Why I left the Conservative Music Movement

Ricky-it might seem that way, but if we view musical quality as a distribution along the lines of a bell curve, we would infer that we are looking at the “best” end of the historic bell curve with old music, and that the mean of that curve was probably “better” than what we have today. However, that does not mean that the “tail” of modern music does not have some gems as well.

I would say that the person who wants to do music ought to listen to the old stuff to get a feel for it, whether or not he uses it, and conversely ought to take a look at the new stuff to see if there is anything worth listening to. Make sense?

I understand what you are saying. I’m not so sure that it would be much of a “curve” though if you used all old music. In other words, when we look back, you and I will generally only see the best of what came out of the past. If we use those and compare it to all of today’s music, it may end up looking like a bell curve. However, if you took all past music and all of today’s music, would it look more like a line….or maybe a small hump??

[Bert Perry]

Ricky-it might seem that way, but if we view musical quality as a distribution along the lines of a bell curve, we would infer that we are looking at the “best” end of the historic bell curve with old music, and that the mean of that curve was probably “better” than what we have today. However, that does not mean that the “tail” of modern music does not have some gems as well.

But this is also what Greg is getting at. Old music does not hold a more treasured space when it comes to quality. Quality may be generated now and it may be generated later. I think he is arguing for the fact that a lot of fundamentalism views the 1700’s as the high mark for music. When that may be or may not be the case. Much of the music that we say was a high mark was not viewed that way during that time period.

[dgszweda]

Bert Perry wrote:

Ricky-it might seem that way, but if we view musical quality as a distribution along the lines of a bell curve, we would infer that we are looking at the “best” end of the historic bell curve with old music, and that the mean of that curve was probably “better” than what we have today. However, that does not mean that the “tail” of modern music does not have some gems as well.

But this is also what Greg is getting at. Old music does not hold a more treasured space when it comes to quality. Quality may be generated now and it may be generated later. I think he is arguing for the fact that a lot of fundamentalism views the 1700’s as the high mark for music. When that may be or may not be the case. Much of the music that we say was a high mark was not viewed that way during that time period.

Speaking as someone who does love the stuff from the 1600s and 1700s, I can say unequivocally that there are very clear differences between that and the music of the 1800s, especially for the tenors and basses. The earlier stuff tends to do a more interesting harmony, while the later music tends to be FFFF CCCC on the bass line—BORING. (you want to know why men don’t sing in many churches, look at the tenor and bass lines of a lot of stuff since 1850. Oy!) In the same way, the theological topics of the older hymns are much more God-centered, while the newer ones tend to more emotional content (e.g. “In the Garden”…try to imagine a group of Marines singing it)

And yes, the poetry is also different—the rhyme scheme is more complex in the older music. The differences between the mid-Reformation music and modern music are even more stark; the emotional drive of camp meeting songs becomes even stronger, the conventions of poetry are downplayed (much of it is outright doggerel), and harmonies are often simply not given—the tune designed for a female voice.

Again, that doesn’t mean there isn’t good new stuff out there. It simply means that the genre are different, and if we posit that music and poetry are important parts of conveying the message (a lesson I’m hard pressed to ignore from Psalms 149 and 150), we would then posit that there will be a difference in how these (rough) genre will be received. We would assume the same from the message being conveyed, no?

I am not a cookie expert though I made several thousand cookies from the the recipe on the back of Toll House chocolate chips as a boy. So I will refrain from talking much about the general thrust of this thread :)

On the other hand, for the record, I do not at all agree with the idea that music has degraded over time. Far from it. That is especially true from a harmonic perspective. The discovery and development of the use of harmony over the past 400 years is sort of similar to the development of the car. Saying the harmony of the 1600’s is better than today’s harmony is sort of like saying a Model T is better than a 2014 Acura. In a word, it is an untenable position. I would not use the hymnal to prove that point because the hymnal is full of some of the worst writing of the first half of the 20th Century. But if you compare the great writing of the 20th Century to the 1600’s (not just modern classical but also pop such as Broadway), there is no comparison in terms of harmony.

Music is like many other things. We have discovered things about music over time. That is why there was no harmony at all until a few hundred years ago and then, it was rudimentary compared to today. Whether someone wants to argue that form or melody has improved is a harder argument because there is a lot of subjectivity there. But no, it is absolutely wrong to claim that we are in some kind of bell curve where the bulk of the great music has already been written.

Greg, if we exclude the hymnal, haven’t we wandered off the topic of discussion, that is, church music?

It should also be pointed out that my hypothesis does not depend on a degradation of music over the ages, but rather on the observable differences. To use your picture, Beethoven is more emotionally driven, as a rule, than Mozart. Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, and Ricard Strauss are also more emotionally driven than their predecessors. Harmony has largely disappeared from pop music and CCM. Broadway? Well, let’s just say that all too often, it replaces poetic subtlety with a sledgehammer with a few blessed exceptions.

And we ought to pay attention to this.

In addition, instrumentation has gotten significantly better. Even in modern interpretations of older classics. In some cases, some of the classical music was nearly impossible to play or didn’t sound nearly as well in the 1700’s as it does in modern times. I am a trumpet player, so I am mainly speaking from that point. But I can tell you the trumpet sounds significantly better and it is better played than it was in the 1700’s. Much music in the past was written around limitations in the ability of instruments.

I would also say that the theology from the 1800 hymnals wasn’t any better than today. There was some very bad theology in hymnals from the past, just as there are some bad songs from today. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t some gems. I think many people forget that what they see today is everything. Some of this will last and some of it won’t. We benefit today from some of the older stuff, because the stuff that was good lasted in many cases. But there was plenty of junk in the 1700’s and 1800’s as well. We just don’t see it, because it has passed away.

Bert, I am not sure what your musical background is but many of the things you say about music are sort of astounding. Maybe for starters you could say exactly how you have determined that harmony has disappeared from pop music. What is good harmony to you?

[GregH]

Bert, I am not sure what your musical background is but many of the things you say about music are sort of astounding. Maybe for starters you could say exactly how you have determined that harmony has disappeared from pop music. What is good harmony to you?

I’m talking about the harmony existing at all—you know, two people singing different notes that may or may not complement each other, like Van Halen’s “Diver Down” album or old Motown like the Temptations or the Jackson Five. You’ll see some of it on Broadway, in folk and bluegrass, and to a lesser degree country (though a lot less than 40 years ago, e.g. Oak Ridge Boys), but precious little in pop or CCM today.

One word: Stradivarius. Metal instruments benefit from better metallurgy, but wooden ones ripen with age. I used to live next door to a woman whose cello was made around 1750, so Strad or not, vintage instruments fill the string sections of orchestras. Same basic principle with the piano. As long as the glue holds, old wood rocks.

One big exception to the rule on metal instruments improving in the 20th century; pipe organs from the first half of the 20th century are atrocious. Thankfully that is over. Sadly, not too many new ones going in. (I had an interview question once—disk drive company—where I was asked about how to improve the air ducts for a pipe organ. Got the job, it was great. I don’t think my answer would have worked, though.)

Electric? New, yes, but a mixed bag, musically.

So when you say harmony, you really mean vocal harmonization or people singing in parts.

FYI, harmony means something else to those who study music. When I said what I did about harmony, I was not talking about part singing; I was talking about harmony.

You obviously do not play pianos. Pianists do not want to play old pianos. They want to play modern pianos. For a reason… Modern pianos are awesome and old pianos are horrible. Rarely do you even see pianos in circulation that are more than 100 years old and concert level pianists do not play them except maybe for a novelty. And that goes double for the precursors to pianos such as harpsichords.

Bert,

I feel you really broad brush CCM or Pop music when you say that harmony has largely disappeared. You just have to look in certain places to find it. For instance a significant part of CCM is black gospel music. Black gospel really isn’t black gospel unless it has 3 part harmony. Also, there is always someone on the pop charts that utilizes rich harmonies. Right now, it is the pop group Fun. Check out their songs for harmony. They are reminiscent of the harmonies from the classic Rock group Queen.

By the way, I can’t really compare one of the Psalms with “Breathe” because Breathe happens to be one of the worst lyrically and Theologically composed worship songs ever and the majority of conservative evangelicals wouldn’t even think that using that song in their church. Breathe is an easy strawman to destroy……

In our multi-ethnic church plant, just about every song we sing has 3 part harmony and the majority of songs we sing are more contemporary worship and praise.

[Bert Perry]

One word: Stradivarius.

You picked one item. Trumpets before really 1910 could not play chromatic scales. Notes were solely changed by lip. There were no valves. Valves didn’t really come on the scene until late 1800’s and weren’t really written for until later in the early 1900’s. That goes for a lot of the brass instruments. The tonal quality of most of the brass instruments is far superior to earlier instruments. The techniques that are used today far surpass the capability of players in the 1600-1700’s. For example, jazz players developed a technique called circular breathing. This was carried over to classical music as well and has offered some compelling techniques. One example is Wynton Marsalis playing “Flight of the Bumblebee”, something that wasn’t written for trumpet. He plays the entire piece without taking a break for a breath. It is really unique and sounds awesome. I had heard that Kenny G can hold some very high notes for more than 45 minutes without taking a break. There are other classical pieces that were never written for things like the trumpet because 1) the instrument was not capable, and 2) techniques hadn’t been developed. So what you see in Jazz is some very challenging pieces that were written to take advantage of some of these techniques. I am not aware of any professional trumpet player who does not study and regularly perform jazz, regardless of whether their profession is as a classical musician or not. It enhances their ability to understand music theory, and even if they are a classical musician, some elements cannot be played as well without a good understanding of some jazz styles and techniques.

There was no such thing as a saxophone until I believe 1850’s. The oboe was vastly improved in the later part of the 1800’s. Percussion have gotten a lot better. As Greg mentions same goes for piano. The pieces that you here now from Mozart and Bach, did not sound like that originally. I have heard some of these pieces played the way they were written with instruments that represented those periods, and I am not sure everyone here would be so quick to call them better than how they are played today.

a little off topic, but you seem knowledgeable. I have always loved Mozart’s horn concerti. There aren’t that many, but the music is a joy to listen to. I have always wondered if what is played today by french horn players is what Mozart actually wrote, because as you say, valves are a recent invention. Do you know anything about this>

Even though I make my living (not much of a living) as a music writer/critic for a few websites – mostly “pop” music sites with an Americana/roots music site thrown in for good measure, and, I’m using “pop” in its broadest sense – I think I agree with Bert’s assertion about the state of current pop music. At least on the surface.

Please forgive my coming oversimplifications. Regardless, I think my point will stand – I hope.

As the music industry became “the man,” especially in the 70s, and music was commoditized on a level not seen since Billie Holiday took her vocal hammer to Tin Pan Alley, the music industry began to fracture and the seeds of the many sub-genres and sub-sub-genres were sown, largely by the New York Club scene of the early 70s (New York Dolls, Patti Smith, and the Ramones – to list three). The Clash picked up the torch of the anti-music establishment ethos and begin to fold in world music, for lack of a better word – not “world” music that you find in Fair Trade Stores. Listen to London Calling, ignore the politics, if need be, and listen to the richness of the integrated musical styles. But, with the rise of American consumerism of the 80s, the alternate music scene went underground and has mostly stayed there with a few notable exceptions over the last three decades. Bands like the Minutemen, Hüsker Dü, and Sonic Youth took the punk ethos of the New York Club scene, kept The Clash’s musical experimentation and richness, and added their own DIY ethic that was connected to the music of CCR. In fact, interesting note, the reason why the “grunge” bands of the early 90s wore flannel shirts was because bands like the Minutemen mimicked CCR’s dress and desire to honor the working man. For the record, the bands that jump to most people’s minds when grunge is mentioned are not the best examples of the genre. Those are the bands that A&R people decided to help make rich.

My point in that abbreviated pop music history lesson was to state that there has been and continues to be an underground stream of artistically challenging, sonically interesting, and lyrically compelling pop music. Now, it has to be found. It’s not packaged and sold by Rolling Stone, MTV, and Clear Channel. For example, Rolling Stone used to be connected to the artists, but as the music industry began printing its own money, the editors of Rolling Stone followed the larger houses, faster cars, and better party invitations (I was just at a party with some fairly well-known indie musicians, including a Grammy winner, and the “wild” rock and roll party consisted of sweet tea, meat balls, and brilliant musicians jamming together, mostly old hymns, interestingly enough. Rolling Stone editors don’t want to be at that party. No sex? No drugs? Boring, right?). I agree with Bert’s assertion that today’s pop music is largely an inferior product divorced from true musicianship and artistry. And, that the industry, even the supposedly independent publishing part, is committed to producing, marketing, and selling an inferior product. There are reasons for that, but I think most of understand those reasons; hint – the reasons run parallel to why many people will eat at the Olive Garden while “Mom and Pop” Italian eateries with delicious, lovingly and hand-crafted Italian food struggle to survive in the suburbs. But, possibly unlike Bert, I don’t know, I also assert that for those willing to look, excellent pop music can be found, just like excellent Italian food can be found. But that brings me to CCM, or whatever it’s called now.

I am not a fan of the vast majority of what I hear on Christian radio. It’s turrible, to quote Sir Charles Barkley. I turned on a Pandora Christian station as I started writing this, and every music critic bone inside me is weeping. Christian radio, and there are exceptions, follows the trends of Top-40 radio. The trends of Top-40 radio, since the 70s, have not, for the most part, been any good. My church does sing some theologically rich contemporary songs, but I don’t really think of those songs as pop music. And, my wife and I picked a church that understands that there are things more important than how familiar a song is because it gets played on Air 1 a lot. And, once again, most of what gets played on Air 1 is turrible. It is. It mimics the turrible stuff played on Clear Channel’s Top 40 stations. If a currently living songwriter writes an excellent worship song, or hymn, or whatever you want to tag it as, I’ll joyfully sing it, and I do. But, my experience has been that in order to have a aesthetically rich music in a Creator God honoring way, churches probably need to sing mostly the “old stuff.” Maybe there is an underground Christian pop scene that I’m unfamiliar with. I don’t know. Even much of the supposed Christian roots music (one is currently playing, complete with banjo, on Pandora and it made me inadvertently roll my snobby eyes) is not worth the label “roots music.”

As far as style – 1. “How Firm a Foundation” is probably not best served by the instruments/style that I prefer. 2. If a church plays music in the style I prefer, that specific Body is going to lack any diversity. It’s easier for me to worship to “It Is Well” (I love that song, by the way) performed and sung in a traditional style, than it is for most people to worship to the type of music I like.

If God were to move me and my family, we would, all things being equal, probably not attend a church that sings predominantly contemporary music. We would choose a church that only sang old hymns to a piano accompaniment if it came down to it (assuming that the church’s statement of faith and practice was consistent with what we believe the Bible teaches).

In conclusion, and back to Bert, the vast majority of today’s pop music, Christian or otherwise, is not worthy of worship to our God, especially considering that God, through talented men and women in the past, has gifted us with aesthetically excellent and theologically rich songs to sing to His glory.

P.S. I get that several of my fellow Sharper Iron members will be puzzled, at best, and disgusted and condemnatory, at worst, by my job; but, I have zero desire to defend myself online. Next time you’re in the DC area, look me up, and we can discuss it over coffee.