What is music?

Travel...I will not violate my own request and comment too deeply. I will simply say I can see where you are coming from and have many points of agreement with you. After all, I am a musician by training and practice. I get it.

I have fortunately found some excellent songs and musicians in CCM. I have found God speaking into my heart through the works of these songs and particular musicians. I am very thankful, especially as I walk an extremely dark valley at this time.

I have also experienced "plastic" musicians and music in the CCM world. I believe Mark Hall best explains this in his song from the new Casting Crowns album, Lifesong , in the song "Stain Glass Masquerade." In his usual hard-hitting honesty, Mark asks us to question our hearts and motives while we sit under the "plastic steeples" in our churches. I commend that album to serious Christians who don't mind Spirit-led conviction. The album is not for "plastic banana" Christians.

 

The important point was the universal perception of the relationships, and the fact that all cultures gave these notes names all meaning the same thing, i.e., dominant, sub-dominant & keynote/tonic. The kicker is that these relationships were perceived and the names were coined by people "without accoustical knowledge." That means they didn't have to have the learning of Pythagoras to discern it, or even utilize it.

Music is something that is discovered, not invented.

Don't forget that is not the only scale in the world. The most primal (simple) scale is the pentatonic, not the major.

"Primal" is an assumption, but a telling one, and I'll say why in a minute. The pentatonic scale exists on our 20th-Century keyboards. They're the black keys, and music which can be universally recognized as happy or sad, solemn or dithyrambic can still be played in the pentatonic scale. (How many of you as kids learned a portion of the Tennesee Waltz using your fist and thumb on the black keys?) I'm not saying that we can't become accustomed to certain things, but our responses to music are not culturally conditioned.

But it is assumed to be "primal" 1) because it is limited in the range of emotions it can evoke. No movie producer who wanted to make money would hire a fella to write a score in the pentatonic scale. And 2) it's common in ancient cultures. Why the third and the seventh notes were dropped out of the official scales (or never included in the first place) is a matter of conjecture. But the third and seventh notes were still utilized.

It doesn't matter how you slice it, it still comes out do, re, mi. The thing to keep in mind is the universal recognition of the relationships in the notes of a scale. No one would describe C and D played together as harmonious or pleasant. No one. No healthy person, anyway.

Also the major scale was a very late development and functional harmony was even later. Functional harmony did not become the norm until the late 17th Century.

Actually, several archaeological discoveries of the last three decades has caused musicologists to rethink long-held and widely accepted assumptions in music history. The "oldest song in the world," a 3500 year old Ugaritic hymn utilizes harmony and the diatonic, do-re-mi scale.

So are you saying that since Oriental music does not use the western diatonic scale, that it is evil and inherently flawed?

No, I'm saying that the human response to music is universal and innate, not culturally conditioned.

Aaron: No one is saying that [one man's preference is the standard of good music]. Music must be defined by God's standards of decency.

tenor: How is a "beat" or a "melody" evil without its context? Don't forget the third (the primary basis of our harmony) was considered evil during the Middle Ages.

Who said anything about beats or intervals? God is the One who said all things--ALL things--must be done decently and in order. The music must be of a demeanor that is seemly in the worship of Almighty God. Music falls under the category of "all things." Therefore, music must be defined by God's standards of decency, which go well beyond verbal expressions.

Aaron: Folks were engineering musical instruments since Jubal, the seventh from Adam. I doubt very seriously the wide variety of instruments used in the Levitical choirs and orchestras instituted by David were so that they could all sing and play the same note at the same time with no depth, ornamentation or harmony.

tenor: There you go agiain putting a 2oth Century, western slant on the definition of music.

Not at all. I'm putting a human slant on it. People were no different 3000 years ago than they are today, and there is nothing new under the sun. The same flowers and spices that smelled sweet to them smell sweet to us, and in 6000 years of human history, poop still stinks. Why would we assume that our responses to music are any different?

When Saul's attendants sought one who was skilled on the harp, they knew exactly who to go for. Is it reasonable to think that his playing would sound less relaxing to us? Any instrument in the hands of a skilled musician is beautiful. You can't expect us to think that David's skill was akin to that of an elementary school child on a recorder.

Moderen day Middle Eastern music is monophonic, actually the proper term is heterophonic. Monophony does not negate ornamentation.

Modern Middle Eastern cultures are ravaged and fragmented. They are a people in bondage to their shallow, superstitious religions. Their music will follow suit. We cannot think that the cultural icons we see there are the apex of millennia of development. Just the opposite, I think. We are seeing them on the downhill side. And that's also what we see in the synagogal traditions. A nation that was ravaged, fragmented, scattered and never raised to the glory it once was. There is no connection between the music of the Levitical choirs, and what we see in the synagogues today.

When I speak of the music of David, I'm speaking of a music that is borne of a culture that is coming into its prime. Much of the Middle Eastern music is not played for pleasure or relaxation, and for good reason. It's anything but. It's purpose is primarily liturgical. Ancient Israel had music for leisure, Amos 6:5. My point in bringing this up is that there was ample peace and stability in its culture for some to specialize and devote themselves solely to music. There are virtuosos today who can really smoke a violin. There weren't any in all Israel who could play a viol?

Again, it's the human slant I'm putting on it.

Anyway the trumpets of the anicient could only play the basic fundamentals due to their technology.

You mean much like a modern bugle?

Also, most of the instruments mentioned in the Bible are percussion instruments.

Perhaps technically. Technically a harp is a percussion instrument. The harpist "strikes" the harp. So, harp, psaltery and lyre are technically percussion instruments, but they're not percussion in the sense that most folks think of percussion intruments like drums and cymbals. There is the trumpet, and not just the ugly-sounding blat from a ram's horn. I mean an engineered pipe. Then there's the viol, which was much like a violin according to Josephus' description. It was played with a bow.

Let's see, you've got horns of many shapes and sizes, viols, harps, cymbals, drums--well, bless my soul! You've got a whole orchestra! Just think of the music on the high holy days if there were actually some skilled musicians playing those things!

But you're forgetting the most important instrument. The human voice. You put ten people together and there isn't a scale or harmony that couldn't have been sung, and sung beautifully.

And we have not notation or recordings of the actual music, just educated guesses.

Why guess that people didn't know beautiful music when they heard it?

Personally, I feel the music of the Hebrews probably sounded like that of their neighbors or we would have strcit, specific instructions as there are for other aspects of worship and life.

I feel just the opposite. I think Hebrew music was unique, and the "Psalm" a uniquely Hebrew form. You're forgetting that Jerusalem was destroyed almost completely by the Babylonian armies, and ravaged constantly by their neighbors till Nehemiah was allowed to rebuild the walls. Who knows what was lost? However, there are those who believe the te-amim in the Masoretic texts of the Old Testament preserves an ancient musical notation.

If this is true than why are not all people affected the same way? The tone poem, "The Moldau" by Smetana is and example. This was written to illustrate the love of the Bohemians for this river in their country. I see what he is doing mainly because the "story" was told to me before hand. I probably would not draw this conclusion otherwise.

I'm well familiar with The Moldau. It is simply one of the most beautiful pieces of music ever written. Especially the river theme, althought the night time segement is really impressive too.

What people will recognize without learning about the Moldau and the different themes Smetana included is that the Czechoslovakian wedding sounds festive, the river theme majestic, nighttime peaceful, and St. John's Rapids tumultuos. And everyone will feel that way despite their cultural backgrounds. </font>[/QUOTE]Nice try Aaron. I now know we will never be on the same page. Answer this question please - if the Do-re-mi scale is so important why are most things we have existing in modes other than the Ionian mode (major scale) or Aeolian mode (natural minor scale) ubtil about 15th C or so? The dorian and Lydin modes are most often used.

I'm going to say this again - the perception of beauty, musical or artistic is a cultural phenonenon. this does not preclude the fact that there ay be some similar likes and dislikes among various cultures, but they are not universal.

Let's taks as an example a lullaby. It can be sung sweetly or it can raucuously. Performance and context not the music itself.

I do to a degree agree with you about the Moldau. You've never stodd in front of a blank staring college Music Appreciation class talking about program music have you? It's not as apparent the them as you think.

I know there was a variety of instruments in Biblical times. I don't agree with you that Hebrew music was unique. If it was, why is there no specific instruction in Scriptures as to not only how you play but what is played? Ok, I'll give you things possibly, even probably, being lost at the sacking of Jerusalem. However, if the concept of "Moral" vs "immoral" music is so important, why did God not include specific instructions in the Bible we have today? It includes what the priests should wear, but no specific mention of "God" music.

There are professional musicians in the temple, which i personally gives precedence and credence to our choirs, worship leaders and instruemntalists as the "Levitical Singers" of the Church.

I must differ with you about you not saying anything the beat ot intervals being inherently evil. It is clearly inferred in all you sya, especially your discussions on rock music. If those "African/Tribal" beats are evil, what do you think of an indigenous, African Christian hymnody? The western uses an indigineous hymnody.

Now , another question for you, what do think of dance being used in the worship of God? how about rhythmic movement? What about the clapping of hands or the patting of the foot along with a "good, moral musical style" song?

Once again, music is cultural. It has always been in flux. Throughout music history there have been those talking of the "evils" of the "new" music. So, how far back do we go to find the pure, moral music?

This is good for me. Thanks for making me think.

Tim
Sorry about the use of full quote. I'm not yet sure how to intersperse my comments within a quote. Any help?

 

They're not different reactions. Not really. They are all passion. Just like too much wiskey makes some men fighters and others lovers. It's still drunkenness, and it's still passion. </font>[/QUOTE]Passion is meaning? People are feeling depressed passionately, uplifted passionately and so on? This is drunkenness? I'm still having a very hard time understanding your argument with respect to reaction and innate meaning. In fact for as much as we have gone round and round the same topics in the past, this is the one area I really have no understanding what you believe.

You've never watched children sing them passionately? My girl does.

 

So you do agree that this example is performance and context and not the music itself? In other words, a contextual, cultural expression.

 

Of course. Your views of communication and meaning are too narrow. </font>[/QUOTE]I view passion as an intensity of emotion or motivation. Passion is a strong feeling. I don't see how that in itself can be called meaning.

People are feeling depressed passionately, uplifted passionately and so on? This is drunkenness?

Absolutely, but here we have passion connected with a derived meaning. People hear the music and incorporate the passion with a particular life experience. This process happens entirely in the heart and mind. It can't by any stretch of the imagination be thought of as intrinsic to the actual music.

Drunkenness implies that one's will is in some way surrendered or lost, or under the control of the music. This certainly is a possibility in any activity, but it's definately not a given. I often pop in a Sigur Ros album, sit on the porch, appreciate the beauty of my surroundings and contemplate God and life. I find music can be conducive to such activity, and I wouldn't call it drunkenness.

Isn't that really all that can be said of any kind of music? You can call it passion or emotion or feeling or whatever, but you can't say that it has a connection to some sort of explicit meaning.

I'm still having a very hard time understanding your argument with respect to reaction and innate meaning. In fact for as much as we have gone round and round the same topics in the past, this is the one area I really have no understanding what you believe.

I would say this correlates quite well with my argument. Although explicit meaning is intrinsically derived from a direct threat (unlike music), we both draw on a passion in our response. One is the fight instinct, the other is flight. (I've had a gun pulled on me before and I can tell you I would be the flight guy in your example)

You've never watched children sing them passionately? My girl does.

I'm not sure what this means exactly but I was addressing your assertion that no one reacts passionately to nursery rhymes and the like. Children can be the most happy and bubbly creatures you've ever seen from simple tunes that you and I have grown tired of hearing 20 years ago.

 

So you do agree that this example is performance and context and not the music itself? In other words, a contextual, cultural expression. </font>[/QUOTE]No. When you say "music itself," do you mean the bare notes represented by the little black dots on the score?

When I speak of the morality of music, that's not what I mean. Music is an action. If there is no listener, even if the listener is simply the musician himself, then there is no music. I don't even consider starting a CD and leaving the room to be music. No one would consider starting the recording of a speech in an empty room communication. Why think of turning on the radio and leaving the room music? A work is more than the sum of its parts, and is meant to be experienced as a unified whole encompassing especially the performance aspects. If I play the melody of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star in a "sad" manner, I would have to play it slowly and in a smooth, connected style (legato). And I would do that for the sole purpose of making it sound sad and melancholy. And it would sound sad and melancholy to any individual, even the Peruvian native plucked from his jungle habitat never before having heard the sound of a violin or piano.

Now I can take the same tune and play it faster and in a staccato manner, and the same tune would sound light and happy.

The manner in which something is played is as much a part of the the music as the actual notes being played. In fact, the two manners of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star would actually be two separate and distinct works of music. The only thing they would have in common is the actual notes and the sequence in which they're played. </font>[/QUOTE]The what you are saying is that the performance of the "music" (which actually does not exist until performed) is what carries the morality?

In this I agree. If this is the case you need to clearly state that. I personally find rap and hip-hop boring (not evil). The repitition of teh rhythm without variation drives me nuts. However, I cannot judge the likes and dislkies of another.

I a recommendation of book on music and music in worship. The title is "Music Through teh Eyes of Faith" by Harold Best. It is published by Harper. Dr. Best was the dean of the music conservatory at Wheaton College. It's an excellent read from an evangelical point of view.

Back to the original thought. We both agree that music communicates. We also agree that we can be manipulated through music. I however hold that it is not fully universal and that culture and context plays a large role in the "morality." The rhythms, chords, pitches, instruments, voices, melodied, dynamics, etc. a completely amoral and totally tied to context, performance, and purpose.

Thanks, have a great Sunday as you gather with your congregation in worship.

Tim

 

Here we go with the cultural judgments again. So when they were in their "glory" (like in the OT Temple days), what did the music sound like? Classical, right?
Sorry, but you have no proof for this (that there was any significant change in the form of their music, and you are forgetting about David's dancing, and your old argument that the music and worship then were "of the flesh". Now, you're tying to say it was good, and only modern mideastern culture as "in bondage"?
(Much of the West that produced Classical was in bondage to superstition too--only cloaked with "Christianity").

That still doesn't mean is was what we call "classical".

 

It's emotional meaning. </font>[/QUOTE]Unless passion or emotion is put in context what can be derived or understood from it?

Happy, sad, triumphant, majestic, etc. aren't explicit?</font>[/QUOTE]Well no. What does it mean to say that person is passionate? Who knows? Music can't put passion into any kind of meaningful context. What are you passionate about? How do you direct your energy and will?

Beyond this there lies an additional limitation on music. Music can't be passion. Music can't be emotion. All it can do is act as a medium to communicate emotion.

What do you mean by "jaded"? What would a musical fast teach me about the nature of music? I have in the past gone for months without music and I never learned a deep wisdom or discernment from the experience. Heck, I haven't even had a working radio in my car for 2 years now.

 

Oops.

Don't think I've got the hang of the code.

Tim

 

Aaron, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Are you saying there is a definable period of history, geographical location and culture where music was the most righteous or suitable for worship?


geological har har.

[ September 27, 2005, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]