Posted on 06/02/2003 1:58:35 AM PDT by fortheDeclaration
If my comments below seem harsh, please consider that the assumptions in the article are so profoundly misplaced and puerile as to have warranted no other response.
MARCH MUSIC VERSUS DANCE MUSIC
There's a basic difference. A march has the beat on one and three. ONE, two, THREE, four, ONE, two, THREE, four. Dance music is one, TWO, three, FOUR, one, TWO, three, FOUR. You can hear that old snare drum playing this difference.
The march type music is the soldier's music. We're going to depict something military if we use the march rhythm. If we use the dance rhythm, we're going to depict something that is opposed to marching, something sensual. This is a basic element of music.
Wrong. Saying it is so doesn't make it so. It's an oversimplified take on the differences, but evidence already that the author is projecting his own contructs onto neutral subjects.
We are spirit, soul, and body, and God has given us music to bless us spirit, soul, and body. Here's how it fits together: There are only three parts to music, because God made music, and He made music to be a blessing to man.
Wrong again.
MELODY, HARMONY, AND RHYTHM How does that apply to music? Take melody, one of the parts of music. Melody is for our spirit. It is to enable us to commune with God. If I softly hum "Jesus Keep Me Near the Cross," without any particular rhythm or harmony, I make praise to the Lord.
Melody is for our spirit? News to me.
It is impossible to hum or otherwise express a melodic statement without a rhythm. Rhythm is based in time, so it's an 'either/or' situation. The only way to express a melody without a particular rhythm is not to express it at all.
That song is a prayer. I can help my spirit by humming a melody. Any piece of music that has a decent melody, though it have no harmony or rhythm, may be used to commune with God. You can think upon the Lord in your spirit. That is what melody is for.
After years of studying, composing and otherwise being intimately involved in music, I don't recall a single instance of 'decent' being a recognized musicological term or value.
Harmony, on the other hand, is for the soul.
Is it?
A lot of Gospel tunes are written in major keys; they are bright and happy. As young children in grade school we are often taught that major chords are happy, and minor chords are sad. If I play a whole series of minor chords on the piano, you will soon be very weighted down and sorrowful.
Really?
The minor chords depict sadness.
They do?
There is nothing wrong with minor chords in and of themselves, but they must be balanced.
Must they?
If we are going to talk about how our Savior was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, we might want to use some minor chords--but not a steady diet of them.
Why not?
If I sing "There Is A Land That Is Fairer Than Day" in a major key, Heaven sounds like a wonderful place. But if I change that to a minor key--keepingthe same rhythm and melody--all the sudden Heaven doesn't sound like such a happy, wonderful place. The only thing I have to change to effect this different mood is the harmony.
Oh, I don't know. Changing the rhythm to effect the mood while still remaining in a major key isn't all that difficult.
The most noble thing that can be done is to take the Scriptures and set them properly in music, painting a correct and suitable picture.
The late, great Frank Zappa once stated, "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture." IOW, perhaps 'setting scriptures to music', properly or otherwise, isn't particularly noble or worthwhile at all.
Now this is true when it comes to music and the playing of instruments. Every instrument was made to be played beautifully. God gave the Jews music. God gave King David the ability to make instruments, and the Jewish community today, though they are the enemies of the Gospel, still have a shred of what King David had. Many of the classical musicians are Jewish. If you want to hear how a violin should be played, listen to a Jewish man play it. If you want to hear what an oboe should sound like, listen to a Jewish man play that oboe.
What, precisely, is that supposed to mean? I don't recall violins and oboes in anything I've ever read about David, nor any paricular reason as to why they'd be best suited for Jews to play them eons after his death. There's plenty of thin ice with this one....
The classical musicians strive to play with the most beautiful tones they can on their instruments. Now, sad to say, some of the music that is written for them is not holy music; and no matter how well they play, it comes out rather strange. But if you want to find out what a trumpet should sound like, listen to the first chair solo player in an orchestra. Those people are so picky that they are fired if they miss a note in a concert recording, and there are fifteen, twenty, seventy, seventy-five, one hundred people waiting in line to try out for that place. They dare not miss a note. As a matter of fact, some of them are fired at practices if they don't play well enough.
Quite frankly, so what?
I wish that I could say that we could find that standard of excellence among Christians and say, "This is what a voice should sound like; this is what a baritone horn should sound like; this is what a bass clarinet should sound like; this is what a flute should sound like." I'm not sure that we can find it. Sometimes Christians forget that David was "cunning in playing," and we forget to put in the practice that David did.
Why on earth would Christianity, inclusive by its very nature and practised by fallible creatures, wish to subject itself to Platonic ideals other than Christ?
Today we scarcely hear a saxophone played right. We scarcely hear people sing right.
No, the author of this tripe doesn't hear them played or sung 'right'.
How come? Because people don't appreciate things that are holy. All appreciation for beauty goes right out the door with it. So if someone sings with a poor tone, nobody seems to care.
Oh, boy...
I went to Pittsburgh, Michigan, (to play in an orchestra), and I was amazed at how slack I was when it came to music. They did not allow a young person to blat one bad note on an instrument. They could not pick it up and go "blah," even just for fun. They did not allow it. Every note that came out was supposed to be pure. Of course there were mistakes that we made, but Brother Rick Town send would never let a sour note be played on purpose or in jest. He said, "No, they have to come out in praise of the Lord." He was seeking to achieve some beauty in the playing to show forth the Lord's holiness.
So Spike Jonz was an agent of Satan?
GOOD RHYTHMS AND BAD RHYTHMS I said we would talk about rhythm. There are good rhythms and bad rhythms.
Simply put: no, they're aren't.
Consider the boogie, and the blues, which is just the boogie slowed down.
Consider 'the' boogie? Huh? And the author is mistaken: the Blues were around long before 'the boogie' was ever recognized.
These are very similar rhythms; only the speed is different. The blues rhythm is found in the old ballads. Hundreds of songs have been written to this "eight to the bar" rhythm. Have you ever heard "I Am Weak But Thou Art Strong" played with a boogie beat? It is the jazzy, Southern gospel style. It is the boogie. It is a dance rhythm. Southern gospel musicians have destroyed a lot of the hymns of the faith by using that jazzy rhythm.
Pristine, unadulterated nonsense.
THE SNOWBALL EFFECT Sooner or later Christians must get rid of the wrong kind of music, or it will take them the wrong way. There are good Christians who listen to the wrong music sometimes; but after they are instructed, if they keep on listening to that and liking it, I know something is not right.
Maybe they were 'instructed' by whoever wrote this trash.
The devil uses a progression to draw people away from God and holiness.
No, it doesn't.
There was almost nobody from my sixties generation that would sing a song about devil worship. As a matter of fact, at the end of my rock and roll years, even though I was not saved, it was a difficult thing for me to even sing about songs that mentioned the devil. I could not understand what the Rolling Stones were doing singing about the devil. I thought, "What does that have to do with hamburgers and French fries and girls and beaches and Coca Cola and surfing and Woodies?"
Given that the author had to ask....
If one has ever listened to an African drum group play, he will understand that American rock musicians are just catching up to the African rhythms.
In Africa, the heathen are able to play "poly rhythms." Poly, of course, means many. They have all these drums and other percussion instruments, rhythm instruments, that all make different sounds, and they can hear them. They can make one rhythm with their feet, another with their torso, some more with their arms, and some more with their fingers and wrists, some more in their heads; and they can dance six or seven different rhythms at one time. It is an amazing thing; however, it is all sensual; it's all for the body; and it's all created by their ability to hear and put into their bodies those dance rhythms that were created specifically to make their bodies move in ways that are not polite. They make the body move to draw attention to parts of the body in a way that is improper.
Intllectual undigested canine excrement.
Now let's say we add just a little bit of sensual rhythm to a song. We make it just one degree away from truly spiritual, holy music. It will appeal to a lot of Christians. Then we have some other music that really is boogie, but we call it Southern gospel; and that will appeal to a lot of Christians. They excuse it by saying it is just "down home" music. No, it isn't. It's boogie woogie, but some Christians still think it is O.K. Then there is the Contemporary Christian Music, which sounds like it is being sung in a nightclub. Of course it is big business today, and it is farther still away from painting a proper picture of our Lord.
Yawn.
REACH THE YOUNG PEOPLE WITH THEIR OWN MUSIC? Then there are those who use "Christian rock" music. They say, "I believe we can reach the young people if we just play their kind of music." I don't buy that, because before I was ever saved I went to hear a rock and roll group singing dirty rock and roll songs and telling me about the Lord Jesus in the songs. You know what I said? As a rock and roll musician I said, "What are they doing playing my music? They are Christians." I had better sense than to believe that they were doing any good. Yes, I went to the concert, but I did not like it. And they all had long greasy hair. There was one fellow, a big, tall fellow, who stood up with a Bible at the end of the concert and preached. His hair was cut above his ears, and you know what? I listened to him. Afterwards I didn't want to talk to the grubby band members. I felt they were worse off than I was. I just looked at them and thought, "I don't want to be like that." I talked to the tall fellow; and though I did not get saved that night, I was impressed somewhat and I went home that night and told my mother about it. It was only a year or two later that I got saved.
Is there a point to this?
A pastor once told me, "You know, those black folks really have it; why don't you stick some of those rhythms into your music. With your voice and your talent..." I thought, "Get thee behind me." I didn't say that, but I just shook my head. The evangelist that was there said, "Brother Ives, don't change your music."
That preacher was a liar.
I look at my music, and sometimes I wonder, "Am I a degree off? Am I two degrees off? Am I just fooling myself, Lord?" I want to be on the button.
Yes, but probably several magnitudes of degrees.
If I sang gospel rock, I would be ashamed before my university professors who taught me better than that.
The author of this article went to univserity?
If we use dirty rhythms, dirty harmonies, and dirty melodies, we are not painting a proper picture of Christ.
Dirty bird!
I'm tending to assume that you're not a Catholic. Don't really know why; I just get that impression.
We Catholics have a traditional form of worship in which the priest exposes a consecrated host--the Body of Christ--in a stand called a monstrance, and we spend an hour in prayer and adoration of Christ before it.
It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen if someone like you were to do that once a week for six months, spending a good part of the hour praying on this, followed by an hour of listening to "proper" sacred music.
Actually, a simple unarticulated reference to what some Catholic priests do after experiencing exactly what you have described is enough to rebuff this line of thinking.
I'd be willing to wager (sorry, it's that darn Vegas showgirl music), that unlike the author (and the other critics of CCM), that you may indeed have - once - been in a nightclub...
But that's a guess.
Are you suggesting that the author (and the other critics of CCM) have, likely, never once been in a nightclub ?
Not necessarily. However, I am suggesting that, if they have indeed been to a nightclub and they think CCM is the kind of music performed there that 1) they weren't paying attention or 2) they don't remember it (and you can read into that what you will).
Are you suggesting that the author (and the other critics of CCM) have, likely, never once been in a nightclub ?
Not necessarily. However, I am suggesting that, if they have indeed been to a nightclub and they think CCM is the kind of music performed there that 1) they weren't paying attention or 2) they don't remember it (and you can read into that what you will).
Oh ...
... that's different ...
... Never mind.
COPING WITH PHARISEES
In all, there are three categories of differing Christians to whom we must properly relate. The believer who is correctly responding to biblical guidelines about decisions in debatable areas is a convinced differing brother. I am to accept him and refrain from judging him for his opinions, as he is to do for me. The other classification we have discussed is the weaker brother. I am to be alert for him, limiting the exercise of my freedom when my influence might tempt him to sin against his conscience.
There remains a third kind of differing believer that we an counter from time to time. He is one who does not accept me with my differing convictions; who puts pressure on others to conform to his point of view. In terms of stumbling blocks, he takes offense when no offense is given. The cause of the offense is his own pride or unbelief, rather than improper behavior on the part of the other. He becomes upset, but is not "destroyed." He is not a weaker brother for he is strong in his convictions and will not blindly follow a contrary example. Nor is he a stronger brother, for he is not strong in understanding. He has not fully grasped the nature and reality of Christian freedom and responsibility, especially as it affects relationships with other Christians.
Though not given the same systematic treatment in Romans and I Corinthians as the weaker brother, this third character appears frequently on the pages of the New Testament. For purposes of terminology, we will employ the title of the classic example to designate this category of debater the--Pharisee.
[Editor's Note: I feel it stronger to say at this juncture the term Pharisee is used here NOT to represent the historical sect but rather represents the unchristian spiritual heart condition exhibited through behaviors and attitudes condemned by Christ in Matthew 23.....]
By way of definition, the Pharisee is a professing believer with strong convictions who, because of his own pride, takes offense at those who resist his pressure to conform to his point of view. By his nature, the Pharisee is most in need of the correctives set forth in Romans 14:1-12. Of the three types of differing brothers, he is also the most difficult to get along with.
Since definitions are often clarified through comparison and contrast, Figure 36 has been prepared to reveal significant differences and similarities.
Categories Of Differing Brothers
|
Weaker Brother He differs from my opinion at times |
Convinced Brother He differs from my opinion at times |
Pharisee He differs from my opinion at times |
Decision Making And The Will Of God
by Garry Friesen
Chapter 24 (in part)
No, you're making an assumption that the molester priests were experiencng "exactly what I described" before committing their offenses. That assumption is not warranted.
Oh, ... I thought that the point that you were making was that the experience you were describing was an intrinsically Catholic experience ... per ...I'm tending to assume that you're not a Catholic. Don't really know why; I just get that impression.Would not your priests also partake of this experience ?
We Catholics have a traditional form of worship in which the priest exposes a consecrated host--the Body of Christ--in a stand called a monstrance, and we spend an hour in prayer and adoration of Christ before it.
It would be an interesting experiment to see what would happen if someone like you were to do that once a week for six months, spending a good part of the hour praying on this, followed by an hour of listening to "proper" sacred music.
I don't have a great deal of information on this, but I did read the assertion that the priests who have been caught molesting did not have a healthy prayer life. As disordered sexuality and disordered spirituality go hand in hand, this seemed reasonable to me.
This seems reasonable to me as well.
Would a man with Christ in his heart continue to place himself in the occasion of sin, knowing he was unable to resist, when he could prevent himself from molesting by removing himself from the physical presence of youths?
This, also, is a question of mine.
You are wrong biblically, and you are wrong psychologically.
Since this sentence wasn't aimed at me, maybe I can deal with it dispassionately:
the real problem is
You are saying that you have analyzed the original article, and dsc's posts, and have determined the central issue.
you think
It is unlikely that either of us actually KNOW what someone else "thinks," deep down, in their heart of hearts. all
This clause describes an incredibly inclusive, and amorphous set, or category. It seems unreasonable to assert that one can know another's opinion regarding such an indeterminate set.
is always intended
My above quibbles pale into insignificance, compared to this. You have described an impossibly indeterminate set. Now, you posit that dsc "thinks" (believes) that the people who wrote and performed all music in this huge set, had a certain specific "INTENT."
In criminal law, "INTENT" is often the key issue which determining which crime a person can be guilty. (Consider murder, and manslaughter-- INTENT.) Intent can also be difficult to prove, directly.
Having read both the original article, and the posts by dsc, I can say with certainty, that there is no evidence, that he "thinks" or believes, any such INTENT, on the part of EVERY musician involved in the impossibly large set, which you described.
I think, or imagine, that he has not been thinking about INTENT, but effect.
This is not criticism, merely analysis.
DG
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.