Hip hop church

[ccrobinson]

I thought I typed the word 'not' in there.

Nope. Freudian slip?

The question remains. Please identify which notes, chords, time signatures, keys, melodies, etc. are evil. This classification of a type of music that can or cannot do something to/for us is not the same as identifying what music actually is.

I think that, when you boil it all down, the idea that you're arguing is that certain types of music are inherently sinful or not. I may or may not agree with that topic, but it's a different question than discussing whether music itself is amoral or not.

 

[npetreley]

Very good point. However, we all do not react in the same way to the same musical stimulus. Why? Cultural norm and conditioning.

I cannot go to sleep with music playing. Why? The potential non resolution of a chord will ogften wake me up. Others go to sleep with music playing quite often. this is an example of conditioning. I am mostly always actively listening to music, I can't not listen if it is playing in the background. I have to either be performing or actively listening. Music cannt be "just in the background" for me.

Cultural conditioning.

LOL! I'm the same way. I can't fall asleep with music playing. I can fall asleep with radio preaching, however. That's not meant as a criticism - I really enjoy a lot of radio teaching and preaching. But the spoken voice does lull me to sleep. Unfortuantely, if I'm about to doze off and the show ends with music, it wakes me right back up.

 

[tenor]

Music itself without lyrics has certain powers over the hearer of it.

For instance, we have all heard the phrase 'Music to calm the savage beast.'

Music does not have to have lyrics to have certain effects on people.

In 1 Samuel 16, an evil spirit left Saul after David played the harp with no singing.

Music can chase away evil spirits, and can also move God to help man.

In 2 Kings 3, Elisha was able to prophesy after calling for a harpist and listening to him play.

In Isaiah 30, God's judgment on Assyria was with every beat of the tamborine.

Music indeed is not amoral. It can cause one to be submitted to God, or to the flesh. (thanks, cc)

Once again I ask, What are the stylistic characteristics of the music you address?

Why do not all of us react in the same way to a particular muscial stimulus?

Could not cultural and stylistic factors had a bearing in the use of these various instances?

I personally find hip-hop boring - limited melodic, harmonic and rhythmic vocabulary, others find it exciting. Preference issues, education isues and cultural issues definitely apply here. . Different cultures have different languages.

i guess some of our main issues arise from the "popular" versus "art" music discussions. I don't mean simple versus complex.

What is a musical snob? I know more country music snobs than classical music snobs. When I express the opinion that I don't care for country music, or even worse Elvis, I get the resonse - "How could you not like ____" "What's wrong with you!"

Basically, when our cultural choices are not liked by all often we tend to get defensive. of course, If I like it, everyone else must."

Cultural expression is a part of our life and a great part of our faith. It is a part of us, of who we are. Can we change context? Yes, indeed. It is absolutely necessary? Not really. Is there ONE biblical approach to music and worship stylr? Absolutely not.

We need to ". . . become all things to all men that we might win some . . ."

Why have you not addressed this scripture in your discussion? I've used it in this thread two times before this.

Please address this point.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Once again, usage NOT musicality. Style NOT substance. Beethoven and other composers, have been used in night clubs - arrangements of great melodies.

I suggest to you without any fear of contradictions that Beethoven's Symphonies will not be played in any night club anywhere.

Much of the communication of music has been culturally ingrained in us.

This is true. "Much" is; not "all."

I've taught Music Appreciation many times at the community college level and have found that the students are culturally conditioned to dislkie and/or mock anything "classical." Many "classical" themes and passages have become cliches that have absolutely nothing to do with the original intent of the composer. This has been brought on by usage, not the music itself.

Then I would think you would note that music is not amoral. It has meaning, before words are ever put to it.

Most of our feelings toward music are culturally conditioned. We react however we are expected to react by our cultural niche.

This is true, but it begs the question of whether our cultural conditioning is proper. People brought up in some tribal communities are "culturally conditioned" to nudity. That doesn't make it right. It is entirely possible that our cultural conditioning is based on current cultural trends, rather than on God's unchanging truth.

 

[Rufus_1611]

I suggest to you without any fear of contradictions that Beethoven's Symphonies will not be played in any night club anywhere.

This is true. "Much" is; not "all."

Then I would think you would note that music is not amoral. It has meaning, before words are ever put to it.

This is true, but it begs the question of whether our cultural conditioning is proper. People brought up in some tribal communities are "culturally conditioned" to nudity. That doesn't make it right. It is entirely possible that our cultural conditioning is based on current cultural trends, rather than on God's unchanging truth.

Amen, Amen.

 

[Pastor Larry]

You have a point, but not a moral one. Music does convey moods. That's the reason for the term "mode" for different scales.

Yes, and some moods are immoral. The music is used becasue of the mood it creates. Again, witness the nightclub scene. Go get a copy of Bach's Adagio in G Minor and play it while imagining yourself in a dimly lit nightclub filled with people drinking, dancing, and hitting on each other. It should make you laugh if you have any sense of music at all.

Musak is a multi million dollar company built on the principle that some here are denying.

One could also argue that music communicates more than just moods,

I think it does, and I don't think it is that hard of a case to make.

Regardless, you'd have to go a LONG way to prove that music can convey moral moods or moral extra-musical ideas without words. I challenge anyone to do that.

I don't think that is difficult at all. Again, try the exercise with Bach's Adagio in G Minor. I did an experiment once with teens setting the scenario verbally, and then playing a selection. When I played Stephen Curtis Chapman (back in teh day), without knowing who it way, they all agreed that it fit the nightclub scene. When I played Sousa, it got a few chuckles. When I played Bach, it got outrigh laughs because they recognized the absurdity of saying that Bach was amoral and could be used for any reason depending on what words we put with it.

 

[tenor]

I suggest to you without any fear of contradictions that Beethoven's Symphonies will not be played in any night club anywhere.

This is true. "Much" is; not "all."

Then I would think you would note that music is not amoral. It has meaning, before words are ever put to it.

This is true, but it begs the question of whether our cultural conditioning is proper. People brought up in some tribal communities are "culturally conditioned" to nudity. That doesn't make it right. It is entirely possible that our cultural conditioning is based on current cultural trends, rather than on God's unchanging truth.

Having meaning is not the same as having morality. You can define a word. does that necessarily make it moral or not? It could depend on the definition. Take the word "gay" - one current definition of theis word is 'a homosexual" theer is no morality in this definition. Does it represent an immoral lifestyle,? most definitely. Is the WORD itself immoral - Absolutely not! If I say "There is agay couple over there." Is that an immoral statement? The words themselves are not immoral, the context is.

Is nudity in and of itself immoral - I don't think so. It's the lust that is often associated with it that is immoral. If my wife and I decide to runaround our house in the nude, isthat immoral? Cultural context.

 

[npetreley]

I suggest to you without any fear of contradictions that Beethoven's Symphonies will not be played in any night club anywhere.

You never heard the disco version of Beethoven's 5th?

Better still, I was listening to the local Jazz station yesterday and heard a wonderful jazz rendition of a Christian hymn. If I could remember which hymn it was, I'd tell you, but I can't. Heck, if I could remember which hymn it was, I'd look up the song and buy the jazz album just for that one song. It was great.

I get your meaning, though. No, you will not hear Beethoven's 5th as written in a night club. But, so what? I've been to jazz night clubs for the jazz and loved it. I've been to concerts for classical music and loved it. Neither had a moral impact on me one way or another, although both were edifying, emotionally.

Then I would think you would note that music is not amoral. It has meaning, before words are ever put to it.

Did you read my response to your other post? I would love to see you substantiate that it has MORAL meaning, not just "mood". I challenge you to do so.

 

[npetreley]

What is a musical snob?

Between this and Larry's statement about Beethoven, I can't resist pointing something out. If you listen to Beethoven's 9th Symphony, fourth movement, you'll hear the Ode to Joy. Beethoven does something very interesting with this melody. He sets it in various styles, including even the style of a traditional German street "oom-pah" band. He did this because he was encoding within the music the message that he wished Joy for everyone, not just for high-brow classical music snobs.

I don't know if Beethoven was a Christian. I don't think he was, but I could be wrong. Yet Beethoven seemed to know something the legalists are missing.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Having meaning is not the same as having morality.

Actually, yes it is. Meaning with respect to music, means that it communicates. What it communicates is either right or wrong. Good music can be used for bad purposes. Bad music (meaning immoral) cannot be used for good purposes.

does that necessarily make it moral or not? It could depend on the definition.

Yes, it depends on the definition. But words are propositional; they represent something, just as the musical constructions do. But music communicates at a different level because while word meanings are almost always (if not always) associative, musical meaning is at least to some degree, inherent.

Is nudity in and of itself immoral - I don't think so. It's the lust that is often associated with it that is immoral. If my wife and I decide to runaround our house in the nude, isthat immoral?

If there are others around it is. The fact that some may say nudity is okay no matter who is around does not make it so, just as the fact that someone who says music is amoral does not make it so.

 

[npetreley]

Yes, and some moods are immoral. The music is used becasue of the mood it creates. Again, witness the nightclub scene. Go get a copy of Bach's Adagio in G Minor and play it while imagining yourself in a dimly lit nightclub filled with people drinking, dancing, and hitting on each other. It should make you laugh if you have any sense of music at all.

I have a very keen sense of music. I recall love scenes from movies where Bach was playing in the background, and the people making love were not married. (I believe "Children of a lesser god" had such a scene.) Was this just a total miscalculation on the part of the person who scored the movie?

The scene you describe would turn me off no matter what music was playing. I've been to jazz clubs, by the way, and people drink there. I don't see anyone get drunk, and I don't notice ayone hitting on other people. It may happen, but to the pure, all things are pure. I guess I just don't see it.

Musak is a multi million dollar company built on the principle that some here are denying.

Nobody is denying the fact that music sets moods. Muzak sets a calming mood for most people. It annoys the heck out of me. But this is not morality.

 

[tenor]

Actually, yes it is. Meaning with respect to music, means that it communicates. What it communicates is either right or wrong. Good music can be used for bad purposes. Bad music (meaning immoral) cannot be used for good purposes.

Yes, it depends on the definition. But words are propositional; they represent something, just as the musical constructions do. But music communicates at a different level because while word meanings are almost always (if not always) associative, musical meaning is at least to some degree, inherent.

If there are others around it is. The fact that some may say nudity is okay no matter who is around does not make it so, just as the fact that someone who says music is amoral does not make it so.

Please define "Immoral Music" using musical vocabulary. Be technical, not emotional. While you're at it define good music. Please also give reasons why the "constructs" ae evil or good. i asking you to quantify, not qulaify your definitions. I have my definitions. I really believe we may be saying basically the same thing only using a different vocabulary.

If the commuication is "inherent" (and so clear) why do all people not react in the same way to a musical stimulus?

Why then does the same piece of music used in the same context affect me differently than it affects someone else?

I truly want to understand your point as you are making it. Please don't think I'm arguing forthe sake of argument. This may be an issue that we must decide to disagree on.

 

[CheeseCrackerKidd]

Between this and Larry's statement about Beethoven, I can't resist pointing something out. If you listen to Beethoven's 9th Symphony, fourth movement, you'll hear the Ode to Joy. Beethoven does something very interesting with this melody. He sets it in various styles, including even the style of a traditional German street "oom-pah" band. He did this because he was encoding within the music the message that he wished Joy for everyone, not just for high-brow classical music snobs.

I don't know if Beethoven was a Christian. I don't think he was, but I could be wrong. Yet Beethoven seemed to know something the legalists are missing.

It can also be said that the so-called 'legalists' seem to know something that all others are missing.

 

[webdog]

I suggest to you without any fear of contradictions that Beethoven's Symphonies will not be played in any night club anywhere.

...and I suggest to you that they have, and are still today. The newest "thing" in music are "mash ups"...combining one music style with another using a similar rhythym.

 

[webdog]

It can also be said that the so-called 'legalists' seem to know something that all others are missing.

What's that? Nobody has STILL told us what chords and molodies are moral....

 

[tenor]

I believe we, myself included, have been using some terms incorrectly. We are using Amoral to mean "evil" when actually we should be using the word IMmoral.

Amoral actually means neither moral nor immoral. A neutral word.

 

[Filmproducer]

Talk about a ridiculous thread.

I take solace in the fact that while a good many of you on here are wasting time proclaiming how evil this music is, (holy hip hop and Christian rap), and how misguided these ministers and churches are, these very same people are on the front lines loudly proclaiming the gospel and reaching the lost. It is sad to see some of you so full of righteous idignation. Get over yourselves, because in all honesty those of us out in the trenches willing to change the slogans, (thanks rbell), don't have the time or the energy to waste on you.

FTR, I am not a huge fan of rap or even hip hop, but my husband is. I have seen the guys from the holy hip hop site in person, and they are truly great people who love the Lord. There is nothing "worldly" about it. For that matter, I have heard a variety of Christian rap artists in concert, and the only people confusing them with the secular artists of today are the people who don't listen this type of music in the first place.

 

[DeeJay]

I think its a bad idea, kinda of like creating a "version" of the Bible to that appeals to one race, or gender, or oreintation. The Gospel shouldn't be manipulated to draw people in, the Gospel should not changed, the heart of the audience should and the Holy Spirit should draw them in. Christ never changed his message depending on who he was speaking to, the message was always the same.

Oh, but wait. Do you read your Bible in Greek and Hebrew. Or was it translated to another version so it would appeal to people who speak other languages.

I guess if your Bible is in english then it is a manipulated Gosple intended to draw people in and should not have been changed.

Christ did not change his message. But He changed the way the message was presented depending on who He was talking to. So did Paul.

I dont believe the OP said anything about changing the message, just the presentation.

 

[EdSutton]

The legalism is so thick on this thread, you can cut it with a knife :tear:

Ya' noticed??

Ed

 

[EdSutton]

This thread is about to take a sharp turn towards Calvanism/armenianism....

Yer' not supposed to give it away!

Ed