What is music?

http://channels.netscape.com//men/package.jsp?name=fte/womenspeak/womenspeak

 

It doesn't just saw it and thought I'd toss it in.

 

No, I'm saying that these things contribute to the degree of the musical expertise of a given culture. </font>[/QUOTE]What things contribute to musical expertise?

By expertise do you mean technical proficiency or complexity or simple beauty?

What kind of benchmark is musical expertise in a culture or individual?

 

Isn't it your belief that music requires no education to understand? That it is understood and discerned innately?

Okay I remember you echoe the sentiments of ancient eastern and western philosophers on this. I do agree that a culture will be reflected by their music. I do not however see this vague notion of superiority in music that you seem to be implying.

I see complexity, beauty and technical proficiency in music from around the world.

Aside from this, I also find no reason to regard certain styles as more or less noble than others.

Middle East Arab music rules. I used to listen to it every Sunday on the way home from Church. I have no idea what they are singing about, but it sounds great to me. Hindu music raises the roof too. The sitar will melt your face as good as Robbie Robertson's Fender. African, South American and especially Pacific island nation music! Don't get me started. I wish there was a whole record store devoted to it.

I just don't see where you can go with this argument.

 

That still doesn't mean that it would be what we call "classical" or sound like our "traditional". "Easy listening" is basically soft rock, and not classicaL, and it is still relaxing.

Well, I'm not questioning the scale. the music you're putting down (ancient and modern) uses the scale.

The primary change we can show from history is that the Israelites made the music less lively in mourning for the temple's destruction. Then, it became more "solemn". You keep using the synagogue as an example, but that is precisely the very example you are giving of the change of music. But it was not from something compatible with classical or traditional to the present style. (from more "solenm" to more lively or rhythmic). And my point is that God never condemned the style of music, neither in the glory days, or afterward. If anything, the music played in many of these traditional churches sounds something like it is from some dying ravaged culture on its way down and out. That is one reason they oppose anything new so much, but they are too busy blaming everyone else for the fall of their culture.

Again; there is no such criticism in the NT; no such association of instruments and dancing
with incense and sacrifice. It is just not there. Incense and sacrifice clearly point to Chris't sacrifice. What do instruments and dancing have to do with that? You can't just lump those things together when you have no covenental/dispensational basis for the asociation.

And I guess "civilized"="western classical/traditional", right?

The issue is not so much "borrowing". In fact, that is really your side's term, assuming classical was not similarly "borrowed", because the entire culture was "controlled by the Church", so it was automatically "sacred"
Still, whatever these "all kinds" were, there is no proof that the music God accepted was like classical, and what the pagans used was anything like rock, beyond it simply being "rhythmic" and not "classical".

But that has nothing to do with the "style", as most others will acknowledge about CCM, and is obvious from my point about "classical" culture being in bondage to superstition. (I think they had more superstitions!)

 

How does this matter?

I think it's safe to say it wouldn't sound much like Haitian Voduns beating their drums. </font>[/QUOTE]Something wrong with a complex rhythm?

 

How does this matter?</font>[/QUOTE]It matters when one attempts to say that human responses to music are culturally conditioned and cites Middle Eastern cantillations, which for the most part do not sound beautiful, and links them to the music commended in the Psalms as evidence.

And if you'd been following my discussion with tenor, you wouldn't have had to ask. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]My apologies. I try to keep up but I don't always get everything. Plus, I'm really at a loss with the kind of conclusions you intend to draw. You use words like "exotic" and "beautiful" as a kind of measurable standard.

Then you also talk about musical expertise as a mastery of technical proficiency, complexity and beauty. Is expertise a good thing?

 

I understand your point which is why I made the initial distinction between technical proficiency, complexity and beauty.

With regard to music, do you believe there are some styles that simply shouldn't be explored and mastered?

 

Based on the considerations of music history and cultural anthropology you have just divulged, how does your reasoning apply to determining where limits should be placed in regard to style?

 

Specific application please.