| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Shawni
29, California
Posts: 652
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Nov 29, 05 1:59 pm |
  |
|
As a music student at a secular school, I put up with quite a bit of craziness regarding "post modern" type music... John Cage and the like - you know what I'm talking about right? I can't stand the stuff but dealing with teachers who regard basically any sound as legitimate music made me rethink some of my views of music in general. I wanted to ask y'all what your thoughts are on some of the questions I grappled/am grappling with.
First of all, what do you define music as? What's the difference between music and "noise"? Can something be music to one person and not to another?
Do you think there are kinds of music (I'm talking instrumental here) that are inherently good or bad, either morally or asthetically? If so, what makes it good or bad? Do standards of what is good or bad change with time? location?
Do lyrics "make or break" music? Can good lyrics "justify" otherwise lousy music? Do bad lyrics always "un-justify" otherwise good music? Do you decide what music you listen to predominantly by what the lyrics are?
Are there kinds of music you feel are wrong for you personally to listen to, but might be okay for others (morally)? Why do we (humanity) tend to consider whatever is new or unusual to be "wrong" or "sinful" (I'm thinking here about how we progressed from considering the tritone to be "of the devil" and being allowed to use only certain intervals in music on up to where we are now - it seems the new has always been questioned.)
Okay, this is getting WAAAAY too long. I think that's enough to get things started! I'll post some of my own thoughts on all these questions later!
|
Jim K. (OFC)
48, Les Paul Country, WI
Posts: 2131
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 05 3:08 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | I can't stand the stuff but dealing with teachers who regard basically any sound as legitimate music made me rethink some of my views of music in general. |
There's a fellow somewhere, I forget where exactly, who creates "artistic" paintings by standing in the blast of a jet engine, throwing paint up into the blast and having it land on a canvas. Obviously somebody's buying his work or he wouldn't be doing it. Is it art or is it riding the waves of happenchance? I tend to lean toward the latter and I think it's probably closely akin to the whole, "Any sound is legitimate music" idea. By that logic, 5 guys could eat 3 bean burritos each, gather in a recording studio a couple of hours later and record the results. If they survived the session, would someone buy the recording? Probably every 14 year old boy on the planet would line up to buy a copy but is it music? Is it art?
I would define music, as well as art in general, as a creative endeavor that has purpose and direction. Whereas "noise" is random clatter of sound, "music" is taking elements and arranging them into something meaningful and ultimately beautiful (or perhaps not beautiful, if the message you are trying to convey is a comment on the ugly side of life). Now, post-modern thinking tends to shy away from purpose and direction in sort of an "anything goes" mentality because after all, who's to say what's right? If I say chaos is order and you say order is chaos, who gets to be the tiebreaker? Truth has become a casualty of post-modern thought and as a result, you end up with music, as well as a lot of other creative endeavors, that seem pointless, chaotic and weird. You can't make any sense of it. Some people thrive on it. I don't.
Christians have come up with any number of criteria in an effort to define "good" music and "bad" music. Entire ministries have been built around the attempt to define "right" and "wrong" music as though God has given them special insight on the matter. Invariably, I run across these folks and I wonder how much of what they have come to believe and teach regarding music is solidly biblically centered and how much of it rests in cultural or personal preference. Some are fairly dogmatic, for example, that the "correct" beat emphasis in 4/4 time is on the first and third beats, not the second and fourth as is common in modern music. How they came up with that bit of reasoning is unclear to me but by gum, that's how it is! The church I formerly attended took that one to heart and changed all the worship music so that the percussion emphasized beat 1 and 3 and it just sounded odd. You can't make every song sound like Pomp and Circumstance and expect it to work!
Some have attempted to go to the Word and come up with a definitive guideline as to what is acceptable music but how are they supposed to define it? The Bible doesn't have and written music we can use as a standard so why are people acting as though it does? I mean really, how does Psalm 23 go? I'm supposed to sing it, right? So what are the notes? Tempo? Dynamics? I don't know and obviously God didn't see fit to try and let us in on it. All we are left with are the words which ultimately carry the meaning of that psalm.
In terms of defining instrumental music as "good" or "bad" in the moral sense (not just in the sense of what sounds good), I think you have to look at a number of factors and draw your conclusions accordingly. I won't attempt to delve into that aspect of it at this late hour but suffice it to say, I think you can safely draw some lines somewhere but not solely on the basis of personal preference. Music is subject to preference just like food is subject to preference. I don't like squid. That doesn't make it bad food, just food that I don't care for. Certain kinds of music just grate on me but that fact alone isn't enough for me to be able to condemn the music itself.
| Quote: | | Do lyrics "make or break" music? Can good lyrics "justify" otherwise lousy music? Do bad lyrics always "un-justify" otherwise good music? Do you decide what music you listen to predominantly by what the lyrics are? |
Lyrics can be a deal breaker for me on a song. The lyrical content of a song is much easier to evaluate objectively in terms of content and meaning than is pure musical content. For example, if you have a song with the lyrics, "I'm gonna get drunk and slap my grandmother", I don't care how beautiful the music is, the lyrics kill the song. I have heard beautiful songs with doctrinally aberrant lyrics that make me reject the song despite its musical beauty. By the same token, however, there are doctrinally/lyrically solid songs that are arranged in a dull, lifeless, uninteresting manner that make me not want to listen because they are lyrically beautiful and musically anesthetic. It is also possible to have beautiful lyrical content spoiled by an inappropriate arrangement. Consider the song, "How Beautiful" by Twila Paris (think everyone knows that one) as a disco remix. Think it would fly? I think not. So to answer your question, bad lyrical content does not salvage a beautiful melody for me, nor do the best lyrics make up for a crummy arrangement. I evaluate songs on the basis of both lyrical and musical content.
Maybe we can come up with a few characteristics of good and bad music and bat them around a bit. Out of steam for tonight.
Blessings,
Jim K.
|
Andrew Plett
28, Salem, Oregon
Posts: 1501
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 01, 05 9:38 am |
|
|
Good posts Jim & Ellie!
Deep topic!
First, a definition:
MU'SIC, n. s as z. [L. musica.]
1. Melody or harmony; any succession of sounds so modulated as to please the ear, or any combination of simultaneous sounds in accordance or harmony.
| Ellie wrote: | | Do you think there are kinds of music (I'm talking instrumental here) that are inherently good or bad, either morally or asthetically? If so, what makes it good or bad? Do standards of what is good or bad change with time? location? |
Possibly....I know there is some music, like Schönberg's that is so grating to my ears that I just won't listen to it. As to types of instrumental music that are morally wrong, I can't say.
| Ellie wrote: | | Do lyrics "make or break" music? Can good lyrics "justify" otherwise lousy music? Do bad lyrics always "un-justify" otherwise good music? Do you decide what music you listen to predominantly by what the lyrics are? |
Bad lyrics can hurt a song....I just bought a recording of some Scottish traditional music, which I usually like, and there are some songs on there with immoral lyrics but nice tunes that I won't listen to. Conversely there are many songs with an uninteresting melodic structure that have great lyrics, and are thus better for it.
| Ellie wrote: | | Are there kinds of music you feel are wrong for you personally to listen to, but might be okay for others (morally)? Why do we (humanity) tend to consider whatever is new or unusual to be "wrong" or "sinful" (I'm thinking here about how we progressed from considering the tritone to be "of the devil" and being allowed to use only certain intervals in music on up to where we are now - it seems the new has always been questioned.) |
Generally I think morality of music is pretty much a constant, if it's wrong for one person, it's wrong for everyone. However, I think that a lot of people's resistance to new music is the harmony is different to what they're used to. I remember when I first started playing Rennaisance music, their use of semitones was very jarring.
Take for example Greensleeves (What Child is This). The Original Version has notes in there that, to the modern ear, don't sound 'right'. So in our hymnals, etc., we've changed it to a more 'pleasing' sound in the New Version. When I first heard the Original version, I was shocked! But now, after playing rennaisance music for many years, the 'original' is the correct one for me, and my ear revolts whenever I hear the 'new' version. Funny, huh?
|
Shawni
29, California
Posts: 652
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 04, 05 10:38 pm |
|
|
Thanks for the posts, Jim and AP/ Pippin/ Pizzicato/ whateveryournameistoday! 
Jim:
I was hoping you'd respond, because I knew you were a musician, and I really get a lot out of your posts.
| Quote: | | I would define music, as well as art in general, as a creative endeavor that has purpose and direction. Whereas "noise" is random clatter of sound, "music" is taking elements and arranging them into something meaningful and ultimately beautiful (or perhaps not beautiful, if the message you are trying to convey is a comment on the ugly side of life). |
I agree with you, but I still have a hard time finding the difference when it comes down to specifics. My theory teacher in college was a post-modern composer, and he spent lots and lots of time on his compositions - they were at least meant to be "meaningful" in that he had an idea or emotion or something he was trying to convey. But I absolutly did not find it pleasing to my ears. I heard one particular piece of his several times, and he explained the meaning behind it, and I tried to appreciate whatever was there, but I couldn't. There was something missing and I still can't quite put my finger on it. I don't think it's only beauty (which is a rather subjective adjective anyway) because I do enjoy some kinds of music that I don't necessarily find "beautiful."
| Quote: | | If I say chaos is order and you say order is chaos, who gets to be the tiebreaker? |
Very good point. I think it really is the denial of objective truth that has given birth to much of the chaotic, beauty-less "music" around today. Yet, several hundred years ago, much of the music that I find enjoyable now would probably have been considered outlandish and distasteful, just as I find post-modern music so distasteful. I just can't quite get a handle on the distinction between not liking music because of it being unfamiliar (as Andrew mentioned in his post) or because of it really being inferior musically. I don't know quite how to put it, but do you understand what I mean?
I could comment a lot more on your post but I want to get to Andrew's briefly before I have to go...
Andrew:
| Quote: | | 1. Melody or harmony; any succession of sounds so modulated as to please the ear, or any combination of simultaneous sounds in accordance or harmony. |
I find that interesting. Does the point of a piece of music really have to be "to please the ear" in order to be legitimate music? If so, the "music" of my teacher mentioned above would not be true music. His goal was definitely NOT to "please the ear." In fact, his goal was to jolt and cause discomfort in some cases. And of course, what pleases some ears doesn't please others... Oh my, it feels like I'm going round and round in circles with this!! Sorry for my rambling, everybody.
| Quote: | | I know there is some music, like Schönberg's that is so grating to my ears that I just won't listen to it. |
Schonberg was one of the composers I had in mind when typing up my questions. His music grates on my ears too... quite dreadfully! But you know what? I've heard some kinds of folk music - I'm thinking of a certain style from Japan - that I find absolutly as grating. Shonberg's music was "intentionally random" and therefore probably wouldn't match up with the definition above; but the folk music from Japan would. So maybe it's not just the intention behind the music that makes it "good"...
I've gotta run!
|
Jim K. (OFC)
48, Les Paul Country, WI
Posts: 2131
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 05 2:07 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | I agree with you, but I still have a hard time finding the difference when it comes down to specifics. My theory teacher in college was a post-modern composer, and he spent lots and lots of time on his compositions - they were at least meant to be "meaningful" in that he had an idea or emotion or something he was trying to convey. But I absolutly did not find it pleasing to my ears. I heard one particular piece of his several times, and he explained the meaning behind it, and I tried to appreciate whatever was there, but I couldn't. There was something missing and I still can't quite put my finger on it. I don't think it's only beauty (which is a rather subjective adjective anyway) because I do enjoy some kinds of music that I don't necessarily find "beautiful." |
Any artistic endeavor that becomes esoteric or off the wall runs the risk of having its content get muddled or masked, the result being that the messsage is lost. I remember seeing Rich Mullins one year and he had a group with them called, "This Train". They played several songs but they were so loud and the sound mix was so bad that you could not understand word one of what they were singing. So whatever the message was, it was lost in the thundering rumble. I wanted to appreciate the music but to me it was three odd guys playing really loud and having a great time. It was fun to watch for a short time but it sure didn't speak to me in any meaningful terms.
As an artist you have to be true to who and what you are but at the same time you have to consider your target audience. If they don't "get" what you are about or what you're trying to say in your art, the message gets lost in the shuffle and that's what your professor probably does not realize. On the other hand, and this might sound a little simplistic and obvious, but maybe the reason you couldn't find anything to appreciate about it is because you were listening to the musical equivalent of the emporer's new clothes. Maybe there just wasn't anything to find. Not every piece of art is good!
Blessings,
Jim K.
|
Brian
28, Oregon
Posts: 1983
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 05 1:36 pm |
|
|
Maybe music could be compared to languages; it is a method of communication, and if it is so hard to understand or grasp, it is just noise to you?
For example, There are quite a few immigrants from mexico and russia here, and although I know a little spanish, most of the time I can't pick up any of it at all, and so it is just a background noise to me. Even more so with russian.
Now with German, I know a little bit more of that, so when I hear it being spoken, while I can't understand it fully, I can sort of grasp what is being said.
And then with English, I understand it completly, so I can pretty much fully understand what is being communicated.
Of course, with music, the communication isn't exactly as clear, but you can still get an impression of what the composer was trying to communicate. This is easiest with programmatic music, and music with words, I think.
|
Shawni
29, California
Posts: 652
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 05 3:01 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | On the other hand, and this might sound a little simplistic and obvious, but maybe the reason you couldn't find anything to appreciate about it is because you were listening to the musical equivalent of the emporer's new clothes. |
Haha! That's the exact way I described it to my family - I felt like I was the little boy watching the parade and everyone was admiring the emporer's new clothes, and I was going, "What clothes???" 
| Quote: | | Maybe music could be compared to languages; it is a method of communication, and if it is so hard to understand or grasp, it is just noise to you? |
I like that analogy. But, would it follow that, if I can just "learn the language", I will then enjoy the music? I really don't think that, in any circumstance, no matter what I "understood" or didn't understand, I could ever find enjoyment John Cage's 4'33"...
|
Brian
28, Oregon
Posts: 1983
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 05 3:11 pm |
|
|
| Quote: |
I like that analogy. But, would it follow that, if I can just "learn the language", I will then enjoy the music? I really don't think that, in any circumstance, no matter what I "understood" or didn't understand, I could ever find enjoyment John Cage's 4'33"... |
What?? you don't like 4'33"??? I love that piece!  Especially the 2nd part, where it goes really fast!  (joking)
Maybe that piece is just gibberish, like asdfasdlfkjaeosrtijdgf, and isn't meant to mean anything. I don't know [/quote]
|
Shawni
29, California
Posts: 652
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 05 3:21 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | What?? you don't like 4'33"??? I love that piece! Especially the 2nd part, where it goes really fast! (joking) |
I don't like the key it's played in.
|
Jim K. (OFC)
48, Les Paul Country, WI
Posts: 2131
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 05 4:05 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | I really don't think that, in any circumstance, no matter what I "understood" or didn't understand, I could ever find enjoyment John Cage's 4'33"... |
Had to look that one up on the net. I had heard of it before, just didn't know it had a name! Now I want you to read this next paragraph very carefully and glean all of the insight and wisdom you can. It is vital, and one day you'll thank me for sharing it with you.
Remember it well.
Blessings,
Jim K.
|
Brian
28, Oregon
Posts: 1983
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 05 6:08 pm |
|
|
Wow Jim, that was really profound! That made my day!
BTW: anyone know where I can get a recording of this piece? For some reason it is really hard to find a copy of this momumental work!
|
Andrew Plett
28, Salem, Oregon
Posts: 1501
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 05 6:16 pm |
|
|
| Brian wrote: | Wow Jim, that was really profound! That made my day!
BTW: anyone know where I can get a recording of this piece? For some reason it is really hard to find a copy of this momumental work! |
I've practiced it a bit....I can make a recording of it tonight, if you want.... 
|
Jim K. (OFC)
48, Les Paul Country, WI
Posts: 2131
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 05, 05 8:21 pm |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've practiced it a bit....I can make a recording of it tonight, if you want.... |
The big question is... where do you set the levels?
Jim K.
|
Shawni
29, California
Posts: 652
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 06, 05 9:34 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | I've practiced it a bit....I can make a recording of it tonight, if you want.... |
My problem is, I always lose my place... 
That was great advise Jim! I'll remember that! (It actually did help me get perspective on this whole discussion. I'm really beginning to like the language analogy...  )
|
Jennifer
31, 39?, -105?
Posts: 1885
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 12, 06 6:03 pm |
|
|
| Shawni wrote: |
First of all, what do you define music as? What's the difference between music and "noise"? Can something be music to one person and not to another?
|
I don't really try to define it - but if you take a collection of sounds that most people call musics, and a collection of say - traffic noise - everybody knows the difference. I don't try to define it more than that. Although we may playfully (or not so playfully) refer to music we don't like as "noise," once again I think we all know the difference. And, of course, we often have very different tastes.
| Shawni wrote: |
Do you think there are kinds of music (I'm talking instrumental here) that are inherently good or bad, either morally or asthetically? If so, what makes it good or bad? Do standards of what is good or bad change with time? location?
|
Well, country is pretty bad, but that's just my opinion...
I don't really think so - though a quick read through some of the hot topics on Homeschool Alumni will show that others do think so - and I think that the tendency to classify certain music as bad or good does change with time and location.
| Shawni wrote: |
Do lyrics "make or break" music? Can good lyrics "justify" otherwise lousy music? Do bad lyrics always "un-justify" otherwise good music? Do you decide what music you listen to predominantly by what the lyrics are?
|
Generally speaking I do make many decisions based on lyrics - however, I would take two cases and make some generalizations from them:
1) Instrumental music - since there are no lyrics obviously there is something deeper going on. So, for those who say that "lyrics are the bottom line" - I think they are poets and not musicians.
2) International Music - (the Numa Numa Song, Italian opera, etc...) since I don't understand the lyrics, once again something deeper is going on.
So - now that we've established that music DOES communicate, we have to ask what sort of things it communicates and whether these are good or bad. I would argue that music conveys emotion. Personally, I don't think that emotions are intrinsically good or evil - I think it's in the context. There is a time to laugh and a time to cry, a time for peace and a time for war, etc, etc... Of course, you can have the wrong emotions for a given situation, such as laughing at a funeral, or feeling definace towards your parents. However, in my experience, the emotions created by music are rather abstract - the singer/songwriter may apply them to a specific situation, but that situation is unlikely to exist in my life. I may or may not apply the resulting emotions to specific situations in my life, and when I do I may or may not apply them correctly.
Although I often enjoy listening to instrumental music, as a singer I get alot more out of music with lyrics - but sometimes I sing songs that I don't really even know what the words are (I'm just guessing), or I don't know what they mean (either a foreign language or they simply don't make sense to me) - and in this way, even if I know what the words mean, I can sing without agreeing or even thinking about the meaning. So, I think that lyrics are really something completely separate from music - though they can get in the way, cause problems, be distracting, etc. In that sense I find that offensive lyrics can often ruin an otherwise good song.
| Shawni wrote: |
Are there kinds of music you feel are wrong for you personally to listen to, but might be okay for others (morally)? Why do we (humanity) tend to consider whatever is new or unusual to be "wrong" or "sinful" (I'm thinking here about how we progressed from considering the tritone to be "of the devil" and being allowed to use only certain intervals in music on up to where we are now - it seems the new has always been questioned.)
|
There is no music that I feel is wrong for me personally to listen to - though there certainly is music that I don't enjoy listening to. It may, however, be wrong for me to encourage others to listen to certain music or to perform/sing certain songs under certain (even most) circumstances.
|
|
|
