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

Originally Posted by Pergamum

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.

Regarding Huxley. Brave New World is not a utopian book, although Huxley fancied himself as something of a social reformer (at one stage in his life). The essay I cited has nothing to do with utopianism: it is an essay about Brahms. A gradual deturgescence is a slow removal of the swollen quality that something possessed, and the paragraph you cited is Huxley describing a musical climax and aftermath.

Music does have an impact, and good (in the sense of competent or musical) musicians know how to achieve their desired effect with the majority of their target audience. The fact that nearly everyone at a Hannah Montana concert is screaming, or that audiences at the Sala Nezahualcóyotl have a general agreement in demanding an encore shows that while there are undoubtedly exceptions for accidental reasons, music has a definite tendency. So, for reasons of personal history, Mendelssohn's cheerful violin concerto is rather melancholy to me - but it is not an intrinsically melancholy piece of music.

I'd like to suggest that it would be a simpler procedure to listen to what people on this thread are saying, without raising spectres of what other people have said. The point of the articles cited in the original post is that thinking about the moral influence of music has a long and distinguished pedigree, and so lumping in all points about the morality of music in with Bill Gothard is to make rather a dog's breakfast of the topic.

What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?


Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.


Would you say that Brahms is "superior" in a moral sense to something with a drumbeat? Are you then not mistaking structural complexity and moral superiority?



Summary for me:

Here is my position,

It seems that music is largely a product of cultural preference, available instumentation,and lyrics. We all agree that music has effects on people. Separated from lyrics and also the "fit" for which it is made, it is futile to try to determine the morality of a tune without its words.

There is perhaps an ounce of objectivity in a sea of subjectivity regarding musical "morality." The Darth Vdar theme at a wedding seems a "bad fit" and I guess there is an element of morality to poor taste.

I reject that some musical styles of music are "evil" just due to the beat and not due to any words. I have heard this done many times, usually in relation to "modern Christian music" and its supposed immorality.

If we charge that some musical beats mimic copulation-rythms, then we could counter with the claim that music makes work easier and much work is rythmic and repetitive (tribals often chant while chopping woods, hoeing gardens, etc, and I suppose railroad men might also sing as well, as they worked. The Dwarves whistled while they worked).



On the missions field, we are putting the Gospel into tribal chants, local musical forms and using local instrumentation.

I have had one of my supporters bemoan the fact that pianos were so heavy that they could not easily be transported "over there" - I suppose this supporter's desire was that I should teach "those people" more about "real music" - but I am perfectly content to use the local forms as a fit vessel for the Gospel to be communicated.

Finally, in my experience, many of those advancing theories of music where some forms are moral and other forms are immoral usually are propping up a theory that Western Culture is the pinnacle of advancement and thus their arguments usually find the music of 18th century Christian Europe to by the height of advancement.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?


Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.


Would you say that Brahms is "superior" in a moral sense to something with a drumbeat? Are you then not mistaking structural complexity and moral superiority?

Are you talking to me or to Richard?

Both. This thread is interesting and you both raise interesting points.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?

As I said, I'd take my starting point for myself (since I'm not legislating to others) from its impact on me. It's also as well to point out here that of course you can resist the impact of a piece of music, and when you listen to something critically you often do resist it. So for instance it would be possible for someone at a rave to sit in a corner and sulk - but that's not what the music there is for. The question is not "can this music overpower my guard?" but "what is the effect of surrendering to the music?"

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.

I'm not sure I understand your paragraph here but I enjoy Wagner in small doses and with the right performers.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Would you say that Brahms is "superior" in a moral sense to something with a drumbeat? Are you then not mistaking structural complexity and moral superiority?

Brahms is superior to many in a musical sense (though he is not one of the greatest composers, so it is also true that many are superior to him). People sometimes have trouble distinguishing between artistic skill and morality, or between terms of artistic evaluation and terms of moral judgment (see Orwell's Benefit of Clergy). A great artist may be a very evil man, and a very good man may be a worthless artist. A lot of excellent pieces have a drumbeat - Baroque composers like Bach and Handel understood the use of percussion instruments extremely well, as did Beethoven. I suppose the real question comes up, because art that is bad in an artistic sense is often regarded as demoralising, but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Summary for me:

Here is my position,

It seems that music is largely a product of cultural preference, available instumentation,and lyrics. We all agree that music has effects on people. Separated from lyrics and also the "fit" for which it is made, it is futile to try to determine the morality of a tune without its words.

Not quite: if we all agree that music has effects on people, then we can look at how piece M affects subject H and render a wise judgment on whether H should listen to M.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

There is perhaps an ounce of objectivity in a sea of subjectivity regarding musical "morality." The Darth Vdar theme at a wedding seems a "bad fit" and I guess there is an element of morality to poor taste.

You'd have to define what you mean by poor taste. Some people lack social graces, and while this is a real defect it might not be a moral failing. But deliberately offending expectations for no reason is hardly living at peace with all men as much as lies in us. To illustrate, in comparison with other people, I have a deficient palate, because I physically and intensely loathe many flavours that others find delicious. I am not persuaded that this is immoral of me, but it is a defect: Christ, after all, ate fish, while the prospect of a fish dinner seems to me like adequate reason for despair and maybe suicide. I can hardly say that Christ was deficient in liking fish, though, so it must be I who am below par in this regard. So if someone is incapable of enjoying Boccherini, that is sad for them, but not necessarily an indication of depravity.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I reject that some musical styles of music are "evil" just due to the beat and not due to any words. I have heard this done many times, usually in relation to "modern Christian music" and its supposed immorality.

If we charge that some musical beats mimic copulation-rythms, then we could counter with the claim that music makes work easier and much work is rythmic and repetitive (tribals often chant while chopping woods, hoeing gardens, etc, and I suppose railroad men might also sing as well, as they worked. The Dwarves whistled while they worked).

I think your rejection and your counter are both a little mistaken. If a beat has a tendency to impact people in a certain way, then the morality of exposing yourself to such an impact is a legitimate question.

Your rejection actually supports your hypothetical opponent's case. Manual labor is often carried out communally, and if people must use their muscles together music is a practical way to co-ordinate them - hence the use of a drum to make oarsmen stroke together, or to help soldiers march in unison. And that makes it clear that some rhythms are helpful to some activities: the phenomenon of mix CDs to "set the mood" should serve as evidence that other rhythms are helpful to other activities. So in acknowledging that some rhythms help people work, you've established the point that rhythms make an impact. It's not a counter - it's additional evidence!

Originally Posted by Pergamum

On the missions field, we are putting the Gospel into tribal chants, local musical forms and using local instrumentation.

I have had one of my supporters bemoan the fact that pianos were so heavy that they could not easily be transported "over there" - I suppose this supporter's desire was that I should teach "those people" more about "real music" - but I am perfectly content to use the local forms as a fit vessel for the Gospel to be communicated.

Finally, in my experience, many of those advancing theories of music where some forms are moral and other forms are immoral usually are propping up a theory that Western Culture is the pinnacle of advancement and thus their arguments usually find the music of 18th century Christian Europe to by the height of advancement.

Many of the people I've heard propounding theories that some forms are moral and others immoral couldn't recognise good music when it slapped them upside the head, and had an attenuated appreciation of 18th Century Europe. But if you do think that cultures advance and decline, obviously, SOME point has to be the pinnacle so far. In other words, I get the feeling that you think identifying that as a pinnacle is absurd, but I wonder if that isn't because you are uncomfortable with the whole idea of a pinnacle to begin with.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

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.

There isn't really a biblical precedent for closing our eyes, folding our hands and bowing our heads in prayer as well, but we do it, and it aids us in our piety.

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.

In order to pull this argument off, notice what needs to be done:
1. Define biblical worship only in terms of the "New Covenant". By this, do you mean New Testament?
2. Distinguish instruments with "life" and those that don't have life. Where do we find this distinction biblically? Between tambourines, trumpets, harps, lyres, 10-stringed instruments, and hand claps, which have life and which do not?
3. Distinguish "formal" worship vs. informal or spontaneous, when really biblical worship includes all of these modes.
4. Assume that anything created by man is inferior. Do remember that at one point, David's psalms were simply his own personal collection of poetry set to tunes which he himself created. He even exhorts worshippers to sing unto the Lord a new song. The NT speaks of psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs, which I don't believe are given in order of rank.

With all these frameworks unnaturally pressed upon the biblical teaching on worship, then yes, you might be left with nothing but EP.

[Moderator]EP is off-topic for this thread, and EP is to be discussed in its own subforum only. Any further posts relating to EP will be violently and irremediably deleted.[/Moderator]

Originally Posted by steadfast7

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

Alot of the bar tunes were added later. It is an odd history. I'll search out the sources and add footnotes or something. Sorry for not having the ready, sincerely.

Would it be fair to say that the only way for something to be universally evil--i.e., wrong for every person--is if God sets such as a moral law? Murder, for instance, is wrong because God forbids it, and is therefore wrong for everyone without exception. If this is the case, then for a certain kind of music to be universally "wrong", it would have to be because of a moral law which God set up, would it not?

So if someone were to argue that a particular form of music is universally "wrong", they would have to show from Scripture that God forbade that form of music. No one I've heard has done so.

The other side argues that music is an amoral issue and is neither right or wrong. Well, yes, but I would argue that there is no such thing as an amoral action. So listening to that music is not an amoral issue, even if the music itself is amoral.

With that said, I think it's reasonable to believe that music has an effect on people. In some cases, the effect can be powerful--and in other cases, it can be completely mundane. But if the effect that the music has on us causes us to violate one of God's commands, either in thought or in action, then our listening to the music is wrong.

In fact, I think those who take the far left view(so to speak) that listening to music is an amoral issue would often agree with my reasoning, except that they would disagree that music actually has this kind of power over us.

Is that your position, Pergamum?

Originally Posted by py3ak

[Moderator]EP is off-topic for this thread, and EP is to be discussed in its own subforum only. Any further posts relating to EP will be violently and irremediably deleted.[/Moderator]

Isn't that "disemboweled"?

Originally Posted by py3ak

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?

As I said, I'd take my starting point for myself (since I'm not legislating to others) from its impact on me. It's also as well to point out here that of course you can resist the impact of a piece of music, and when you listen to something critically you often do resist it. So for instance it would be possible for someone at a rave to sit in a corner and sulk - but that's not what the music there is for. The question is not "can this music overpower my guard?" but "what is the effect of surrendering to the music?"

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.

I'm not sure I understand your paragraph here but I enjoy Wagner in small doses and with the right performers.



Brahms is superior to many in a musical sense (though he is not one of the greatest composers, so it is also true that many are superior to him). People sometimes have trouble distinguishing between artistic skill and morality, or between terms of artistic evaluation and terms of moral judgment (see Orwell's Benefit of Clergy). A great artist may be a very evil man, and a very good man may be a worthless artist. A lot of excellent pieces have a drumbeat - Baroque composers like Bach and Handel understood the use of percussion instruments extremely well, as did Beethoven. I suppose the real question comes up, because art that is bad in an artistic sense is often regarded as demoralising, but I'm not sure if that's what you're asking.



Not quite: if we all agree that music has effects on people, then we can look at how piece M affects subject H and render a wise judgment on whether H should listen to M.



You'd have to define what you mean by poor taste. Some people lack social graces, and while this is a real defect it might not be a moral failing. But deliberately offending expectations for no reason is hardly living at peace with all men as much as lies in us. To illustrate, in comparison with other people, I have a deficient palate, because I physically and intensely loathe many flavours that others find delicious. I am not persuaded that this is immoral of me, but it is a defect: Christ, after all, ate fish, while the prospect of a fish dinner seems to me like adequate reason for despair and maybe suicide. I can hardly say that Christ was deficient in liking fish, though, so it must be I who am below par in this regard. So if someone is incapable of enjoying Boccherini, that is sad for them, but not necessarily an indication of depravity.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

I reject that some musical styles of music are "evil" just due to the beat and not due to any words. I have heard this done many times, usually in relation to "modern Christian music" and its supposed immorality.

If we charge that some musical beats mimic copulation-rythms, then we could counter with the claim that music makes work easier and much work is rythmic and repetitive (tribals often chant while chopping woods, hoeing gardens, etc, and I suppose railroad men might also sing as well, as they worked. The Dwarves whistled while they worked).

I think your rejection and your counter are both a little mistaken. If a beat has a tendency to impact people in a certain way, then the morality of exposing yourself to such an impact is a legitimate question.

Your rejection actually supports your hypothetical opponent's case. Manual labor is often carried out communally, and if people must use their muscles together music is a practical way to co-ordinate them - hence the use of a drum to make oarsmen stroke together, or to help soldiers march in unison. And that makes it clear that some rhythms are helpful to some activities: the phenomenon of mix CDs to "set the mood" should serve as evidence that other rhythms are helpful to other activities. So in acknowledging that some rhythms help people work, you've established the point that rhythms make an impact. It's not a counter - it's additional evidence!

Originally Posted by Pergamum

On the missions field, we are putting the Gospel into tribal chants, local musical forms and using local instrumentation.

I have had one of my supporters bemoan the fact that pianos were so heavy that they could not easily be transported "over there" - I suppose this supporter's desire was that I should teach "those people" more about "real music" - but I am perfectly content to use the local forms as a fit vessel for the Gospel to be communicated.

Finally, in my experience, many of those advancing theories of music where some forms are moral and other forms are immoral usually are propping up a theory that Western Culture is the pinnacle of advancement and thus their arguments usually find the music of 18th century Christian Europe to by the height of advancement.

Many of the people I've heard propounding theories that some forms are moral and others immoral couldn't recognise good music when it slapped them upside the head, and had an attenuated appreciation of 18th Century Europe. But if you do think that cultures advance and decline, obviously, SOME point has to be the pinnacle so far. In other words, I get the feeling that you think identifying that as a pinnacle is absurd, but I wonder if that isn't because you are uncomfortable with the whole idea of a pinnacle to begin with.

Good thoughts. I think I agree.


Also,


I'm sorry that fish makes you suicidal.

Well, now you know something not to make if you have me over for dinner!

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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?

This simply ignores the point I made about "pop conscience." If the music itself did not teach specific messages why would advertising agents, propaganda artists, and movie makers utilise it the way that they do? They are not selling raw emotion, but an idea, and the music is seen as integral to the idea they are selling.

I don't need to avoid any music. I am arguing that the music must be discerned for the message it conveys. Then I can make an informed decision as to what I choose to enjoy.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

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

I think you are drawing parallels that are not there. The parallel you draw poisons the well by things that are clearly damaging physically to things that are not necessarily so morally. It is a begging of the question.

Perhaps your argument is like contaminated water, and by listening to it, I've been poisoned

-----Added 10/18/2009 at 06:44:12 EST-----

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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?

This simply ignores the point I made about "pop conscience." If the music itself did not teach specific messages why would advertising agents, propaganda artists, and movie makers utilise it the way that they do? They are not selling raw emotion, but an idea, and the music is seen as integral to the idea they are selling.

I don't need to avoid any music. I am arguing that the music must be discerned for the message it conveys. Then I can make an informed decision as to what I choose to enjoy.

Actually, it is a question regarding "pop conscience". Surely you recognize that the Renaissance had a popular conscience, and pushed certain ideologies using all of the arts and sciences.

I was simply wondering if you were selective in which pop consciences you would condemn, and so far I have no idea, as I did not clearly ask such a question. So, are you selective in which popular consciences you avoid, or are you consistent in avoiding other godless cultures in times past?

Cheers,

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Actually, it is a question regarding "pop conscience". Surely you recognize that the Renaissance had a popular conscience, and pushed certain ideologies using all of the arts and sciences.

Of course, it had a popular conscience. Once it has entered the halls of the past it fails to exert that particular influence over the present. It now speaks to the modern mind with "classic" voice.

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

I was simply wondering if you were selective in which pop consciences you would condemn, and so far I have no idea, as I did not clearly ask such a question. So, are you selective in which popular consciences you avoid, or are you consistent in avoiding other godless cultures in times past?

I've just finished saying that I don't need to avoid any music and you follow up with a question asking me what music I need to avoid. Clearly you are ignoring what I am saying.

I ran across this while thumbing through my Trinity Hymnal this afternoon:

[Addressing the instrumentalists who play the hymns, emphasis mine]

"As you play the organ, piano or other instrument, you are assisting in the worship of God. You have the tools to bring hymns to life on the lips and in the hearts of the people. Your manner of playing interprets the truths of the hymn texts so that thoughts, as well as feelings, are more completely engaged...Prayerful analysis of each hymn (both tune and text) will enable you to play each stanza with sensitivity to its unique content."

Even the men who compiled the Trinity Hymnal recognized that a musician's approach to a piece of music has an impact on the person listening to the music.

When I was a teenager, a choir visited our church. They were selling recordings of some of the hymns they performed. We bought one. I liked the music, so I listened to it a lot. One thing I noticed, however, was every time we got to one particular song, whoever happened to be in the house at the time would get irritated and start to yell or show signs of irritation. Since we had bought the recording because we liked that song, I decided something else had to be going on. A year went by and the group came back to visit our church. I told the director of the group the story about the song and asked him if he had any idea why that would happen. He replied to me "It's funny that you ask that." and he began to recount to me how much trouble they had getting that song recorded. Nothing would go right, the choir members were getting cranky and irritable, people were making stupid mistakes, etc. He said that no one was really happy with the recording, but since they got it down with no mistakes, they decided to go with it.

My question: Did the musicians communicate their irritation through the music on the recording? While it's possible something else was going on (I can think of several possibilities), it certainly appeared to me that the irritability was transferred through the music.

I know that I have always possessed the distinct ability to communicate my moods through music and it often drove my mother nuts when I was living at home, especially if I happened to be angry when I sat down at the piano.

py3ak:

As I said, I'd take my starting point for myself (since I'm not legislating to others) from its impact on me. It's also as well to point out here that of course you can resist the impact of a piece of music, and when you listen to something critically you often do resist it. So for instance it would be possible for someone at a rave to sit in a corner and sulk - but that's not what the music there is for. The question is not "can this music overpower my guard?" but "what is the effect of surrendering to the music?"

JBaldwin:

One thing I noticed, however, was every time we got to one particular song, whoever happened to be in the house at the time would get irritated and start to yell or show signs of irritation.

I can sympathize with the effect that music can play on individuals, but it cannot be argued that the same effect applies to all individuals. Some people may commit heinous crimes while listening to classical music, and I know of one guy who became a Christian after listening to Strongarm - a Christian heavy metal band.

Another problem with the argument thing is that the emotional effects which are produced by certain sounds are given moral weightage. Happiness, calmness, rage, boredom, passion, zeal ... can we really say that these emotions are good or evil - in and of themselves? Well, it depends on the context and situation. Even God (whether anthropomorphically read or not) displays rage, zeal, jealousy (though not of the same kind as ours).

Brahms is superior to many in a musical sense (though he is not one of the greatest composers, so it is also true that many are superior to him).

It's hard to base this claim (of any composer or artist) on objective grounds. It's like saying that Michelangelo is superior to Monet or Warhol, which may be true according to some predetermined criteria and tastes, but not to others. These are different artists, during different media, in different eras, with different philosophies, portraying different things to different audiences. It is simply not enough to say that Michelangleo is superior in the "artistic" sense - that is simply too vague and narrow and diminishes the artistic contributions of other eras. the study and appreciation of art did not end in the Renaissance.

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?


Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.

Not sure what this says about me but Wagner's Lohengrin is probably my favorite opera.

JBaldwin:
Quote:

One thing I noticed, however, was every time we got to one particular song, whoever happened to be in the house at the time would get irritated and start to yell or show signs of irritation.

I can sympathize with the effect that music can play on individuals, but it cannot be argued that the same effect applies to all individuals. Some people may commit heinous crimes while listening to classical music, and I know of one guy who became a Christian after listening to Strongarm - a Christian heavy metal band.

The point I was making here was not that music affects all people the same way, but rather I was pointing out that the state of mind of the musician when he/she is performing can and often does affect the state of mind of the listener. I have been a performing musician most of my life, and I have witnessed this effect (both postitively and negatively) numerous times.

Another problem with the argument thing is that the emotional effects which are produced by certain sounds are given moral weightage. Happiness, calmness, rage, boredom, passion, zeal ... can we really say that these emotions are good or evil - in and of themselves? Well, it depends on the context and situation. Even God (whether anthropomorphically read or not) displays rage, zeal, jealousy (though not of the same kind as ours).

I would agree that you cannot argue that a certain sound affects everyone the same way. What I would argue (as I did above) is that the emotional state of a musician coupled with a style can affect the listener more than most people realize. I have a young piano student who was adopted as a small child from a Chinese orphanage where she was abused. For some reason, she cannot stand to hear or play slow music in a minor key. Just yesterday as I was teaching her, she commented that 1) the song I had assigned made her sad when she played it (it was in a minor key), and 2) When I played it, it didn't sound sad. Oddly enough, the song while it sounded sad to me, it didn't make me feel sad. It made me think of the many clear, cool Autumn days when I walked slowly to school so I could drink in the beauty of the day. I loved the song. My point again is that it's not just the music but how it is played that affects the listener.

No one can deny that music is powerful. Personally, I would disagree with those who say that music is either good or bad. I believe that it would be more accurate to say that the elements of music can be fashioned into a tool for good or evil and each musical tool formed becomes more or less effective based on the person who's using it. An example would be a simple chorus taken from the words of Scripture. A congregation can sing the chorus once or twice, and it can be a blessing. The same chorus sung 30-40 times can be used to hype the congregation into an emotional frenzy. I've seen it done.

At the same time, I do believe that the music we play and listen to as believers should reflect the order and beauty of the God we worship. Music with abhorent and sinful lyrics should not be part of our listening libraries, and neither should music which in and of itself relects disorder and chaos. Those guidelines cover a wide range of style and musical form. This takes the whole discussion back to the definition of what music is in the first place which is a topic for yet another thread.

before i was regenerated i played loud lead guitar for rock bands.
i was arrested and put in prison for various crimes in 1988. my conversion took place at this time. when i was released in 1990 i would not even touch a guitar. my calouses turned to mush and my skill was all but depleted... i cared not, because my love for the One who rescued me was my main concern.
2 years went by and i picked it up again. i love to play... i love to play in church and i love to "jam" with other people. i was even privledged to tour with a black gospel band for a couple years
when i began to play again, i became a "worship leader"
i fell in love with Hosanna Integrity music because much of it was simply scripture set to music.
but i noticed a trend back then (early 90's) the music was starting to have a grunge, edgy rock style to it. though i liked some of the music, it seemed out of place in worship.
now that is the normal thing you see in churches today... 20 somethings with tatoos and cool hair, clothes, ect. it lacks reverence. a teenage rockgroup should not be "leading worship" that is my opinion. i think playing music for fun or entertainment is fine. but there needs to be a sensitivity towards what we do in the house of God.

i have a good friend who is a "reformed hip-hop" guy his music is gritty, urban and loud.
the stuff is outstanding
this guy is also a pastor, and he does not 'rap" from the pulpit, because he knows that this particular medium has a place and purpose... and it's not during the worship service.
but again.. these are just opinions

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?


Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.

Not sure what this says about me but Wagner's Lohengrin is probably my favorite opera.

Ahhhh! Wagner! *Runs away and hides*

Seriously, we probably wouldn't have had Nietzsche or Hitler without Wagner first. Makes one wonder...

Originally Posted by austinww

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Pergamum

What criteria would you then use to determine the morality of a piece of music?


Is the wedding march okay? At least for weddings? Wagner's Lohengrin is part of a "pagan" piece written by an Anti-Semite, and for that reason many Jews and many Missouri-Synod Lutherans don't play this piece at weddings due to these connotations. So it appears that a soothing piece can be pagan. I cannot perceive this from the hearing of it though.

Not sure what this says about me but Wagner's Lohengrin is probably my favorite opera.

Ahhhh! Wagner! *Runs away and hides*

Seriously, we probably wouldn't have had Nietzsche or Hitler without Wagner first. Makes one wonder...

Probably the biggest "sneer" I ever got was suggesting that Julius Wellhausen and German Higher Criticism sowed the seeds which grew the Third Reich.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

I can sympathize with the effect that music can play on individuals, but it cannot be argued that the same effect applies to all individuals. Some people may commit heinous crimes while listening to classical music, and I know of one guy who became a Christian after listening to Strongarm - a Christian heavy metal band.

It also cannot be pretended that individuals are not both social creatures, and similar in many ways. Otherwise, no musician could ever pretend to have "connected" with an audience: do a little reading on Regina Spektor if you think that communication with music doesn't happen.

People tend to drive more quickly while listening to Wagner.

That someone became a Christian after listening to Strongarm can't be construed as divine endorsement - unless the fact that it is from the Cross that redemption flows to us is construed as endorsement of murdering God incarnate.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Another problem with the argument thing is that the emotional effects which are produced by certain sounds are given moral weightage. Happiness, calmness, rage, boredom, passion, zeal ... can we really say that these emotions are good or evil - in and of themselves? Well, it depends on the context and situation. Even God (whether anthropomorphically read or not) displays rage, zeal, jealousy (though not of the same kind as ours).

I mentioned previously that I'm allergic to hay.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

It's hard to base this claim (of any composer or artist) on objective grounds. It's like saying that Michelangelo is superior to Monet or Warhol, which may be true according to some predetermined criteria and tastes, but not to others. These are different artists, during different media, in different eras, with different philosophies, portraying different things to different audiences. It is simply not enough to say that Michelangleo is superior in the "artistic" sense - that is simply too vague and narrow and diminishes the artistic contributions of other eras. the study and appreciation of art did not end in the Renaissance.

It's only hard for relativists. On your ground, the artist himself wouldn't be able to say "This is a better work" or "I failed to achieve my goal in that instance". Technical excellence and accuracy and comprehensiveness of philosophy, to mention only two points, are most certainly points of difference. Consider again what the Bible says about Bezaleel and then tell me if all craftsmen (and crafstmanship is not the least part of artistry) are created equal.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by austinww

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Not sure what this says about me but Wagner's Lohengrin is probably my favorite opera.

Ahhhh! Wagner! *Runs away and hides*

Seriously, we probably wouldn't have had Nietzsche or Hitler without Wagner first. Makes one wonder...

Probably the biggest "sneer" I ever got was suggesting that Julius Wellhausen and German Higher Criticism sowed the seeds which grew the Third Reich.

I never thought of that before.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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?

This simply ignores the point I made about "pop conscience." If the music itself did not teach specific messages why would advertising agents, propaganda artists, and movie makers utilise it the way that they do? They are not selling raw emotion, but an idea, and the music is seen as integral to the idea they are selling.

I don't need to avoid any music. I am arguing that the music must be discerned for the message it conveys. Then I can make an informed decision as to what I choose to enjoy.

This then shows the importance of education in aesthetics and the media from a specifically Christian perspective for all Christians.

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

This then shows the importance of education in aesthetics and the media from a specifically Christian perspective for all Christians.

Good point. More fundamentally, I think it shows the need for professing Christians to be converted in the biblical sense of turning away from idols to serve the living God. Regrettably today many Christians do not turn away from cultural practices or ever begin to confront culture in service to God.

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.

What is your culture?

I would just like to share an experience:

There is a sax solo from a song that I really like, it was played by George Furlow; 'I worship you oh God'; I played the same solo on a 'praise and worship night' on a friend's church. For me, while I was playing it, I get emotionally attached to the message of the song.

But after performing the music, a friend of mine from the assembly told me that it reminds him of some sensual film about a man having sexual intercourse .

Though I did not have any intention to play the solo it as he interprets it; his response was based on his past and current experience associated to the one I was playing.

From this experience, I observed that a person's experience in life greatly affects how one would receive and or embrace the music he or she hear.

Originally Posted by Gloria

What is your culture?

That is a broad question. To borrow from Herman Dooyeweerd, it is a chaotic stage of transition between the spirit of ancient civilization (Greece and Rome), Christendom, modern humanism, and antihumanism.

Originally Posted by tlharvey7

before i was regenerated i played loud lead guitar for rock bands.
i was arrested and put in prison for various crimes in 1988. my conversion took place at this time. when i was released in 1990 i would not even touch a guitar. my calouses turned to mush and my skill was all but depleted... i cared not, because my love for the One who rescued me was my main concern.
2 years went by and i picked it up again. i love to play... i love to play in church and i love to "jam" with other people. i was even privledged to tour with a black gospel band for a couple years
when i began to play again, i became a "worship leader"
i fell in love with Hosanna Integrity music because much of it was simply scripture set to music.
but i noticed a trend back then (early 90's) the music was starting to have a grunge, edgy rock style to it. though i liked some of the music, it seemed out of place in worship.
now that is the normal thing you see in churches today... 20 somethings with tatoos and cool hair, clothes, ect. it lacks reverence. a teenage rockgroup should not be "leading worship" that is my opinion. i think playing music for fun or entertainment is fine. but there needs to be a sensitivity towards what we do in the house of God.

i have a good friend who is a "reformed hip-hop" guy his music is gritty, urban and loud.
the stuff is outstanding
this guy is also a pastor, and he does not 'rap" from the pulpit, because he knows that this particular medium has a place and purpose... and it's not during the worship service.
but again.. these are just opinions

Hi Thomas,

This thread, as well as your post reminded me of a point that Darryl Hart had made about Christian rock and roll music and how the music affects the mind of the church. some time ago about in an article written for the Nicotine Theological Journal. It reads:

Just Grow Up
April 23rd, 2009 by Darryl G. Hart

(From NTJ, January 1999)

A recent visit to Yale, complete with watching a Yale-Princeton hockey game, reminded us of the suffocating ubiquity of post-1950s popular culture. Being some twenty years removed from college life it was curious to see Yale undergraduates participating in the rah-rah spirit that college students of our generation studiously avoided in the name of being independently cool. Even more surprising was to see the overwhelming support for the Yale band, an extracurricular activity that certain boomers associated with losers and nerds. But here we were, in 1998, watching kids supposedly indoctrinated in the dogma of political correctness and postmodernism not just playing in but singing along with the band. Perhaps even more remarkable was that these nineteen- and twenty-year olds knew the words to the songs the band played. The Rolling Stones, the Beatles and Credence Clearwater Revival – it didn’t matter. These students sang along. The scene was almost surreal. These college students were joining in the singing of music that in our generation was supposed to be a pronounced statement against joining anything. Of course, one of the great myths of popular culture is that of the solitary individual who does his own thing, even while two-thirds of the teenage population are doing exactly the same thing.

But aside from revealing the conformist side of pop culture’s individualism, this scene also spoke volumes about the triumph of rock ‘n roll. Who could have imagined college students in the 1960s and 1970s singing with the college band to popular songs three decades old? Would any of us have known the words to the songs of Frank Sinatra or the Andrews Sisters? So why then won’t John, Paul, Ringo and Mick just go away? Perhaps, an even more pressing question is why people are not embarrassed to continue to live like teenagers even when they are in their forties and fifties?

One way of considering this question is to contrast the Rolling Stones’ relatively recent tour (lots of 1970s bands are doing retrospective treks, we understand) with what Frank Sinatra did for almost all of his life and with what Tony Bennett continues to do – that is, sing the songs that made them stars. It was not the least embarrassing for Sinatra to sing his kind of music because it was and is adult (don’t ask for a definition; it’s like pornography). It may not be Mozart or Vaughn Williams, but the way of singing, combined with the ethos such songs create, do not require listeners or adoring fans to act like teenagers. In other words, no one thought Frank silly singing his songs into his eighties. The same cannot be said for Mick Jagger. In fact, one cannot think of a more laughable sight than a man who is a grandfather acting like he is still the high-school deviant whose only care seems to be questioning all forms of authority.

Which raises a further question – why the triumph of rock ‘n roll in most sectors of Christian worship? Why has perpetually adolescent music become appropriate for expressing praise and adoration to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? This is not to suggest that ballads like those made popular by Sinatra would be fitting. Our preference runs to the Psalms of the Old Testament set to tunes that are either singable by all generations or chanted. But the triumph of rock ‘n roll, whether soft or not, seems to run contrary to the apostle Paul’s instructions in Titus where he told older men to be temperate, serious, and sensible, and older women to be sensible, chaste, and domestic. If this is indeed conduct fitting sound doctrine, in fact, if gravity and self-control are virtues that sound doctrine is supposed to produce, then why has Christian worship become the arena where the musical forms of the Stones, Beatles and CCR, already domesticated, are now baptized?

Of course, our culture has many problems, but it does not say good things about our churches that by failing to see any difference between serious and frivolous music they are also in danger of losing the ability to distinguish adolescence from maturity. Of course, churches who follow the lead of pop culture may become as mainstream and as ubiquitous as the Stones, but they are likely to look just as silly when they turn fifty.

Not to be totally but the reason us kids are still singing the Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, etc is that modern "rock n' roll" is just plain terrible and extremely over-produced. The era of 1964-1979 is just unrepeatable as far as quality and "ground roots" go in music and lyrical history.

finally, in my experience, many of those advancing theories of music where some forms are moral and other forms are immoral usually are propping up a theory that western culture is the pinnacle of advancement and thus their arguments usually find the music of 18th century christian europe to by the height of advancement.

bingo.

-----Added 10/20/2009 at 09:10:57 EST-----

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Originally Posted by Gloria

What is your culture?

That is a broad question. To borrow from Herman Dooyeweerd, it is a chaotic stage of transition between the spirit of ancient civilization (Greece and Rome), Christendom, modern humanism, and antihumanism.

LOL...m'kay. *smh*

It's only hard for relativists. On your ground, the artist himself wouldn't be able to say "This is a better work" or "I failed to achieve my goal in that instance". Technical excellence and accuracy and comprehensiveness of philosophy, to mention only two points, are most certainly points of difference. Consider again what the Bible says about Bezaleel and then tell me if all craftsmen (and crafstmanship is not the least part of artistry) are created equal.

Using the term 'relativist' in a discussion about art, are we? I immediately read moral relativism into that (not sure if that's your intention). sneaky. We are still in the process of determining whether the formal elements of art and music necessarily have a moral component or not. The jury's still out as far as I'm concerned. Unless, of course, you don't mean relativist in a moral sense.

Technical excellence, accuracy, and comprehensiveness (however they're defined) are criteria that can be used to judge art and music, but they are not the only ones. At a certain point of human culture, they are revered as the basis for judging art, but times and cultures change. I could even argue that the meaning of those words 'excellence' and 'accuracy' have a range of meaning which may be context-specific and have changed as well. See, you have chosen those specific criteria based on your personal tastes. What about the criteria of expressiveness, psychological effect, philosophical exploration, political activism, creativity, uniqueness?

by your definition of artistic excellence, we would assume that no work of art found outside of the acedemies and salons of Paris would ever be considered good; in which case, say goodbye to Picasso, Monet, Cezanne, the abstract expressionists, the photographers, etc.

In another sense, excellence in accuracy, comprehensiveness, line, form, colour, symmetry can be found in graffitti art splattered on walls and trains. People of certain cultural backgrounds would ridicule and never appreciate that form of art - and I think the reason is personal preference and upbringing.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Using the term 'relativist' in a discussion about art, are we? I immediately read moral relativism into that (not sure if that's your intention). sneaky. We are still in the process of determining whether the formal elements of art and music necessarily have a moral component or not. The jury's still out as far as I'm concerned. Unless, of course, you don't mean relativist in a moral sense.

Yes, it would seem we are. Your subsequent remarks make clear that it is an appropriate term, because you are arguing that the standards of artistic judgement are relative. At this point we are not discussing morality, because you objected to me asserting that Brahms is artistically superior to many other musicians. The two discussions are distinct.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

Technical excellence, accuracy, and comprehensiveness (however they're defined) are criteria that can be used to judge art and music, but they are not the only ones. At a certain point of human culture, they are revered as the basis for judging art, but times and cultures change. I could even argue that the meaning of those words 'excellence' and 'accuracy' have a range of meaning which may be context-specific and have changed as well. See, you have chosen those specific criteria based on your personal tastes. What about the criteria of expressiveness, psychological effect, philosophical exploration, political activism, creativity, uniqueness?

I think you may have overlooked that I said "accuracy and comprehensiveness of philosophy". That philosophy is certainly susceptible of judgement, moral as well as artistic.

I've always considered public psycho-analysis to be a little impertinent, but it so happens that you are wrong about why I chose those two points to mention. I selected them because most people are capable of recognizing pretty readily that there are objective differences with regard to them. There are objective differences with regard to philosophy, because the Bible is true and what contradicts it is not. So if a work expresses a partial or an incorrect philosophy, it is objectively inferior in that regard to a work that expresses a more thorough and a true philosophy. And there are objective differences in technical excellence, because some people can't draw a straight line, or hit a note in key, or write a clear sentence. Exhibit A - Ken Lee:


None of the other criteria you mention are insusceptible of critical or moral analysis, although some of them are incidental to the quality of art.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

by your definition of artistic excellence, we would assume that no work of art found outside of the acedemies and salons of Paris would ever be considered good; in which case, say goodbye to Picasso, Monet, Cezanne, the abstract expressionists, the photographers, etc.

When I hold up the French Academy as the standard, you may then tax me with this implication. However, the term "good" is meaningless if it can be applied to anything. And if the standards themselves change, we need only wait long enough and anything will be eventually be good - and then in turn be bad again. The same thing results if a work is to be judged only by a standard emanating from itself: in that case, it is automatically good, because it sets the standard. But "good" at that point is equally useless as a descriptor.

Originally Posted by steadfast7

In another sense, excellence in accuracy, comprehensiveness, line, form, colour, symmetry can be found in graffitti art splattered on walls and trains. People of certain cultural backgrounds would ridicule and never appreciate that form of art - and I think the reason is personal preference and upbringing.

The fact that judges may be limited and partial does not mean that judgement is intrinsically impossible. And it sounds like you're admitting that here, because you said "can be found" not "must be found". In other words, it is possible for graffiti to be the awkward and badly-executed expression of a paltry idea formed in a degraded mind.

I agree that being in tune is generally a good test of quality when it comes to singing. Singing out of tune is considered "bad" for that particular venue because tone is something that the judges are actually looking for as a criteria for judgment. but consider the following Jackson Pollock work:

http://artmiser.files.wordpress.com/...pollock_lg.jpg

There is a technical excellence that is achieved in this type of art which is of a different sort than what is found in a renaissance piece, for instance. the different traditions have their own standards for quality. No worthy art critic says, "well, that doesn't look like anything, therefore it's bad."

In terms of innovation, Pollock's work has arguably made more of a contribution to art than other artists.

suffice it to say that I think there is an interplay of culture and tradition that gives us our understanding of quality. Perhaps there are standards held universally, but the diversity far outweighs the similiarities. biblically and theologically, nothing seems clearly defined when it comes to what is artistically good - the Bezalel example affirms that beauty does exist. When it comes to an authority on the criteria for quality, I've only heard Aristotle cited, but why does he get to have the final say?

The view that innovation is automatically a good thing is inherently flawed.

I have never once referred to Aristotle on this thread, so asking me why he gets to have the final say is simply irrelevant. Of course the question could be turned around and you could be asked, "Why doesn't Aristotle (or Longinus, for that matter) get to have the final say?"

You have admitted that beauty exists, and involved in that is the idea that a work can partake of or approach to beauty to a greater or lesser extent. You also constantly behave as though judgement is possible ("greater contribution"..."worthy art critic", etc.). And yet you maintain that the standards change, and seem to imply that they depend on the judges ("tone is something the judges are looking for"). I think some of this confusion is likely due to a failure to distinguish between fashions and standards (though perhaps that is what you are driving it with suggesting that there may be some standards that are held universally). But the way you put it expresses, in general, an agnostic view about the standards. It may also help to point out that fashions may themselves be judged, and that something can be liked or admired without therefore being good. So someone, a worthy critic, could maintain that something is outstanding, and it's no more good art than a used Kleenex is.

Aesthetics are not neutral, and a generally sound aesthetic consciousness is not unattainable. When Paul commands us to think on things that are lovely (Philippians 4:8), when the OT commends the beauty of a given woman or the splendour of a building it is clearly held out that such concepts are valid. Our grasp of that aesthetic standard may vary in culture and time, and from person to person, but that no more changes the standard than the fact that some people derive crazy things from Scripture is a reflection on Scripture itself. That Valentina Hasan thinks she can sing doesn't mean that she can, or that Rolando Villazón can't, nor even that we can't be sure which of them is actually worth listening to.

Originally Posted by py3ak

The view that innovation is automatically a good thing is inherently flawed.

I have never once referred to Aristotle on this thread, so asking me why he gets to have the final say is simply irrelevant. Of course the question could be turned around and you could be asked, "Why doesn't Aristotle (or Longinus, for that matter) get to have the final say?"

You have admitted that beauty exists, and involved in that is the idea that a work can partake of or approach to beauty to a greater or lesser extent. You also constantly behave as though judgement is possible ("greater contribution"..."worthy art critic", etc.). And yet you maintain that the standards change, and seem to imply that they depend on the judges ("tone is something the judges are looking for"). I think some of this confusion is likely due to a failure to distinguish between fashions and standards (though perhaps that is what you are driving it with suggesting that there may be some standards that are held universally). But the way you put it expresses, in general, an agnostic view about the standards. It may also help to point out that fashions may themselves be judged, and that something can be liked or admired without therefore being good. So someone, a worthy critic, could maintain that something is outstanding, and it's no more good art than a used Kleenex is.

Aesthetics are not neutral, and a generally sound aesthetic consciousness is not unattainable. When Paul commands us to think on things that are lovely (Philippians 4:8), when the OT commends the beauty of a given woman or the splendour of a building it is clearly held out that such concepts are valid. Our grasp of that aesthetic standard may vary in culture and time, and from person to person, but that no more changes the standard than the fact that some people derive crazy things from Scripture is a reflection on Scripture itself. That Valentina Hasan thinks she can sing doesn't mean that she can, or that Rolando Villazón can't, nor even that we can't be sure which of them is actually worth listening to.

The Aristotle thing was not in reference to something discussed on the thread, sorry for the confusion. Your views of aesthetics and his are well aligned though. Yes, I do believe that beautiful and lovely things exist, I'm just a little skeptical about our ability to systematize it. We run into problems of authority, culture, individual taste. it seems that things that are objective should be impervious to matters of taste and preference, like moral laws and biblical truths. We should be able to articulate it infallibly as a propositional truth, but aesthetics is another kind of animal altogether.

The above painting is a pattern, and patterns don't have to have meaning but can be just there to entertain.

On the other hand the artist could be saying "There is no meaning" which is an unchristian thing to say.

But if the artist had been a Christian, he/she could be saying "It sometimes feels as if life is meaningless/purposeless" which could be compatible with Christian faith and not be promoting a message of "everything is meaningless" and nihilism.

What I'm trying to say is that you cannot always read an artwork by its cover. There could be good motivation behind some apparently nihilistic works (?)

But the pervasive movement of modern painting and other visual art is clearly linked to the spiritual decline of the West.

.................................................. ..................................

I see the Jackson Pollock has disappered. I hope no-one's gone off with it!

Whether you like him or not, it's money that's the most important thing!

Originally Posted by steadfast7

The Aristotle thing was not in reference to something discussed on the thread, sorry for the confusion. Your views of aesthetics and his are well aligned though. Yes, I do believe that beautiful and lovely things exist, I'm just a little skeptical about our ability to systematize it. We run into problems of authority, culture, individual taste. it seems that things that are objective should be impervious to matters of taste and preference, like moral laws and biblical truths. We should be able to articulate it infallibly as a propositional truth, but aesthetics is another kind of animal altogether.

The Fall has made a lot of things more complicated both because it messes with our abilities and because it creates extreme and unusual circumstances (as has been observed, "even love is a source of pain" now). But that complexity is something we deal with in everything. Moral laws are universal - but how often do you find specific deviations from one point or another of moral law, not just in practice but even in theory? We are pilgrims on the way, and our grasp of truth is not equal to that of the beatified. That's no reason not to keep walking on the way.

But given those complexities, praise because things are, is a vital point: there ought to be delight in that things exist, and in the specific quality that God has given to them (even when God is not expressly acknowledged). Now because of the Fall that does sometimes take on startling expressions, as in bitter, acerbic books that attack the current order for the wrongs it perpetrates. That does not at first glance seem like love or gratitude or joy, but anger because of oppression is an expression, in the face of injustice, of a recognition of the value of God's creation. You can compare it to the rather odd phenomenon of the existence of apologetics and elenctics as a distinct branch of theology. Theology is fundamentally positive and affirmative, it asserts that God is and God has spoken and God has done: it is proclamatory of exceeding greatness; but at times theology takes on a negative and at times a defensive posture. That is anomalous situation. The cherubim in Isaiah 6 are not engaging in polemics; but in the context of infidels, heretics, blasphemers and errorists of various stripes, the refutation of error and defense of the truth becomes necessary. And so in the celebration of God's creative activity, stories inevitably have to reckon with the fact of sin, and no moderately observant person can escape flights of intense indignation for the degradation of the world. And so Chaucer's delight in a May morning and Orwell's description of life in a Paris slum, different though they are, stem from a love of the good. On an artistic level they have not chosen negation or randomness or meaninglessness. Like Juan Sanchez Cotán, they proclaim that being is good:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

I've just finished saying that I don't need to avoid any music and you follow up with a question asking me what music I need to avoid.

So, do you listen to heavy metal? To grunge? To rap? To rap-core? If you don't avoid them, do you listen to them? The original post was infusing an ethical element into certain styles of music. I misread your posts by putting them into that context. So, if you don't avoid certain styles of music, do you consider all styles of music lawful, but to be carefully listened to (while not avoiding) for the sake of the heathen's pop conscience?

Cheers,

Adam

Which raises a further question – why the triumph of rock ‘n roll in most sectors of Christian worship?

I think a lot of people in these churches just assume without thinking about it very much that the Apostles along with the whole first century Church were into Rock. Maybe some of them even think they watched their favourite golden oldies on Youtube.