You know what really misplaces my modifiers? Watching a movie for its CGI effects.
Sure, the extreme geeks who do that sort of thing as a hobby are more or less off the hook, but the rest of us — come on, people. It’s like reading a book for its excellent grammar construction, eating something because it looks good (when you know it’s going to taste bad — like cheesecake), playing a boring video game for its graphics, or listening to a CD because the handsome booklet cover.
—Or listening to music for its chordal progressions. I don’t care about your clever chord combos if the other parts of your music are yucky! Sure, some of the best music contains excellent chord progressions, but they rarely draw attention to that sole aspect — but instead excel in most all aspects. Okay, got that out of my system. Moving on:—
None of these qualities are bad, but are instead generally pleasing. After all, we expect books to have good grammar, food to look good, video games to be fun, and CD covers to be tasteful — but what about when those are the only merits present?
Let’s stick with the grammar illustration: Like grammar, CGI is a fine thing which may be enjoyed in its own right, but when that is all that remains recommendable in a final product, then something is wrong. Take Avatar: Horrible plot-line, leftist propaganda, naked female aliens — however you slice it, a waste of time, money, and artistic sensibilities. Sure, it probably entertains, but so does reading the dictionary (something I need to do more often).
One good thing does not redeem everything else. Hm, reminds me of our music discussion... Anyway, am I off my nut here? Or am I simply missing something?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
A Musical Soapbox Revisited
Here’s the final outline:
1) Definition of Music
2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?
3) The moral nature of music
4) Should the whole be dispensed with if part is flawed?
5) Rock music
6) The Biblical answer
The points I had before are still there. They just collapsed into different points. No use in discussing the same thing twice, is there? Most of the arguments here are stated in what I hope is a concise form — a sort of springboard for discussion. Well, here we go!
1) Definition of Music
Though we all probably have a similar conception of what music is, it would be advisable to arrive at a definite definition of music. I like what my dictionary had to say on the matter:
2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?
The bottom line question here is this: Is music relative or universal? If relative, music is a matter of preference; if universal, a matter of conscience. But even were the latter to prove the case, it cannot be denied that preference plays a part in the selection of any particular acceptable piece of music, leading us to a further question:
Are we hardwired for certain music, conditioned for certain music, or both? I have no definitive answer. (I wonder what my psychology textbook will say on the matter.) Let me give a stab at it nevertheless.
We are hardwired for certain music in as much as our personalities differ, but our experiences further temper those preferences to produce the tastes that we possess. But if music is universal — that is, if it is not merely relative to a person’s conceptions — then cannot music be right or wrong? I would say yes, leading me to a third point:
3) The moral nature of music
My first question: is absolute music moral in nature? By absolute music I mean “Instrumental music that is free of any explicit verbal reference or program.” Examples would be Bach’s Orchestral Suites, Grieg’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in G minor, Op. 13, and anything Vivaldi wrote that was non-vocal and non-Four-Seasons.
So, is it? I would say yes because music constructed in a given way produces a given emotion. That emotion may be elicited to different degrees based on the experiences and opinions of the persons involved. Person A has determined he hates flute music, Person B refuses to listen to opera with an open mind, Person C has decided Japanese music is not his thing. At the core, however, these people would be affected similarly if not identically by the same notes of music apart from associations.
You see, music does not change from person to person. The only thing that changes is the person himself. If there were no way of determining the moral value of a piece — if it were relative — you could get away with musical murder and no one could stop you! Who is to stay Piece A is bad? It doesn’t talk about anything bad. Well, that isn’t the only criteria for music, I dare say.
Something else that has colored this discussion is whether music can be inherently evil. Considering the above, it stands to reason that certain notes can inherently produce a certain reaction — perhaps even a reaction forbidden by God. That would make said arrangement of notes basically wrong for a Christian.
Sound, you see, carries meaning. Whether it is a tree falling down, someone screaming at you, or a door being slammed, sound conveys something to anyone who will listen such as information, a moral message, or a feeling. Music cannot be exempt from this principle.
Apart from the being inherently evil, it is even easier to prove a certain piece of music practically evil. If its use would cause other believers to stumble, then we are instructed to forgo that usage of our Christian liberty. (If the song is inherently bad, of course, then it would be practically evil as well.)
4) Should the whole be dispensed with if part is flawed?
Should an entire song be discarded if part is flawed? Should an entire genre be discarded if it is flawed?
Let’s examine this issue on the level of a single song:
Do the words and the music have a direct relationship? Are the two inseparable? Good words certainly do not make up for a bad tune, just as a good tune do not make up for bad words. The use of the good words or good tunes could easily be hampered, however, by their association with their immoral counterparts.
Can this principle be extended to an entire genre? I would say yes, it is possible, if not as likely or as clear-cut.
5) Rock music
a. Definition and origins of rock music
WordNet gives this definition of rock music:
If this is not enough to condemn rock music, it certainly indicates that something is wrong. Very wrong.
b. Is rock music sensual? Permit my dictionary to define sensual:
I believe that rock music is a generally sensual thing. Recall the fellow above who defined rock music as “sexual energy expressed in sound.” Even if that is only half-true, it could not be denied that rock appeals to generally sensual feelings and drives.
If this is the case, then why bother with rock music? Personally, I find no reason to bother with it, as I find it generally repulsive. But what about as a general principle?
c. Why listen to rock music at all? I can see a number of possible reasons:
6) The Biblical answer (please list all the verses I've failed to remember)
As EK pointed out, we must ask the question is there a distinction between what music we listen to or perform for pleasure & recreation and what we use in a church setting?
It seems logical that music used to worship God must be held up to a higher standard than personal music. For example, humorous songs, while appropriate in many personal situations, are hardly apt for worship.
Does this mean that only serious music glorifies God? No, music can glorify God without being ideal for worship. There is a lot of amazing music that shows how great God is that is not constructed as sacred music. How could such wonderful sounds exist without Him? I have asked myself on more than one occasion when considering certain secular songs.
I quote for your consideration Colossians 3:16:
While some acceptable music may be sullied through some personal attachment according to a particular believe, the moral nature of music assures that there is doubtless some music which all believers should avoid. The key is discerning what that music is...which is why we’re here.
Is there anything in Exodus 32:17 that should influence our discussion? When the people of Israel worshiped the golden calf, their fervor deceived Joshua into thinking it something else:
1) Definition of Music
2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?
3) The moral nature of music
4) Should the whole be dispensed with if part is flawed?
5) Rock music
6) The Biblical answer
The points I had before are still there. They just collapsed into different points. No use in discussing the same thing twice, is there? Most of the arguments here are stated in what I hope is a concise form — a sort of springboard for discussion. Well, here we go!
1) Definition of Music
Though we all probably have a similar conception of what music is, it would be advisable to arrive at a definite definition of music. I like what my dictionary had to say on the matter:
music n. 1. the art and science of combining vocal or instrumental sounds or tones in varying melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre, esp. so as to form structurally complete and emotionally expressive compositions 2. the sounds or tones so arranged, or the arrangement of these
Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College EditionWhat do you think about these definitions? I didn’t take time to research them:
sacred music: Music used to worship God. Or does that require a qualifier?
secular music: Music not intended for the worship of God.
2) Music: A matter of preference or of conscience?
The bottom line question here is this: Is music relative or universal? If relative, music is a matter of preference; if universal, a matter of conscience. But even were the latter to prove the case, it cannot be denied that preference plays a part in the selection of any particular acceptable piece of music, leading us to a further question:
Are we hardwired for certain music, conditioned for certain music, or both? I have no definitive answer. (I wonder what my psychology textbook will say on the matter.) Let me give a stab at it nevertheless.
We are hardwired for certain music in as much as our personalities differ, but our experiences further temper those preferences to produce the tastes that we possess. But if music is universal — that is, if it is not merely relative to a person’s conceptions — then cannot music be right or wrong? I would say yes, leading me to a third point:
3) The moral nature of music
My first question: is absolute music moral in nature? By absolute music I mean “Instrumental music that is free of any explicit verbal reference or program.” Examples would be Bach’s Orchestral Suites, Grieg’s Piano Concerto No. 1 in G minor, Op. 13, and anything Vivaldi wrote that was non-vocal and non-Four-Seasons.
So, is it? I would say yes because music constructed in a given way produces a given emotion. That emotion may be elicited to different degrees based on the experiences and opinions of the persons involved. Person A has determined he hates flute music, Person B refuses to listen to opera with an open mind, Person C has decided Japanese music is not his thing. At the core, however, these people would be affected similarly if not identically by the same notes of music apart from associations.
You see, music does not change from person to person. The only thing that changes is the person himself. If there were no way of determining the moral value of a piece — if it were relative — you could get away with musical murder and no one could stop you! Who is to stay Piece A is bad? It doesn’t talk about anything bad. Well, that isn’t the only criteria for music, I dare say.
Something else that has colored this discussion is whether music can be inherently evil. Considering the above, it stands to reason that certain notes can inherently produce a certain reaction — perhaps even a reaction forbidden by God. That would make said arrangement of notes basically wrong for a Christian.
Sound, you see, carries meaning. Whether it is a tree falling down, someone screaming at you, or a door being slammed, sound conveys something to anyone who will listen such as information, a moral message, or a feeling. Music cannot be exempt from this principle.
Apart from the being inherently evil, it is even easier to prove a certain piece of music practically evil. If its use would cause other believers to stumble, then we are instructed to forgo that usage of our Christian liberty. (If the song is inherently bad, of course, then it would be practically evil as well.)
4) Should the whole be dispensed with if part is flawed?
Should an entire song be discarded if part is flawed? Should an entire genre be discarded if it is flawed?
Let’s examine this issue on the level of a single song:
Do the words and the music have a direct relationship? Are the two inseparable? Good words certainly do not make up for a bad tune, just as a good tune do not make up for bad words. The use of the good words or good tunes could easily be hampered, however, by their association with their immoral counterparts.
Can this principle be extended to an entire genre? I would say yes, it is possible, if not as likely or as clear-cut.
5) Rock music
a. Definition and origins of rock music
WordNet gives this definition of rock music:
rock music (a genre of popular music originating in the 1950s; a blend of black rhythm-and-blues with white country-and-western) "rock is a generic term for the range of styles that evolved out of rock'n'roll."A gentleman who writes rock music puts it thus:
Rock and roll is sexual energy expressed in soundWhat about the phrase “rock and roll?” According to AllWords.com,
As a noun:Wikipedia has something similar to say about the verb meaning of the phrase.
1. The type of music
2. The dancing associated with the music
3. “An intangible feeling, philosophy, belief or allegiance relating to rock music (generally from the 1970s &1980s), and heavy metal bearing certain elements of this music, pertaining to unbridled enthusiasm, cynical regard for certain Christian and authoritarian bodies, and attitudes befitting some degree of youthful debauchery.”
As a verb:
1. “to start, commence, begin, get moving (Let’s rock and roll)”
2. “a euphemism for sexual intercourse.”
If this is not enough to condemn rock music, it certainly indicates that something is wrong. Very wrong.
b. Is rock music sensual? Permit my dictionary to define sensual:
sensual (adj.)It should be noted that a distinction must be made between sensual and sensuous:
1. Of the body and the senses as distinguished from the intellect or spirit; bodily [sensual pleasures]
2. a) connected or preoccupied with bodily or sexual pleasures; voluptuous b) full of lust; licentious; lewd
3. resulting from, or showing preoccupation with, bodily or sexual pleasure [a sensual expression]
SYN. — sensuous suggests the strong appeal of that which is pleasing to the eye, ear, touch, etc. and, of a person, implies susceptibility to the pleasures of sensation [soft, sensuous music]; sensual refers to the gratification of the grosser bodily senses or appetite [sensual excesses]
(Webster’s New World Dictionary, Second College Edition)The word sensual therefore has general the connotation of lust and the “grosser bodily senses.”
I believe that rock music is a generally sensual thing. Recall the fellow above who defined rock music as “sexual energy expressed in sound.” Even if that is only half-true, it could not be denied that rock appeals to generally sensual feelings and drives.
If this is the case, then why bother with rock music? Personally, I find no reason to bother with it, as I find it generally repulsive. But what about as a general principle?
c. Why listen to rock music at all? I can see a number of possible reasons:
i. You find it enjoyableOne question I have: Should you find it enjoyable?
ii. You feel it can be used to effectively praise God
iii. Um, yeah.
6) The Biblical answer (please list all the verses I've failed to remember)
As EK pointed out, we must ask the question is there a distinction between what music we listen to or perform for pleasure & recreation and what we use in a church setting?
It seems logical that music used to worship God must be held up to a higher standard than personal music. For example, humorous songs, while appropriate in many personal situations, are hardly apt for worship.
Does this mean that only serious music glorifies God? No, music can glorify God without being ideal for worship. There is a lot of amazing music that shows how great God is that is not constructed as sacred music. How could such wonderful sounds exist without Him? I have asked myself on more than one occasion when considering certain secular songs.
I quote for your consideration Colossians 3:16:
Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (NASB)So, what about Christian liberty? Aren’t we just making sure the weaker brother doesn’t stumble when we choose are music? I would say it is not impossible, but that it is not necessarily the case.
While some acceptable music may be sullied through some personal attachment according to a particular believe, the moral nature of music assures that there is doubtless some music which all believers should avoid. The key is discerning what that music is...which is why we’re here.
Is there anything in Exodus 32:17 that should influence our discussion? When the people of Israel worshiped the golden calf, their fervor deceived Joshua into thinking it something else:
Now when Joshua heard the sound of the people as they shouted, he said to Moses, “There is a sound of war in the camp.”I leave you with Psalm 150:
1 Praise the LORD!
Praise God in His sanctuary;
Praise Him in His mighty expanse.
2 Praise Him for His mighty deeds;
Praise Him according to His excellent greatness.
3 Praise Him with trumpet sound;
Praise Him with harp and lyre.
4 Praise Him with timbrel and dancing;
Praise Him with stringed instruments and pipe.
5 Praise Him with loud cymbals;
Praise Him with resounding cymbals.
6 Let everything that has breath praise the LORD.
Praise the LORD! (NASB)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)