Bob said "Music is neutral"; Do you agree? [Archive] - Theology Forum

philosophizer

May 5th, 2003, 03:44 PM

Are you suggesting that some music is inherently evil? How should I answer this?

Culturally:
Many cultures have different musical styles, containing different instruments, rhythms, scales, tonal increments, etc. The merging of cultural styles continually creates many "new" musical styles. Each of these styles express ranges of moods. How would you define a certain style or range within a style as evil? What are your determiners? Be careful or you could slip into a form of musical racism here.

Contextually:
What context is the music in? What are the beliefs of the performer? What are the lyrics, if any, that accompany the music? I think the context is what would give the "music" a good or evil direction. Apart from the context, the music would be neutral. It needs something to point it in a certain direction. What is the conceptual message of the lyrics and/or performer?

Scientifically:
Music is simply an artful arrangment of sound. Sound is simply waveform vibrations of air that reach our ears and we interpret as somthing. Music occurs when these sound waves from instruments are arranged in an appealing pattern or progression with waveforms that compliment each other (or provide dissonance when appropriate). Nothing described here is inherently good or evil. Kind of intreguing and a little amazing, but not good or evil.

Music is neutral. Stripped of the context of a particular conceptual direction given by lyrics or the subcutaneous views of the performer(s), there is neither good nor evil confined within it.

Nimrod

May 5th, 2003, 04:39 PM

Thanks philosophizer for your input. But I would disagree with you. Lets take a closer look at what you said.

Scientifically: Music is simply an artful arrangment of sound.

So by this, art is simply an artful arragement of colors.

Sound is simply waveform vibrations of air that reach our ears and we interpret as somthing.

Color is also simple waveforms(a trillion times faster) that reach our eyes and we interpret as something.

Music occurs when these sound waves from instruments are arranged in an appealing pattern or progression with waveforms that compliment each other (or provide dissonance when appropriate).

"appealing"? what is appealing in music and how do you measure that?

Art can and can't be appealing. (Pornography is a good example).
It is an arragnement of patterns that compliment each other.

Nothing described here is inherently good or evil. Kind of intreguing and a little amazing, but not good or evil.

Therefore art is not inherently good or evil. (Even though someone my paint a nude picture)

Hopefully I'll get more quotes from musicians to show you that even they believe that music is not neutral. In the meantime you can download a MP3 from Frank Garlock at sermonaudio.com

Music (http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonstopic&sermonID=31801202852)

This would be a good start if you are interested in what others says.

Jefferson

May 6th, 2003, 12:44 AM

On which show did Bob say music was neutral?

philosophizer

May 6th, 2003, 08:04 AM

I see you picked up on the scientific arguement. So you believe that certain sound vibrations are more evil than others? What makes a vibration good or evil?

You made an analogy to visual forms of art. I think this is a good analogy but I think you connected it at the wrong level.

Originally posted by Nimrod
So by this, art is simply an artful arragement of colors.
Yes, it could be described as such.

Color is also simple waveforms(a trillion times faster) that reach our eyes and we interpret as something.
True.

"appealing"? what is appealing in music and how do you measure that?
There are certain musical patterns and tonal combinations that I find appealing. You may find some other patterns and combinations appealing. We all have different tastes. I measure how appealing music is by how it makes me feel. There is not concrete quantifiable amount I can give, just a feeling of enjoyment. I enjoy Beethoven's 4th Symphony. I enjoy various cultures of folk music. I enjoy "Carry On Wayward Son" by Kansas. I enjoy "Stairway to Heaven" by Led Zeppelin. All these partly because I am drawn to some of the musical patterns they possess.

Art can and can't be appealing. (Pornography is a good example).
It is an arragnement of patterns that compliment each other.
Here's where your analogy misses the mark. Music is like the paint of an artist's palatte. It's performance is like each of the artist's brushstrokes. You're confusing the medium with the message. The little dots of printed ink on the pages of porn magazines are not what make porn wrong. Pornography is wrong because of its message. It is wrong because of the actions portrayed and the context they are portrayed in. Your analogy is like if I were to say, "porno videos are bad, so the specific video cassettes themselves must be bad."

Therefore art is not inherently good or evil. (Even though someone my paint a nude picture)
Quite right. Art is not inherently good or evil. The quality of good or evil depends on the intent of the artist.

Hopefully I'll get more quotes from musicians to show you that even they believe that music is not neutral. In the meantime you can download a MP3 from Frank Garlock at sermonaudio.com
I would like to download it but I don't think I can. My home connection is terrible and I don't want to download it at work. Could you give a little summary of what it says. I would be interested in hearing other points of view.

Nimrod

May 7th, 2003, 08:02 PM

So you believe that certain sound vibrations are more evil than others? What makes a vibration good or evil?

A single sound. Sure, I believe so. For example if the sound is so loud where it destroys your ears or make you deaf. Would you agree that this is morally wrong to listen to something loud where it destroys your God given ears? God gave us limitations on the volume that our ears could handle. Do you think it is right to go beyond what God has given us? OR how about a screeching sounds that raises the hair on your head?

Now a single note, say for example on a piano, is not evil, but when the notes are put together it could be like pornography to your ears.

There are certain musical patterns and tonal combinations that I find appealing.

Does that make it right before God?

I measure how appealing music is by how it makes me feel.

So are you feeding your "flesh" or your "spirit" by these feelings?
As for Led Zeppelin, from my experience, it is feeding my "flesh". It's carnal.

You're confusing the medium with the message. The little dots of printed ink on the pages of porn magazines are not what make porn wrong. Pornography is wrong because of its message. It is wrong because of the actions portrayed and the context they are portrayed in. Your analogy is like if I were to say, "porno videos are bad, so the specific video cassettes themselves must be bad."

Music is the message being sold. What you see on MTV is really what the music is saying. Lyrics make no difference.
Christians say that they listen to the lyrics of Christian Rock music, then they turn around and say they don't listen to the secular Rock and Roll lyrics. :confused:

I would like to download it but I don't think I can. My home connection is terrible and I don't want to download it at work. Could you give a little summary of what it says. I would be interested in hearing other points of view.

Frank Garlock has a book and a video series on music, and what is acceptable to God. Buy the book.

Nimrod

May 7th, 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson
On which show did Bob say music was neutral?

I believe it was Lesbians Lie on 5-2-03, towards the end of the message. Right before the lesbian, Bob was talking to some other person.

Em7add11

May 7th, 2003, 08:37 PM

Jefferson

May 8th, 2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
I believe it was Lesbians Lie on 5-2-03, towards the end of the message. Right before the lesbian, Bob was talking to some other person. I just listened to that part of the show again and didn't hear Bob say any such thing. Could you please quote him word for word for me?

philosophizer

May 8th, 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
A single sound. Sure, I believe so. For example if the sound is so loud where it destroys your ears or make you deaf. Would you agree that this is morally wrong to listen to something loud where it destroys your God given ears? God gave us limitations on the volume that our ears could handle. Do you think it is right to go beyond what God has given us? OR how about a screeching sounds that raises the hair on your head?

Okay, it is very dumb to listen to sounds so loud that they damage your ears. And we should not be harming our bodies that are the temple of our spirits. But the sound itself is not what is morally wrong. It is the act of listening to the sound. If someone plays a loud noise that hurts my ears, I don't blame the sound wave or the air for carrying it. I blame the person that played it.

A "screeching sound" could certainly be unpleasant. I find asparagas unpleasant but I don't consider it evil.

Now a single note, say for example on a piano, is not evil, but when the notes are put together it could be like pornography to your ears.

Again, refer to what I just said about being "unpleasant."

BTW, do you only listen to music that plays only one note at a time?

Does that make it right before God?

Does my judgement of what is appealing make it right before God? No. Doesn't make it wrong either. I've never heard God say anything against chordal music or harmony or much of anything about music theory itself. If you have any scriptural examples, I'd love to take a look.

So are you feeding your "flesh" or your "spirit" by these feelings?
As for Led Zeppelin, from my experience, it is feeding my "flesh". It's carnal.

I am a musician so I certainly enjoy many kinds of music. I do listen to lyrics. I try to stay away from songs that have "bad messages." I am against the idea that some Christians have that only Christian music is good and secular music shouldn't be listened to. I don't think that God is so limited in his means of communicating with us. I believe He can send us messages even through secular music. I have had many moments listening to the radio when a lyric strikes me a certain way and opens my eyes about something. Yes, God can even communicate through secular music.

Music is the message being sold. What you see on MTV is really what the music is saying. Lyrics make no difference.
Christians say that they listen to the lyrics of Christian Rock music, then they turn around and say they don't listen to the secular Rock and Roll lyrics. :confused:

What I "see" on MTV has nothing to do with music. I "see" video. Is the picture tube in my television evil because it allows me to see MTV videos? Is my remote control evil because it allows me to go to that channel?

Music videos also have a context and content. Those can be abused. You could view music as a container. It can be filled with good or evil. But that does not change the properties of the container itself. A jar could be filled with water or poison, but it is still just a jar.

Frank Garlock has a book and a video series on music, and what is acceptable to God. Buy the book.

If I see the book in the library or see the videos on TV, maybe I'll take a look. But it doesn't sound like something I would wanna buy.

billwald

May 8th, 2003, 01:01 PM

No, music isn't neutral. It effects us psychologically. Dr Paul-Elliot Cobbs of the Everett Symphony told me that each key of the scale invokes a different psychological effect. Changing from C major to D major doesn't just pitch the music higher, it changes the mood. (Don't ask me why)

Em7add11

May 8th, 2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by billwald
No, music isn't neutral. It effects us psychologically. Dr Paul-Elliot Cobbs of the Everett Symphony told me that each key of the scale invokes a different psychological effect. Changing from C major to D major doesn't just pitch the music higher, it changes the mood. (Don't ask me why)

You're referring to subjective effects. Raising the pitch does make the music seem faster, but that's because technically it is: The wavelengths are shorter.

How would you account for people who are tone-deaf? They can't distinguish between C or D. I'm fairly well-trained in music and I would be hard pressed to tell you the difference in tone between C and D.

philosophizer

May 8th, 2003, 01:19 PM

Changing moods doesn't necessarily have moral implications or have any affect on "good" or "evil."

.Ant

May 8th, 2003, 01:38 PM

.Ant

May 8th, 2003, 01:42 PM

philosophizer

May 8th, 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by .Ant
Now that's just silly. Porno music? I don't see how that is possible, unless it includes sexual sound clips or lyrics...

Well sure. Any music that has that wah-pedal guitar riff that goes: bow-chicka-bow-bow. It has to be porno music and therefore evil.

Right? :kookoo:

Nimrod

May 13th, 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by philosophizer
I measure how appealing music is by how it makes me feel. There is not concrete quantifiable amount I can give, just a feeling of enjoyment.

Sorry for the delay, I am currently very busy, and I can only reply to certain statements. I want to stay on the topic of neutral. Here are some quotes from Frank Garland's book "Music in the Balance". Very good book.
-----------------------------------

Mike Coyle has been recognized as one of the world's outstanding French horn virtuosos. He has played under the director of such notable conductors as Donald Voorhees, Howard Hanson, and Arthur Fiedler. He is presently a full-time musical ministry evangelist. In the article "Music: Is there an Absolute?" this well-qualified Christian ,musician states a basic syllogism which will serve as the foundation upon which Christians must be "of one mind."
"Not all emotions are good ones. Surely man and his emotions were created in the image of God, but man has fallen, and with him has gone the purity with which he was created. Hate, when directed at sin, is good and acceptable. But when it is directed at a brother in Christ, it is sin. Anger is unacceptable except when the one who is angry is not sinning. An emotion like lust is never right. It is an adulteration of God-given emotions. Since music is an emotional language, and since some emotions are wrong for the child of God, then some music is wrong for the Christian"

"The Music within you" written by Carol Merle-Fishman and Shelly Katsh two practicing certified music therapists and instructors at New York University, states:
"Music is communication and communication is music."
"Music is a form of non-verbal communication."

"Music is not just a special part of life; it represents life itself. From it we receive inspiration, excitement, and emotional enrichment. With it we create, communicate , and express who we are"

"There is surely no doubt that music actually conveys very real and sometimes very specific emotional states from the musician to the listener"

"Like human nature itself, music cannot possibly be neutral in its spiritual direction"

I guess my question for you will be, why are you a more qualified person about music than the people in the music business?

Do you know anyone in the music business (other than CCM) that believes music is neutral?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now lets look at the Word of God.

1 Samuel 16:16 "And it shall be, when the evil spirit from God is on you, then he shall play [with] his hand, and [it shall be] well with you"

1 Samuel 16:23 "And it happened when the spirit from God was on Saul, that David too a harp and played with his hand. And there was relief for Saul, and [it was] well with him, and the evil spirit departed from him.

Music is not neutral, otherwise it would not have "relief" Saul. Music does has an effect on people.

But if music is neutral, then I need you to explain to me these verses from the Word of God.

Thanks.
:think:

Nimrod

May 13th, 2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by philosophizer
I've never heard God say anything against chordal music or harmony or much of anything about music theory itself. If you have any scriptural examples, I'd love to take a look.

Eph: 5:19 "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; "

It seems clear to me that God likes melody. There are over 500 references to music in the Scriptures. I do believe God does have a preference.

Wasn't Satan a musician?:devil:
Something to think about.

Em7add11

May 13th, 2003, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
"Music is communication and communication is music."
"Music is a form of non-verbal communication."
This seems to be the cornerstone of your argument so I'll address this.

You're still confusing the medium with the message. Music is simply a way to express those emotions you refer to. There are gestures that can be made with your middle finger that are wholly inappropriate but that still doesn't make the middle finger inherantly moral/immoral. If you move to a different culture, they won't bat an eye over a raised middle finger because they will have some other form of expressing disdain. You're beating the same dead horse over and over. Language is a form of communication. Gestures are a form of communication. Facial expressions are a form of communication. Are you seeing the pattern here? It's not the medium, it's the message that has moral value.

"Music is not just a special part of life; it represents life itself. From it we receive inspiration, excitement, and emotional enrichment. With it we create, communicate , and express who we are"

"There is surely no doubt that music actually conveys very real and sometimes very specific emotional states from the musician to the listener"

"Like human nature itself, music cannot possibly be neutral in its spiritual direction"

See above.

I guess my question for you will be, why are you a more qualified person about music than the people in the music business?

I'm qualified to discuss this because I've played music for over 10 years. I've studied music theory, music history, musical culture.....the list goes on. Your question is somewhat dishonest because it suggests the issue here is a "music industry" question instead of "music philosophy" one.

Now lets look at the Word of God.

1 Samuel 16:16 "And it shall be, when the evil spirit from God is on you, then he shall play [with] his hand, and [it shall be] well with you"

I don't have a Bible handy right now, so I would appreciate some context.

1 Samuel 16:23 "And it happened when the spirit from God was on Saul, that David too a harp and played with his hand. And there was relief for Saul, and [it was] well with him, and the evil spirit departed from him.

Music is not neutral, otherwise it would not have "relief" Saul. Music does has an effect on people.

So it was the harp and not the spirit of God on David that brought him relief? If the spirit of God hadn't been on David what good do you think the harp playing would have done? Let's give credit where credit is due here. David was using the harp as a tool to comfort, but it wasn't the harp that did the work.

Em7add11

May 13th, 2003, 12:33 PM

philosophizer

May 13th, 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
"Not all emotions are good ones. Surely man and his emotions were created in the image of God, but man has fallen, and with him has gone the purity with which he was created. Hate, when directed at sin, is good and acceptable. But when it is directed at a brother in Christ, it is sin. Anger is unacceptable except when the one who is angry is not sinning. An emotion like lust is never right. It is an adulteration of God-given emotions. Since music is an emotional language, and since some emotions are wrong for the child of God, then some music is wrong for the Christian"

I disagree with this. I don't think "emotions" are necessarily good or evil either. Emotions can be directed toward good or evil. Your quote stated that "hate, when directed at sin, is good and acceptable." See, hate is not inherently evil. It is not the emotion it is the direction of the emotion.

All emotions have perversions. Your quotation also said "an emotion like lust is never right." Well, certainly lust is never good. But lust is a perversion of love. It is an evil twist on the purer emotion. It is the because of the direction and the context that the "emotion" of lust is evil.

"The Music within you" written by Carol Merle-Fishman and Shelly Katsh two practicing certified music therapists and instructors at New York University, states:
"Music is communication and communication is music."
"Music is a form of non-verbal communication."

If I make a fist and make a threatening motion with it, it is also a form of non-verbal communication. If I did that to someone I didn't know as I was walking down the street, that would be wrong. But if I did that to a burglar who has broken into my house, it would not be wrong. Every form of communication has a context.

"Music is not just a special part of life; it represents life itself. From it we receive inspiration, excitement, and emotional enrichment. With it we create, communicate , and express who we are"

"There is surely no doubt that music actually conveys very real and sometimes very specific emotional states from the musician to the listener"

"Like human nature itself, music cannot possibly be neutral in its spiritual direction"

I am certainly not saying that music leaves the listener unaffected. That is not what I mean by neutral. But the nature by which the listener is affected is dependent on a lot of other factors. If the music has words, the words affect the direction. If the listener knows the artist's view of the particular song or their worldview in general, that will affect the direction. If the music is experienced within a certain context in the listener's life, the context will affect the direction.

I guess my question for you will be, why are you a more qualified person about music than the people in the music business?

Do you know anyone in the music business (other than CCM) that believes music is neutral?

What do you mean by "in the music business"? Do you mean in the music business and famous? I'm a musician. Technically, I'm even in the music business. I have gotten paid for performing before.

Also, you're suggesting that this is the only opinion shared among professional musicians. I think that's a false claim.

(BTW, who is CCM?)

Now lets look at the Word of God.

1 Samuel 16:16 "And it shall be, when the evil spirit from God is on you, then he shall play [with] his hand, and [it shall be] well with you"

1 Samuel 16:23 "And it happened when the spirit from God was on Saul, that David too a harp and played with his hand. And there was relief for Saul, and [it was] well with him, and the evil spirit departed from him.

Music is not neutral, otherwise it would not have "relief" Saul. Music does has an effect on people.

But if music is neutral, then I need you to explain to me these verses from the Word of God.

Thanks.
:think:

I think Em7add11 gave a pretty good response to this. If Saul was really distressed by an evil spirit from God, do you really think that David's music would by itself have the power to chase the spirit away?

Here's a hypothetical situation:

Imagine for a minute, David sitting in front of Saul playing a lovely melody on the harp. While playing, David begins to sing the lyrics, "Saul, you are a terrible king, you suck, God hates you, you're gonna kill yourself in battle someday." All of this over top of the same lovely harp melody. I think Saul would have gotten kinda mad if that would have happened, despite the soothing music. So is it the music that would have made Saul angry? Or is it the message of the lyrics?

Suppose that David didn't sing those lyrics, but Saul knew he was thinking them because he overheard him saying that earlier. Saul would still be angry even though the music is beautiful and the insulting lyrics are not present. In this case, Saul's prior knowledge of David's views have tainted his lovely melody.

Music is the medium for many types messages. Music affects people in a variety of ways. But music alone, without a message or an underlying context, has no direction and cannot be good or evil.

philosophizer

May 13th, 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
Eph: 5:19 "Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; "

It seems clear to me that God likes melody. There are over 500 references to music in the Scriptures. I do believe God does have a preference.

Wasn't Satan a musician?:devil:
Something to think about.

What's your point? Should music only be melody? Is harmony evil? Do you only listen to music that plays only one note at a time?

1 Chronicles 15:16 -- David told the leaders of the Levites to appoint their brothers as singers to sing joyful songs, accompanied by musical instruments: lyres, harps and cymbals.

These men were appointed to sing and play instruments before the Ark of the Covenant, ministering with music in the tabernacle. Do you think that the lyres and harps and vocalists all sang and played the same notes in unison? Even if they did, cymbals cannot do this. It seems likely that the instruments accompanied the singers with complimentary plucked lines or strummed chords.

And what is your reference for Satan being a musician? You're not thinking of Gene Simmons, are you? :eek:

Nimrod

May 13th, 2003, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Em7add11

Music is simply a way to express those emotions you refer to. There are gestures that can be made with your middle finger that are wholly inappropriate but that still doesn't make the middle finger inherantly moral/immoral. If you move to a different culture, they won't bat an eye over a raised middle finger because they will have some other form of expressing disdain. You're beating the same dead horse over and over. Language is a form of communication. Gestures are a form of communication. Facial expressions are a form of communication. Are you seeing the pattern here? It's not the medium, it's the message that has moral value.

What is the message of CCM?
And Rock n Roll?
And Country?

Originally posted by Em7add11
I don't have a Bible handy right now, so I would appreciate some context.

Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so"

Originally posted by Em7add11
So it was the harp and not the spirit of God on David that brought him relief? .

It was the music being played on the harp that brought relief. Not so much the harp by itself.

Originally posted by Em7add11
David was using the harp as a tool to comfort, but it wasn't the harp that did the work.

Agree it was the music. Music has an effect on people if you like to admit it or not.

Nimrod

May 13th, 2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by philosophizer
What's your point? Should music only be melody? Is harmony evil?

I am saying what God told us in His Word. Apparently He like melody.

Lets look at the beat or rythym. Lets say your heart rate was the beat. Lets say your HR is 0. Well that means your dead. Lets say your HR is at 190bpm. That is very unhealthy, and it most likely means your sick.

The beat is all well and good if it is not on the extremes, 0 or 200. There needs to be a balance.

From the website makingmuchofjesus.com/sftjmusic.html

" I watched this very closely while running a painting business during my college years. The men working on the job would listen to heavy-metal rock music or country music primarily. One man who painted on our crew listened to classical music constantly. The men who were listening to country music were influenced greatly by the type of song on the radio. If a slow ballad came on, their work would slow to nearly a crawl. If an energetic, feel-good song came on, their speed would increase. It was almost humorous to observe this pattern.

The painter that listened to classical music was much more careful with his work. The music quality had an effect on his work quality. The other painters who listened to the heavy-metal music always worked a little faster, but with far less quality. It was no coincidence that it happened like this. It became obvious that music was affecting their behavior."

1 Cor 14:7 "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"

How does one know to be prepared for battle if there was no lyrics?

Nimrod

May 13th, 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Em7add11
Do you see anywhere where God says what melodies he likes?

No I don't.

Lets take a look at Rock n Roll. What makes Rock n Roll? Its the beat, or the "back-beat". At least that is what Chuck Berry said and I think he is right on this.

Rock is about 90% beat. You have drums, rythym guitar, bass. with maybe the lead guitar palying melody. Maybe not. Or the singer sings the melody. If melody is what God likes, then shouldn't it be the emphasis of the music Christians should listen to?

If you listen to classical music, the melody is predominant. Do you agree?

philosophizer

May 13th, 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
No I don't.

Lets take a look at Rock n Roll. What makes Rock n Roll? Its the beat, or the "back-beat". At least that is what Chuck Berry said and I think he is right on this.

Rock is about 90% beat. You have drums, rythym guitar, bass. with maybe the lead guitar palying melody. Maybe not. Or the singer sings the melody. If melody is what God likes, then shouldn't it be the emphasis of the music Christians should listen to?

If you listen to classical music, the melody is predominant. Do you agree?

Classical music has a lot of things going on. There are melodies, harmonies, complimentary lines, chords, slow tempos, fast tempos. A ton of stuff. To say that melody is predominant is true but an overstatement. Melody is sometimes predominant. Sometimes there are many melodies playing at once. How do you reconcile which is the melody?

Rock also has predominant melodies. Do you know any rock songs? Can you hum any of them? When you think about a song, what is the first thing that pops into your head? It is probably the melody line. I'm not sure you have a complete idea what a "melody" is. Melody is present in most any genre of music. There aren't any genres that can soully lay claim upon it.

philosophizer

May 13th, 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
I am saying what God told us in His Word. Apparently He like melody.

Lets look at the beat or rythym. Lets say your heart rate was the beat. Lets say your HR is 0. Well that means your dead. Lets say your HR is at 190bpm. That is very unhealthy, and it most likely means your sick.

The beat is all well and good if it is not on the extremes, 0 or 200. There needs to be a balance.

In reference to music, anyone trying to make an extremely fast or slow song is probably not a very good musician. In music, extremes are often annoying. That doesn't make them good or evil. I think "Old Navy" television commercials are annoying, but that doesn't make them evil.

From the website makingmuchofjesus.com/sftjmusic.html

" I watched this very closely while running a painting business during my college years. The men working on the job would listen to heavy-metal rock music or country music primarily. One man who painted on our crew listened to classical music constantly. The men who were listening to country music were influenced greatly by the type of song on the radio. If a slow ballad came on, their work would slow to nearly a crawl. If an energetic, feel-good song came on, their speed would increase. It was almost humorous to observe this pattern.

The painter that listened to classical music was much more careful with his work. The music quality had an effect on his work quality. The other painters who listened to the heavy-metal music always worked a little faster, but with far less quality. It was no coincidence that it happened like this. It became obvious that music was affecting their behavior."

Does it say what specific pieces of classical music the one painter was listening to? Classical music isn't always calm and soothing. Ever heard "The Rite of Spring"? Ever heard anything by Shostakovich? Classical music can also be fast and bold and erratic.

Also, look further at the context. These painters listened to different music and each had different results in painting quality. That displays that there might be a correlation between music and mood or behavior. That doesn't mean that music causes the behavior. This example doesn't prove anything because too much is left unknown. What kinds of people were each of these painters? What was going on in their personal lives? How much concentration capabilities did they each have? To say that one concetrates better simply because of the classical music is just conjecture.

1 Cor 14:7 "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"

How does one know to be prepared for battle if there was no lyrics?

This, again, is all about the context. And I think you mean verse 8, not verse 7. This passage is about speaking in tongues without someone who can interpret. The "uncertain sound" refers to not understanding the message. If no one understands the message, what good is the telling of the message?

So too, if a context is not present to give direction to the music, how will you be able to interpret it as good or evil?

philosophizer

May 13th, 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
What is the message of CCM?
And Rock n Roll?
And Country?

Each genre has many different kinds of messages: some good, some bad. The morality of the messages has nothing to do with the particular genre.

And I still don't know who or what CCM is. I know CCR, but not CCM. :)

Em7add11

May 13th, 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
What is the message of CCM?
And Rock n Roll?
And Country?
That's like asking, "What is the message of spanish?"

I'm trying to be polite here but you don't seem to get that the answer still depends on what is being said. The music doesn't change the words. I could sing that somebody is an idiot and it could be set to country music or classical music, but message is still the same regardless of the music. You might be able to two-step to the country song a little better, but you're still two-steping to a song about an idiot.

Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so"

Yes, that's very cute, but it still doesn't answer the question of what the context of the previous scripture was. Some of us don't have the priviledge of having the entire Bible memorized. :kookoo:

It was the music being played on the harp that brought relief. Not so much the harp by itself.

Music was only the vessel. If you'll recall, that "peace" wasn't very long-lasting either. Saul tried to kill David soon afterwards. Should we conclude that harp music causes violent rage?

Agree it was the music. Music has an effect on people if you like to admit it or not.

That still doesn't mean anything. Music has an effect. It still doesn't imply any sort of morality on that effect, just there is an effect.

Em7add11

May 13th, 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
No I don't.

Lets take a look at Rock n Roll. What makes Rock n Roll? Its the beat, or the "back-beat". At least that is what Chuck Berry said and I think he is right on this.

The "back-beat"? The drummer keeps time. Some do it with a little more flair than others, but that's the function.

Rock is about 90% beat. You have drums, rythym guitar, bass. with maybe the lead guitar palying melody. Maybe not. Or the singer sings the melody. If melody is what God likes, then shouldn't it be the emphasis of the music Christians should listen to?

If Rock is 90% about the beat, then why do fans focus primarily on singers? The beat still only keeps time.

If you listen to classical music, the melody is predominant. Do you agree?

I would say you've identified a tautology. The predominant line would of course be the melody. If it were not predominant, then it would be harmony or something else.

.Ant

May 13th, 2003, 11:46 PM

I agree with philosophizer and Em7add11. Address what they said.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Rock is about 90% beat. You have drums, rythym guitar, bass. with maybe the lead guitar palying melody. Maybe not. Or the singer sings the melody. If melody is what God likes, then shouldn't it be the emphasis of the music Christians should listen to?
Who says God doesn't like rythym? There are verses which talk about praising God with instruments of rythym, eg. "Begin the music, strike the tambourine" (Ps 81:2)

Originally posted by Nimrod
" I watched this very closely while running a painting business during my college years. The men working on the job would listen to heavy-metal rock music or country music primarily. One man who painted on our crew listened to classical music constantly. The men who were listening to country music were influenced greatly by the type of song on the radio. If a slow ballad came on, their work would slow to nearly a crawl. If an energetic, feel-good song came on, their speed would increase. It was almost humorous to observe this pattern.

The painter that listened to classical music was much more careful with his work. The music quality had an effect on his work quality. The other painters who listened to the heavy-metal music always worked a little faster, but with far less quality. It was no coincidence that it happened like this. It became obvious that music was affecting their behavior."
So what? What's evil about going slow, or fast? How you use music in your job says nothing about whether the music itself is bad.

Originally posted by Nimrod
1 Cor 14:7 "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"

How does one know to be prepared for battle if there was no lyrics?
Erm... one hears the trumpet sound? :dunce:

Nimrod

May 14th, 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Em7add11

You're still confusing the medium with the message. Music is simply a way to express those emotions you refer to.

I agree, and these emtions can be either good or bad.

Originally posted by Em7add11
There are gestures that can be made with your middle finger that are wholly inappropriate but that still doesn't make the middle finger inherantly moral/immoral.

No, but what are the emotions that go with that gester?

Originally posted by Em7add11
If you move to a different culture, they won't bat an eye over a raised middle finger because they will have some other form of expressing disdain.

The person who is sending the message has a "bad" emotion.
Even though the person who is receiving it makes no difference.

Originally posted by Em7add11
You're beating the same dead horse over and over. Language is a form of communication. Gestures are a form of communication. Facial expressions are a form of communication. Are you seeing the pattern here? It's not the medium, it's the message that has moral value.

OK we agree, music is a form of communication.

With that logic, the middle finger brought by a person who has immoral emotions is the sender. The reciever doesn't know what the middle finger at the time mean, but ask around and say "What does this mean?". Sooner or later the receiver realize what it means and puts a meaning behind the middle finger.

So what you are really saying is that music has no effect on a person. Just like a middle finger in a differenct culture has no effect.

I disagree, music does affect people.

Stores like Target has music playing over the speaking throughout the store. The people who provide that music is "MUSAK" (sp? I think). They(Musak) garentee that it will affect people so they not to steal. In other words theft will be down.
How can they make such a claim? Easily. Its been proven, music does affect people.

Originally posted by Em7add11
I'm qualified to discuss this because I've played music for over 10 years. I've studied music theory, music history, musical culture.....the list goes on.

Just to point out that people in your field disagree with you.

Nimrod

May 14th, 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by philosophizer
I don't think "emotions" are necessarily good or evil either. Emotions can be directed toward good or evil. It is not the emotion it is the direction of the emotion.

All emotions have perversions.

Music affects people in a variety of ways.

So what you are saying is that music affect peoples emotions which is neutral. Music does not affect the way people direct their emotions.

Of course that is assuming that you are aware of how the music is affecting you. This I disagree. It affect you even when you are not paying attention and in ways we don't fully understand.

Freak

May 14th, 2003, 03:04 PM

Music is not inherently evil.

philosophizer

May 14th, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
So what you are saying is that music affect peoples emotions which is neutral. Music does not affect the way people direct their emotions.

Of course that is assuming that you are aware of how the music is affecting you. This I disagree. It affect you even when you are not paying attention and in ways we don't fully understand.

I would say that music affects people by beginning a reaction within them. The direction of that reaction is determined by prior factors, predispositions, current moods, and similarities/differences between the music and the listener's world-view. Any of these things can be conscious or subconscious.

philosophizer

May 14th, 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
I agree, and these emtions can be either good or bad.

No, but what are the emotions that go with that gester?

The person who is sending the message has a "bad" emotion.
Even though the person who is receiving it makes no difference.

Yeah. Now you're gettin it. The "bad" emotion that the sender of the message had is the context. This is what gives the message the moral direction.

Em7add11

May 14th, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
With that logic, the middle finger brought by a person who has immoral emotions is the sender. The reciever doesn't know what the middle finger at the time mean, but ask around and say "What does this mean?". Sooner or later the receiver realize what it means and puts a meaning behind the middle finger.

Again, the key here is: INTENT!

Since the raised finger on it's own doesn't mean anything outside of our culture what other reason would a person have to get upset over it?

INTENT!

If the middle finger doesn't carry any sort of inherant morality, what makes the gesture good or bad?

INTENT!

What makes some music OK and some music bad?

INTENT!

The problem with trying to ascribe what the intent in music is, is that we don't have some magic translation guide to attribute chords to english words. The only way to accurately discern song meaning is to hear some sort of spoken language that correlates with the song (i.e. lyrics). Outside of that, all you can do is speculate.

Nimrod

May 14th, 2003, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by philosophizer
The "bad" emotion that the sender of the message had is the context. This is what gives the message the moral direction.

I still disagree.

The problem with the "finger" analogy, is that when someone gives me the finger behind my back, I don't see it. Or if I was blind, I don't see it.

As for music, you can be deaf and still "feel" or "hear" the music. Because the sound waves goes into your body. you can't choose to ignore it. Those "bad" emotions still get in.

Back to the culture thing. The Beatles played in Japan in the 1960's. Those people don't understand English. Why were they such a success? It was because the music, and that music protrayed idolatry. Those young girl were screaming at their idols. Just like most teenagers today.

I could use France's analogy, but they're homosexuals.

Nimrod

May 14th, 2003, 05:20 PM

Originally posted by Em7add11

The problem with trying to ascribe what the intent in music is, is that we don't have some magic translation guide to attribute chords to english words.

Exactly, but it does communicate to us and affect us, in ways we can't understand.

Em7add11

May 14th, 2003, 05:22 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
Exactly, but it does communicate to us and affect us, in ways we can't understand.

If we don't understand it, it's not communication. Communication implies comprehension of the message.

.Ant

May 14th, 2003, 05:52 PM

This discussion has turned into an argument about words. It's pointless.

2 Titus 2:23
Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels.

Nimrod

May 15th, 2003, 09:02 AM

I want to get back to your statement you made previously.

Originally posted by philosophizer
There are certain musical patterns and tonal combinations that I find appealing. You may find some other patterns and combinations appealing. We all have different tastes. I measure how appealing music is by how it makes me feel. There is not concrete quantifiable amount I can give, just a feeling of enjoyment.

I am going to paraphrase from "Measuring the Music" by John Makujina.

philosophizer are you saying that human consciousness is the ultimate criterion for judging music?

It seems you are measuring music by what is in man himself, who assigns it value based on its ability to give enjoyment.

Human autonomy--that is, the undeerstanding that the human moral consciousness is the final arbiter or poin of reference in matters such as aesthetics, ethics, religion, and philosophy.

We, however, must never look within man or some principle in the universe to determine right and wrong iin any matter. Rather, we must go outside of self to a transcendent God who regulates all aspects of our lives, including the exercise of our intellect, emotions, and will in all cultural spheres, even aesthetics. Our ultimate point of reference must never exist within the fluctuations of self, society, or even the universe, but in God and his inscripturated revelation.

aesthetics adj. sensitive to art and beauty.

What are your thoughts on this?

philosophizer

May 16th, 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
I still disagree.

The problem with the "finger" analogy, is that when someone gives me the finger behind my back, I don't see it. Or if I was blind, I don't see it.

If someone flips you off behind your back, the direction of the message was toward you but you were not the intended receiver. The bad message was present, but directed more internally. Even if you are not hurt by it, the sender of the message inevitably hurts himself. But this has nothing to do with what we've been discussing. What is your unseen finger analogous to?

As for music, you can be deaf and still "feel" or "hear" the music. Because the sound waves goes into your body. you can't choose to ignore it. Those "bad" emotions still get in.

Okay, so this is the connection? Do you have any evidence of this? Have any studies been conducted to show this? Like if you put one deaf person in a room with loud rock music and another in a room with loud classical music? If you're gonna claim this I hope you have something to back it up.

And about your middle finger analogy-- can you "feel" or "see" a middle finger gestured at you behind your back in the same way a deaf person can "feel" or "hear" music?

Back to the culture thing. The Beatles played in Japan in the 1960's. Those people don't understand English. Why were they such a success? It was because the music, and that music protrayed idolatry. Those young girl were screaming at their idols. Just like most teenagers today.

I wouldn't doubt that some of them did understand English. Learning English has been quite important in Japan's education system for quite a while. And even if they didn't, their reaction to The Beatles was more out of the societal influence of pop culture. Once again, the context offers a better explanation.

I could use France's analogy, but they're homosexuals.

What does that mean? Did I miss something?

philosophizer

May 16th, 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
Exactly, but it does communicate to us and affect us, in ways we can't understand.

You seem to be giving music the quality of a natural force. In a manner of speaking it is. It is sound. These are basically shockwaves travelling through the air. You pointed out that deaf people can "feel" music. I would disagree here. Deaf people can feel sound, not music. Music is partly an interpretation of sound. It is initially organized by the performers and then interpreted by the listeners. The experience of listening to music is more cognitive than simply "feeling" a force.

I can feel gravity. I can feel inertia. I can feel heat. Yet none of these forces actually communicate anything to me. They have no messages contained within themselves. I can feel sound also, but sound alone does not have a message.

Music can carry messages in the form of emotions. You and I both agree on that. Some chords and scales do instill certain feelings in people when used certain ways. I will not go as far as saying that these effects are wholly universal. There may be exceptions to this, but many of these effects seem prevelant in most people. But where we disagree is that emotions themselves are the final step in determining moral direction. I assert they are not. I believe that emotions can be used for good or can be perverted toward evil. The taking of either direction is a choice made from many influences and experiences and interpretations.

You seem to have confused the cognitive construct of music with the natural force of sound.

philosophizer

May 16th, 2003, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
I want to get back to your statement you made previously.

Originally posted by philosophizer
There are certain musical patterns and tonal combinations that I find appealing. You may find some other patterns and combinations appealing. We all have different tastes. I measure how appealing music is by how it makes me feel. There is not concrete quantifiable amount I can give, just a feeling of enjoyment.

I am going to paraphrase from "Measuring the Music" by John Makujina.

philosophizer are you saying that human consciousness is the ultimate criterion for judging music?

It seems you are measuring music by what is in man himself, who assigns it value based on its ability to give enjoyment.

Human autonomy--that is, the undeerstanding that the human moral consciousness is the final arbiter or poin of reference in matters such as aesthetics, ethics, religion, and philosophy.

We, however, must never look within man or some principle in the universe to determine right and wrong iin any matter. Rather, we must go outside of self to a transcendent God who regulates all aspects of our lives, including the exercise of our intellect, emotions, and will in all cultural spheres, even aesthetics. Our ultimate point of reference must never exist within the fluctuations of self, society, or even the universe, but in God and his inscripturated revelation.

aesthetics adj. sensitive to art and beauty.

What are your thoughts on this?

What are God's thoughts on this? If I saw it say anywhere, "thou shalt not listen to rock music," I would stop. God is also more concerned with the message and context than the music itself. He wants our music to praise Him. He doesn't say what kind of music. I seriously doubt music stayed the same all the way through bible times.

Who told you that some types of music are bad? Did you discover it yourself? Did God tell you? Did another human being give you the idea?

Absolutely, God is the source of Truth and morality. But I think you're taking a leap into what you think God says without actually hearing Him say it. If I'm wrong, just give me some scriptures that show your point.

philosophizer

May 16th, 2003, 09:36 AM

Nimrod, I'd like to ask you a question. I see that your avatar is the eye of Sauron from "Lord of the Rings." What was your impression on the musical score to the movies composed by Howard Shore? Did you like it? Was it good or evil? Were there parts that were good and other parts that were evil? Or was its meaning really relative to the message of the story that it accompanied?

I just thought maybe our discussion would be better directed if we had a specific example to discuss. If you have a different suggestion just let us know.

Nimrod

May 19th, 2003, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by philosophizer
Okay, so this is the connection? Do you have any evidence of this? Have any studies been conducted to show this? Like if you put one deaf person in a room with loud rock music and another in a room with loud classical music? If you're gonna claim this I hope you have something to back it up.

I do, but not at the moment. There are scientists that believe that. Look at Bethoven, he made his last symphony being deaf.

How about Heavy metal or any Rock n Roll concert. The music is LOUD. Why? Because they know that is how to get the audience moving.

An earthquake runs at 7hertz. We can't hear that but we sure can feel it.

Nimrod

May 19th, 2003, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by philosophizer

What are God's thoughts on this? If I saw it say anywhere, "thou shalt not listen to rock music," I would stop.

With that type of thinking, I could never convert a JW into believing in the trinity. This topic isn't milk. Its nothing but meat for the Christian, if he is willing to have it.

Originally posted by philosophizer
God is also more concerned with the message and context than the music itself.

I agree there are bigger fish to fry.

Originally posted by philosophizer
He wants our music to praise Him. He doesn't say what kind of music. I seriously doubt music stayed the same all the way through bible times.

Again, in the 500 references to music in the Scriptures we can get a good idea on what is "Acceptable unto the LORD"

Originally posted by philosophizer
Who told you that some types of music are bad? Did you discover it yourself? Did God tell you? Did another human being give you the idea?

Authors, musicians, people with degrees in the study of music, composers,.... and back up by the Word.

Originally posted by philosophizer
Absolutely, God is the source of Truth and morality. But I think you're taking a leap into what you think God says without actually hearing Him say it. If I'm wrong, just give me some scriptures that show your point.

I like to look at another way.
Eph 5:10 "Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. "
We must prove first that this style of music is acceptable for the LORD. When we look at Rock n Roll, we can look at the performers, writiers, composers, and see how godly they are and how it affects their life.

I'll give more in the future. real busy right now.

Nimrod

May 19th, 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by philosophizer
Nimrod, I'd like to ask you a question. I see that your avatar is the eye of Sauron from "Lord of the Rings." What was your impression on the musical score to the movies composed by Howard Shore? Did you like it? Was it good or evil? Were there parts that were good and other parts that were evil? Or was its meaning really relative to the message of the story that it accompanied?

I just thought maybe our discussion would be better directed if we had a specific example to discuss. If you have a different suggestion just let us know.

I can't see my avatar.:mad:
I really don't remember the music score in the movie, so I can't give an honest answer.

We can talk about Rock n Roll and why it is not for the Christian.

philosophizer

May 19th, 2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
I do, but not at the moment. There are scientists that believe that. Look at Bethoven, he made his last symphony being deaf.

Beethoven was able to write music despite being deaf because he had such an ingenious understanding of music, developed through years of experience. It's like when someone says they can do something "with their eyes closed." It just means that they have done it so much that it's second-nature to them.

How about Heavy metal or any Rock n Roll concert. The music is LOUD. Why? Because they know that is how to get the audience moving.

Yeah, Rock music is usually played loud. So?

An earthquake runs at 7hertz. We can't hear that but we sure can feel it.

A dog whistle blows at about 30 kHz. We can't hear that AND we can't feel it either.

Still, the sound of an earthquake and the sound of a dog whistle are just sounds, not music. We can feel some sounds, but we can't "feel" music.

philosophizer

May 19th, 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
I can't see my avatar.:mad:
I really don't remember the music score in the movie, so I can't give an honest answer.

We can talk about Rock n Roll and why it is not for the Christian.

Do you have images turned off in your browser? How did you pick your avatar if you couldn't see it?

Anyway, the score from Lord of the Rings had to employ many different moods to portray the many different characters, scenes, and settings. I was just wondering what you thought of the music that accompanied the Black Riders or Saruman. This music projected a very dark mood that suited these characters. I wondered if this dark, moody music might fit your description of evil. I guess I'd like to know what you would call "evil music." Do you have any examples?

And if you want to talk about Rock n Roll, that'd be fine. You state that it is not for the Christian. Why specifically do you think this?

Nimrod

May 20th, 2003, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by philosophizer
Still, the sound of an earthquake and the sound of a dog whistle are just sounds, not music. We can feel some sounds, but we can't "feel" music.

I was just making a point that sound in heard through our bodies, not just our ears.

Nimrod

May 20th, 2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by philosophizer
Anyway, the score from Lord of the Rings had to employ many different moods to portray the many different characters, scenes, and settings. I was just wondering what you thought of the music that accompanied the Black Riders or Saruman. This music projected a very dark mood that suited these characters. I wondered if this dark, moody music might fit your description of evil.

Job 30:31 "My harp also is turned to mourning, and my organ into the voice of them that weep"

Moody music is not neccessarily evil or immoral.
Good questions to ask yourself is how the music affects your body. Does it make you want to march like a soldier? And we need Christian soldiers. OR does it make you body move in an uncontrollable way? Kind of this this guy.--> :bannana:

I'm Real busy right now, I'll try my best to get something before the end of the week.

philosophizer

May 20th, 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
I'm Real busy right now, I'll try my best to get something before the end of the week.

Take your time. I'm not in any rush.

Good questions to ask yourself is how the music affects your body. Does it make you want to march like a soldier? And we need Christian soldiers. OR does it make you body move in an uncontrollable way? Kind of this this guy.--> :bannana:

Don't you mean this guy?--> :devil:

Do you think the music itself has the power to overcome your will and make you "move in an uncontrollable way"? Sort of like hypnosis or something?

If a demon is influencing a person to sin, is the person responsible for the sin or is the demon? The sin was, after all, the demon's suggestion. Could the person argue that they are blameless? The answer is no.

Whatever forces influence us, we are ultimately responsible for how we respond to them. But also realize that multiple forces can be acting at once. It isn't necessarily the obvious ones that are the determiners.

You are suggesting that losing control of your body is a bad thing. I would agree with you. But I do not accept the idea that certain kinds of music can gain control of my body against my will. That is a power that music does not have. Not even a demon can do that. If evil takes control of us, it is because we allowed it.

Is this why you think Rock and Roll music is bad? Because it can take control of people's bodies and cause them to move uncontrollably? I can tell you that I listen to Rock, but yet I do not like dancing. Am I a contradiction to your theory? Even if I did like to dance, I would not let myself "lose control" of my body. It seems to me that your assertion removes responsibility from people and discards the blame on music. Am I right?

philosophizer

May 27th, 2003, 03:58 PM

Here's an interesting thought to reverse things a little.

You claim that Rock music feeds the flesh and invokes uncontrolled or worldly actions. So you are also claiming that hymns or whatever you deem as "good" music feeds the spirit and naturally invokes a condition of praising God. Am I right?

Okay, is there any proof that the music of classic hymns causes provocation to praise God?

This might be an interesting study. Instead of studying the effects of Rock music ad nauseum, someone could pluck a person off a remote corner of the globe that has never heard Christian hymns before, subject them to the hymns, and then observe if the person begins to praise God.

Sozo

May 27th, 2003, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by philosophizer
Here's an interesting thought to reverse things a little.

You claim that Rock music feeds the flesh and invokes uncontrolled or worldly actions. So you are also claiming that hymns or whatever you deem as "good" music feeds the spirit and naturally invokes a condition of praising God. Am I right?

Okay, is there any proof that the music of classic hymns causes provocation to praise God?

This might be an interesting study. Instead of studying the effects of Rock music ad nauseum, someone could pluck a person off a remote corner of the globe that has never heard Christian hymns before, subject them to the hymns, and then observe if the person begins to praise God.

Many of our Hymns are songs adapted from those played in saloons and brothels

Eli_Cash

May 28th, 2003, 03:04 AM

"I like to look at another way.
Eph 5:10 "Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. "
We must prove first that this style of music is acceptable for the LORD. When we look at Rock n Roll, we can look at the performers, writiers, composers, and see how godly they are and how it affects their life."

When we look at preachers we see that they are largely adulturers, con men, back biters, etc. During large pastor conferences, huge spikes are recorded in the rental of pornagraphic movies. So is preaching acceptable unto the Lord?

philosophizer

May 28th, 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Sozo
Many of our Hymns are songs adapted from those played in saloons and brothels

Exactly.

Nimrod

May 28th, 2003, 11:56 AM

I see so much hostility towards this subject, it must mean you guys love your Rock n Roll and to toss it out is too much meat for you to eat.

OMEGA

May 28th, 2003, 12:03 PM

The only thing that can hurt you is the Decibel Level

which can damage your eardrum.

The best music is Brahms and Handel which can cause

the Brain to have more Beta Waves and thus become

Super Learning Music .

RAP Music is Just Vulgar Egotistical Verbiage that shows

the Low Morals of alot of People who sing it.

:jump:

philosophizer

May 28th, 2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
I see so much hostility towards this subject, it must mean you guys love your Rock n Roll and to toss it out is too much meat for you to eat.

Nimrod, please don't let this prevent you from continuing in this debate. I really am interested in what your position is... and we were getting so close to it. Can music overpower our will and force us to do things we shouldn't do?

spackle

May 28th, 2003, 12:57 PM

Is music neutral? No.

All music is good.

lucybelle

May 28th, 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by spackle
Is music neutral? No.

All music is good.

ALL? That's a very broad statement- could you please define 'music'? Because some will define music as having mulitple parts- including lyrics, and we can all agree that not all lyrics are 'good'.

spackle

May 28th, 2003, 03:16 PM

I would not include lyrics in the term "music". I would include melody, harmony, rhythm, and tambre in that definition. I would consider lyrics to be poetry. But, I don't beleive that the lyrics to any song are in themselves evil either. I think that they can reflect evil, just like music can, but I don't think that anything creative in nature can be evil. Creativity, language, expression, emotion,...these are all very good things.

Sozo

May 28th, 2003, 03:36 PM

"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

Nimrod

May 29th, 2003, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by Sozo
"I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean."

Is this verse talking about food? Or is pronography clean?

Nimrod

May 29th, 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by philosophizer
You claim that Rock music feeds the flesh and invokes uncontrolled or worldly actions. So you are also claiming that hymns or whatever you deem as "good" music feeds the spirit and naturally invokes a condition of praising God. Am I right?

Yes and No. Most Classical music is good, but just listening to it will not make you worship God or praise God.

Originally posted by philosophizer
Okay, is there any proof that the music of classic hymns causes provocation to praise God?

I don't know.

Originally posted by philosophizer
This might be an interesting study. Instead of studying the effects of Rock music ad nauseum, someone could pluck a person off a remote corner of the globe that has never heard Christian hymns before, subject them to the hymns, and then observe if the person begins to praise God.

Before Benny Hinn gets on the stage there is about 45 minutes of music that is Repetitious. Hypnotizing the audience. Rock n Roll does the same, many repetitions.

CCM stands for "Contempory Christian Music "

philosophizer

May 29th, 2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
Is this verse talking about food? Or is pronography clean?

Things are clean. But pornography is more than just a thing. Pornography is the content of specific things. A porno magazine is unclean, not because of the paper, the staples, or the ink that comprise the structure of the magazine, but because of the content. Pornography is a concept, not a thing.

Most Classical music is good, but just listening to it will not make you worship God or praise God.

So, if praising God isn't your measurement of what makes music "good" what is? How do you know some classical music is good? Didn't you say that music is good if it "feeds the spirit"?

Before Benny Hinn gets on the stage there is about 45 minutes of music that is Repetitious. Hypnotizing the audience. Rock n Roll does the same, many repetitions.

That is a generalization. Not all Rock music is repetitious. Also, many hymns and classical pieces are repetitious. All genres have this quality. All genres need repetition to some degree.

Modern songs aren't all that different in structure to classical compositions. 20th Century composer Leonard Bernstein gave an interesting presentation once on a TV show he had in the 60's. He compared a Mozart sonata to a Beetles song to show the similarities in the sections and structure.

Can you give any examples from Rock n Roll that demonstrate your hypnotizing effect? I'm talking about specific songs here. Or maybe a specific example of what you might consider good music?

spackle

May 29th, 2003, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
Is this verse talking about food? Or is pronography clean?

The human body is good. Photography is good. Publication is good. Sexual desire is good. All of the individual components by themselves are not only "not evil", they're good.

Pornography is evil in that it exploits people, promotes sexual immorality, destroys relationships, and provides an escape from reality where people can feel the thrill of sex without the responsibility or relationship. But all of these things have to do with the fallen nature of humanity. What is unclean is the human motivation and reaction that goes along with pornography, not the individual components by themselves.

All porn really is is a perversion of something that is very good. People are temped by it because they have a basically good desire (intimacy) that is misdirected.

Nimrod

May 30th, 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by spackle
Pornography is evil in that it exploits people, promotes sexual immorality, destroys relationships, and provides an escape from reality where people can feel the thrill of sex without the responsibility or relationship.

It affect the human more ways than what you just described.
Bob's latest MP3 on KGOV "Christian 007", he talks about pornography about 15 minutes into the program, and how destructive it is, beyond what what we humans can tell. Music is moral and it affects us beyond what we understand.

Originally posted by spackle
But all of these things have to do with the fallen nature of humanity. What is unclean is the human motivation and reaction that goes along with pornography, not the individual components by themselves.

What is the human motivation behind creating Rock songs?
(hint: I want to be a star, I want to be famous, I want to be rich)
Even in these Contempory services at Church, I have seen guitar solos on to give praise to the player not God.

What is the human motivation behind creating hymns?
I want to praise God and worship Him.

Really what you are saying is that "all music is neutral, there is no absolute right or wrong on music. A bunch of cans being dragged behind a car, is good music".

spackle

May 30th, 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Nimrod
It affect the human more ways than what you just described.

True. I wasn't trying to give a comprehensive list of the evils of pornography. I was trying to make a comparison between material particulars, which are good, and human fallenness, which is evil.

Originally posted by Nimrod
What is the human motivation behind creating Rock songs?
(hint: I want to be a star, I want to be famous, I want to be rich)

And nobody ever went into classical music for these reasons?
:rolleyes:
Franz Liszt was an extremely accomplished and technical pianst/composer in the 19th century. He was the moral equivalent of a rock star of today, groupies included.
I graduated from a conservatory with a degree in classical piano, and I can tell you, the people playing classical music are NO better than anyone else, morality wise.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Even in these Contempory services at Church, I have seen guitar solos on to give praise to the player not God.

Have you ever seen a vocal soloist giving praise to God? What's the difference? How about a violinist?

Originally posted by Nimrod
Really what you are saying is that "all music is neutral, there is no absolute right or wrong on music. A bunch of cans being dragged behind a car, is good music".

Not at all. I'm saying that creativity, whether in music, art, dance, literature, etc... is a good thing, and has it's origin in God. The devil can NEVER create anything. Then, within the art forms you have a bunch of variables that determine whether it's good art. A bunch of cans being dragged down the street may be horrible for you to listen to, but you may be able to argue that it is good art by virtue of something else. Besides, who says you can't use that sound in a context? I've heard a song where the entire rhythm track was made up of basketballs and tennis shoes bouncing and squeaking on a basketball court. A very creative idea, and it sounds great.
But this is talking about good vs. bad art. The only way morality is involved is the fact that it's good that creativity is happening.

Most of the people I've talked to who think they know a lot about good vs. evil music/art aren't musicians/artists.

Nimrod

May 31st, 2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by spackle
Have you ever seen a vocal soloist giving praise to God? What's the difference? How about a violinist?

It makes a difference when the focus is put on the performer and NOT on God. Or the praise goes to the performer and not to God. When we go to service, it is for worshipping God. Amen.

Originally posted by spackle
I'm saying that creativity, whether in music, art, dance, literature, etc... is a good thing, and has it's origin in God. The devil can NEVER create anything. Then, within the art forms you have a bunch of variables that determine whether it's good art. A bunch of cans being dragged down the street may be horrible for you to listen to, but you may be able to argue that it is good art by virtue of something else.

I am not the standard. The standard is God's Holy Word. Does God think that a bunch of cans being dragged by a car, is good music? Remember Bob's radio fruitcake(MP3 on KGOV memorial Day). In summary he said "My opinion makes no difference. Is there an absolute right and wrong?"

Originally posted by spackle
Besides, who says you can't use that sound in a context?

Context of what?
I would in no way use that as music for the LORD.
Eph 5 19 "speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord"

How is dragging cans melody?

Originally posted by spackle
The only way morality is involved is the fact that it's good that creativity is happening.

Most of the people I've talked to who think they know a lot about good vs. evil music/art aren't musicians/artists.

Creativity might be happening, which is good, but the music may be morally wrong.

Well I am a musician. Guitar G&L S-500, Groove Tube amplifier, Fender Reverb unit, G&L Bass, SVT 300 watt amp. Tons of books, software, palyed in a RocknRoll band, and years behind my study.

I am wondering Spakle, have you every studied the verses in the Scriptures that deal with music? (There is over 500 of them.):doh:

spackle

June 1st, 2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
It makes a difference when the focus is put on the performer and NOT on God. Or the praise goes to the performer and not to God. When we go to service, it is for worshipping God. Amen.

So we're agreed. It has nothing to do with the instrument or music. If the focus is put on the performer and not on God, that is a completely seperate problem.

Originally posted by Nimrod
I am not the standard. The standard is God's Holy Word. Does God think that a bunch of cans being dragged by a car, is good music? Remember Bob's radio fruitcake(MP3 on KGOV memorial Day). In summary he said "My opinion makes no difference. Is there an absolute right and wrong?"

Funny how you state that you are not the standard and then turn around and project your own musical opinion on God. You say that the standard is God's word. Great. Please show me where in scripture it says that any kind of music is morally wrong.

I believe in good vs. bad art, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking right vs. wrong, a morality question. Please try not to confuse the two.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Context of what?
I would in no way use that as music for the LORD.

Then don't. I don't care. You worship the Lord in the style of your choosing. But don't come down on others who are trying to express their love for God in a different musical style.

Originally posted by Nimrod
How is dragging cans melody?

Ah, that's where creativity comes in. ;)
It might not really be condusive to melody, but you may be able to make a rhythm out of it! Please see the Basketball and Tennis Shoes example above.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Well I am a musician. Guitar G&L S-500, Groove Tube amplifier, Fender Reverb unit, G&L Bass, SVT 300 watt amp. Tons of books, software, palyed in a RocknRoll band, and years behind my study.

Well, now I am confused. :confused: How can you be a guitarist with a nice set of gear, have played in a rock band, and be arguing against rock music, while I am a classically trained pianist who is arguing for rock music. (I also play guitar. I'm a strat guy, myself.)
It makes me go, "WHaaa?"

Originally posted by Nimrod
I am wondering Spakle, have you every studied the verses in the Scriptures that deal with music? (There is over 500 of them.):doh:

You mean like the one that says "Praise Him with loud cymbals. Praise Him with clashing cymbals"? (psalm 150 vs. 5) Last time I checked the cymbals weren't very melodic. :think:

Sola Scriptora

June 1st, 2003, 12:15 AM

The statement that many of the hymns came from bar tunes and brothels is a fiction. Anyone who has actually STUDIED this knows that CCM has re-written history in a pitiful attempt to justify their carnal ways. Luther did not use "bar music".

The church has been a musical pioneer, and it was THE WORLD that was borrowing our music and using it in the bars friends. What is rock music, but a perversion of tent revival music and negro spirituals???

All music IS NOT nuetral. The world knows this, the commuist party knowsthis, the US government knows this, the pioneers of rock music admitted this, and most importatnly, the devil knows this. Who refuses to know this??? American Christians of the Laodicean age. Not suprising, but very sad.

spackle

June 1st, 2003, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by Sola Scriptora
The statement that many of the hymns came from bar tunes and brothels is a fiction. Anyone who has actually STUDIED this knows that CCM has re-written history in a pitiful attempt to justify their carnal ways. Luther did not use "bar music".

The church has been a musical pioneer, and it was THE WORLD that was borrowing our music and using it in the bars friends. What is rock music, but a perversion of tent revival music and negro spirituals???
I have a question. Exactly when do the changes in a musical art form become a "perversion"? When we put drums behind them? Beethoven's fifth: Good. Beethovens fifth with drums: BAD!
Negro Spirituals: Good. Negro Spirituals sung by a white guy with a guitar and a band: BAD!
Ohmygosh, the 1812 Overture has CANONS in the rhythm section! That CAN'T be good.
Originally posted by Sola Scriptora
All music IS NOT nuetral. The world knows this, the commuist party knowsthis, the US government knows this, the pioneers of rock music admitted this, and most importatnly, the devil knows this. Who refuses to know this??? American Christians of the Laodicean age. Not suprising, but very sad.
I know this. I never said music was neutral. It's not. It's good. It's very, very good. There's not one instance in the Bible where it says:
"And God saw that they were distorting their shofars and banging their heads to the timbrel and harp. And God was not pleased, for the music must be light and easy, with a good melody. And He said, 'I will create Barry Manilow who will write "Mandy" and lead my people into the paradise of easy listening, where nothing will ever be offensive or demand anything, especially growth or understanding from my people.' And it was good."

Scriptural references to music are positive! Do you think that every tongue, tribe, and nation are all going to be praising God with Lutheran Hymns? Gimme a break!

Shaun

June 2nd, 2003, 01:15 AM

ROFL, Barry Manilow.

Never thought I'd see that in a theology forum.

On the topic:

Anyone who says rock music is evil and shouldn't be used in church needs to study their history. The hymns were radical when they were put forth--and have you ever HEARD the old-style instruments they used pre-800 AD? (It's not just an organ, I'll let you know). They're loud, and often out of tune.

I do agree rock can be perverted--I'm currently working on a group in Austin that will (God-willing) become something like David Crowder Band and Sonicflood. I understand how music can be used in hypnotism and leading people away from the Word. That is why I make sure I'm not doing those things.

It's not the music that is evil, it's the application of it. If you're singing, "Jesus is Lord, hallelujah!", it shouldn't matter what type of instrumentation is behind it.

What is the human motivation behind creating Rock songs? (hint: I want to be a star, I want to be famous, I want to be rich) Even in these Contempory services at Church, I have seen guitar solos on to give praise to the player not God.
WHOA, wait a minute, buddy. Problems here:
1) I'm going into the Christian music scene. TRUST ME, it's not about the money. I gave up a lucrative $80k+ / year job to follow Christ, and am now guaranteed just enough to eat 3 meals a day, if I'm lucky.
2) Just because something isn't done to your voice, doesn't mean it's heathen. Remember organs? You know, in traditional services. How about simple pianos? Well, most of the time in those services, THEY SOLO. They are usually the only thing there. Are they giving glory to God? Yes they are! You seem to think that creating a firm frontal melody means you're taking the emphasis off the song.
I have to ask--do you play rythym or lead guitar? A true lead guitarist understands that a "solo" is not so much a solo, but rather a time to emphasize the energy or melodic focus of the song. It's not about the guitarist. Whether I'm hitting mellow Em chords or running up scales high in the fretboard, I'm still giving glory to God.
Let's put it this way. When a writer goes off and talks about his personal life in a book dedicated to teaching people about Christ, no one seems to mind. Why? Because he's trying to show the glory of God in his life. Such is the same with a soloist. They're showing the audience the God-given talents that have been graciously extended to them (just as much as the rythym guitarist under him, and any lead guitarist knows that a weak rythym can ruin a solo). They're showing through the talent they have their form of worship to the Lord.
I know when I'm trying my hardest to make that pentatonic run, it's the time and the effort beforehand that I put into practicing that so that I might be able to show perfection in my musical ability to the Lord.

Besides, hasn't anyone told you yet? Most Christian bands don't play for the crowd. (Note how I said most.) They play for an audience of one. They worship God in the way they know how--if the audience gets involved in their little circle of worship, GREAT. Then they can invite them in, and even let them take a few solos (hello sing-along silences). Either way, the focus is still on the audience of one. The Lord. Glory to Him, not to a band member.

It's the message that counts. Heck, if I judged a pastor by what color tie he wore, (oh no, it's too radical), then I'd start having to wonder why I was in church in the first place.

Don't judge. Just worship, and love God with all your heart. :D

Shaun
you know, that organist is showing off
let's can him too

spackle

June 2nd, 2003, 08:31 AM

Amen

philosophizer

June 2nd, 2003, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
It makes a difference when the focus is put on the performer and NOT on God. Or the praise goes to the performer and not to God. When we go to service, it is for worshipping God. Amen.

So personal excellence is to be avoided at all costs? No. We should always strive to be excellent in our abilities and actions that we can say "praise God for letting me share this ability with you." If someone can play an amazing guitar solo and then praise God for the ability, so much the better.

I am not the standard. The standard is God's Holy Word. Does God think that a bunch of cans being dragged by a car, is good music? Remember Bob's radio fruitcake(MP3 on KGOV memorial Day). In summary he said "My opinion makes no difference. Is there an absolute right and wrong?"

Does God say He doesn't like cans being dragged? If the cans are used in a creative way that draw notice and then the performer/artist directs that notice toward God, then nothing is wrong. But if the performer/artists keeps the notice and attention for him/herself, that is wrong.

Creativity might be happening, which is good, but the music may be morally wrong.

Nope. The direction of the creativity might be good or bad. It might be pure or it might be perverted. This direction is the musician's message. The music is simply the carrier for that message.

philosophizer

June 2nd, 2003, 09:27 AM

Nimrod,

Could you name a song or musical selection that you would call "good" and then give your reasons why it is good? This might clarify what the criteria are.

Nimrod

June 2nd, 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Shaun

Anyone who says rock music is evil and shouldn't be used in church needs to study their history. The hymns were radical when they were put forth--and have you ever HEARD the old-style instruments they used pre-800 AD? (It's not just an organ, I'll let you know). They're loud, and often out of tune.

So if they did in the past, then therefore it is good?
Is this your thinking?
Again, your not looking at God's Holy Word for an answer but history of man.

Originally posted by Shaun
I do agree rock can be perverted--I'm currently working on a group in Austin that will (God-willing) become something like David Crowder Band and Sonicflood. I understand how music can be used in hypnotism and leading people away from the Word. That is why I make sure I'm not doing those things.

So, you are admitting your biased towards Rock n Roll.

Originally posted by Shaun
It's not the music that is evil, it's the application of it. If you're singing, "Jesus is Lord, hallelujah!", it shouldn't matter what type of instrumentation is behind it.

So you are saying that any type of music is fine and dandy as long as the lyrics are right. A bunch of cans being dragged bahind a car is fine and acceptable as music to give praise towards God. Now if you disagree that this is music, then the next question is What standard are you using to define music? Your own, or God's?
Again that does not prove that music is amoral.

Originally posted by Shaun
WHOA, wait a minute, buddy. Problems here:
1) I'm going into the Christian music scene. TRUST ME, it's not about the money. I gave up a lucrative $80k+ / year job to follow Christ, and am now guaranteed just enough to eat 3 meals a day, if I'm lucky.

I agree that was a bad arguement on my part.

Originally posted by Shaun
2) Just because something isn't done to your voice, doesn't mean it's heathen. Remember organs? You know, in traditional services. How about simple pianos? Well, most of the time in those services, THEY SOLO. They are usually the only thing there. Are they giving glory to God? Yes they are! You seem to think that creating a firm frontal melody means you're taking the emphasis off the song.

Solo's are fine, I am just saying that when the attention and praise is given to the performer. I see this a lot with "guitar solo's" and "drum solo's". But not with the "violen" and "organ".

Originally posted by Shaun
I have to ask--do you play rythym or lead guitar? A true lead guitarist understands that a "solo" is not so much a solo, but rather a time to emphasize the energy or melodic focus of the song. It's not about the guitarist. Whether I'm hitting mellow Em chords or running up scales high in the fretboard, I'm still giving glory to God.

And showing off your skills.

Originally posted by Shaun
Let's put it this way. When a writer goes off and talks about his personal life in a book dedicated to teaching people about Christ, no one seems to mind. Why? Because he's trying to show the glory of God in his life. Such is the same with a soloist. They're showing the audience the God-given talents that have been graciously extended to them (just as much as the rythym guitarist under him, and any lead guitarist knows that a weak rythym can ruin a solo). They're showing through the talent they have their form of worship to the Lord.

The writer of the book is telling his readers how Christ changed his life. The muscian hasn't changed, he is still using secular music.

Originally posted by Shaun
I know when I'm trying my hardest to make that pentatonic run, it's the time and the effort beforehand that I put into practicing that so that I might be able to show perfection in my musical ability to the Lord.

Paise God.

Originally posted by Shaun
Besides, hasn't anyone told you yet? Most Christian bands don't play for the crowd. (Note how I said most.) They play for an audience of one. They worship God in the way they know how--if the audience gets involved in their little circle of worship, GREAT. Then they can invite them in, and even let them take a few solos (hello sing-along silences). Either way, the focus is still on the audience of one. The Lord. Glory to Him, not to a band member.

Sure they do. These Christian's bands try to draw people in through their music. So they are trying to please the crowd.

Originally posted by Shaun
It's the message that counts.

That's is right, the music gives a message, it is a way of communication.

1 Cor 14:8 For also if a trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?

The Scripture here gives an example of how music is communication.

Originally posted by Shaun
Don't judge.

What does Bob Enyart say about that phrase?

Nimrod

June 2nd, 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by spackle
So we're agreed. It has nothing to do with the instrument or music. If the focus is put on the performer and not on God, that is a completely seperate problem.

A single note by itself is not moral, but when notes are put together in such a way where the focus is put on the performer.

Originally posted by spackle
Funny how you state that you are not the standard and then turn around and project your own musical opinion on God. You say that the standard is God's word. Great. Please show me where in scripture it says that any kind of music is morally wrong.

I believe in good vs. bad art, but that is not what we are talking about here. We are talking right vs. wrong, a morality question. Please try not to confuse the two.

Music is art, and there is right and wrong. We are to put away the flesh and live in the spirit. We are not to follow the "world's" way (Secular rock n roll)

Originally posted by spackle
Then don't. I don't care. You worship the Lord in the style of your choosing. But don't come down on others who are trying to express their love for God in a different musical style.

I am trying to correct your way of thinking of music, and conform to godly standards. If I come accross as "putting you down", that is expected.

Originally posted by spackle
Well, now I am confused. :confused: How can you be a guitarist with a nice set of gear, have played in a rock band, and be arguing against rock music,

At first I heard about this issue about a year ago. I bought the books by authors like Frank Garlock (sp?), David Cloud (look at his web site!), and Tim Fisher. When I started reading, I stopped, becuase I didn't like what I was reading. It made logical sense, but it was telling me to get rid of something I enjoyed so much. After a couple of months I went back and tried to finish reading all the books. I did finish, and I had to decide what to do next. Make a long story short, I sold all of my CD's, about 200 of them. And I started to listen to either classical or hymns.

Sozo

June 2nd, 2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
And I started to listen to either classical or hymns.

And what makes you think that the lives of the classical artists was not to glorify themselves, and that the notes they played were not corrupted by it?

philosophizer

June 2nd, 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
So if they did in the past, then therefore it is good?
Is this your thinking?
Again, your not looking at God's Holy Word for an answer but history of man.

The point is, in biblical times (when God said He liked music) the instruments weren't necessarily "nice sounding" by today's standards. By ruling out today's music by what you think sounds nice, you also rule out just as much ancient music that God apparently liked.

So, you are admitting your biased towards Rock n Roll.

Are you admitting your bias against it?

So you are saying that any type of music is fine and dandy as long as the lyrics are right.

Yes.

A bunch of cans being dragged bahind a car is fine and acceptable as music to give praise towards God.

If it allows people to praise God, yes.

Now if you disagree that this is music, then the next question is What standard are you using to define music? Your own, or God's?

You seem to be against "rhythm" yet God says He likes it.

Solo's are fine, I am just saying that when the attention and praise is given to the performer. I see this a lot with "guitar solo's" and "drum solo's". But not with the "violen" and "organ".

Well, that's the fault of the musician, not the music. If the musician accepts all the praise for himself, he is an idolater and has made himself the idol. But that is not the music's fault.

And showing off your skills.

...which God gave him and he knows it.

The writer of the book is telling his readers how Christ changed his life. The muscian hasn't changed, he is still using secular music.

What if the musician also takes the time to tell his listeners how Christ changed his life?

Sure they do. These Christian's bands try to draw people in through their music. So they are trying to please the crowd.

It's not a problem that the music pleases the crowd if it also pleases God. First prove that God doesn't like it. And besides, enjoying music is completely acceptable as long as you know ultimately where those musical abilities come from. God likes music and he gave it to us for our enjoyment.

That's is right, the music gives a message, it is a way of communication.

Music carries a message, it is a medium of communication.

1 Cor 14:8 For also if a trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?

The Scripture here gives an example of how music is communication.

A trumpet can be a signal used in battle. But that trumpet sound would mean absolutely nothing if you didn't already know it signals a military command. A charge or retreat are not commands inherent in the sound of a trumpet. They are things we ascribe to the trumpet in the context of battle. We chose their meaning.

Nimrod

June 2nd, 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by philosophizer
Nimrod,

Could you name a song or musical selection that you would call "good" and then give your reasons why it is good? This might clarify what the criteria are.

Hi philosophizer, sorry about not spending more time with you on this subject. That is the problem with message boards. It feels like every message I put out, I get 5 coming back.

When you listen to music, what does you body want to do?
Do you tap your toes to the rhythm? Or do you do more with you body, like bending your knees? There comes a point when the listener is living "in the flesh". THat is what the "back beat" of rock music does. It puts the accent on the 2 and 4. For example "Saw here standing there" by the Beatles. The music feeds your flesh. Christians should listen to music that feeds the spirit.

Now with music that put the accent or beat on the 1, for the most part is good. Also make sure that melody is the main driving force of the song. Unlike Rock n Roll where the beat/rhythm is about 85% of the song. Other factors are, songs that come to a complete end, for example the "pop goes the weasel". Lets say you write that song but end it 5 notes before. That would be an example of a song NOT coming to a complete end.

Have you downloaded Frank Garlock message on the web yet?

Sozo

June 2nd, 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
Christians should listen to music that feeds the spirit.

Since you ignored my other question, then perhaps you could tell me how one would "feed the spirit" with music?

spackle

June 2nd, 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
A single note by itself is not moral, but when notes are put together in such a way where the focus is put on the performer.

I have NO IDEA how this could be possible. Now you're not even talking about instruments, but note combination? I promise you that classical composers found more bizarre note/chord combinations than any rock star.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Music is art, and there is right and wrong. We are to put away the flesh and live in the spirit. We are not to follow the "world's" way (Secular rock n roll)

Whaa? Your statements have nothing to do with each other.

Originally posted by Nimrod
At first I heard about this issue about a year ago. I bought the books by authors like Frank Garlock (sp?), David Cloud (look at his web site!), and Tim Fisher. When I started reading, I stopped, becuase I didn't like what I was reading. It made logical sense, but it was telling me to get rid of something I enjoyed so much. After a couple of months I went back and tried to finish reading all the books. I did finish, and I had to decide what to do next. Make a long story short, I sold all of my CD's, about 200 of them. And I started to listen to either classical or hymns.
Super. If you're looking to unload all of that great gear, I'd be happy to take it off of your hands. For free of course, because no one should profit from the evils of rock n roll. :D

I'd be interested to talk with you in a couple of years when you're kicking yourself for getting rid of all of your albums. I know several christians who have had that experience. Just give it some time.......

philosophizer

June 2nd, 2003, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Nimrod
Hi philosophizer, sorry about not spending more time with you on this subject. That is the problem with message boards. It feels like every message I put out, I get 5 coming back.

When you listen to music, what does you body want to do?
Do you tap your toes to the rhythm? Or do you do more with you body, like bending your knees?

Yes, I sometimes do those things. That means I am enjoying the music. Does my body automatically do those things against my will? No.

There comes a point when the listener is living "in the flesh". THat is what the "back beat" of rock music does. It puts the accent on the 2 and 4. For example "Saw here standing there" by the Beatles. The music feeds your flesh.

My "body" sometimes does things while I listen to classical music too. I sometimes like to conduct with my hands along with the music. Does this mean that classical music also "feeds the flesh"? Does classical music sometimes make you smile? Would that also be considered feeding the flesh?

I don't recall how that Beatles song goes off the top of my head. I'll try to find it and take a listen.

Christians should listen to music that feeds the spirit.

What happens while music is feeding the Spirit? How could you tell the difference between someone who's spirit is being fed and someone who is completely unmoved?

Now with music that put the accent or beat on the 1, for the most part is good. Also make sure that melody is the main driving force of the song. Unlike Rock n Roll where the beat/rhythm is about 85% of the song. Other factors are, songs that come to a complete end, for example the "pop goes the weasel". Lets say you write that song but end it 5 notes before. That would be an example of a song NOT coming to a complete end.

The Beat: It's not exclusive to Rock.
Saying that rock is mostly beat/rhythm is an overstatement. There are many rock songs that are very melodic. There are many rock songs that don't even have drums.

Melody: It's not exlusive to Classical
Most people would not be able to identify a rock song by the drumbeat alone. People mostly identify rock songs by the melody, just like any other genre.

Unresolved Endings: Also not exclusive to any genre
But I get the impression you know that, and I'm glad you're not being inconsistant in that. But how are unresolved endings bad?

Have you downloaded Frank Garlock message on the web yet?
No and I probably won't. I can't listen to it