What is music?

I'm not the one justifying yelling the message. But it is fundamentalist types who look up to Sunday and "his antics" so much. (I remember Sword of the Lord a few years ago related similar story of Sunday in some meeting where some modernist who didn't believe in the Virgin Birth was present). I can't answer for you, but many do seem to uphold that as good, (and yet still use the same arguments against "angry rock and rap") and the point seems to be "why can't we be like that today", instead of softening down and compromizing so much?
Of course, you touched on why we can't be like that today, and they know why they can't, as much as they resent the fact: the "political correctness" and "oversensitivity" of today's culture, where Christianity is seen as outmoded and cast off from public acceptance anyway. This many of us complain about, and that makes it seem, once again, that we desire the blustery command over culture that Sunday and others enjoyed. (One of the main points of my whole message is that we overdid it then, and are now paying for all of that through the very societal revolts we complain about).

And I think a lot of the music you are criticizing (especially rap) is more of the "authorotative" tone, than yelling. Yelling is used in mostly the harder acid/thrash styles. Also, a performer (or preacher) on stage may look like he is yelling to throw his voice in such a large place. Of course, the question can become where is the line between authoritative speaking and yelling. Especially if you pound things. That can be taken as anger. It seems many tried to copy that one act of Jesus, while neglecting the rest of His pronciples.

 

I think that you have summed it up nicely here. There is a line between speaking authoritatively and yelling. One wonders how Ezra the prophet would have spoken to the entire nation of Israel without any sound system. He read the Book of the Law, expounded it to Israel, and it was raining. And the people stood and listened. That was no small audience. It was out in the open.
DHK

 

</font>[/QUOTE]Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

John simply records "He said," as if the loud voice was inconsequential as compared to what he actually said. Remember that all this time he was in extreme agony such as none of us will ever bear. A loud voice in these circumstances may be excusable. What does it mean when it says that a woman "travails" in child birth? There are usually some "loud voices" that accompany the birth. Jesus was giving up his life for others, not just giving life to another--a big difference.

This is the music forum. We are not primarily interested in shouting, yelling, screaming in our worship to God. God is our heavenly Father. Does he expect us to yell and scream at Him. I certainly don't expect that of my children, and I don't expect that God expects that of His children.
DHK

[ September 16, 2005, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

Posted prior to the shouting disucssion by Daniel (yes, yours truly ):
I can see what you're saying, Aaron. I believe my definition is structured in such a way to allow the many different genres of musical composition. In other words, I was thinking of far more than church music.

A symphony will have a different MHRT (melody, harmony, rhythm, texture) mix than a vocal ballad. It's the MHRT mix that is fluid. There is no constant MHRT mix.

If you wish to narrow things, please specify. My definition is not specific, but rather broad.
{the definition I submitted was: "The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition using the greater or lesser combination of melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.")


Let's see if we can move away from the shouting disucssion back to the original idea of the thread Aaron started...

Maybe Aaron will get a chance to get the back on track by picking up with the above question...

 

I agree with you about the exclusion of noises like the ones you listed. My definition does delineate some form of organization from intent.

OK, where do we go from here?

 

"organization from intent"
That would assume that all music has "intent" behind it, which in most, if not all, would automatically exclude the premise that music is amoral. Many musicians have the "intent" in their music to lead away from God; while others have the "intent" to lead ones closer to God. Music can be moral or immoral. It depends on its "intent," and as you say "organization from intent." So, the music can be organized specifically in a style as to be inherently evil, because the intent was inherently evil. Correct?
DHK

 

No, this is not correct, and it is the biggest load of garbage I have read on here. An evil artist does not use the music, but the lyrics for evil. What if he used gospel music with the intent of adding evil lyrics to them? This is absolutely ridiculous.

 

DHK...you know better. Envision this--your Pastor gets up on Sunday and quotes John 3:16 in the voice of Donald Duck. Most all of us (I hope) would agree that such a thing would be inappropriate. Right?

My question is this: does that make the recitation of John 3:16 evil? Should we stop reciting it in church?

The music itself is not evil (as webdog) mentions above. No two people react exactly the same way to a musical sound. You can't make absolutist statements about musical sound or a particularly grouping of musical sounds.

By the way, DHK, the organization from intent simply meant that the composer had some idea of what he wanted to do, not some implication of moral intent with such a sound grouping. Big difference!!

 

Unlike the others; I do acknowledge a bit more a moral element in music. It's the broad categorization of what we think is good or evil that is what I dispute.
So if this is leading to "well jazz and rock rhythms were created by voodoo priests, and rebellious drugged out 60's youth copying them, with evil intent; so see, there! The intent is in the sound, even if a Christian tries to copy it for good" I say no; not exactly. The priest and rebellious youth may have found a beat and other sounds that were useful to create the atmosphere they wanted for their gatherings. It ignores several factors, such as a combination of sounds (it's not just a beat or beat accent or syncopation by itself), the theme and words, as well as the spirit behind it. THIS is what this question of "intent" really deals with!
Likewise, then, we cannot assume (on the flipside of this) that all classical music then, must have been created with "good intent" ("to lead people closer to God", yet), as if just a sound now justifies a person's heart and relation to God.

 

There is much Scripture that is put to music, and some of it very glorifying to the Lord. Ron Hamilton wrote an entire song (hymn?) based on the words "It is finished."
There are choruses based on: "They that wait upon the Lord..."
Psalm 19:7-11, and so on.

Some time ago a rock group intentionally put the words to the Lord's Prayer to their rock music. What was their intent? I am not sure what they would say? But to me it was mocking the Word of God, and the Lord Jesus Christ. That was in the mid-seventies. The intent was not worship.

Much of the intent in Christian music is far from worship today. The actual inten of much of CCM is entertainment.
Let me give a good example. Some of the music on Gaither's Gospel hour is quite good. But after the performer sings his song everyone claps and performer gets the praise, not God. To them it is entertainment. People get the glory, not God. They will talk of the praises of God, and even sing about them, all of which is good, but then they will clap and applaud for the song and the performer that sang it, and the good job that he did. Man gets the praise not God.
That is the result in much of CCM music. It is done for the praise of man. It is an industry with the intent of making money. CCM is a big market, much of it sold now in HMV, and other large secular music outlets. Why does the secular music cater to CCM, but they won't sell the old fashioned hymns: "What Can Wash Away My Sin; Nothing But the Blood of Jesus!" No one wants to hear those old hymns that speak about the blood of Jesus anymore. They speak of the gospel, how to be saved, how Jesus took the penalty of sin upon himself because they were sinners and deserved the wrath of God. That's a hard message that people of today don't want to hear, and CCM doesn't present for the most part. It is very shallow in its lyrics. It caters (in both its music and its lyrics) to the world, and thus the world accepts it.
DHK

 

"organization from intent"
That would assume that all music has "intent" behind it, which in most, if not all, would automatically exclude the premise that music is amoral. Many musicians have the "intent" in their music to lead away from God; while others have the "intent" to lead ones closer to God. Music can be moral or immoral. It depends on its "intent," and as you say "organization from intent." So, the music can be organized specifically in a style as to be inherently evil, because the intent was inherently evil. Correct?
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]Intent, thought, desire and emotion exist exclusively within the heart. Any medium used to communicate intent, thought, desire or emotion is nothing more than a symbolic abstraction.

 

However, you have already indicated that music is a language. People use language to curse, to express their anger, and many other emotions, sinful and otherwise. If music is a language then music can express such emotions as anger which, as you, say originate in the heart. Language is not abstract.
DHK

 

Sure it is. Language is not the actual thing being communicated. If I say "I hate you", the words are not themselves my hatred for you, they are only a set of audible signals which let you know the intent, thought, desire or emotion of my heart.

 

I wouldn't know if you hated me unless there was a way to communicate it. We call that language: whether it be music, English, Spanish, or cursing.
DHK

 

Exactly. That's why something external and independant of our hearts must be used to communicate the intent, thoughts, desires or emotions of our hearts.

 

Exactly. That's why something external and independant of our hearts must be used to communicate the intent, thoughts, desires or emotions of our hearts. </font>[/QUOTE]That is also the reason that you cannot separate the medium from the message. The message is expressed through medium. Thus an angry voice is sin because it communicates anger. Angry music is sin because it communicates the same type of anger. Anger is sin. Thus music is not amoral.
DHK

 

Exactly. That's why something external and independant of our hearts must be used to communicate the intent, thoughts, desires or emotions of our hearts. </font>[/QUOTE]That is also the reason that you cannot separate the medium from the message. The message is expressed through medium. Thus an angry voice is sin because it communicates anger. Angry music is sin because it communicates the same type of anger. Anger is sin. Thus music is not amoral.
DHK </font>[/QUOTE]An angry voice can be replicated without any anger whatsoever. A hateful sentiment of any kind can be reproduced without the actual hatred. Language is not and cannot be the thought, intent, desire or emotion of the heart.
Sin can't exist in soundwaves. The very notion makes no sense.

 

Ah, I see. So all musicians are frauds. They fake their emotions. The joy in their music is not joy at all--for "any sentiment of any kind can be produced with the actual sentiment."
So in reality musicians are just a bunch of hypocrites hiding behind an emotional facade.
The language of music (you say), as with any other language, cannot be the thought, intent, desire, etc. of the heart. But you are wrong; so very wrong. If I curse you, it just isn't in my heart; it is with my mouth, you----- ----- ----- (for example). Obviously angry words need to be expressed or they aren't angry words
It is the expression of anger (the language) that is just as much a sin as the anger itself. The two are so intertwined together that they cannot be separated, so don't even try. You cannot separate them.
DHK