What is music?

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
So in essence when you are saying that all music affects or elicits the same response in people, you are saying the response is amplified emotion?

How does this correspond with the assertion that music has innate meaning? If people are having different reactions to it, are they not deriving a different sense of meaning from it as well?

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.

No one has passionate reactions to Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star or Rock a Bye Baby.

 

[Daniel]

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.

 

[tenor]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />tenor said:
Pythagoras discovered the ratio of intervals ages ago. Are you now saying that math and ratio are a language that carries meaning?

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.

In early music of Scotland, Ireland and the Orient one can often find the missing 3rd and 7th notes of the scale being used not as part of the official scale, but as passing notes or leading tones. That is, they are notes in the gaps that 'lead' 'to the fourth or 'pass over into' the octave. In different cultures the names for this are different, but have similar meaning. The Pien tones in Chinese pentatonic scales mean 'becoming' that is, a 7th 'becoming' the octave, in a sequence of melody or scale notes. The words are different, the concept and usage is similar. This is widely reported among musicologists and anthropologists.

http://www.greenwych.ca/natbasis.htm

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.

The tablets date back to approximately 1400 B.C. and contain a hymn to the moon god's wife, Nikkal. Remarkably, the tablets also contain detailed performance instructions for a singer accompanied by a harpist as well as instructions on how to tune the harp.

From this evidence, musicologists have produced a credible realization of the hymn performed in harmony with thirds, sixths, fourths, and fifths. This rare example of polyphony in ancient music appears to shatter the long held belief that harmony did not evolve in human musical expression until the middle ages.

http://www.syriamuseum.com/2004/06/the_oldest_song.html

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?

 

[webdog]

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
So in essence when you are saying that all music affects or elicits the same response in people, you are saying the response is amplified emotion?

How does this correspond with the assertion that music has innate meaning? If people are having different reactions to it, are they not deriving a different sense of meaning from it as well?

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
No one has passionate reactions to Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star or Rock a Bye Baby.

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

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Passion is meaning?

Of course. Your views of communication and meaning are too narrow.

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

It was your quote, TS. "Children will be conceived, wrists will be slashed, scars will be healed, and tears will be wrenched by this group." You wouldn't call these responses passionate?

My statement about whisky was just an illustration. Men will have exhibit different kinds of responses to drunkenness, but the bottom line is that they're still drunk.

In the same way, folks may say untitled is violence or sex, but the bottom line is that it's passion.

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.

Okay, let's put it another way. You and a friend are on foot in the inner city. You're accosted by a man who pulls a knife and demands your wallets.

Now, there's no question about the threat, but your friend's response was to flee, you just bust him in the nose with a lighting-fast jab.

Two different responses, but they were responses to the same threat. It wasn't that your friend saw it as a threat and you saw it as a mild insult.

Originally posted by Aaron:
No one has passionate reactions to Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star or Rock a Bye Baby.

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

I agree they can be sung passionately, but I mean how they're usually performed. The difference being Marylin Monroe's birthday wishes to JKF and how Happy Birthday is usually sung.

 

[tenor]

Originally posted by Aaron:

I agree they can be sung passionately, but I mean how they're usually performed. The difference being Marylin Monroe's birthday wishes to JKF and how Happy Birthday is usually sung.

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

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by tenor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:

I agree they can be sung passionately, but I mean how they're usually performed. The difference being Marylin Monroe's birthday wishes to JKF and how Happy Birthday is usually sung.

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.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
Passion is meaning?

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?

Originally posted by Aaron:
It was your quote, TS. "Children will be conceived, wrists will be slashed, scars will be healed, and tears will be wrenched by this group." You wouldn't call these responses passionate?

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
My statement about whisky was just an illustration. Men will have exhibit different kinds of responses to drunkenness, but the bottom line is that they're still drunk.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
In the same way, folks may say untitled is violence or sex, but the bottom line is that it's passion.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Okay, let's put it another way. You and a friend are on foot in the inner city. You're accosted by a man who pulls a knife and demands your wallets.

Now, there's no question about the threat, but your friend's response was to flee, you just bust him in the nose with a lighting-fast jab.

Two different responses, but they were responses to the same threat. It wasn't that your friend saw it as a threat and you saw it as a mild insult.

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)

Originally posted by Aaron:
No one has passionate reactions to Twinkle Twinkle, Little Star or Rock a Bye Baby.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
I agree they can be sung passionately, but I mean how they're usually performed. The difference being Marylin Monroe's birthday wishes to JKF and how Happy Birthday is usually sung.

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.

 

[tenor]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tenor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:

I agree they can be sung passionately, but I mean how they're usually performed. The difference being Marylin Monroe's birthday wishes to JKF and how Happy Birthday is usually sung.

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

 

[Eric B]

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.

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!

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").

Then there's the viol, which was much like a violin according to Josephus' description. It was played with a bow.

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.

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

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by tenor:
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.

What other case is there? Does music exist if where it isn't being performed? Even CD's are recordings of performances. When we're listening to a CD we are still interacting with that performance.

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.

Everyone most certainly does judge the likes and dislikes of others. We are always judging them as gaudy or restrained, vulgar or decent, or some other such character judgment. Rap, or any style, is defined by the manner in which it is performed. There are styles that appeal to base and vulgar affections, and styles to appeal to affections of a more noble character.

Music is for appealing to one's affections. It exists for no other purpose.

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.

I may give it a perusal. I'm more interested in books on music history and archaeology. One needs no instruction in music theory to effectively and righteously judge the morality of a piece, though it's helpful to know some theory in order to counter the conventional wisdom floating around out there. What one needs is a good knowledge of God and of the kinds of affections and demeanors that He commends.

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."

Which is basically saying that our responses to music are culturally conditioned. I think I've already answered that argument.

The rhythms, chords, pitches, instruments, voices, melodied, dynamics, etc. a completely amoral and totally tied to context, performance, and purpose.

Now this is the trap that a lot of folks fall into when talking about music. Someone wants to break it down into its component parts and say, "Show me the evil part." That's basically your argument. You're saying all the component parts of music are amoral (The Bible presents nothing as amoral), therefor music is amoral. This is like taking a pornographic photo, breaking it down to colors and pixels (or grains) and saying, "Show me the evil component." Music, just like the photo, is more than the sum of its parts. The component parts are arranged in a certain manner for the purpose of evoking a particular response. It's the unified whole that is judged, not the component parts.

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

Tim

Thank you. BTW, the following link will help you format your posts.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=ubb_code_page

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
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.

It's emotional meaning.

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.

Happy, sad, triumphant, majestic, etc. aren't explicit?

(I've had a gun pulled on me before and I can tell you I would be the flight guy in your example)

I'd be the flier too.

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.

Hast thou found honey? eat so much as is sufficient for thee, lest thou be filled therewith, and vomit it, Proverbs 25:16.

I think that a big part of the problem in music discernment is that we're steeped in music and have become jaded. Do you remember the PBS reality show, 1900 House ? A family was put in a Victorian setting just as it would have been in 1900. So there were no radios, TV's, or record players. In one of the interviews the mother mentioned her emotional reaction when she first heard music after so long not having it around. She was a good storyteller, so she didn't reveal that this "most beautiful sound ever to be heard" (or something like that, I don't remember the exact words) was revealed in the end of her segment as music.

I'll bet if a man went on a kind of "musical fast" for six months, a good choral rendition of "Jesu, Joy" (in German even) would bring tears to his eyes, and Twinkle Twinkle Little Star would make him dance.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
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.

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

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
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.

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.

Originally posted by Aaron:
I think that a big part of the problem in music discernment is that we're steeped in music and have become jaded. Do you remember the PBS reality show, 1900 House ? A family was put in a Victorian setting just as it would have been in 1900. So there were no radios, TV's, or record players. In one of the interviews the mother mentioned her emotional reaction when she first heard music after so long not having it around. She was a good storyteller, so she didn't reveal that this "most beautiful sound ever to be heard" (or something like that, I don't remember the exact words) was revealed in the end of her segment as music.

I'll bet if a man went on a kind of "musical fast" for six months, a good choral rendition of "Jesu, Joy" (in German even) would bring tears to his eyes, and Twinkle Twinkle Little Star would make him dance.

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.

 

[tenor]

Originally posted by Aaron:


Everyone most certainly does judge the likes and dislikes of others. We are always judging them as gaudy or restrained, vulgar or decent, or some other such character judgment. Rap, or any style, is defined by the manner in which it is performed. There are styles that appeal to base and vulgar affections, and styles to appeal to affections of a more noble character.[/b}[QB]

I concede your basic premise here, but I still diffe wth you on the degree.

Music is for appealing to one's affections. It exists for no other purpose. [QB]

There are other purposes. Some music to me is quite emotional, some is purely an academic exercise. For example, I enjoy singing Southen Gospel(also barbershop). It's fun to sing, but I really attending concerts or using these in worship.


[Quote}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."

Which is basically saying that our responses to music are culturally conditioned. I think I've already answered that argument.

Actually you haven't.

Tenor: The rhythms, chords, pitches, instruments, voices, melodied, dynamics, etc. a completely amoral and totally tied to context, performance, and purpose.

AAron: Now this is the trap that a lot of folks fall into when talking about music. Someone wants to break it down into its component parts and say, "Show me the evil part." That's basically your argument. You're saying all the component parts of music are amoral (The Bible presents nothing as amoral), therefor music is amoral. This is like taking a pornographic photo, breaking it down to colors and pixels (or grains) and saying, "Show me the evil component." Music, just like the photo, is more than the sum of its parts. The component parts are arranged in a certain manner for the purpose of evoking a particular response. It's the unified whole that is judged, not the component parts.

Your analogy is well taken. If music CLEARLY communicates at all times, why do I find something boring while someone else finds it exciting? I have a friend who is "aroused" when he hears Khatchaturian's "Sabre Dance." He and his girlfriend often had sex while this played. Does this make this particular peice evil or immoral?

Thanks for the link on how to format.Once again, have a great Sunday as you gather with your congregation in worship.

Tim

 

[tenor]

Originally posted by tenor:

Originally posted by Aaron:


Everyone most certainly does judge the likes and dislikes of others. We are always judging them as gaudy or restrained, vulgar or decent, or some other such character judgment. Rap, or any style, is defined by the manner in which it is performed. There are styles that appeal to base and vulgar affections, and styles to appeal to affections of a more noble character.[/b}[QB]

I concede your basic premise here, but I still diffe wth you on the degree.

Music is for appealing to one's affections. It exists for no other purpose. [QB]

There are other purposes. Some music to me is quite emotional, some is purely an academic exercise. For example, I enjoy singing Southen Gospel(also barbershop). It's fun to sing, but I really attending concerts or using these in worship.


[Quote}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."

Which is basically saying that our responses to music are culturally conditioned. I think I've already answered that argument.

Actually you haven't.

Tenor: The rhythms, chords, pitches, instruments, voices, melodied, dynamics, etc. a completely amoral and totally tied to context, performance, and purpose.

AAron: Now this is the trap that a lot of folks fall into when talking about music. Someone wants to break it down into its component parts and say, "Show me the evil part." That's basically your argument. You're saying all the component parts of music are amoral (The Bible presents nothing as amoral), therefor music is amoral. This is like taking a pornographic photo, breaking it down to colors and pixels (or grains) and saying, "Show me the evil component." Music, just like the photo, is more than the sum of its parts. The component parts are arranged in a certain manner for the purpose of evoking a particular response. It's the unified whole that is judged, not the component parts.

Your analogy is well taken. If music CLEARLY communicates at all times, why do I find something boring while someone else finds it exciting? I have a friend who is "aroused" when he hears Khatchaturian's "Sabre Dance." He and his girlfriend often had sex while this played. Does this make this particular piece evil or immoral? Could it be possible that musical stlye and worship style for that matter can be similar to Paul's reference to eating meat sacrificed to idols?

Thanks for the link on how to format.Once again, have a great Sunday as you gather with your congregation in worship.

Tim

 

[tenor]

Oops.

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

Tim

 

[Aaron]

Eric said:
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?

It would not sound as exotic as folks assume. We would still recognize and "feel" the playing of David as therapeutic were we to hear a recording of the melodies he played for Saul.

Sorry, but you have no proof for this...

The evidence is rather strong. I posted concrete, conclusive and irrefutable proof that harmony and the diatonic do-re-mi scale was in existence and fully developed at least around the time of the Exodus.

[Digression]I will here add that the only reason to assume that harmony and the do-re-mi scale is a comparatively recent development is the influence of Darwinism in Anthropology. I maintain that Adam and Eve could sing and harmonize most sweetly. Their children do so now, why would we think their children couldn't do so 6000 years ago?[/Digression]

There is no other conclusion to be drawn other than that the relationships we recognize between the notes of a scale were recognized as well by the ancients. Something we would call solemn, they would call solemn, and something we would call dithyrambic, they would call dithyrambic.

...that there was any significant change in the form of their music...

The Babylonian exile was nothing? The Diaspora? You obviously have no idea what that can do to a culture's institutions of science, law and education. Without relative peace and stability for these institutions to flourish, a tremendous body of learning and tradition is doomed.

David instituted music in the service of the Tabernacle, and he appointed professional musicians to the leadership thereof. The synagogal tradition was born in exile, and without the continued organized and financed support of professionals, the music was bound to degrade. The primary focus of the synagogues was the teaching of the Word, and the services were lead by, in most cases, musical amateurs who were never taught the musical traditions of the Temple, and whose cantillation took on the local color of the prevaling culture.

It couldn't be helped.

In fact, you have a heavier burden to assume that what we hear in the fragmented, scattered society of the Middle East can in any way reflect the glory that was once the United Kingdom of Israel.

...and you are forgetting about David's dancing, and your old argument that the music and worship then were "of the flesh".

As usual, you're rewriting my argument. I said the form of worship in the OT was carnal and peurile. That's stated rather straightfowardly in the NT, and the point was that the commandments in the Psalms to use instruments or incense are not commandments to the church any more than the commandments to sacrifice goats and sheep. And, don't forget, there is never any record of dancing in the Temple or the synagogues.

Now, you're tying to say it was good, and only modern mideastern culture as "in bondage"?

I said I believe the music of the Psalms was a uniquely Hebrew form. That's not to say I believe they had exotic scales or instruments, but that their culture was civilized and fully developed enough to bring out their own musical heritage, not merely borrow from the idolatrous cultures around them. Though there were commandments to worship with music, there is nothing like the promiscuous command of Nebuchadnezzar to worship with "all kinds of musick." (Dan. 3).

(Much of the West that produced Classical was in bondage to superstition too--only cloaked with "Christianity").

I would say that about most CCM. Definitely.

 

[Travelsong]

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 ]

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Aaron:
...the commandments in the Psalms to use instruments or incense...

Did I really say this? I meant instruments and dancing. (Though the premise is applicable to incense too.)