Power of Music: The true power is beyond the words

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Ahhhh! Wagner! *Runs away and hides*

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

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

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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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... :think:

Probably the biggest "sneer" I ever got was suggesting that Julius Wellhausen and German Higher Criticism sowed the seeds which grew the Third Reich.
I never thought of that before.
 
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.

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

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Not to be totally :offtopic: 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.
 
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-----

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.

LOL...m'kay. *smh*
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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.
 
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
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:

23049-004-B55135DE.jpg
 
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
 
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. :D Maybe some of them even think they watched their favourite golden oldies on Youtube.
 
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.
 
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-----

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.
 
Last edited:
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-----

Those subjective impacts vary widely based on the person.

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.

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.
 
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 :lol:

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?
 
:sing: 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 ;).

:detective:
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top