For the past few days we have been discussing the concept of understanding music's meaning. The question may be ask at this point in our discussion," What kind of understanding will be received when one juxtaposes two diametrically opposed styles, genres, types, kinds of music? If one is to agree that we receive understanding from performing or listening to a style of music, what happens when we marry the "understandings" of two musics in a manner that is incongruent?
Now we are in deep water philosophically. If music A somehow gives us understanding of the lust of the flesh by exciting us sexually and music B somehow gives us understanding from the words about the " love of our Savior Jesus Christ", which understanding will the performer and listener receive?
I contend that this musical amalgamation has a double or dual intentionality. I want to make it clear that I do not believe in this terminology in the exact way as music philosophers like Scruton . What I contend is that music A has a specific purpose and aim, so therefore its intentionality is different from that of music B which has a diametrically opposed intentionality.
Therefore, the understandings received from the juxtaposition of these two musical purposes will at best severely muddy the waters of the message of this music. So, it looks like maybe we are unable to have our musical cake and eat it too. I am not convinced that we can sort out the bad and keep the good by "re-tasking" music that is of a dual intentionality. To use a concept of Francis Schaeffer, when "nature and grace" do battle, nature eats up grace.
No comments:
Post a Comment