Another appetizer for the upcoming big music question

Filed in Music Philosophy on August 01, 2009



I mentioned last week that I am going to dive into the question of whether music has objective standards of right or wrong or even objective standards of excellence.  I am not ready to start that discussion, but I read something today that made me laugh and I just can't resist talking about it.

A blogger who considers himself a conservative church musicologist put out a short post recommending a list of instrumental music CDs as appropriate for times when you just want some relaxing music playing. The list contained a soundtrack from a movie that apparently has nudity in it.

A commenter then challenged this conservative musicologist as to why he would recommend a soundtrack from a movie that is full of graphic nudity.  The musicologist said that he was unaware of the content of the movie but was instead judging the music on its intrinsic value. 

When further challenged, he said that he judged whether the (instrumental) music itself communicates messages that are noble.  However, he never even attempted to explain how certain elements of the music communicated noble messages.

I am hopefully being vague enough where you cannot identify the blogger because first of all, I don't want to attack him, and secondly, I really don't want you going to his site to be influenced by him.  But I found the exchange humorous because it so typically represents the music debate in Christian circles today.

Here is how it goes:

Music Expert: You should not listen to that music because it is wrong.

Casual LIstener: Why?  There are no words so how can the music be wrong?

Music Expert: Because the music itself is immoral.  It communicates immoral values rather than noble values.

Casual Listener: How do you know this?

Music Expert: Because I have evaluated it and there are elements that I recognize that lead me to my conclusion.

Casual Listener: What are those elements?

Music Expert: (Silence)

At that point, the casual listener goes away unconvinced and the music expert is frustrated because he was unable to convince.

Now, I want to throw out some suggestions on why the Music Expert does not provide the technical analysis that would back up his case.  But before I do, I have to make an obvious observation.  In today's world, nobody is going to just take his word for it.  Thirty years ago, perhaps, but not today.  People are looking for more substance to arguments and "Because I said so" is not substance.

What kind of substance do we need?  We need specifics about why a certain rhythm, chord progression, interval, melody line, form, or any other element in music is either moral or immoral.  And getting those specifics from these Music Experts is like pulling teeth.

So why am I not seeing Music Experts willing to provide any substance to support their judgments about the intrinsic value of music?  Here are my guesses.

1) Because the Music Expert does not know what he is talking about.  In other words, the emperor has no clothes.

2) Because the Music Expert thinks that the evaluation is too technical for the common listener to understand. 

3) Because the Music Expert is worried that if he does give his criteria, he is going to open himself up to looking silly because his criteria is indefensible.

4) Because the Music Expert has an attitude that he is an expert and does not need to explain his criteria to people that do not possess his level of knowledge.

5) Because the Music Expert does not want to argue tedious details but rather wants to focus on the overriding message.

I sense that all of these factors come into play at some point or another.  But whether the intentions are noble or not, Music Experts are going to have to change their strategy if they want to have any hope of convincing people. 

Some of them have things worth saying and I sympathize with their dilemma.  Music is a serious business. 



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.


Phil McPherson
8/1/2009 1:27:29 PM

Well, I think you make a good point. I have been watching the music wars for about as long as they have gone on I guess. But the difference now is that no one gets specific like they used to. Back many years ago, there were a lot of specifics used. Like backbeats are wrong, slurring notes is wrong, holding the microphone is wrong. But I think as many people have come to see that those specifics are silly if not laughable, it is made today's conservative experts gun shy.

In other words, they are not ready to put out their specifics because they think that everyone will just laugh at them.

---

Greg
8/1/2009 6:27:23 PM

Phil,

I think you are on to something there. I remember the music experts getting very specific back when I was in grade school. In fact, I remember being scared to listen to some kinds of music while working out because I had been told that music with a backbeat worked against the heart and made you weak.

---

Paul
8/3/2009 6:15:35 PM

In my opinion you have attacked him and by not naming him you do not afford your readers the opportunity to evaluate the validity of your criticism.
Guess we should just take your word for it. I think it would be interesting for your readers to compare your qualifications to expound on music issues with that of the blogger in question. They might also like to compare the quality of the material on his website with yours.

---

Greg
8/3/2009 6:48:01 PM

Well, I am walking a fine line here Paul, because I like good debate but don't want it to get ugly. So, I am going to stick with attacking the problem rather than naming the person.

Just curious. What do you consider worthy qualifications for expounding on music issues? Because I might be in trouble with no music degree (well, actually I do have a music minor from an unaccredited college)!

The question of qualifications is actually a critical one.

---

Paul
8/4/2009 6:02:56 PM

One qualification I particularly admire is the ability to state another viewpoint accurately and fairly even when you disagree with it.

---

Greg
8/4/2009 6:26:40 PM

Paul,

I always appreciate people commenting here positive or negative. So go ahead and make your point. If I have not fairly represented the side you are on, do it for me. I am truly interested in understanding the position that I am guessing you hold.

---

Paul
8/5/2009 2:52:47 PM

I have read material from the blogger you reference. He is educated in the music field. He supports his conservative views with biblical, philosophical, and musical arguments. He treats more progressive views with respect. I think his views are worthy of respectful consideration as are yours. I look forward to the coming discussion of your views.

---

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: