Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I thought we were talking about the music itself and not the lyrics.
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.
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
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.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.
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
[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]
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?"
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.[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."
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?"
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
Ahhhh! Wagner! *Runs away and hides*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.