What is music?

[Eric B]

No, I don't think you understood everything I said in my post.
Look at the style of Jack Hyles. Many imitate him. Its wrong. (not him--but the imitation thereof).
In other words God gives each person their own special talents. Thank God there was only one Jack Hyles in this world. Why in the world would we want hundreds of drones of the same thing? Be yourself if you have graduated from the same thing.

Billy Sunday was professional baseball player, turned to drink, then got saved. He was the kind of preacher that entered in the saloon, overturned tables, stood on a table and preached thundering messages against booze, sometimes yelling, and breaking chairs in the process. Would you imitate him today? Would you crash bars, damage property, and preach and yell at sinners to be saved today? They'd lock you up before you'd get your first statement out. You can't be another man, in another century. Times have changed. To imitate others is wrong, especially imitating other people's styles of preaching.
I can't remember his name off hand. (it will come to me tomorrow). But another old Methodist preacher saved during the old west, out of rough background of booze gunslinging, became a preacher. He became a pastor of a growing church. One day the president happpened to enter his church. The deacons whishpered in his ear before the service to watch what he says because the President was present. He got to the pulpit and said: "I am informed that the President of the United States is in our midst today. I have a message for him. If he doesn't repent and trust Christ like any other sinner he'll be damned and go to hell." Every one was stunned. When the service was over they wondered what the president would do. He wasn't offended at at. He said if he had a regiment with men as bold as he, he would win the war with no trouble at all.
We are all differnt. We all have different gifts. You can't copy that man, though you can be filled with the Spiriti, and be as bold as he was.
So why try and copy the screaming and/or the antics of Billy Sunday. Are you going to go into the bars like he did too?

I went to BJU and graduated from there. I heard Bob Jones III many times. Sure he preached on Hell; but he didn't yell.

I'm not the one justifying yelling the message. But it is fundamentalist types who look up to Sunday and "his antics" so much. (I remember Sword of the Lord a few years ago related similar story of Sunday in some meeting where some modernist who didn't believe in the Virgin Birth was present). I can't answer for you, but many do seem to uphold that as good, (and yet still use the same arguments against "angry rock and rap") and the point seems to be "why can't we be like that today", instead of softening down and compromizing so much?
Of course, you touched on why we can't be like that today, and they know why they can't, as much as they resent the fact: the "political correctness" and "oversensitivity" of today's culture, where Christianity is seen as outmoded and cast off from public acceptance anyway. This many of us complain about, and that makes it seem, once again, that we desire the blustery command over culture that Sunday and others enjoyed. (One of the main points of my whole message is that we overdid it then, and are now paying for all of that through the very societal revolts we complain about).

Speaking loudly and affirmatively isn't yelling. I do that too. I have even pounded on the pulpit a time or two. So what.
When Jesus cleansed the Temple he didn't yell. The Scriptures make that plain. Yelling carries the connotation of losing self-control. What happens when you (or someone) yells at their wife? They do so out of anger. They yell at their children or wife either because they are angry or out of frustration. That is the natural carnal response--to yell, when frustrated or angry.
When Jesus cleansed the Temple it is noted that He did so as one who spoke with authority. Note that he spoke. He had authority in his voice, and it wasn't because of yelling. Some of the most effective mothers who have the greatest authority in their homes can carry out orders in almost a whisper. No yelling. But a soft quiet voice, but still an authoritative voice.
Christ had the authority of the Messiah. He didn't have to yell. He spoke with authority.

And I think a lot of the music you are criticizing (especially rap) is more of the "authorotative" tone, than yelling. Yelling is used in mostly the harder acid/thrash styles. Also, a performer (or preacher) on stage may look like he is yelling to throw his voice in such a large place. Of course, the question can become where is the line between authoritative speaking and yelling. Especially if you pound things. That can be taken as anger. It seems many tried to copy that one act of Jesus, while neglecting the rest of His pronciples.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Eric B:
And I think a lot of the music you are criticizing (especially rap) is more of the "authorotative" tone, than yelling. Yelling is used in mostly the harder acid/thrash styles. Also, a performer (or preacher) on stage may look like he is yelling to throw his voice in such a large place. Of course, the question can become where is the line between authoritative speaking and yelling. Especially if you pound things. That can be taken as anger. It seems many tried to copy that one act of Jesus, while neglecting the rest of His pronciples.

I think that you have summed it up nicely here. There is a line between speaking authoritatively and yelling. One wonders how Ezra the prophet would have spoken to the entire nation of Israel without any sound system. He read the Book of the Law, expounded it to Israel, and it was raining. And the people stood and listened. That was no small audience. It was out in the open.
DHK

 

[OCC]

Originally posted by King James:
"Screaming whether in music or preaching isn't right. Can you picture Jesus doing it?"

Didn't Jesus give up His life with a loud shout?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by King James:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by King James:
"Screaming whether in music or preaching isn't right. Can you picture Jesus doing it?"

Didn't Jesus give up His life with a loud shout?

</font>[/QUOTE]Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

John simply records "He said," as if the loud voice was inconsequential as compared to what he actually said. Remember that all this time he was in extreme agony such as none of us will ever bear. A loud voice in these circumstances may be excusable. What does it mean when it says that a woman "travails" in child birth? There are usually some "loud voices" that accompany the birth. Jesus was giving up his life for others, not just giving life to another--a big difference.

This is the music forum. We are not primarily interested in shouting, yelling, screaming in our worship to God. God is our heavenly Father. Does he expect us to yell and scream at Him. I certainly don't expect that of my children, and I don't expect that God expects that of His children.
DHK

[ September 16, 2005, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

[Daniel]

Posted prior to the shouting disucssion by Daniel (yes, yours truly ):
I can see what you're saying, Aaron. I believe my definition is structured in such a way to allow the many different genres of musical composition. In other words, I was thinking of far more than church music.

A symphony will have a different MHRT (melody, harmony, rhythm, texture) mix than a vocal ballad. It's the MHRT mix that is fluid. There is no constant MHRT mix.

If you wish to narrow things, please specify. My definition is not specific, but rather broad.

{the definition I submitted was: "The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition using the greater or lesser combination of melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.")


Let's see if we can move away from the shouting disucssion back to the original idea of the thread Aaron started...

Maybe Aaron will get a chance to get the back on track by picking up with the above question...

 

[Aaron]

I don't wish to narrow things. The definition is narrow enough to excluded noise, e.g. frogs croaking, babies crying, children laughing. etc.

(Note: I didn't say these were objectionable noises, they just can't be called music.)

 

[Daniel]

I agree with you about the exclusion of noises like the ones you listed. My definition does delineate some form of organization from intent.

OK, where do we go from here?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Daniel:
I agree with you about the exclusion of noises like the ones you listed. My definition does delineate some form of organization from intent.

OK, where do we go from here?

"organization from intent"
That would assume that all music has "intent" behind it, which in most, if not all, would automatically exclude the premise that music is amoral. Many musicians have the "intent" in their music to lead away from God; while others have the "intent" to lead ones closer to God. Music can be moral or immoral. It depends on its "intent," and as you say "organization from intent." So, the music can be organized specifically in a style as to be inherently evil, because the intent was inherently evil. Correct?
DHK

 

[webdog]

"organization from intent"
That would assume that all music has "intent" behind it, which in most, if not all, would automatically exclude the premise that music is amoral. Many musicians have the "intent" in their music to lead away from God; while others have the "intent" to lead ones closer to God. Music can be moral or immoral. It depends on its "intent," and as you say "organization from intent." So, the music can be organized specifically in a style as to be inherently evil, because the intent was inherently evil. Correct?

No, this is not correct, and it is the biggest load of garbage I have read on here. An evil artist does not use the music, but the lyrics for evil. What if he used gospel music with the intent of adding evil lyrics to them? This is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Daniel]

DHK...you know better. Envision this--your Pastor gets up on Sunday and quotes John 3:16 in the voice of Donald Duck. Most all of us (I hope) would agree that such a thing would be inappropriate. Right?

My question is this: does that make the recitation of John 3:16 evil? Should we stop reciting it in church?

The music itself is not evil (as webdog) mentions above. No two people react exactly the same way to a musical sound. You can't make absolutist statements about musical sound or a particularly grouping of musical sounds.

By the way, DHK, the organization from intent simply meant that the composer had some idea of what he wanted to do, not some implication of moral intent with such a sound grouping. Big difference!!

 

[Eric B]

"organization from intent"
That would assume that all music has "intent" behind it, which in most, if not all, would automatically exclude the premise that music is amoral. Many musicians have the "intent" in their music to lead away from God; while others have the "intent" to lead ones closer to God. Music can be moral or immoral. It depends on its "intent," and as you say "organization from intent." So, the music can be organized specifically in a style as to be inherently evil, because the intent was inherently evil. Correct?

Unlike the others; I do acknowledge a bit more a moral element in music. It's the broad categorization of what we think is good or evil that is what I dispute.
So if this is leading to "well jazz and rock rhythms were created by voodoo priests, and rebellious drugged out 60's youth copying them, with evil intent; so see, there! The intent is in the sound, even if a Christian tries to copy it for good" I say no; not exactly. The priest and rebellious youth may have found a beat and other sounds that were useful to create the atmosphere they wanted for their gatherings. It ignores several factors, such as a combination of sounds (it's not just a beat or beat accent or syncopation by itself), the theme and words, as well as the spirit behind it. THIS is what this question of "intent" really deals with!
Likewise, then, we cannot assume (on the flipside of this) that all classical music then, must have been created with "good intent" ("to lead people closer to God", yet), as if just a sound now justifies a person's heart and relation to God.

 

[DHK]

There is much Scripture that is put to music, and some of it very glorifying to the Lord. Ron Hamilton wrote an entire song (hymn?) based on the words "It is finished."
There are choruses based on: "They that wait upon the Lord..."
Psalm 19:7-11, and so on.

Some time ago a rock group intentionally put the words to the Lord's Prayer to their rock music. What was their intent? I am not sure what they would say? But to me it was mocking the Word of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. That was in the mid-seventies. The intent was not worship.

Much of the intent in Christian music is far from worship today. The actual inten of much of CCM is entertainment.
Let me give a good example. Some of the music on Gaither's Gospel hour is quite good. But after the performer sings his song everyone claps and performer gets the praise, not God. To them it is entertainment. People get the glory, not God. They will talk of the praises of God, and even sing about them, all of which is good, but then they will clap and applaud for the song and the performer that sang it, and the good job that he did. Man gets the praise not God.
That is the result in much of CCM music. It is done for the praise of man. It is an industry with the intent of making money. CCM is a big market, much of it sold now in HMV, and other large secular music outlets. Why does the secular music cater to CCM, but they won't sell the old fashioned hymns: "What Can Wash Away My Sin; Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!" No one wants to hear those old hymns that speak about the blood of Jesus anymore. They speak of the gospel, how to be saved, how Jesus took the penalty of sin upon himself because they were sinners and deserved the wrath of God. That's a hard message that people of today don't want to hear, and CCM doesn't present for the most part. It is very shallow in its lyrics. It caters (in both its music and its lyrics) to the world, and thus the world accepts it.
DHK

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel:
I agree with you about the exclusion of noises like the ones you listed. My definition does delineate some form of organization from intent.

OK, where do we go from here?

"organization from intent"
That would assume that all music has "intent" behind it, which in most, if not all, would automatically exclude the premise that music is amoral. Many musicians have the "intent" in their music to lead away from God; while others have the "intent" to lead ones closer to God. Music can be moral or immoral. It depends on its "intent," and as you say "organization from intent." So, the music can be organized specifically in a style as to be inherently evil, because the intent was inherently evil. Correct?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Intent, thought, desire and emotion exist exclusively within the heart. Any medium used to communicate intent, thought, desire or emotion is nothing more than a symbolic abstraction.

 

[DHK]

However, you have already indicated that music is a language. People use language to curse, to express their anger, and many other emotions, sinful and otherwise. If music is a language then music can express such emotions as anger which, as you, say originate in the heart. Language is not abstract.
DHK

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by DHK:
However, you have already indicated that music is a language. People use language to curse, to express their anger, and many other emotions, sinful and otherwise. If music is a language then music can express such emotions as anger which, as you, say originate in the heart. Language is not abstract.
DHK

Sure it is. Language is not the actual thing being communicated. If I say "I hate you", the words are not themselves my hatred for you, they are only a set of audible signals which let you know the intent, thought, desire or emotion of my heart.

 

[DHK]

I wouldn't know if you hated me unless there was a way to communicate it. We call that language: whether it be music, English, Spanish, or cursing.
DHK

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by DHK:
I wouldn't know if you hated me unless there was a way to communicate it. We call that language: whether it be music, English, Spanish, or cursing.
DHK

Exactly. That's why something external and independant of our hearts must be used to communicate the intent, thoughts, desires or emotions of our hearts.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I wouldn't know if you hated me unless there was a way to communicate it. We call that language: whether it be music, English, Spanish, or cursing.
DHK

Exactly. That's why something external and independant of our hearts must be used to communicate the intent, thoughts, desires or emotions of our hearts. </font>[/QUOTE]That is also the reason that you cannot separate the medium from the message. The message is expressed through medium. Thus an angry voice is sin because it communicates anger. Angry music is sin because it communicates the same type of anger. Anger is sin. Thus music is not amoral.
DHK

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by DHK:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by DHK:
I wouldn't know if you hated me unless there was a way to communicate it. We call that language: whether it be music, English, Spanish, or cursing.
DHK

Exactly. That's why something external and independant of our hearts must be used to communicate the intent, thoughts, desires or emotions of our hearts. </font>[/QUOTE]That is also the reason that you cannot separate the medium from the message. The message is expressed through medium. Thus an angry voice is sin because it communicates anger. Angry music is sin because it communicates the same type of anger. Anger is sin. Thus music is not amoral.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]An angry voice can be replicated without any anger whatsoever. A hateful sentiment of any kind can be reproduced without the actual hatred. Language is not and cannot be the thought, intent, desire or emotion of the heart.
Sin can't exist in soundwaves. The very notion makes no sense.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
An angry voice can be replicated without any anger whatsoever. A hateful sentiment of any kind can be reproduced without the actual hatred. Language is not and cannot be the thought, intent, desire or emotion of the heart.
Sin can't exist in soundwaves. The very notion makes no sense.

Ah, I see. So all musicians are frauds. They fake their emotions. The joy in their music is not joy at all--for "any sentiment of any kind can be produced with the actual sentiment."
So in reality musicians are just a bunch of hypocrites hiding behind an emotional facade.
The language of music (you say), as with any other language, cannot be the thought, intent, desire, etc. of the heart. But you are wrong; so very wrong. If I curse you, it just isn't in my heart; it is with my mouth, you----- ----- ----- (for example). Obviously angry words need to be expressed or they aren't angry words
It is the expression of anger (the language) that is just as much a sin as the anger itself. The two are so intertwined together that they cannot be separated, so don't even try. You cannot separate them.
DHK