What is music?

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Music is the nonverbal communication of mood, emotion, demeanor, decorum, etc. through the pleasing and logical arrangement of certain sounds. Being a form of communication/art, music is thought.

Music is nonverbal. It communicates without words.

Mood, emotion and so on are meaningless and yes-morally neutral without context.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Pleasing and logical arrangement of certain sounds. This means that not just any arrangement of sounds sound can be called music. They are certain sounds possessing certain tone qualities and existing in certain relationships with each other, and progressing in a certain manner.

All kinds of sounds can exhibit emotion and mood. Where do you distinguish a stream of audible signals and begin judging sound as sinful or righteous? Rhythm?

Originally posted by Aaron:
Music is thought. It's called "Muse"ic for a reason.

Main Entry: 2thought
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English thOht; akin to Old English thencan to think -- more at THINK
1 a : the action or process of thinking : COGITATION b : serious consideration : REGARD c archaic : RECOLLECTION, REMEMBRANCE
2 a : reasoning power b : the power to imagine : CONCEPTION
3 : something that is thought: as a : an individual act or product of thinking b : a developed intention or plan <had no thought of leaving home> c : something (as an opinion or belief) in the mind <he spoke his thoughts freely> d : the intellectual product or the organized views and principles of a period, place, group, or individual <contemporary Western thought>


How is music thought?

 

[Brother Ian]

This will probably shake up some people.

Music cannot change a person. Only the Word of God has the power to do that.

 

[Aaron]

Travelsong said:
Mood, emotion and so on are meaningless and yes-morally neutral without context.

What do you mean? Anger is anger. Sadness is sadness. Etc. What context must exist before a particular mood can be identified?

And nothing is neutral. Emotions are actions of the heart. They're either good or evil, but that's not the point I was making. I was simply defining music. What is your definition?

All kinds of sounds can exhibit emotion and mood. Where do you distinguish a stream of audible signals and begin judging sound as sinful or righteous?

Music is more than the sum of its parts. It is intended to be experienced as a unified whole. Men by nature know whether the sounds emanating from an individual or machine are music or not. In fact, where there is no listener, there is no music. In a twist on an old riddle, if ones radio clock alarm goes off and no one hears it, is it still music?

Nope. It's just noise.

Men can judge music as good or evil based on the nature of its appeal. Does it appeal to my base, animalistic apetites, or does it appeal to my more "noble" senses of decency? Not everyone can tell the difference, and in a culture as steeped in sensuality as ours, this kind of discernment is rare indeed.

How is music thought?

Because it's communication. The purpose of music is to create a mood conducive to a particular kind of thought. Because it's art, and art has the same purpose, to inspire thought, to affect and influence. It is thinking in the truest sense of the word.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Brother Ian:
This will probably shake up some people.

Music cannot change a person. Only the Word of God has the power to do that.

Amen!

 

[Aaron]

Beaner Beaner Drama Queener. Ah, now that's rhythm!

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Beaner Beaner Drama Queener. Ah, now that's rhythm!

Well, hello Aaron:

I see that you are inclined to continue our correspondence. I am really not sure why; nevertheless, I am flattered by your obsession with me.

I did find this reply particularly amusing though. Back on September 2nd, you said:

All right, B'n'R. I won't call you Beaner no more.

I guess that this is just like the comment that you made in that thread "Confessions of a Former Worship Leader:"

Now, really. This is my last post in this thread.

I didn't "really" believe it would be your last post in that particular thread. Similarly, I confess that I didn't think that you would cease calling me by your affectionate little nickname. How delightful.

Hope you are having a great week - it's slowly becoming Autumn here in the Commonwealth,
BiR

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
What do you mean? Anger is anger. Sadness is sadness. Etc. What context must exist before a particular mood can be identified?

I am saying without a context emotion is meaningless. One can say "This music sounds sad", but without something more explicit to give it direction what can you say the music is expressing?

Originally posted by Aaron:
And nothing is neutral. Emotions are actions of the heart. They're either good or evil, but that's not the point I was making.

I am happy. Is my emotional state righteous or sinful?

Originally posted by Aaron:
Men can judge music as good or evil based on the nature of its appeal. Does it appeal to my base, animalistic apetites, or does it appeal to my more "noble" senses of decency? Not everyone can tell the difference, and in a culture as steeped in sensuality as ours, this kind of discernment is rare indeed.

You've made a subtle, ambiguous transition from saying that music communicates emotion and mood to suggesting that music can be constructed in such a way as to entice the heart to sin.

How is music capable of this?


How is music thought?

Originally posted by Aaron:
Because it's communication. The purpose of music is to create a mood conducive to a particular kind of thought. Because it's art, and art has the same purpose, to inspire thought, to affect and influence. It is thinking in the truest sense of the word.

First you say music is thought, then you say it is conducive to thought, then you conclude music is thought again. I don't understand.

 

[Aaron]

oops! Premature post. Please wait while I edit it.

 

[Eric B]

Men can judge music as good or evil based on the nature of its appeal. Does it appeal to my base, animalistic apetites, or does it appeal to my more "noble" senses of decency? Not everyone can tell the difference, and in a culture as steeped in sensuality as ours, this kind of discernment is rare indeed.

Translation:
What we sense is true, and your senses are deadened (since you don't sense what we sense), so just listen to/follow what we say (Even if we can't prove it to you), and regardless of what you sense.

 

[Aaron]

Sorry you all had to wait so long for my edit. I'm at work and duty called.

I am happy. Is my emotional state righteous or sinful?

How am I supposed to know? Did the happiness spring from the old man or the new man? This I know. Nothing is neutral or amoral. Everything from the old man is fallen, polluted and sinful. An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Everything from the new man is good. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

For me to discern it I'd have to ask questions to see what you were happy about, so I could make a guess about whether the happiness was from your old man or new.

I can't see the heart.

You've made a subtle, ambiguous transition from saying that music communicates emotion and mood to suggesting that music can be constructed in such a way as to entice the heart to sin.

No I didn't. Music's appeal is the way it makes one feel.

First you say music is thought, then you say it is conducive to thought, then you conclude music is thought again. I don't understand.

It is a form of thought. That's what the word "Muse" means. The Muses were deities believed to inspire wisdom and art.

Look at the definition you posted for thought.

serious consideration That's musing.

the power to imagine And there's the "power" of music.

It's pretty simple once you've thought about it.

 

[Aaron]

deleted upon poster's request

[ September 09, 2005, 03:18 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

(Aaron's meesage is deleted upon request)
Well, hello Aaron:

God bless you and your family!!

Hope you are having a great week,

BiR

[ September 09, 2005, 03:20 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Travelsong]

I am happy. Is my emotional state righteous or sinful?

Originally posted by Aaron:
How am I supposed to know? Did the happiness spring from the old man or the new man? This I know. Nothing is neutral or amoral. Everything from the old man is fallen, polluted and sinful. An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Everything from the new man is good. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

Exactly. In order to know the source of happiness one must know the heart which is happy. Music which sounds happy is not in and of itself happiness. There is no point in judging it because it doesn't have a motive.

Originally posted by Aaron:
For me to discern it I'd have to ask questions to see what you were happy about, so I could make a guess about whether the happiness was from your old man or new.

Which further illuminates my argument.A happy melody sounds the same regardless of who plays it.


You've made a subtle, ambiguous transition from saying that music communicates emotion and mood to suggesting that music can be constructed in such a way as to entice the heart to sin.

First you say music is thought, then you say it is conducive to thought, then you conclude music is thought again. I don't understand.

Originally posted by Aaron:
[It is a form of thought. That's what the word "Muse" means. The Muses were deities believed to inspire wisdom and art.

Look at the definition you posted for thought.

serious consideration That's musing.

the power to imagine And there's the "power" of music.

It's pretty simple once you've thought about it.

Thought occurs in the heart and mind. That's right out of Scripture. The definition I posted is even consistent with that. I'm not an etymologist so I can't argue with authority concerning the history of the word "music" but I'm pretty sure no one has ever claimed that music thinks. How could it?

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
In order to know the source of happiness one must know the heart which is happy. Music which sounds happy is not in and of itself happiness. There is no point in judging it because it doesn't have a motive.

You neglected to note that I said the feeling could be judged after I'd asked some questions and determined whether your happiness sprang from your old man or new man.

He that is spiritual judgeth all things.

The common, but erroneous notion, is that one's emotions all come from the same root, and it's up to us to channel them either to righteous or to evil purposes. The truth is that righteous emotions and evil emotions spring from completely different roots, so they're not the same. I wouldn't be judging the context of your emotion, I'd be judging the emotion itself as either a good or evil fruit of a good or evil root.

For instance, I blew my cool last night in responding to Beaner. Anyone looking on might think that I was justified, since for nearly two years he has dogged me on the old BB looking for new ways to make himself look smart and witty compared to me, (And he accuses me of fixations?) and because now in this thread the only meaning of his existence is to lurk and watch for any reference to him whatever. I mean, really, the man is obsessed. He doesn't partake in the discussion despite the invitation to do so, so we know he isn't interested in the discussion, and do we really take his well-wishing seriously?

Lurking and trolling. How old is this kid?

But I wasn't justified and I confess my unrighteous anger. The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. I should have responded as Paul did to the thorn in his flesh, but I didn't.

(Thanks, DHK, for getting my butt out of the sling!

)

Am I saying that happy music is evil? Of course not. A joyful heart is good medicine. And music really is a proper outlet for merriment. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.. It was given to us for that reason, and to help maintain the good cheer the hearts of others. It is good for the health of the body.

When used in moderation, that is.

Thought occurs in the heart and mind. That's right out of Scripture. The definition I posted is even consistent with that. I'm not an etymologist so I can't argue with authority concerning the history of the word "music" but I'm pretty sure no one has ever claimed that music thinks.

Music doesn't think. Hearts think, and music is a thought (noun, not verb) and intent of the heart. Music is a cogitation of feeling. [Wow! What a great definition!] Enthumesis, the word translated as thought in the verse you alluded to, includes the ideas of "strong feeling" and "passion." In fact, the words thought and feeling are interchangable.

One more thing, the feelings people describe when listening to music are not imagined. They are real. There is no difference between the physiological signatures of the emotions evoked by music, and those evoked by other events.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Men can judge music as good or evil based on the nature of its appeal. Does it appeal to my base, animalistic apetites, or does it appeal to my more "noble" senses of decency? Not everyone can tell the difference, and in a culture as steeped in sensuality as ours, this kind of discernment is rare indeed.

Translation:
What we sense is true, and your senses are deadened (since you don't sense what we sense), so just listen to/follow what we say (Even if we can't prove it to you), and regardless of what you sense. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually, the translation is, Not everyone can tell the difference. The Bible says that much, Heb. 5:12-14.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Aaron:
He doesn't partake in the discussion despite the invitation to do so, so we know he isn't interested in the discussion, and do we really take his well-wishing seriously?

Well, hello Aaron:

Actually, my "well-wishing" was sincere.
Have I not done this consistently, even after you wrote what you wrote?

In this thread, I have only responded to you when I was referenced or addressed. Remember: you specifically addressed me. Until you did, we had not communicated for months.

Seriously, I do hope that God is blessing you and your family. I have steadfastly stated this, and I have done it once again. Doubting my sincerity doesn't change that.

Have a great weekend,
BiR

 

[Eric B]

Actually, the translation is, Not everyone can tell the difference. The Bible says that much, Heb. 5:12-14.

Actually, that passage goes on to tell us what it meant for them to be still "babes": They apparently still had not gotten down pact the basic "foundation" or repentance, faith, baptism, resurrection, judgment, etc. (6:1,2. Sometimes we have to look past the chapter divisions. )
The spiritual discernment you discuss would be a form of the stronger "meat", but on the other hand, the way you and other music critics describe these "effects" of music, it would be a universal sense that could be recognized by even the unsaved. Also, since it is not only immature "babes" in Christ who do not make the broad judgment of music you do, then you must be insinuating that every Christian who does not see this the way you do falls into the immaturity described in this passage. So that's exactly what I said, above. Ignore whatever you sense, just listen to what I say. Only I am mature enough to know what is best for you.

Did the happiness spring from the old man or the new man? This I know. Nothing is neutral or amoral. Everything from the old man is fallen, polluted and sinful. An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Everything from the new man is good. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.

For me to discern it I'd have to ask questions to see what you were happy about, so I could make a guess about whether the happiness was from your old man or new.

I can't see the heart.

So likewise, the negative emotions you associate with certain styles of music, we have to ask whether it springs from the old man or the new man. You assume there that they are all the old man, but that is where you go wrong, and then when one goes further, (in order to make those emotions always wrong) it often gets into a whole philosophy where a Christian is to never have any negative emotions, and be nothing but a docile cheery stepford person. (Hence, the criticism of all psychology among old-liners, and it's new-line counterpart, the "Abundant Life"/"victory" teaching)

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
You neglected to note that I said the feeling could be judged after I'd asked some questions and determined whether your happiness sprang from your old man or new man.

In other words, once you've determined the context.

Originally posted by Aaron:
The common, but erroneous notion, is that one's emotions all come from the same root, and it's up to us to channel them either to righteous or to evil purposes. The truth is that righteous emotions and evil emotions spring from completely different roots, so they're not the same. I wouldn't be judging the context of your emotion, I'd be judging the emotion itself as either a good or evil fruit of a good or evil root.

While I don't think this is a complete picture I do agree it is more accurate to say that righteousness is manifest in the actions of a renewed heart and sin is manifest in the actions of a corrupt heart. I don't see how this argument is related to music though.

Originally posted by Aaron:
For instance, I blew my cool last night in responding to Beaner. Anyone looking on might think that I was justified, since for nearly two years he has dogged me on the old BB looking for new ways to make himself look smart and witty compared to me, (And he accuses me of fixations?) and because now in this thread the only meaning of his existence is to lurk and watch for any reference to him whatever. I mean, really, the man is obsessed. He doesn't partake in the discussion despite the invitation to do so, so we know he isn't interested in the discussion, and do we really take his well-wishing seriously?

Lurking and trolling. How old is this kid?

But I wasn't justified and I confess my unrighteous anger. The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. I should have responded as Paul did to the thorn in his flesh, but I didn't.

See how you had to demonstrate that the intent of your heart was sinful? You provided context to explain why your anger was unrighteous. Music could never do such a thing.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Music doesn't think. Hearts think, and music is a thought (noun, not verb) and intent of the heart. Music is a cogitation of feeling. [Wow! What a great definition!] Enthumesis, the word translated as thought in the verse you alluded to, includes the ideas of "strong feeling" and "passion." In fact, the words thought and feeling are interchangable.

One more thing, the feelings people describe when listening to music are not imagined. They are real. There is no difference between the physiological signatures of the emotions evoked by music, and those evoked by other events.

Music is an abstract form of expression the same as any other kind of communication. It is not the thought, emotion or intent itself. Those things can only exist inside the heart.

 

[Aaron]

TS, how about posting your definition of music?

 

[Aaron]

Notice that I am NOT addressing Beaner in this post.