Music is Never “Neutral” by Tom Schlueter
Scott AniolFor years I have heard the claim that the type of music in corporate worship is irrelevant. It is not the music that matters, but the lyrics. Music is supposedly “neutral,” and the lyrics alone determine the message. There is simply no factual basis for this belief. The propagation of this idea has resulted in much spiritual confusion today where the music used in worship actually wars against the content of the lyrics. I wanted to write a few thoughts on the idea that any kind of music can be dragged into corporate worship without any thought given to what that music is saying.
I’ve been involved with music professionally for 30 years and my degree is in music performance. The perspective I am coming from is not one of ignorance musically but one of personal experience. In those years, I have played my trumpet in virtually every style and in many different venues; anything from swing bands, jazz, touring Broadway shows and musicals, concerts with Chicago, Styx, Moody Blues, John Denver, Glen Campbell, Johnny Mathis, Aretha Franklin, Tony Bennett, the Irish Tenors, Charlotte Church, Sarah Vaughn, Robert Goulet, Frank Sinatra, Jr., and, on the other hand, everything from one of the top symphony orchestras in the country to opera and ballet music, including many types of classical chamber music and many varied experiences in church music. Along with my experience of performing this variety of music has come my observation of the people who are listening to it and the effect music has on them.
I have seen the power of music. Probably 95% of music I have performed is strictly instrumental. Before I had any Christian convictions about the matter, I played as much in dance bands as I did for orchestras. Whatever the venue, we could yield much power over the listener and there were many times when we could literally engage in “crowd control”. For example, in a dance setting our big band could play a slow, ballad-type number and everyone immediately responded in the obvious way directed by the music. Contrast that with the reaction when we played something like Buddy Morrow’s Night Train which, without verbal prompting, would encourage some people to do a quasi-strip dance. In fact, to further enhance the shock value, the band leader would announce the number as a “Mozart string quartet” and then start the pounding rhythms of Night Train. The music did not require words with instructions about what to do. The music alone carried the message.
By way of illustration, listen to the difference in the message that the same instruments can carry in these two clips. First, listen to the message of our trumpets and the drums at the front end of our band’s version of Sing, Sing, Sing. The trumpets led the brass in a clear call to listeners: get up and dance. Now listen to the message of the brass instruments and percussion in this clip at the beginning of the hymn, Christ is Made the Sure Foundation. What are the instructions of the instruments here? What are they calling listeners to do? Come and worship God. The brass tell us there is royalty present. The percussion at the end of the fanfare speaks not of dance and flesh, but of honor and respect and reverence. What a difference. Same instruments. Different message entirely.
The smallest children do not need instructions for what to do when they hear certain kinds of music. Every one of us consciously and often subconsciously experiences the power of music nearly every day when we watch TV programs, see commercials, hear music in the grocery store. Music in these venues is done with an agenda to move people in a specific way. I once read an interview with John Williams that celebrated his contributions to movie music. He was talking about how crucial it was to get movie music correct to enhance a scene. He said that a music can make or break a scene, and the complete absence of music can also make or break a scene. You add the right kind of music to a scene and it becomes magical or terrifying, depending on the mood you want to create. One thing he said was, “The mood in a scene is created more by the music than by the actors.”
The power of music is so obvious, I do not know why there is even a need for a debate about it. This same simple idea is the reason why the Brahms Requiem was played at the memorial concert for 9-11 victims instead of a concert of Broadway show tunes. All this being said, it seems obvious when you are going to link words and music, they should comport with/compliment each other. It doesn’t make sense to put serious words with circus-style music, and it doesn’t make sense to have lyrics that speak of the majesty and glory of Christ put to sounds that speak of the streets, anger and resentment as we have with rap. Yet that is often what happens in corporate Christian worship today. The music part, supposedly, is saying nothing.
A few years ago, a CD came out of supposedly “sacred” swing music. Someone had taken hymn lyrics and attached them to swing band music. The results were musically and theologically absurd. Take our band’s recording of Take the A Train; Now picture that music with words about the Lord’s Supper. That is what the “sacred swing” CD tried to do. It was a nauseating combination but, nonetheless, called “praise music.” The music was conjuring up a dance floor scene, but the lyrics were speaking of the Lord’s Supper and Christ’s bleeding sacrifice on the cross. Do we think the Lord is pleased by this confusion?
In corporate worship, the music chosen makes a statement about our view of God. Our music reveals if that view is a high and biblical view, or a low and man-made view. If the music clip above from Sing, Sing, Sing would be the call to worship in a church, what exactly would that say about God and His character? What would it say to worshipers? Get up and dance? Women should start flaunting their stuff in front of men on the dance floor? This would not be worship at all, but rather a gross insult to the Almighty.
The bottom line is that music is never neutral. It is always saying something. The question is, does it contradict or confuse or even cancel out the message of the lyrics used in worship? If we are in the flesh, we cannot please God no matter how much we call what we are doing “praise and worship.” When we study and know God’s character in the Word, we realize that whatever we are offering up as worship needs to be worthy of Him. It needs to speak of Him honestly. Much music in church today lies about God. It says He is cheap and easy and just like us. In short, it shows no respect for the God who is described by St. Paul in the Bible as a “consuming fire.”
I hear well-meaning Christians talk as though Satan has affected every area of creation with the exception of the non-verbal language of music. That, they claim, is neutral territory. Satan, in his craftiness, has very skillfully perpetuated this lie and has neutralized and in some cases, made mockery of the worship of our God. The Israelites dancing around the Golden Calf genuinely believed they could worship God through the use of the idol. They were sincere and their religious fervor was so loud that Moses heard it while descending Mt. Sinai. It was not true worship at all, however. God abhorred what they were doing. They were too busy in their so-called worship to notice.
In summary, music always speaks. It always has something to say on its own—free of lyrics. What our worship music says about God must line up with what we are told about God in His Word. We know God two ways: both by His character and by His works as they are recorded in Scripture. Nobody is very interested in knowing the character and works of God today, and that ultimately is the root of the problem. We cannot speak honestly of one we do not know. God is made over into man’s image today, and the music used to worship Him reflects that. A thorough knowledge of God through His Word will have a reformational effect on Christian worship. Only when we know God can we truly worship him in spirit and in truth.
Soli Deo Gloria
Copyright Tom Schlueter, 2008. Printed here by permission.
Tom Schlueter has been a professional trumpet player for 30 years. He won the Milwaukee Symphony Young Artists Competition at age 15 and began playing professionally with the Symphony at age 17. He has a degree in music performance from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and studied with Reynold Schilke and Arnold Jacobs of the Chicago Symphony. He is a two-time winner of the International Trumpet Guild Solo Competition and soloist at the New York Brass Conference. Tom continues to play professionally in a variety of settings both classical and sacred. He and his wife, Ingrid, have 5 children and live in the Milwaukee area.
Tom,
Your examples of “Sing Sing Sing, “Christ is made the sure Foundation” and “Take the A Train” hits the nail right on its head! While I like all of these pieces, there’s no doubt that I want to be singing “Christ is made the sure Foundation” which aids in my worship, rather then serving as an distraction.
For Him,
Jim
Tom,
Thank you for your perspective. I think you are looking at music from an extremely limited perspective. I would suggest that your view of music is very westeren in its conception. Your assertation that music is never neutral is not a biblical idea, but rather a Greek one. Plato addresses it in “Reublic.” If you know of a scripture that specifically spells this out, I would be delighted to read it. Seriously. This concept of music is very western, and is not reflected in the attitude of most of the world, including Europe until the Enlightenment. The music of Monteverdi, of Machaut, of Leonin and of Pertotin, of Beatriz, Landini are all marked by the cultural compositional practices prevelent in both the sacred and secular arenas at that time.
You make many general statements about music, but you have no scriptural reference to suppport your argument. The bible says to worship God in spirit and in truth. That is a very direct edict that can be interpreted very vaguely. You mention the Brahms Requiem, which is a wonderful fabulous piece. However, Brahms output of religious music is a minority of his entire catalog, the vast majority of which is song literature mostly on secular subjects, 4 symphonies and 2 piano concertos which could be interpreted as neutral. Brahms himself carried on numerous affairs with a variety of singers in Vienna. Do you condemn the Requiem because of his questionable moral character? Do you discount him because he spent most of his formative years playing the piano in brothels in Hamburg? Can you honestly tell me that Naenie, (my computer can’t do a umlaut) another of Brahms’ large choral/orchestral works which tells of Venus being birthed from the sea, and is basically structurally identical to the Requiem would evoke a differing response from the listener? Brahms composes like Brahms, and like Wagner, and like Lizst and like his other contemporaries. There was no distinction between a secular or sacred style. I can be inspired by the Hallelujah chorus, but the truth is that Handel used earlier sketches from his operas in his choruses. You do not argue that because Handel’s secular operas and his sacred oratorio are composed in the exact same style that we should disregard the Messiah. And yet, that is exactly what you suggest about more modern music. By your arguemnt, Bernsteins’ Chichester Psalms is more in keeping with true worship, but I don’t think you will find many to vouch for either his moral character or devotion to any god other than hedonism.
I will agree that some of the texts to the modern praise music borders on the mundane. But when I read the Psalms I find David often repetative in his use of language. I will agree that music is very powerful. But not as powerful as God. You raise very valid concerns in your argument. But I would suggest the stlye of music is irrelivant to this argument. We don’t know God by listening to music. We know God by reading his word. Your suggestion about the craftiness of Satan is spot on: While we sit and argue about the spiritual application of Benny Goodman, or the saxophone, people are dying and going to hell. And in the long run, I don’t think it would concern them as they suffer for eternity if I was listening to Mozart or the News Boys, if I am not inspired to share the gospel.
Sandy,
Though we can’t find explicit statements in Scripture that music isn’t neutral, there are implicit principles throughout the Bible that point to the truth that Tom has so clearly pointed to from his experience. For the best treatment of these passages, I would point you to John Makujina’s “Measuring the Music,” specifically, Appendix C. Makujina clearly and cogently argues Tom’s point about inherent musical meaning from Scripture. To demand that Scripture provide explicit passages to prove this point is to treat the Bible as a rule-book, which it is not.
Your musical arguments contain many fallacies, but the most egregious is that any of Brahms’ symphonies or concerti could be interpreted musically ‘neutral.’ It seems sometimes that you are confusing Tom’s argument of inherent musical meaning with the contextual meaning surrounding a musical work – the composer’s morality or lack thereof, or the circumstances for which a piece is written.
By God’s common grace, non-believers are capable of writing music that expresses transcendence, majesty, lament, triumph, joy, glory, wonder – all of which are characteristics in keeping with the Gospel of Christ. It is not the moral character of the composer, or the circumstances of the composition to which Tom refers, but rather, the inherent ability of the music itself to express an affect that is in keeping with the character of God.
BTW, Naenie is in no way structurally identical to the Brahms Requiem.
In Christ,
Tim
Tim,
A c scael, is a c scale is a c scale. A I-IV-V-I progression is morally neutral. I do not understand how you can assign any kind of religious value to it.
(beats head against table).
“BTW, Naenie is in no way structurally identical to the Brahms Requiem.”
It’s Brahms. He wrote music that sounds like him. Sometimes he put words about Jesus to it. Sometimes he put words about Greek goddesses to it. Sometimes he put no words to it. The listener has an emotional reaction that may have everything or nothing to do with them music. I was doing an analysis of Brahms Symphony No. 4 when my accompanist died. When I hear Brahms No. 4, I think about him and I am very sad. Even 10 years later. That is my emotional reaction.
When I hear Vivaldi Gloria, I think about the time I was singing it, and broke out in hives, and wondered how I was going to get through the Laudamus te with the pain and itching in my hands. Nothing to do with the music.
“It says He is cheap and easy and just like us.”
‘It was not true worship at all, however. God abhorred what they were doing. ‘
“….made mockery of the worship of our God.”
Beethoven wrote Missa Solemness to get paid. He had no religious motivation, no understanding of the holiness of God, no desire to express God’s charater. IHe was a drunk, a womanizer, it was a means to an end. Even though it is brilliant, doesn’t his view of it cheapen it? If he had written a lesser piece of music with a sincere desire to worship God, would that not please God more?
Bach had a deep religious conviction, a deep understanding of God, and a desire to please him in all he did. I hear the love and devotion to God pour through ever Fugue he wrote because I know what was in his heart. No words needed. I hear it in the Coffee cantata; no religious words at all.
“It is not the moral character of the composer, or the circumstances of the composition to which Tom refers, but rather, the inherent ability of the music itself to express an affect that is in keeping with the character of God. ”
If it reflects those characterisics of God, and the listener is not changed, what difference does it make? I am sure that before his converstion, Tom sat through many Messiah’s with his mind on little more than his paycheck. Every professional musician has.
“Our music reveals if that view is a high and biblical view, or a low and man-made view.”
I understand what you and he are alluding to, I really do. I am an opera singer, and I know good music, from great music, from just plain awful music. But, all music is man made, and it is not the music that causes me to worship God. It is Him, and my desire to please Him and honor Him. I can do that is silence. I can do that with the baby crying. I can do that listening to a klezmer band because He created those people who are playing at mesmerizing speeds with such technical prowess. I can do that listening to Mozart, to birds, to barking dogs. God is not in those things. He is not in music. He is in His people.
The churches where I have heard the worlds greatest music were so biblical dead, so devoid of the Word, I wondered why we didn’t just change the name on the door and call it what it was: a concert.
And I have been in churches with one ex-hippie and his guitar whose life had been transformed by the blood of Jesus and even though his guitar playing was poor, and his music simple, the devotion and gratitude that came from him was more inspiring than most things I have known.
Hi Sandy,
I notice that you didn’t include any Scripture in your argumentation either. I did see a reference to Plato, however. Tom’s piece is clearly directed at Christians who already should understand clearly God’s character and His holiness as laid out in His Word. As we read of God’s hatred for idolatry and his intolerance of his people seeking after false gods, it is unthinkable that the music of Molech or Baal worshipers would have been imported into God’s house for use in worship. We, however, in America think otherwise when it comes to dragging in the world’s music and offering it up. The assertion that Tom has too much of a “Western” mindset is funny. Guess what? We LIVE in the West. We have our own Western legacy of rich hymnody passed down to us through blood and pestilence and sword and persecution. This canon of hymns has been largely discarded today in favor of something more fun and “upbeat”. You also comment that the churches where you heard the great sacred music were all dead. Well, I can tell you that in those churches the solution would not be to bring in teenagers brandishing guitars, rock bands, rappers, calliope music, harmonica players or any other kind of music. The problem of dead hearts is not the fault of the sacred music, most of which is taken from the Scriptures, and music will not be the cure. Only the Holy Spirit can change hearts through the gospel. I love this English hymn because it directly addresses the fact that we owe our best to the Lord in our worship music. Notice especially the last line. The best we have in the West in music is not the pop garbage, rap and other foolishness created in the last 40 years or so after the rebellion of the 60’s. The best that we have is increasingly being chucked out of our Christian worship.
Angel voices, ever singing, round Thy throne of light,
Angel harps, forever ringing, rest not day or night;
Thousands only live to bless Thee, and confess Thee Lord of might.
Thou Who art beyond the farthest mortal eye can scan,
Can it be that Thou regardest songs of sinful man?
Can we feel that Thou art near us and wilt hear us? Yea, we can.
Yea, we know Thy love rejoices o’er each work of Thine;
Thou didst ears and hands and voices for Thy praise combine;
Craftsman’s art and music’s measure for Thy pleasure didst design.
Here, great God, today we offer of Thine own to Thee;
And for Thine acceptance proffer, all unworthily,
Hearts and minds, and hands and voices, in our choicest melody.
Honor, glory, might and merit, Thine shall ever be,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, blessed Trinity;
Of the best that Thou hast given earth and Heaven render Thee.
Sandy,
I agree with Jim that although the Bible does not explicitly address musical meaning, the concept is implicit throughout. Here are just a few examples:
Job 30.31
“My harp is tuned to mourning, and my flute to the sound of wailing.”
Isa 16.11
“My heart laments for Moab like a harp.”
Isa 30.19
“And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the Lord, to the Rock of Israel.”
Jer 48.36
“So my heart laments for Moab like a flute; it laments like a flute for the men of Kir Hareseth.”
Certain musical sounds are compared to mourning, wailing, lamentation, and rejoicing. Scripture clearly connects music and emotion, even with individual instrumental sounds. It is evident that music does communicate—at least to a certain extent.
Second, experience tells us that music is not amoral. Music has the power to communicate, often very strongly, to man’s emotions. The typical department store or restaurant recognizes this fact. Major studies have been conducted to determine what styles of music encourage shopping or eating. Classical music is complied into CDs called, “Power Classics” and “The Ultimate Relaxation CD” because those songs communicate what the title indicates. It is clear that music communicates certain moods that are transmitted through human emotion. A good example of this is when David used music to affect Saul’s emotions.
So it is clear that music does communicate something. Both Scripture and common sense reveal this.
Music communicates on four levels: (1) denotatively through the propositional truth of the text (assuming a song with a text), (2) conotatively through the poetic setting of the text, (3) contextually through association, and (4) intrinsically through bioachoustic symbolism.
It seems to me that you are merely recognizing the first 4 levels without acknowledging the fourth. I would direct you to Scriptural implication and common experience to demonstrate your error.
I agree with the article that music is never neutral but he is also trying to say that music guidelines can also be absolute which is saying something else. Music style is simply a matter of conscience and you cannot absolutely legislate conscience. The article gave no scriptural basis for its argument.
The writer is well-meaning and I applaud his concern for protecting oneself and the church from harmful effects of music but to say that God only can use one form of music over another is incorrect.
I have much of the same tastes and a similar conscience as the writer. Swing music and jazz, rap and hip-hop, southern gospel and thrash are not aids in my worshipping Christ. However, I cannot impose that conscience upon others. My conscience is not infallible. Neither is the writer’s.
The writer needs to consider that in every example that he gave, those same styles would have been considered risque and controversial by the generations before it.
All very valid points. It is refreshing to have debate.
In his article Tom specifically mentions taking “Sing, sing, sing.” and having christain words added to it. He calls the result “musically and theologically absurd” because he feels that such swing jazz evokes specific thought and behaviors.
Let use Handel again. He wrote many more operas than he did oratorio. He reused many of his opera sketches in his oratorio. There is never a suggestion made that because the music of Handel can in some instances made to evoke tale of Cleopatra and Julius Ceaser, that the inclusion of religous text renders it musically and theologically absurd. Handel uses several french dance forms in the Messiah. The vices of the 16th and 17th century french court are legendary. I am sure many surly and immoral things were brougth to fruition listening to gigues, and gavottes and minuets. But to suggest that now is rediculous because we are so far removed from that culture. Those dance rhythms, if we recognize them at all, have no meaning to us other than we like the intsruments that present them.
Many, many years ago I had someone suggest that I was not ’saved’ because I didn’t care for the music of Keith Green. The truth was and is, I don’t care for the music of Keith Green. Are his poetic words inspiring? Can be. Am I sure that he ment he was sincere in his praise to God. Sure. However, I find his voice meally, grating and unpleasant to listen to. Has nothign to do with my salvation. I would be unable to worship while listening to Keith Green because his voice gets on my last nerve.
You are correct about our great Western legacy of hymnody. I love hymns. But the writers of the Bible were not western. They were eastern. Jesus, Paul, David, Moses, Miriam, Deborah, all the great hymnist of the bible are not Western, and their approach and understanding of music would not be the same as ours. And of the 5000 year history that encompasses the bible, to say that 400 years of music history accurately speaks for God is very short sited.
We have gotten away from “I don’t like” with out making it into a theological throw down. I don’t like rap. I don’t like it what ever the context. I could never worship to rap.
“4) intrinsically through bioachoustic symbolism.
It seems to me that you are merely recognizing the first 4 levels without acknowledging the fourth”
Not at all. But I think it can be subjective. One of the many points I am trying to make, is that religious music and sacred music have through out church history borrowed and emmulated one another. There was a time in church history when Tom and his trumpet would have not been welcomed in any church any where, nor would I have been able to sing. I think we all agree now that the risk of demonic possession by listening to minor seconds or thirds is probably negligable.
The truest words spoken by any one in this discussion is
“Only the Holy Spirit can change hearts through the gospel. ” I am not willing to say he can only use a pipe organ and not a guitar to do this. This is one of these great family discussions. We can debate it back and forth, but I think because of people and there emotional reaction to music, we can offend those who need the gospel with an insistant that they, in essence, become circumsised to ease my conscience. In 200 hundred years, if the Lord tarries (and honestly, today would be a great day for Him to come back…) this debate will still be going on with a different set of variables in play. As I said, if my neighbor goes to hell because I don’t share the gosple with him, the knowledge that I spent my time listening to hymns is going to be little comfort to him.
I have 3 kids nipping at my heels, so I must go. I know it is unlikely we will change minds, but I do love a lively debate!
I agree with Tom’s article, though I admit that I wish that I could adamantly agree with it. My hesitation comes from my own uncertainties, which are totally unrelated to anything Tom said.
First, I agree 100% that music is not neutral. I once heard John Makujina say that “you can’t see music, but it casts a shadow. That shadow is “dance.”" If you want to see what the music “looks like,” watch how people move/react.
I love watching little kids react to music. In particular, I remember a 5 (?) year-old hearing the intro to Crazy Train (Ozzy Osbourne) for the first time and jumping around like a demon with an evil look on his face. No lyrics told him to do that.
Where I start to lose my certainty is realizing that music is language. 60-year-old White folks in a Dutch Reform Church speak a different language than 40-year-old Black folks in an AME church. It would make sense that the music would be different. (I’m not making a point here, just sharing my confusion.)
One final note: Regarding Sandy’s mentions of Beethoven’s drunkeness, etc, even if that was the case, he still wrote music that conveyed honor, majesty, and respect, even if it was just to make some $$. Perhaps it wasn’t worship flowing out of his heart, but he still used the language of reverence.
>>I think we all agree now that the risk of demonic possession by listening to minor seconds or thirds is probably negligable.<<
Yeah, but what about those flat 5ths?
Sandy,
Like you, I appreciate the spirit of debate about the issue. With that in mind:
Your argument about the neutrality of a C major scale is common among musical relativists. But, like words, music garners its meaning from its context. So while the note “C” may not have moral meaning, placed in a context, it derives that meaning from its environment.
Your examples above all fit in the category of associative or designative musical meaning. As listeners, we all bring our own associations to music that have nothing to do with the musical constructs themselves. But within the music itself are sound signifiers that touch the human emotions by emulating or evoking the motions that we manifest when we feel a particular emotion. This is what Scott points to in the passages he mentions. Makujina makes a strong case that this means of comprehending music is primary in Scripture. I would really urge you to read his book.
Surely as a singer, in your musical studies you have encountered text painting by composers of song – where the composer uses the elements of music to evoke in sound the emotional or physical characteristics contained in a word. For example in the St. Matthew Passion, the soprano aria “Aus Liebe” contains a remarkable bit of text painting when the text speaks of Christ’s suffering and death. The text is represented musically by exceeding harmonic dissonance, melodic chromaticism, and a triple appoggiatura at three different structural levels. Even if there were no words with the music, no person from any culture could mistake the music in this spot for joyful music or triumphant music. Movie directors depend on music’s inherent ability to communicate emotion to enhance a scene. No movie music composer would be hired who composed music that was antithetical to the mood desired by the director. The Muzak company sells its music to businesses that want to cultivate a particular mood. You’re swimming upstream, Sandy, when you say that music is neutral or that it can mean anything to anybody. This is a new philosophy of post-modernism that has only been around for about 40-50 years in music. Prior to that, everyone understood from common sense music’s ability to communicate in a concrete fashion. It’s an embarrassment to academia that this kind of nonsense is perpetuated based on what should be taught as associative meaning.
You’re using pretty specious musical examples. I see now from your explanation, for instance that you meant that Brahms’ Naenie is ’stylistically similar’ to the German Requiem, not ’structurally identical,’ as you said. Your comments about Tom’s trumpet not being welcome in worship at a particular time in music history is not complete. There are several denominations right now where musical instruments are not welcome. This is not a cultural phenomenon, but a matter of theological error. God Himself plays the trumpet, and the trumpet (as well as many other instruments!) is used in the worship God ordained here on earth as well as the worship found in John’s Revelation. For you to cite this as support for your argument of cultural diversity is misleading. It’s also incorrect for you to say that the dance rhythms of Handel have no meaning to us because we’re so far removed from that today. Those rhythms are still very discernable as dance rhythms by musicians and non-musicians alike.
Sandy, it’s my guess you’ve been influenced by liberal music professors who are promoting a post-modern view of musical understanding, music history, and music theory. I would urge you to consider music from the Bible’s perspective, not that of the spirit of the age.
Be careful with your head!
In Christ,
Tim
Eric,
I think you are correct in your assertions about language influencing music. The rhythms and intervals in authentic folk music (as well as much classical music) from around the world often have a sound that is derived from natural speech patterns of a country. I experienced this once vividly on a concert tour in Brazil, where I didn’t speak the language. At the end of my tour of about two weeks, one of my duties was to judge a piano competition where one of the repertoire requirements was for each piano competitor to perform a piece written by a native Brazilian. I had been in the country for two weeks, surrounded by native Portuguese speakers, hearing the sound of their language, but not able to discern the meaning or content. After judging this competition for two days, and hearing many examples of (textless) piano music by native Brazilian composers, it was eery how similar the music was to the sound of the language I had been hearing. The experience was so vivid because all I had during that two-week period was my focus on the sound of the language, rather than its meaning. I think it’s true of all cultures that true native music reflects the sound of the language.
But the Gospel calls us to conform ourselves to the image of Christ. In the West, where Christianity took its first (and so far its longest) foothold, great musicians who were Christians led in the development of notated music for a period of over 1100 years. The history and development of music is inseparable from the history of the Church. In fact, the first main chapter in the standard 900-page music history textbook used in music schools throughout the country is entitled, “The Early Christian Church.” It makes sense that these early Christian musicians, who were great crafstmen and skilled composers, would apply their craft in the service of their Lord and that the music would reflect their efforts. They elevated music by foregoing the mere simple imitation of a native language in favor of an effort toward reflecting in sound the biblical characterstics of a transcendent God.
But there is little true native folk music in the world today that remains uninfluenced by American pop/rock. Today, the world’s folk music is influenced by the immediately gratifying, pervasive, and exceedingly repetitious sound of American rock. There is little authentic folk music exported from cultures today that does not bear the pop/rock stamp for a market that is used to an entertainment style sound.
So, while true folk music has a place in worship as the native musical expression of a people based on their language, the product (and ‘Christianized’ by-product) of American pop/rock, bearing the sound signifiers of a culture of rebellion, sex and drugs, does not.
I think you can hear these differences by listening to the melodies of ancient folk hymns – some Welsh, some German, some French, some Polish, some Czech, etc. You’ll hear the differences in the styles of the rhythms, intervals, directions, and overall character of the melodies.
Hope that helps!
Tim
“Sandy, it’s my guess you’ve been influenced by liberal music professors who are promoting a post-modern view of musical understanding, music history, and music theory.”
I had a pretty good chuckle over this one. Of course I have been influenced by them, and after many heated discussions with them I was usually pronounced too conservative and too religious to every understand classical music! In fact, I teach part time at our little, little liberal arts college here and I am regarded as the right wing conservative religious fringe person on faculty. Odd, isn’t it.
I seem to have miscomunicated some of my ideas, so let me see if I can focus my ADD for a minute in an effort to make myself understood. I do not mean to imply that music has no affect on people at all. Perhaps it is a bit of post modernism in our use of the word ‘neutral.’ By it, I perhaps mean benign. When I referrence early dance form, of course we recognize them as dance forms, but, unlike Tom’s reference to jazz, they are no longer dances we see performed, so our association with them is not with dance in the sense that Tom was suggesting with jazz. I was trying to make an analogy. Maybe I speak to broadly; I would not associate those rhythms with dancing, or with anything provocative that might happen in the French court with which they were associated, as Tom alluded to when he spoke specifically about jazz.
“Your comments about Tom’s trumpet not being welcome in worship at a particular time in music history is not complete. There are several denominations right now where musical instruments are not welcome. ”
You are correct. However, there was a time when this was the accepted practice for all churches. I was referring to the larger movement of the history of church music. What was common in 1215 (randomly chosen) is no longer common.
“The text is represented musically by exceeding harmonic dissonance, melodic chromaticism, and a triple appoggiatura at three different structural levels. Even if there were no words with the music, no person from any culture could mistake the music in this spot for joyful music or triumphant music.”
No argument from me. Persons listening/performing this aria will no doubt get the pain and sorrow. But, pain and sorrow of what? For you and I and any other christian, we are moved by the pain and sacrifice that our savior made, perhaps burdened with the weight of our sin that took him to that dreadful place. But I would wager a guess that in a modern audience that would be a minority reaction. If the soprano is by chance not a christain, she could be thinking of any number of things to evoke sorrow in her voice and demeanor. I used to think about my dog dying. Seriously.
You and I have witnessed in the academic world people surrounded by this music for decades and it never transforms them beyond some random emotional experience.
A real life example. When I play the Hallelujah chorus (have I made it pretty obvious I am a big memeber of the Handel fan club?) the entire class will agree that it is inspiring. They will talk about it’s awe and majesty. And when I ask what it is about, I am sad to say the ‘losing your virginity’ is a very popular answer, because that is the context they have experienced the music. And selling cars and floor wax. Even some christians are startled to learn it is about Jesus. So yes, it evokes emotion, and powerful emotion, but sometimes only in the context that the listener has experienced it. Whose fault that is and why, that is an argument for another day. (I home school. Does that tell you something?)
So, yes, I have had my liberal profs. try to take all religious context out of the music and I fought right back at them. But I think in all sincerity that the converse can be true: if music that most of us agree inspires all the attributes of God and does NOT cause people to seek Him, I am willing to allow that music that has none of the attributes of God can. Because at the end of the day, the music is just a vehicle, and it is the power of the Holy Spirit that moves men’s souls.
And I still have not had my biggest question answered. So at the risk of seeming dense, I will ask it again, and not use Handel. You are familiar with Lasciatemi morire and know that it is the opening ariaetta from Monteverdi’s Cantata/opera L’Arianna. Monteverdi has a second text to that cantata called Lamento di Maria (I think. It’s been awhile since I looked at it. ) Regardless, it is about Mary and her grief at the death of Jesus. My perspective: How is this different than changing the words to….A beatles song. Or Sing, Sing, Sing. Yes, yes I know. I know. But at the heart of the argument, how is it different. Something less argumentative? A Stephen Foster song? How is it different from what Wesley did when he wrote his hymns?
“This is a new philosophy of post-modernism that has only been around for about 40-50 years in music.”
One of my theory profs in graduate school announced on the second or third day of class that post-modernism was dead. He was all about existential deconstruction, or something. His favorite composers were Linea someone from New Zealand whose big thing was to set pianos on fire and John Zorn who made recordings of static created by television signals. Made Cage look down right conventional. I spent most of the time in the back row translating Lucia di Lammermoor and considered it a much better use of my time.
And sorry, Eric. I still live in fear of the tri-tone.
Sandy,
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that music causes people to be converted or that we should use music to bring people to God. That’s assigning music the status of a promised means of grace, a status that God has not given it. Nor is anyone arguing that music can convey a specific event such as Christ’s death on the cross.
What’s being argued is that music used in worship must be emotionally congruent with the text that is being sung. If the text focuses on Christ’s suffering and death, then the music composed for that text must convey a fitting emotional character in order to properly convey the tone of the words. The apostle Paul in effect commands this congruity when he says of things in worship that they all should be done in a fitting and orderly way (I Cor. 14:40).
Once again, your example with your students is an associative semiotic example. The explanation for your students’ answers regarding the “Hallelujah Chorus” is that they have associations with this work and are therefore not hearing the work’s inherent musical constructs. As goofy and skewed as their answers are, they do not prove that the “Hallelujah Chorus” has no inherent meaning. They only prove that associative meaning exists.
To attempt an answer to your question, if I understand it correctly: when exchanging texts and tunes in worship, it’s important not only that the tune fit the correct number of syllables in the text, and also that the tune correctly inflects those syllables, but it’s especially vital that the emotional content of the tune match the emotional content of the text. When the emotional tone of the music is different than that of the text, the two are at odds in communicating the propositional truths of the text. It’s very similar to the way our tone of voice can affect the content of what we say so that we’re understood either as genuine or sarcastic. My favorite example of this is to attempt to sing the words to “What a Friend We Have in Jesus” to the tune of the Austrian Hymn. Or vice versa (the words of “Glorious Things of Thee Are Spoken” to the tune of “What a Friend”).
Though the syllables and the inflection match, the emotional tones of the two tunes are not compatible and the words can’t be exchanged without diminishing their truth content.
Thanks for the conversation, Sandy.
Tim
Tom Clay,
Are you saying that it’s just all a matter of interpretation? While Take the A Train played by a big band style might not work with lyrics about the Lord’s supper for some people, it would for others? Are you saying music has nothing objective to say that might be completely incompatible with a Christian message? Death metal by its own definition would be non-Christian in that Christ came to give us life, not death. Why are Christians so afraid to say that anything is authoritatively wrong any more? Is this most spiritual of things, music, all up to people’s interpretation?
Dear Tom Clay,
One of the clearest examples that the Bible gives regarding the absolute nature of music is in Exodus 32:17-18. In this passage, the first indication that Moses and Joshua have that the Israelites have abandoned their God and turned to idolatry is the SINGING that they hear while descending the mountain. Joshua and Moses are able to discern that something is wrong by using their musical understanding.
Far from commanding us to use only one form of music, God leaves it to His people to discern good music by principles in His word, commanding us through the Apostle Paul to think on things that are lovely, praiseworthy, pure, and excellent (Philippians 4:8). Despite popular opinion to the contrary, biblically, taste really isn’t a free-for-all for God’s children.
The author of this article has not said that God can just use one form of music over others. You have placed those words in his mouth by misunderstanding his writing. Please re-read more carefully.
Tim
It seems to me that the issue has less to do with musical neutrality, and more to do with whether it is God-honoring to direct music that evokes strong feelings and emotions to a Holy God.
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one LORD: and thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
Not at all, Miriam. If you will notice the title of this site, we believe that the essence of worship is the expression of “strong” affection to the Lord.
The question is not whether emotion should be directed to God; the question is what kinds of emotion should be directly to Him.
So maybe it would be more productive to expend energy debating what God-honoring emotions are appropriately evoked by music instead of its “neutrality?”
Just a thought. I’m not a trained musician; those of you who are leave the average worshipper in the dust with arguments from musical theory.
:>
Thanks for your perspective, Miriam. The problem is that there are some who deny that music communicates emotions, or that it doesn’t communicate them universally on some level. Without that acknowledgment, discussions about what kind of emotions are God-honoring would be worthless.
The point of Tom’s article is that music does indeed communicate emotion, and that on some level it does so universally. This is an important first step in the discussion.
I’m ready for the next step! I guess all I’m suggesting is that I, and probably the vast majority of average worshippers, would be better served by a less theoretical, more practical discussion.
So, okay, I agree, I think, that music communicates emotion, and that it does so universally on some level, although I don’t agree that it is inherently either good or evil for the simple reason that emotions themselves are neither inherently good or evil. How then, does a practical application of that concept work in a real church setting?
Miriam,
It’s my opinion that there’s a certain level of theoretical understanding necessary in order to decipher the musical signs and symbols that point to the emotions communicated by the music. At the practical level, I believe Scripture points to this idea by providing biblical models that demonstrate the church appointing skilled and trained musicians (I Chronicles 15:27, Neh. 13, etc.) who should then perform their duties according to the regulations laid down for them by the church leaders (I Chronicles 6:32).
The average worshiper need only insist that their church leaders follow biblical principles with regard to worship and music and these things should take care of themselves.
It’s my own idea that musicians appointed these days must not only be able to select and execute God-honoring music, but must in this climate be able to biblically and musically defend why they choose the music that they do.
All this is not to say that worshipers shouldn’t ask about the musical details, but only to say that when one asks how music communicates, he’s asked a technical question requiring some degree of a technical answer. It requires patience both on the part of the questioner and the answerer!
Tim
Miriam,
I think I understand what you are saying regarding emotions themselves being neither good nor evil (and forgive me if I put words in your mouth here). If I am joyful because my wife just had a new baby, that’s a morally different kind of joy than if I’m joyful because my neighbor was in a car wreck. I think I can see your point there.
But wouldn’t you agree that there are other kinds of emotions that the Bible describes as always, or in some cases almost always, sinful? (lust, envy, hatred, anger, etc.)
If, for the sake of argument, there’s a music that can objectively communicate lust, wouldn’t that music always be just as immoral as the sinful emotion itself?
Tim
I’m not arguing that there are necessarily certain broad categories of emotion that are evil, but kinds of emotions within that category that we should be wary of. Furthermore, certain kinds of emotion are appropriate only when directed at certain objects.
For instance, even within the category of love, the kind of love that I express toward my wife would be inappropriate as an expression for a woman in my church, even though I do “love” the women in my church as sisters in Christ.
Equally so, it would be inappropriate, for instance, to express a kind of love that I might express toward my wife toward God.
This kind of distinction needs to be made within all categories of emotion, and therefore the music we choose must also be evaluated on this basis.
[...] Tom Schlueter’s article “music is never neutral” was also picked up by a Christian music blog. I like this blog, but definitely sourced in western church music–which is a style all its [...]
Sandy says: “Brahms composes like Brahms, and like Wagner, and like Lizst and like his other contemporaries.”
This would certainly be news to Wagner, who generally considered Brahms as someone constantly composing Beethoven’s 7th symphony (and I agree). But it seems amazing to even put Brahms and Liszt in the same sentence, or to brush them with the same brush. Such a brush would have to be too broad to fascilitate rigor in the discussion.
But your commentary on Brahms playing in the brothels, in my humble view, seemed to undercut your general position. I would think that the production of a beautiful piece of music in a very ugly circumstance would show, if anything, that music can have what is being discussed here, a “neutral” quality. The listener, 2-300 years later, does not infer the nastiness of the composer’s life, much less the nastiness in great detail, because the music simply does not convey it. The composer, while certainly having the opportunity to influence the content in a manner that is more “personal” and “revealing” can, at times, create something separate from himself/herself.
I would guess good hymn writing would involve something similar. The composer comes to the table with the cares of this world, the burden of sin, etc. And self-pity, anger, bitternes and self-import can reveal itself in the product. But, every now and then, more often than not, if we are lucky, the Holy Spirit allows something else to happen.
best,
Ingrid and Tim,
This is a dead-end argument. You cannot speak absolutely about a matter of conscience. That is the entire point of I Cor. 8. I would not want to have either of you to tell me what music that I could use or not use in a church service. That is something that each church (led by the pastor and elders) must wrestle through together.
I’m sorry, Ingrid, that you perceive my stance as cowardice. If the scriptures were clear on this subject (Thou Shalt Have No Guitars, Thou Shalt Only Use Strings, Thou Shalt Only Sing A Capella) then I would be as bold as a lion.
The writer’s boldness is missplaced….
Thomas, the issue of music may indeed be a “matter of conscience,” but I would respectfully submit to you that our consciences must be informed for us to make God-pleasing decisions.
Just because the Bible doesn’t explicitly address something – just because it may be a “matter of conscience” – doesn’t mean that it is neutral.
The Bible doesn’t explicitly forbid abortion, but I think I can conclusively argue that abortion is sin by drawing implications from Scripture, gathering other information relevant to the issue, and drawing biblical conclusions.
We’re not arguing here that everyone must draw the same lines regarding what music to use in worship. We are just arguing that lines must be drawn, because music is not neutral. It communicates messages, and it is important to God.
Scott, I agree that lines should be drawn. The issue that I have with the article is that the author seems to be drawing lines for us. Music is never neutral–yes. But music is also never absolute.
Do I draw lines for my family? You bet. That is biblical. But the moment that I try to impose those same lines for you and your family, I am overstepping biblical bounds.
Do I work with my pastor (I am the Music Minister at Grace Life Church in AL) to stick with stylistic guidelines for our congregation? Of course. However, I cannot walk into your church and call your music “worldly” or “evil” if it violates my conscience. For me it would be sin, but it may not be for you (1 Cor 8.). There is an authority issue that must be included as a qualifier in the discussion that the author either assumes (and should clarify) or naturally understands (and needs to express).
There seems to be a legalistic slant to this entire argument and I could take any of your musical tastes into a corner using your own thesis. At one time, the music of Palestrina, Bach, Handel, and Beethoven was a cultural stretch and was considered risque and controversial until culturally accepted over time. We listen to it in hindsight compared to contemporary music and it seems conservative.
Your stances would seem to condemn a young man raised in an inner city lifestyle who is edified by a Christian rapper who is striving to proclaim the gospel and you would do so because the style would be a hindrance to YOU but not to the young man. Be very careful with this line of thinking.
I appreciate your perspective, Thomas. A couple thoughts.
At one level I agree completely that one church does not have the right to tell another church where to draw the lines. I’m with you. I believe strongly in the autonomy of the local church.
However, what we are arguing is that music carries certain messages apart from lyrics, and if certain musical forms communicate messages that do not fit with Christian sentiments, should we not speak out? Feel free to disagree with the the assessment, but do so with careful argumentation and analysis of what the music expresses. Don’t just shout “You can’t tell me what to do!”
I’m all for debate and discussion, but let’s discuss.
Next, just a quick note about your comment regarding Palestrina, etc. All throughout music history, certain newer forms have been considered controversial for this reason or that. But never because the music inherently communicated sentiments outside Christian acceptance. There were other reasons not to use that music that passed over time. What we are arguing in that certain forms of pop music, like rap for instance, communicate messages that don’t fit with Christian affections.
>THOMAS writes: “Your stances would seem to condemn a young man raised in an inner city lifestyle who is edified by a Christian rapper who is striving to proclaim the gospel and you would do so because the style would be a hindrance to YOU but not to the young man.”
Scott can speak for himself certainly, but I don’t see this in his line of thinking at all. I see, instead, a clear invitation to such a young man to expose himself to – and strive for – something better. I am not comfortable dismissing such a reasonable invitation as mere “legalism.”
Thomas,
I have just a few questions for you. You state that music is never absolute; could you then imagine a circumstance where you would use a march as a lullabye to rock a child to sleep? Or could you see a circumstance where you’d use Barber’s “Adagio for Strings” to send an army off to battle? Or is the musical meaning of these examples objective enough that you’d say, “absolutely not.”?
Should the training of a musician prepare him to interpret the meaning of musical constructs? Or are the meanings of musical constructs so elusive and individualized that no one should suggest a meaning for any of them to any other individual?
And finally, should all church members’ associative interpretations be considered when choosing music for worship? Or are the musical constructs objective enough that they may be reliably interpreted by a trained musician employed by the church?
When lines are drawn, as you advocate, decisions have to be made, and a church that has members of differing opinions on these issues must yet answer these questions for a practical application in worship. In your philosophy, someone will end up making decisions of conscience on behalf of church members – “this is ok, that is not.”
How do you suggest avoiding this scenario?
Tim
Tim,
Welcome to my world!
These are issues that any Music Minister worth his salt should be humbly struggling with. That’s why a church has elders! It is their responsibility for the care and oversight of the church. That role includes providing music in its services that is in harmony (no pun intended) with its corporate conscience.
Is it possible that there are some each Sunday that might be challenged by musical styles in one of Grace Life’s song services? With around 1000 in attendance, I would think so. On the lay-person’s end of things, it is their responsibility to trust their pastor, knowing that if he has allowed a particular musical style or element that is challenging them, that it is part of their sanctification to do so.
If it becomes a stumblingblock (1 Cor
for an individual, they should appeal to their elders and trust the response given. Why else have elders?
There is such a corporate element to a song service in that my patiently enduring something that is not “my taste” for the good of the Body is far more important than that of my individual “worship experience”. We seemed to have lost that mindset in America.
As far as absolutes, when my first baby had colic, I used marches and upbeat music quite often to get her to sleep!
You are assuming that musical responses are absolute. They are not! My response to Adagio For Strings is very soothing. It is like fingernails on a chalkboard for my wife. Also, that piece was written by a flaming homosexual (bad) who was a Jew (good) in homage to the holocaust. That might very well have been inspirational for those getting ready to attack the Third Reich….
Mr. Ruckman,
How can you say that another musical form is “better” than rap for that young man in my example? Such arrogance! That young man might laugh you out of your blog entry!
You are forcing your own musical tastes upon another. Again, where is the scriptural backing for ANY of your stances?
Dear Thomas,
Your objection to the statements made by Ingrid and me was that by choosing music, we were violating your conscience. Yet your philosophy of worship offers no better. Let me ask you to put yourself in another pair of shoes with the following example:
Suppose you were attending a church where conservative hymnody is the rule, week in and week out. Your studies and Bible reading have brought you to a place where your conscience is convicted that pop/rock music objectively expresses sensuality, anger, and rebellion. Your church leaders then determine that they will make a philosophical/theological change and include pop/rock music in worship, thus telling you what you must sing to the Lord. You say you cannot sing these songs because your conscience is held captive to the Word. (None of this is taste, or preference, but a real desire to honor the Lord with music that is set apart from the culture.) Based on your refusal to sing these songs, the leaders of the church say that if you do not sing the pop/rock songs on Sunday mornings, you risk having formal disciplinary charges of contumacy brought against you.
Once again, your conscience in the Lord is violated by the church leaders according to the same I Cor. passage you used to charge Ingrid and me in your earlier post.
In other words, your proposal does not do away with the violation of conscience you claim for yourself in your current view. You cannot presume that all objections against pop/rock music are ones of taste or preference. There are substantive arguments being made against its use in worship on this website and elsewhere that have nothing to do with taste and preference.
Different individual responses to music are not proof that music cannot or does not communicate objectively. There are other much more plausible explanations for different reactions to music; I’d urge you to investigate them on this website, in Scott’s upcoming book, and in John Makujina’s “Measuring the Music.”
I reject your notion that there is such a thing as a corporate conscience. You have cited the corporate conscience as the arbiter/advisor to the elders in making these decisions, and that’s another way of saying, “What do the people want?” It often manifests itself in the taking of a poll to see what people want to sing. This is a man-centered approach and ought to be avoided. The elders should scour the Bible for commands, examples, models, and principles for making these decisions, not take a poll. Elders err when they seek to please the people foremost.
Tim
> Thomas wrote: How can you say that another musical form is “better” than rap for that young man in my example? Such arrogance!
Well, I think you are confusing terms a bit. But, if a rap song praises drugs, sex and murder but, along the way, says “Thank you, Jesus,” I have no problem suggesting many other forms of music (and lyrics) might be “better” in a wide variety of ways.
> You are forcing your own musical tastes upon another.
Oh, I think you are protesting too much. An invitation to consider what is best for a believer (or anyone else) is not “forcing” anyone to do, or think, anything.
> Again, where is the scriptural backing for ANY of your stances?
Let me get this right, you want me to produce Scripture which supports the notion of judging, paying attention to and exposing oneself to things that are pure, right, and uplifting? Is that right?
Thomas, let me ask you a question. Do you feed your children based upon what they like and want? Or do you give them what you believe is best for them, whether or not they initially like it? Do you rather expect them to grow to enjoy what is demonstrably good? If so, what Bible verse do you have to prove that what you have chosen for your children is best for them? Upon what basis do you make such decisions for them?
1 Cor 8
Now concerning things sacrificed to idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge makes arrogant, but love edifies. 2 If anyone supposes that he knows anything, he has not yet known as he ought to know; 3 but if anyone loves God, he is known by Him.
4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.
7 However not all men have this knowledge; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. 8 But food will not commend us to God; we are neither the worse if we do not eat, nor the better if we do eat. 9 But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if someone sees you, who have knowledge, dining in an idol’s temple, will not his conscience, if he is weak, be strengthened to eat things sacrificed to idols? 11 For through your knowledge he who is weak is ruined, the brother for whose sake Christ died. 12 And so, by sinning against the brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause my brother to stumble.
NASU
I would challenge all who are taking the author’s stance not to be arrogant with your knowledge. Let me state again that my musical tastes and conscience are probably very similar to yours. However, I will not sin in calling out others who do not share that same conscience.
The entire tambre of your stance seems to be one of arrogance (v. 1) even though great knowledge is displayed. The telos of 1 Cor. 8 is an appeal to someone like me who believes that I can listen to all instrumental music because “all things are from Him” (v. 6) but I choose to abstain from certain styles corporately (under the direction of my pastor) because it might cause others to stumble.
The telos is not saying that I must impose my convictions upon others but that I must refrain from things that I know that I am free to enjoy but shouldn’t because of other believers. If that is what the author is trying to say, I say a hearty “Amen” but I did not gather than message from him or from you Scott or Tim or Mr. Ruckman.
You seem to be more concerned with expressing your knowledge over what is “better” stylistically than others.
Mr. Ruckman, you are assuming that a rap song would glorify drugs, sex and murder but I know of many God-honoring artists who are striving to create music in that form that is theologically correct and Christ-exalting.
I want you to produce scripture, any scripture, that can back up this argument that Western European, caucasian music is “God’s” music. You cannot and you cannot condemn anyone who is edified by music that does not fit that category. The issue of music is the lyrical content–alone. It is not the musical styles of instrumental music.
If you brothers want to make an appeal, it should not be in terms of saying that someone is sinning because they are free to listen to instrumental styles that violate your conscience. You should do so on the grounds that you have the weaker conscience and they the stronger one and should refrain as to not cause you to stumble.
Thomas, I do not believe you are using 1 Corinthians correctly. Paul is dealing with two issue related to the meat: (1) Whether or not the meat is good or evil, and (2) How to deal with associations. On point (1) Paul argues that the meat is indeed GOOD. It is intrinsically GOOD. He moves past that question rather quickly to the issue of association, in which case his principles are very helpful.
Our discussions here about music have to do with point (1), not point (2). In other words, we are trying to ask the question of whether certain forms of music are good or evil. That is a legitimate question to ask. We answer such questions using logic, reason, common sense, observation, analysis, testing, etc. For doesn’t Paul tell us to test everything and hold fast to that which is GOOD? We are asking whether it is good.
We are not, in this discussion, dealing with Paul’s second point concerning associations. So really, Paul’s principles in 1 Corinthians 8-10 don’t apply directly, although we could certainly apply them in principle.
God demands, as I noted earlier, that we test everything, prove everything, consume only those things that are praiseworthy, etc. That is what we are seeking to do here. We have biblical warrant to do so.
Now, feel free to disagree with our analysis. Feel free to say, “I don’t agree with your assessment of such-and-such form of music.” But tell us why. Give us reasons.
Don’t discredit the process. God wants us to discern good from evil in everything we do.
Tim, You are twisting a valid concept of elders’ authority and protecting the edification of their congregation with a “finger in the air” approach. The two are totally different approaches.
Do you pastor a church? Are you in any leadership position in your church? If you are, I would hope and pray that you are taking loving, firm stances in areas that are non-negotiable. In areas that are not, however, to take those same stances is absurd.
If I am a pastor of a church and I know that music styles are violating the conscience of a member, I’m not going to bring disciplinary charges against them. You don’t understand church discipline, brother. They are free to abstain because to participate would cause them to sin. I would also re-evaluate the decision and prayerfully consider adjusting.
The goal, stylistically, of any church song service, is to find the best middle ground so as to violate the least consciences present (1 Cor 8:13). There’s nothing man-centered in that; only loving edification (1 Cor. 8:1).
In my home, I set the perameters for my family. You cannot separate matters of conscience and authority. Under whose authority are you? Are you the authority figure? It’s these questions that have to be answered to properly deal with yours.
BTW, let me say that I love this discussion and appreciate each of your desires to be faithful to Christ is all areas. Please accept my advice in a spirit of love and edification and a desire to stay in biblical balance avoiding legalism on the one extreme and license on the other.
Scott,
“We answer such questions using logic, reason, common sense, observation, analysis, testing, etc.”
This is exactly my point! All of these elements are not infallible! Note in the list that you don’t include scripture!
This is why the scriptures are silent on the issue. The church has always integrated music of its vernacular culture and set that music to truth (hopefully) to edify its congregation. What you are attempting to do is to make papal declarations that only certain styles are appropriate. Why can’t you see the error of such ways?
With that being said, I’m glad you care so much about this issue. Too often, no thought goes into it!
> Thomas writes: Mr. Ruckman, you are assuming that a rap song would glorify drugs, sex and murder …
I do nothing of the kind. You just were not willing to follow my clear position through a legitimate example. And I well understand why.
> I want you to produce scripture, any scripture, that can back up this argument that Western European, caucasian music is “God’s” music.
I don’t want you to produce an ounce of Scripture. Forget about Scripture. Show me one sentence in the article which suggests this is the position of the author.
> You cannot and you cannot condemn anyone who is edified by music that does not fit that category.
Again, you seem way too sensitive about all of this. Maybe that is a “conscience” thing, as you might say. I Cor 2:15
Thomas,
I am not a pastor or an elder, to which you might well reply, ‘excellent!’ Instead, I am the church member in the hypothetical above. My session threatened my family and me with formal charges of church discipline when we refused to participate in the music ministry after their philosophical change. I’ve seen this kind of abuse of ecclessiastical power, as well as the manifestation of what you call “collective conscience” in the form of surveys and polls by well meaning church leadership. Pragmatism often results in man-centeredness. There are countless examples of this across the country in the name of “cultural sensitivity.” Those who disagree are frequently branded legalists and Phraisees as you have done, without a full discussion of the issue.
The scariest part of the whole CCM movement is the speed and virulence with which it has been imported into Christ’s church. Though I realize anything can become an idol, it nonetheless reminds me of Exodus 32. Rock music has been imported under the auspices of church growth and cultural sensitivity without much reflection as to the effects of importing the product of a pagan culture into worship against the command to worship Him in the beauty of His holiness.
I wholeheartedly agree with Scott’s assessment that you are using I Cor. incorrectly, and will only add that you have misunderstood the phrase “all things are from Him” as you quote and use it. “All things are from Him” cannot mean all things created by man. If it did, pornography would be only an issue of conscience rather than a sin. Your use of this passage demonstrates your Pelagian error in that you have excused two man-made things – music and musical style – from the effects of the Fall, claiming them not to have been tainted with man’s sin. Music and musical style are not meat, and thus are subject to commands for discernment.
Have you taken steps to obtain and read John Makujina’s book that I mentioned earlier? There’s a full-orbed scriptural defense of the ability of music to communicate objectively in his book if you’re looking for scripture to back up this position.
Tim
It is obvious that you are overreacting to erroneous use of church discipline by erroneous condemnation of musical styles. Two wrongs do not make a right. Only scripture is right and still none of you have backed anything you have said up with scripture.
I still wholeheartedly stand by the use of 1 Cor. 8. I also bristle at being called a Pelagian. I find it also amusing in that I’m usually called a hyper-conservative, Calvinistic freak!
I doubt I take the time to read Makujina’s book because, if it is running in your lane, it is still a futile attempt to dogmatically speak where scripture doesn’t.
If musical styles were absolute, in other words, if God had only a certain musical style in which He approved for the church, don’t you think He would have clearly expressed that in His word?
You brothers are the ones who are way too sensitive to this issue. The only time I ever deal with it is when I hear of others who are trying to “speak from Sinai” on it!
Mr. Ruckman,
“Forget about scripture”?????? You can’t be serious!
> Thomas writes: Mr. Ruckman, “Forget about scripture”?????? You can’t be serious!
Couldn’t be more. Scripture appears to be distracting you from more immediate, far less-complex things. For example, I am still waiting for you to locate a single sentence in the piece above which suggests “Western European, caucasian music is “God’s” music.”
I know I will wait a long, long time too. And so do you. And we both know what that means. Let’s just accept that for what it is, and what it says. Similarly, you write:
> … if God had only a certain musical style in which He approved for the church …
Is that really what you got out of Tom’s article? If so, I would probably not feel comfortable discussing your interpretations of Scripture at any serious level, not on this topic anyway.
Tom,
Why do you refuse to read a respected reformed theologian’s exegetical treatment of scriptural passages that you request we provide for you? Is it because you are afraid of what you will find? That’s not a Calvinistic approach to handling information.
You state, “It is obvious that you are overreacting to erroneous use of church discipline by erroneous condemnation of musical styles.” How can you say that my position is an overreaction when my position preceded the erroneous charges of church discipline? Reaction must be in response to something. Come on, Tom, that’s too easy to refute.
If it helps, Tom, please know that my wife and I were seriously challenged by this position when it was first presented to us. I’m a classical pianist by profession but always enjoyed my daily dose of junk music and participated in entertainment style music as a young person in the church. When confronted with the issue, it was exceedingly difficult. We accused those presenting it of having an elitist attitude and were offended that our taste had been questioned. We were emotionally committed to the music we liked. We read and read and read and read about the issue from both perspectives. I can say for myself that it was as difficult to come to terms with as accepting the Calvinistic teaching on predestination – and both ultimately boiled down to an issue of pride. But you shut down your mind when you refuse to consider the evidence THAT YOU’VE REQUESTED from the other side of the argument .
Please reconsider reading Makujina’s book. Even if you continue to disagree, you will be better informed from the “other side.”
Tim
p.s. Tom,
No one is claiming that God says ONLY ONE musical style will do. You’ve said that more than once, and you are exaggerating what’s being said here. There are many musical styles that can function in worship. But that there are many right ones doesn’t mean that there are no wrong ones. Your question could just as easily be asked about abortion, as Scott pointed out earlier: “If God thought abortion was really a sin, don’t you think He would have clearly expressed that in His word?” You’re asking the Lord to provide a rule-book, which He doesn’t. Many teachings are provided in the form of examples, principles, and implicit (as well as the obvious explicit) truths.
Most of this misunderstanding can be traced to the fact that the church has lost what previous serious biblical treatment of musical principles was done by the saints of old. Calvin himself said in his preface to the Genevan Psalter,
“And in truth we know by experience that singing has great force and vigor to move and inflame the hearts of men to invoke and praise God with a more vehement and ardent zeal. Care must always be taken that the song be neither light nor frivolous; but that it have weight and majesty (as St. Augustine says), and also, there is a great difference between music which one makes to entertain men at table and in their houses, and the Psalms which are sung in the Church in the presence of God and his angels. But when anyone wishes to judge correctly of the form which is here presented, we hope that it will be found holy and pure, seeing that it is simply directed to the edification of which we have spoken. Now among the other things which are proper for recreating man and giving him pleasure, music is either the first, or one of the principal; and it is necessary for us to think that it is a gift of God deputed for that use. Moreover, because of this, we ought to be the more careful not to abuse it, for fear of soiling and contaminating it, converting it our condemnation, where it was dedicated to our profit and use. If there were no other consideration than this alone, it ought indeed to move us to moderate the use of music, to make it serve all honest things; and that it should no give occasion for our giving free rein to dissolution, or making ourselves effeminate in disordered delights, and that it should not become the instrument of lasciviousness nor of any shamelessness.”
Tim
Mr. Ruckman,
You’re still waiting for something out of the article that suggests one style is God’s? What about these:
“Now listen to the message of the brass instruments and percussion in this clip at the beginning of the hymn, Christ is Made the Sure Foundation. What are the instructions of the instruments here? What are they calling listeners to do? Come and worship God. The brass tell us there is royalty present. The percussion at the end of the fanfare speaks not of dance and flesh, but of honor and respect and reverence. What a difference. Same instruments. Different message entirely.”
And
“It doesn’t make sense to put serious words with circus-style music, and it doesn’t make sense to have lyrics that speak of the majesty and glory of Christ put to sounds that speak of the streets, anger and resentment as we have with rap. Yet that is often what happens in corporate Christian worship today. The music part, supposedly, is saying nothing.”
You didn’t have to wait too long did you?
Anyone that suggests that we don’t need to look at scripture is the one very confused….
Tim,
And Luther categorically disagreed with Calvin on the subject.
Tim,
I’m not at all afraid of what I will find. I’m not the least bit intimidated by any of your stances…just saddened. I’ve not had any trouble in over 20 years of public ministry in this area. In following the leadership of my pastors and striving to provide music that is the least offensive possible for the entire congregation, the Lord has greatly blessed it.
Your error is that you pre-suppose because styles clearly condemned in the original article are offensive to you they must be offensive to God.
> Thomas writes: Mr. Ruckman, You’re still waiting for something out of the article that suggests one style is God’s?
No, I am not. But I can certainly appreciate the effort to shift gears and seek freedom from the language you have employed.
I am still waiting for anything in the piece which suggests 1) “Western European, caucasian music is “God’s” music” or 2) “God had only a certain musical style in which He approved for the church.”
These are certainly not reasonably construed from either of the passages that you mentioned. Not even close.
Gentlemen,
I have enjoyed the discussion. I have even directed folks at my blog to have a look-in and even comment. I’ve got to get on to running a church music department.
Thanks for your time!
Thomas, All we are insisting is that music communicates messages, and some messages are inappropriate for mixture with biblical truth.
Thomas (if you’re still reading),
You paint with a broad brush. With what part of what Calvin says above does Luther disagree? The Calvin quotations deal with the musical character and expression of the tunes; I don’t think you’ll find Luther disagreeing on these points. They of course disagreed on the use of instruments in the worship, but we’re not speaking about that here – rather about the character and the nature of the expression of the music that is used.
Tim
Don’t you think that playing ‘Amazing Grace’ to the tune of ‘Rocky Top’ or playng ” Holy, Holy, Holy” to the tune of “Yankee Doodle” trivializes the message those songs are trying to communicate?
Gary,
I personally agree with you for two reasons:
The first is that the tunes themselves are intrinsically lighter and of a different expressive character than the text implies. This reason carries with it a belief that the tunes express emotion universally from within their musical properties.
The other reason is the associations and connotations that most of us bring to those tunes. An adherent of the ‘music is neutral’ position would provide only the second reason, if he would agree with you at all. He would further argue (and here’s where I part ways with him) that we have learned our trivial associations with those tunes and had we learned other associations with them originally, the tunes would be perfectly fine for “Amazing Grace.”
I think, for the purposes of assessing music for worship, we must rely on an evaluation of the expressive properties of the tunes themselves, with little regard for the individual associations people may bring to those tunes (or more broadly, styles). It’s simply too chaotic to consider all the individual associations people bring to different musics.
My two cents.
Tim
I once tried to listening to Sinatra and Nat King Cole to discover why they were such great singers. I never found out why but I did notice some things. It seemed that when they sang you could clearly understand them and the music seemed to be in the background. The music seemed to act as a spotlight on the words they were singing.
My experience is that when it comes to music and words either the music will “win” or the words will “win”. What I mean by that is the music will be so loud that it drowns out the words being sung or it will attract so much attention to itself that even though you can hear the words they go right past your attentive grasp. In that case the music “wins”. The words “win” when the music points to the words as if to say “Look! Look! at those words .Pay attention to what is being said!” In Christian music it is the words that we sing that are the most important. If those words do not come across clearly so that they can be understood and processed in the heart of the believer what good are they?
I notice that the singing in both the temple and by the choir in the book of Revelation are supported by harps.It would seem that instruments or playing that does not overwhelm the voice is very important to God.
Gary,
It’s not only volume that causes the words to ‘win.’ Here, in contrast to the Revelation example you cite, this passage from 2 Chronicles shows us that voices are accompanied by more naturally loud instruments:
The trumpeters and singers joined in unison, as with one voice, to give praise and thanks to the LORD. Accompanied by trumpets, cymbals and other instruments, they raised their voices in praise to the LORD and sang: “He is good; his love endures forever.” Then the temple of the LORD was filled with a cloud . . .
It’s interesting that they joined in unison as with one voice. Dynamic balance is not only a function of the instrument being used, but also how the instrument is played and the number of singers being accompanied and the strength of those singers.
But my main point is that the expressive effect of the music includes many more musical aspects than just volume.
I do agree than in sung Christian praise, the music must support the words so that they ‘win.’
Tim
Thank you Tim,Scott,Dan,etc. for providing excellent commentary on worship/music issues.I believe this site has the best useful information to battle the nonsensical stuff that seems to have invaded almost every church in the USA.I didn’t really care about these things until our pastor retired and the new pastor brought in ccm and other measures.
I have been employing the language used here to fight the battle:the distinction between passions (koilia) and affections (splankna);apollonian music vs. dyonisian music etc.
It seems that if you can tap your toe to it almost any piece of false doctrine or false teachers can get into your church. If I were to teach the words to “Lord, I lift Your name on High” on Easter Sunday in my church I would probably be asked to leave and not come back.There is no resurrection in that song. One goes from the grave to the sky without any reference to the resurrection. I believe one can have an abbreviated theology but the resurrection is the centerpiece of the gospel.
Toe tapping music also lets in false teachers such as Phillips, Craig, and Dean. These guys are Oneness Pentecostal pastors who deny the doctrine of the trinity among other things. In their Enquirers Handbook they assert that the Son of God did not come into existence until He was born in Bethlehem;until then He only existed in the mind of God!
Gary,
I’m sorry to hear about your church’s conversion to pop/rock music in its worship. I think you’re right that false doctrine is brought into churches when the music used is chosen for its appeal rather than its doctrine and affect. I repeatedly made these arguments and more before our pastor and session for more than three years, citing theological sources and scripture, to no avail. In February of 2007, they held a two-day leadership retreat to discuss music (with no musicians present) and there decided that pop/rock would be used in worship. We’re now traveling 47 miles to the nearest Gospel preaching church that doesn’t use pop/rock music in its worship service. Scott has a great article entitled something like “Orthopraxy, Orthodoxy, Orthopathy” that describes the influence of the affections on the will. Sorry if I didn’t get the title right, Scott. But it’s excellent!
Tim
I’m with Thomas in this discussion. His advice is to be cautious about drawing dogmatic conclusions (based on your own cultural experiences) and applying them to others. His use of I Cor. 8 is applicable in this discussion. I’m sure there were people who were strongly opposed to eating meat sacrificed to idols. They had good reason to be, consider the culture they had come out of. But, what about the brother who had no knowledge of that culture, didn’t grow up around idol worship. He would have wondered what all the fuss was about. I would agree that certain music evokes certain emotions for me, but I would also submit that my Christian brothers in Peru don’t share my emotional ties. I don’t think you could have this discussion in the mountains of Peru because your examples do not apply universally, but scripture does (isn’t that wonderful).
It appears that some of your opinions are aimed at those who are trying to take a pragmatic approach to church growth. I want to say that I think that is wrong. I would say that much of what is being promoted as “worship” today is not edifying to me personally, and would not be used in our church. However, I cannot condemn another brother (with scripture support) for having a different opinion. This is not to say that for me, my family, and my church I don’t make judgements-I do because I hold a position of authority in those areas.
I wish you’d just consider Thomas’ warning to be careful in making these judgements, and using them to draw a line for whom you approve, or associate with. I believe that there is wisdom in his advice. Thanks
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your kindly spoken concerns. I can assure you that no small amount of scripture study and prayer have accompanied the words that are written here. The point being made here is that our Christian brothers in Peru would most assuredly understand the emotional content of the music we’re discussing, because they experience emotions in the same way we do, and music is a language designed to communicate those emotions using sound referents to emulate and evoke the feelings. (In fact there are many musicological experiments that have been done among Aboriginal as well as other tribal groups proving the cross-cultural emotional comprehensibility of musical gestures used by Haydn, Bach, and any other mainstream composer you’d like to mention. But you won’t hear much about this in today’s multi-cultural, pluralistic society.)
But it is Christ who shapes cultures. Where Christ has been, the culture is transformed. Where Christ is new, the culture will soon be transformed, unless those bringing Christ also bring the message that Christ doesn’t transform. In cultures where music is vainly repetitive for the purposes of pagan ritual driven by opiates, Christ’s influence should transform that ethos. The art should be transformed, the literature, the music – all this because the musician’s heart, the painter’s heart, and the author’s heart have been transformed and conformed to the image of Christ. Christ warns about vainly repetitive prayers. How can Christian prayers set to music thus be set to vainly repetitive music? The music is an outworking of Christ in the culture where Christ’s influence has had the longest period of time to affect the culture – the West.
I’m not sure how you or Gary explain the notion that God creates all music so therefore all music is good, as your citing of I Cor. 8 would imply. In that passage, Paul is referring to God-created flesh without human intervention. The natural, raw elements God has given in music are the acoustic properties form which music is made by man: duration (rhythm), frequency (pitch), amplitude (volume), and waveform (timbre). All music from all cultures comes from these four God-given elements. All the rest of music involves man’s sin-tainted use of these God-given elements, and as such, the results must be subject to judgment and discernment. This must be true unless you claim that all music is inspired by God at the level of Scripture and thus impervious to the effects of the Fall. Your claim from I Corinthians is analogous to saying that because God created light, all photography and art is therefore good and exempt from judgment – making pornography simply a matter of personal taste, rather than a sin. Simply put, I’m just not sure how a Christian can logically exempt an entire field of the arts from the effects of original sin.
For an excellent biblical exegesis of how music expresses emotion universally, cross-culturally, and in a time-transcendent fashion, I would strongly urge both you and Gary to read John Makujina’s Measuring the Music. He clearly distinguishes between the bioacoustic expressive properties of music that are being espoused here on this website, and the associative and iconic communicative experiences you are describing. He further explores multiple passages of Scripture to convincingly prove these points. Makujina also points out additional flaws in the understanding you are embracing of I Corinthians 8 involving the Apostle Paul’s defensive and offensive strategies regarding the Gospel. The use of pop/rock music as a means of promoting the Gospel is an offensive strategy similar to the rhetorical devices Paul elsewhere decries.
I would submit that you have bought into the postmodern notion that communication is relative as far as music is concerned. Michael, this is a RECENT philosophy that no one dared believe prior to the advent of postmodern theories of relative truth. It was propagated by composer/philosophers of the 1950s (and a few before that) who were notorious for their relativistic views. It was then made popular by pop/rock music groups in word and song. It is analogous to the interpretation of the Constitution of the US as a living document, subject to reinterpretation according to the times in which we live. This approach makes chaos of communication of any kind.
Though I appreciate your kind words of caution, I would urge you to study the topic from the other point of view, before committing so fully to your view. The Bible discusses music on more than 600 occasions throughout its pages, and there’s a lot there for study before forming an opinion.
Thank you for writing. I appreciate the conversation on the issue.
Tim
Dear Michael (and Gary),
Sorry, I used the wrong name above. I meant Tom, not Gary.
Apologies!
Tim
This is an interesting discussion. Your post clearly outlines your stance on instrumental music and meaning (“the music alone carried the message”). I have a few questions for you: 1. Whence comes the meaning in instrumental music (composer, performer or listener, or is the meaning somehow intertwined with form, melody, etc)? 2. Are meanings within various pieces of instrumental music absolute?
Consider this point: Susan McClary, a leader of the “New Musicology” movement, and professor of music at UCLA, wrote that the first movement of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony “explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist.” Apparently, when McClary listens to and analyzes the 1st movement of Beethoven’s 9th, this is the message she perceives. Is that message absolute? Does (or should) everyone hear the “murderous rate of a rapist” when listening to the aforementioned piece? Of course, if you read anything at all about McClary, you will quickly learn how she came to such a conclusion (hint: it has little to do with the music itself).
Another point: In the book “Music in East Africa,” Vanderbilt University musicologist Gregory Barz makes the following comments about “music” in East Africa: “For many East Africans, the concept of “music” does not exist, at least not in the sense we may be most familiar with.” Barz goes on to point out how the term “ngoma,” which is used in many areas in East Africa to describe what we think of as music, is an all-encompassing term that pervades daily life. The line between what is and what is not “music” is blurred.
These two examples illustrate how perspectives (in these cases, feminism and culture) can influence “meaning” in music. Surely no one would argue that a piece of high western art music would possess the same “meaning” when heard by the tribal people of East Africa, for example.
Brad
Brad,
Actually, quite a bit of cross-cultural study with regard to sound gesture has been done by Australian neurologist and musician Manfred Klein. Klein proves that human beings (from Aboriginal tribes through trained Western listeners) beings hear gesture in sound as a manifestation of the motion that accompanies emotion. Sadness, joy, fear – all these and more are heard across multiple cultures with an extremely high degree of accuracy without regard for previous education or training in music.
Secondly, John Makujina (Measuring the Music) argues very effectively from several passages in Scripture that this means of understanding music proven by Klein (called bioacoustic) is the one presumed by the authors of the Bible. He postulates that the Bible’s premise is that sound has direct connection to the human emotion via this connection with the various physiological responses that accompany our feelings.
There are many other explanations for the two examples you cite, including the biases that you readily describe (i.e. the feminist could easily override or deny a more normally understood interpretation of the opening of Beethoven’s 9th simply to further her agenda). Although, I’ll have to say, there’s a lot of anger in the opening of the Ninth symphony. Her attachment of murderous rape is no doubt her own personal association but she’s on the right end of the emotional spectrum in describing the violent anger Beethoven evokes with that opening.
Sorry Brad, but I think you’ve been hoodwinked by the spirit of this age with regard to musical understanding – this very new musical manifestation of postmodern, multi-cultural, relativism. Read Makujina and reconsider musical interpretation from a Biblical framework.
Tim
Tim,
You’re correct when you state McClary has multiple reasons for arriving at her conclusions. John Sloboda, who has done extensive research in the area of music and emotional response, said that when considering emotional response to music, two different but complementary factors must be considered: content and context. Your argument attends to one and ignores the other.
I would like you to answer the question I asked in my initial post: is the meaning you perceive in music, the music you state is “carried by the music itself,” absolute? I’m fairly confident I know the answer. However, I would still like to read your response.
As for Makujina, I have not read his book, but I have listened to some of his lectures online. When asked at a 2005 lecture about rock music, he states “music is difficult to quantify,” and that is it “it difficult sometimes to say, it must mean this (emphasis on this).” He then references dance and juxtaposes modern dance with the dancing often seen on stage by rock music performers. Makujina himself comments in the lecture on the “context” of music as being very powerful.
My point here is not to say that instrumental music is devoid of meaning- it surely does possess meaning. I think we’re talking about different things here. You’re stating instrumental music carries meaning, which I don’t dispute. However, my question once again is, whence comes the meaning?
Brad
Brad,
You ask very good questions. I do not deny context. But the prime context to consider is within the arena of the sound constructs of the music itself. Acoustically, this arena contains a sound context that boils down to four essential phenomenon within the physical world – the raw elements in nature from which music is created: waveform, amplitude, duration, and frequency. Perceptually, these four elements translate roughly into timbre, volume (dynamics), rhythm (in all its various manifestations), and pitch (including interval, melody, harmony, texture, etc.). These elements and their sub-parts interact with one another in complex and myriad (infinite?) ways to create what we call music. Composers leave us clues to their expressive intentions using symbols for these these elements. Performers decode these clues to the best of their ability, deciphering the symbols on the page and transferring them to sound across time. Listeners hear sound signifiers that include the elements of dynamics, pitch, timbre, and rhythm. These sound signifiers represent distance across time that signal motion to the listener. These motions indicators in turn trigger within the listener the emotions that are accompanied by the motions of human beings cross-culturally when human beings experience emotions; thus the term bioacoustic. Makujina says it something like this: when human beings (in all cultures) experience sadness, their body motions are slow, downward, smooth, soft, etc. Music represents in sound these motions of the body using melodic intervals (descending dominates), harmony (minor, with its lowered third), register (lower rather than higher ranges), tempo (slower, rather than faster tempi), rhythms (longer, rather than quicker note values), timbre (darker, rather than brighter instruments), articulations (slurred, legato passages, rather than staccato or marcato), and a variety of other musical elements. Composers (and performers to some degree) can control the degree to which these elements interact with one another to temper the emotion. Contrapuntal voices can offer contradictory sound signals to express complex emotions (sadness tinged with happiness, struggle foreshadowing triumph, etc.). The process of musical communication from the mind of the composer through the performer to the mind of the audience is a complex one, with multiple opportunities for a breakdown in communication. These breakdowns can lead to contradictory emotional responses on the part of various listeners – yet another viable explanation for differing opinions as to what music means.
Makujina does indeed observe external musical contexts as well, which I don’t deny either. These he notes are variously labeled (and sometimes distinguished from one another) by aestheticians, theorists, and musicologists as “iconic” or “associative,” as well as a few other terms. These associative responses to music do indeed carry meaning, but that meaning is brought to the listening experience by each individual listener through previous experiences and may well be completely unrelated to the sound constructs of the music itself – a kind of Pavlovian response to certain songs, certain timbres, certain styles. But Makujina argues for the bioacoustic model of interpretation as prime for the purposes of selecting music for worship. He argues that we base our evaluation of music’s meaning on the sound constructs of the compositions themselves as the alternative is to degenerate into chaos. As I say, I think he argues this very effectively from scripture.
The gist of all this, Brad, is to say that music communicate through two principal means: bioacoustic and associative. Makujina has made a believer out of me (using Scripture!) that music’s primary means of communication is bioacoustic – using sound through time to communicate motion, which in turn triggers emotion. It’s no coincidence that the words are related, or that we say we were “moved” to indicate intense feeling, or that a symphony’s divisions are entitled “movements,” I hope you’ll forgive me if my response is overly passionate. Multiculturalism, in combination with relativism, has commandeered the discussion these past 40 years so that no one should dare challenge the prevailing notion that we are all entitled to our own opinion (which of course we are), but in addition, that’s the end of the story. “No one had better dare tell me that this music objectively means thus and such,” is the attitude with which many individuals arrive on the scene. But in fact, while I won’t claim that music communicates propositional truth absolutely, it does (using motion) communicate affections within a fairly narrow band on the emotional spectrum such that certain emotions (sensuality and majesty, for example) are clearly distinguishable by listeners across cultural boundaries.
Thanks for the discussion, Brad. Did I answer your questions?
Tim
Tim,
I have no problem with your passion for the subject. The importance of “getting it right” warrants such discussions take place. I haven’t read Makujina’s book, therefore, I won’t comment on his bioacoustic theory on music and affective response (I’ll do that after I read his book).
Leonard Meyer’s “Emotion and Meaning in Music” is a major work in this area, and according to the author, the most important meanings in music do not correspond with extramusical concepts. However, he does not contend that other kinds of meaning are nonexistent. Meyer’s perspective advanced by the book is often described as that of an “absolute expressionist.” In his own words, “absolute meanings and referential meanings are not mutually exclusive.” One of the major tenets of his theory deals with inhibition and delayed response, that is, when music presents a listener with unexpected sounds or rhythms, it causes the listener to become suspenseful and expecting of an event. It is in this expectation (and delay, or inhibition) that emotional arousal occurs. Some of you may have seen Meyer’s three-part equation: expectation=emotion=meaning. This theory presents some problems, particularly in the area of the arousal of a pleasurable response. His theory does not account for “a good explanation of why pleasant emotions are aroused” (R. F. Miller, 1992).
Reinhard Kopiez has written an excellent article on music and meaning entitled, “Making Music and Making Sense Through Music.” In the article, he explains the three basic positions concerning music and meaning: 1. Music has no meaning at all (Kant indicated that music without text was a mere “amusement of the senses”). 2. The meaning of music is in its form. This theory gained prominence in the 19th century and was summarized by Eduard Hanslick, who stated that music comprises only “tonally moving forms” (from the comments you have made on Makujink, this theory seems to be the one he most closely attends. Hanslick speaks at length on the motion of music, the rise and fall, the fast and slow, weak and strong. However, Hanslick also states that motion is just one attribute of feeling, not feeling itself). 3. The meaning of music is the expression of emotion. Hausegger contended that, while there is a cognitive side to understanding music, there is also an universal and intuitive understanding of emotion in music. This is one possible explanation why the untrained musician may listen to music and find it expressive of emotion.
Obviously, there is much more to say on the concept of music and meaning. As shown in this post, there is no unified, “one-answer” approach to the subject. I am enjoying the discussion on music, emotion and meaning. I look forward to receiving comments on the three theories presented in this post.
Brad
Brad,
You’ve done your reading! I’ve read the Meyer and Hanslick’s little book, but not the Kopiez. I’ll look forward to that. It sounds as though we’re speaking from a similar starting point – two modes of communication. Content and context to use your terminology, bioacoustic and associative to use mine (which is stolen from Makujina).
I find Makujina’s summary of Meyer’s opinion telling:
“Meyer is convinced that of the two modes of signification, bioacoustic and iconic, the bioacoustic is dominant.”
And then, quoting Meyer:
“However important the associations formed by contiguity (iconic system) may be, their role in connotative signification (standardized associations between sign and referent) is a relatively minor one. Most connotations arise as the result of similarities which exist between our experience of music, on the one hand, and our experience of concepts, objects, activities, qualities, and states of mind found in the extramusical world, on the other. Generally associations formed by contiguity modify and delimit those formed by similarity. Both music and life are experienced as dynamic processes – as motions differentiated both in shape and in quality. Such motions may be fast or slow, continuous or disjointed, precise or ambiguous, calm or violent and so forht. Even experiences without literal, phenomenal motion are somehow associated with activity. Sunlight, the pyramids, a smoothly polished stone, a jagged line – each, depending partly upon our attitude toward it, is felt to exhibit some characteristic quality of motion and sound.”
Further quoting Meyer:
“The question is whether the processes of association are the same in different cultures; whether similar musical processes and structures give rise to similar or analogous connotations in different cultures. A modest sampling of the evidence indicates that these processes are cross-cultural.”
Makjuna then goes on to cite several other authorities whose writings point in the same direction (Lidov, Tagg, and others).
The passage you cite deals with how music creates meaning – basically through dashed expectations. Establish patterns and expectations, surprise the listener by contradicting those prepared expectations, and musical meaning results. (This is the basic formula for the creation of style.) But your passage doesn’t address the type of musical meaning achieved, or by what sound signifiers are used to produce it.
Hanslick had two major postulations: .
“The negative proposition that to express or arouse emotions is not the purpose of music, and the correlative positive proposition that whatever in music is beautiful is beautiful in a specifically musical way, wholly independent of our emotions and of natural beauty.”
Hanslick states:
“If the contemplation of something beautiful arouses pleasurable feelings, this effect is distinct from the beautiful as such. I may, indeed, place a beautiful object before an observer with the avowed purpose of giving him pleasure, but this purpose in no way affects the beauty of the object. The beautiful is and remains beautiful though it arouse no emotion whatever, and though there be no one to look at it. In other words, although the beautiful exists for the gratification of an observer, it is independent of him.” (pp.9-10)
“In music we see content and form, material and configuration, image and idea, fused in a mysterious, indivisible unity. This peculiarity of music, that it possesses form and content inseparably, opposes it absolutely too the literary and visual arts. . . In music there is no content as opposed to form because music has no form other than its content.”
Hanslick was writing in an atmosphere charged with hyper-emotion (the Romantic Era), and was reacting to the overt sentimentality rampant in the day. While I agree with Hanslick that musical meaning is inherent in the form, I would disagree that in music there is no content as opposed to form. Certainly there is intellectual meaning in the organization of the sound structures in music, but there is also emotional meaning to be found in the elements. Honegger (whom I have not read) seems to be arguing the opposite of Hanslick. The truth probably lies in a synthesis of their ideas.
Kant was simply wrong. The Bible mentions music more than 600 times and the vast majority of these times makes an integral connection between music and human emotion. Paul even discusses meaning in instrumental music in I Corinthians, presuming meaning in instrumental music as an analogy for meaningful speech in worship.
Have a blessed Lord’s Day!
Tim
Brad,
Further clarification:
I’m not arguing that context doesn’t give meaning. But I am arguing that musical content should be the prime means of evaluating music for the purpose of worship.
Tim
Tim,
You’re right, I didn’t offer any quotes that stated the types of meaning achieved. I simply wanted to present the main areas of thought surrounding music and meaning. While I know you are quite familiar with the three i mentioned in my last post, some of the others who read this blog may not be.
Hanslick is an interesting character. His critiques of composers of his time were biting, yet quite entertaining. He railed against the over-emotional music of Wagner and Liszt, yet he praised Berlioz’s “Symphony Fantastique” early in his career (his stance on the music of Berlioz and others changed in his 20s). Margaret Kartomi said, “He didn’t actually dislike any of the music of Berlioz or of Wagner or of anyone else. He was not a hater of anything Wagnerian in the music field, he just hated his ideas.” Of course, it didn’t help that Wagner was anti-Semitic. It is also important to remember that Hanslick’s formation of his opinions on music and emotion started with Mozart and ended with Brahms (see the quote later in this post).
It’s interesting to read how the opinions of Suzanne Langer and Leonard Meyer, though based on Hanslick’s writings, differ in their explanations of why we feel emotion when we listen to music. Here’s another interesting quote from Kartomi:
“Word-painting, program music, all that kind of stuff is out of the question. That music, to be properly respected, has to be regraded as music. Music is music. Music is sound in motion, as Hanslick said, that’s all it is, but we human beings associate emotional responses with certain things, so that [sings] that all means something to a western audience, horses racing along, or whatever. If you were in Eskimo land somewhere or in central Africa it would mean something else. That’s another thing that Hanslick was very forward-looking in thinking; his aesthetic, his meaning of music tracts really only referred to music, as you said, from Mozart to Brahms. It doesn’t refer to other cultures, and they have different ideas of the beauty in music.”
This is where my previous comments were leading concerning music of other cultures. Kartomi’s opinions also include consideration of culture (or context, as I might say). She goes on to say she tends to be terribly influenced by Hanslick, but with her students, she lets them make their own decisions on music and emotion. There are other sides to the argument (as I previously stated), and it is important to make a decision on the matter.
For those of you who would like to read the very interesting interview with Margaret Kartomi (a leading figure in the discussion on music and meaning), go to:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/sunmorn/stories/s1498161.htm
Ok Tim…great discussion! Anyone else wanna jump in??
Brad
This is an excellent discussion. Thanks, gentlemen. Sorry I haven’t jumped in yet!
Brad; great to have you here!
My only comment here will be to reiterate that no one is denying that meaning exists in both content and context. And I would also agree that meaning in context (conventional meaning) can at times overpower the meaning in content (intrinsic meaning).
For instance, although the tune austrian hymn intrinsically communicates noble moods because of its natural association with how we feel when we are proud or stately, its conventional association with Nazi Germany created new meaning during WWII that overpowered the positive meaning with that which was quite negative. What must be remembered on this point, however, is that when conventional associations overpower intrinsic associations, it always happens in a negative direction and never in a positive one.
Perhaps an illustration will help here. If you are in the company of a happy person, his happiness will be communicated to you through his facial features, bodily gestures, and tone of voice. Those symbols are intrinsically associated with the state of happiness because that is exactly how you act when you are happy. However, even if a given individual looks and sounds positive, your personal relationship with him may cause you to have a negative feeling about him merely because of some negative association. On the other hand, an angry person will communicate his anger to you through facial features, bodily gestures and tone of voice, but no amount of positive association can contradict such expressions due to the nature of negative emotions.
Mr. Deceiver, Once Director of the choirs of Heaven,
I perceive you in this thread.
God’s Holy Word tells that your methods are as old as creation. Your intention here is not to bring light to this subject but darkness. As always, you seek to conceal the truth, not bring man to the knowledge of God nor his works (I Cor.14:33).
You have addressed the subject of music for generations but only to divide and destroy God’s creation. You act as if every generation has a new song; but the notes and chords, timing, metre, movement, and etc., were created by our God before the foundation of the worlds, and not by you; they have always been the same, unbounded by culture or generation. There is that that pleases God and that which he hates. You possess limited authority over God’s creation but from the beginning of man have sought to wield it as your own.
You once said that “You write the songs.” Those that you speak of are your perversions to the beauty of the natural as created by Jesus (Rom 1:26). You haven’t anything new to add. But your arguments change, such as “Western Culture,” which does not exist for the purpose that you try to use it.
You’ve divided man with your culture statement in America so you can bring man together under your oppressive rule; you do not rule with compassion. You seek your own and the destruction of man, God’s own image. You are trying to reunite the cultures under yourself that you someday can try to overthrow The Omnipotent.
We now have a new law, a perverted law, “Political Correctness.” This is derived because of the sensitivity brought about by perverting the separation of nations as mandated by God under the biblical account of the tower of Babel. Now we’re expected to believe that we are “Culturally Western” in our music. Again, to bring confusion; this bears your authorship.
You’ve done the same with God’s Word. “For ever …settled in heaven” (Ps 119:89), you have mankind running around in darkness, trying to find missing “jots and tittles”, and questioning those inspired by God.
Music is from God, is His creation, and is defined by Him alone. Music is no different in any culture just as God’s Word is no different and must be obeyed to the extent. When combined in an unnatural and carnal fashion, music breeds lust. As a meager example, one can take the unnatural beat of the “Western Culture” and incite the same response in the plains of Africa. The same demonic spirits, that when aroused with your music, entice the heathen to cut themselves and pierce themselves and mark themselves are the same ones that incite the “Westerner” to do the same – no matter how “Christian” the words are that you put to it. And it’s always been this way.
You desire us to bring this lust into our churches so you can remove from us the Power of God that only comes from the purest worship according to God’s Word. The music that is to be used in true worship is that music that is pure, holy, and fitting for man’s Creator/Redeemer. You know that Scott is right, because The Spirit bears witness of him. You have deceived many but “we wrestle not against flesh and blood;” (Eph 6:12) our battle is spiritual, this debate is spiritual not with those, that in ignorance, defend positioning themselves against that of their Creator.
Your beat, rhythm, timing, and movement bring a carnal empowerment that “feels” like we can conquer our oppositions and fears, no matter what culture; and you have preyed on man using his fears. But these are only weapons of the flesh and yield man completely powerless against you. The church is seemingly impotent. But God has preserved to Himself a remnant; that will not bow the knee. Oh, accuser of the brethren, God will preserve Himself a people of purity and obedience washed in the Blood of Jesus. And only one song will be sung to those words after you have poured out your hatred on mankind. I thank God that you will not be leading that choir.
Great article. When we present christianity to the world with sensual, sexual voices accompanied by sentimental instrumental music i am afraid we do the same deadly mistake as did the pagans: Promoting religion with sex.