Book Review - Worship in Song

[QUOTE=Ken Largent] His advice for making these decisions is to reject any music that communicates a blatantly evil message, to pose serious questions to ourselves about what the music does communicate, and to faithfully apply biblical principles even to the use of our personal music choices.[/QUOTE]

I think this sentence summarizes the the main problem inherent in a work about music. This book probably has a lot of good things to say, but the big question still remains.

Out of the 3 statements in that sentence, I don’t think there are many true Christians that would disagree with the latter two (although I think the second one should come before the first). And even the first statement is non-controversial IF it can be proven that music itself CAN be evil. But therein lies the problem — determining what music “communicates a blatantly evil message.” It has been standard practice among those preaching about music for the last 30 years in fundamentalism to assert that first statement without giving concrete methods for accomplishing it. At least Frank Garlock tried to do so, but some of the principles he preached (the 2-4 beat, the effect on plants, etc.) have been soundly discredited.

I already reject, both for personal use, and for worship use, any music that is tainted by strong association with current popular culture. I certainly don’t want to be thinking about such things when trying to honor God in worship. That is not to say, though, that such music communicates (other than associatively) a blatantly evil message.

Neither Scott, when he was posting here regularly on SI a few years ago, nor anyone else I’ve read on music, has been able to demonstrate how notes, chords, patterns, or even several measures communicate intrinsically an evil (or good) message. Most everyone seems to agree that music communicates something and in some way, but it seems not only difficult (as you mention Scott writing) to see what that is, it seems impossible to do in a deterministic fashion. When pressed to take an example and do so, people that hold Scott’s position on the intrinsic value of music just remain silent or refuse to answer. I’ve yet to have someone take me up on evaluating a score musically for goodness evilness and tell me why it has the value it does and how that conclusion is reached. The only evaluations I’ve ever seen are “let me hear it and I’ll tell you if it’s acceptable or not.” Any arguments are then based on “obviousness.”

Using biblical principles, association with the world is easy by comparison (though still not trivial), and of course lyrics and doctrinal correctness are also relatively easy to determine. But of course, in determining the value of styles of music, those are not enough. We need to have concrete principles to follow that work in all cases if we are to determine which music communicates a blatantly evil message. Without that, most of our musical judgments are purely subjective, and based on what we are comfortable with.

[dcbii] Neither Scott, when he was posting here regularly on SI a few years ago, nor anyone else I’ve read on music, has been able to demonstrate how notes, chords, patterns, or even several measures communicate intrinsically an evil (or good) message. Most everyone seems to agree that music communicates something and in some way, but it seems not only difficult (as you mention Scott writing) to see what that is, it seems impossible to do in a deterministic fashion. When pressed to take an example and do so, people that hold Scott’s position on the intrinsic value of music just remain silent or refuse to answer. I’ve yet to have someone take me up on evaluating a score musically for goodness evilness and tell me why it has the value it does and how that conclusion is reached. The only evaluations I’ve ever seen are “let me hear it and I’ll tell you if it’s acceptable or not.” Any arguments are then based on “obviousness.”

Dave,

I am sitting here in my basement and on the wall to my left is a print of a painting. I think it is a Monet, but I am not sure, as my wife does all the decorating around here. Anyway, up on my fridge is a drawing made by my three year old daughter. Which is more beautiful? Well, the picture on the fridge is more beautiful to me, but I don’t think it would win any art contests, because it is not intrinsically beautiful but rather, sentimentally beautiful. I don’t know how relevant that really is, but I said that to say this. I really struggle with the following statement that you made:

[dcbii] I’ve yet to have someone take me up on evaluating a score musically for goodness evilness and tell me why it has the value it does and how that conclusion is reached. The only evaluations I’ve ever seen are “let me hear it and I’ll tell you if it’s acceptable or not.” Any arguments are then based on “obviousness.”

I feel that in our modern society, driven by the scientific method, that we feel that if something can not be proven scientifically, then it can not be proven at all. Let me take the issue of women’s dress. Many times when I tell my wife that another women is wearing something that is immodest, she does not understand, because the outfit may not necessarily fit into her her formula of what is “immodest.” Because she is not a guy, she just can’t get it. And I do not blame her, because modesty is not always about rules. We can make all the rules we want as to what is and is not modest, but there is always that subjective part to it.

As with paintings and dress, I see music in the same way. I feel like you want someone to write a software program that can evaluate sheet music and spit out an answer that says “worldly” or “not worldly.” God created beauty, and he created it in a way that can not always be measured scientifically.

I am sorry if it sounds like I am trying to pick a fight. I am not. I just have some serious problems with those who have an attitude of “prove to me that this is worldly.” I can’t “prove” to anyone that there is a God, how in the world am I suppose to “prove” to someone that a certain style of music is evil. What I am suppose to do is “prove” that it is good.

Sorry if this was somewhat disjointed, it’s late :)

Gabe, having read Aniol’s book, I can tell you that he has no problem going to research to try prove his case. This is actually the most glaring weakness of his book in my opinion.

Here is what I mean.

In his chapter on the meaning of music, he references a research paper that discusses the impact of music on buying decisions. The paper summarizes numerous scientific studies on how music communicates. It actually attempts to provide a blueprint for picking or writing music that you want to communicate different things. For example, it might say to use dissonance and a staggered rhythm if you want to create anticipation. I don’t have the paper in front of me and can’t remember specifics, but that is the gist of it. Aniol thought so much of this research that he actually reproduced the conclusions in his book.

The problem is this: The research paper provides solid evidence that music communicates primary emotions such as happiness which are not in themselves moral or immoral. (No credible musician debates these findings.) However, the paper does not reference even one study that deals with whether music can communicate morality. And Aniol does not help by providing any additional studies. I have not doubt that he tried to find those studies, but they simply don’t exist.

I imagine he thought including this research would help his case. What it actually does is highlight the difference between real research and his own unproven belief that music can be inherently good or evil.

You can’t have it both ways. Either research is valid or it isn’t. Dave is right in that people like Aniol refuse to get specific when you ask them to discuss why a piece of music is either good or evil. I suspect this is because they know deep down that they can’t defend their preferences either from the Bible or research.

Gabe,

First off, let me assure you I don’t think you are trying to pick a fight. I wanted some discussion on this (in the context of the book review and how it applies to music), so I was, essentially, “asking for it.”

Second, I’m just as interested in how to prove something good as how to prove it not good. I don’t operate my life by the maxim “anything not *proven* bad is therefore good.” However the standards of proof work both ways. I’d be happy for you to take the music to “He Lives” and show me why it is good (and to be clear, I’m not talking about the lyrics).

Third, although it may not sound like it from my arguments, my personal views on what I think represents appropriate church and worship music would not be that different from Scott’s — I just hold those views for different reasons than he does, and I’m eager to explore how we come to our conclusions on what music is appropriate, etc.

Fourth, this discussion could get off track pretty quickly. This thread is not really intended as a wider debate about music (though I am interested in those), but about this book/review. I think that if a book is trying to present an argument about choosing worship music, it should delve into *how* to do so, and provide good reasons for those conclusions. I don’t require only scientific reasons for something (though I consider those valid where the Bible doesn’t speak), but I do require convincing reasons, and certainly the Bible would be the first source for those. I find it interesting how the Torah delves into the smallest details of cloth, dress, sacrifices, sanitation, worship, and so on, without giving good details on how music should be chosen. We would all agree that worship music should be what God wants, not what we want, but He hasn’t given us a lot to go on with respect to music having an intrinsic value. Further the verse mentioning that “nothing is unclean of itself” clearly has bearing on our evaluation, even if it isn’t the “checkmate” verse.

From his previous arguments and from the review, I don’t see that Scott wants us to come to a conclusion that we can all look at the difficult questions and come to different judgments ourselves on what music is good and what is evil. However, if he is arguing that we should all come to the same conclusions, then he needs to show how to do it. Arguments from obviousness don’t work since it’s not all that obvious to everyone that we can easily come to the same conclusions about what makes music “blatantly evil.”

[Gabe Franklin]

I am sitting here in my basement and on the wall to my left is a print of a painting. I think it is a Monet, but I am not sure, as my wife does all the decorating around here. Anyway, up on my fridge is a drawing made by my three year old daughter. Which is more beautiful? Well, the picture on the fridge is more beautiful to me, but I don’t think it would win any art contests, because it is not intrinsically beautiful but rather, sentimentally beautiful.

Of course, seeing that artists strongly disagree with each other over whether Monet is more intrinsically beautiful than Van Gogh or Rembrandt, it’s very clear to me that the standard is much more subjective than objective, if in fact there is any objectivity there.

I really struggle with the following statement that you made:

[dcbii] I’ve yet to have someone take me up on evaluating a score musically for goodness evilness and tell me why it has the value it does and how that conclusion is reached. The only evaluations I’ve ever seen are “let me hear it and I’ll tell you if it’s acceptable or not.” Any arguments are then based on “obviousness.”

I feel that in our modern society, driven by the scientific method, that we feel that if something can not be proven scientifically, then it can not be proven at all.

Why do you have a problem with it? I didn’t mention scientific proof. Biblical proof trumps scientific, but you’ll have to show me the Biblical proof (and I’m not one of those that claims if it isn’t there written in black and white that we can’t develop principles — but again the development of those principles must be shown to be correct).

As with paintings and dress, I see music in the same way. I feel like you want someone to write a software program that can evaluate sheet music and spit out an answer that says “worldly” or “not worldly.” God created beauty, and he created it in a way that can not always be measured scientifically.

I agree that science is not really behind beauty. But of course, we are talking about good/evil not beauty. Is a naturally ugly person evil because their looks don’t meet what the majority of humanity calls beautiful? Hardly. However, if you are claiming that beauty is objective, then you have to lay out the standards for determining it. Personally, I don’t think much of it is, otherwise all men would want the same things in a woman’s looks, and that is demonstrably not true. However, I think beauty is a bit of a diversion because we want to eliminate music that is “blatantly evil,” not necessarily “ugly” music (which might be appropriate for a depiction of hell or judgment).

I just have some serious problems with those who have an attitude of “prove to me that this is worldly.”

I agree with you here.

I can’t “prove” to anyone that there is a God, how in the world am I suppose to “prove” to someone that a certain style of music is evil.

If it can’t be done (and it doesn’t have to be by you — pick any expert), then maybe it isn’t. It’s at least worth considering. The difference I see in your statement is that the Bible clearly asserts that there is a God. It doesn’t clearly say that music can be intrinsically evil.

What I am suppose to do is “prove” that it is good.

Great! If you know how to do that with music, I would love to learn. Maybe you can write a book. :)

[GregH] The problem is this: The research paper provides solid evidence that music communicates primary emotions such as happiness which are not in themselves moral or immoral. (No credible musician debates these findings.) However, the paper does not reference even one study that deals with whether music can communicate morality. And Aniol does not help by providing any additional studies. I have not doubt that he tried to find those studies, but they simply don’t exist.

…

You can’t have it both ways. Either research is valid or it isn’t. Dave is right in that people like Aniol refuse to get specific when you ask them to discuss why a piece of music is either good or evil. I suspect this is because they know deep down that they can’t defend their preferences either from the Bible or research.

There are some leaps here.

There’s no question that research is lacking on moral significance inherent in, or communicated by, music (sans lyrics). But the lack of thorough research (so far) does not prove that music lacks this significance or capability. A number of reasons might be suggested for the relative lack of “scientific” evidence on that score… one being that researches are simply not as interested (yet) in that particular question. Another might be that it’s really an entirely different kind of question. That is, the ability of particular musical structures to evoke certain emotions is a study of music psychology. The question of what meaning music has is mostly (entirely?) a question of the cultural context. So it falls not to psychologists to study but anthropologists or sociologists and the like… or better yet, theologians. And, given the layers between emotional impact and meaning, the question is far more complex than the psychological one.

But it’s not valid to conclude that because the question has—so far—proved to be quite elusive and difficult to reduce to clear bullet points, that there are, therefore, no answers to find. Those who produce music in various genres have never doubted that their music has meaning beyond simply evoking certain emotions. And if it has meaning it has morality. It is very seldom possible to “say” something morally neutral.

Edit: I’ll add that the difficulty is compounded by the fact that cultural meaning is a moving target. The Beatles’ music does not “mean” today what it meant in the 20th Century. Today it mostly sounds quaint and nostalgic. At the time—read the history—that was not at all what it meant!

Two quick corrections:

1. There is a lot of research about what music communicates. Journals and journals of research. It just happens to be in very theoretical language, and so non-musicians (or quasi-musicians) are unwilling (or unable) to wade through it. In our individualistic culture, if “I can’t understand it for myself, it’s not worthy of considering.”

2. I (and many others) have been willing to get specific in the past, but in order to do so we must use theoretical language, which then gets us labeled as musical elitists. Same problem as above.

But on that note, keep an eye on my site this week; I’m going to parse the meaning of rap with some level of specificity.

Thanks, Scott. I stand corrected.

If there is a great deal of work out there on meaning, probably part of the challenge that has not been thoroughly done is very difficult work of making it accessible. I don’t disagree that individualistic attitudes are largely to blame for lack of awareness of these things (though I think it’s really more just laziness… at least that’s what it is when I don’t do the wading!). On the other hand, lots of fairly high-level areas of study have been successfully communicated to the masses of ordinary (and often lazy) folks through the gifts of a few who “get it” and also know how to package and deliver the data in a “for dummies” form. So we can pray for more of that when it comes to helping people see the meaning in music.

In my own case, I quickly get frustrated and impatient because I’m trying to explain/prove what it is intuitively obvious to me. (And, yes, for the critics, what’s intuitively obvious to me is often flat out wrong, but who’s got time to analyze everything? …so some of these “obvious” things are on my “question it when I get around to it” list. The meaning of several genres of modern music is deep on that list… to me, its obvious that they’re here-today-gone-tomorrow cheap junk)

[Aaron Blumer] Those who produce music in various genres have never doubted that their music has meaning beyond simply evoking certain emotions. And if it has meaning it has morality. It is very seldom possible to “say” something morally neutral.

I’m interested in this discussion, and am interested in Scott’s book. I’m with Dave Barnhart however so far. The above snip from Aaron is incredible to me. Do you really mean that?

First of all, I highly doubt that every one producing music in various genres thinks very long or deeply at all about the question of whether their music has meaning. They are aware it evokes a mood or emotion, and etc. But beyond that line, the next is even more unbelievable. It is rarely possible to say anything morally neutral? Really?

“It is raining today”. Is not this morally neutral? To say “the book has a blue cover” is again morally neutral. I suppose to say “the book has a red cover”, when it actually has a blue cover, is a lie and hence morally evil. Yet to say the same words in a different context where the book really does have a red cover, is again morally neutral (not morally good).

I would venture to guess that 80-90% or more of our daily conversations, those speech acts and communications, that all of those or more are morally neutral. We say tons of words and sentences that are morally neutral.

Sorry I’m getting so excited here. But I think if we stretch analogies too far, we end up with nonsense. And this is the problem with a defense of the singular goodness of non-contemporary music styles.

Scott is right that there are journals and journals of research on what music communicates. However, I would be most interested in him providing even one bit of credible research that demonstrates that music can communicate morality.

By research, I mean studies rather than opinions. I know that there are plenty of opinions about this particular topic, even from informed musicologists. But I also know that there are contrary opinions to those opinions from equally informed musicologists.

[GregH] However, I would be most interested in him providing even one bit of credible research that demonstrates that music can communicate morality.

Greg,

I think there is a great deal of ambiguity in your expression, “communicate morality.”

You have said that music communicates “primary emotions…which are not in themselves moral or immoral.” Even this category needs definition: what is a “primary emotion”? You’ve suggested happiness would fit this category; I would presume, then, you would include sadness. But what about degrees of these: jubilation? frivolity? rejoicing? despair? depression? melancholy? Are these primary?

What about other emotions that are not merely degrees of happiness and sadness, such as gratitude or lust? What makes an emotion primary?

I think there are at least two ways, given your acknowledgement that music communicates “primary emotions,” that music also “communicates morality.” First, if it is possible that music can communicate a “primary emotion” that Scripture forbids (despair, lust, etc.), it is communicating morality. (Also, along the same lines, if music encourages emotions that Scripture enjoins, it is also communicating morality positively).

Second, music is almost always communicated within a context, a setting. If the “primary emotion” communicated by the music runs counter to (or is encouraging) how we ought to feel given that setting or context, the music is communicating morality. So, for instance, I was at a funeral at which the Chicken Dance was played. Even if the deceased were a believer (and he was not), such “primary emotion” communicated does not fit the circumstance; to the degree that it does not, it seems to me to be fair to consider that communication immoral.

[Scott Aniol] Two quick corrections:

1. There is a lot of research about what music communicates. Journals and journals of research. It just happens to be in very theoretical language, and so non-musicians (or quasi-musicians) are unwilling (or unable) to wade through it. In our individualistic culture, if “I can’t understand it for myself, it’s not worthy of considering.”

2. I (and many others) have been willing to get specific in the past, but in order to do so we must use theoretical language, which then gets us labeled as musical elitists. Same problem as above.

But on that note, keep an eye on my site this week; I’m going to parse the meaning of rap with some level of specificity.

Scott,

With all due respect, I remember many times on this site where this information was requested and the crickets immediately started chirping. This is something that many people (including myself) struggled with for many years because as teens we were told some music was bad because some of it killed plants, or some other silly reason. I’ve read quite a bit on this topic and am yet to find the volumes of material out there that say music in and of itself can be immoral/wrong/pick your term. Surely someone along the way in some book (such as the one you wrote) gives something along these lines. I believe there are many here that would wade through the material if it was presented. Or at least attempt to summarize and put it in layman’s terms for everyone. I think others will agree with me though that there hasn’t been a shred of this info posted. But I may have overlooked it, so give me a link if I have.

Ricky

By primary emotions, I am referring to basic emotions such as fear, happiness, sadness, and such that are neither moral or immoral in themselves. I am reminded of Ecclesiastes 3 where these kinds of emotions are mentioned. The idea there is that there is a time and a place for all of them (“a time to weep and a time to laugh”).

So, I agree with you that music can communicate morality within a setting (such as your example). I am in favor of churches being selective of music based on the situation (appropriateness).

But that is not what I am arguing here. My point is that we have no real research that I am aware of that suggests that music communicates morality in itself (outside of a setting, as you put it).

[Scott Aniol] Two quick corrections:

1. There is a lot of research about what music communicates. Journals and journals of research. It just happens to be in very theoretical language, and so non-musicians (or quasi-musicians) are unwilling (or unable) to wade through it. In our individualistic culture, if “I can’t understand it for myself, it’s not worthy of considering.”

I’m extremely dubious about this claim as a correction to Aaron’s, who was speaking of morality. Please do produce the musical semioticians and musicologists who moralize about music the way Fundamentalists do. I’m guessing they either don’t exist or are in an extreme minority.

It’s one thing to say that there is research on music and meaning (that’s pretty obvious, as a simple google search produces a journal of that title), or to point out that musical semiotics is a burgeoning field. It’s something completely different to act like this kind of research supports moralizing about music.

Ever since I gave up on this issue among Fundamentalists, I’ve been consistently impressed with the same fallacious argumentation over and over: moving to an extremely concrete conclusion from underdeterminate data, and often leaping categories (the most common being leaping from “meaning,” problematic enough, to “morality,”).

I’m neither a linguist nor semiotician nor musicologist, but if you provide “journals and journals of research” supporting the kinds of claims you make (not underdetermined and uncontroversial claims) I will certainly plough through what I can, when I can.

I think music forms humans affections and sensibilties, and that this fact has moral import. But I don’t think the fact in any legitimate way leads to Fundamentalist positions on music and morality.

Edit: To all. The basic literature on music and meaning is not terribly hard to find, nor is all of it inaccesible. See the opening essay, for example, in “Approaches to Meaning in Music,” ed. Almen and Pearsall, which surveys recent scholarship on musical signification. Eero Tarasti is, I gather, a big deal for musical semiotics, and has published a number of essays and books.

[Joseph] Edit: To all. The basic literature on music and meaning is not terribly hard to find, nor is all of it inaccesible. See the opening essay, for example, in “Approaches to Meaning in Music,” ed. Almen and Pearsall, which surveys recent scholarship on musical signification. Eero Tarasti is, I gather, a big deal for musical semiotics, and has published a number of essays and books.

You can read that entire essay for free with Google Books here.

[Bob Hayton]

[Joseph] Edit: To all. The basic literature on music and meaning is not terribly hard to find, nor is all of it inaccesible. See the opening essay, for example, in “Approaches to Meaning in Music,” ed. Almen and Pearsall, which surveys recent scholarship on musical signification. Eero Tarasti is, I gather, a big deal for musical semiotics, and has published a number of essays and books.

You can read that entire essay for free with Google Books here.

Ah, good to know. One must appreciate google.