What is music?

[Aaron]

Originally posted by 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?

No, I'm saying that these things contribute to the degree of the musical expertise of a given culture.

 

[Travelsong]

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

 

[Aaron]

Bunk.

I had no problem listening to the female professors in college, to my teachers in the elementary and secondary schools, most of which were female, or to my own mother.

And there are some crossdressers that really, really sound like a girl.

Not sure how the article pertains to our discussion, but I still think its hooey.

 

[Travelsong]

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

 

[Travelsong]

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

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

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

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

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
What things contribute to musical expertise?

The things you said: geographical location, culture, and history.

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

All the above.

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

I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking what determines musical expertise? If so, my answer is:

Specialization.

When there is sufficient peace and order, and a nation has grown to the point that it can support men who do no manual labor, then the institutions of science, law and education will flourish and grow more sophisticated. There will be musicologists and musicians and the knowledge of music will increase.

If you're asking what a certain degree of musical expertise indicates about a society, then my answer is the nature of its thought. Are they temperate, moderate and sophisticated, or are they riotous, exessive and sensual?

 

[Travelsong]

When there is sufficient peace and order, and a nation has grown to the point that it can support men who do no manual labor, then the institutions of science, law and education will flourish and grow more sophisticated. There will be musicologists and musicians and the knowledge of music will increase.

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

If you're asking what a certain degree of musical expertise indicates about a society, then my answer is the nature of its thought. Are they temperate, moderate and sophisticated, or are they riotous, exessive and sensual?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Eric B]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 [or dancing] are not commandments to the church any more than the commandments to sacrifice goats and sheep.

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

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,

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

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).

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(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.

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

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />When there is sufficient peace and order, and a nation has grown to the point that it can support men who do no manual labor, then the institutions of science, law and education will flourish and grow more sophisticated. There will be musicologists and musicians and the knowledge of music will increase.

Isn't it your belief that music requires no education to understand? That it is understood and discerned innately?</font>[/QUOTE]The question is about musical expertise, not about one's ability to enjoy music.

There is a difference between knowing music theory and understanding the emotional impact of a piece of music. No one needs training to know when a piece sounds happy or sad, solemn or riotious. If an understanding of music theory were required before someone could enjoy music, there would be no record companies.

Making music is a different story.

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

The argument was that the cantillation of Middle Eastern cultures today has no connection to the music of ancient Israel, and that the music of ancient Israel most likely did not sound all that exotic.

 

[Aaron]

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

I think it's safe to say it wouldn't sound much like Haitian Voduns beating their drums.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
The argument was that the cantillation of Middle Eastern cultures today has no connection to the music of ancient Israel, and that the music of ancient Israel most likely did not sound all that exotic.

How does this matter?

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Eric said:
And I guess "civilized"="western classical/traditional", right?

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

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
The argument was that the cantillation of Middle Eastern cultures today has no connection to the music of ancient Israel, and that the music of ancient Israel most likely did not sound all that exotic.

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

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Travelsong:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Aaron:
The argument was that the cantillation of Middle Eastern cultures today has no connection to the music of ancient Israel, and that the music of ancient Israel most likely did not sound all that exotic.

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

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

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

 

[Aaron]

It looks like I snipped the snippy line too late. You must have been right there when I posted it. Sorry 'bout that.

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

There are degrees of expertise. Keep that in mind. A degree of expertise is a measurement of how well one has mastered something.

If you hired someone to remodel your kitchen, would you want some amateur who kinda knows what he's doing, or would you want an expert?

If you were a diehard utilitarian, like myself, then you probably wouldn't care much for aesthetics, but if you're like my wife, who is like most women, you'd want your kitchen to not only be useful, but beautiful too. And that just doesn't happen unless the contractor has a high degree of expertise.

Of course expertise is a good thing.

 

[Travelsong]

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

There are degrees of expertise. Keep that in mind. A degree of expertise is a measurement of how well one has mastered something.

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

 

[Aaron]

I believe that God has placed limits on everything, except the knowledge of Him.

 

[Travelsong]

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

 

[Aaron]

What history and anthropology have done is to bear witness to what Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:9, "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun."

But the limits we place on anything are determined by God's Word. He said:

Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

That is where education is to be focused. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me.

Truth, honesty, justice, purity, lovliness, and virtue are instrisic qualities that can be universally recognized, provided one is trained properly. And that is where the limits are placed on music as well.

 

[Travelsong]

Specific application please.

 

[Aaron]

We've already been down this road. Remember Thrash Metal, a form you identified as riotous and excessive? That's how it's applied.

But almost everyone is agreed that Thrash Metal is inconsistent with Christian character. Fewer would even call it "lovely," so we know God draws the line somewhat more toward center than that. That's where our disagreement will lie, and right now I'm not interested in going any further than saying that God has a clear line drawn, and that we're responsible to know where it is.