Book Review - Worship in Song
Paperback: 288 pages
Publisher: BMH Books (January 28, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0884692620
Buy at Amazon.com
Publisher: BMH Books (January 28, 2009)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0884692620
Buy at Amazon.com
This book—suitable for almost every reader—is not a rant against contemporary music and the people who enjoy it. Aniol’s basic premise is that the “music issue” is primarily a theological issue, and people would do well to seek to have their musical choices (both personal and congregational) driven by submission to Scripture. In order to accomplish this, Aniol’s 246 pages (not counting appendices) are divided into three sections.
The first section (chapters 1-5), “Laying the Foundation,” covers the issues of biblical authority, worship, sanctification and affection. It closes with a brief survey of the influence of culture and religious movements on music throughout church history. I suppose that most believers—including those comfortable with contemporary music—would agree that the Bible is our authority and that sanctified worship is a proper goal. Scott further argues that this can be accomplished only as the heart has proper affections towards God, and that sensual words and rock beat undermine that affection. The concluding chapter of this section is entitled “Pop Goes the Music: Music, Culture, and the Church.” In it the author addresses the relationship between these three elements. He asserts that “culture is the tangible expression of a society’s collective worldview. It is religion externalized. How a particular community looks at life, morality, God, mankind, and justice expresses itself externally in their popular visual art, literature philosophies, and music” (60).
In the second section (chapters 6-9) called “Music in Lifestyle Worship,” the author tackles a subject that is lacking in many books on Christian music: what we listen to personally and privately. In this section he gives a very helpful explanation of the four messages found in any poem: textual, poetic, associative and intrinsic (chapter 6). In chapter 7 Aniol observes that “one of the most significant functions of beautiful music is to give the listener a finite taste of the joy one can have in God” (114). Good “secular” music then must contain the qualities that reflect the qualities of God. There are dangers even in attempting this, suggests the author. He says:
This fear of music drawing undue attention to itself (quoting William Edgar, “Taking Note of Music”) and not pointing the listener to ultimate beauty has motivated some to be wary of and even reject the use of sacred music altogether. For instance, Ulrich Zwingli feared the power of music so much that he outlawed its use in Church completely. John Calvin allowed the use of music in his services but restricted it to metrical Psalmody with no musical accompaniment. Even Augustine saw the danger of music’s emotional power. His writings are replete with evidences of his struggle over whether music was beneficial for Christians…. (115)
Scott goes on to explain that the difficulty is in allowing earthly beauty only to be the deciding factor, instead of seeking pleasure from divine beauty. He illustrates the potential of this by pointing out that the disciples were awestruck by the wrong “beauty” at the Mount of Transfiguration. Aniol admits that this is not always a simple task when he writes, “It would be nice if the issue of musical styles were as simple as evaluating what it communicates and deciding whether it is acceptable to the Lord. It is not, however, that simple. Human finiteness and depravity hinder us from easily determining such things” (138). 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.
The third section (chapters 10-17) is called “Music in Assembled Worship.” In this section, the author discusses styles of biblical worship and the purpose of the church and worship. Then he gives a detailed biblical explanation that church music should center on God, sound doctrine, and our affections for God. (I appreciated the fact that Scott was willing to say that some of our most beloved hymns are as shallow as some of today’s praise choruses.) If, as the author correctly argues, “worship is a Biblical response to God resulting from an understanding of Biblical truth about God,” then congregational music must “respond to God because of truth about Him” (173). He goes on to point out that “our sacrifices of praise do not earn us anything; we are already accepted in Christ….But God deserves our best. If we are attempting to worship Him through our music, then we should be certain to strive for excellence in congregational worship music. That means that shoddy, shallow, poorly written music should be avoided, and only what is quality, well written music is worthy of an offering to God” (179). This begins a solid rebuttal of the widespread theory of church music that can be summed up under the heading, “but I really like it!” Once again the author points out that believers on all sides of the traditional vs. contemporary issue can get caught up in what he calls “sentimental” music—and this sentimentalism replaces God and doctrine. Furthermore, Aniol argues that congregational music should be just that: music appropriate for the entire congregation to sing. It is music for a congregation, not an audience.
The book concludes by urging us to consider God worthy of good music, and worthy of the time it takes to find, sing, and listen to it. Three appendices are included. One is an appeal to teach children hymns, one organizes church hymns by topic, and one is a suggestion of songs for a personal music library.
This is a well-written, well-organized book. You don’t need to be a musician to understand it, and neither do you need formal theological training. This book could benefit any parent, pastor, teen, or church member seeking to learn more about biblical music philosophy.
Ken Largent is SI’s Book Reviews Editor. Ken attended Midwestern Baptist College and Hyles Anderson College, and received the Master of Ministry degree from Northland Baptist Bible College in ‘93. He is currently working on an MA in history from the Univ. of Nebraska. Ken and His wife live in Omaha where he has served as a pastor for more than twenty years. They have three adult children active in local churches around the country.
[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.
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.
Dave Barnhart
[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.
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.”
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]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 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 really struggle with the following statement that you made: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).[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.
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. :)
Dave Barnhart
[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.There are some leaps here.
…
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’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!
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
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.
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 Aniol
Executive Director Religious Affections Ministries
Instructor of Worship, Southwestern Baptist
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)
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)
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[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.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
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.
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:Scott,
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.
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).
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: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.
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.”
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.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Bob Hayton]Ah, good to know. One must appreciate google.[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.
[Scott Aniol] 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.Actually, I think this is not the case.
I, for one, pressed you to use and stick to theoretical language in a discussion of parsing. You wanted to use what you thought were self-evident examples.
Can you point me to an occasion when your theoretical language brought on objections?
I’m in Michigan preaching for three weeks, so I don’t have a whole lot of time to get into a full debate here (plus I’m tackling rap at my site!), but here is a list of places to go for those of you who really want to do some serious reading on the subject of musical meaning:
Balthasar, Hans Urs von. The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, i, trans. Erasmo Leiva-Merikaksi. Edinburgh: Ignatius Press, 1982.
Barker, Andrew. Greek Musical Writings, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Begbie, Jeremy S. Voicing Creation’s Praise. London: Continuum, 1991.
Bent, Ian. Analysis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1987.
Bernstein, Leonard. The Unanswered Question: Six Talks at Harvard. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Blackwell, Albert L. The Sacred in Music. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.
Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
Blume, Friedrich, et al. Protestant Church Music: A History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1974.
Boa, Kenneth D. “What Is Behind Morality? ” Bibliotheca Sacra 133, 530 (April 1976).
170
Brown, Frank Burch. Good Taste, Bad Taste, & Christian Taste: Aesthetics in Religious Life. Oxford: University Press, 2000.
Bruner, Gordon C., II. “Music, Mood, and Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 54,4 (October 1990): 94-104.
Cook, Nicholas. “Schenker’s Theory of Music as Ethics.” The Journal of Musicology 7, 4 (Autumn 1989): 415–39.
Coolidge, Mary L. “Ethics—Apollonian and Dionysian.” The Journal of Philosophy 38, 17 (Aug. 14, 1941): 449–465.
Dyrness, William A. “The Imago Dei And Christian Aesthetics.” JETS 15, 3 (Summer 1972): 161-172.
171
_____. “Aesthetics In The Old Testament: Beauty In Context.” JETS 28,4 (December 1985): 421-432.
Edgar, William. “Aesthetics Beauty Avenged, Apologetics Enriched.” WTJ 63,1 (Spring 2001): 107-122.
_____. Taking Note of Music. London: SPCK, 1986.
Elton, W., ed. Aesthetics and Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952.
Faulkner, Quentin. Wiser Than Despair: The Evolution of Ideas in the Relationship of Music and the Christian Church. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1996.
Harrell, Robert Lomas. “A Comparison of Secular Elements in the Chorales of Martin Luther with Rock Elements in Church Music of the 1960’s and 1970’s” (M.A. Thesis, Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University, 1975).
Harries, Richard. Art and the Beauty of God: A Christian Understanding. New York: Continuum, 1993.
Hill, Andrew E. Enter His Courts with Praise. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
Hodges, John Mason. “Aesthetics And The Place Of Beauty In Worship.” Reformation and Revival 9, 3 (Summer 2000), 59-75.
_____. “Beauty Revisited.” Reformation and Revival 4, 4 (Fall 1995), 65-78.
Hospers, John, ed. Introductory Readings in Aesthetics. New York: The Free Press, 1969.
Kilby, Clyde S. Christianity and Aesthetics. Chicago: Inter-varsity Press, 1961.
Langer, Susanne K. “The Work of Art as a Symbol” in Introductory Readings in Aesthetics, John Hospers. New York: The Free Press, 1969.
Lindsey, F. Duane. “Essays Toward a Theology of Beauty: Part I: God Is Beautiful.” Bibliotheca Sacra 131, 522 (April-June 1974): 120-136.
Lovelace, Austin C. The Anatomy of Hymnody. Chicago: G. I. A., 1965.
_____. Measuring the Music: Another Look at the Contemporary Music Debate. Second edition. Willow Street, Pa.: Old Paths Publications, 2002.
McQuilkin, J. Robertson. Understanding and Applying the Bible. Chicago: Moody, 1983.
Meyer, Leonard B. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.
Miles, Margaret. “Vision: The Eye of the Body and the Eye of the Mind in Saint Augustine’s De Trinitate and Confessions.” Journal of Religion 63 (April, 1983): 125–42.
Pareles, Jon. “Metallica Defies Heavy Metal Stereotypes,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, 13 July 1988.
Pontynen, Arthur. For the Love of Beauty: Art, History, and the Moral Foundations of Aesthetic Judgment. London: Transaction Publishers, 2006.
Reimer, Bennett. A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision. 3. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2003.
Riches, John, ed.. The Analogy of Beauty. The Theology of Hans Urs Von Balthasar. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986.
Scruton, Roger. Culture Counts: Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged. New York: Encounter Books, 2007.
Shaftesbury, Anthony Lord. Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Sherry, Patrick. Spirit and Beauty. London: SCM Press, 2002.
Sloboda, John. The Musical Mind: The Cognitive Psychology of Music. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
Spiegel, James S. “Aesthetics and Worship.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (Winter, 1998): 40–57.
Tagg, Philip. Fernando the Flute. Goteborg, Sweden: Gothenberg University, 1981.
Viladesau, Richard. Theological Aesthetics: God in Imagination, Beauty, and Art. New York: Oxford, 1999.
Whiteley, Sheila, ed. Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender, New York: Routledge, 1997.
Yount, Terry. “Musical Taste: The Ultimate Sacrifice?.” Reformation and Revival 4, 4 (Fall 1995): 79-90.
Balthasar, Hans Urs von. The Glory of the Lord: A Theological Aesthetics, i, trans. Erasmo Leiva-Merikaksi. Edinburgh: Ignatius Press, 1982.
Barker, Andrew. Greek Musical Writings, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Begbie, Jeremy S. Voicing Creation’s Praise. London: Continuum, 1991.
Bent, Ian. Analysis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1987.
Bernstein, Leonard. The Unanswered Question: Six Talks at Harvard. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.
Blackwell, Albert L. The Sacred in Music. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999.
Bloom, Allan. The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987.
Blume, Friedrich, et al. Protestant Church Music: A History. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1974.
Boa, Kenneth D. “What Is Behind Morality? ” Bibliotheca Sacra 133, 530 (April 1976).
170
Brown, Frank Burch. Good Taste, Bad Taste, & Christian Taste: Aesthetics in Religious Life. Oxford: University Press, 2000.
Bruner, Gordon C., II. “Music, Mood, and Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 54,4 (October 1990): 94-104.
Cook, Nicholas. “Schenker’s Theory of Music as Ethics.” The Journal of Musicology 7, 4 (Autumn 1989): 415–39.
Coolidge, Mary L. “Ethics—Apollonian and Dionysian.” The Journal of Philosophy 38, 17 (Aug. 14, 1941): 449–465.
Dyrness, William A. “The Imago Dei And Christian Aesthetics.” JETS 15, 3 (Summer 1972): 161-172.
171
_____. “Aesthetics In The Old Testament: Beauty In Context.” JETS 28,4 (December 1985): 421-432.
Edgar, William. “Aesthetics Beauty Avenged, Apologetics Enriched.” WTJ 63,1 (Spring 2001): 107-122.
_____. Taking Note of Music. London: SPCK, 1986.
Elton, W., ed. Aesthetics and Language, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1952.
Faulkner, Quentin. Wiser Than Despair: The Evolution of Ideas in the Relationship of Music and the Christian Church. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1996.
Harrell, Robert Lomas. “A Comparison of Secular Elements in the Chorales of Martin Luther with Rock Elements in Church Music of the 1960’s and 1970’s” (M.A. Thesis, Greenville, S.C.: Bob Jones University, 1975).
Harries, Richard. Art and the Beauty of God: A Christian Understanding. New York: Continuum, 1993.
Hill, Andrew E. Enter His Courts with Praise. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993.
Hodges, John Mason. “Aesthetics And The Place Of Beauty In Worship.” Reformation and Revival 9, 3 (Summer 2000), 59-75.
_____. “Beauty Revisited.” Reformation and Revival 4, 4 (Fall 1995), 65-78.
Hospers, John, ed. Introductory Readings in Aesthetics. New York: The Free Press, 1969.
Kilby, Clyde S. Christianity and Aesthetics. Chicago: Inter-varsity Press, 1961.
Langer, Susanne K. “The Work of Art as a Symbol” in Introductory Readings in Aesthetics, John Hospers. New York: The Free Press, 1969.
Lindsey, F. Duane. “Essays Toward a Theology of Beauty: Part I: God Is Beautiful.” Bibliotheca Sacra 131, 522 (April-June 1974): 120-136.
Lovelace, Austin C. The Anatomy of Hymnody. Chicago: G. I. A., 1965.
_____. Measuring the Music: Another Look at the Contemporary Music Debate. Second edition. Willow Street, Pa.: Old Paths Publications, 2002.
McQuilkin, J. Robertson. Understanding and Applying the Bible. Chicago: Moody, 1983.
Meyer, Leonard B. Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.
Miles, Margaret. “Vision: The Eye of the Body and the Eye of the Mind in Saint Augustine’s De Trinitate and Confessions.” Journal of Religion 63 (April, 1983): 125–42.
Pareles, Jon. “Metallica Defies Heavy Metal Stereotypes,” Minneapolis Star Tribune, 13 July 1988.
Pontynen, Arthur. For the Love of Beauty: Art, History, and the Moral Foundations of Aesthetic Judgment. London: Transaction Publishers, 2006.
Reimer, Bennett. A Philosophy of Music Education: Advancing the Vision. 3. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 2003.
Riches, John, ed.. The Analogy of Beauty. The Theology of Hans Urs Von Balthasar. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986.
Scruton, Roger. Culture Counts: Faith and Feeling in a World Besieged. New York: Encounter Books, 2007.
Shaftesbury, Anthony Lord. Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Sherry, Patrick. Spirit and Beauty. London: SCM Press, 2002.
Sloboda, John. The Musical Mind: The Cognitive Psychology of Music. Oxford: Clarendon, 1985.
Spiegel, James S. “Aesthetics and Worship.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (Winter, 1998): 40–57.
Tagg, Philip. Fernando the Flute. Goteborg, Sweden: Gothenberg University, 1981.
Viladesau, Richard. Theological Aesthetics: God in Imagination, Beauty, and Art. New York: Oxford, 1999.
Whiteley, Sheila, ed. Sexing the Groove: Popular Music and Gender, New York: Routledge, 1997.
Yount, Terry. “Musical Taste: The Ultimate Sacrifice?.” Reformation and Revival 4, 4 (Fall 1995): 79-90.
Scott Aniol
Executive Director Religious Affections Ministries
Instructor of Worship, Southwestern Baptist
[Scott Aniol] I’m in Michigan preaching for three weeks, so I don’t have a whole lot of time to get into a full debate here (plus I’m tackling rap at my site!), but here is a list of places to go for those of you who really want to do some serious reading on the subject of musical meaning:Only 45 sources?
What a *shallow* pool of research!
::BLOIP!::BLOIP!::BLOIP!:: (the sound of dripping sarcasm)
I’m not impressed by a big bibliography when it’s clearly a cut and paste job with the vast majority of sources being general and not related to the very specific issue at hand. The bibliography is like Scott’s original “correction” of Aaron, and it hardly reflects “journals and journals” of research on music and morality, especially with people like Bloom, who I admire, but who is not an expert on music or the specific question raised.
Aniol ironically cites people like Begbie, who would never agree with Aniol on the contested point that raised the question in the first place; see, for example, Begbie’s insightful and brilliant book, “Resounding Truth: Christian Wisdom in the World of Music,” which is by far the best single book I’ve seen on the topic; Begbie’s a profound theologian and professional musician. Incidentally, two pitfalls he identifies are the limiting of the discussion to music in worship and questions of moral adjudication (if you google Bebgie he has a great lecture “The Sense of Ending,” well worth listening to).
Moreover, William Dyrness would also disagree with Aniol, as anyone who has read his writing knows (he’s supportive of post-modern art, for example). I also doubt Edgars would agree, given his love for jazz and interest in “African-American aesthetics” (listen to Edgar’s “Heaven in a Nightclub” for a sense of his views). I could go on, but it looks like Aniol was depending on people not knowing who any of these people were, else I don’t know why he would cite 1) irrelevant sources to the question and 2) sources who disagree with him. Birch Brown, who book I also have, would disagree with Aniol, at least so far as I remember (maybe Aniol can provides citations to the opposite effect)
And are we to think that, in citing the article on Schenker, that Aniol is somehow supporting Schenker’s Schopenhaurerian aesthetic (if you have access to JSTOR, you can read the article; I don’t know if you can access it without a university subscription), or that he thinks Hanslick, Kraus, and a bunch of other people interesting to nerds like myself are relevant to the issue at hand?
I’m happy to have it as a bibliography on the more general topics of theological aesthetics, musicology, and general aesthetics (although it’s not narrow enough to be useful for someone who is using it to start their reading). But perhaps when Scott has more time he can point out the material that actually supports the specific, controversial things he says about music and morality.
If someone asks me very specific question about resources on a contested point, I too can drop a huge and not fully relevant bibliography on their heads because I have some sitting around, and if they have no knowledge of the subjects, maybe they won’t realize what I’m doing. But it’s a way of evading the question, and I think it’s at best strange and ironic to post stuff in response to questions about “support” that actually disagrees with one’s position.
Aniol ironically cites people like Begbie, who would never agree with Aniol on the contested point that raised the question in the first place; see, for example, Begbie’s insightful and brilliant book, “Resounding Truth: Christian Wisdom in the World of Music,” which is by far the best single book I’ve seen on the topic; Begbie’s a profound theologian and professional musician. Incidentally, two pitfalls he identifies are the limiting of the discussion to music in worship and questions of moral adjudication (if you google Bebgie he has a great lecture “The Sense of Ending,” well worth listening to).
Moreover, William Dyrness would also disagree with Aniol, as anyone who has read his writing knows (he’s supportive of post-modern art, for example). I also doubt Edgars would agree, given his love for jazz and interest in “African-American aesthetics” (listen to Edgar’s “Heaven in a Nightclub” for a sense of his views). I could go on, but it looks like Aniol was depending on people not knowing who any of these people were, else I don’t know why he would cite 1) irrelevant sources to the question and 2) sources who disagree with him. Birch Brown, who book I also have, would disagree with Aniol, at least so far as I remember (maybe Aniol can provides citations to the opposite effect)
And are we to think that, in citing the article on Schenker, that Aniol is somehow supporting Schenker’s Schopenhaurerian aesthetic (if you have access to JSTOR, you can read the article; I don’t know if you can access it without a university subscription), or that he thinks Hanslick, Kraus, and a bunch of other people interesting to nerds like myself are relevant to the issue at hand?
I’m happy to have it as a bibliography on the more general topics of theological aesthetics, musicology, and general aesthetics (although it’s not narrow enough to be useful for someone who is using it to start their reading). But perhaps when Scott has more time he can point out the material that actually supports the specific, controversial things he says about music and morality.
If someone asks me very specific question about resources on a contested point, I too can drop a huge and not fully relevant bibliography on their heads because I have some sitting around, and if they have no knowledge of the subjects, maybe they won’t realize what I’m doing. But it’s a way of evading the question, and I think it’s at best strange and ironic to post stuff in response to questions about “support” that actually disagrees with one’s position.
I am disappointed Scott, that you continue to refuse to engage on this important issue which is foundational to your entire theory of music. This cut-and-paste list of books about music may look impressive to some, but really appears to just be a way of ducking the issue.
Perhaps you base your theory on something besides credible research, and clearly, there are other authoritative sources for truth besides research. If so, just let us know that, but don’t keep insisting that research supports your beliefs if you cannot fairly quickly produce even one study that would support your point.
Perhaps you base your theory on something besides credible research, and clearly, there are other authoritative sources for truth besides research. If so, just let us know that, but don’t keep insisting that research supports your beliefs if you cannot fairly quickly produce even one study that would support your point.
Ken Largent, in his book, did Scott use footnotes in the text to connect his ideas to these sources?
I’m one of the ones that asked for a list, and to his credit, he gave it to us. I’ve written many papers referencing sources that held to a position that was opposite of mine, so those specific sources may, in his mind, prove his position. The thing I am disappointed in is that many of these don’t even reference music. I’ve looked up 5 or 6 of them so far and I think 2 of them referenced music, but certainly not in depth or what I was expecting to find from volumes of information.
Scott, thanks for the list and I’ll continue to go through it, but like the others I would like to see a more defined listing that deals specifically with the topic at hand. Or explain how these other sources somehow defend your position. I know it will take some time, but there are evidently quite a few people eagerly waiting to look into this topic.
RH
Scott, thanks for the list and I’ll continue to go through it, but like the others I would like to see a more defined listing that deals specifically with the topic at hand. Or explain how these other sources somehow defend your position. I know it will take some time, but there are evidently quite a few people eagerly waiting to look into this topic.
RH
Sorry, you’ll have to read my book in order to find out how I think these sources support my position and how I connect the dots. The main reason I don’t engage in thorough debate on blogs like this is because you can’t sustain very much of thoughtful discourse in a medium like this.
The medium affects the message, don’t you know?
So that’s why I wrote the book.
The medium affects the message, don’t you know?
So that’s why I wrote the book.
Scott Aniol
Executive Director Religious Affections Ministries
Instructor of Worship, Southwestern Baptist
For those wondering, the books Scott listed above are a subset of his Selected Bibliography at the end of his book. (I happen to have a borrowed copy of his book still with me and I just checked.) Some of these books may be listed in footnotes. In regards to the specific question being asked (can music communicate morally), I find no relevant footnotes at all.
The two chapters that deal with this issue are chapter 6 (What does the music mean?) and chapter 16 (Making musical choices). Chapter 16 only has two footnotes, neither of which have any relevance to this discussion. Chapter 6 has a few more footnotes and some are relevant to the discussion of whether music communicates emotion. One in particular is a research paper that discusses how music communicates what Scott refers to as emotional expressions such serious, sad, sentimental, etc. This paper itself references various studies. I have read this paper before online; it is out there somewhere for those who want to find it. (Music, Mood, and Marketing by Gordon Bruner)
Aniol’s leap between music communicating emotions and communicating morality is completely unsupported as far as I can tell. For example, in chapter 16 page 219, Aniol says “There are certain kinds of meaning that should always be rejected. Immoral meaning should be rejected. If the music communicates sensuality, lust, physical union, or unbridled anger, then no Christian should listen to it, let alone use it in worship.” I may have missed it but I can find no evidence presented anywhere in the book that would suggest that music can communicate in these ways. And he is definitely talking about the music here (not just the words) because of the section it is in.
As I read the book, I noticed some facts I think are wrong and there are also some obvious weaknesses in his arguments. The one we are discussing is probably the most prominent and critical.
On the other hand, if Scott were willing to admit the subjective nature of the application of God’s standards regarding music, he would find much fellowship with those in all the various genres of Christian music. Many would share his obvious passion for good worship.
For myself, I do not deny that music communicates, and therefore, the appropriateness of music has to be considered for the occasion. In other words, it makes no sense to stridently play “Onward Christian Soldiers” while someone is praying. It makes no sense to play a waltz at other points in the service. And sometimes, inappropriate music will cross the line between bad taste to just wrong (immoral).
I also agree with the general conservative thought that association is a good reason for a church to reject some music.
But I disagree with some conservatives in that I think that the application of appropriateness and association is highly subjective. I believe that Christians should be extremely gracious in this area. Clearly, conservatives have often failed in extending the benefit of the doubt to others regarding musical choices.
Beyond the principles of appropriateness and association, I cannot see a way to attach morality to music. I see no evidence in the Bible or in research. And Scott’s book does little to help him further his case.
The two chapters that deal with this issue are chapter 6 (What does the music mean?) and chapter 16 (Making musical choices). Chapter 16 only has two footnotes, neither of which have any relevance to this discussion. Chapter 6 has a few more footnotes and some are relevant to the discussion of whether music communicates emotion. One in particular is a research paper that discusses how music communicates what Scott refers to as emotional expressions such serious, sad, sentimental, etc. This paper itself references various studies. I have read this paper before online; it is out there somewhere for those who want to find it. (Music, Mood, and Marketing by Gordon Bruner)
Aniol’s leap between music communicating emotions and communicating morality is completely unsupported as far as I can tell. For example, in chapter 16 page 219, Aniol says “There are certain kinds of meaning that should always be rejected. Immoral meaning should be rejected. If the music communicates sensuality, lust, physical union, or unbridled anger, then no Christian should listen to it, let alone use it in worship.” I may have missed it but I can find no evidence presented anywhere in the book that would suggest that music can communicate in these ways. And he is definitely talking about the music here (not just the words) because of the section it is in.
As I read the book, I noticed some facts I think are wrong and there are also some obvious weaknesses in his arguments. The one we are discussing is probably the most prominent and critical.
On the other hand, if Scott were willing to admit the subjective nature of the application of God’s standards regarding music, he would find much fellowship with those in all the various genres of Christian music. Many would share his obvious passion for good worship.
For myself, I do not deny that music communicates, and therefore, the appropriateness of music has to be considered for the occasion. In other words, it makes no sense to stridently play “Onward Christian Soldiers” while someone is praying. It makes no sense to play a waltz at other points in the service. And sometimes, inappropriate music will cross the line between bad taste to just wrong (immoral).
I also agree with the general conservative thought that association is a good reason for a church to reject some music.
But I disagree with some conservatives in that I think that the application of appropriateness and association is highly subjective. I believe that Christians should be extremely gracious in this area. Clearly, conservatives have often failed in extending the benefit of the doubt to others regarding musical choices.
Beyond the principles of appropriateness and association, I cannot see a way to attach morality to music. I see no evidence in the Bible or in research. And Scott’s book does little to help him further his case.
Scott, stick around and be a part of iron sharpening iron.
RH
RH
[Scott Aniol] Sorry, you’ll have to read my book in order to find out how I think these sources support my position and how I connect the dots. The main reason I don’t engage in thorough debate on blogs like this is because you can’t sustain very much of thoughtful discourse in a medium like this.I don’t believe that words on a page are different in their ability to sustain thoughtful discourse from words on a screen.
The medium affects the message, don’t you know?
So that’s why I wrote the book.
I suspect that the difference is the presence of a thoughtful counter-argument.
But I could be in error, I suppose…
Hey, can I offer an idea about what to read?
If we are going to dive into the details (Bauder says, “get serious about meaning”) I would suggest starting with one book on Scott’s list, Leonard B. Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music (1956). This book offers a great summary of the big tension between absolutism (musical meaning lies within the context of the work itself) and referentialism (music communicates meanings that refer to the extramusical world around it). And it offers a good discussion of formalism vs. expressionism, asking if musical meaning is primarily cognitive (intellectual) or affective (emotional).
I’m suggesting this book because it is a classic “entry level” introduction to the way musicologists address the meaning of music. And, when finished reading, SI readers will immediately conclude that Meyer pretty much deflates many of our common fundy myths about the morality of music. I think this book contradicts Scott’s position, but I agree with him that it is well worth reading!
If we are going to dive into the details (Bauder says, “get serious about meaning”) I would suggest starting with one book on Scott’s list, Leonard B. Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music (1956). This book offers a great summary of the big tension between absolutism (musical meaning lies within the context of the work itself) and referentialism (music communicates meanings that refer to the extramusical world around it). And it offers a good discussion of formalism vs. expressionism, asking if musical meaning is primarily cognitive (intellectual) or affective (emotional).
I’m suggesting this book because it is a classic “entry level” introduction to the way musicologists address the meaning of music. And, when finished reading, SI readers will immediately conclude that Meyer pretty much deflates many of our common fundy myths about the morality of music. I think this book contradicts Scott’s position, but I agree with him that it is well worth reading!
The sensory design of the human ear and the subsequent responses evoked via the sounds messages we receive are no less subject to unhealthy provocations as are the other four senses. The attention and response of our sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch are all vied for by multiple agents.
And it is no insignificant matter that there are those who, from the Evil One and since, have sought to become Masters of such sciences and endeavored to devise endless arrangements of all relevant parts in order to elicit carnal responses.
It is a matter of fact that these Masters go to great lengths to discover certain aromas, textures, sounds, shapes and so on, which target in people a certain provocation of their lower, more base, responses.
If we know this to be true, and we do, while we may not be able to dogmatically say that there is an inherent immorality to such fashions, why is it so difficult to at least concede that such arrangements which seek lower or base responses in humans, are able to be observed and identified, even in music and rightly said to be unprofitable in some way, at least within the context of worship?
And it is no insignificant matter that there are those who, from the Evil One and since, have sought to become Masters of such sciences and endeavored to devise endless arrangements of all relevant parts in order to elicit carnal responses.
It is a matter of fact that these Masters go to great lengths to discover certain aromas, textures, sounds, shapes and so on, which target in people a certain provocation of their lower, more base, responses.
If we know this to be true, and we do, while we may not be able to dogmatically say that there is an inherent immorality to such fashions, why is it so difficult to at least concede that such arrangements which seek lower or base responses in humans, are able to be observed and identified, even in music and rightly said to be unprofitable in some way, at least within the context of worship?
[Alex Guggenheim] The sensory design of the human ear and the subsequent responses evoked via the sounds messages we receive are no less subject to unhealthy provocations as are the other four senses. The attention and response of our sight, hearing, taste, smell and touch are all vied for by multiple agents.Besides the borderline gnostic view of the body suggested by the above (as well as its conspiracy theory overtones), it’s not “so difficult” for many people. What’s so difficult is discerning where this is present and where problematic in music. And what’s very inplausible is the kind of confidence and narrowness exhibited in typical Fundamentalist views on the matter.
And it is no insignificant matter that there are those who, from the Evil One and since, have sought to become Masters of such sciences and endeavored to devise endless arrangements of all relevant parts in order to elicit carnal responses.
It is a matter of fact that these Masters go to great lengths to discover certain aromas, textures, sounds, shapes and so on, which target in people a certain provocation of their lower, more base, responses.
If we know this to be true, and we do, while we may not be able to dogmatically say that there is an inherent immorality to such fashions, why is it so difficult to at least concede that such arrangements which seek lower or base responses in humans, are able to be observed and identified, even in music and rightly said to be unprofitable in some way, at least within the context of worship?
Beyond this, however, I utterly reject the incipient if not fully formed dualism that underlies so much of the discussion of music. “Sensual” is not bad, and it’s also not the same as “sexual”; moreover, “sexual” is not bad either, and trying to link “sensual” to “sexual” as a connotation (which works among many people) relies often on a kind of implicit sense that people will recognize “sexual” as something bad, not merely, as they would protest, something private (for even then, such music would have a place).
While I don’t wish to enter into an involved discussion of the unbiblical prudery present in many Christians’ attitudes towards sexuality and the body, I do wish to reject the idea that something being sensual, or appealing to the senses, is somehow prima facie inappropriate or even immoral. That’s clearly rot, as all music, strictly speaking, is sensual, and all rhythm, moreover, is inherently sensual. Any music, whether waltzes or band-music, that suggests physical movement is also sensual, and it is in no (legitimate) way suspect merely for that reason. If people think it is, then music is the least of my problem with their position. The only way to avoid this kind of argument is to pull a Garlock and say, “Yes, some kind of sensuality is fine - as in band music - but not when it has an evil (i.e., sexual) beat.” If you don’t want to make the silly anapestic (etc.) beat arguments, then the whole line off thinking hasn’t a leg to stand on, and even that appeal (to some sexual beat) is a pathetic attempt to support a sensibility rather than an argument. Garlock and Co. could not distinguish or parse cultural elements from elements inherent to the music that so offended them (like its rhythm), and so they tried to condemn cultural forms (many of which were quite dubious if not obviously wrong) by appealing to some inherent musical properties (this is a kind of essentialist fallacy, which people who ignore the complexity of culture tend to make)
The argument that people like Aniol and Co. make only appeal to people with certain cultural sensibilities and intuitions about the body, sexuality, and Western culture. That’s one of many reasons their arguments are unpersuasive to so many, including those most likely to agree with them (i.e., people in their movement); not just because they are bad arguments (with no real support, as we’ve seen from the “read my book” argument by Aniol), but also because they reflect an underlying sensibility about the body and sexuality that is much closer to that one held by the Fathers and the Roman church and by the Victorians than the one which is biblical (e.g. Rookmaaker’s has a great little section about the body in his “Modern Art and the Death of a Culture”).
Issues of culture and sensibility are difficult to address in language, particularly because they tend to deal with things people are not aware of and are in a bad position to identify (asking someone in a culture about their culture is a sure way to get misinformation about the culture; it’s asking a fish what he thinks of living in water), but they appear as glaringly obvious to anyone who is not in that culture or who does not share the sensibility; to those outsiders (e.g. anthroplogists or regular outsiders), it easy to see how little arguments per se have to do with supporting the particular position.
It’s also easy to see for people like me, who once inhabited the kind of position Aniol defends, and has since rejected it and has to a large degree had his sensibilities changed. Such people are increasingly prevalent in Fundamentalism, I think, which is why defending the old music mores is increasingly an older person or top-down (authority figures) job, as more and more people no longer inhabit the culture or possess the sensibility that renders such views plausible. That’s a good thing, in my book. Fundamentalists have such a distorted hierarchy of santification as it is, it will be good once music takes it deservedly low place on their list of concerns.
Music is relevant and interesting and important (for the church) as part of that incredibly complex thing called culture, and it gains it determinate meaning and power as a product of and shaper of culture, and Fundamentalists have proven some of the most inept purveyers of good culture as well as some of the most incompetent cultural analysts (is there such a thing as a Fundamentalist cultural analyst? Someone like Os Guinness or Ken Myers?). Until they establish some credibility about culture and their understanding of it, they ought to pack away any more arguments about music.
[Alex Guggenheim]
It is a matter of fact that these Masters go to great lengths to discover certain aromas, textures, sounds, shapes and so on, which target in people a certain provocation of their lower, more base, responses. [/QUOTE]
Not to get too far off topic, but can you identify for me an evil smell? By that, I don’t mean evil as in smells like garbage or corpses, or something else ugly, but a smell that can actually trigger a “base” (evil?) response? Is “get that away from me” or “yuck” a base response that we have to repent for?If we know this to be true, and we do, while we may not be able to dogmatically say that there is an inherent immorality to such fashions, why is it so difficult to at least concede that such arrangements which seek lower or base responses in humans, are able to be observed and identified, even in music and rightly said to be unprofitable in some way, at least within the context of worship?I can’t speak for others, but I have never argued that there isn’t some music I would consider unprofitable for worship. I certainly already identify such based on association and appropriateness. If we are, however, to try to identify arrangements that have no associational problems, and no obvious appropriateness problems, but that seek to produce base response in humans, shouldn’t that be done by objective, observable criteria, and further, shouldn’t we be able to do it from a musical score rather than having to listen to it (assuming we have enough training to do so)?
If we do it by listening (which is most of the evaluation I’ve witnessed), does it have to produce a base response in > 50% of those listening, or what is an appropriate number? And how do we know that response is truly intrinsic vs. associational? The only way to eliminate this factor I can think of would be to take someone who doesn’t know much about music, hasn’t traveled much or experienced much from other cultures, and present them with music from a culture whose musical ideas are different from ours (something with a different scale, different rhythms, etc.), i.e. something they have not only never heard before, but is outside their ideas of music, and have them attempt to evaluate the emotion produced by different tunes without knowing what the tunes are about, what they are used for, etc. Even then, we would have to do this with a lot of individuals to come up with conclusions that are even partly valid.
This brings us back to evaluating the score. If certain “arrangements” are eventually documented to be able to generate lower responses in humans (and I rather doubt this is the case), it should be something we can then identify by what is written. Which brings us back to Gabe’s suggestion of a computer program. If this is so objective, it ought to be something we can easily automate. Once we truly understand the principles (assuming we can formulate them in the first place), application should be relatively easy.
The bigger problem I see is that what we see as base responses, anger, hatred, jealousy, even physical lust, all have proper applications in God’s order. God himself even expresses anger, hatred, and jealousy, which means that not all expressions of those are sin. That might mean that such music is not appropriate for worship, but would not disqualify it for other purposes, and would certainly not designate it as morally evil.
Dave Barnhart
[Joseph]I agree with you on the word sensual. I wince when I hear it in these discussions because it is imprecise. I am assuming that when it is used in this context, what is really meant is sexuality. Or perhaps, there is some other gratification of the senses that is being objected to, but I am not sure what it would be. Perhaps Alex, you can enlighten me on that one.
Beyond this, however, I utterly reject the incipient if not fully formed dualism that underlies so much of the discussion of music. “Sensual” is not bad, and it’s also not the same as “sexual”; moreover, “sexual” is not bad either, and trying to link “sensual” to “sexual” as a connotation (which works among many people) relies often on a kind of implicit sense that people will recognize “sexual” as something bad, not merely, as they would protest, something private (for even then, such music would have a place).
While I don’t wish to enter into an involved discussion of the unbiblical prudery present in many Christians’ attitudes towards sexuality and the body, I do wish to reject the idea that something being sensual, or appealing to the senses, is somehow prima facie inappropriate or even immoral. That’s clearly rot, as all music, strictly speaking, is sensual, and all rhythm, moreover, is inherently sensual. Any music, whether waltzes or band-music, that suggests physical movement is also sensual, and it is in no (legitimate) way suspect merely for that reason. If people think it is, then music is the least of my problem with their position. The only way to avoid this kind of argument is to pull a Garlock and say, “Yes, some kind of sensuality is fine - as in band music - but not when it has an evil (i.e., sexual) beat.” If you don’t want to make the silly anapestic (etc.) beat arguments, then the whole line off thinking hasn’t a leg to stand on, and even that appeal (to some sexual beat) is a pathetic attempt to support a sensibility rather than an argument. Garlock and Co. could not distinguish or parse cultural elements from elements inherent to the music that so offended them (like its rhythm), and so they tried to condemn cultural forms (many of which were quite dubious if not obviously wrong) by appealing to some inherent musical properties (this is a kind of essentialist fallacy, which people who ignore the complexity of culture tend to make)
But you are right that all music is sensual according to the general definition (appealing to the senses). Sensuality is not bad, and for that matter, neither is sexuality, though I would not say it is appropriate in a church service. I would say that sexual music is completely appropriate in other settings however. Aniol clearly believes the opposite as the above quote from his book demonstrates.
[dcbii][Alex Guggenheim]Here you have gone beyond my use of base and are using it synonymously with “evil”, hence you have departed from what I said. But if I was not clear let me state that when I refer to a base response I have in view that a base response is not necessarily bad or good but sometimes it is inappropriate depending on the context. And therein lies the observable distinction to which I am referring.
It is a matter of fact that these Masters go to great lengths to discover certain aromas, textures, sounds, shapes and so on, which target in people a certain provocation of their lower, more base, responses. [/QUOTE]
Not to get too far off topic, but can you identify for me an evil smell? By that, I don’t mean evil as in smells like garbage or corpses, or something else ugly, but a smell that can actually trigger a “base” (evil?) response?
Now, can I tell you of certain scents that would be inappropriate for the olfactory system, say in the context of worship? Indeed I could. Again, pointing to the principle of appropriateness.[dcbii] If we know this to be true, and we do, while we may not be able to dogmatically say that there is an inherent immorality to such fashions, why is it so difficult to at least concede that such arrangements which seek lower or base responses in humans, are able to be observed and identified, even in music and rightly said to be unprofitable in some way, at least within the context of worship?Your suggestion that objectivity in music evaluation is limited to reading I believe, though sincere and idealistic, is insufficient. To remove listening is to remove an essential element in the evaluation process. Music appreciation and evaluation, while it can be done by reading, is not “complete” in its evaluation without listening. It is akin to reading recipes without tastings its final product. A full evaluation can never be attained.
I can’t speak for others, but I have never argued that there isn’t some music I would consider unprofitable for worship. I certainly already identify such based on association and appropriateness. If we are, however, to try to identify arrangements that have no associational problems, and no obvious appropriateness problems, but that seek to produce base response in humans, shouldn’t that be done by objective, observable criteria, and further, shouldn’t we be able to do it from a musical score rather than having to listen to it (assuming we have enough training to do so)?[dcbii] If we do it by listening (which is most of the evaluation I’ve witnessed), does it have to produce a base response in > 50% of those listening, or what is an appropriate number? And how do we know that response is truly intrinsic vs. associational? The only way to eliminate this factor I can think of would be to take someone who doesn’t know much about music, hasn’t traveled much or experienced much from other cultures, and present them with music from a culture whose musical ideas are different from ours (something with a different scale, different rhythms, etc.), i.e. something they have not only never heard before, but is outside their ideas of music, and have them attempt to evaluate the emotion produced by different tunes without knowing what the tunes are about, what they are used for, etc. Even then, we would have to do this with a lot of individuals to come up with conclusions that are even partly valid.My intent was not necessarily to initiate discussing precisely how certain musical values are obtained since there is science for this already. Your suggestion does not seem to be a bad one for a certain controlled experiement though I suspect it would necessitate other elements which none of us music novices are considering.[dcbii] This brings us back to evaluating the score. If certain “arrangements” are eventually documented to be able to generate lower responses in humans (and I rather doubt this is the case), it should be something we can then identify by what is written. Which brings us back to Gabe’s suggestion of a computer program. If this is so objective, it ought to be something we can easily automate. Once we truly understand the principles (assuming we can formulate them in the first place), application should be relatively easy.Never minding the issue of the use of anthropic language in God’s description of his mentality (at times) to us in his Word to justify the consideration that we can utilize music that may introduce to us, human anger, hatred, jealousy and so on but I do agree that “music” in itself or the arrangements themselves, though not always appropriate for worship can be quite appropriate for personal entertainment. But even here we still must remember that all things for the believer still must be evaluated for is acceptability according to the Scriptures.
The bigger problem I see is that what we see as base responses, anger, hatred, jealousy, even physical lust, all have proper applications in God’s order. God himself even expresses anger, hatred, and jealousy, which means that not all expressions of those are sin. That might mean that such music is not appropriate for worship, but would not disqualify it for other purposes, and would certainly not designate it as morally evil.
One thing I do understand and that is that music is not “experienced” by everyone in the same way. But this principle seems to me to be being used as carte blanche with many objecting that there are no observable or determinable boundaries either for worship of personal use. Everything is justified because nothing can be rejected.
[Joseph]Well then, it appears we agree (I will take the liberty, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are one of those that don’t find it difficult). What do you know…Joseph and a borderline gnostic and conspiracist agreeing![Alex Guggenheim]… why is it so difficult to at least concede that such arrangements which seek lower or base responses in humans, are able to be observed and identified, even in music and rightly said to be unprofitable in some way, at least within the context of worship?Besides the borderline gnostic view of the body suggested by the above (as well as its conspiracy theory overtones), it’s not “so difficult” for many people.
I do have a question, though, for you Joseph. Is your “conspiracy theory overtones” reference to my mention of the work of the Evil One and/or humans with quite carnal intentions to be viewed that it is your position that it is weak or at least poorly deduced that Satan or such company can be or should be relieved of any such suspicions or charges of dark science with regard to music? In the most simplest of terms, do you reject that Satan has sought in any form or fashion to influence any form of music or has had a part in the inspiration of certain elements of music? And if you don’t reject it but acknowledge it, then welcome to the conspiracy club and tell me when do you begin inserting this variable in your considerations regarding the evaluation of music?
Thanks
Alex
Alex,
Your dilemma is a false one, and I simple note that rather than further respond to it.
The idea that people strive to learn how to elicit carnal responses, to become “Masters” of this diabolic trade of appealing to the flesh, and then ply the nefarious trade in the music industry strikes me, yes, as have the overtones of conspiracy theory, particularly in its attribution of intentions and use of language, as my paraphrase indicates.
It gives people way too much credit and seems grossly to simpify how Satanic agency, about which I think we have little ability competently to speak, probably works. Perhaps I’ll contact Screwtape and ask about this.
Your dilemma is a false one, and I simple note that rather than further respond to it.
The idea that people strive to learn how to elicit carnal responses, to become “Masters” of this diabolic trade of appealing to the flesh, and then ply the nefarious trade in the music industry strikes me, yes, as have the overtones of conspiracy theory, particularly in its attribution of intentions and use of language, as my paraphrase indicates.
It gives people way too much credit and seems grossly to simpify how Satanic agency, about which I think we have little ability competently to speak, probably works. Perhaps I’ll contact Screwtape and ask about this.
[Joseph]Well Joseph, if one remains posited that they have little ability to competently speak regarding the nature and mechanics of Satanic agency, it is not surprising they are eager to dismiss it as a topic when it comes up.
The idea that people strive to learn how to elicit carnal responses, to become “Masters” of this diabolic trade of appealing to the flesh, and then ply the nefarious trade in the music industry strikes me, yes, as have the overtones of conspiracy theory, particularly in its attribution of intentions and use of language, as my paraphrase indicates.
It gives people way too much credit and seems grossly to simpify how Satanic agency, about which I think we have little ability competently to speak, probably works. Perhaps I’ll contact Screwtape and ask about this.
As to your first paragraph, I am surprised by the naivety of it. You are a person of broad consideration and your observations often warrant esteem. If you believe there aren’t people who, all down through history in varying contexts, have made the mastery of eliciting the carnal interests of other human beings their chief aim in life and some how music escaped all of this I really do not know what to say otherwise.
[Alex Guggenheim] Here you have gone beyond my use of base and are using it synonymously with “evil”, hence you have departed from what I said. But if I was not clear let me state that when I refer to a base response I have in view that a base response is not necessarily bad or good but sometimes it is inappropriate depending on the context. And therein lies the observable distinction to which I am referring.I’ll just point out that I put “evil?” to ask if you were going that far with “base.” I see you aren’t so that’s answered.
Now, can I tell you of certain scents that would be inappropriate for the olfactory system, say in the context of worship? Indeed I could. Again, pointing to the principle of appropriateness.
And while I agree that some scents would not be conducive to worship (and at 11:59 a.m. on Sunday morning pretty much any *good* scent that falls in the “food” category would not be conducive to worship), I still don’t see how they could on their own generate any base response such as anger, lust, etc. With association, of course, all bets are off.
Your suggestion that objectivity in music evaluation is limited to reading I believe, though sincere and idealistic, is insufficient. To remove listening is to remove an essential element in the evaluation process. Music appreciation and evaluation, while it can be done by reading, is not “complete” in its evaluation without listening. It is akin to reading recipes without tastings its final product. A full evaluation can never be attained.I think you are missing my point, though I may have stated it poorly — once an evaluation has been done (including listening), if music that generates “base” responses is so readily identifiable, you should then be able to turn to a score to see where those identifiable elements are, and further, to be able to recognize them again in a different score. If this can’t be done, I would suggest that the element/phrase/section/etc. doesn’t mean what it is thought to mean. And with regard to recipes, I’ve seen good cooks be able to reject or decide to try recipes by looking at what they contain without ever tasting them, by virtue of long experience with how the ingredients taste separately and together.
Never minding the issue of the use of anthropic language in God’s description of his mentality (at times) to us in his Word to justify the consideration that we can utilize music that may introduce to us, human anger, hatred, jealousy and so onI agree that we can’t make hard and fast comparisons of what we experience to what God experiences. Nevertheless, it is God that expressed in human terms what he feels about sin, about Israel going astray, etc., making a comparison at least reasonably valid.
but I do agree that “music” in itself or the arrangements themselves, though not always appropriate for worship can be quite appropriate for personal entertainment. But even here we still must remember that all things for the believer still must be evaluated for is acceptability according to the Scriptures.Agreed, but we still haven’t established that what music itself does is wrong according to the Scriptures, even if it is found to be deterministically able to generate “base” responses.
One thing I do understand and that is that music is not “experienced” by everyone in the same way. But this principle seems to me to be being used as carte blanche with many objecting that there are no observable or determinable boundaries either for worship of personal use. Everything is justified because nothing can be rejected.That’s not what I am arguing at all. I reject much music for use as worship music, and other music even as music for personal use. However, because I don’t believe in its intrinsic value, I don’t base my judgments on evaluating it in that way.
Dave Barnhart
Why is it so strange to think that the unsaved world might be tied together in its thinking just as the saved world is? After all they see us as a “conspiracy” when all that is happening is Christians are following the leading of the Holy Spirit in various and sundry matter.
I don’t mean to be a John Bircher and see an organized, in-the—flesh conspiracy under every rock. I’m just acknowledging the power of the prince of this world.
I don’t mean to be a John Bircher and see an organized, in-the—flesh conspiracy under every rock. I’m just acknowledging the power of the prince of this world.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
Discussion