A funny look at typical arguments for traditional music
Scott AniolHere.
The Writer
This post was written by Scott Aniol on Sunday, July 12, 2009, 21:27. Scott Aniol has written 701 posts on this blog.
This post was written by Scott Aniol on Sunday, July 12, 2009, 21:27. Scott Aniol has written 701 posts on this blog.
Canonical URL by SEO No Duplicate WordPress Plugin
Of course, he exaggerates that rhythm argument. In so doing he attempts to nullify arguments against his favored fleshly music. So do you think there are no differences in rhythm between music acceptable or not acceptable to God? By the way, I could write a satirical column on evangelicals, neos—-as large as what fundies like, mocking them—but for some reason I can’t get into laughing about what they do. Something tells me that I would get a lot of counsel from them about my “spirit” too.
You’re right, of course. He caricatures most of the arguments, although I’ve heard some pretty silly ones!
And of course, I think rhythm absolutely factors into the communicative power of music, and some rhythms inherently communicate sexuality.
Kent writes: In so doing he attempts to nullify arguments against his favored fleshly music.
You know me that well do you, Kent? Would you care to tell me exactly what music I personally like to listen to?
Satire inherently involves a certain amount of caricature surrounding a kernel of actual truth. And the actual truth is that most of the ‘medical’ and ’scientific’ reasons given for not listening to certain music styles are simple made up out of whole cloth.
We can do better that that. And we should.
Darrell
I don’t know you Darrell, but I think we come from different backgrounds. It is difficult actually to know from your satire who you are. You are making judgments of many different subjects and people, as well as making many assumptions about the people who make those judgments, so your sensitivity here is curious. You are about as sharp and judgmental as someone can get.
What you write doesn’t present anything in the realm of an alternative to what you are criticizing. However, truth is antithetical. If there is a kernel of truth in what you write, then in this specific case we are left with a kind of defense of the backbeat, whether that is what you intended or not. And the backbeat is what is most characteristic musically of rock music and similar fleshly genre (as documented by yourself with your southern gospel music reference). It may not matter if it makes your potted plants wither or that we can’t connect it directly to teenage rebellion, but it is fleshly. With your “satire” you are making an even stronger defense for fleshly music than other forms of communication, especially without any kind of disclaimer, that is, unless we’re not to make any conclusions from what you write. That doesn’t come across at all. Your blog screams for us to make conclusions. Generally you succeed at persuading many that fundamentalists are stupid and that you are quite intelligent.
My father is an Independent Baptist Preacher and former missionary who graduated from Pensacola Christian College. My grandfather was an Independent Baptist Preacher who graduated from Bob Jones University. I myself graduated from Pensacola Christian College. My fundy cred is strong.
The satire is not based on the question of whether or not some music is “wrong.” It is a humorous look at the notion of using apocryphal proofs when attempting to address the question. The inconsistencies and magical thinking used to try to prove the point about exactly which music is ‘worldly.’
Besides all that you’re missing the point that the piece is meant to be humorous. If you’re expecting to get deep and precise theology from a blog meant to make people chuckle, then I fear you are in for a great disappointment.
Darrell,
I don’t doubt your fundy credibility. I don’t think you could write with your breadth of knowledge without that. I think our differences would be in the kind of fundamentalism experienced. I know that much of what you spoof exists. However, the people who read you take it as a broad brush of fundamentalism. Again, even if you don’t intend that, it is how it is taken. Everyone knows that you are using humor. And you are obviously funny. As a matter of fact, you and I could probably yuck it up together in major fashion.
I can’t accept your “make people chuckle” excuse. There’s a reason why late night talk shows for the most part don’t joke about Obama. They know that they have an agenda with their humor. And humor can be used in a very effective way to discredit the one and thing about whom or what it is joking. Al Gore is a satire waiting to happen, and so is Obama. But they are off limits. I think I’m catching your point. And you may help some, because you make legitimate points. For the most part though, I think your overall effect is to make disobedient evangelicals giddy.
Almost everything that Darell makes fun of are the things that make fundamentalism such a joke: Corny websites, cultic standards, weird feddishes, etc… Kent, the only part of fundamentalism that you think is normal is the small slice of the pie that you are in. You reject the Hyles fundies, the FBF and BJU fundies, the SOTL fundies because they’re more extreme or more liberal than you are about something. I guess the Fairhaven fundies are the only ones that have got it together.
Kent: your sensitivity here is curious
Even if you discard the facts that the site is satire and is MUCH too detailed to have been written by an outsider, the difference is quite clear.
Darrell makes (or more precisely, repeats) broad statements made by actual, but unspecified, people.
Kent made an uninformed, specific statement telling us of the motives and tastes of a specific person.
Night and day.
William,
I don’t get the point of your comment. What does it have to do with whether Darrell’s blog supports the wrong kind of music? I understand what you are saying—you think that I have one slice of fundamentalism I support. Actually I fellowship with all churches of like faith and practice, and I don’t cut people off in the matter of fellowship, that is, I would try to discuss something first with them before separating. I’m open to having you show me how that is wrong. Scott Aniol has felt almost complete support from me here for his music position. What slice of fundamentalism is he in?
If you intended to come across as insulting, you’ve succeeded. However, I’m not going to hold it against you. I think we could enjoy talking.
Brendt,
No, Darrell has expressed through his satire that he has a point of view and his point came across clearly. I would welcome Darrell to show me how that this is wrong. He hasn’t done that yet. I believe that is because I’ve judged it correctly. If he were to show me that he takes a music position like Scott Aniol, I would retract. And I didn’t judge his motive. I’m not against judging motives, but I haven’t done so. I judged what he wrote. And I made that clear in my second comment.
“If you intended to come across as insulting, you’ve succeeded. However, I’m not going to hold it against you.”
A good example of the fundy practice of forgiving you for something you haven’t done.