What is music?

Sure there was a prior. One could have spoken it or spelled it prior to it being given meaning.

So now I know you were being obtuse.

You have understood my meaning all along.

Words do not have inherent meaning, they are given them by men. You just admitted that.

language is abstract. it stands for or represents that which it points to.

You honestly should be ashamed of yourself.

When Jesus spoke of words, he was not speaking of audible sounds or symbols and letters.

 

No, there was nothing prior.
When the Battle of Normandy took place in 1066 the Normans attacked Britain, mainly inhabited by Brits that spoke a Celtic language. It evolved into that which came to be Old English, which had more in common with German than it did in English. The English language was just beginning to come into existence at that time. English is a combination of many languages. It really didn't exist before the 11th century in a form that could rightly be called English.
DHK

 

Actually most aleatoric music has some form of organization. Tim

 

Do you see why that kind of "music" isn't really a valid form? </font>[/QUOTE]Ah, It is very valid. Basically "chance music" is a redefining of "what music is" which has been happening since the earliest days.

 

No, there was nothing prior.
When the Battle of Normandy took place in 1066 the Normans attacked Britain, mainly inhabited by Brits that spoke a Celtic language. It evolved into that which came to be Old English, which had more in common with German than it did in English. The English language was just beginning to come into existence at that time. English is a combination of many languages. It really didn't exist before the 11th century in a form that could rightly be called English.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Yet every sound and every construct of the English language as it exists today has always been able to be uttered. That is the point. Men have even made up a language called Klingon. They devised and constructed the whole thing from scratch. None of the sounds or symbols that comprise a language can be evil in and of themselves. Only the meaning that we assign to them can, and that is ultimately the reality that puts the final nail in your thinking.

Language is a symbolic means of communication, period. It doesn't have the ability to be evil.

So go ahead and play your semantics.You are fooling no one.

 

See now, here's where I can't be sure you're so right. On one hand I agree that there are some basic principles which determine the general mood of music, yet at the same time I don't think people's responses to it are as universally standardized as you'd like them to be. People do in fact have different reactions to the same pieces of music.

You remember that track from Sigur Ros you downloaded and listend to a while back? You will find a whole range of opinions from their fans. Some think they're uplifting, others find them depressing or tragic. Some find them romantic.

Here's one reviewer's take:

Children will be conceived, wrists will be slashed, scars will be healed, and tears will be wrenched by this group.

Exactly what kind of innate meaning can music contain?

 

Once you assign the meaning to the words, they become evil or good, depending on the meaning of the words.
Parents teach their children not to use four letter words. Why? They are inherently evil.
The Bible says not to use corrupt communication--again inherently evil speech.
Jesus speaks of idle words, in fact he say that words have the very ability to condemn you in the judgement day. Why? Because of their evil use.

Once a meaning is assigned the words become evil or good according to the meaning assigned.
As I said previously you cannot divorce the message from the language. You cannot divorce the message of the heart from the medium through which it is expressed. It is an impossibility. Jesus said it is impossible. "Out of the heart proceeds..."
I would rather go to with Jesus words than yours.
DHK

 

Better put, it was their spiritual condition that rendered the music offensive.
Funny, how the article goes from that stright into beat accents, as if it is mentioned in the text as defining that music! Then, once again, it is assume that only "rock" is from the world, as if classical isn't, as well. But then I thought it was the nature (structure) of the music, rather than who uses it? Whatever argument we can conjure up. This is more than just "prooftexting"; it is reading stuff in there out of nowhere.
Well written, alright, but just proven to be "the sleight of men, cunning craftiness" (Eph.4:14)
People like this need to beware that THEIR motives don't make their music, as plain or "solemn" as to may be with clear words of praise, and odd accent beats and all, offensive to God.

 

Originally posted by Eric:
This is more than just "prooftexting"; it is reading stuff in there out of nowhere.
Well written, alright, but just proven to be "the sleight of men, cunning craftiness" (Eph.4:14)

Thanks for your input also, Eric. As I told Tim, I'll take all these comments with me when I go back to the article more in depth.

 

That doesn't make sense. Look at it this way:

If I said "I'm going to 'Fing' Austria", what would be your reaction? You would of course try to find out exactly how I meant it. On one hand I may mean it as a frivilous vulgarity, on the other I may be speaking of the town. In either case, the difference in meaning is determined by what? The heart. The intent. The will. Not the actual word.

How about sign language? What is intrinsically sinful about an extended middle finger? Nothing. The only reason we find it offensive is because we know it is used to express hate or disrespect. If someone flashes you the middle finger you don't say "Hey, that middle finger is evil!" The very idea makes no sense. The reason you will be offended is because you know their intent is to cause you injury. The middle finger was just the medium of communication they chose to express it. All sin goes right to the heart always.

 

That doesn't make sense.</font>[/QUOTE]It makes perfect sense. It is exactly what Christ teaches in Mat.12. Why don't you want to accept Biblical teaching?

If you told me that you were going to Hell, Michigan, do you think I would understand you. Of course I would. And if you are the one to make either dumb jokes or vulgar and dirty ones, then based on the meanings of words, then you have a problem. Whether it is Michigan or Austria, it you sincerely say that you are going there, I will believe you. What's the problem? If you say that you are going to Austria in anger, it will appear in the tone of your voice. Context is everything. People are not stupid. Perhaps you need to study hermeneutics as well as psychology and cultural anthropology.

Sin has its vehicle and cannot be divorced from it. Sin emanates from the heart through:
either language (i.e. (vile language)
the vehicle of the members of the body: murder--the hands and feet
the sin of stealing--hands and feet;
the sin of adultery---
etc.

The tongue is commonly used as a vehicle for the sins of the heart, but it is not the only vehicle for sin. However language can be used as a vehicle for sin, and when it is, it cannot be separated from the sins of the heart. The actual sin of the heart cannot be separated from the sin.

When murder happens, a knife is used to commit murder. The hand holds the knife. The sin was committed in the heart. You not only want to divorce the knife but the arm as well, from the sin of the heart. That is an impossibility.
If you kill the person by breaking his neck with a choke hold without any weapon but your own strength, what then? Your body is the weapon. You cannot divorce your body from your heart. The message and medium, the sin and the vehicle for the sin are inseparable. This is so obvious it cannot be denied, and yet you continue to do so.
DHK

 

Speaking of sign language and other non-verbal communication, a gesture or practice can be offensive to one culture and either neutral or complimentary in another. (Cultural context) For example, most Arabs do not eat with left hand. Why? That is the hand used for "hygene." to them the left hand is "unclean" and unusable for eating.

Just a thought.

 

Now, we have experienced broad, sweeping lessons in geography, music history (western and middle eastern), and the like...would each of the major participants please "draw the net" and share how these lessons relate to our current Christian music scene? Please try to focus your points. As much as is possible by the power of the Holy Spirit, please don't mock others or jab at them in a fleshly manner.

Thank you in advance.

Also, if possible, please wait until all of the major participants have posted before resuming the thrashing out process. That would be very helpful to avoid fragmentation.

 

You missed the point of my illustration deliberately. I could very well say I am going to "Fing" Austria in a tone of voice that would make it difficult for you to understand my meaning. I could also type it to you across the web which would make it impossible for you to know without further clarification.

The point is that it is the same exact word or symbol or utterance in either sense. The only evil that can be detected is when we determine the meaning behind it.

I noticed you also ignored the parallel of sign language. It is of course quite an inconvenience for you isn't it? Is the middle finger evil?

Now I wish you would stop saying that I disbelieve the Teaching of Scripture. It's quite disrespectful. I believe when Christ speaks of words, He is more specifically speaking of every medium of communication.

You however are under the superstitious notion that audible utterances can in and of themselves be evil. In reality, it is only the meaning behind utterances and symbols that can be evil.

[ September 22, 2005, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Travelsong ]

 

So in essence when you are saying that all music affects or elicits the same response in people, you are saying the response is amplified emotion?

How does this correspond with the assertion that music has innate meaning? If people are having different reactions to it, are they not deriving a different sense of meaning from it as well?

 

Haha! I don't think you want my opinion of the current Christian music scene, but since you asked, I'll give it.

I despise nearly everything I've heard. I think most choruses are almost completely void of meaning and the repetition makes me fight to keep myself from running for the doors. As far as CCM goes, I think most of it is extremely dull and poorly written. I also believe Christian record labels are nothing but businesses who view Christians as a lucrative target market.

However that's not to say that there isn't or can't be real artistic merit and expression in modern Christian music. I just have yet to hear anything in the last ten years that doesn't sound like it came off a factory conveyer belt.

Again, this is just my opinion, but then I'm a musical elitist.