We
are now continuing our discussions of music’s meaning. So far we have discussed discernment concerning
musics meaning; The bible terminology “joyful sound”; gaining musical
understanding; the hypothesis that the formal properties of music affect its
meaning; the formal properties of the music Moses and Joshua heard disturbed
them; in the N.T, both singing and instrumental music had meaning; the meaning
of carnal and spiritual musicing; music as a closed system; and the context of
musicing unto God.
I
call the philosophical pursuit that “anything goes in church music” a “praxis”
because it is an “on purpose” way of musicing regardless of whether or not it
is thought out or written. With this on
purpose denial of the existence of transmittable musical meaning, a musician is
allowed or is free to music without any restraint. This praxis allows any music genre to be used
in music worship because those who follow this philosophical pursuit falsely
believe all music styles are appropriate to represent the “joyful sound”. With the acceptance of this false belief, the
musician is free to become autonomous in philosophy and practice.
The
discussion of musical sound sooner or later brings up the heated debate over
whether music is or is not capable of arousing passion. Secular music philosophers
have batted this philosophical ball around rather unsuccessfully for at least a
half century. Those who disagree with
arousal theory are the hard core absolutists, many of whom uncategorically deny
that music has any meaning outside of itself i.e. the “music is in a bubble”
[music is a closed system] philosophers.
It is amazing to me that any Christian musician could honestly climb on
the absolute formalism band wagon and deny that music has the power to arouse
passion in the performer and the auditor.
No comments:
Post a Comment