Thread: Power of Music: The true power is beyond the words

The Pop-Culture Wars

The Pop-Culture Wars Public Discourse

If we take seriously what is said by Plato and Aristotle, then we must also pay attention to what is being said by the likes of Taylor Swift and Kanye West.

What’s Really the Matter With Pop Music?

What’s Really the Matter With Pop Music? Public Discourse

Popular music shapes us and our culture, but not only through its lyrics.

This two part series of articles makes the case that music is a force for good or for evil outside of consideration of the wording, and that this view has been maintained for millenia and did not begin as a recent conservative movement against rock and rap.

And that case would be accurate. Allan Bloom made a similar point in The Closing of the American Mind, and you can find arguments about music itself without regard to the words before rock and rap came on the scene. Richard Weaver and R.C.H. Lenski both have condemnations of jazz. Verdi's Requiem caused a controversy because some considered it too operatic for ecclesiastical music.

Also, the Bible makes it clear that music, without regard to the words, has an impact on the human personality when David plays with his hand and the evil spirit departs from Saul, and when as Elisha listens to the playing of a minstrel the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him. In neither case were words involved, so to maintain that it is only the lyrics that can be judged for the morality and profitability of their impact is to close one's eyes to Scripture, history and plain fact, and to walk down a blind alley that leaves you helplessly repeating the inane question, "So which chord, exactly, is sinful?"

If you are going to bind people's consciences, you had better be sure you have a higher authority than natural men, and Christians who have repeated them.

Whatever you do, never play E and Bb together.

Also, the Bible makes it clear that music, without regard to the words, has an impact on the human personality when David plays with his hand and the evil spirit departs from Saul, and when as Elisha listens to the playing of a minstrel the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him. In neither case were words involved, so to maintain that it is only the lyrics that can be judged for the morality and profitability of their impact is to close one's eyes to Scripture, history and plain fact

I would think that those instances of music affecting things in the spiritual realm were entirely supernatural in nature. This doesn't really prove scientifically that rhythms and tunes are inherently good or evil conjuring in themselves.

"So which chord, exactly, is sinful?"

This is precisely the right question to ask, if in fact the charge against tune and rhythm is being launched.

Most of the article cited above deals with evils that come as a result of unwholesome lyrics. Regarding tune and rhythm, the author writes

The contention made by Aristotle and Plato is not that music can, in so simple a fashion, cause people to act a certain way. Rather, they contend that music moves the passions, and that this power, exerted repeatedly over time on people who are immature and impressionable, can produce a certain disposition under which it will be either easier or more difficult for reason to see, and for the will to choose, what is right.

I think all music, including classical pieces, would have to be judged by these standards, if it's simply an issue of passions being stirred up. Also, it would have to be shown that passion is somehow inherently wrong, or outside of God's character, which I don't think it is.

The music contains a cultural association in the mind of the person listening to it; that is whence its power is derived. As one of their own poets have said, "You've got the music in you." Christians really ought to learn to read their culture and stop living in the deceptive bliss of their naivete.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

I would think that those instances of music affecting things in the spiritual realm were entirely supernatural in nature. This doesn't really prove scientifically that rhythms and tunes are inherently good or evil conjuring in themselves.

If you consider the case of Elisha more closely, you will see that the agency of the minstrel and the work of the Holy Spirit are distinguished quite clearly: Elisha prophesying was supernatural - the minstrel playing was not. And again, if you consider the circumstances under which David was brought to Saul's court as a musician, you will recall that when an evil spirit began to trouble Saul his servants suggested getting a musician. Either they thought that all musicians had supernatural powers, or they did not think that supernatural powers were required.
Your second sentence raises three or four straw men and hay bothers my allergies.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

This is precisely the right question to ask, if in fact the charge against tune and rhythm is being launched.

No, it isn't, because it involves an absurdly reductionistic view of music. One note or one chord by itself is not music. Like words, the elements of music must be combined into a context, and that context influences each one. The fact that the letter "d" is not evil does not mean that it can't be used in evil ways, when placed into the wrong combinations.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Most of the article cited above deals with evils that come as a result of unwholesome lyrics. Regarding tune and rhythm, the author writes

The contention made by Aristotle and Plato is not that music can, in so simple a fashion, cause people to act a certain way. Rather, they contend that music moves the passions, and that this power, exerted repeatedly over time on people who are immature and impressionable, can produce a certain disposition under which it will be either easier or more difficult for reason to see, and for the will to choose, what is right.

I think all music, including classical pieces, would have to be judged by these standards, if it's simply an issue of passions being stirred up. Also, it would have to be shown that passion is somehow inherently wrong, or outside of God's character, which I don't think it is.

Unless I've overlooked something in this thread or in the articles, no one said we ought to judge only a handful of pieces by this standard. In evaluating the propriety of music, cultural association and individual impact both need to be considered. But it is treating music as not actually being an art at all, to deny that without words it is capable of having an impact upon the human personality. There are few musicians who would be content to be represented as making no impression on their audience. The simple fact that people want to get down to the beat shows that music exerts an influence. In a world with real morality, real opposition between good and evil, it is inevitable that the direction of that influence will sometimes be a moral decision - even before words are brought into the equation.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The music contains a cultural association in the mind of the person listening to it; that is whence its power is derived. As one of their own poets have said, "You've got the music in you." Christians really ought to learn to read their culture and stop living in the deceptive bliss of their naivete.

Yes, but the same thing can be said about so many things, even things that became distinctly Christian. For example, off the top of my head (and I'm willing to stand corrected on these) ...

El - originally the name of the Chief deity of the Canaanites
covenants - a common practice in ancient near eastern culture
Deuteronomy - patterned off Hittite suzerain-vassal treaties
Logos - a Greek concept of an impersonal rationality behind the universe
theos - generic Greek word for god, applies to the gods of the Roman pantheon

In other cultures,

Allah - the arabic word for God, predominantly Islamic in use, but used in Arabic and Indonesian bibles
Shang di - A chieft deity in ancient Chinese religion, used for God's name in Chinese bibles
Hymns of Charles Wesley and others - tunes borrowed from popular english bar tunes, sailor songs, popular music.

All of these things did and may still produce unbiblical cultural associations. So many of the triumphs of Christian history testifies of culture being appropriated and redeemed.

I think it's hard to critique culture from a biblical vacuum; we live in culture and are already immersed in it.

f you consider the case of Elisha more closely, you will see that the agency of the minstrel and the work of the Holy Spirit are distinguished quite clearly: Elisha prophesying was supernatural - the minstrel playing was not. And again, if you consider the circumstances under which David was brought to Saul's court as a musician, you will recall that when an evil spirit began to trouble Saul his servants suggested getting a musician. Either they thought that all musicians had supernatural powers, or they did not think that supernatural powers were required.

God, in this instance, used the music to make a spiritual impact, but not all music need have this function. the servants in this story may have been right in this instance, but they are not divine oracles and the bible is not trying to make a universal truth out of their statements.

Yes, I fully agree that music has an impact on the emotions. Even David was presumably listening to music as he twirled with all his might before the Lord. I'm just saying that it's difficult to derive a universal moral truth from it. if so, we'd have to be able to unanimously and objectively judge each piece of music and deem it morally appropriate or inappropriate. I think this would be impossible.

Actually that Charles Wesley thing is a myth. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Grillsy

Actually that Charles Wesley thing is a myth. Just saying.

Really? Interesting ...

Do you have a source? It's a big myth that many people think is common knowledge. Do share if you know something.

thanks

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Yes, but the same thing can be said about so many things, even things that became distinctly Christian.

Yet the only example you provide is that of terminology. Language must be shared. Music might be used or not used. The two are not of the same nature.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Yes, but the same thing can be said about so many things, even things that became distinctly Christian.

Yet the only example you provide is that of terminology. Language must be shared. Music might be used or not used. The two are not of the same nature.

This brings up the question of whether there is such a thing as a pure art form that is unshared and has no overlap with secular art. My study of art has shown that there are no works that were not inspired or borrowed from another source - with the exception perhaps of the cave paintings of Lascaux!

Were not many Psalms sung to known Hebrew tunes that do not seem to have any religious function? I'm sure the same was true of Gregorian chants and the like.

Was there ever any Christian music that were so unique that it had no associations with anything found in culture? My guess is no.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

God, in this instance, used the music to make a spiritual impact, but not all music need have this function. the servants in this story may have been right in this instance, but they are not divine oracles and the bible is not trying to make a universal truth out of their statements.

Yes, I fully agree that music has an impact on the emotions. Even David was presumably listening to music as he twirled with all his might before the Lord. I'm just saying that it's difficult to derive a universal moral truth from it. if so, we'd have to be able to unanimously and objectively judge each piece of music and deem it morally appropriate or inappropriate. I think this would be impossible.

The idea of the servants, an idea borne out by the subsequent turn of events, and with an additional witness in the Elisha narrative, is that music impacts the human personality, and in these cases, did so in a positive way. Given that this is a fact that is observable daily all over the world, and is furthermore transparent to reason, that seems like quite a sufficient body of testimony.

But there are more options than, "Explicit revelation dictating in exhaustive detail everything that may not be done" and "Morality is not involved in this area at all". In addition to these things, there is the role of wisdom and sense. If we believe that a man is as he thinks in his heart, we must also believe that it is not a matter of indifference what influences his thoughts.

In the Bible I see many instruments mentioned in the worship of the Lord but never a piano. However, when many depart from the piano for more modern music (it all was modern at one time), many people get upset.

Music does have a power. It is hard to define what is good or evil music. Much of it IS culture. Even much "classical music" is rife with backbeats and syncopated rythms.

Only going to the EP doctrine would be a solution, but I am not EP, but I can see how it would be tempting to go EP to make this difficult area more plain. Doing away with music is one solution, but I do not believe a Scripturally-commanded one, and so we are stuck to some degree with the ambiguity.

The question of church music is rather off-topic for the thread, and EP isn't a solution to the matter of tunes so much as it is a restriction of content (plus EP has its own subforum so we can't get into it here). For our culture where almost everyone can afford to listen to music they enjoy on a daily basis, the music heard in church will probably be only a small portion of the music that impacts them.

The articles speak of the role of music in shaping personality, and argue (correctly) that deeming there to be a moral element to musical questions is not an innovation developed by people who couldn't appreciate rock 'n roll. That much can only be denied by dint of diligent ignorance.

Colours have been shown to have an impact on the emotions as well. By looking at certain colours, one may be inadvertently allowing his passions to be illegitimately influenced and stirred up.

Shall we then not look at colour?

Incidentally, many of the early Puritan and anabaptist tradition agreed with this line of thinking, even some to this day.

Does anyone else think this is a tad extreme?

Originally Posted by py3ak

The question of church music is rather off-topic for the thread, and EP isn't a solution to the matter of tunes so much as it is a restriction of content (plus EP has its own subforum so we can't get into it here). For our culture where almost everyone can afford to listen to music they enjoy on a daily basis, the music heard in church will probably be only a small portion of the music that impacts them.

The articles speak of the role of music in shaping personality, and argue (correctly) that deeming there to be a moral element to musical questions is not an innovation developed by people who couldn't appreciate rock 'n roll. That much can only be denied by dint of diligent ignorance.

So, let me summarize your reply: Music is moral, but let's not talk about it in reference to church. We can't agree on EP and are not allowed to talk about it here anyway. "Church Music" (whatever that is) is only a small minority of all music. And, stating the assumption again, music is moral and if you don't agree you are diligently ignorant (purposely stoopid).


Here is a reply:

Music is made for purposes. Purposes must match the music. Playing a funeral dirge at a military march might not be so much moral or immoral but just inappropriate, and playing the polka at a funeral might be morally neutral, but also inapropriate.

Even more than any supposed moral/immoral argument, a "fit versus non-fit" category would descibe music better.


King Saul was soothed with fitting music. We get married to other music that is fitting. We dance to other music that is fitting. Music must match its intended purposes.

This theory also takes into account cultural preference as well.

At a sports game, it is more fitting to play techno than a dirge, but I think it is a mistake to try to attach a moral "good" or "bad" label to everything.


All things need not be good or bad; some things are just different.




P.s. Plato's Republic also was fairly totalitarian, and in the Symposium Plato argued for the army to be made up of gay lovers....I care not even for the majority of his advice.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Also, the Bible makes it clear that music, without regard to the words, has an impact on the human personality when David plays with his hand and the evil spirit departs from Saul, and when as Elisha listens to the playing of a minstrel the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him. In neither case were words involved, so to maintain that it is only the lyrics that can be judged for the morality and profitability of their impact is to close one's eyes to Scripture, history and plain fact

I would think that those instances of music affecting things in the spiritual realm were entirely supernatural in nature. This doesn't really prove scientifically that rhythms and tunes are inherently good or evil conjuring in themselves.

A priori why do you think such effects were some just miracles and can tell us nothing about the power of music? There is nothing in the text to imply that Saul's "helpers" decided to call someone to play for Saul and to help soothe him because God miraculously told them to do some random action.

"So which chord, exactly, is sinful?"

This is precisely the right question to ask, if in fact the charge against tune and rhythm is being launched.

That might in fact be a good counter to some forms of this argument but if your read the two articles linked above, you should see that this does not cut it.

Most of the article cited above deals with evils that come as a result of unwholesome lyrics. Regarding tune and rhythm, the author writes

The contention made by Aristotle and Plato is not that music can, in so simple a fashion, cause people to act a certain way. Rather, they contend that music moves the passions, and that this power, exerted repeatedly over time on people who are immature and impressionable, can produce a certain disposition under which it will be either easier or more difficult for reason to see, and for the will to choose, what is right.

I think all music, including classical pieces, would have to be judged by these standards, if it's simply an issue of passions being stirred up. Also, it would have to be shown that passion is somehow inherently wrong, or outside of God's character, which I don't think it is.

The author is willing for all music to be held to the same standard. As far as passions go, I think one can make a case for either different levels or types of passion. There is a passion that one has when one believes that they are doing something important. One concentrates harder, etc. to make sure that things are done right. There is also a passion that can be stirred where reason is bypassed and one just acts instinctively. For example, when one is afraid, very angry etc. one will find it hard to think or act in a reasonable manner. I think the set of articles attack the later form.

CT

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Colours have been shown to have an impact on the emotions as well. By looking at certain colours, one may be inadvertently allowing his passions to be illegitimately influenced and stirred up.

Shall we then not look at colour?

Incidentally, many of the early Puritan and anabaptist tradition agreed with this line of thinking, even some to this day.

Does anyone else think this is a tad extreme?

Colour is present everywhere for the majority of people: not looking at colour is not an option. But if you are aware that a pattern of turquoise and vermilion squares makes you nauseous, I would credit you with the sense not to paint your living room in that particular scheme.

It would be quite interesting to see you produce one early Puritan arguing that we should not look at colour. I await the citation eagerly.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The music contains a cultural association in the mind of the person listening to it; that is whence its power is derived.

This, I think, is where conscience comes into play. In one man's mind, something is defiled. For him (and him only), therefore, it would be sin to participate in such a thing.

How many things has our culture defiled? How many things have ancient cultures defiled? Language? Check! Sex? Check! Marriage? Check! Divine Worship? Check! The Name of God? Check! Music? Check! Writing styles? Check!

If we were to follow the rule of cultural defilement, I think we would be in a bad way.

Men have gone wrong with women, with the moon and the stars; shall we abolish women?

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by py3ak

The question of church music is rather off-topic for the thread, and EP isn't a solution to the matter of tunes so much as it is a restriction of content (plus EP has its own subforum so we can't get into it here). For our culture where almost everyone can afford to listen to music they enjoy on a daily basis, the music heard in church will probably be only a small portion of the music that impacts them.

The articles speak of the role of music in shaping personality, and argue (correctly) that deeming there to be a moral element to musical questions is not an innovation developed by people who couldn't appreciate rock 'n roll. That much can only be denied by dint of diligent ignorance.

So, let me summarize your reply: Music is moral, but let's not talk about it in reference to church. We can't agree on EP and are not allowed to talk about it here anyway. "Church Music" (whatever that is) is only a small minority of all music. And, stating the assumption again, music is moral and if you don't agree you are diligently ignorant (purposely stoopid).


Here is a reply:

Music is made for purposes. Purposes must match the music. Playing a funeral dirge at a military march might not be so much moral or immoral but just inappropriate, and playing the polka at a funeral might be morally neutral, but also inapropriate.

Even more than any supposed moral/immoral argument, a "fit versus non-fit" category would descibe music better.


King Saul was soothed with fitting music. We get married to other music that is fitting. We dance to other music that is fitting. Music must match its intended purposes.

This theory also takes into account cultural preference as well.

At a sports game, it is more fitting to play techno than a dirge, but I think it is a mistake to try to attach a moral "good" or "bad" label to everything.


All things need not be good or bad; some things are just different.

No, not quite. In order to be helpful, a summary should be accurate, and your summary fails that test on the following counts:
1. You are quite welcome to talk about music in reference to church - but this specific thread isn't about church music. When related topics are brought up before the main point is discussed, threads often fail to realize their potential usefulness.
2. EP has its own subforum for a reason: bringing it up here is more likely to get the whole thread moved than to shed any light on the general topic. Personally I would prefer that the discussion not be shut down because of the point of order concerning forum rules.
3. My post said that it requires diligent ignorance to believe that the idea that there is a moral element to musical questions is an innovation. In other words, the diligent ignorance comment refers to the history of the discussion of music's morality, but you attached it to quite the wrong notion.

When I grant that music, intrinsically considered, ought to fulfil its intended purpose, I haven't removed the question "Should I listen to ________ or not?" from the sphere of morals. Without fully distinguishing all possible lines of approach, it is obvious that there is the artistic question of whether the music succeeds or not, and whether its failure is due to accidental reasons or an internal flaw; and there is the moral question of whether its intended purpose was good or evil. Thinking about what is fit or appropriate is undoubtedly very helpful; but it neither eliminates the moral category from the equation nor suffices to clarify all doubts.

Originally Posted by py3ak

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Originally Posted by py3ak

The question of church music is rather off-topic for the thread, and EP isn't a solution to the matter of tunes so much as it is a restriction of content (plus EP has its own subforum so we can't get into it here). For our culture where almost everyone can afford to listen to music they enjoy on a daily basis, the music heard in church will probably be only a small portion of the music that impacts them.

The articles speak of the role of music in shaping personality, and argue (correctly) that deeming there to be a moral element to musical questions is not an innovation developed by people who couldn't appreciate rock 'n roll. That much can only be denied by dint of diligent ignorance.

So, let me summarize your reply: Music is moral, but let's not talk about it in reference to church. We can't agree on EP and are not allowed to talk about it here anyway. "Church Music" (whatever that is) is only a small minority of all music. And, stating the assumption again, music is moral and if you don't agree you are diligently ignorant (purposely stoopid).


Here is a reply:

Music is made for purposes. Purposes must match the music. Playing a funeral dirge at a military march might not be so much moral or immoral but just inappropriate, and playing the polka at a funeral might be morally neutral, but also inapropriate.

Even more than any supposed moral/immoral argument, a "fit versus non-fit" category would descibe music better.


King Saul was soothed with fitting music. We get married to other music that is fitting. We dance to other music that is fitting. Music must match its intended purposes.

This theory also takes into account cultural preference as well.

At a sports game, it is more fitting to play techno than a dirge, but I think it is a mistake to try to attach a moral "good" or "bad" label to everything.


All things need not be good or bad; some things are just different.

No, not quite. In order to be helpful, a summary should be accurate, and your summary fails that test on the following counts:
1. You are quite welcome to talk about music in reference to church - but this specific thread isn't about church music. When related topics are brought up before the main point is discussed, threads often fail to realize their potential usefulness.
2. EP has its own subforum for a reason: bringing it up here is more likely to get the whole thread moved than to shed any light on the general topic. Personally I would prefer that the discussion not be shut down because of the point of order concerning forum rules.
3. My post said that it requires diligent ignorance to believe that the idea that there is a moral element to musical questions is an innovation. In other words, the diligent ignorance comment refers to the history of the discussion of music's morality, but you attached it to quite the wrong notion.

When I grant that music, intrinsically considered, ought to fulfil its intended purpose, I haven't removed the question "Should I listen to ________ or not?" from the sphere of morals. Without fully distinguishing all possible lines of approach, it is obvious that there is the artistic question of whether the music succeeds or not, and whether its failure is due to accidental reasons or an internal flaw; and there is the moral question of whether its intended purpose was good or evil. Thinking about what is fit or appropriate is undoubtedly very helpful; but it neither eliminates the moral category from the equation nor suffices to clarify all doubts.

Ok, agreed.



If we do not consider lyrics, very much becomes subjective and while one can assert that music can differ in morality versus immorality, finding objective rules to determine it as such are difficult if not impossibile if we are not judging lyrics.

What are the objective rules by which you would judge the morality of music?


One reason why some dismiss rock and roll as being "inferior" to classical music is because rock and roll is simpler than Mozart. There were even efforts to prove that Mozart was better for the brain but this is junk science (millions were spent trying to help baby-brains with Bach). Simpler cannot be equated with less moral, however, and appreciating simple ditties to complex multi-instrumented works is not a matter of morality.

Even backbeats and syncopated rythms serve many purposes well.



One area where I have often thought differently is in the matter of "spooky music themes" like the Twilight Zone Theme or the theme from Halloween movies or horror movies. That music, I have supposed, instinsically "sounds scary" but I am hard pressed to prove that this is a "Universal Scary Sound" across cultures and I believe that even this is largely a matter of cultural conditioning about what sounds scary.

Colour is present everywhere for the majority of people: not looking at colour is not an option.

In the same way, I think we do not have the option of listening to or using music which has no cultural ties or associations with the world.

It would be quite interesting to see you produce one early Puritan arguing that we should not look at colour. I await the citation eagerly.

My bad for the confusion, I wasn't arguing that the Puritans discouraged looking at colour. Only that in they did have a certain theology of modesty that affected their colour choices, especially in their wardrobe.

The author is willing for all music to be held to the same standard. As far as passions go, I think one can make a case for either different levels or types of passion. There is a passion that one has when one believes that they are doing something important. One concentrates harder, etc. to make sure that things are done right. There is also a passion that can be stirred where reason is bypassed and one just acts instinctively. For example, when one is afraid, very angry etc. one will find it hard to think or act in a reasonable manner. I think the set of articles attack the later form.

Good point. As long as everything is judged by the same standard. I was fearing that the argument was going to tend towards the age-old classical music is superior just because debate. I completely agree that music moves the soul. I'm just not yet convinced that this is inherently a bad thing.

btw, Can anyone enlighten me on what EP is?

There is subjectivity involved in considering lyrics, also. In matters of wisdom, which have to do with applying general rules to specific subjects, subjectivity is not a spectre to be avoided, but an ineluctable part of the landscape.

For myself, I would take my starting point from personal impact. If Elisha could call for a minstrel as preparation for the reception of God's word, then it is a fair question to ask myself: does this music so work upon me that I am rendered more or less receptive to God's word? Obviously that is not the only question that could be asked: as with any activity, we can ask in terms of glorifying God or in terms of loving God. With music specifically you could also ask if this influences you towards proper or improper (nostalgia, irritation, vain regrets, sentimentality, loneliness, etc., etc.) emotional patterns. In so doing, it might be that we come to find that some of the disagreements over music are actually disagreements as to what patterns of thought and sensation a Christian should be encouraging within himself.

Those subjective impacts vary widely based on the person.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Good point. As long as everything is judged by the same standard. I was fearing that the argument was going to tend towards the age-old classical music is superior just because debate. I completely agree that music moves the soul. I'm just not yet convinced that this is inherently a bad thing.

Oh, but on that note, there is plenty of classical music that would fall under the "forbidden" category if we are to forbid particular rhythm and pitch patterns (which I think is silly). Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring caused a riot - as in fist fights - at its premier. If you've never listened to it in full, the first time you do it will scare the snot out of you!

And I have yet to hear anything more heavy metal than the Dies Irae movement of Verdi's Requiem.

-----Added 10/16/2009 at 11:30:24 EST-----

Originally Posted by steadfast7

In the same way, I think we do not have the option of listening to or using music which has no cultural ties or associations with the world.

Music is far more at your discretion than sight, but of course music has cultural associations. That doesn't mean that the cultural associations are all positive or neutral.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Good point. As long as everything is judged by the same standard. I was fearing that the argument was going to tend towards the age-old classical music is superior just because debate. I completely agree that music moves the soul. I'm just not yet convinced that this is inherently a bad thing.

btw, Can anyone enlighten me on what EP is?

I think you'll have to wait a long time for someone to try to convince you that it's bad that music moves the soul - the question has to do with where does music move the soul.
EP=Exclusive Psalmody.

Explaining why classical music is better would take us from the moral question the thread is about to an artistic question, so I will only say that if you would like to know why classical music is better, some helpful hints can be found in Aldous Huxley's short essay "Brahms" in The Weekly Westminster Gazette for February 18, 1922.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Those subjective impacts vary widely based on the person.

Which is where wisdom and sense come in.

I would beware of taking Huxley's advice - he was the author of Brave New World. Utopians keep getting referenced on this thread for some reason (first Plato, now Huxley).

Chapter 5 of Brave New World seems to link the chord A Flat,and maybe saxophone-ish sounds with Utopian bliss:

The saxophones wailed like melodious cats under the moon, moaned in the alto and tenor registers as though the little death were upon them. Rich with a wealth of harmonics, their tremulous chorus mounted towards a climax, louder and ever louder–until at last, with a wave of his hand, the conductor let loose the final shattering note of ether-music and blew the sixteen merely human blowers clean out of existence. Thunder in A flat major. And then, in all but silence, in all but darkness, there followed a gradual deturgescence, a diminuendo sliding gradually, through quarter tones, down, down to a faintly whispered dominant chord that lingered on (while the five-four rhythms still pulsed below)

I have no idea what a gradual deturgescence is, but I guess Huxley linked it with his utopian paradise.

-----Added 10/16/2009 at 11:53:36 EST-----

By the way,

The Star Wars Darth Vadar theme song (dum dum da dum dum da dududum dum da dum du dududum dum da dum di dum dum di dum) sounds instrinsically sinister I will grant, But even this sinister-sounding entrance theme for my favorite movie villain is probably culturally-conditioned. It could sound regal and gay for some some cultures I suppose but it is hard to believe that it just doesn't sound "menacing" in tone.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The music contains a cultural association in the mind of the person listening to it; that is whence its power is derived.

This, I think, is where conscience comes into play. In one man's mind, something is defiled. For him (and him only), therefore, it would be sin to participate in such a thing.

In a world of pop culture, the pop conscience comes into play. If music represents rebellion against parents, as in the rock of the sixties and the metal of the seventies; or, to use the words of one of the poets I have quoted, "you've got the music in you" is an incentive to stay out all night and go clubbing, then it is impossible to divorce the music from those vices in our culture.

I thought we were talking about the music itself and not the lyrics.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I thought we were talking about the music itself and not the lyrics.

We are. You cannot divorce music style from the message that style conveys to our culture.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

In a world of pop culture, the pop conscience comes into play. If music represents rebellion against parents, as in the rock of the sixties and the metal of the seventies; or, to use the words of one of the poets I have quoted, "you've got the music in you" is an incentive to stay out all night and go clubbing, then it is impossible to divorce the music from those vices in our culture.

If this is your conscience, you have a duty to avoid the forms of music which you find to trouble you. For instance, you should avoid most all Renaissance, Enlightenment, tribal or other forms of music as well, correct?

Cheers,

Adam

Personally, if I considered a set of sounds and beats immoral because of their connotations or typical culture, I could not listen to any music at all. Every bit of culture is damaged and ugly because of sin. There are musicians of every kind that make wicked music of every kind.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Originally Posted by armourbearer

In a world of pop culture, the pop conscience comes into play. If music represents rebellion against parents, as in the rock of the sixties and the metal of the seventies; or, to use the words of one of the poets I have quoted, "you've got the music in you" is an incentive to stay out all night and go clubbing, then it is impossible to divorce the music from those vices in our culture.

If this is your conscience, you have a duty to avoid the forms of music which you find to trouble you. For instance, you should avoid most all Renaissance, Enlightenment, tribal or other forms of music as well, correct?

Cheers,

Adam

Sir,

Why exactly is music and its effect consider a great deal more subjective than for example, loud sounds and contaminated water? Let say someone says, "If someone listens to music at a certain level for a certain period of time they will lose their hearing, slowly but progressively". Would anyone response, "Well that is just you and your hearing, don't try to tell me how my body and ears operate. I can handle it."

Or lets say someone says, "If you drink water containing X, Y, and Z, you will get disease X and die within six months." Would anyone respond, "Well that is you and your digestive system, don't pretend to tell me about the effect on me and my body."

CT

Music is bad bad bad and if you listen to it backwards you find out that you really don't get your wife, dog, and house back instead you find out that you've been worshipping satan all along! Mawawawhahwahhahw!!!

Or lets say someone says, "If you drink water containing X, Y, and Z, you will get disease X and die within six months." Would anyone respond, "Well that is you and your digestive system, don't pretend to tell me about the effect on me and my body."

Frequently natives of undeveloped countries have immunities to the "bugs" in the water, so this is a completely possible scenario.

I think the case against "evil music" is similar to the case against alcohol--both are said to have harmful effects and are therefore "evil". The Bible doesn't forbid any specific form of music(that I've found, anyway). However, it does forbid drunkenness(which I think can be generalized as "conscious-dulling" or "inhibition-removing") and being placed under the power of something(i.e., addiction). Music sometimes seems to have both of these powers--and different music does sometimes have different effects on different people, just like some people are more affected by alcohol than others.

As far as lyrics go, though, I think this quote from Adolf Hitler makes my point: "If you tell a lie long enough, loud enough, and often enough, the people will believe it."

edit: Also I would caution against aesthetic relativism. If God created beauty(which I think we'd all agree about), then it stands to reason that He gave men a sense of what was "beautiful" and what was not. If some culture's sense of beauty is twisted, it's because of the harmful effects of sin.

Quote from armourbearer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pergamum
I thought we were talking about the music itself and not the lyrics.

We are. You cannot divorce music style from the message that style conveys to our culture.

E.g. Disco style music and worship is inappropriate for worship services and if persisted in will affect our view of God - adversely.

We'll start associating the Lord with entertainment and being entertained, and with all the things we associate with disco.

The same goes for this sort of music:-

There is no music that can be divorced from culture. There is no culture that can be divorced from sin. Therefore, all music would then be sinful, or at least reflect a sinful culture.

However,

There is no culture, however marred by sin, that does not reflect some common grace and beauty. Therefore, there is no culture that does not have some sort of beauty in its music.



If we say that we cannot have moral lyrics to an immoral form or divorce music style from the message that it conveys to our culture, can one then try to say that there can be no form of rap music or music by Christians with an accented back-beat or syncopated rythm that does not lead to immorality?

....Sounds awful Bill Gothard-ish to me.

-----Added 10/17/2009 at 07:28:24 EST-----

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Quote from armourbearer

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pergamum
I thought we were talking about the music itself and not the lyrics.

We are. You cannot divorce music style from the message that style conveys to our culture.

E.g. Disco style music and worship is inappropriate for worship services and if persisted in will affect our view of God - adversely.

We'll start associating the Lord with entertainment and being entertained, and with all the things we associate with disco.

But this is not a queston of moral/immoral but a question of "fittedness."

The music simply does not "fit" the cultural context, just as a funeral dirge would not fit at a wedding.

Much of today's praise music is very upbeat and has solid words and moves many of the younger generation to a more worshipful spirit. And these praise songs (many with better lyrics than the ol' 1920's hymns) have drums and rythms.


Is it percussion that is the enemy? The Bible speaks of praising God with tambourines. Those are percussion instruments. Is it repetitive words that is the enemy? Well, the psalms are pretty repetitive. Is it raising of the hands? This has biblical precedent too.

There's biblical precedent for individual men raising their hands in prayer, not for the whole congregation to wave their hands during a praise song, as if they were at a concert.

I don't want to get into the subject of a cappella EP, but their is no New Covenant basis for our formal worship sevices being mediated through instruments without life, like drums, nor for setting aside God's Hymnbook for the inferior creations of man.

But I appreciate I have strayed here, and this is a thread about the immorality/morality of music generally and also about the respective moralities of different types of music.

On that subject, I didn't buy evangelist/apologist John Blanchard's argument that music that is

(a) Loud

(b) Has a strong beat

(c) Is repetitive

has an association with sexual intercourse.

I like pipe music, which has all of these features, but I've never associated it in my mind or any other way with copulation.