A Biblical Understanding of Culture and Music

The wording in a lot of places in this piece reminds of “according to science…” The missing word is “some” (or perhaps “many” or “most,” but that would take more research to support.)

It belongs above before “musicologists,” but also lots of other places.

Not that the particular musicologists and culture analysts cited are all wrong about everything. But the article does not interact with alternative views among them.

Here’s an interesting read on high culture:

High culture unravelled: A historical and empirical analysis of contrasting logics of cultural hierarchy

An excerpt

Conversely, twelve respondents applied one or more of the modern criteria, particularly originality and innovativeness, when defining high culture. They said that high culture was ‘in any case very experimental’ (Paul), that it ‘searches for new horizons and finds new perspectives’ (Rudolf) and that it ‘in particular avoids repetitions’ (Charles). Rodney (juggling performer, 51) added that being ‘unique, creative, pioneering’ was perceived as better than doing ‘the same old routines as 20 or 25 years ago’. Ronald (anthropologist, 35) ranked rock band Radiohead above Bach in the cultural hierarchy, because:

“There are only a few bands that have innovated and changed music and that gave it such a personal feel and artistic dimension, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to put it next to someone like Bach. Because, in our time, they have been pioneering.”

Some interesting reading there.

My own view is that it can be useful to look at culture and art in terms of high, folks, and pop…. roughly like it’s useful to think of dogs as small, medium, and large. There are lots of situations where that could work well and lots where it would be inadequate.

Due to the prosperity of the West, music-making is extremely competitive now. Sometimes someone gets lucky, but mostly people succeed across all the genres only if they are disciplined and rigorous about their craft. Further, because we are so flat now culturally (YouTube, Spotify, , there is not one set of messaging for high culture and another for folk and another for pop. All of those have some serious artists who are trying to say serious things. Many are just trying to earn a living, and messaging is not on their minds at all. With folk and pop that tends to be more transparent. It’s a bit harder to tell with ‘high,’ if that is even really a thing anymore.

Let me briefly illustrate what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68zOvCLwcL8

Is this “high” or “folk” or “pop”? The song itself was a Bob Dylan song that became a country music hit. It was very popular. Country has a whole lot of certain kinds of folk in it, so maybe it’s folk? But acapella choir singing in classical style? I suppose I’m supposed to believe it’s corrupted high culture? (Trigger warning. This video might make you cry.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEYNoXwA6Qk

Speaking of Anna Lapwood, what is this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7yuFWS_6Tc

It’s not obvious to me whether pop is corrupting high culture there or high culture is improving pop. Any claim on that point would have to be supported with a strong argument, if we hope to be persuasive.

Another one is Laufey. Neely analyzes here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68zOvCLwcL8 Lots of people call her thing “jazz” but the first half a dozen songs I heard were, to be, obviously 1940s pop. Skip to 2:54 if you’re in a hurry and you’ll see what I mean.

So is it pop? But the style is old and usually slow, and not very drummy. Isn’t that ‘high’? (I’m being facetious here. There’s a lot of high influence in it, but it’s totally throwback pop. And she’s ridiculously popular now in 2025. Who’da thunk it?)

As we continue to wrestle with how to live Christianly as cultures shift, we need to recognize that we’re in a place not quite like anything that came before. Think printing press but this time it’s internet, social media, and AI. So cultural analyses that don’t deal with how these technologies have shaped the arts and us are not going to be adequate.

At the very least we need to add an item: high, folk, pop, and fusions. But I really think going forward almost everything is going to be fusions.

I commend to you "Harptallica". Lovely full size harps, gowns, and...Metallica. You'll see the same thing as Aerosmith performed with Andrea Bocelli and a full orchestra in the Coliseum, or the opening to Elvis' "Aloha Live from Hawaii", taken from Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra, launching into See See Rider.

And let's be real; Copland uses a lot of folk tunes in his work (e.g. "Simple Gifts"), and you'll also find folk tunes used by Beethoven, Tchiakovsky, and others. Regarding the supposed dichotomy between sacred and secular music, you've got the decidedly classical (and pagan) roots of "Ode to Joy" and "Be Still my Soul", among other hymns from the hymnal. Then you have folk songs becoming hymns like "Amazing Grace" and a lot of Salvation Army hymns ("Why should the Devil have all the good music?").

Add to that the fact that the musical cues of spirituals, black Gospel, blues, jazz, and rock & roll (also Southern Gospel to a degree) are similar because of their common roots, and I've frankly got to wonder if P&D's supposed "musicologists" really understand much about their own subject.

Along the same lines, does Scripture support such a trichotomy of folk, sacred, classical? Since we really know little about the music of the ancients besides the instrumentation and some of the lyrics, I am at a loss as to how we would support such a differentiation. So I am very comfortable contemplating belting out some stanzas of I....want to praise the Lord all night, and worship every day! with full orchestra and eight part harmonies.

There are actually 4 key subcultures. I am not aware of anyone holding to 3. There is 1) Folk, 2) High, 3) Mass, 4) Low. In reality there are hundreds of subcultures depending on how you are breaking down the mix.

>>But I really think going forward almost everything is going to be fusions.<<

I pretty much agree with this statement. I’m not convinced that I completely buy hard and fast categories for music (or music subcultures), whether 3 or 4, which may the be reason that it’s hard to categorize and file music, and why everyone’s personal list of “genres” tends to vary from what are thought of as the basics. I think it all tends to run together, like more of a spectrum.

As some of the examples above show, a particular tune/melody can be performed many ways, and it would be difficult to discern a “hard” difference between a Dylan tune or nursery-rhyme tune performed as pop, jazz, classical, even though there are clearly differences we would care about in different venues and for different uses. I’ve even heard a jazz version of “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” done from the stage that sounded more like it fit the concert than like the way it’s heard from nursery-rhyme recordings. And who hasn’t heard “popular” versions of Beethoven’s 5th symphony, first movement?

Occasionally, churches sing “Jesus Loves Me” in the service, though obviously not set to a silly performance, like a single-key toy piano, or other sound like electronic tune makers heard often in nurseries that might appeal strongly to the 3-5 y.o. set that usually learns this song.

These days, pretty much everything crosses over depending on the venue in which it’s played and the audience it’s played to. Maybe what we are really talking about is categories of people doing the listening, and what they want to hear.

like more of a spectrum.

That works really well, and illustrates the difficulty of category based arguments. I’m not ready to say no categories exist or no categories can be supported. But making a category-based argument requires establishing the validity of the categories first. And that’s a really tall order now that there are almost no barriers to creating, spreading, and accessing music.

That last bit is the newest thing in the history of civilization. What I meant by “flat.” You only need access to a smartphone or library with public computers and you can listen to almost anything you want. And you can create and distribute almost as easily. That changes everything because, historically, you had to be wealthy enough to have time to make and market art. Or you had to have a wealthy patron. That changed over a couple centuries but the web turned an unprecedented corner in how we do culture.

>>I’m not ready to say no categories exist or no categories can be supported. But making a category-based argument requires establishing the validity of the categories first.<<

OK, I agree that categories exist, since they are essentially created constructs used to be able to catalog things, like order, genus, species, etc. However, something always comes along that doesn’t fit, and then either it is filed inexactly, or a new category is created. Do this long enough, and you will have enough categories to constitute a spectrum, where things on the edges of the categories can fit in one or another depending on which features are looked at.

It’s not that I don’t think categories have their uses, but they are a way to perceive reality in a more simple fashion, rather than being the reality themselves. Reference Joel’s Type A, B, C fundamentalist categories from years ago, or Kevin B.’s version with, what was it, 5 categories? Neither exactly describes the spectrum of fundamentalism, but we do find them useful to an extent. However, as soon as we look closely, we realize that most of us don’t fit exactly, so we have to approximate (like B+/A-, etc.).

I do find it helpful to be able to roughly categorize music as Folk, Pop, Classical, etc., as long as I realize that these categories themselves are not really set into tables of stone, and I don’t let the category command my use and/or perception of the value of the music in question.

Essentially agree.

So I guess I want to tweak what I said about category based arguments a little. Because the “validity of the category” isn’t probably the main hurdle. The categories do have to be valid, but the hard part is “valid in a way that makes your point.” So the big challenge for that kind of case is demonstrating that the categories work support a claim along the lines of “this category of music is not suitable for this purpose” and so on.

But even if one succeeds in a) establishing that the categories are sufficiently solid, b) they work for the purpose of fitting categories to purposes, you still have the herculean task of showing that c) the rejected category(ies) can be fit to real world musical choices.

I don’t envy anyone that to do that project.

Takes me back to a point I’ve noted before in various places: sometimes the best we can do is to be internally regulated by clear principles. The results are not going to be like pieces in a clock—always fitting together and achieving the desired results, over and over and over. It is unavoidably messy. But we are talking about art here. Realistic expectations will reduce disappointment and frustration.

I just discovered a book I’m excited about, and that is relevant to this topic. I was listening another Charles Cornell analysis (enthusiastic and brilliant as always) of something and he mentioned the cadence that goes from a minor key to a somewhat unexpected major final chord (“picardy cadence”). It was an exciting moment. Ever have a tool lying around that is often handy, but it was a gift or whatever, and you don’t what it’s called? Then you find out the name. It was like that.

Anyway, the Wikipedia on that cadence noted this book: Charles Rosen, Music and Sentiment (yes, that’s an ‘affiliate’ link that sends a wee % to SI if you buy).

Here’s the Amazon blurb…

How does a work of music stir the senses, creating feelings of joy, sadness, elation, or nostalgia? Though sentiment and emotion play a vital role in the composition, performance, and appreciation of music, rarely have these elements been fully observed. In this succinct and penetrating book, Charles Rosen draws upon more than a half century as a performer and critic to reveal how composers from Bach to Berg have used sound to represent and communicate emotion in mystifyingly beautiful ways.

Through a range of musical examples, Rosen details the array of stylistic devices and techniques used to represent or convey sentiment. This is not, however, a listener’s guide to any “correct” response to a particular piece. Instead, Rosen provides the tools and terms with which to appreciate this central aspect of musical aesthetics, and indeed explores the phenomenon of contradictory sentiments embodied in a single motif or melody. Taking examples from Chopin, Schumann, Wagner, and Liszt, he traces the use of radically changing intensities in the Romantic works of the nineteenth century and devotes an entire chapter to the key of C minor. He identifies a “unity of sentiment” in Baroque music and goes on to contrast it with the “obsessive sentiments” of later composers including Puccini, Strauss, and Stravinsky. A profound and moving work, Music and Sentiment is an invitation to a greater appreciation of the crafts of composition and performance.

That sounds fascinating! (No sarcasm)

So I have to make some room by finishing a couple other books I’m reading, then I really want to dive into Rosen. Even the complex stylistic fusions we have so much of today all rely heavily on the Western ‘musical language’ tradition that came before them. I don’t think his focus on ‘high’ culture will make it less relevant, since he’s not advocating, just studying.