Turning a blind eye

Filed in Thoughts on April 19, 2009



I am a conservative musician and am proud to be so.  I do not like much that is being written in the CCM movement.  Besides other problems with the movement, I am quite sure that its contributions are usually not great or even very good music. 

That being said, we on the conservative side have our problems too and our music is not exactly setting the world on fire either.  Today, I will tell you one of the reasons I think that is the case.

I was recently talking to someone about a song that was written in the 1600's.  He was asking why the song seemed awkward and I told him that the reason was because the chord progressions were not normal.  The jumps between chords were not typical and sounded strange.  He then mentioned that he thought the strangeness was just because we are too used to "modern harmony."

Actually, his theory is dead wrong for the most part.  Yes, we are used to certain progressions today, but there is a good reason why those progressions are used.  It is because of what has been discovered about music since the 1600's.  The reason why certain modern progressions sound better than others is because they ARE better than others. 

Now, in some circles, that previous statement would get me run out of town very quickly.  But let me explain the reason I make such a bold statement.

Music is like medicine, technology, science or any similar discipline.  These things are not really invented--they are discovered and the discovery continues to this day.  And while we applaud the early pioneers of any discipline, we are certainly not naive enough to believe that the pioneers knew more than we do about their disciplines.  That is not to say that today's scientists and doctors are smarter, but they certainly know more information.

The Wright brothers were great inventors and they deserve their place in history.  But could they have built a Boeing 777?  Did they understand the physics of flight like thousands of engineers do today?  Of course not.

The same example could be made of Henry Ford or Louis Pasteur or any other of the great people who have led us to discoveries in technology or medicine. 

For some reason, some of us do not think about music in this way.  That is very strange because any cursory scan of a music history book clearly shows that music has developed over the centuries just like other disciplines.  I will not go into the history here, but suffice it to say that harmony (polyphony) was not even really discovered and used until roughly 1000 years ago.  In the 1600's, most musicians were frankly not very good at it which is why we do not spend much time today listening or performing music from before Bach. 

So we have this strange phenomenon going on where great musicians of the past are considered untouchable and their works to be unimprovable.  Anyone that does criticize their work is considered arrogant.  That is naive and I am quite certain that if those musicians were alive today, they would fall over laughing at the idea.  Suggesting that is the case would be as silly as suggesting that an engineer accept something that Orville Wright wrote about aerodynamics over the results of a few hundred modern studies that contradict him.  Would it be arrogant to trust our studies more than Orville?  Of course not.

Besides being a silly notion, that kind of thinking leads us down a path of being too slow to accept improvement in music.  If we unnaturally value older music and are slow to accept new music, we miss out on the developments in harmony during the 20th Century which are rich and valuable.  We also miss out of rhythmic innovation that is far more sophisticated than music of the past.

And so that brings us to the place where our music is pretty dull in some ways--trailing the more progressive elements of Christianity by 20 to 30 years and the rest of the world by considerably more.

So how should we view Bach and other great church musicians?  We should view them as heros who should be studied and admired.  We should appreciate their contributions to the discovery of music.  There should be museums in their honor. 

But just as visiting a museum is not an everyday event, don't feel bad if you don't like listening to Bach or Handel every day.  The discovery of music has moved far past those men and while they were instrumental in that discovery, music is bigger than any of them.

And don't be too skeptical of modern advances in music unless there is a good reason to be.  The reality is that even the most conservative among us will eventually accept and welcome today's innovation.  It is just a matter of when.  Refusing to accept good innovation quickly is a sure way to keep a damper on the quality of the music coming from our circles.

 



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.


Beth K.
4/20/2009 8:41:48 AM

Now you have done it. Did you have to offend the Bach zealots? Take off your shoes before stepping on holy ground.

No seriously, you are exactly right though there is a lot of disagreement about this. Some people feel like there is something wrong with them because they do not like Bach as if that means they have unrefined taste. It is good for them to know they are actually OK.

---

Greg Howlett
4/20/2009 9:31:19 AM

Well, I am not trying to convince Bach zealots. That would be a waste of time. I am just trying to talk to the more typical musicians and music lovers. I do agree with you that people are made to feel like there is something wrong with them if they do not like old music.

---

Jorge Kling
4/20/2009 11:19:45 AM

I do not understand how you can say that CCM is bad and then at the end say that we should accept innovation. Isn't CCM the result of that innovation or am I missing something?

---

Danny Gardner
4/20/2009 12:11:00 PM

Honestly I've never really heard great, innovative music come from CCM. Infact in more than one song I was very surprised at how overly basic the chord voicings could be. Albeit I haven't really studied them (CCM) as a whole or listened to tons of their music so my opinion isn't as educated as it could be. Thanks for the post Mr. Howlett.

---

Greg Howlett
4/20/2009 1:40:23 PM

While CCM is new, it is largely poorly done imitations of pop music. While there is some innovation in pop, most of it is horrible. So, when I say we should accept innovation, I am referring to other genres such as 20th century classical, jazz, and well written standards including movie music and Broadway. I am not saying all of the above are appropriate for church but they all have elements that we can use.

There are some good writers in Christian music including but not limited to Pepper Choplin, Mark Hayes, Joseph Martin, and others. I am scared to start naming because I will forget to include some. These writers are all good because they have accepted innovation from the past century. It is stamped all over their music.

---

Ayesha
4/20/2009 2:25:46 PM

Very interesting topic-please keep these discussions coming! I am learning so much from Mr. Howlett & the comments, as well. I am an amateur & have lots of unanswered questions. Here's one-- What genre is Brooklyn Tabernacle's "Thou, Oh Lord"? Is it ccm, gospel, urban/contemporary gospel etc? I like this song & a 'few' others from "Carol Cymbala" , but was wondering just what genre it belonged to. Its repeated here, that ccm is not so innovative-- in plain terms( for an amateur like me) makes that so? How does ccm differ from other Christian genres (gospel or urban contemporary)? You can listen/watch this song on youtube.

---

Greg Howlett
4/20/2009 6:10:01 PM

Brooklyn Tab probably is considered CCM but their music is far better than almost anything in CCM. Also, I was not including gospel in CCM but consider it to be the most innovative church music around at the moment.

There are many genres in CCM, but when I think of what is popular in mainstream CCM these days, it is pretty bad. Awkward and simplistic chord progressions, silly rhythm, bad performance and so on.

To me, innovative refers to being current in our understanding of music and pushing the boundaries beyond our current understanding. In other words, writing music that is unique and sophisticated rather than just following the old paradigms of the past.

---

Ayesha
4/20/2009 8:22:18 PM

Thanks for that thorough explanation. I find that most of the CCM on my local radio station dominated by very bland lyrics (my opinion). When I finish your course & become more advanced--I would like to try my hand at writing & arranging. --Thus, my interest in this topic. I have a lot to learn.

---

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: