MMF - Scientists Discover Sensual Music

Okay, you want me to respond point by point? You got it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Quite the contrary. Musicologists are universally agreed that they can make you feel a certain way with their music despite your personal preferences or background. You cannot find one who is not agreed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
Aaron said:
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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't have too. You just won't find Phyllis Diller on the cover of Cosmo or in the Swimsuit edition of SI. You just won't. I don't care what culture you're from.

What generally appeals to the public in the form of art are things like sea-scapes, still life, landscapes, sunsets, etc., those things that are universally considered beautiful. Funny that when I walk into a store to actually buy art I find very little of what is referred to as "contemporary" art which exists only to rebel against any kind of balance or order.

One isn't going to go into "Deck the Walls" and find the displays overloaded with paintings from the artists you mentioned. They appeal only to those individuals who are on the fringe edge of sanity who would call ugliness beautiful and beauty ugly. But that is not the experience of the common man. And "Deck the Walls" would go broke.

But again. Beauty is not subjective. How could the Scriptures be true if somewhere someone actually considered Christ physically beautiful? Those who find Him beautiful do so because of His inward character, not is outward appearance. Not non-sequitur, but immenently relevant

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
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."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your point is...? Where have you ever seen me arguing that we must sing any of these songs? I had read in one history (I'll have to find it and will post the citation later) that Martin Luther would reject songs if he found the music "moving." He believed right along with John Calvin (and the consensus of the church fathers) that a believer should not be moved into Christian worship through music, but through the Word of God.

However, there is a difference to be made between sensual and non-sensual music. Sensual as I define it (which is the Scriptural definition) is that music that appeals to the animal apetites in man.

What kind of music is that? Refer to the writings of musicologists. They will all agree. I have tried and tried to explain it, but alas to no avail.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then let's toss them. The Kingdom of God is not goosebumps and chills, but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. If there is an argument, let's toss it out. It's not like we're tossing out Scripture. But as one author asked, "If they took away the music, would you still come?"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
Aaron said: 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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are quite erroneous in that assumption as I have shown above.

[ October 09, 2001: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Luther's A MIGHTY FORTRESS IS OUR GOD is set to a Beer drinking tune. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please cite your source for this information.


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Calvin was against music which brought to us the boring metrical Psalms. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Spoken like someone who's never read a page of Calvin.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
The Bible does not condemn music: David calm Saul down by playing. Was David wrong? and we gut the Psalms claiming they are in error and even in Heaven in Revelation 4 and 5 music is being used on harps. What Heaven endorses we certaintly can't condemn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Who condemns harps? I don't use literal applications of OT and apocalyptic symbolisms, but just for fun--where are the drums?


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Yes, music makes us feel good! So does eating a cheeseburger. Should we eat plain rice cakes then? [/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You cannot call eating a cheeseburger spiritual worship.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Aaron,

Luther's borrowing of a tavern song is a well known fact. I can provide you a source though I don't have it handy but Luther differed with Calvin on music and worship. Luther held to the normative principle of worship. That view is if scripture doesn't forbid it and as long as it is God centered and reverant use it. Unfortunately most Protestants followed Calvin's Regulative principle that was restrictive. Lutherans such as Luther, Bach, Handel developed beautiful church music while the rest of us had Calvin's dreary worship style until the 1700's when Newton, Charles Wesley and others brought lively music into the Reformed and Baptist churches.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While you search for your citation, I will post an excellent summary by Dr. Peter Masters:

Were Hymn Tunes Borrowed from the World?

By the way, it was John Wycliffe, not Luther, who did what I formerly attributed to Luther.

However, though Luther was in some senses more liberal than Calvin, it was nothing like the wanton permissivism characteristic of the modern worship styles.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
So it is okay for Scripture to use as a illustration a activity you view as sinful ...as happening in heaven? Why is this symbol of a sinful activity used as a way of glorifying God in Heaven? All you can do is jest because scripture contradicts your view. This requires also a gutting of the Psalms.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My views do not contradict Scriptures at all. It is not a gutting of the Psalms to say that those things formerly enjoined upon Israel under the Schoolmaster are no longer applicable to the New Testament. Otherwise we would still be offering bulls and goats on the altar and burning incense. Is Leviticus gutted? Does it no longer apply to the church under the New Testament, to whom Paul said all Scripture is profitable? Certainly it does, but not in the form that it was observed by the Jews. They are interpreted allegorically. The same principle is applicable to the mention of musical instruments, as if God could be pleased or moved by the physical vibrations of inanimate objects more than by the blood of bulls and goats! That borders on paganism!


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
You are correct but a Cheeseburger does stimulate the flesh doesn't it? There is nothing wrong with music stimulating our emotions as long as it doesn't stimulate us to sinful acts. If you are against music because it stimulates us then you must also be against cheeseburgers because they stimulate us also. ..hmmm I'm getting hungry!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of things stimulate the flesh, but all those things which stimulate the flesh are summarily excluded from Christian worship for obvious reasons.

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Aaron ]

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Smoke_Eater:


You've obviously never had a cheeseburger from Rotier's in Nashville. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLOL!

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
Aaron,

Then does Revelation use a illustration of a sinful act going on in Heaven and call it good though you view it as evil? If you are against music stirring the emotions you must be against everything that stirs the flesh. You cannot separate the 2.

Your argument has no validity and completly dodges the text not to mention the Psalms. It is Based soley on your opinion and your logic without a sole scripture. In a sense it does teach a Gnostic type of worship.

You also say,



So a sermon should not stimulate our emotions either? Where does it end? The Church becoming Planet Vulcan.

[ October 11, 2001: Message edited by: Kiffin ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm trying to remember where I ever said that playing on harps is evil?

You still haven't shown me any drums in heaven .

God has ordained sermons (preaching) to save them that believe. Can you not see the absolute disparity between stirring the emotions with music and stirring the spirit with God's Word?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by uhdum:
Aaron, I've tried to read all the posts on this topic, I just have a question. I'm not trying to "stir up" anything , just want to ask a question: What is it you are trying to say by all this? Are you using all this scientific research to say that only hymns should be used for church? That only an organ and piano should be used? That any new church music today cannot be used because some reflects modern styles?
You posted an article by a man saying Luther did not use bar tunes for his church music; I am no expert so I will not try to refute or agree. Now, in my music appreciation class at college, we did study Luther and Calvin's church music preferences, and according to my teacher, Luther did use bar tunes and Calvin did believe only his metric Psalms were appropriate. Whether this is true of Luther or not, it is not disputed that many hymns we have today come from old irish fold songs, bar tunes, and such (just look in your hymnal, it will usually tell the name of the tune and sometimes it will say in parantheses "old irish folk song" etc.) But, Like i said in an earlier post, I don't think your intention in this topic is to dispute Luther and our hymnwriters' use of bar tunes and folk songs. If you don't mind, perhaps you could help me out by answering those questions above.

God bless <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


In a nutshell:

There are carnal forms of music. By carnal I mean those forms which appeal to the base, animalistic or bestial nature of man.

There are non-carnal forms, those which are pleasant but do not entice carnal responses.

One is good, the other is evil.

Evil music even with Christian words are not to be used by Christians whatsoever, and music itself is to be carefully scrutinized before being allowed in Christian worship.

The church fathers with one accord protested the use of musical instruments in Christian worship, and any that have been allowed were always in concession to our infirmities.