MMF - Scientists Discover Sensual Music

Aaron,

We all know that certain types of music cause people to feel a certain way.

We all understand that when you go to a Flyers game, there's a reason why they play songs such as "Enter Sandman", "Welcome to the Jungle", "Ain't Talking 'Bout Love", etc and not "Margaritaville" or "He Stopped Loving Her Today".

The issue is whether or not people are driven to do all sorts of salacious things because of a certain style of music and whether or not the Bible the Bible forbids certain types of music.

We've been discussing this here forever and it's clear that the answers are "no" and "no".

Aaron, you're beating a dead horse. Personally I think you'd be better off to follow Augustine's maxim, "In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity."

This is about as non-essential as it gets. Let it go.

 

I would cation you against using "Science" to win your argument. Try using "scientific" answers in the Creationism vs. Evolotionism forum.

If you want to make a point, I suggest you stay where the instructions are clear and grounded upon the Truth. That would be the Bible. If you can't get it through to us that the Bible says certain types of music are wrong, then either it isn't written that way or we just refuse to see the Truth. But at least then, you have something to stand on.

Just my opinion of course.

~Lorelei

 

Aaron misquotes his sources AGAIN! Note:

The article said (and Aaron bolded): There was no such response, however, to other types of sound.

To which Aaron responds:

Notice that not every type of music gave this type of reaction. (emphasis mine)

All music is a type of sound; however, not all sound is a type of music. In fact, the article as cited by Aaron doesn't make a single distinction of musical style.

Not one.

Don't you ever get bored with abusing your sources this way?

[ October 02, 2001: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

The point is, not that certain sounds can't convey sensuality, (Donna Summers' "LoveTo Love You Baby", for instanc), or that certain rhythms were not useful in promoting sin, rebellion, etc. (hard rock, etc). But where do you draw the line? Critics try to rule out all "constant syncopation", which includes the "backbeat" (one TWO three FOUR), which most of pop is based on, and also the various rhythms of jazz. Basically anything of African influence (which to me calls these teachings further into question).
(a little syncopation is said to be OK).
It's this claim which is unfounded, both from Scripture, and these science studies, that it's just these rhythms by themselves that cause sin or mess up the heart. (Remember, one study cited used random beats, not an organized rhythm).

 

Aaron, in another thread you deliberately attributed words to me in attempt to make your argument appear valid, all the while knowing that anyone could just look two posts above yours and see that you were not telling the truth. You have set a precedent for that sort of thing in the past.

Can certain kinds of music incite "sexual passions"? I'm sure that your idea of sexual passions is quite different than most of ours' so I don't know if I can answer that question to your satisfaction.

I will say that, because of our fallen nature, any one of a number of otherwise harmless things can ignite "sexual passions".

Different things put me in different moods. Listening to the Texas Tornados or Delbert McClinton make me want to dance. Listening to Emmylou Harris, Randy Stonehill makes me feel introspective. Listening to Chet Atkins, Earl Klugh, Larry Carlton or older Jimmy Buffett relaxes me. Before I hit the ice, I always listen to something loud and fast like Metalica, AC/DC or Van Halen's 5150 album to get me pumped up to play.

If these things can affect me in different ways, I don't see why they couldn't inspire "sexual passions" but at the same time, I believe that the blame would have to be mine for not being disciplined enough to control my sexual passions.

Music cannot make moral decisions for itself and, therefore is neither good nor bad. It can only be used as a tool for good or evil according to the intent of it's user.

Bottom line is: You feel compelled to tell us every five minutes that you don't like contemporary music and you're not above using fallacious arguments and deceit to do so.

What's even worse is that we're all dumb enough to keep responding.

As for Augustine, I think he was pretty clear. This is a non-essential so I'm not going to spend any more time fooling with it.

Mike

http://www.randystonehill.com

(edited for grammar)

[ March 27, 2002, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: Smoke_Eater ]

 

Isn't there a law against beating dead horses?

Sue

 

Aaron said:

Ransom, Ransom. The subjects were not asked to choose just any music, but those styles that gave them "chills." Why do you think I would neutralize the personal preference arguments right away?

Well, I assumed that it was what you actually quoted that you wanted to draw our attention to. Silly me. Obviously the fact that you cut and pasted certain points from the article has nothing to do with whether those points actually reinforce your argument or not.

I will remember in the future to read what you don't cite and ignore what you do cite.

I put the statement about "sound" in bold print simply to draw attention to it.

Ah, in other words any similarity of phrasing between a cited article and your original text is not intended to draw a parallel (as one would suspect), but is entirely coincidental. Again, in the future I shall remember to ignore any wording that might be mistaken for an allusion to some cited document.

It all by itself rules out the "music is neutral" myth.

No one disputes this, so I don't understand why you continue to flog this dead horse as though it were actually an issue.

Misquoting. Puh-leeeeze! Do you honestly think that I would post the article and then diliberately misquote it right under your nose?

Sure, why not? You've set precedent.

 

Smoke_Eater said:

If these things can affect me in different ways, I don't see why they couldn't inspire "sexual passions" but at the same time, I believe that the blame would have to be mine for not being disciplined enough to control my sexual passions.

Of course, the article Aaron "cites" doesn't even say music inspires "sexual passions." It only says music stimulates that part of the brain that sex and food does.

In other words, music can make you feel good.

Duh.

How is this an argument against popular music?

 

Aaron said:

There, I highlighted it so you wouldn't miss it this time

It's easy enough to show that you misuse every study you can get your hands on, but nonetheless, thank you showing us what you have misused! It just makes our job that much easier when you draw your attention to your specific abuses. You said, quoting:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Notice that not every type of music gave this type of reaction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I notice that not any particular type of music gave this type of reaction. This says nothing about any particular style of music, only that the subjects "preselected" music that gave them "chills." This could be anything. So if you are arguing against a particular kind of music with this article, your argument has fallen flat.

You cite the article, saying:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The new study, Blood said, clearly shows a similar response in these areas to musical sounds that the test subjects had preselected as beautiful enough to give them "chills." (emphasis mine)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But you say:

And lest someone invoke the debunked myth of personal preference dictating emotional responses to particular styles, I would refer you to the conclusions of scientific studies conducted in that field as well. (emphasis mine)

Perhaps Aaron can explain how the test subjects get to "pre-select" music that, in their opinion, is "beautiful enough" to give them chills, and yet this isn't a "personal preference." It hasn't "debunked" the "myth of personal preference dictating emotional response" at all. In fact, it's provided evidence in its favour!

 

Aaron said:

Does all pleasure affect the same area of our brains that are affected by the fulfillment of our apetites?

Is the "fulfillment of our appetites" through food and sex (and thus the stimulation of that part of the brain) inherently sinful? No, so you are simply begging the question.

 

Aaron said:

No musicologist or researcher believes that the effects music has upon its listeners is arbitrary.

You now intend to prove this universal negative, right?

That means that if these subjects chose musical sounds "beautiful enough" to give them chills, then most of us would respond in like manner.

Nonsense. Beauty is a subjective quality. It's in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, right? What I find to be particularly beautiful, someone else might not. One man's trash is another's treasure. Go to an art gallery and make disparaging remarks about the paintings of Barnett Newman or Jackson Pollack if you don't believe me.

Want me to describe the "sensual" music that gives me "chills"?

Selections from the Messiah.

The fourth movement of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony; the opening notes of his unfinished Tenth.

The Mars theme from Holst's The Planets.

The overture to The Phantom of the Opera makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

"Amazing Grace." "It is Well With My Soul." "And Can It Be."\

Remember that. According to your dubious application of that article (and I noticed you had nothing to say about my proof that you have misinterpreted it, thank you for that admission), the "Hallelujah Chorus," the "Ode to Joy," and "It is Well With My Soul" are all "sensual" music because I appreciate them with the same part of my brain that I appreciate sex with.

What is established by these researchers is that music can appeal to the lusts of the flesh. The MUSIC. Not the words.

And you have singularly failed to make any case against popular music that can't be made against any music. Are you going to ever correct this failure, or are you just going to keep passing over it in silence?

 

Aaron said:

You have not proven that music is neutral.

You're right. Nor have I even tried. As some of us have grown weary of telling you over and over and over and over and over again, that is YOUR straw man argument.

You have not proven that beauty is subjective.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a truism.

You, on the other hand, have assumed that beauty is an objective property, and that everyone ought to agree upon what is the beautiful and what is the ugly. The only defense of this assumption is your use of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, writing, "Of course there are those fringe elements who are either too frigid to feel chills, or debauched enough to actually be repulsed by beauty."

By the same sort of argument, I guess there's something wrong with anyone who hates chocolate or ice cream, but loves liver and brussel sprouts, right?

It is you have not proven your assumption.

You have not proven anything.

I have proven that you cannot cite a "scientific" study accurately. Since you have not rebutted my proof, I take your silence as an admission that I am right and that you cannot read.

You have adopted the world's ideas of beauty. If beauty was truly in the eye of the beholder, how then could Isaiah say of Christ:

Non sequitur.

I have grown weary running in circles with you.

Then perhaps you should stop making circular arguments.