Excellence in Conservative Christian Music Begins in the Home

The article makes me chuckle a little bit...I was raised in such a conservative home that classical music was not acceptable because it was "secular".

I do enjoy some classical music and have several classical musicians that I prefer above others. That said, while I agree that much classical music is high quality and valuable I'm not sure I'd agree that learning to appreciate specifically classical music in the home is a must. Music is constantly evolving over time much the same as language does. There is quality music from many genres over many periods of history that we could use to study the techniques and music theory involved, not just classical. In fact, the invention of the printing press is a big reason why much high quality as well as low quality classical music has endured, while most music from before that time has disappeared.

Music has evolved significantly even in my own lifetime, and I wonder what will be the modern style in five hundred years. Much of our current music will pass away, but there will no doubt be some music from today that endures and will be considered high quality (but historic) centuries from now.

Don wrote:

In his view (and I agree, not that it matters), classical training is vital for excellence in conservative Christian music. The better one understands music theory, the better he or she can do in performance. Yes, some have natural ability and do well by ear, but they improve with training.

Yes, but by which criteria is this assessment valid? There are many, many musicians training at Christian universities who don’t care a whit about classical music. By what standard is that particular genre a force multiplier for conservative Christian music? That last term itself begs for an objective definition too.

There are many, many musicians training at Christian universities who don’t care a whit about classical music.

Regardless, their training makes them better musicians than they would be without it.

I agree with the article and I am also a big fan of classical. I would also agree that to be a good musician you need to understand and be proficient at classical. But I would also argue that to only be proficient in classical limits you ability to be excellent within an instrument. You can be excellent within the confines and structure of classical but not necessarily excellent in music. It is the same issue with classical. Classical is a broad category. To be good in classical you need to be good in a broad arena of music with different styles and challenges.

Don, take a look at the first column carefully; when he argues that a disaster for church music is that it's being "popified", the implicit, if not explicit, conclusion is that what Taigen deems as "classical" is indeed superior. And for what it's worth, for the reasons I list above and others, I tend to agree with him, even though I'm 100% in favor of using modern music genre in the church. It's a simple factor of winnowing out the forgettable stuff.

But that noted, I think it's important to state precisely what is lacking in musicality. To be blunt, if I compare the musicality of secular pop musicians with most in churches, we look pretty bad in comparison, and there are a few factors I think are important.

1. Many musicians have really only one volume level--the concept of using dynamics to build the mood to go with the lyrics seems foreign.
2. Many musicians really don't know how to play their instruments, or they use expensive instruments effectively as a metronome. (available for free on your phone) Another sign is that harmonies are not played, but rather chords, if that.
3. Many ensembles really don't know how to coordinate with each other, having trouble letting one person (say a pianist or percussionist) set the pace.

Probably a bunch of other things, but these are the things that come to mind for me. More or less, I'd argue that we're just trying to "put it out there" instead of crafting a message.

Don wrote:

Regardless, their training makes them better musicians than they would be without it.

I know you believe classical training makes one a better musician. But, why? On what basis does training in a particular genre of music make one a better and more God-honoring musician? Does this mean that there were no truly appropriate and skilled musicians before the rise of that particular genre?

On what basis does training in a particular genre of music make one a better and more God-honoring musician? Does this mean that there were no truly appropriate and skilled musicians before the rise of that particular genre?

From what I've read, I think many musicians would agree that Western classical music represents a high point in musical achievement and understanding.

No truly appropriate musicians prior to the classical period? No one said that. The word we are arguing for is excellence, not appropriateness. You are trying to make this about worship wars. (Appropriate is a value laden word.)

I enjoy Gregorian chant, for example, and plainsong. But classical music and conservative Christian music is better. That doesn't mean the older music is bad, and skilled musicians can perform it.

The thing we should strive for in our churches is to do the best we can for the glory of God. As I understand Taigen, he is arguing that a vital way to accomplish that is through classical training. I agree. In our own experience, our church musicians all have some level of classical training, and they enhance our services with their gifts. The training makes their efforts even better.

I’m not being contrarian. Before you can assume that the classical music genre is necessary for excellence in “conservative Christian music,” you must establish that premise. That is what my questions are about. You assume it is true, but you have not demonstrated that. Our middle son is taking a music degree from a Christian university right now, has played piano and guitar for years, and has never played classical music—nor does his university degree plan emphasize it.

This is one reason why I ask on what basis is the classical genre necessary for excellence in “conservative Christian music”? I have no interest in litigating worship wars. I’m just asking sincere questions about the article’s premise. As I wrote earlier, I fear it will only warm the hearts of those who already agree with the premise and assume it to be true.

The example I've heard really comes from Dorothy Sayers' "The Lost Tools of Learning", where Sayers notes that there were then, as there are now, "methods" of "teaching music performance" whereby one simply imitates a song, and after a certain degree of imitation, the performer may have it about right. However, the player never really gets around to learning to read music or understand music theory, and so when that individual goes from "The Harmonious Blacksmith" to "Dazed and Confused", he has absolutely no clue how to proceed.

Classical training--which does not necessarily involve the use of classical music (though it usually does)--begins with musical notation, continues with a degree of music theory, and tends to produce performers who can can do a degree of sight-reading, learn new genre quickly, and such.

Classical music (again, not the same as classical training) does tend to reinforce this because it tends to emphasize the musical structure in a more obvious way than do many modern genre.

Our middle son is taking a music degree from a Christian university right now, has played piano and guitar for years, and has never played classical music—nor does his university degree plan emphasize it.

Has your son had no music theory? Does he just play piano by ear? Classical training isn't just classical music. Furthermore, I bet he would learn something by increased exposure to the classics.

Philippians 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; 10 That ye may approve things that are excellent; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ; 11 Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God.

God has plainly instructed us that we have a Christian obligation to discerningly approve things that are excellent. Without any biblical warrant, some hold that this teaching does not apply to the instrumental music choices of God's people.

The Bible does not in any way support this faulty teaching that excludes instrumental music choices from the scope of our necessary obligation to approve things that are excellent.

Don, take a look at the first column carefully; when he argues that a disaster for church music is that it's being "popified", the implicit, if not explicit, conclusion is that what Taigen deems as "classical" is indeed superior.

Bert, I agree that Taigen thinks it is superior and so do I. However, that is a presupposition to the articles. It isn't the point of the articles.

I'm really not interested in debating the presupposition. Just wanting to make sure people understand what the message is.

Without any biblical warrant, some hold that this teaching does not apply to the instrumental music choices of God's people.

This is objectively false. The fact that some dispute an assumed definition of "excellent" when applied to music is not a wholesale rejection of Scripture on this point.

[RG]Without any biblical warrant, some hold that this teaching does not apply to the instrumental music choices of God's people.

[PV]This is objectively false. The fact that some dispute an assumed definition of "excellent" when applied to music is not a wholesale rejection of Scripture on this point.

No, it is not. You have wrongly assumed that the people that I am talking about in my comments are people who "dispute an assumed definition of 'excellent.'"

My comments are not about those people--they are about people who deny that any objective differences concerning excellence apply to issues about instrumental music.

They hold that all instrumental music is either amoral or inherently good or some other such false notion.

One thing that comes to mind is that while we have examples of Biblical lyrics--the Psalms and such--and commands to praise Him in song, dance, and the like, I'm not aware of any clear statements in Scripture that tell us what the singing, etc., does for us. That seems to be one of those where the earthly authors would have, if asked about that, responded with "isn't that obvious to you?"

So in our day, we need to do some inference, some inductive logic, judging from what we see of music in our day. One would start, I'd suggest, by noting that a well composed song lyric imprints itself on our memory--my favorite example is commercial jingles from my childhood like "WLS all day is the very best way to hear the sports, music and song, weather reports, all day long....".

So if you have a mostly oral society where writing large books is difficult because Johannes Gutenberg's adaptation of a wine-press is thousands of years in the future, it matters a LOT whether the lyrics and music work together for memorization. As the linguist who helped lead me to Christ noted, it's amazing how well you memorize when you have to--and how quickly that memory goes when you have everything available in written form.

Musically, we would infer that the style ought to work with the language of the message--some languages stress one syllable, others stress other syllables, and that matters for your music. Hebrew tends to stress the second or last syllable, and hence Hebrew music--e.g. Klezmer--often tends to be somewhat "offbeat". This all is key for how the music works with the natural meter.

(other considerations would be if the language is tonal, what the typical lyrical/poetic devices used in that language are, etc..)

Long and short of it is that we might also infer that Scripture does not give us specific guidance on particular musical forms because our Lord knew He was going to address His people in many languages which work better or worse with various styles.

And that, transitively, suggests that we are not going to be locked into one particular genre.

One note in particular regarding "classical" genre--and again, I'm referring to baroque, Romantic, and modern classical in this bin--is that while I'd recommend classical training to anyone desiring to play any genre in the church, a practical consideration is that composers like Bach wrote extended pieces for professional musicians, which may be a little bit on the "difficult" side for church pianists.

Also, many of those "professional" pieces don't lend themselves to memorization as well as simpler hymns and songs. So if we agree that a big part of our goal is to impart the Word of God to the people of God in lyric form, we might find we prefer some of the best of what is coming out today.