Power of Music: The true power is beyond the words

**armourbearer** · #81 (**permalink**) 10-21-2009, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

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?

It is impossible to engage culture and to avoid these kinds of styles. In fact, it seems I cannot even go shopping today without having such noise thrust upon me. But, having heard these styles and discerned them for their cultural message and influence, I must say, I do not enjoy them, and I find it surprising to hear that other Christians find them enjoyable. When one considers what these styles represent to our young people (and to our never maturing older people, as Darryl Hart has pointed out), for a Christian to enjoy these styles of music indicates that they are not engaging or confronting their culture, but standing very much within it as a participant of it.

ChristianTrader · #82 (**permalink**) 10-21-2009, 09:24 PM

YouTube - The Power of Music - Hell's Bells 2 - with Eric Holmberg

timmopussycat · #83 (**permalink**) 10-21-2009, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

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?"

Does anybody know where one can obtain Weaver's and Lenski's comments?
It would be interesting to know what they objected to in jazz and why they did so. It is unlikely to be the purely improvisational element, an element which was a part of Western baroque and classical music at the time when it was written.

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 08:55:50 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Those subjective impacts vary widely based on the person.

While subjective impacts vary based upon the person, they tend to promote a common emotional affect. If you listen to music written for the same purpose by composers of different nationalities you will discover that the music achieves similar emotional affects across national cultures and time by the use of similar means. Listen to marches by Strauss (Radetsky March), Fucik (Entrance of the Gladiators), Pierre Leemans (Belgian Paratroopers), Alford (Colonel Bogey), and Sousa (Stars & Stripes) in sequence and you'll hear what I mean. Those composers knew the emotional affect they wanted their listeners to experience and in each case, the chosen musical means accomplish that goal.

Pergamum · #84 (**permalink**) 10-21-2009, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by timmopussycat

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

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?"

Does anybody know where one can obtain Weaver's and Lenski's comments?
It would be interesting to know what they objected to in jazz and why they did so. It is unlikely to be the purely improvisational element, an element which was a part of Western baroque and classical music when it was written.

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 08:55:50 EST-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pergamum

Those subjective impacts vary widely based on the person.

While subjective impacts vary based upon the person, it is not perhaps such a wide variance as you might expect within a dominant musical culture. If you listen to music written for the same purpose by composers of different nationalities you will discover that the music achieves similar emotional affects across the cultures by the use of similar means. Listen to marches by Strauss (Radetsky March), Fucik (Entrance of the Gladiators), Leemans (Belgian Paratroopers) Alford (Colonel Bogey) and Sousa (Stars & Stripes) in sequence and you'll hear what I mean. Those composers knew the emotional affect they wanted their listeners to experience and in each case, the chosen musical means accomplish that goal.

Yes, I cannot deny that - even without lyrics - some music has a predictable effect.

These differing effects are useful for different purposes.

For instances, I love heavier music to work out to (making sure the lyrics are sanitary....plus, by "heavier" I mean medieval music or Scotland the Brave, etc), but this heavier music would be inappropriate for church.

Armies use marches and not lullabies to motivate men into battle for a reason. It is frightening that many are listening to "battle music" while they are driving on our freeways.

I do not think that a classification of "moral music" and "immoral music" without regard to lyrics is easy to make, and maybe even not possible for sure, but I do agree that music influences emotions and - if the intended effect is not good - than music may "grease" one's path towards immorality.

And, some music is not fit for certain contexts, but is A-Okay outside of that context. The Darth Vadar theme is perfectly moral in its context, but would be terribly amiss if we played it as one's pastor ascended to his pulpit.

ChristianTrader · #85 (**permalink**) 10-22-2009, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christusregnat

Quote:

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

Actually one could use positive parallels if you wish, that aspect is incidental to my point.

Let us go back to your first post in this thread.

"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. "

Those that make the case that one should not listen to certain sounds are just as natural men as those that make the case against listening to certain music. Yet you object to one group binding consciences vs. not objecting to the other. Why?

(^^)Regin · #86 (**permalink**) 10-22-2009, 05:01 AM

la la la fa do la fa do la

Why not lets make a test, I am willing to be your guinea pig, give me music files that you would like me to listen to and I will report what happened to me afterward like my behavior, thoughts, body temperature and the like

.

steadfast7 · #87 (**permalink**) 10-23-2009, 11:26 AM

Thanks for the above Hell's Bells thread. I pretty much agree in principle with its observation that music has power.

Just wanted to add though that the music industry and the power it wields to move and control people is a complex of many factors. The tunes, beats, and lyrics are significant, but the power of media, the psychology of group dynamics at concerts and clubs, and the grandiosity of celebrities are big factors in the debate as well which cannot be separated from the music alone. I would argue that these forces are even more influential in producing negative behavioural results than the music itself. It would be too simplistic to say that the musical notes and the accompanying beat is primarily to blame. This is akin to saying that the Roman practice of selling indulgences was the sole and defining cause of the Reformation.