have ever felt (as if that means anything at all), claiming "more experienced people" are necessary to help us see divine beauty, and then charging us with not "countering" your arguments.

If you want to turn on classical music and admire nude male statutes that is your choice but stop trying to convince everyone else who doesn't want to do that that they simply don't have the kind of "divine" taste in beauty that you do.

I personally find it difficult to trust you as an honest broker in this conversation.

Fair enough brother, fair enough! Message heard.

I say concede, because I've heard some alternative interpretations of Isaiah 53 but I have concluded that Jesus was probably plain looking while on earth. I appreciate these concerns. I only meant David as an example we could all agree on. That went off topic, I agree. Turns out not everyone agrees.

I do tend to make dogmatic assertions, that is also true and I'm sorry if it comes off as arrogance.

Yes, I might have to think more on the connection of Christ to music.

I mean, I saw the Cleveland Symphony Orchestra live, perform Mahler's symphony, and it did indeed lift me into sublime and heavenly places. You seem curious, so I'll say it: I was glorifying God with tears streaming down my face, and as it were I could hear angels singing, though perhaps it was only the operatic performer. Do you know the lyrics? Let me quote them, maybe you too would glorify God on hearing them:

Three angels sang a sweet song,
with blessed joy it rang in heaven.
They shouted too for joy
that Peter was free from sin!

And as Lord Jesus sat at the table
with his twelve disciples and ate the evening meal,
Lord Jesus said: "Why do you stand here?
When I look at you, you are weeping!"

"And should I not weep, kind God?
I have violated the ten commandments!
I wander and weep bitterly!
O come and take pity on me!"

"If you have violated the ten commandments,
then fall on your knees and pray to God!
Love only God for all time!
So will you gain heavenly joy."

The heavenly joy is a blessed city,
the heavenly joy that has no end!
The heavenly joy was granted to Peter
through Jesus, and to all mankind for eternal bliss.

I appreciate your concerns though. As far as 'honest brokering,' as a philosophy major my heavy tendency is to be an annoying brat in debates, holding my true opinion close to my chest and playing devil's advocate as long as possible! So that might be true. But I've genuinely come to see via Mr. Ploutos that it is not quite so obvious my position is the correct one.

 

[Alive in Christ]

I say concede, because I've heard some alternative interpretations of Isaiah 53 but I have concluded that Jesus was probably plain looking while on earth.

Jesus was nothing special to look upon at all. There was literally nothing to distinguish Him from any other 1st century Galilean Jew. Not only was He always able to hide Himself among the crowds, but the Roman soldiers even needed to have Him pointed out to them when they came to arrest Him. I imagine that was not a pleasant job for Judas, and if there had been a way for Judas to just tell them what to look for, then that's what he would have done.

I expect that if we were shown a picture of Jesus among His disciples, we wouldn't have a clue which one was Jesus.

 

[sgemmen9]

There's data advocating for it aiding in mental development, memory retention, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by better, but there are certainly some good things there. I find it calming and relaxing. I can understand why some find it boring. I find it to be an acquired taste. The more I learned about music theory the more I realized how amazing some of the classical composers and their works were.

 

[yeutter]

5 health benefits of classical music | The Express Tribune

Classical music may not be everyone’s cup of tea, but its health benefits are worth giving it a listen

tribune.com.pk

 

[TheInquirer]

Would you consider if this post is a bit too incendiary?

I agree with you that Logan has not established a good Biblical warrant for his position, but if you read his last post, he seems to be coming around to that realization for himself.

I give Pompou credit for humbly backing off his position. My patience runs thin when I detect prideful obstinancy when I believe the word of God is being ignored after presented. It seemed to me as if he was more in love with his idea than God’s truth. I apologize if I read the situation incorrectly and I do appreciate you speaking out.

 

[Ploutos]

Is the research about the health benefits of classical music a sufficient basis for arguing that there is an objective way to evaluate music for its harmonic/melodic/rhythmic content? That music with a high degree of order and sophistication (which is more often, but not necessarily, located in the classical genre) can in some way said to actually be better? Presumably the tonal scheme of this music comes into play as well, with the orderliness and sophistication of music being tied to the harmonic series that seems to be found in nature (i.e. sounds producing overtones at multiples of the fundamental frequency, with western tonality being one example of a musical scheme built on this principle). I can't buy that cacophonic or atonal music would have any merit no matter how sophisticated - any concept of the "emancipation of the dissonance" seems to be straight-up postmodernism and anti-Christian, though I am personally fond of much music that pushes the envelope there (a lot of late Romantic and some modern art music).

 

[TheInquirer]

It is an interesting thought - One of the challenges is that terms like, order, sophistication, and dissonance are highly subjective. For example, I visited Doug Wilson's church in Moscow 20 some years ago with a friend who had a history there, and the Psalm singing sounded highly dissonant to me. Several of the songs I had a lot of trouble discerning any melody and I really couldn't participate in the singing.

Additionally, dissonance isn't necessarily a bad thing. Dissonance within a musical piece can be a great contrast to set up "non-dissonant" parts of the musical piece and make those parts stand out. Some classical composers also use less structured parts to communicate a particular theme.

Opera music, and even a lot of Broadway music (when I unintentionally hear it ) sounds much more dissonant and unstructured at times to me than a lot of pop music. However, there is a logic and structure to those pieces that make sense within its own genre. Those who do not understand the genre, or do not have experience listening to it (like me), are not conditioned to notice the beauty and structure according to the standards of the genre.

An example from a genre I understand better is Yngmie Malmstein. He is a highly technical electric guitar player who is very respected. He takes a lot of influence from classical music and I believe I heard him cite Paginini in particular. However, I don't like his music at all (from the little I have sampled). For me, the technical sophistication takes away from melodic enjoyment - to my ear. However, who am I to say his music is any less beautiful or "good" or whatever standard we want to apply just because I don't like listening to it?

Those reasons are why I have a hard time trying to see the sense of finding an objective standard upon which to base music (apart from lyrics of course). Musical taste and sensibility is very culturally conditioned and highly subjective to the individual listener. Additionally, when you gain more experience listening to a particular genre, you learn to notice and appreciate the art within it.

In my mind, I would rather just say that God has built us with enough diversity in our tastes to be able to enjoy a wide array of beauty in its various forms without having to worry about what is "most beautiful" according to some unknown standard that He hasn't made clear to us and leave it at that.

If we pursue the objective beauty thing too hard it can lead to all types of dangerous consequences. For example, do we really want to start rating people (women in particular) on a 1-10 scale according to some standard of objective beauty? Or do we want to recognize that beauty comes in various forms (aesthetic, moral, etc.) and try to see what is beautiful in people and realize that often that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and be OK with that.

To be clear, I am not arguing that beauty doesn't exist. I am arguing that beauty doesn't function like math and we shouldn't force it to.

 

[Pomopu]

I'm highly concerned to maintain an objectivity in the realm of music. The arguments against a Western musical canon are analogous to the arguments against a Western literary canon. I'm highly, highly motivated to maintain a Western literary canon. What I'm not saying is that that which isn't Western classical is "garbage" or "bad." No. I'm just saying it isn't as good. And I'm not saying some indivdual, non-classical pieces don't achieve something amazing. They do. A lot of non-classical music is simply incredible, amazing, it touches the soul and elevates the person, it is objectively great. Still--on the whole, the competition lags far behind. And I'm not saying every classical piece without exception is amazing. That is foolish. Within the genre there is great failure.

Consider the following by Vanhoozer in Is there a Meaning in This Text?

"The argument over whether Shakespeare should be required reading is not about Shakespeare so much as it is about the idea of a common core of values. To ask whether one believes in a “canon” of English literature—a list of classic books—is to raise a question about the possibility of transcontextual, permanent goods. The very idea of a text having a “permanent value” is anathema to those who wish, in the name of freedom, to rebel against authority and to accord to the reader the privilege of “making sense.” The idea of “prescribed” texts that must be read in “prescribed” ways restricts the freedom of the interpreter playfully to invent meaning and pursue self-realization.Moreover, the notion of a canon implies that these prescribed texts also prescribe ways of living insofar as they identify what is of permanent value to human beings. In short, the existence of a literary canon implies something about human existence. Traditional literary critics cherish the canon as the set of books that contain a wealth of moral knowledge about the nature and meaning of the human condition. Those who resist the idea of canon, on the other hand, do so as much for moral and political as for literary reasons. They refuse to recognize permanent values that transcend the concrete situations of texts and readers. Neither readers nor texts are ever “neutral”; they are rather historically and culturally “situated.” To pretend otherwise, to speak of “transcontextual values,” is yet another strategem for those with power to mask their interest behind the guise of “truth.” It is to mistake our interests and values for universal interests and values. The Reader’s Liberation Movement is aptly named, for it is driven by political motives, namely, the desire to unmask texts and interpretations alike as effects of socio-political power. The hermeneutics of suspicion must be applied to the practice of criticism itself, especially to the concept of a literary canon. . ."

According to C.S Lewis, in Abolition of Man, a shift occurred: it was not any longer "that is a beautiful waterfall," but, "that is a beautiful waterfall to me." And that marked the beginning of the end for Western culture. I"m not saying those who refuse to admit of a Western canon of music are arguing along the lines of deconstructionist, post-modern, Marxist, feminist critique. But in my opinion, if we concede there is not a canon, we have at that point opened up terrible pandora's box. God is not a God to hide what is Good, True, and Beautiful. Our God wants us to make judgements of degrees.

The deep sea fanged, lantern fish is not as beautiful as the lion. The Brothers Karmazov is far better than the recent Booker prize-winning novel, Orbital. A suit tailored by a bespoke outfit in London, is far better than a suit bought from K-Mart. Some women are indeed 10/10's, and some women do not have the face or body to be 10's; some men are 10's, and some men are 1's. Vermeer is better than Suzy F., living in Manhattan, literally throwing paint on a canvas. We can make judgements about both genre, and about pieces in a genre. Salieri is not better than Mozart. I repeat, Salieri is not better than Mozart. His music is inferior. His creativity is inferior. He does not produce music that is as beautiful. His music glorifies God less than Mozart's music. Is this a mere subjective feeling? It is grounded in real, objective criticism of Salieri in contrast to Mozart. Furthermore, it is grounded in God's gift of "beauty feeling" without which no man or woman could know a thing is beautiful. This faculty in the imago dei is meant to be rationally guided, and refined. The Latin prose of Erasmus, I hear, is far better than the Latin prose of Voetius. The melodies of Chopin are better than the melodies of Ringo. And so on. But again, why are we so afraid to make ultimate statements about music, when we do so for other art, and non-art? Why are we afraid to admit of good, better, best?

God designed us to reach for Beauty. There is a standard, and it is knowable. There is good, better, best. The very existence of comparative adjectives in the English language proves my point! I will never be ashamed to admit the Western European classical tradition far outstrips anything else, and that anything comparable from any other musical tradition is merely adapting, riffing, diluting, that tradition. Just like I am not afraid to admit I am not a 10/10 in terms of looks; that my sermons are 1/10 in terms of oratorical delivery; and so forth.

My opponents may decry, "Prove it, prove it!" How does one prove that Blantons is better liquor than Elijah Craig? By experiencing Blantons, and being guided by more talented, gifted, and experience bourbon whiskey drinkers. So for those who doubt, ask @Ploutos (who disagrees with me on a philosophical level on this issue) for recommendations on classical music, and let him teach you, guide you, show you the reason "Blantons" (Bach) is better than Elijah Craig (Dua Lipa). All you have to do is listen, and keep listening.

How does one prove one woman could be a movie star, and one woman could never be? By seeing their acting and appearance. You can't prove it on paper, "the cheekbones are 1/4cm to to high . . ." you prove it by "tasting," as it were, with the faculty of "beauty feeling" which God has given the imago dei.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I'm highly concerned to maintain an objectivity in the realm of music. The arguments against a Western musical canon are analogous to the arguments against a Western literary canon. I'm highly, highly motivated to maintain a Western literary canon.

Which "Western literary canon"?

For Augustine, the great books are Virgil, Homer, Ovid, Varro.

For the medieval monk, they're Augustine, Gregory, Jerome.

For the Renaissance man, it's Augustine's canon plus Petrarch and Dante.

For the 17th or 18th century Englishman or American it's those plus Milton, Spencer, Donne, and Shakespeare is licencious and trashy.

For the 19th century man, Shakespeare is in and Augustine, Gregory, and Jerome are out, and Milton is less important.

For the 21st century man, Milton, Spencer, and anything Christian is an afterthought, but Faulkner, Hemmingway, and other moderns are top-notch.

And that's not counting how the "literary canon" is totally different in other parts of the west, which isn't just England and the US.

 

[Pomopu]

Which "Western literary canon"?

For Augustine, the great books are Virgil, Homer, Ovid, Varro.

For the medieval monk, they're Augustine, Gregory, Jerome.

For the Renaissance man, it's Augustine's canon plus Petrarch and Dante.

For the 17th or 18th century Englishman or American it's those plus Milton, Spencer, Donne, and Shakespeare is licencious and trashy.

For the 19th century man, Shakespeare is in and Augustine, Gregory, and Jerome are out, and Milton is less important.

For the 21st century man, Milton, Spencer, and anything Christian is an afterthought, but Faulkner, Hemmingway, and other moderns are top-notch.

And that's not counting how the "literary canon" is totally different in other parts of the west, which isn't just England and the US.

There is one Western canon, from Homer to Virgil to Spencer to Hemmingway. Just finished Abraham, Abraham by Faulkner. But I'll point out, that one benefit of discussing which canon is it implies there is a canon, as it were; or the fact that there is a debate implies there is something to debate about, there there is good, better, best; that some works are "classic," and some are not. I love debate about it. But we must not throw out "canon" itself. In the 21st century, we have the benefit of a manifold great literature, ancient to modern.

 

[Charles Johnson]

There is one Western canon, from Homer to Virgil to Spencer to Hemmingway. Just finished Abraham, Abraham by Faulkner. But I'll point out, that one benefit of discussing which canon is it implies there is a canon, as it were; or the fact that there is a debate implies there is something to debate about, there there is good, better, best; that some works are "classic," and some are not. I love debate about it. But we must not throw out "canon" itself. In the 21st century, we have the benefit of a manifold great literature, ancient to modern.

I agree that there are certain works that most would accept are canonical, or classic.

My point, though, is that like music, it's not a matter of a work being "objectively good," since even the most widely agreed upon (Elizebethan playwrites) were perceived as so degenerate in their own day that the Puritans shut them down.

 

[Pomopu]

I agree that there are certain works that most would accept are canonical, or classic.

My point, though, is that like music, it's not a matter of a work being "objectively good," since even the most widely agreed upon (Elizebethan playwrites) were perceived as so degenerate in their own day that the Puritans shut them down.

The canon falls apart if there is no "objective good." A canon is a rule or measure--measuring what? By definition, God is the objective Good which the best art in literature and music attains to, points to, like the Sun points to the Son. To claim agnosticism in matters of beauty (and this why I care so much) is ultimately to claim that we cannot know God, or his will, or what pleases him, since a thing is beautiful in the proportion to which it accords with God's design, with God's Goodness, God's beauty. To say a thing is beautiful is to say that it is most pleasing to God. God isn't cruel. He doesn't give us beautiful music (people, food, vistas, books, politics) and then neglect to give us the ability to reason and feel our way towards the best of the beautiful things he gave us.

You all, who claim we cannot know, are like the daughters and sons of a good Father who, upon being given respectively a salted chicken, a seasoned chicken, and a gourmet chicken, refuse to point out that the gourmet chicken is the best of the meals given by the Father. But the Father wants the children to know: that chicken is clearly better than the rest. It is more a blessing, more a grace, more an indication of my glorious character.

It isn't a matter of being humble. It isn't a matter of charitable. Admitting an objectiveness to art is crucial for Christian theology.

 

[Charles Johnson]

The canon falls apart if there is no "objective good." A canon is a rule or measure--measuring what? By definition, God is the objective Good which the best art in literature and music attains to, points to, like the Sun points to the Son. To claim agnosticism in matters of beauty (and this why I care so much) is ultimately to claim that we cannot know God, or his will, or what pleases him, since a thing is beautiful in the proportion to which it accords with God's design, with God's Goodness, God's beauty. To say a thing is beautiful is to say that it is most pleasing to God. God isn't cruel. He doesn't give us beautiful music (people, food, vistas, books, politics) and then neglect to give us the ability to reason and feel our way towards the best of the beautiful things he gave us.

You all, who claim we cannot know, are like the daughters and sons of a good Father who, upon being given respectively a salted chicken, a seasoned chicken, and a gourmet chicken, refuse to point out that the gourmet chicken is the best of the meals given by the Father. But the Father wants the children to know: that chicken is clearly better than the rest. It is more a blessing, more a grace, more an indication of my glorious character.

It isn't a matter of being humble. It isn't a matter of charitable. Admitting an objectiveness to art is crucial for Christian theology.

Tertullian and the Puritans would tell you  not watching plays and reading novels is crucial for Christian theology.

What gives?

 

[Pictet]

Tertullian and the Puritans would tell you  not watching plays and reading novels is crucial for Christian theology.

What gives?

Just a very quick response to this one, but these aren't comparable. Plays in Tertullian's day were heavily linked to worship of pagan deities, since that's how they'd evolved.
And novels hadn't been invented in their modern form until most puritans were dead. Barring a few, they are a 19th century form. Obviously plenty of or ancestors still thought them dodgy, but the puritans weren't around by that point.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Just a very quick response to this one, but these aren't comparable. Plays in Tertullian's day were heavily linked to worship of pagan deities, since that's how they'd evolved.

What's changed?

And novels hadn't been invented in their modern form until most puritans were dead. Barring a few, they are a 19th century form. Obviously plenty of or ancestors still thought them dodgy, but the puritans weren't around by that point.

Noted, but this doesn't address the substance of my argument, which is that these "classic" novels and plays were not considered objectively good in the past. Instead, they were considered objectively immoral.

 

[Pictet]

What's changed?

Lots. Plays in the ancient world were literal worship services for pagan gods. You/we may regard modern plays or films as problematic and filled with pagan attitudes, but that isn't the same. The modern equivalent of the ancient theatre isn't going to the theatre, it's going to a Hindu worship service at your local temple and enjoying the way they talk about the 'gods' and the ritual surrounding it/

Noted, but this doesn't address the substance of my argument, which is that these "classic" novels and plays were not considered objectively good in the past. Instead, they were considered objectively immoral.

Again, this is much more complex that it appears on the surface. Dig into those criticisms of novels, and you'll often find that the bad reading they have in view are trashy gothic fiction, or really bad romance novels that are long forgotten, or - for the more educated - particularly loose French novels. And on the other hand you have not only plenty people who valued novels and fiction, but those writing it. Jane Austen wasn't exactly of our churchmanship, but her novels all centre on a moment of repentance for a reason. And also it must not be forgotten that very many of those rejecting novels actually read large amounts of fiction - it just had to be classical fiction, epic poetry, and so on.

The analogue in the present day would be something like TV: personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with the medium, yet we don't have one. Why - there's just heaps of filth and rubbish on it. And I do sometimes warn some of my congregants about the influence TV is having in their lives. And yet it isn't hard to come up with examples of genuinely good TV - whether actually morally good, or common-grace appreciation of creation and other qualities.

Isn't this is a discussion that calls for a bit of nuance? There's a real complexity to discussing these common-grace matters of artistic beauty where we don't have a clear mandate from scripture.

 

[darrellmaurina]

What if, with the Reformers, I find nude Italian art immodest and gaudy, and I prefer a good Protestant painter with fully clothed subjects, like Rembrandt, Hals, or Vermeer?
Does my taste need to be retrained to include a taste for depictions of male genitalia?

You've got a point. The David statue was controversial even when it was created, and even among Italians.

The convention at that time was that nudity was allowed in new works depicting classical subjects and biblical subjects. Some painters and sculptors pushed the envelope on that issue to introduce nudity into places where it would otherwise be prohibited.

I have mixed feelings on this issue.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

I'm highly concerned to maintain an objectivity in the realm of music. The arguments against a Western musical canon are analogous to the arguments against a Western literary canon. I'm highly, highly motivated to maintain a Western literary canon. What I'm not saying is that that which isn't Western classical is "garbage" or "bad." No. I'm just saying it isn't as good. And I'm not saying some indivdual, non-classical pieces don't achieve something amazing. They do. A lot of non-classical music is simply incredible, amazing, it touches the soul and elevates the person, it is objectively great. Still--on the whole, the competition lags far behind. And I'm not saying every classical piece without exception is amazing. That is foolish. Within the genre there is great failure.

Highly disagree.

Chinese philosophers independently developed their philosophical ideas in a similar timespan as the Greeks with beautiful, exquisite texts that overshadow many of what we know as the "classical philosophers" of the day.
So much classical Tang Dynasty Chinese poetry outstrips most western poets I have read with the wordplay, no, even the character play itself.
The "Big Four" Classics of Chinese Literature are absolutely incredible in their depth and beauty and are considered the definitive canon of classic literature in China.
十面埋伏 is one of the greatest technical musical compositions of all time.

You all, who claim we cannot know, are like the daughters and sons of a good Father who, upon being given respectively a salted chicken, a seasoned chicken, and a gourmet chicken, refuse to point out that the gourmet chicken is the best of the meals given by the Father. But the Father wants the children to know: that chicken is clearly better than the rest. It is more a blessing, more a grace, more an indication of my glorious character.

I agree that the Chinese Classics are clearly better than the rest.

And they're basically already canonized, so there's not even an argument about which classics. There's no contest.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Highly disagree.

Chinese philosophers independently developed their philosophical ideas in a similar timespan as the Greeks with beautiful, exquisite texts that overshadow many of what we know as the "classical philosophers" of the day.
So much classical Tang Dynasty Chinese poetry outstrips most western poets I have read with the wordplay, no, even the character play itself.
The "Big Four" Classics of Chinese Literature are absolutely incredible in their depth and beauty and are considered the definitive canon of classic literature in China.
十面埋伏 is one of the greatest technical musical compositions of all time.



I agree that the Chinese Classics are clearly better than the rest.

And they're basically already canonized, so there's not even an argument about which classics. There's no contest.

Chinese literature is really, really good. So is Spanish literature. So is English literature. So is Russian literature. I can't comment on others.

I'm not of the impression that every country has the same amount of top notch literature. But the English literary canon isn't the only one of value, and it's not a given that it's the best.

 

[Neil]

Lots. Plays in the ancient world were literal worship services for pagan gods. You/we may regard modern plays or films as problematic and filled with pagan attitudes, but that isn't the same. The modern equivalent of the ancient theatre isn't going to the theatre, it's going to a Hindu worship service at your local temple and enjoying the way they talk about the 'gods' and the ritual surrounding it/

That's a good point, but to be fair I think the Church Fathers' criticism of literature was often more wide-ranging than pagan religion - they often had an issue with the 'pagan attitudes' too. The best example of this is probably Augustine's criticism of Virgil in Book 1 of the Confessions. His problem with such literature was the sentimental attitude that it encouraged (although this was also probably due to the way in which it was taught). Later in the work he picks up on this theme when he discusses having attended lots of plays to cope with his grief; in hindsight he reflects that they encouraged him to be indulgent in his own sorrows. If he were alive today, I can imagine him sitting in his room listening to Tchaikovsky's Pathetique Symphony instead. I don't think that Augustine would approve of most Western 'classical' music. I think he would have hated Wagner especially.

The canon falls apart if there is no "objective good." A canon is a rule or measure--measuring what? By definition, God is the objective Good which the best art in literature and music attains to, points to, like the Sun points to the Son. To claim agnosticism in matters of beauty (and this why I care so much) is ultimately to claim that we cannot know God, or his will, or what pleases him, since a thing is beautiful in the proportion to which it accords with God's design, with God's Goodness, God's beauty. To say a thing is beautiful is to say that it is most pleasing to God. God isn't cruel. He doesn't give us beautiful music (people, food, vistas, books, politics) and then neglect to give us the ability to reason and feel our way towards the best of the beautiful things he gave us.

You all, who claim we cannot know, are like the daughters and sons of a good Father who, upon being given respectively a salted chicken, a seasoned chicken, and a gourmet chicken, refuse to point out that the gourmet chicken is the best of the meals given by the Father. But the Father wants the children to know: that chicken is clearly better than the rest. It is more a blessing, more a grace, more an indication of my glorious character.

It isn't a matter of being humble. It isn't a matter of charitable. Admitting an objectiveness to art is crucial for Christian theology.

I resonate with what you're saying, and I would certainly want to avoid artistic relativism, as well as to highlight the fact that all beauty finds its ground in God, which cannot be a matter of mere preference. However, I wonder if it's a bit strong to say that no humility is involved in the process of deciding what is beautiful, or that to admit of some degree of 'agnosticism' about music would be to claim that we don't know God. If we accept your definition of beauty (that which accords with God's will and which pleases him), we still don't have any guidance about how to actually evaluate art, or to make definitive aesthetic judgements about a piece of music. We certainly have lots of ideas about what this judgment might involve, based on observation of creation, but I would hesitate to label any specific theory as a necessarily Christian one. The Bible certainly says that there is such a thing as beauty, and that some things are beautiful (so presumably others ugly). However, that doesn't tell us exactly what beauty is, much less how to apply it to music. Is it a quality? Is it an event? Does it require a subjective response to objective features, or require a virtue in the subject like taste? The issue of why we find some music beautiful is quite complex and mysterious, especially seeing as we struggle to even define what 'sound' is in an objective way (see Roger Scruton, 'Sound', The Aesthetics of Music). I'm not saying that a purely objective account of beauty is impossible. Only that we should be cautious before we propose that certain theories are biblical, given that the Bible doesn't say enough related to this topic in order for us to make overly confident claims (with the obvious exception of immoral or un-Christian lyrics). On a more personal note, I have experienced some harsh assessments of my own music taste from Christian brothers before (I unfortunately have to admit to being one of those people who enjoy listening to Webern - I still haven't quite worked out what's wrong with me). I am more than happy for people to provide very spirited attacks on the music that I enjoy, and I always find such discussions fun, but I am confused when my taste is labelled as obviously un-Christian. Even if we don't allow for any personal preference, and it turns out that I am wrong, and it is ugly music after all (and so not in accordance with God and his will) - surely we can't be certain about it on this side of glory, or at least not from a scriptural point of view? I'm not arguing for relativism in response to this lack of certainty, only some caution and a recognition that we could be wrong about people's taste or evaluating certain kinds of music, owing to the complexity of the topic.

 

[Ploutos]

I have really appreciated the good thoughts in this thread. My observation is that the conversation keeps veering from the objective to the personal. @Pomopu - while I share your appreciation of classical music (and I'm thrilled to play a part in creating a new Bruckner fan!), you are going way too far in conflating your idea of objective beauty with your personal preferences! I think you ought to give some more weight to Charles's rejoinders. There is a via media between a wholesale rejection of objective beauty and an overly specific notion of it. Not everything is culturally/contextually situated but it's also not true that nothing is.

What I'm seeing here is arguments analogous to those that pop up in... for instance... KJV-only circles, where a valid argument is used to make an unsupported logical leap to a certain conclusion. Notions about objective beauty are put forth and then used to defend the conclusion that classical music is better. It does not follow of necessity. I'm a firm believer that there is a such thing as objective beauty and yet there is also cultural conditioning and personal taste or preference. There has to be a way to articulate something that encompasses both of these realities. IF there are things about classical music that make it, as a whole or on average, better, what are those things? Orderliness, complexity, sophistication, beauty? Is there scientific evidence showing that different types of music have different effects on their listeners? If so, what aspects of music have a positive impact? This idea is not new, and I've always been amused by the ancient Greek idea that one could weaken one's enemies by playing "harmful" music for them (had earplugs been invented yet, for the performers?). But I have not yet seen a single convincing argument that these positive aspects must be always or nearly always co-terminous with the genre of classical music.

I am one of those people who frequently listens to Tchaikovsky 6th. I recommend Mravinsky's recording, or any other that has the mic placed close to the trombones for the first movement. It is emotionally arousing and gripping music! I also find that Mahler 6th has the same impact, though it requires a bit more taste acquisition to get in the habit of listening to it from beginning to end. I am willing to question, along the lines of Augustine's thinking as mentioned above, whether I should do that or whether I should make a conscious decision to listen to more sacred music and Bach cantatas to the exclusion of Mahler and Tchaikovsky. I'm not about to burn my CD collection and I don't think I'm being scrupulous or fundamentalist. I'm certainly not about to make judgments across the board about what others should and shouldn't do. But I am trying to think through my faith consistently and to ask with a certain degree of impartiality - "Is this thing that I like inherently better for more reasons than just the fact that I like it?" Logan - I encourage you to do the same!

After this morning I will be out of pocket until after the holidays. I look forward to resuming this discussion in 2025 (and I hope that this thread will still be open when I come back!). Blessings to all, and thank you for the stimulating discussion.

 

[Neil]

What I'm seeing here is arguments analogous to those that pop up in... for instance... KJV-only circles, where a valid argument is used to make an unsupported logical leap to a certain conclusion. Notions about objective beauty are put forth and then used to defend the conclusion that classical music is better. It does not follow of necessity. I'm a firm believer that there is a such thing as objective beauty and yet there is also cultural conditioning and personal taste or preference. There has to be a way to articulate something that encompasses both of these realities. IF there are things about classical music that make it, as a whole or on average, better, what are those things? Orderliness, complexity, sophistication, beauty? Is there scientific evidence showing that different types of music have different effects on their listeners? If so, what aspects of music have a positive impact? This idea is not new, and I've always been amused by the ancient Greek idea that one could weaken one's enemies by playing "harmful" music for them (had earplugs been invented yet, for the performers?). But I have not yet seen a single convincing argument that these positive aspects must be always or nearly always co-terminous with the genre of classical music.

I think one of the problems involved in the logical leap being made is that it's one thing to give objective reasons for the beauty of classical music, and then another to argue for its superiority to other types of music. Even if beauty is completely objective, the criteria for beauty shouldn't be overly narrow. There are different ways in which something can be beautiful, and on account of this, some variety is nice. It would be quite boring if there was a hypothetical 'greatest piece of music' which we could create based on a very defined set of objective features. Furthermore, part of the problem in establishing the superiority of classical music is the fact that it's such a wide category. At this point it more or less refers to any western music which isn't a popular song. If we try to establish specific categories to objectively assess what makes it beautiful then we will have to take a very general approach, to the point where we can't really say anything at all. For example, is complexity something which is necessary for a beautiful piece? Many point to this as an example of classical music's superiority, as popular music is mind-numbingly simple by comparison. If we were very narrow about seeing complexity as a superior feature then we would have to think that Bach was the high-point of Western music, and that the 18th century Viennese style of Haydn was a colossal misstep, and music like Gregorian Chant would be dismissed outright. There have been lots of different schools of thought in the West about what kind of music is superior, and each has had very different results. In short, there are certainly things which objectively make classical music beautiful, but I would be careful about making them exclusive features which are necessary for beauty. So instead of arguing for classical music being 'more beautiful' (objectively superior to all other kinds), I wonder if it might be more useful to think about ways in which it might be 'uniquely beautiful' (beautiful in a specific way in which no other music is beautiful). One of the objective features which distinguishes much of the classical tradition from other types of music is the idea of sonata form. More recent musicologists have pointed out the importance of viewing sonata form not as a rigid structure made up of elements like 'exposition' or 'theme A', but more as a broad musical concept of music which has a certain harmonic trajectory. There is a lot that could be said about the value of this idea, and it is a very unique feature which allows for long-form musical experiences which other kinds of music can't produce. Does that make the music objectively more beautiful? Again, I'm hesitant to say so (there is lots of beautiful music which doesn't follow this tradition), but it certainly makes for a strong experience of beauty which is very unique. Most attempts to objectively argue for the superiority of the western tradition are arguments based on the scientific nature of the overtone series (Hindemith tried to use this argument to objectively vindicate tonal music, and Bernstein hints towards a similar kind of thing towards the end of his Harvard lectures, arguing that the overtone series is a sort of natural law). But even there we have fiddled with the natural intervals to produce the well-tempered twelve-tone system (which was surely a good development). Overall, I think it's impossible to talk about beauty with reference only to specific stylistic features, since we have to pay attention to the experience which they create. At the end of the day, beauty involves an experience, or an encounter of the beautiful, and different kinds of music produce different encounters. Different kinds of music also have different aims. Sometimes it's not even clear if there's enough of an overlap in experience which we can call 'beauty'. For example, if I say that Bach's music is beautiful, and my friend says that Taylor Swift's music is beautiful, are we even talking about the same thing? We probably had very different experiences, and valued very different things in the music, and I think 'beauty' might as well be equivocal at that point.

I am one of those people who frequently listens to Tchaikovsky 6th. I recommend Mravinsky's recording, or any other that has the mic placed close to the trombones for the first movement. It is emotionally arousing and gripping music! I also find that Mahler 6th has the same impact, though it requires a bit more taste acquisition to get in the habit of listening to it from beginning to end. I am willing to question, along the lines of Augustine's thinking as mentioned above, whether I should do that or whether I should make a conscious decision to listen to more sacred music and Bach cantatas to the exclusion of Mahler and Tchaikovsky. I'm not about to burn my CD collection and I don't think I'm being scrupulous or fundamentalist. I'm certainly not about to make judgments across the board about what others should and shouldn't do. But I am trying to think through my faith consistently and to ask with a certain degree of impartiality - "Is this thing that I like inherently better for more reasons than just the fact that I like it?" Logan - I encourage you to do the same!

After this morning I will be out of pocket until after the holidays. I look forward to resuming this discussion in 2025 (and I hope that this thread will still be open when I come back!). Blessings to all, and thank you for the stimulating discussion.

I love that recording too! Earlier this year I managed to get my hands on Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky 4-6, which is the best of them that I've yet listened to. I thought No. 4 in particular was very good. Have you listened to Bernstein's Mahler 6 with the Wiener Phil for DG? I listened to it recently and thought it was brilliant, I much prefer it to the earlier one he did with Sony. Enjoy the holidays!

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

Music like this needs to be preserved forever:

Health Benefits of Rock and Roll - DoveMed

Discover the many health benefits of rock and roll music, from stress relief to improved cardiovascular health, memory and creativity.

www.dovemed.com

Check this out

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

Nothing better than a large group of godly men worship El Shaddai!

 

[Ploutos]

I love that recording too! Earlier this year I managed to get my hands on Mravinsky's Tchaikovsky 4-6, which is the best of them that I've yet listened to. I thought No. 4 in particular was very good. Have you listened to Bernstein's Mahler 6 with the Wiener Phil for DG? I listened to it recently and thought it was brilliant, I much prefer it to the earlier one he did with Sony. Enjoy the holidays!

Ha, sir. My wife would probably like to have a word with you. Bernstein/Vienna is really the only recording of Mahler 6 that I listen to these days, and any other person would be ashamed to admit how many times they've listened to it. I have probably listened to that recording, from beginning to end, well over 100 times. Nobody brings out the raw emotionality of that piece in the way Bernstein does in that recording (in my opinion).

I really agree with what you've said about classical music as a whole - and thank you for raising those points about the harmonic series! Yes, in some ways western music is "unnatural" in the way in which it tampers with the basic natural laws of the harmonic series - maybe there's some analogy to subduing creation to exercise dominion over it - but it certainly weakens any sort of argument from nature for the superiority of classical music.

 

[MyCrows]

Music like this needs to be preserved forever:

Health Benefits of Rock and Roll - DoveMed

Discover the many health benefits of rock and roll music, from stress relief to improved cardiovascular health, memory and creativity.

www.dovemed.com

Check this out

Must have heard this a thousand times in my lifetime, and never knew where it came from.

 

[TheBoringBaptist]

Must have heard this a thousand times in my lifetime, and never knew where it came from.

You and me both brother.

This guy particularly makes videos of songs people have heard but don't know the name of.

 

[cmiersma]

I think it can be said that Western music in general, including Medieval music, and folk music, developed in the consciousness of Christian teachings. Until well into the 1700s, Music Theory was half concerned with directly connecting everything in pitch and rhythm with numerical symbolism, particularly Biblical symbolism around the numbers 3 and 7. From the 1750s until 1900, they were concerned with the order of nature from a scientific perspective. They were very explicitly doing this from Guido of Arezzo to Paul Hindemith. That means that the system that underlies Classical music is in some sense tied to a Biblical view of the natural order. A case can be made that Schoenberg, and certain 20th century schools deliberately set out to attack this. Popular music is a mixed bag in terms of style.