Bob said "Music is neutral"; Do you agree?

[philosophizer]

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]

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?

 

[Nimrod]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This is crazyness...

This is crazyness...

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]

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]

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]

Music is not inherently evil.

 

[philosophizer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.