Excellence in Conservative Christian Music Begins in the Home

One nagging question from that class re-surfaces here: by what criteria do you say one musical style is “better” than the other, and can you defend these criteria? I fear Taigen’s article will not convince friends who don’t already agree on the criteria.

To Tyler’s question—and others that I know wonder about this.

While I’m not married to ‘classical’ by a long shot, there is a way to understand why it has a crucial role.

And it can be assessed somewhat objectively, though it’s complex.

My argument would be that kids who are going to be musicians should indeed be trained in classical first because musical understanding doesn’t happen in a vacuum. There is a history to the development of music in Western civilization, and that history is hugely impacted by the period we usually loosely call “classical.”

So much of what we understand about modern genres like jazz and pop builds on what was learned in the classical era (and before, but you have to start somewhere). So skilled jazz and pop musicians have—knowingly or not (but usually knowingly) drawn an enormous amount of understanding from the classical foundations.

Now if they were going to be musicians in Eastern music, with their concepts of scale, harmony, melody, and instruments, what we call “classical” wouldn’t be relevant. But pop, rock, and jazz would not exist—pretty much worldwide—without Western classical music happening first. They are built on it.

So… in short, excellence in any genre of Western music really requires direct or indirect knowledge of concepts that made huge leaps forward in the classical era. (And ‘direct’ is better than indirect, depending on the level of proficiency you’re aiming for.)

This is assuming we mean “artistic excellence,” not “excellence for local church purposes,” which I’m firmly convinced is different, though not unrelated.

Looking at my own experience, I took a lot of piano lessons as a kid, without ever really becoming a proper pianist. I’m still not. But a lot of the lessons were in classical. Then there was a period when the thinking was, “What do you need that for to play in church? Just learn hymn playing!” The latter is indeed a special skill (because hymnals give you soprano, alto, tenor, bass and that’s it… which is not what anyone wants to hear from a church pianist).

Both helped me so much. I’m thankful today for every bit of that classical teaching, and the hymn-player style helped me so much with improv (because that’s really what hymn accompaniment is).

Today I can only play smoothly and on tempo “by ear” and only in two keys (C, F … four keys if you want to be generous and include the relative minor keys A and D … Edit: I forgot: I can usually do OK in G major, too, with a bit of practice. But the point is that a real pianist is not limited to playing from chord memory in a few key signatures).

But what I understand about music owes mostly to the classical stuff I learned. Even the more modern genres (which I do appreciate) are defined by their departures from the classical patterns. So… no classical ultimately = no pop, no jazz, no rock, etc.

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.

Are we reading a different discussion here? No one has suggested that music (instrumental or otherwise) is somehow exempt from the biblical mandate to approve excellent things.

No, we are not reading a different discussion here. It is common for people in threads to bring up points for discussion that are closely related to the discussion even when no one in the discussion has made remarks that directly pertain to what is brought up.

In addition, I wanted to inject biblical content into the discussion that explicitly does pertain to the subject of the thread with the hope of spurring more interaction that is directly biblical in nature.

I am surprised by one of the comments that their child is in a music program that does not teach or focus on classical music. I have been involved in formal music programs and I am not sure I have ever known one that does not have a level of focus on classical music. Is it the only focus or even the main focus? Not always, but classical is a key element to learn to become "excellent" in music. I can remember watching an interview with Metallica (a very well regarded thrash metal band), and they dove into how important classical music was to them and the influence that it had on their music. I was a bit surprised, but not entirely surprised at the discussion.

Jazz is also an important type that is good to learn especially in areas of improvisation and harmonies. When I was much younger, in high school, I really got into studying baroque music, and was quickly exposed to the concept of improvisation of music within concerto's, and was shocked that many concepts that I was learning in jazz, was also there in baroque. In High school we would get recordings of things like Hadyn's trumpet concerto so that we could listen to the cadenza's and try to recreate some of the improv techniques from different performers.

It's worth noting that the classical training is deep in Metallica, and at least two harp groups, "Harptallica" and the "Harp Twins", have done versions of their songs. There is something unnerving about hearing them play and thinking "Wow, that's peaceful and beautiful", and then realizing it's a song by Metallica.

They also did two big collaborations with the San Francisco Symphony a few years back and I remember a lot of that was driven by their love of classical and trying to bridge that gap. I remember an interview like maybe 10 years back with the principle violin player of the Symphony talking in depth on the alignment with their music and what is found in a number of classical composers and the classical composers had influenced the music styles that they were playing.

It is just another data point, around how classical music is foundational. You can probably find a lot of metal guys who tie back to classical music.

No one has suggested that music (instrumental or otherwise) is somehow exempt from the biblical mandate to approve excellent things.

This is true and worth noting. The debates that happen are in the realm of what excellence means for different purposes in different settings and how Scripture can be rightly understood to speak to that.

We do have to pay attention to all that God says, including what He has not given in writing. Having said that, only what He has given in writing is infallible, inerrant, and perfect truth in every way.

Put differently, the only way that we can rightly profit from extrabiblical information--even natural revelation--is to be certain that what we are saying is true from non-biblical sources is not in conflict with what the Bible says.

We do have to pay attention to all that God says, including what He has not
given in writing. Having said that, only what He has given in writing is
infallible, inerrant, and perfect truth in every way.

Put differently, the only way that we can rightly profit from extrabiblical
information—even natural revelation—is to be certain that what we are
saying is true from non-biblical sources is not in conflict with what the
Bible says.

Is it possible for God to speak or reveal errantly or fallibly? (How would such being do that?)

The problem always arises with us as readers, observers, doesn’t it?

Is it possible to read even the first verse of the Bible and understand it without reference to general revelation as a basis? (What is “beginning”? What is “heaven”? What is “earth”? What is “create”?)

(We’re pretty far afield from the topic now, though. I’ve written an article on the Bible, evidence, and music—mostly about the Bible and evidence—and I think I’ll forgo further comments on these topics until I post it. Should be early next week. Then I’ll elaborate further there.)