Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?

I don't think that will stand. That's kind of like making a distinction between thought and words. You can't think without words. It's a whole big area of study that I think gets glossed over because it is instinctual.

Yes, but that is a distinction that really doesn't stand up well in speech-act or communicative theory (most of which we do by instinct even though we don't know the names of it).

Yes, but do you think the baby understands the words? Or the music? I think it's the music because the words mean nothing to the baby, but the music communicates to them something that they understand.

Yes, I think it's splitting hairs.

Think about this: How many times have you been misunderstood by your spouse? You say something, and he hears something else. And you say, "No, that's not what I meant." But why did he undersatnd something else? Well, it's a complex of things, including his own disposition and experience with you and others, but it doesn't exclude your tone of voice, body language, eyes, etc.

This is one reason why internet communication is so hard ... It can't include all the things that make communication especially effective because communication is as much about body language, voice inflection, etc. as it is about words.

 

Here you are confusing some things. Your first two statements are based on a different type of entity than your third statement. New Age Music and death metal are made up of components known as notes, rhythms, tempos, silences, spaces, etc. So your first two statements are based on components (guns/instruments) and your third is based on the use of components.

The proper logical connection is this:

Is improper use of a gun/instrument/notes sinful? You see you can use a gun rightly or wrongly. You can use any musical instrument (so far as I know musical instruments) rightly or wrongly. You can use notes rightly or wrongly. But your third statement is about the use of the components; your first two are about the components themselves.

Exactly.

Yes, no one is suggesting that music is somehow capable of sin in itself. It is the expression made by that music, it's propriety for a given situation that needs to be considered.

yes, this is exactly my point. The use of the music is an expression of values ... That's what worldliness is ... an expression of fallen values in cultural terms.

So when you say that the tool (music) in this case reflects us, you are admitting that it communicates what is inside of us. I think here you are admitting my foundation ... .that music communicates.

 

PL, if you started a thread and asked the question "Does music communicate?" I think you would get a unanimous "yes" as a response (well, we're baptists, so it wouldn't be unanimous). The question on this thread is "Is there a certain type of music that inherently, universally communicates evil so that the music itself is evil?" The answer to that question is "no". Music can be used for evil and music can certainly communicate evil, but that evil is not inherent to the music itself.

Here is a simple proposition: "Some music is inherently evil". If that proposition is true, then it can be proven. You would do us all a favor in our Christian walk and you would make a tremendous contribution to the unity of all believers if you would simply state the proof for that proposition. I don't think you can. I don't think Scot Aniol can and I don't think he has.

 

Thanks Swaimj,

I am not sure about that. I think there are several here who have already answered that as a "No" (cf. ABCGrad).

Actually, the question here is "Musical Sounds: Moral or Amoral?" (See title).

I think the answer to that is unquestionably yes. Musical sounds have moral value. That is how it communicates moral value, and why, and how we discern that.

The question you are asking is more difficult. Whether that value is universal and inherent, or associative and cultural is a far different and more difficult question.

This is an interesting proposition. How does the music communicate evil? (Putting aside "inherent" for a moment.)

Isn't that a non sequitur? Can everything that is true be proven? I don't think so. I think there are some things that are true that cannot be proven, and I imagine you think the same thing (like the existence of God, the Trinity, etc.). They are either presupposed or matters of faith/revelation.

I don't have any proof for it. That is not the argument I am trying to make, nor is it one that I think is necessary to make.

I think Scott has some very interesting arguments about how music communicates. Whether one agrees or not, I think it deserves more thought than is typically given to it, especially in a discussion like this.

Take care ...

 

Talk about splitting hairs....And here I thought I was turning the conversation back to the original topic of this thread: sounds.

 

By the way, Larry; from the website you recommended:

The error the author makes is that with this statement, he totally denies the possibility of contrafactum.

 

Let me explain my understanding of the question, since if we do not have a common understanding of the question we will talk past each other. "Does a combination of musical sounds (1) have intrinsic morality so that it is either definitely moral or definitely immoral or does a combination of musical sounds (2) lack intrinsic morality (amoral) so that it can be either moral or immoral depending upon other factors"?

Here, you seem to be taking option 1 if we understand the question the same. Am I understanding you? I take option 2. Music can be moral or immoral depending upon other factors, therefore it is amoral because, alone, it has no intrinsic moral/immoral meaning. Or are we actually in agreement here?

I would argue that a particular musical sound's amorality allows it to be good or evil depending upon associative and cultural factors. The fact that those factors have the power to make a musical sound good or evil means that the sound itself has no universal or inherent quality.

I certainly have great respect for the presuppositional model. We cannot and could not know God unless he revealed himself. We cannot prove his existence nor reason our way to Him. All moral truth starts with the knowledge of God, which he alone can give, and proceeds based upon his revelation. That musical sounds are moral (see my clarification of the topic question above) is not presuppositional. I think we have to be careful--I think we must avoid at all cost holding our position so dearly that we treat it as though it is incontrovertible. Therefore, if musical sounds are moral/immoral (again, see my clarification of the question at hand) it has to be a matter of faith/revelation. If God, in His revelation (scripture) has not revealed music to be moral/immoral, then it is amoral--it can be used for good or evil depending upon the context. I do not find in the revelation a clear teaching that music is moral/immoral. What I do find is that a particular musical sound or combination of sounds can have a moral effect or an immoral effect depending upon other factors (associative and cultural, as you say). Therefore music is amoral.

 

Well, no on two counts. First, the thread is not about “sounds” but about music (which is a combination of various sounds and other things). Second, your comparison was not about sounds but about guns (which make a sound to be sure, but I wasn’t under the impression that was your point).

Your comparison should be about the use of guns, the use of instruments, and the use of music. Guns are not universally wrong; no musical instrument that I can think of is universally wrong; music is not universally wrong. The issue is the use of it.


So it’s not splitting hairs. It is the crux of the discussion. If you are going to make an analogy or comparison, you have to compare similar issues.

First, I “recommend” the site as a place where considerable thought has been put into the topic, and thus it raises issues that must be dealt with and considered, even if you disagree (which I do at points).

Second, you don’t link this so I have no idea what the “it” is that is being talked about.

Third, using big words won’t help your argument. But even at that, I think you missed his point which doesn’t deal with contrafactum.

 

1) you're correct; the original thread premise was about music; you came along in a post and wanted to discuss sounds, rather than music.

2) You're splitting hairs. The use of instruments is the use of music. Whether the instrument is vocal or an external device, it is the use of the instrument that makes the music. Thus, it is how we employ the instrument to make sounds, whether that instrument be voice, piano, or washboard.

Agreed.

Actually, it does. The same sounds that were used to revel in sinful behavior were the same sounds that Fannie Crosby and William Booth turned into hymns we sing each Sunday. The author attempts to make the case that "modern" music can't be used for good, and thus ignores that history shows it can.

 

I don't know that "intrinsic" was in the question, but it may be. My argument here is not to try to draw lines for someone else. I simply want us to consider that this issue is not as simple as making declarations that it is amoral. I think God's created order gives us some data to be considered that is being overlooked.

I lean toward option 1, but that is not my argument here. I think music alone can have moral value, but perhaps we mean something different by moral value. I mean that music alone can create or elicit responses that are either good or bad. It creates atmospheres and environments that might be good at one time and bad at another. So music that might be acceptable in one context would be wrong in another context. And certain types of music might be bad in all circumstances because of what it elicits.

This is actually an argument that I think is easily supportable. But I think something that is easily overlooked is the reason behind the connection. Why is the 60s culture so closely associated with a particular style of music? They had plenty of music at their disposal to use, and they had unlimited ability to create styles of music. But they created and popularized a particular style that is similar enough to be considered a particular recognizable slice or genre. The recent PBS special on Jim Harrison and the Doors had me thinking about this again. I think it deserves some thought. The culture did not arise out of Bach's organ music or Handel's orchestral compositions. Are we really to believe that the connection between the style of music and the counterculture was merely coincidental? They didn't think so. To them, that music expressed their values.

That's exactly my point. I think there are some here who believe it is incontrovertible that music is amoral and therefore anything is acceptable in Christian worship. They are not willing to entertain any other possibility, and in fact, mock those who do hold to other possibilities.

I don't think so. I think there are some things that are reasonably deduced. Think again about the Sermon on the Mount in Matt 5. When Jesus speaks of adultery and lust, that was a connection that is not explicit in the OT. But Jesus wasn't adding to it. In fact, he was correcting the errors of what I called "naked wordism," that if you don't have an explicit statement of words about a particular topic you can't condemn it. I think Jesus was saying exactly the opposite ... that anyone who actually thinks about the command about adultery should understand that lust is a part of it. (Interesting that there he did not connect it with coveting, isn't it?). I don't think anyone here would say that lusting after a woman was okay in the OT. But the OT doesn't say that, that I can recall. The NT does, but connects as a reasonable deduction from an OT command.

Jesus was condemning the attitude that I think some are espousing here, that if Scripture didn't directly address it, we can't say anything about it. Jesus in that whole section was talking about the ethics of kingdom life drawing applications out of the laws (you have heard ... I say) that weren't corrections or additions, but were actually built into it, and the Pharisaical legalism was finding ways around it because of the naked words.

I think there are two issues here that you are conflating. The idea of moral/immoral/amoral and using it for good or evil depending on the context. I think music is moral. But I think that acceptable music can be used incorrectly (for evil in the wrong context). So while I might enjoy a certain type of music personally, it would be sinful to use it in worship because it sends a wrong message about God.

We also don't find a clear revelation that marijuana is wrong (to use Luke's example ... or use cocaine or whatever). But we have scriptural principles and knowledge from the world around us that enable us to put these things together.

So I want to be cautious. And I am trying to be precise, which is why I don't accept Don's analogy. And I want to be humble, because I certainly don't know it all.

 

Because music is sound. You are the one who brought up guns, which aside from the boom, has nothing to do with sound.

Yes, about the analogy. It was a bad analogy, I think, and you haven't said anything to clarify it. Guns can be used rightly or wrong. Music can be used rightly or wrong. There is no right way to use a gun wrongly. There is no right way to use music wrongly. Your analogy seems to make gun=all music, and therefore say that just like a gun can be used rightly, so all music can be used rightly. You don't' seem to want to acknowledge that just as a gun can be used wrongly, so music can be used wrongly. Perhaps you communicated that and I missed it, but that is a major distinction, not really a hair.

Yes, but the problem is not the instrument, but the way it is used.

First, I think contrafactum is about medieval times, not Fannie Crosby, isn't it?

Second, I don't think Crosby was on the musical/sound end. She wrote the words; others wrote the music. (Yes, splitting hairs on that one, but let's be precise if we can).

Third, the blog author does believe that Crosby and Booth and authors of that era were involved in using inappropriate music because it was pop, victorian sentimentalism. He would say that the use of that music by the revivalists of that time was not creating right affections and rightly representing God. Again, feel free to disagree (I do to some degree, though when I take my son to ride the 1910 carousel here in Detroit, I am reminded how much the music sounds like the gospel music of that area and it makes it hard to sing it with a straight face). But at least entertain his argument and realize what he is talking about.

Fourth, the author does not make the case that all modern music cannot be used for good. He does not believe that. He actually has written some modern music I believe and done some choral arranging. He routinely references modern composers. Again, you have to realize that the issue is not about time ... .whether modern or ancient, 1920s or 1980s. It is about musical style and communication.

 

It has everything to do with the use of the instrument.

Nah, I've said quite a bit about the analogy. "Use of the instrument."

Exactly.

Nope. Re-read the definition.

Yes, you're splitting hairs. What Ms. Crosby did is called a contrafactum.

Why do you assume that I'm not?

Completely understood. What you're misunderstanding is that his writing of "modern music" still follows classical music principles, rather than what most of the rest of us identify as "modern music."

 

It can. Combine with certain environments, and you can elicit a response without lyrics.

Evil, no. Elicit negative feelings, yes.

Holy, no. Elicit feelings of joy or wholesomeness, yes.

Some verses were provided by GB.

 

Psalm 150.

Not so much I "admit"; it's never been my position that music is evil or good.

I agree about preaching against music.

 

The lack of actively making disciples as Jesus did is just as good as disobedience.

James 1:22, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves."

 

LOL, Larry. I think we have a semantic argument here, at least to a degree. Your statement is precisely why I would say music is amoral because the same musical sound might be "good at one time and bad at another". Yet, you are using this to say that it is "moral". Semantics aside, I agree with the above.

I just find it really problematic to say that a certain kind of music is bad because it "might be bad in all circumstances". In other words, it's definitely bad because it might be bad. That's very weak and falls far short of saying it's bad because "thus sayeth the Lord".

Yeah, I watched some of that til my wife came down and didn't feel I should expose her to the language. I think the key here is that the music and the culture and the drugs and free love were related. However, if you isolate one of those elements, is it necessarily bad or does it necessarily produce the rest? I don't think that you can say that it is bad authoritatively and I don't think you can say one produces another authoritatively. The men at the time also wore long hair. I know many men today who have long hair who do not smoke dope or practice free love. I most certainly know some fundamentalists who would condemn the men with long hair because they still associate it with the cullture of the 60s.