Objective Standards - Time to wrap this up

Filed in Music Philosophy on October 14, 2009



Writing about this subject has been challenging and perhaps unnecessary.  Musicians should primarily speak about music through their music.  But because I have engaged in the music wars to the level I have, I need to wrap up some loose ends, let you know exactly what I think and then I can move on to some other topics I am itching to write about.

In the early blog posts, I discussed the fact that there are objective standards of quality.  They are not easy to figure out but they have been discovered and canonized in a set of commonly accepted practices that have developed over history.  I said that it is highly absurd to claim that all music is of equal quality or that a musician's contributions can be judged just according to personal preferences.

To those that say that only music of objective high quality should be used in church, I would refer you back to a post I wrote recently regarding the function of church music.  Music of the highest quality does not necessarily function best in a church. 

Let's move on to the idea of objective beauty.  I reject the idea that there are objective standards for beauty.  Beauty is largely subjective.

There is a big elephant in the closet that I have not addressed but will here briefly.  Many already know where I stand on the issue of whether music communicates morality.  I don't think it does in itself.  There is no Biblical standing to suggest that and there is no research or study that suggests that. 

I know that this goes against the beliefs of some conservatives, and I can only say to them that if they want to convince, they need to supply a legitimate argument to support their position.  When they are asked for evidence, they invariably either fall back on the beliefs of badly mistaken philosophers of the past, trot out flawed and/or incorrect evidence, or just ignore the demand for evidence altogether.  Today, it seems that the last option is the most popular.

That being said, I have much in common with the beliefs of those conservatives.  I share their interest in protecting church music from evil influences.  I am not a fan of much of what is happening in commercial Christian music.

And I would agree that while music does not communicate morality in itself, it can communicate morality based on the environment and society it is used in.  And I think there are two clear principles that can be used by an individual or church to make choices about music.  And I think the two principles are objective in themselves because they are Biblically based.

Appropriateness
Music clearly communicates in itself.  Study after study shows that it communicates such emotions as fear, joy, sadness.  So, it is obvious that music should be used appropriately so that it matches the message of the situation.  That means for example, that march music is inappropriate during Communion. 

Some may say that this example demonstrates bad taste more than immorality.  That is probably true, but there are occasions where the use of music can be a means to encourage people to do immoral acts.  Some claim that Hitler used music in this way. 

What this means practically is this.  If a church decides that a certain style is inappropriate for their worship, that is their prerogative.   They may not be correct, but they certainly are within their rights to make that decision.

Association
If a case can be made that a certain style of music is primarily associated with ungodliness, a church or individual is certainly within their right to reject it.  If they believe for example that rock music is associated with rebellion, they can and should avoid it.

That being said, churches and individuals that make these kinds of determinations based on either appropriateness or association are making them subjectively in most cases.  For example, most people no longer associate rock music with rebellion.  If a church still does, they are welcome to exclude rock music from their services.  But they should be gracious toward those that do not agree with them, understanding that there is subjectivity in play.

Likewise, musicians should be sensitive in their churches to allow for subjectivity and not get bent out of shape if there are differences of opinion.  It is not easy for us to do so.  Often, pianists are among the most highly trained musicians in the church.  If you find yourself in that position, I know it difficult to be told that your music needs to be changed by a leader with less music knowledge who is making a subjective decision.

But if a church is going to work, its members need to understand that subjective opinions are going to differ.  Unity comes only when members unselfishly agree to put aside their preferences for others. 

Likewise, as a concert pianist, I am careful to understand the lines a church draws before I do a concert there.  Normally, the lines are clear.  Sometimes, I cannot distinguish those lines without some probing.  Recently, I spent probably an hour with a music pastor and pastor discussing what kind of music a church wanted me to play at an upcoming Christmas concert.

To wrap all this up, let's return to the question of whether music convictions are objective or subjective.  The principles of association and appropriateness are objective (Biblically based).  But the application is largely subjective.   We should all be humble enough to remember that when discussing and interacting with differing opinions of what is right and wrong.



Will you do me a personal favor?
If you use Facebook, please take a moment and comment on this post. I appreciate the feedback and doing this helps other people learn about my resources. Non-Facebook users can leave comments using the alternate form below.


Philip MacIntyre
10/14/2009 5:55:28 PM

Greg,

You had me until you make the statement that music does not communicate morality in itself. That is nonsense. But then you get worse. Either music is right or not right. It is up to us to figure out truth. It is not "subjective".

---

Danny Gardner
10/14/2009 9:34:35 PM

Philip, I'd like for you to elaborate on what you mean for me please. I don't quite understand your viewpoint of music either being right or wrong. Is a simple C major triad moral or immoral? What if you add a major seventh to it? Please elaborate for me sir. I am very interested in hearing your thoughts. Thank you.

---

Philip MacIntyre
10/15/2009 9:01:59 AM

Danny,

Your example is a good one. Adding a major seventh to a C major triad is a moral decision. It creates what musicians call dissonance because the major seventh is a half step away from C. Dissonance is confusing and should be used sparingly.

Greg's music is full of exactly what you are referring to. It is a concern I have had about his music for some time. The classical period did not have the dissonance that we have today.

There is a place for a major seventh if it is not overused. But not in church.

---

Danny Gardner
10/15/2009 9:52:29 AM

Mr. Howlett, this series has been both informative and helpful for me. It is indeed important for musicians to be humble when discussing this sensitive topic.

Philip,

If dissonance is the issue then how do you feel about dominant chords? The tritone's dissonance is comparable to that of the major seventh, but you will surely hear it most churches. Thank you for your time.

---

Ayesha
10/16/2009 1:21:00 PM

I've been afraid to comment on this series because you guys sound so 'scholar like'-but since its coming to a close, here's my two cents. Dissonance is beautiful--to me. My observance is that if the musician's purpose is to bring glory to God & edify the saints and thus his/her life (actions & deeds) exemplifies that purpose--then its manifested in their music. Plain old major triads- (when the purpose is to bring attention to self, not God) played so flamboyantly or an over abundance of runs & fillers can be very distracting from the message of the song and just plain distasteful. A proud cocky person's attitude is revealed in their music and thus a humble person's is as well, regardless of dissonance. This is just my observance. Thank you.

---

Greg
10/16/2009 1:34:23 PM

Thanks guys for your comments. Philip, I do not know what to say really and I don't the energy to start. Clearly, you need to find other music to listen to besides mine.

---

vaughn
10/20/2009 5:26:17 PM

to say that the classical period did not have the dissonance that we have today is a gross over simplification of the music of the approximately 250 years generically referred to as the classical period. Search through Bach's cantatas and you will find many examples of such dissonance. There are many interval's and melodic ideas employed by Bach that are not seen much until 20th century classical. Bartok for instance got much of his inspiration from Bach.
Beethoven as well used dissonance in his music. When I first heard Beethove's 32nd Piano Sonata. I was shocked by the third variation in the final movement. It sounds remarkably like jazz and is often referred to as the "boogie-woogie variation". Most people who hear it would place it's composition at a much later time.

Dissonance is a very important part of music. Without it there would be no need for resolution. In addition dissonance is a subjective idea. What sounds good to me will not necessarily sound good to you. It is very likely that a 17th century musician would have been appalled by Beethoven's use of dissonance and yet today Beethoven's music is considered a part of the "classical" canon.

---

Vaughn
10/20/2009 6:11:18 PM

Danny,

While I have not completely made up my mind on the issue of morality in music, the idea that since the C Chord is amoral (neither moral nor immoral) proves that all music is amoral is logically flawed. Music is a form of communication just like literature, art, etc. No letter of the alphabet carries with it moral qualities, but the message that is communicated by the arranging of the letters of that alphabet can indeed have moral or immoral qualities. It is not the letters themselves that convey a sense of morality, it is the message that is being presented by the use of those letters to communicate a specific thought or idea. The difficulty with music is that music does not communicate a specific message. Rather it communicates general ideas. (Which of course is greatly influenced by your culture as to what exactly is being communicated. For example a piece of music may communicate confusion to me because I do not understand the musical language being employed because I have not learned that language. The idea that music is the universal language is flawed, for it does not allow for cultural differences in even the basic building blocks of songs such as tonal, chordal, and tuning systems) This is what makes it so difficult to assign morality to the music itself.

However, within our Western culture you can usually say what message (usually emotion) is being communicated by a piece of music because you understand that language. I am very much in agreement with Greg that the basic message of the music ought to fit the situation. I would even go so far as to say that the basic message of the music ought to fit the specific message of the words. For example a march style song would not fit the words to Just as I Am or O Sacred Head Now Wounded. Bach's cantatas are prime examples of this. When sin is being referred to he often used dissonance, and ugly sounds, yet when more holy thoughts and ideas are being communicated his music reflects the message of the words.

Ayesha, don't feel like you cannot contribute to the discussion because you can't sound scholarly. You make a great point. Ultimately it does come down to the musician's heart, and no matter how good or bad they are many times their motives will shine through and destroy the beauty or hide the mistakes. Unfortunately many "High" church proponents do seem to have a superiority complex. I myself love listening to High Church Music and find myself greatly blessed when listening to Handel's Messiah, or the St. Matthew Passion. I am very sympathetic to Bach's view of church music, being that one should write and perform the absolute best music they can because it is being done for the glory of God. However, I also understand that very few people understand the language of Bach's music, and while I hope to teach them to understand it someday, I do not feel it is appropriate to use in a church service because it will not communicate to most people.

One of the main purposes for music in the church is assist people in worshiping God.

Greg, While I do not agree with everything you have written on this subject (specifically the superiority of modern music to the classical music period, I see neither as superior they are different and both beautiful in their own ways and they each have their time and place.) I have greatly appreciated reading what you have written. This is unfortunately an area where few Christians of the conservative bend have put serious thought into. I attended the same college (later than you) as you and had some of the same teachers. Keep up the good work with your music and your blog.

---

Danny Gardner
10/20/2009 10:38:27 PM

Very interesting comment Vaughn. I'd like to apologize for giving the impression that the amorality of the C major chord proves that all music is amoral. Thank you.

---

Vaughn
10/21/2009 4:34:43 PM

Danny, I hope I didn't seem too antagonistic when I replied to you; you seem to have taken it in the right spirit. I sometimes get frustrated when I see both sides of the issue using arguments that don't make sense. I myself am having a difficult time deciding exactly where I fall in the whole thing. I know that I do not agree with either side in many ways. Thanks for not allowing my too rough of a rebuttal from letting you understand what I was saying.

---

Michael Baldwin
11/10/2009 11:52:08 PM

Greg-I have to say that I'm in overall agreement with just about everything you have said here. I also appreciate the thoughtfulness and humility with which you approach this subject. Those elements are often absent in these discussions as we sometimes attempt to state dogma without biblical foundation. I only want to add that many people make value judgments through the prism of their personal experiences. When music is "performed" in proper context, ie, to glorify God, to edify the listeners and participants, in a spirit of excellence as described in Ps. 33:3, my experience has been that it tends to change the opinions that some may have previously held concerning tonality, rhythm, style, even a particular instrument. Therefore, I've learned to operate, musically and in all aspects of life, within the specifications of what the Bible DOES say rather than in what it does not. Keep up the good work my friend!

---

Leave a Comment
All comments are reviewed for offensive content or spam. Your email is required but never used.

Name:
Website:
Email:
	Please email me follow up comments to this post.
Comment:	Note that HTML is not allowed, but your name will be linked to your site.
Verify Code: