An Examination of Sovereign Grace Ministries and Getty-Townend For Use in Fundamental Christian Churches (Part 2)

[Bob Hayton]

I think Greg is on to something. Don’s response seems to reveal this, too. This music is too emotional, and incites inappropriate feelings or encourages the baser senses. What are baser senses, exactly? Are we getting close to dualism here? All senses are God-made and good. We can abuse them, sure, and some sensations are not appropriate in certain contexts. But all sensations are good in their proper context. What is wrong with feeling a “rush” or a “thrill” like one gets at a football stadium or concert hall? Or even the joy of sex. What is wrong with that feeling?

First: are you proposing that our senses are not corrupted by the fall?

On the contrary, I would argue that it is especially in our pleasure in inordinate sensation that we can be most clearly seen to be fallen. Do we delight, along with the world, in murder and mayhem on television, taking a sort of vicarious pleasure by viewing these activities?

Second: scripturally, only the marriage bed is undefiled. Are you suggesting that any imitation or approximation of that sensation is appropriate in any other context? Put another way, is there any legitimate expression of sexual thrill outside of marriage? If music can approximate or imitate that thrill, is it right or wrong to do so?

Third, some argue that music does not approximate or imitate sexuality. Greg seems to be arguing that it doesn’t express either sexuality or sensuality in any way. Why is that so, when every other art form is capable of expressing these feelings in one way or another?

Fourth, even given the legitimacy of some feelings of excitement in certain contexts (the football game, the concert hall, etc.), does that mean it is legitimate to incite or express these same feelings in the worship of God?

[Bob Hayton] Is the problem that conservatives are so afraid of speaking about sex or thinking about it, that anything that sniffs of it they view as a “baser sense” a passion best reserved for the bedroom where it is tolerated, at best? I’m not saying that modern worship music is sexual. But people sway back and forth, and *horror!* that must mean they are enjoying themselves in some kind of euphoric, sensual way. Which puts us close to sex. It is a bad thing to feel pleasure and joy and happiness, in an uninhibited way. We fight against that as we keep our rules in so many other areas, so it must be bad here in music. I don’t know what those people are doing, swaying back and forth during the singing. And look! They are lifting up their hands!

This is the kind of rhetoric I was complaining about above. It really isn’t helpful to the discussion. Try to stick with the arguments being advanced and not add in those that you imagine are the case.

[GregH]

First of all, I am encouraged that you are not being totally dogmatic here Don. That means a lot actually. It sounds as though you think there is some kind of carnal desire aroused by modern worship that is outside of sex but you can’t pinpoint it. It appeals to a baser sense as Bob puts it.

Maybe I should restate that - I would say that some music arouses or attempts to portray either sexuality itself or imitations / approximations of sexuality. However, I think the term sensual is broader because it isn’t only music that portrays sexuality that is objectionable for worship (or even for personal use). Some other baser feelings that music can attempt to display are anger and rage, the lust for power, domination, belligerence and so on.

So I am not saying that when we say sensual, we mean ONLY sexual, but that we mean a spectrum of ungodly sensuality.

[GregH] I certainly can agree that if music created sexual desires, it would not belong in church, but I have not seen anyone step to the plate to defend where the sex actually is in the music in question.

I think ‘portray’ is a better word than ‘create’. Music is an art form, expressing in sound the realities the composer sees/hears/feels. Or that he wants the audience to see/hear/feel.

I don’t have the expertise to precisely describe how these things are expressed musically, but I have a hard time believing that music alone of all the arts is free from the taint of corruption.

[GregH] We certainly see euphoric worship in the Bible. At least, it is far more euphoric than I think most of us would be comfortable with today (shouting and dancing, etc).

Do we see those expressions in the temple? In the tabernacle? In the synagogue? In the New Testament church?

I don’t think so, but if you can point to it, by all means…

[SBashoor]

By the way, some of beloved gospel songs of old describe ecstatic experience even if the music doesn’t engender it. How about some of the lines in “Blessed Assurance?” The phrases “foretaste of glory divine,” “whispers of mercy,” “echoes of love” are not describing merely cognitive processes leading to assurance. They seem to describe quasi-mystical experiential confirmations of assurance. On the other hand, I would not describe those lines as being sexual in any way. How such experientialism should be evaluated theologically is yet another issue.

Just a quick comment on this paragraph: we aren’t talking about the words in this discussion, we are talking about the music.

And I, for one, don’t deny that there are emotional/mystery aspects to worship, but in this discussion, I think we are trying to limit ourselves to an evaluation of the music itself.

@Don

We do take delight in wrong things. But the feelings of delight, how are those feelings themselves base? They are human, creaturely. Our desires are wrong but our feelings stem from our creatureliness.

It’s wrong to feel euphoria over less than grand things. And definitely wrong to feel euphoria in evil acts for their own sake. But when you couple the Christian lyrics and move the song to climax in a way like In Christ Alone climaxes, there is then a euphoria which has a proper and good object.

Yes sexuality is for the marriage bed. But sexuality is not bad. Moving and swaying is not sexuality per se, but for some who have a poor or dualistic view when it comes to sexuality - this moving and swaying which is part of being human, can be misinterpreted to be sexuality. I am not for sexual moves in a church service - by any stretch. I think that the unhealthy attitude toward the human body and sexuality may stand behind the suspicion of anyone moving at all in a church service. Hopefully my point is a little more clear now, even if you disagree.

I would argue the full range of emotions and senses are on display in the book of Psalms, many of which were written for public worship. David did his dance in front of the ark of the covenant on the way to the Temple. Joy has a rightful place in worship, and singing a song that sounds good, feels good, and is joyous is not wrong.

I contend that the music of the last 20-30 years more easily connects with me and where I am, than the music styles of 150 years ago. The sentimentalism of Gospel songs communicated well in their day, and the pop sound and rhythmic beat of contemproary praise music communicates just as well in our day. Neither communicates a specific sexuality on their own, without lyrics and association/context. And I guess that last line is where the question comes. I don’t think the authors proved that this music necessarily communicates a sensual/suggestive feeling. I think instead this music makes you tap your feet, get a smile on your face and move back and forth a little - and that those actions are culturally frowned on and suspected in the culture of much of fundamentalism.

[Bob Hayton]

@Don

We do take delight in wrong things. But the feelings of delight, how are those feelings themselves base? They are human, creaturely. Our desires are wrong but our feelings stem from our creatureliness.

Bob, you’re not saying that emotions are not corrupt are you? That they are just our natural feelings and the only thing that makes them evil is the objects towards which we direct our desires? You’ll be arguing with much more important folks than me if you do.

[Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology., 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1998), 645.] What then do we mean, positively, by the idea of total depravity? First, sin is a matter of the entire person. The seat of sin is not merely one aspect of the person, such as the body or the reason. Certainly several references make clear that the body is affected (e.g., Rom. 6:6, 12; 7:24; 8:10, 13). Other verses tell us that the mind or the reason is involved (e.g., Rom. 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:14–15; 4:4). That the emotions also are involved is amply attested (e.g., Rom. 1:26–27; Gal. 5:24; and 2 Tim. 3:2–4, where the ungodly are described as being lovers of self and pleasure rather than lovers of God). Finally, it is evident that the will is also affected. The unregenerate person does not have a truly free will, but is a slave to sin. Paul starkly describes the Romans as having once been “slaves to sin” (6:17). He is concerned that the opponents of the Lord’s servant come to “repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and … escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will” (2 Tim. 2:25–26).

[Charles Hodge, vol. 2, Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 159.] The true Augustinian doctrine of sin was that which the illustrious father drew from his own religious experience, as guided and determined by the Spirit of God. He was, (1.) Conscious of sin. He recognized himself as guilty and polluted, as amenable to the justice of God and offensive to his holiness. (2.) He felt himself to be thus guilty and polluted not only because of deliberate acts of transgression, but also for his affections, feelings, and emotions. This sense of sin attached not only to these positive and consciously active states of mind, but also to the mere absence of right affections, to hardness of heart, to the want of love, humility, faith, and other Christian virtues, or to their feebleness and inconstancy.

There are more quotes than these in theology textbooks, they aren’t hard to find. Don’t argue yourself into a corner simply to justify the desire for this kind of music.

[Bob Hayton] But sexuality is not bad. Moving and swaying is not sexuality per se, but for some who have a poor or dualistic view when it comes to sexuality - this moving and swaying which is part of being human, can be misinterpreted to be sexuality. I am not for sexual moves in a church service - by any stretch. I think that the unhealthy attitude toward the human body and sexuality may stand behind the suspicion of anyone moving at all in a church service.

All I can say to that is that the movements stimulated by contemporary music are not marches. They represent something.

[Bob Hayton] I don’t think the authors proved that this music necessarily communicates a sensual/suggestive feeling.

Perhaps not. But are you saying that it cannot ever communicate or portray sensual or suggestive feelings?

I think Bob’s point was not that emotions are somehow insulated from the effects of the Fall, but maybe that every “emotion” you can name has a righteous expression, depending on … a bunch of factors. So the reasoning is, if every “emotion” has a righteous form, there are no inherently bad emotions.

What this has to do the music debate I’m not sure :D

But on that topic, I have to appreciate Snoeberger’s observations above. I have to appreciate the article for asking the questions and truly sweating some answers. Way better than the “hey, whatever” attitude that dominates these days.

And Dr S is right that everybody acknowledges that some musical styles are not appropriate for some settings (everybody—even those who deny that by implication elsewhere in their stated views. Internal consistency problems are really, really common on this). Does anybody think this is appropriate music for, say, a birthday celebration? (Except as a joke… which actually makes my point)

(Caveat, the Chopin piece does actually get almost cheerful here and there… interestingly.)

Those pesky 7 chords

Somebody pointed out already that the article is more nuanced on that pt. than some seem to realize.

A personal experience: yrs ago, Mac Lynch told me I was using too many seven chords. At the time, I had no idea what those even were, though—as soon as he gave what I was doing a name, I could ponder whether he might be right.

I think now that ML was right about at least two things: (1) I was using them too much—that sort of harmony just sounds sophomoric to me now (and indulgent… like eating a whole box of choc. covered cherries all at once). (2) Though I might not agree w/him about what all those seven chords meant, he was right that they do mean something and we have a responsibility to wrestle with what they mean.

[Don Johnson]

[GregH] We certainly see euphoric worship in the Bible. At least, it is far more euphoric than I think most of us would be comfortable with today (shouting and dancing, etc).

Do we see those expressions in the temple? In the tabernacle? In the synagogue? In the New Testament church?

I don’t think so, but if you can point to it, by all means…

I think I am going to bow out of this one Don. You know full well that there is no description of the music styles in the temple, tabernacle, synagogue and NT church. Earlier, you were talking about trying to decide which musical experts to believe. Why not listen to the one named David who wrote the Psalms? But no, you don’t want to accept what he said about euphoric worship including shouting and dance because you are not comfortable with it. This argument is just a very weak attempt to stay in your comfort zone.

And it is just not an argument I am going to spend my time on.

Seriously, Aaron expressed what I’m trying to say better than I did. Every emotion or feeling or sensual sensation is legitimate in and of itself. It has a righteous, godly appropriation or experientation (is that a word?).

Yes we are broken by the Fall in all aspects of our being - I uphold the noetic affects of the Fall and all the other devastating affects. I also would say my “want-er” is broken, and it is enslaved to my sinful nature. So I desire wrong things, I channel my emotions in wrong ways. I would draw the line here, however. I would not say that I have a propensity to have certain feelings which are completely and totally unredeemable—that are objectively bad ways of feeling, irrespective of moral choices and context.

You bring it back to Greg’s point, I believe, when you say this:

All I can say to that is that the movements stimulated by contemporary music are not marches. They represent something.

Evidently, that something, is sexual in nature again. I was thinking of this tonight as I watched Ernest Saves Christmas - a funny flick that is certainly not the most artistically created movie ever. Anyway, there was a scene in there where two of the characters burst into a song, and do a little jive and conclude with “oh yeah” and point at each other, and break out into a smile. It’s an old ditty of a tune, that they both were reliving. It was fun. It had a beat, they moved their feet. But it had nothing to do with sexuality at all.

Where I’m getting at in all this is right here. The tune was *catchy*. It was *fun*. I *liked* it, and *desired* it. Does that make it wrong? Is it wrong to have sensations? Is it wrong to like butter pecan ice cream? Is that sensation wrong?

In my time growing up in strict fundamentalism of a Type A+ variety, there were many periods in my life where I was distrusting the morality of anything I did based on whether I liked it or not. If I liked it, and it was fun… it probably was bad.

The definition of sensual that Don quoted above fits with this. Music is by its very nature, sensual. It conveys feeling and sensation. In my book, it can’t convey that feeling with enough specificity to be morally evil — not without culture, association, context and especially lyrical content mixed in.

So music that makes you want to move - must of necessity represent something, Don says. And we know what the something is - it seems. I just don’t buy that argument. Music that makes you move, in my book, has more in tune with the music that facilitated King David’s feet to move as he danced righteously before the Lord. Where is space for “o clap your hands, all ye people” in fundamentalist churches? Where is the dancing before the Lord, shouting with loud shouts of joy? Where is the lifting up of hands? All of these things are in Scripture. The problem comes down to culture and association.

I guess I’m veering off the main point of the original post. Sorry I’m rambling here. Hopefully this explains where I’m coming from in this, clearly enough. I’m not advocating that anything goes. Context and culture, association and lyrical content - these things matter. But with the passing of time, and the inherently transient nature to association and culture, I think that the musical background to SGM and GTM songs, (to get back to the OP), have more in common with the music everyone breathes - in dental offices, elevators, shopping stores, and TV commericals, than it does with a 40s bar or a 60s festival.

[Aaron Blumer]

Those pesky 7 chords

Somebody pointed out already that the article is more nuanced on that pt. than some seem to realize.

A personal experience: yrs ago, Mac Lynch told me I was using too many seven chords. At the time, I had no idea what those even were, though—as soon as he gave what I was doing a name, I could ponder whether he might be right.

I think now that ML was right about at least two things: (1) I was using them too much—that sort of harmony just sounds sophomoric to me now (and indulgent… like eating a whole box of choc. covered cherries all at once). (2) Though I might not agree w/him about what all those seven chords meant, he was right that they do mean something and we have a responsibility to wrestle with what they mean.

No offense Aaron, but you might want to brush up a bit on theory before weighing in on this. There is a difference between a 7 chord and a 7th chord.

[GregH]

[Don Johnson]

[GregH] We certainly see euphoric worship in the Bible. At least, it is far more euphoric than I think most of us would be comfortable with today (shouting and dancing, etc).

Do we see those expressions in the temple? In the tabernacle? In the synagogue? In the New Testament church?

I don’t think so, but if you can point to it, by all means…

I think I am going to bow out of this one Don. You know full well that there is no description of the music styles in the temple, tabernacle, synagogue and NT church. Earlier, you were talking about trying to decide which musical experts to believe. Why not listen to the one named David who wrote the Psalms? But no, you don’t want to accept what he said about euphoric worship including shouting and dance because you are not comfortable with it. This argument is just a very weak attempt to stay in your comfort zone.

And it is just not an argument I am going to spend my time on.

Greg, you want to have it both ways. You say, “You know full well that there is no description of the music styles in the temple, tabernacle, synagogue and NT church.” Then you say, “But no, you don’t want to accept what he said about euphoric worship including shouting and dance because you are not comfortable with it.”

So which is it? If David is teaching us about euphoric worship, then surely there is a description of music styles. It can’t not be a description of music styles and there be no description at all, can it?

You can bow out if you like, but it is very bizarre to accuse me of being unwilling to listen if you are unwilling to provide examples that you say are there.

Who is the one with the weak argument?

[Bob Hayton]

Seriously, Aaron expressed what I’m trying to say better than I did. Every emotion or feeling or sensual sensation is legitimate in and of itself. It has a righteous, godly appropriation or experientation (is that a word?).

Well, I’ll take Erickson and Hodge over Aaron, with all due respect. Both of them said our emotions are corrupted. Passages were cited as proof. I don’t see how you can get around it.

[Bob Hayton] You bring it back to Greg’s point, I believe, when you say this:

All I can say to that is that the movements stimulated by contemporary music are not marches. They represent something.

Evidently, that something, is sexual in nature again.

Yes, it can be sexual, but that is not the ONLY problem with sensuality. That’s all I’m saying.

[Bob Hayton]

The definition of sensual that Don quoted above fits with this. Music is by its very nature, sensual. It conveys feeling and sensation. In my book, it can’t convey that feeling with enough specificity to be morally evil — not without culture, association, context and especially lyrical content mixed in.

A couple of points here: see the definition of sensual - it has a negative connotation. It isn’t just feelings, it is bad feelings. “worldly; materialistic; irreligious.” (definition 4). When you say “Music is by its very nature, sensual.” perhaps you mean ‘emotional’ or ‘sensory’, which would be more neutral words.

The second point, however, is that even if I were to concede your point, you can’t escape culture, association, and context. They exist whether you agree that music can be moral or not.

[Bob Hayton] So music that makes you want to move - must of necessity represent something, Don says. And we know what the something is - it seems. I just don’t buy that argument. Music that makes you move, in my book, has more in tune with the music that facilitated King David’s feet to move as he danced righteously before the Lord. Where is space for “o clap your hands, all ye people” in fundamentalist churches? Where is the dancing before the Lord, shouting with loud shouts of joy? Where is the lifting up of hands? All of these things are in Scripture.

Bob, I’ve said repeatedly that the problem with sensuality is not simply sexuality. How many times do I have to say that?

Let me say this: not all motion is inappropriate. I am not really against clapping for instance, although you are right that it isn’t really a part of western church culture. It is a part of party culture in the west, so that might be problematic for us. But it isn’t the clapping per se that is the problem.

You keep bringing up David’s dance. Can you describe what it was? Can you tell me where it was performed? Can you imitate it? Will it edify others? Would it distract from the worship service?

I don’t think you can make much of a case based on that one incident in David’s life where you have no idea exactly what happened.

But you are right, we are getting far afield from the original article.

[GregH]

[Don Johnson]

[GregH] We certainly see euphoric worship in the Bible. At least, it is far more euphoric than I think most of us would be comfortable with today (shouting and dancing, etc).

Do we see those expressions in the temple? In the tabernacle? In the synagogue? In the New Testament church?

I don’t think so, but if you can point to it, by all means…

I think I am going to bow out of this one Don. You know full well that there is no description of the music styles in the temple, tabernacle, synagogue and NT church. Earlier, you were talking about trying to decide which musical experts to believe. Why not listen to the one named David who wrote the Psalms? But no, you don’t want to accept what he said about euphoric worship including shouting and dance because you are not comfortable with it. This argument is just a very weak attempt to stay in your comfort zone.

And it is just not an argument I am going to spend my time on.

If the argument from silence is going to be used because of the lack evidence in the OT for these being done in temple, then the same standard could be applied to the NT in the church where there is a lack of evidence that they even sang at all in the church. There are numerous references to singing, but most of those passages say to sing in your heart, and to one another. Acts 16:24-25; Romans 15:8-9; Eph 5:18-20; James 5:13.

The only allusion you could find of anyone actually singing in church would be I Cor 14:26 where Paul says “How is it then brethren, when ye come together every one of you hath a psalm…”

And I would, however, argue that in the OT that there is somewhat of a description of the music played in I Chronicles chapter 15. Since the order from David about the musicians was given to Levites, and the Levites primary place of business was in the temple, you can likely conclude that the instruments commanded were played in the temple. When they brought back the ark of the covenant, I Chron 15:28 reads “Thus all Israel brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord with shouting, and with sound of the cornet, and with trumpets, and with cymbals, making a noise with psalteries and harps.”

Now if the argument is over styles, the closest example you could get would be by listening to Jewish music, and the majority of their music was written in all minor keys as opposed to much of the church music which uses mostly the major keys and the Ionaian, Lydian and Mixolydian scales. The development of the theory behind the major scale (Ionian) wasn’t until the 1500s, so the type of “happy” music that is produced from the Ioanian scale used in most churches today wasn’t even developed until 1500 years after the NT was written and over 2000 years from the OT.

So if we are to argue from silence, there is no conclusive evidence that singing at all was a part of the church service, and if we are to judge style from the examples of the type of music that was played in ancient times, it was all based in minor keys which is radically different from any style in the church today.

[GregH] I did a quick example of why the music you posted above is good harmony David.

The third bar of your example contains a Cmin7 - F7 - BbMaj7 progression. That apparently fits into the author’s definition of “too many consecutive 7ths.” But in fact, that progression is beautiful, perfectly defensible and far superior to what you see in gospel songs …

There is a string of five 7th chords, all defensible, all beautiful in my opinion, and far superior to the harmony in the first example. If you play both examples, you will see what I mean.

I did not discover this; it is just typical jazz harmony. And this is the kind of thing that jazz harmony does for us. It is just gorgeous stuff and attacking it makes us look pretty silly in my opinion.

Firstly, you’re moving the goal post, glossing over the part where you stated:

Under the use of repetition section, the authors mention excessive use of 7th chords and unresolved dissonance as examples of things that weaken sound. I would love to see a defense for that. Using 7th chords strengthens functional harmony rather than weakens it.

So they’re not just talking about too many 7th chords numerically, but the manner in which they are employed.

Secondly, you isolate an example from Fats Waller and show its functionality. That’s fine; I’ll stipulate there will be some standard circle of fifths progressions using 7th chords along the way in that piece. That has nothing to do with the fact that a I maj7 chord or a IV maj7 chord as used in Waller and your second example are completely for color rather than harmonic function/purposes of progression. The next two chords in Waller are Eb7 followed by F. That is no functional progression by 7ths.

Essentially you are proving what the authors of the original article were trying to express. These are two different kinds of 7th chord usage. It is, as you expressly state, a different musical idiom. As such, it expresses a different sentiment, appealing to different sensibilities. The real question is whether all sentiments and sensibilities are “created equal” or if some are unfit for certain purposes.

If that’s a question you think makes people look silly, fine. But don’t blame the authors for objecting to something they weren’t objecting to (functional 7ths) and then defend what they were objecting to (color 7ths, etc) without acknowledging the shift.

I appreciate the desire of this author to want to honor the Lord with music. We must always strive to give Him the glory He deserves. Unfortunately, this article presents a very complicated process that binds burdens upon Christians and creates a hyper-sensitive, hyper-judgmental environment for any family or church trying to us this standard.

[DavidO]

[GregH] I did a quick example of why the music you posted above is good harmony David.

The third bar of your example contains a Cmin7 - F7 - BbMaj7 progression. That apparently fits into the author’s definition of “too many consecutive 7ths.” But in fact, that progression is beautiful, perfectly defensible and far superior to what you see in gospel songs …

There is a string of five 7th chords, all defensible, all beautiful in my opinion, and far superior to the harmony in the first example. If you play both examples, you will see what I mean.

I did not discover this; it is just typical jazz harmony. And this is the kind of thing that jazz harmony does for us. It is just gorgeous stuff and attacking it makes us look pretty silly in my opinion.

Firstly, you’re moving the goal post, glossing over the part where you stated:

Under the use of repetition section, the authors mention excessive use of 7th chords and unresolved dissonance as examples of things that weaken sound. I would love to see a defense for that. Using 7th chords strengthens functional harmony rather than weakens it.

So they’re not just talking about too many 7th chords numerically, but the manner in which they are employed.

Secondly, you isolate an example from Fats Waller and show its functionality. That’s fine; I’ll stipulate there will be some standard circle of fifths progressions using 7th chords along the way in that piece. That has nothing to do with the fact that a I maj7 chord or a IV maj7 chord as used in Waller and your second example are completely for color rather than harmonic function/purposes of progression. The next two chords in Waller are Eb7 followed by F. That is no functional progression by 7ths.

Essentially you are proving what the authors of the original article were trying to express. These are two different kinds of 7th chord usage. It is, as you expressly state, a different musical idiom. As such, it expresses a different sentiment, appealing to different sensibilities. The real question is whether all sentiments and sensibilities are “created equal” or if some are unfit for certain purposes.

If that’s a question you think makes people look silly, fine. But don’t blame the authors for objecting to something they weren’t objecting to (functional 7ths) and then defend what they were objecting to (color 7ths, etc) without acknowledging the shift.

David, I appreciate you writing. You are doing the heavy lifting for the authors.

I did isolate an example from that piece, but it is not because it is the only one. There are only a few chord movements in that song that I can’t functionally defend. The Eb7 - F movement most certainly is functional. It is a bVII7 - I which is used all the time and is a variant of iv6 - I.

Adding major 7ths to the I and IV chords are for color as you mentioned. And thus we get to the author’s objection (which they did not make by the way; you apparently know them well enough to know what they are referring to). They actually find something wrong with using 7ths for color?

Yes, that is silly. It is as I have mentioned, just a veiled attack on jazz that has absolutely no merit. It had no merit in the 70’s when it was taught more widely and it has none now.

You are giving more credit to the article than deserved. First of all, the authors did not explain what kind of 7th chord usage they objected to (color rather than improved function). Second, they did not say why there was something wrong with using 7ths for color.

I hear over and over from you guys that these things mean something. But you can’t tell us what they mean. So when will that happen? When is someone credible going to step up and tell me a plausible reason why I need to eliminate major 7ths from my music?