Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 15

 

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 15

The Christian musician should not be perplexed at the difficulties involved in developing Christocentric music aesthetic.  Most, if not all, of the cardinal doctrines of the Bible have been the source of much discussion among saints and scholars over many centuries. 

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 15

 

           Aesthetics and the Christian musician Part 15

 There are several Bible principles that apply to sacred music.  If the music has words the word of God is the most important element of that music.  Sacred music should be characterized by an absence of excessive noise.  Since the music should be melody oriented, rhythm must never obscure the melody (or melodies), the harmony or the words.  Sacred music must be characterized by “beauty” rather than “ugliness”.  All sacred music must be of a higher renovated character than the music of the world.  All sacred music must be based on Spirit and truth.  Sacred music must be non-carnal i.e. it must not appeal primarily to the flesh.  Sacred music must cause the worshipers to muse or think as opposed to causing them to be amused (not to think).  Sacred music must represent the changed life principles expressed in Scripture.  None of the above principles are a matter of taste or opinion.  They are all requirements for the whole of sacred music. 

            A caution to conservative Christian musicians is necessary.  We should be careful not to act as if we have all the answers or that there is no room for some variety in developing a Christian music aesthetic.  No Christian musician that I have ever know has all wisdom or all knowledge concerning what God thinks about beauty in music.

            Over a period of time the specifics of what is considered beautiful in music will undergo some changes.  This doesn’t mean that style and form in church music don’t matter.  They do matter since Church Music Matters to God.  Changes will come. Instrumentation, orchestration, choral arranging, small groups, and many other ways of accomplishing the Bible mandate of worshiping the Lord through music will change.  Conservatives should not resist all change, but rather resist only destructive change.  Diversity of music expression is not negative or wrong in itself.  However, we must never lose sight of what will and will not fit the awesomeness and solemnity of worship of the Triune God.  Developing a Christocentric music aesthetic in an atmosphere of change is not ever an easy task. 

 

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 14

 

                                Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 14

The Christian musician should be careful to not fall into the very narrow philosophical trap that “there are only seven songs that meet God’s approval”.  Conversely, one should not falsely believe that every style of music is appropriate for public worship.

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 14

        Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 14

            If you have been reading this discussion from on an over simplistic perspective, you are now ready for me to name the “seven songs God approves of”, because He considers them to be beautiful, or the “one style of music that God approves of”, because He considers it to be beautiful.  Sorry!  I am not qualified to give such a simplistic answer.  If it was that easy there would be no disagreement or no battle for Christian music going on today.  Every Christian must develop Christocentric music aesthetic.  Where should one start?  Proverbs 1:7 gives us the answer:

The fear of the LORD is the beginning (7225) of knowledge (1847): but fools despise wisdom (2451) and instruction.

The word daath (1847) means knowing or awareness and ehokmah (2451) means to be wise or have a skillful wisdom.  So the fear of God is the principal thing (reshiyth 7225) when it comes to knowing or having skillful wisdom concerning a God centered music aesthetic.  Although the word fear sounds negative or restrictive it is not!  An extreme reverence for God is the principally important aspect of acquiring the ability to spiritually discern God’s way of knowing and His wisdom concerning what is that good, acceptable, and perfect will of God. 

            The Christian musician should be reminded that he or she is not left alone to struggle with the development of a music aesthetic.  There are many references to music that are found in the Bible.  These references are valid and valuable to the twenty-first century music philosopher.  Also there is much written about aesthetics in music philosophy books.  As a student of Christian music philosophy, you should be sure to only accept aesthetic philosophies that line up to the principles of musicing found in God’s Word.

 

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 13

                                            Thought for the day-aesthetics Part 13

Aesthetics is primarily the study of beauty in the fine arts. A Christian music philosopher must derive a view of “beauty’ that is congruent with the moral nature of God.  This is especially true when developing an aesthetic for sacred music.

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 13

 

           Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 13

 It stands to reason that the only immutable truth about aesthetics may only be found in God’s perfect understanding, will, and knowledge.  Outside of our knowledge of God’s Word, everything Christian musicians postulate or perform in music comes from imperfect and partial knowledge.  We know from I Corinthians 13:9, 10 that 

.... we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.  (NIV)

Paul went on to say in verse 12,

Now we see but a poor reflection in a mirror, then we shall see face to face.  How I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.”  (NIV)

            Based on this truth, no one should act as if he or she is the final answer when it comes to “knowing” or developing a philosophy of music aesthetics.  With this in mind, the Christian musician, although aware of the inability to be “all knowing”, must not fall into the 21^st century trap of believing that there is no objective “truth” concerning music aesthetics.  Those who believe that music has great power over the auditor and the performer are not the creators of some conservative far-fetched notion that only relates to a fight against rock-based contemporary Christian music.  On the contrary, this argument has existed for centuries.  In Donald Grout’s treatise A History of Western Music, he quoted Aristotle as saying:

...when one listens to music that imitates a certain passion, one becomes imbued with the same passion, and if over a long time one habitually listens to the kind of music that rouses ignoble passions ones whole character will be shaped to an ignoble form.3 

What Aristotle was saying was that the continued influence of “ignoble” music would affect its message so thoroughly on the listener that it would influence the actual character of the auditor.  Plato was famous for his classic philosophical statement, “Let me make the songs of a nation and I care not who makes its laws.”4 
            Ancient Greek philosophers evidently believed that music could communicate not only beauty to the auditor, but also the message of the moral intent of the composer or performer, not merely by words, but also by the music part of music.  No one ever quotes Plato or Aristotle as believing that only words communicate.  Both of these philosophers mention the effect of modes on the auditor.  They mention emotions like anger, gentleness, calmness, anxiety and personal restraint and how the character of the various modes conveys these messages to the hearer.          

---

3 Grout, pg.8 quoting Aristotle

4 Grout, pg.8 quoting Plato

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 12

 Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 12

Many philosophers who have studied aesthetics since the time of Plato and Aristotle have come to the logical conclusion that musical sounds have great potential and power over both the performer and the auditor.  Therefore, studying music’s beauty without regard to its power is a faulty aesthetic view.

Aesthetics and the christian musician Part 12

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 12

            The beauty of music can cause a crowd to become calm and quiet before a worship service begins or set a proper mood at the time of prayer.  Although this function of music could be considered utilitarian it need not be only practical but also aesthetic as the musically aware perceive the beauty and import of the music. 

            Outside of the context of worship i.e. the secular concert setting a Christian music aesthetic can include music for music’s sake.  However, the Christian musician always brings to a secular performance an awareness of the God who created the great art of music.  The musician who is musically aware will be able to listen to music at a much deeper level tan the neophyte who is enjoying his first listening experience in the concert hall.  The musically educated will be much more aware of the beauty and import of the music being performed.  Those who understand key structure, tonality, melody, harmonic practice and form will hear and perceive a multiplicity of aspects of a musical performance.  This ability to perceive musically opens a whole realm of meanings and musical delights that completely escape the casual “music lover”.  However, the Christian musician should always be cognizant of the marvels of the Creator who made aesthetic beauty and import available to the musically aware. 

            Claims that music is a closed system that reveals the true meaning of life to the musically aware without the possibility of any referential meaning have not been substantiated.  Even though they have disagreed about whether music’s meaning is referential or not, many music philosophers through the ages have believed that music does communicate something.  What that something is has been a matter of much conjecture, argument, and disagreement.

 

Thought for the Day-Aesthetics Part 11

                                                   Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 11

It is my belief that one of the things that has caused some Christian musicians to develop a music aesthetic based on the grotesque and noise is that these musicians have centered their attention on the art of music rather than on making music unto God that represents His character.

 

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 11

 

           Aesthetics and the Christian musician Part 11

For the past ten posts, we have been discussing the developing of a Christian music aesthetic.  We have also discussed a noise based music aesthetic and translations that have mistakenly translated ruwa as "Joyful noise".  As we mentioned in yesterday's post, the actual Hebrew word used in all of the texts mentioned that have been translated "joyful noise" is the word ruwa (7321) which meant to shout with joy.  The New International Version justly translates Psalm 66:1,2 as follows:

v. 1          Shout with joy to God, all the earth!

v. 2          Sing the glory of his name; make his praise glorious! (NIV) 

It also translates 81:1 as “sing for joy”, 95:1, “come sing for joy”, 95:2, “extol him with music and song”, 98:4, “shout for joy”, 98:6, “shout for joy”, and 100:1, “shout for joy”.

            To add insult to injury some contemporary Christian musicians declare that these verses command Christian musicians to perform religious music with noise.  There are no biblical imperatives for musicians to include noise in our musical offerings to God.  As a matter of fact, there is not a single hint in the Bible record that Christians should ever include noise in our musical worship to God.  It is my belief that the use of beauty in the arts in worship serves the purpose of creating atmospheres and preparatory moods for the corporate worship experiences. 

           Beauty in music can cause the worshiper, who hears the created art object, to become more acutely aware of the Creator of the great art of music.  I have personally gone away from worshiping through music with an heightened awareness of the Creator.  (I have also left the concert hall, after hearing the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra perform secular music, with an exalted view of the Creator who so marvelously created music.)      

Thought for the day Part 10

                                               Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 10

It seems very clear to me that a Christian music aesthetic developed upon the concept of “noise” is not congruent with the concepts of beauty and rest taught throughout the Bible in conjunction with the inner peace given, by Christ, to the Christian.

 

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 10

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 10

       The greatest commentary on an aesthetic of music based on beauty in the Bible is Amos 5:23:

Take thou away from me the noise (1995) of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.

The Hebrew word used in verse 23 for noise is hamown (1995) which means tumult, disquietude, or a multitude of noise.  Ezekiel 26:13 likewise uses the Hebrew word hamown in a negative sense:

And I will cause the noise (1995) of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

There is no doubt about it; the Bible never makes positive comments about noise, noisy songs, multitude of noise in music, or tumult in music. 

            At this point you may be wondering how I reconcile the references to “joyful noise” in Psalm 66:1, 81:1, 95:1, 95:2, 98:4, 98:6 and 100:1 in the King James Version.  In the original text the word NOISE never appears in any of the aforementioned Scriptures.  Therefore, the addition of the word NOISE is a most unfortunate translation. In all of these Scriptures, the phrase “make a joyful noise” is translated from the Hebrew word ruwa (7321).  In all of these Scriptures, the actual meaning is “Great acclamation” or with a “great shout of joy”.

           None of these Scriptures leave the example of a Christian aesthetic of noise connected to sacred music.  It is only misguided understanding of what the Bible actually states in the original text that has caused contemporary Christian musicians to develop this completely false praxial aesthetic view of music worship based on noise. For a more thorough discussion of the meaning or the word “noise” in the AV, read the section Beautiful Music Performed Beautifully in chapter eight (pages 346-3500 of my book, Music of the Bible in Christian Perspective.

         The NIV makes this point clear when it translates hamown (1995) and shiyr (7892) as noisy songs.  If God demanded that music be free from noise then what makes a Christian musician believe that he will accept noisy songs today? 

Thought for the day-Aesthetics part 9

                         

                                             Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 9

It is sometimes very difficult for the Christian musician who practices many hours each week to perfect his or her performance ability, to not fall into the philosophical trap of worshiping music (which is a created thing).

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 9

 

      Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 9

           Art is not the doorway to the kingdom of God.  Therefore a Christian must develop a religious approach to the arts rather than an artistic approach to religion.  Beauty in music is also not the doorway to the kingdom of God although words used as a concomitant of instrumental and vocal music is capable of becoming very efficacious spiritually.  Also sacred lyric poetry is a truly meaningful introduction to the kingdom of God.

    Christians are warned in the first chapter of the Book of  Romans to not worship music which is a created thing.  Romans 1:18,19,25, and 28 states,

vs. 18          The wrath of God is being revealed against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness

vs. 19          Since what may be known about God is plain to them.

vs. 25          They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator – who is forever praised.  Amen.

vs. 28          Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.  (NIV)

Although the Scripture lesson which is not all quoted here speaks primarily to the sexual sins it also speaks of worshiping created things which includes art and art objects rather than the Creator.  Therefore worshiping aesthetics or any created art forms is nothing less than idolatry!  The Scripture lesson above warns those who worship created things rather than the Creator start by suppressing the truth that Christians must not worship any created thing. 

        Therefore the result of an aesthetic approach to religion is worshiping art for art's sake.  I believe that worshiping art for art’s sake in music worship is the outcome of a faulty praxial view of the place of the arts in worship.  Worship music must derive its significance outside of itself.  If it does not, it is autonomous.  Therefore, a Christocentric Christian aesthetic must derive its significance outside of itself.  A Christian aesthetic view will consequently not derive the same musical import as a secular aesthetic view does.

            I want to make it very clear that I believe that aesthetic beauty in the art of music used in worship is not wrong but, on the contrary, beauty in the arts is one of the proofs that an art form follows biblical principles.  Beauty is a concomitant of God’s orderly creation.  I believe that when God created music as a part of his personal orderly creation that it was very good or beautiful (Genesis 1:31).  Although misguided musicologists and some Christian musicians have purported that the music of the Bible was harsh and ugly, there is not a shred of biblical or extra biblical proof of such an exotic hypothesis.  On the contrary the te’amim (the musical melodies of all Old Testament Scriptures) have proven  that the music of the Bible was very beautiful.  (See chapter Eight of Music in the Bible in Christian Perspective).

 

Thought for the day-

                                       Thought for the day-A Friend Closer Than a Brother

Everyone should have friends.  However, many lonely people do not know what a friend Jesus can be to them. Today, tell someone about your friend and Savior Jesus Christ.

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 8

  Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 8

       A music aesthetic deals with beauty in music rather than primarily dealing with the practical use of music as an art and a worship vehicle.  However, Christian cannot escape the responsibility of music’s effect on the performer and the auditor.

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 8

 

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 8

         How does a Christian musician develop a philosophy of music aesthetics?  Some Christian musicians who are referentialists believe that music derives most of its significance outside of itself.    This is especially true when we consider sacred music.  Referentialists believe that music’s meanings are often not only outside of the music itself, but also are actual references to real life.  Christian non-referentialists believe that music has meaning, but that its meaning is music’s own meaning as part of a closed system that does not relate to life outside of the music.

        Worship music normally exists as a means to an end.  Music is a vehicle upon which the Word of God rides into the mind of the worshiper.  However, as I just mentioned, an increasing number of Christian musicians believe that music is a closed system and that its system of “knowing” and its significance comes from within itself with absolutely no cause and effect on real life outside of music.  This philosophical belief allows a Christian musician to function independently of the Lordship of Christ.  Since they believe that music’s significance is in no way referential it only refers to itself and may not “say” anything at all.  This belief system allows a total artistic approach to religious music. 

       So the Christian musician, who is developing a music aesthetic, will be forced to come to philosophical grips with whether or not music has a cause and effect on the performer and the auditor.  Although music aesthetics deals with beauty and the import of that meaning, one cannot escape considering what music is or is not capable of doing to the whole-life of the performer and the listener.

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 7

 

                                           Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 7

The philosophical view that a music aesthetic is strictly a matter of personal taste is a faulty view.

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 7

Aesthetics and the Christian musician-Part 7

            No one before Schoenberg had ever been successful in completely negating the traditional way of “knowing” when it came to music composition.  What musicians most often fail to recognize that Schoenberg’s dodecaphonic invention was deeply ingrained in philosophy.  He intended to defy the philosophy that there was profundity in harmonic practice.  To him nothing about music was profound.  To Schoenberg nothing mattered in music but the composer’s free will. 

            To Schoenberg the only rules or standards of music that mattered were those rules and standards that the composer imposed upon himself.  To him the only thing that mattered about how a composer arranged the building blocks of music was the composers self actualized rules of how he wished to arrange the building blocks of music.

            The purpose of all this discussion of progressive despair is to show logically how 20^th century musical philosophy prepared the way for the autonomous philosophical practice of contemporary Christian musicians.  It is easy to see how the inordinate quest for music freedom of the world in the 20^th  century strongly molded the autonomous freedom philosophy of contemporary Christian musicians.

            The parallels are astonishing.  Both believe that music aesthetic is totally a matter of personal opinion.  Both believe that rhythm and dissonance are extremely vital to their music.  Both believe that the only artistic standards in music composition are those which the artist imposes on himself.  Both believe that the composer and the performer are autonomous.  The godless worldly composers are not interested in what God thinks about music and the worldly Christian musicians are not interested in a philosophical belief that God thinks about the music part of music.

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 6

  Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 6

Many Christian musicians are so enamored with the works of the twentieth century that they fail to recognize the philosophical implications of these compositions and the composers who composed them.   They fail to recognize that all music composition exudes from a composer’s music and whole-life philosophy.

 

 

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 6

 Aesthetics and the Christian Musician-Part 6

           Debussy paved the way to the door of despair and Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971) walked through it with portions of his ballet Petruska composed in bitonality.  His ballet Le sacre du printemps was composed in polytonality with the use of polyrhythms.  His Septet (1953) and his ballet Agon (1957) were composed in Serial (12 tone) technique.  So by the end of his career Stravinsky had moved from conventional diatonic harmonic practice to Schoenberg’s despair of 12 tone technique.

            The ultimate expression of 20^th century despair in music composition was developed by Arnold Schoenberg (1874-1951).  Although his earliest works were in post-Romantic style, his compositions became more and more chromatic.  Next, his works became very dissonant and pan-tonal which defied the rules of traditional harmonic practice.

            Next, he developed his 12-tone (dodecaphonic) compositions.  These works were based on a tone row using all twelve tones equally, thereby emancipating dissonance.  This technique was the ultimate 20^th century expression of despair in music composition.  It purported that all 12 tones should be used with equal emphasis with no regard to the rules of harmonic practice.  Up to this time, music always flowed from consonance to dissonance which was always resolved into consonance.

          What Schoenberg accomplished was the destruction of absolutes in music.  To him nothing was profound, appropriate, proper, right or wrong in harmonic practice.  What he changed was both the epistemology and the methodology of meaning in music composition.  So, under his epistemology there are ways of “knowing” that involve new foundations and new limits.  With this compositional methodology, he created a new way of dealing with the science of music.  His new compositional procedures established a completely new way of musical “knowing” through his new rules and procedures.

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 5

                                                         Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 5
Although man does have a free will, he doesn't need to authenticate himself because he is made in the image of God.  Therefore, we know with certainty, that we are real and have value in this world.  Furthermore, although some musicians live purposeless lives, the Christian musician always has purpose in his or her life if he or she finds and does the will of God.

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 5

 

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician-Part 5
             Dadaism was another aesthetic movement that had a profound effect on music philosophy and composition.  Dadaism was one of those movements that struck out at traditional aesthetic and moral values.  This school of thought, starting around 1916, used chance techniques and was a very irreverent and often irrational artistic absurdity.  Proponents of Dadaism were Tristan Tzara (1896-1963), Jean Arp (1887-1966) and others.
            This movement gave rise to surrealism which was formulated by André Breton (1896-1966) and made famous by Salvador Dali (1904-??).  The philosophy of surrealism came from Breton’s automatism philosophy that what a person thinks, feels or wills is determined by physical changes           After French impressionism, came several schools of artistic thought that had an in that person’s body.  This philosophy purports that, although one is fully conscious, actions come from subconscious images over which that person has no control.
            Another philosophical theory that affected composers of the 20^th century was existentialism.  This theory was a literary movement rather than an artistic theory like Dadaism and surrealism.  This theory was introduced by Sören Aaby Kierkegaard (1813-1855).  He believed that man was not a part of any metaphysical scheme.  He believed that each person must create (authenticate) his own being in his hostile environment by an act of his free will. Composers of the modern era, like the proponents of the “isms” mentioned above, struck out against all tradition and standards of correctness with their musical compositions. 

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 4

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 4

Sacred music, of all musics, should be beautiful, regular and very stable because it is supposed to be good news.  It represents a God who never changes.  Jesus said “Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matthew11:28)  Therefore music that represents God should

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician-Part 4

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician-Part 4

What does all this mean to church musicians in the 21^st century?  Why should we care what “serious academic music” composers do?  The reason we care is that in order for us to know how contemporary Christian music derived its philosophical basis, we must understand the history of music.  With these basic understandings of 20^th century philosophical despair in music philosophy, we are able to know how 21^st century church musicians derive their synthesis music philosophy.

Contemporary Christian musicians have accepted many elements of the anti-music despair of the 20^th century.  They believe, like Stravinsky, that the music part of music is not efficacious i.e. it is incapable of expressing anything at all.  Furthermore, these Christian musicians believe, like John Cage, that nothing is “sacred” or “profound” about the music part of contemporary Christian music.  Finally, like the religious music of Pierre Henry, these contemporary Christian’s religious music is grotesque and dissonant but the words are clear and clean!  To them this sanctifies the deed!  If the words are clean, nothing else matters.

Under this lack-luster philosophy religious music no longer has to be aesthetically beautiful.  Although almost all Christian musicians who perform rock-based music would deny it, they don’t believe in a music aesthetic based on any definable traditional standards of beauty.  If they do believe in an Christian music aesthetic, it is most certainly a redefined beauty based on a synthesis somewhere in between beauty and ugliness.  How did music degenerate in its aesthetic beauty from the music of J.S. Bach to the anti-music of composers like John Cage?  I believe that Achille-Claude Debussy (1862-1918) was one of the early composers who started in the direction of despair music.  He became interested in the literary works of the symbolist writers of the 19^th century.  These writers addressed their writings to a system of symbols and symbolic meaning as a negative reaction to naturalism and realism in literature.  This school was non literal and figurative thus developing a network of vague images.

The music of Claude Debussy was chromatic, fluid and vague.  Debussy’s opera Pelléas et Mélisande in this symbolist style

The opera is an expression of Debussy’s philosophy that music should be a free art, truly representative of the fact that it cannot be contained, but exists in time and is born on air.  That freedom meant a relaxation of restrictions such as those that normally governed form, harmonic progressions, and rhythm.2 

This vagueness was considered impressionistic and thus the connection was made with the vagueness of the visual art of Edouard Manet (1832-1883), Paul Cézanne (1839-1906), Hilaire Germain Edgar Degas (1834-1917), Claude Monet (1840-1926), and Pierre Auguste Renoir (1841-1919).  The works of these painters are studies in the impression light makes on the subjects of these paintings.  Often, light and subject seem to almost merge. The overall impression takes precedence over clarity, thus vagueness reigns

---

2 The Development of Western Music, K. Marie Stolba, p.775

Thought for the day-Aesthetics -Part 3

                          Thought for the day -Aesthetics Part 3

Christian musicians must be very careful of blindly following music fads and trends blindly.  A Christian must remember that “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh”.  This is certainly true of music composers.

 

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician-Part 3

Aesthetics and the Christian-Part 3
The last part of yesterday's post we discussed, very, very briefly, the philosophical meaning of John Cage's  anti-music composition "Four minutes and thirty three seconds".  At this point in the history of music, serious music composition had philosophically destroyed an aesthetic of beauty and profundity in music.  Cage had philosophically proved Stravinsky’s antithesis philosophical statement, “I consider that music is, by its very nature, essentially powerless to express anything at all...”1  So the godless antithesis of depraved man in the 20^th century closed the door on a music aesthetic based on beauty and musing with anti-music based on distortion and chance techniques.

These composers opened the door for the lack-luster philosophy that the music part of music is incapable of expressing any effective message or perhaps any message at all.  They also destroyed profundity in music since chance music is just as profound as the most thought out composition by great composers like J.S. Bach.  Now complete musical despair reigns.  To these composers music says nothing is incapable of being profound, and is ultimately incapable of expressing anything at all.

What does all this mean to church musicians in the 21^st century?  Why should we care what “serious academic music” composers do?  The reason we care is that in order for us to know how contemporary Christian music derived its philosophical basis, we must understand the history of music.  With these basic understandings of 20^th century philosophical despair in music philosophy, we are able to know how 21^st century church musicians derive their synthesis music philosophy.

---

1 Philosophical Perspectives on Music, Bowman, p.194.

Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 2

Thought for the day -Aesthetics Part

Christian musicians must be very careful of blindly following music fads and trends blindly.  A Christian must remember that “Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaketh”.  This is certainly true of music composers.

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician-Part 2

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician-Part 2

Yesterday we introduced the philosophical discussion of aesthetics and the Christian musician.  Today we are going to discuss very briefly some directions in twentieth century music that, in my opinion, were instrumental in the development of the philosophical notion that there are no absolutes in music.  Musique concrète is an example of anti-music music composition.  Pierre Schaeffer (b.1910) composed music directly on tapes or discs from natural sources.  However, these “natural sounds” were seriously distorted by playing them backward, changing the speed of the sound of by other editing abnormalities.  In 1948, Schaeffer composed his Concert des bruites (Concert of Noises) and other original compositions.  Pierre Schaeffer’s music can be identified with the philosophy of surrealist painters with its juxtaposition and chance techniques.  He often took perfectly natural sounds and scrambled them in an indeterminable manner.  (Surrealism will be considered later in this discussion.)  Schaeffer, Henry, Baronnett and Boulez were the early “inventors” of this anti-music distortion.  These compositions included religious pieces like Mass for Liverpool and The Apocalypse of John.

 So this distortion found its way into religious genres making subtle mockery of the awesomeness and solemnity of sacred symbols.  One shocking aspect of this distorted religious music is that the narration of the Bible text is clearly understandable.  John Cage (b.1912) became interested in anti-musical techniques like prepared piano and chance operations.  Cage called his chance music indeterminacy.  Other composers began to use chance operations which have been termed 4 minutes and 33 seconds.  This piece became the ultimate composition of anti-music since his purpose was to compose music that said absolutely NOTHING!  The performer simply sat at the piano for the designated period of time making absolutely no sounds.

Thought for the day Aesthetics-Part 1

 

          Thought for the day-Aesthetics Part 1

Sometimes Christian musicians get so busy with the practical aspects of music ministry that they forget that music is a fine art and therefore must always be treated as an art.

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician-Part 1

Aesthetics and the Christian Musician Part 1

Aesthetics is that area of philosophy that considers the perception of the beautiful as distinguished from the moral of the useful.  Christian musicians often wonder just where Christocentric music philosophy fits in to a Christian aesthetic.  One thing is sure, God is interested in beauty.  We know that He is since His creation is not only useful but also very, very beautiful. 

As always, the Christian is concerned with where to start when building a philosophy of artistic beauty.  One thing we know, that in the beginning God created everything that is beautiful.  Since music was a part of His creation, we know from the Genesis record that the beauty that God created was very good so therefore His creation of beauty was exceedingly beautiful. 

Any philosophical view of aesthetics that admits the grotesque or ugly is faulty.  We know that crude, ugly unmusical compositions do exist, but they are the result of a miss-arrangement of the building blocks of music.  Never blame God with ugly grotesque unmusical compositions.  The anti-music compositions of the 20^th century were not produced by God-fearing Christian composers and arrangers.

Thought for the day-A Prescriptive Approach-Part 9

I believe that parents who involve their children in high quality musical experiences at a very early age [at age 2--4], have less problems with their children getting involved in destructive styles of music .

A Prescriptive Approach--Part 9

A Prescriptive Approach-Part 9
In yesterday's discussion we considered whether it was proper to music unto God with noise based music.  Many people misunderstand the OT words for great joy, great acclamatiom, shouting for joy with hamown that definitely means noise.However, the Bible does say in Ezekiel 26:13, “And I will cause the noise (hamown 1995) of thy songs to cease...” and Amos 5:23, “Take thou away from me the noise (hamown 1995) of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.”  The word hamown used in the aforementioned Scripture does not mean strength or joy or acclamation but rather NOISE.

            If God said in the Book of Amos that He would not hear the melody of their viols because of the noise then what causes a contemporary Christian musician to conclude that God will accept noise in church music today?  If God said take this musical noise “away from me”, what makes a twenty-first century church musician believe that he has changed His mind today? (See  Church Music Matters by Garen L. Wolf  chapter 11 Aesthetics and the Christian Musician)

            This discussion of Bible principles concerning music could continue here for pages and pages.  However, I will leave that discussion to those mentioned above.  If you are interested, I suggest you read my book, Music of the Bible in Christian Perspective, which treats this subject thoroughly.  We know that there are Bible principles that make a prescriptive approach to music philosophy biblically sound.  By Bible standards, church music is not all a matter of taste.  The Bible teaches that there are principles that do govern all music practice including both secular and sacred.  It only makes sense that when the Holy Spirit admonishes us in the musical discourse of Ephesians 5 to prove “what is acceptable unto the Lord”, that He would also provide from the Word of God principles that would enable us to go about the process of “proving” what is or is not acceptable unto the Lord.

            So, twenty-first century Christian musicians do not need to be “programmed” or “caught in the wheel” since they may choose to retain God in their musical knowledge and be renewed in the spirit of their mind.  Church musicians do not have to accept the world’s music matrix but rather they may elect to believe the principles set forth in the Bible and base a Christocentric music philosophy on these eternal principles.

             

Thought for the day- A Prescriptive Approach part 8

Sometimes I hear Christians indicate that if a person becomes a Christian he or she will not have problems in this life.  Christians will have problems but God will see them through their problems.  I used to tell my college choir and Symphonic wind and string ensemble members, "Serving Jesus Christ is not always hippity-hop over the top."  However, it is worth it regardless of how things are going for a Christian.

A prescriptive Approach Part 8

       A Prescriptive Approach-Part 8
What are some principles of music found in the Bible?  Vocal music was most important since it was a vehicle for the word of Jehovah to ride into the hearts of the worshiper.  The instruments used to accompany vocal music were mostly string instruments that would not cover up the words.  Percussion was used but it was used to mark beginning and pauses and never used as a continuous driving beat.  Instrumental music was used for music therapy purposes.  We have every reason to believe that this instrumental music was melody oriented and produced a pleasing beautiful, restful effect on the listener.  We have absolutely no reason to believe that it was ugly, raucous or harsh sounding.  There were two species of music mentioned in the Bible, men’s music, which was controlled by melody and words, and women’s music, which was controlled by rhythm.  The use of women’s music is nowhere traceable in either the first or second Temple.

            Not all music was considered appropriate for public worship.  There were many instruments mentioned in the Bible but only some of them were used in Temple worship.  Some music was no doubt used for sensual purposes including harlotry.  Loud music was played at funerals by the hired professional mourners. 

       A word by word study of dance in the Bible reveals that most of the references do not refer to any type of religious dancing.  Some of the dancing was used specifically for idol worship and some of it was possible used for human sacrifices.  Dancing and furious drum beating was certainly never used in the Temple in the worship of Jehovah and dancing or rhythmic movement is nowhere traceable in the first or second Temple. 

       Although some secular music was used for improper purposes, not all references to secular music in the Bible were considered improper.  The term “joyful noise” of the authorized version is most unfortunate since the Hebrew word translated “joyful noise” meant with power, acclamation and great joy, NOT NOISE.  However, the Bible does say in Ezekiel 26:13, “And I will cause the noise (hamown 1995) of thy songs to cease...” and Amos 5:23, “Take thou away from me the noise (hamown 1995) of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols.”  The word hamown used in the aforementioned Scripture does not mean strength or joy or acclamation but rather NOISE.

Quote for the day-Prescriptive Approach Part 7

"If they [non-Christians] are tired  of the noise which the world offers and seek music which feeds the spirit, does your church music attract them or does it have the same qualities and sound as the world's?"  Music in the Balance, Frank Garlock & Kurt Woetzel, pg. 92.

A prescriptive Approach--Part 7

      A Prescriptive Approach-Part 7
 Today we return we return to the question, “Does the church have the right and responsibility to prescribe what is best suited for music worship?”  Yes, the church has both.  How to go about making these choices has become difficult but that does not remove either the right or  the responsibility of establishing standards for church music.

       Does anyone but churches approach music from a prescriptive standpoint?  Could you imagine playing “Three Blind Mice” for a university piano entrance audition?  How far would you get?  Why the necessity of playing something like a Beethoven piano sonata?  Why does a university prescribe what music is proper, suitable, and appropriate for an entrance exam?  The reason is that they believe in all of the above as well as profundity in music.  Most university piano professors actually believe that Beethoven’s sonatas are more profound than “Three Blind Mice”. 

       So, when it comes to wise choices for undergraduate or graduate study they prescribe which music is proper etc. for every student to perform.  Why?  Because public universities believe that Music Matters.  They certainly believe in making wise choices and “Three Blind Mice” is simply not the appropriate music for undergraduate or graduate study. 

       To these professors music is most definitely an art form with standards of correctness.  Why shouldn’t Christian musicians have equally high expectations for church music?  Where did church musicians get the philosophy that there is no profundity in church music, no absolutes, and no standards of correctness or appropriateness?  Whether educating or edifying, there are absolutes in music.  Therefore it is possible to make wise and unwise choices of both.

Quote for the day-prescriptive Part 6

Rebels always miss the most exquisite pleasures of the senses.  By defying the law, they settle for junk, and junk doesn't give the same satisfaction as quality--at least to a normal mind."  A Return to Christian culture, Richard S. Taylor, p. 39.

A Prescriptive Approach Part 6

                                              A Prescriptive approach to Church Music Part 6

       Public music worship should not be a platform for the pastor’s or the minister of music’s personal tastes in music.  The assembly of believers does not gather to receive a music lesson on J.S. Bach or accapella choral techniques or to revisit the oratorios of Handel, Mendelssohn and Gounod.  Neither is the purpose of congregational singing to keep the hymns of Watts, Wesley and Fanny Crosby alive. Special singing is not an opportunity to fan the minister of music’s latent desire to sing bass in a famous southern gospel quartet or a country gospel band.  Richard S. Taylor sums up the matter quite well,

The fact that some people may like this or that is not sufficient reason for the church to use it.  The church should lead the way in such standards, not objectly follow every fad and custom which happens to be “in” at the moment.  The Church has no business adopting the philosophy, “If you can’t lick ‘em, join ‘em.”  We should be governed by basic and eternal principles.  There are music forms, whether secular or sacred, which create moods of pensiveness, or idealism, or awareness of beauty, of aspiration, and of holy joyousness.  There are forms of music which create moods of recklessness and sensual excitement.  Surely it doesn’t take much judgement to know which forms are most appropriate for religious function.1

So, church music selections should line up to Bible principles of music in worship.  Choices should not be made solely on personal preference but rather what this style of music will do to the whole life of the individuals who worship with it.  From the time of Plato and Aristotle philosophers have believed, more or less, that good music would cause one to tend toward the moral virtues and that bad music would cause one to tend toward moral decadence. 

---

1 A Return to Christian Culture, p.87  Richard S. Taylor

Thought for the day-Prescriptivr part 5

Psalm 89:15 states' "Blessed is the people that know the joyful sound..."  If there is a "joyful" sound then conversely there must be sounds that Jehovah considers to not be "joyful'.

A Prescriptive approach-Part 5

                                                        A Prescriptive approach to Church music part 5

             The reason the church has historically taken a prescriptive approach to music ministry is that the monkey is on our back.  It is not God’s responsibility to provide a Bible verse that says, “Thou shalt not sing or play a certain genera of music.”  It is our responsibility to have spiritual discernment to only use music that is of good benefit and is well pleasing or fully agreeable to the perfect or complete will of God.

            With Romans 12:2 in mind, we can understand why a careful Christian develops a conservative musical conscious.  It is very possible for a careless minister of music to draw the line in the wrong place or to fail to draw any line and thereby fall into the error of synthesis thinking that there is no objective truth or “true truth” concerning church music.  This philosophy throws caution to the wind since church music is supposedly a standardless art with no absolutes.  Remember philosophically, direction determines destiny.  Once a church musician has accepted the world’s matrix of music, it seems only proper that the fads and trends of worldly styles of music are now the most appropriate for worship.

            So, what kinds of music should a church prescribe for public and private worship?  The answer to this searching question is not a simplistic one.  Many conservative Christian musicians have simplistically narrowed church music down to what I call “the seven songs God approves of”.  When a musician begins to specifically name the only arrangers, hymn and gospel songbooks, and the single style of music that is suited to the awesomeness and solemnity of worship, big problems emerge.  It’s virtually impossible to support such claims with Bible principles that govern music.  By this statement I am not capitulating my belief that there are styles that are or are not appropriate etc., I am simply pointing out that there is room for more than one style of music in public worship. 

Thought for the day-Prescriptive Part 4

When we read the Revelation we learn with certainty that God is going to hold the church responsible for what it does or does not do.  I believe a part of that judgment of God will be how we musiced into Him.

A Prescriptive Approach Part 4

A Prescriptive Approach-Part 4

It is not the purpose of this blog to try to tell church musicians exactly where to draw the line musically speaking.  The greatest problem with church music today is not that various Christian fellowships don’t agree exactly on what styles of music are best suited for public worship.  The big problem is that churches are no longer drawing any lines when it comes to music style.  In the midst of these troubled musical times churches have abdicated.  They have given up all responsibility for sorting out what is proper or improper, appropriate or inappropriate, suitable or unsuitable and certainly good and bad in church music.

Does it matter where a person draws the line musically?  Yes it matters because Church Music Matters to all serious Christians and certainly because Church Music Matters to God.  Remember that Ephesians 5 reminds us that “proving what is acceptable unto the Lord” is necessary in our properly “making melody unto the Lord”.  In Philippians 1:9-11, Paul admonishes the Philippian Christians

               And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight,

               So that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ,

               Filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ-to the glory and praise of God. (NIV)

Surely, there is much need for the 21^st century church to be able to discern what is best for music in worship.  If we need a godly depth of insight in order to discern what is best then conversely there must be that which is not the best.  Style of church music would certainly fall in this category of good and bad, best and worse, and appropriate and inappropriate.  Furthermore, the admonition in Romans chapter 12 to not be conformed to the pattern of the world system goes on to say in verse 2:13, “...that ye may be able to prove what is that good (agathos 18), and acceptable (euarestos 2101), and perfect (teleios 5046), will of God”.  The Holy Spirit inspired the Roman writer to use three Greek words in this passage.  We may argue about exactly what these words mean, but one thing is not arguable, the Holy Spirit never stutters.  If they all mean exactly the same thing, the writer would have repeated the same word three times. 

       So, there is agathos (18), which means that which is of good benefit, and there is euarestos (2101), well pleasing or fully agreeable, and there is teleious (5046), complete or perfect.  As church musicians, we must prove (dokimazo 1381) or approve, discern, and examine all our spiritual acts of worship or service to God -- including music we sing and play unto Him.