Showing newest posts with label Philosophy. Show older posts

I have insisted in previous discussions regarding music (elsewhere) that context is critically important to determining the moral value of a given piece of music, and in those discussions, it has become clear to me that some have assumed that the context relates only to the actual performance (whether live or recorded) of the music. However, this is just a small portion of "contexts" that must be considered in evaluating any musical communication.

Music is often spoken of as a disconnected thing, fixed in time and space, even by those who have a high view of it. They parse every note, every rhythm, and every harmony, evaluating the parts to see if it is “good” or “bad.” In this way music is deconstructed according to the various rules that have become accepted by that particular community. I first noticed this in a college music theory class, when it became clear that music theory was simply a bunch of general rules that describe (as opposed to prescribe) characteristics of “good” music.

This became increasingly clear as we analyzed various pieces. Occasionally, some great composer would break one of the “rules,” and I remember asking the professor why Bach would break a “rule.” I got two answers: 1.) He probably thought it sounded good and 2.) You aren’t Bach so don’t bother trying. In that class, our compositions were never judged on the basis of the first answer, “Does this sound good.” Instead, they were evaluated on the basis of whether we followed the rules of music theory.

Now, before we proceed, I do think this was a valuable and necessary part of my own musical growth for one important reason: I am not Bach. (This will become instantly apparent to anyone who hears my music.) So when I break the rules, it always seems to sound wrong. In any case, the practical result was that, for our class, the rules became prescriptive rather than descriptive, and in this way, the communicative aspect of music was divorced from the whole music-making process. While this was important to help our class as we were learning to make music, it wasn’t where musical composition was supposed to stop. Sadly, some people never make the transition out of this laboratory context.

Especially in some conservative circles, there are those who approach the issues surrounding morality in music from this same clinical, arbitrary, and disconnected perspective; they seek to evaluate the moral content of music on the basis of intrinsic qualities found only in the music. In the process they end up proposing some sort of a musical taxonomy that can be followed if a composer would like to make “godly” music; the result is that they are really offering an additional set of music-theory rules. The only difference is that the rules have become moral absolutes, and their music theory has practically been elevated to be equivalent to revelation.

In order to establish intrinsic morality in music, we must be able to establish that a given tone and rhythm pattern communicates the same emotion universally and that the communicated emotion is universally immoral. Some have taken up this challenge to demonstrate this, but it is interesting that the Bible is amazingly silent on this matter. As a result, they are left with a convoluted mess of philosophical ramblings and elitist pronouncements. Not only does this approach ultimately undermine the authority of Scripture, it also approaches the whole question from the wrong perspective.

Those who study language understand that one key element that is required in learning a language is to be able to catch the “music” of the language. All languages have a kind of music, where the rising and falling of tones determine the nature of the communication. For example, the words, “I love you” can be spoken to express a question, a statement, or even the exact opposite of what might be thought upon a bare reading of the words. This is one reason that musical aptitude is a good indicator or skill in language. So, if we consider the topic carefully, speaking itself could be viewed as a form of music! This is one reason that Joan Pinkston defines singing as, “Speaking at a high emotional level.”

So we should be able to establish that music is first and foremost a mode and means of emotional communication, rather than some arbitrary sequence of sounds, and we should be able to recognize that the Bible doesn’t really address music in any isolated sense. We can also understand that since music is nearly always presented as some form of communication, we should reject any method of musical evaluation that bypasses principles of communication.

Now, in the past, some have concluded that since I oppose the idea that music is inherently moral or immoral, I must believe that it isn’t an important issue, but that would entirely miss my point. I think music is incredibly important and that we must be very careful both with what we communicate and how we communicate it. The reason is that once music is used, it takes on a moral component, and there are four essential categories that need to be considered when evaluating the morality of a given communication:

* Agent - the person who intends to communicate.
* Agency - the means the agent uses to communicate.
* Audience - the person(s) who are the recipient of the communication.
* Occasion - the venue and timing of the communication.

Each of these can be expressed in terms of “context” for a given communication and all four must be included in any evaluation. In addressing each of these contexts, we are really trying to establish whether a given communication is acceptable in that particular context. To help us along the way, we can answer four questions with an abundance of Biblical principles:

* Is this communication appropriately expressed by this person?
* Is this communication appropriately in this manner and by this means?
* Is this communication appropriate for the edification of the human audience and for the glory of God?
* Is this communication appropriate for the occasion, timing, and venue in which it is given?

The upshot of this approach is that there is no cut-and-dried rules that govern the emotional / musical element of communication. There is no way to Biblically eliminate the use of particular instruments in all situations. Even worse, to some, is that issues of rhythm, harmony, and melodic expression are also left in a somewhat arbitrary state. This often causes some significant angst for those who believe that contemporary Christian music is operating without regard to Biblical principles. (I would agree and include most conservative music in this category as well.) The issue has become so emotionalized and political that reasonable discussion on the topic is almost entirely ruled out, regardless of which side you are addressing.

Perhaps in the future, we can deal with each of the four questions above, and the corresponding Biblical principles that would govern the answers. However, there are at least three principles that cover them all: 1.) Get self out of the way as far as possible, 2.) Love God in every action and thought, and 3.) Love others. All other principles will flow out of these.

What follows, in the first part of this post, is a little background that is hopelessly general, but it is needed to provide a framework for the point that follows. Please bear with me…

Postmodern philosophy has permeated our society, and it is often a favorite punching bag for Christian thinkers, who long for the more concrete days of modernism. It is interesting, though, to remember that modernism was no friend of Christian faith. In fact, I would contend that a postmodern society is better equipped to hear the gospel than a thoroughly modern one. I can hear the swelling cry, “But…Postmodernism denies that there is truth.” The truth is that this statement isn’t entirely true.

It is probably more accurate to say that Postmodernism is skeptical regarding any ability to faithfully understand and communicate that truth. To a postmodernist, a thing may be absolutely true (though some do even doubt this), however, once it is comprehended or communicated, that truth can be (some would say “is”) hopelessly obscured mainly by culture, language, and perspective. In this way, all communication is seen as, at best, an approximation of the individual’s perception of truth. These views show up in the study of linguistic communication, where the text is often misunderstood, to greater or lesser degrees.

The evidence for this tendency to misunderstand bare text is almost obvious, especially in light of our modern, text driven, communication forms (like blogging or email). In this environment, meaning can be lost or even reversed, in some cases, in the mind of the reader, simply due to a lack of “tonal” information. I have thought about this quite a lot, in light of patterns of interaction seen regularly in online forums like SI. Tone of voice, and even facial expressions, contribute significantly to effective communication, so care should be exercised in seeking to understand a textual communication in their absence.

As a side note, we should probably view our initial understanding of any written communication as an approximation of the communicator’s intent. This way, we will be more skeptical of our own understanding, and we will seek clarifications and additional information in order to understand the whole. I believe this is how every text should be approached and understood - especially Scripture. In fact, I firmly believe Linguistics and Hermeneutics are the grounds upon which the battle for the Bible will be waged in the next fifty years.

This brings us to “tone.” (Hang in there…we are almost to the main topic.) To the postmodern mind, how something is said is equally important with the verbal content of what is said. For example, I can say the words, “I love you,” and alter my tone of voice to communicate meaning that is sarcastic, deep, flippant, casual, questioning, or even completely opposite of what the words would seem to say. Context also plays a role in this, since the words spoken in my home, alone with my wife, will likely carry a different connotation than if they were spoken in church to the whole congregation.

To further complicate the question, I can communicate (more generally) with only the tone of my voice. The Charlie Brown television specials are an excellent example of non-verbal communication. Remember the teacher? Whaah Whaah wa wa Whaah Whaaaaahh? Then there was Woodstock and snoopy…no words, but you could clearly understand what was being “said” by tones and visual context. To suggest that these characters don’t communicate would be silly, but we also don’t have the precision of communication that would be added with the inclusion of words.

Music is just like the tone of your voice. In fact, cultural musical expressions often reflect the speech patterns and tones of the language of that particular culture. It is as if music simply amplifies the tone of voice. So to suggest, as some Christians like to do, that music does not communicate apart from the words would be just as incomprehensible as suggesting that tone of voice does not communicate apart from the words. You can do, with music, everything that you can do with your tone of voice…sometimes better. So, it is possible to musically mock good doctrine with exactly the same words you use for preaching it.

Some would like to take this idea and begin to build a taxonomy to describe the communication of music in precise terms, but this is the equivalent of trying to build a taxonomy of tonality. Such an effort is doomed to fail, because while tone and music both communicate, they are (at best) general approximations of meaning. There is no precision to it, and context plays an important role in understanding the expression. There is a big question as to whether music communicates inherently or culturally, but the truth is that it really doesn’t matter how it communicates. We must accept that music does, in fact, communicate; and we must accept that we can approximate (in general terms) what is expressed in a given cultural environment.

No matter how we approach the music question, we must understand that music is part of the message, and how we sing matters as much as what we sing. In fact, we can even say that it is a message. When we couple this with a postmodern skepticism of bare verbal communication that is increasingly indicative of our society, how can we ignore the communicative content of our musical expressions? I believe it would be a grave error.