Music is Never “Neutral” by Tom Schlueter
Scott AniolFor years I have heard the claim that the type of music in corporate worship is irrelevant. It is not the music that matters, but the lyrics. Music is supposedly “neutral,” and the lyrics alone determine the message. There is simply no factual basis for this belief. The propagation of this idea has resulted in much spiritual confusion today where the music used in worship actually wars against the content of the lyrics. I wanted to write a few thoughts on the idea that any kind of music can be dragged into corporate worship without any thought given to what that music is saying.
I’ve been involved with music professionally for 30 years and my degree is in music performance. The perspective I am coming from is not one of ignorance musically but one of personal experience. In those years, I have played my trumpet in virtually every style and in many different venues; anything from swing bands, jazz, touring Broadway shows and musicals, concerts with Chicago, Styx, Moody Blues, John Denver, Glen Campbell, Johnny Mathis, Aretha Franklin, Tony Bennett, the Irish Tenors, Charlotte Church, Sarah Vaughn, Robert Goulet, Frank Sinatra, Jr., and, on the other hand, everything from one of the top symphony orchestras in the country to opera and ballet music, including many types of classical chamber music and many varied experiences in church music. Along with my experience of performing this variety of music has come my observation of the people who are listening to it and the effect music has on them.
I have seen the power of music. Probably 95% of music I have performed is strictly instrumental. Before I had any Christian convictions about the matter, I played as much in dance bands as I did for orchestras. Whatever the venue, we could yield much power over the listener and there were many times when we could literally engage in “crowd control”. For example, in a dance setting our big band could play a slow, ballad-type number and everyone immediately responded in the obvious way directed by the music. Contrast that with the reaction when we played something like Buddy Morrow’s Night Train which, without verbal prompting, would encourage some people to do a quasi-strip dance. In fact, to further enhance the shock value, the band leader would announce the number as a “Mozart string quartet” and then start the pounding rhythms of Night Train. The music did not require words with instructions about what to do. The music alone carried the message.
By way of illustration, listen to the difference in the message that the same instruments can carry in these two clips. First, listen to the message of our trumpets and the drums at the front end of our band’s version of Sing, Sing, Sing. The trumpets led the brass in a clear call to listeners: get up and dance. Now listen to the message of the brass instruments and percussion in this clip at the beginning of the hymn, Christ is Made the Sure Foundation. What are the instructions of the instruments here? What are they calling listeners to do? Come and worship God. The brass tell us there is royalty present. The percussion at the end of the fanfare speaks not of dance and flesh, but of honor and respect and reverence. What a difference. Same instruments. Different message entirely.
The smallest children do not need instructions for what to do when they hear certain kinds of music. Every one of us consciously and often subconsciously experiences the power of music nearly every day when we watch TV programs, see commercials, hear music in the grocery store. Music in these venues is done with an agenda to move people in a specific way. I once read an interview with John Williams that celebrated his contributions to movie music. He was talking about how crucial it was to get movie music correct to enhance a scene. He said that a music can make or break a scene, and the complete absence of music can also make or break a scene. You add the right kind of music to a scene and it becomes magical or terrifying, depending on the mood you want to create. One thing he said was, “The mood in a scene is created more by the music than by the actors.”
The power of music is so obvious, I do not know why there is even a need for a debate about it. This same simple idea is the reason why the Brahms Requiem was played at the memorial concert for 9-11 victims instead of a concert of Broadway show tunes. All this being said, it seems obvious when you are going to link words and music, they should comport with/compliment each other. It doesn’t make sense to put serious words with circus-style music, and it doesn’t make sense to have lyrics that speak of the majesty and glory of Christ put to sounds that speak of the streets, anger and resentment as we have with rap. Yet that is often what happens in corporate Christian worship today. The music part, supposedly, is saying nothing.
A few years ago, a CD came out of supposedly “sacred” swing music. Someone had taken hymn lyrics and attached them to swing band music. The results were musically and theologically absurd. Take our band’s recording of Take the A Train; Now picture that music with words about the Lord’s Supper. That is what the “sacred swing” CD tried to do. It was a nauseating combination but, nonetheless, called “praise music.” The music was conjuring up a dance floor scene, but the lyrics were speaking of the Lord’s Supper and Christ’s bleeding sacrifice on the cross. Do we think the Lord is pleased by this confusion?
In corporate worship, the music chosen makes a statement about our view of God. Our music reveals if that view is a high and biblical view, or a low and man-made view. If the music clip above from Sing, Sing, Sing would be the call to worship in a church, what exactly would that say about God and His character? What would it say to worshipers? Get up and dance? Women should start flaunting their stuff in front of men on the dance floor? This would not be worship at all, but rather a gross insult to the Almighty.
The bottom line is that music is never neutral. It is always saying something. The question is, does it contradict or confuse or even cancel out the message of the lyrics used in worship? If we are in the flesh, we cannot please God no matter how much we call what we are doing “praise and worship.” When we study and know God’s character in the Word, we realize that whatever we are offering up as worship needs to be worthy of Him. It needs to speak of Him honestly. Much music in church today lies about God. It says He is cheap and easy and just like us. In short, it shows no respect for the God who is described by St. Paul in the Bible as a “consuming fire.”
I hear well-meaning Christians talk as though Satan has affected every area of creation with the exception of the non-verbal language of music. That, they claim, is neutral territory. Satan, in his craftiness, has very skillfully perpetuated this lie and has neutralized and in some cases, made mockery of the worship of our God. The Israelites dancing around the Golden Calf genuinely believed they could worship God through the use of the idol. They were sincere and their religious fervor was so loud that Moses heard it while descending Mt. Sinai. It was not true worship at all, however. God abhorred what they were doing. They were too busy in their so-called worship to notice.
In summary, music always speaks. It always has something to say on its own—free of lyrics. What our worship music says about God must line up with what we are told about God in His Word. We know God two ways: both by His character and by His works as they are recorded in Scripture. Nobody is very interested in knowing the character and works of God today, and that ultimately is the root of the problem. We cannot speak honestly of one we do not know. God is made over into man’s image today, and the music used to worship Him reflects that. A thorough knowledge of God through His Word will have a reformational effect on Christian worship. Only when we know God can we truly worship him in spirit and in truth.
Soli Deo Gloria
Copyright Tom Schlueter, 2008. Printed here by permission.
Tom Schlueter has been a professional trumpet player for 30 years. He won the Milwaukee Symphony Young Artists Competition at age 15 and began playing professionally with the Symphony at age 17. He has a degree in music performance from University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and studied with Reynold Schilke and Arnold Jacobs of the Chicago Symphony. He is a two-time winner of the International Trumpet Guild Solo Competition and soloist at the New York Brass Conference. Tom continues to play professionally in a variety of settings both classical and sacred. He and his wife, Ingrid, have 5 children and live in the Milwaukee area.
Tim,
I’m not at all afraid of what I will find. I’m not the least bit intimidated by any of your stances…just saddened. I’ve not had any trouble in over 20 years of public ministry in this area. In following the leadership of my pastors and striving to provide music that is the least offensive possible for the entire congregation, the Lord has greatly blessed it.
Your error is that you pre-suppose because styles clearly condemned in the original article are offensive to you they must be offensive to God.
> Thomas writes: Mr. Ruckman, You’re still waiting for something out of the article that suggests one style is God’s?
No, I am not. But I can certainly appreciate the effort to shift gears and seek freedom from the language you have employed.
I am still waiting for anything in the piece which suggests 1) “Western European, caucasian music is “God’s” music” or 2) “God had only a certain musical style in which He approved for the church.”
These are certainly not reasonably construed from either of the passages that you mentioned. Not even close.
Gentlemen,
I have enjoyed the discussion. I have even directed folks at my blog to have a look-in and even comment. I’ve got to get on to running a church music department.
Thanks for your time!
Thomas, All we are insisting is that music communicates messages, and some messages are inappropriate for mixture with biblical truth.
Thomas (if you’re still reading),
You paint with a broad brush. With what part of what Calvin says above does Luther disagree? The Calvin quotations deal with the musical character and expression of the tunes; I don’t think you’ll find Luther disagreeing on these points. They of course disagreed on the use of instruments in the worship, but we’re not speaking about that here - rather about the character and the nature of the expression of the music that is used.
Tim
Don’t you think that playing ‘Amazing Grace’ to the tune of ‘Rocky Top’ or playng ” Holy, Holy, Holy” to the tune of “Yankee Doodle” trivializes the message those songs are trying to communicate?
Gary,
I personally agree with you for two reasons:
The first is that the tunes themselves are intrinsically lighter and of a different expressive character than the text implies. This reason carries with it a belief that the tunes express emotion universally from within their musical properties.
The other reason is the associations and connotations that most of us bring to those tunes. An adherent of the ‘music is neutral’ position would provide only the second reason, if he would agree with you at all. He would further argue (and here’s where I part ways with him) that we have learned our trivial associations with those tunes and had we learned other associations with them originally, the tunes would be perfectly fine for “Amazing Grace.”
I think, for the purposes of assessing music for worship, we must rely on an evaluation of the expressive properties of the tunes themselves, with little regard for the individual associations people may bring to those tunes (or more broadly, styles). It’s simply too chaotic to consider all the individual associations people bring to different musics.
My two cents.
Tim
I once tried to listening to Sinatra and Nat King Cole to discover why they were such great singers. I never found out why but I did notice some things. It seemed that when they sang you could clearly understand them and the music seemed to be in the background. The music seemed to act as a spotlight on the words they were singing.
My experience is that when it comes to music and words either the music will “win” or the words will “win”. What I mean by that is the music will be so loud that it drowns out the words being sung or it will attract so much attention to itself that even though you can hear the words they go right past your attentive grasp. In that case the music “wins”. The words “win” when the music points to the words as if to say “Look! Look! at those words .Pay attention to what is being said!” In Christian music it is the words that we sing that are the most important. If those words do not come across clearly so that they can be understood and processed in the heart of the believer what good are they?
I notice that the singing in both the temple and by the choir in the book of Revelation are supported by harps.It would seem that instruments or playing that does not overwhelm the voice is very important to God.
Gary,
It’s not only volume that causes the words to ‘win.’ Here, in contrast to the Revelation example you cite, this passage from 2 Chronicles shows us that voices are accompanied by more naturally loud instruments:
The trumpeters and singers joined in unison, as with one voice, to give praise and thanks to the LORD. Accompanied by trumpets, cymbals and other instruments, they raised their voices in praise to the LORD and sang: “He is good; his love endures forever.” Then the temple of the LORD was filled with a cloud . . .
It’s interesting that they joined in unison as with one voice. Dynamic balance is not only a function of the instrument being used, but also how the instrument is played and the number of singers being accompanied and the strength of those singers.
But my main point is that the expressive effect of the music includes many more musical aspects than just volume.
I do agree than in sung Christian praise, the music must support the words so that they ‘win.’
Tim
Thank you Tim,Scott,Dan,etc. for providing excellent commentary on worship/music issues.I believe this site has the best useful information to battle the nonsensical stuff that seems to have invaded almost every church in the USA.I didn’t really care about these things until our pastor retired and the new pastor brought in ccm and other measures.
I have been employing the language used here to fight the battle:the distinction between passions (koilia) and affections (splankna);apollonian music vs. dyonisian music etc.
It seems that if you can tap your toe to it almost any piece of false doctrine or false teachers can get into your church. If I were to teach the words to “Lord, I lift Your name on High” on Easter Sunday in my church I would probably be asked to leave and not come back.There is no resurrection in that song. One goes from the grave to the sky without any reference to the resurrection. I believe one can have an abbreviated theology but the resurrection is the centerpiece of the gospel.
Toe tapping music also lets in false teachers such as Phillips, Craig, and Dean. These guys are Oneness Pentecostal pastors who deny the doctrine of the trinity among other things. In their Enquirers Handbook they assert that the Son of God did not come into existence until He was born in Bethlehem;until then He only existed in the mind of God!
Gary,
I’m sorry to hear about your church’s conversion to pop/rock music in its worship. I think you’re right that false doctrine is brought into churches when the music used is chosen for its appeal rather than its doctrine and affect. I repeatedly made these arguments and more before our pastor and session for more than three years, citing theological sources and scripture, to no avail. In February of 2007, they held a two-day leadership retreat to discuss music (with no musicians present) and there decided that pop/rock would be used in worship. We’re now traveling 47 miles to the nearest Gospel preaching church that doesn’t use pop/rock music in its worship service. Scott has a great article entitled something like “Orthopraxy, Orthodoxy, Orthopathy” that describes the influence of the affections on the will. Sorry if I didn’t get the title right, Scott. But it’s excellent!
Tim
I’m with Thomas in this discussion. His advice is to be cautious about drawing dogmatic conclusions (based on your own cultural experiences) and applying them to others. His use of I Cor. 8 is applicable in this discussion. I’m sure there were people who were strongly opposed to eating meat sacrificed to idols. They had good reason to be, consider the culture they had come out of. But, what about the brother who had no knowledge of that culture, didn’t grow up around idol worship. He would have wondered what all the fuss was about. I would agree that certain music evokes certain emotions for me, but I would also submit that my Christian brothers in Peru don’t share my emotional ties. I don’t think you could have this discussion in the mountains of Peru because your examples do not apply universally, but scripture does (isn’t that wonderful).
It appears that some of your opinions are aimed at those who are trying to take a pragmatic approach to church growth. I want to say that I think that is wrong. I would say that much of what is being promoted as “worship” today is not edifying to me personally, and would not be used in our church. However, I cannot condemn another brother (with scripture support) for having a different opinion. This is not to say that for me, my family, and my church I don’t make judgements-I do because I hold a position of authority in those areas.
I wish you’d just consider Thomas’ warning to be careful in making these judgements, and using them to draw a line for whom you approve, or associate with. I believe that there is wisdom in his advice. Thanks
Dear Michael,
Thank you for your kindly spoken concerns. I can assure you that no small amount of scripture study and prayer have accompanied the words that are written here. The point being made here is that our Christian brothers in Peru would most assuredly understand the emotional content of the music we’re discussing, because they experience emotions in the same way we do, and music is a language designed to communicate those emotions using sound referents to emulate and evoke the feelings. (In fact there are many musicological experiments that have been done among Aboriginal as well as other tribal groups proving the cross-cultural emotional comprehensibility of musical gestures used by Haydn, Bach, and any other mainstream composer you’d like to mention. But you won’t hear much about this in today’s multi-cultural, pluralistic society.)
But it is Christ who shapes cultures. Where Christ has been, the culture is transformed. Where Christ is new, the culture will soon be transformed, unless those bringing Christ also bring the message that Christ doesn’t transform. In cultures where music is vainly repetitive for the purposes of pagan ritual driven by opiates, Christ’s influence should transform that ethos. The art should be transformed, the literature, the music - all this because the musician’s heart, the painter’s heart, and the author’s heart have been transformed and conformed to the image of Christ. Christ warns about vainly repetitive prayers. How can Christian prayers set to music thus be set to vainly repetitive music? The music is an outworking of Christ in the culture where Christ’s influence has had the longest period of time to affect the culture - the West.
I’m not sure how you or Gary explain the notion that God creates all music so therefore all music is good, as your citing of I Cor. 8 would imply. In that passage, Paul is referring to God-created flesh without human intervention. The natural, raw elements God has given in music are the acoustic properties form which music is made by man: duration (rhythm), frequency (pitch), amplitude (volume), and waveform (timbre). All music from all cultures comes from these four God-given elements. All the rest of music involves man’s sin-tainted use of these God-given elements, and as such, the results must be subject to judgment and discernment. This must be true unless you claim that all music is inspired by God at the level of Scripture and thus impervious to the effects of the Fall. Your claim from I Corinthians is analogous to saying that because God created light, all photography and art is therefore good and exempt from judgment - making pornography simply a matter of personal taste, rather than a sin. Simply put, I’m just not sure how a Christian can logically exempt an entire field of the arts from the effects of original sin.
For an excellent biblical exegesis of how music expresses emotion universally, cross-culturally, and in a time-transcendent fashion, I would strongly urge both you and Gary to read John Makujina’s Measuring the Music. He clearly distinguishes between the bioacoustic expressive properties of music that are being espoused here on this website, and the associative and iconic communicative experiences you are describing. He further explores multiple passages of Scripture to convincingly prove these points. Makujina also points out additional flaws in the understanding you are embracing of I Corinthians 8 involving the Apostle Paul’s defensive and offensive strategies regarding the Gospel. The use of pop/rock music as a means of promoting the Gospel is an offensive strategy similar to the rhetorical devices Paul elsewhere decries.
I would submit that you have bought into the postmodern notion that communication is relative as far as music is concerned. Michael, this is a RECENT philosophy that no one dared believe prior to the advent of postmodern theories of relative truth. It was propagated by composer/philosophers of the 1950s (and a few before that) who were notorious for their relativistic views. It was then made popular by pop/rock music groups in word and song. It is analogous to the interpretation of the Constitution of the US as a living document, subject to reinterpretation according to the times in which we live. This approach makes chaos of communication of any kind.
Though I appreciate your kind words of caution, I would urge you to study the topic from the other point of view, before committing so fully to your view. The Bible discusses music on more than 600 occasions throughout its pages, and there’s a lot there for study before forming an opinion.
Thank you for writing. I appreciate the conversation on the issue.
Tim
Dear Michael (and Gary),
Sorry, I used the wrong name above. I meant Tom, not Gary.
Apologies!
Tim
This is an interesting discussion. Your post clearly outlines your stance on instrumental music and meaning (”the music alone carried the message”). I have a few questions for you: 1. Whence comes the meaning in instrumental music (composer, performer or listener, or is the meaning somehow intertwined with form, melody, etc)? 2. Are meanings within various pieces of instrumental music absolute?
Consider this point: Susan McClary, a leader of the “New Musicology” movement, and professor of music at UCLA, wrote that the first movement of Beethoven’s 9th Symphony “explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist.” Apparently, when McClary listens to and analyzes the 1st movement of Beethoven’s 9th, this is the message she perceives. Is that message absolute? Does (or should) everyone hear the “murderous rate of a rapist” when listening to the aforementioned piece? Of course, if you read anything at all about McClary, you will quickly learn how she came to such a conclusion (hint: it has little to do with the music itself).
Another point: In the book “Music in East Africa,” Vanderbilt University musicologist Gregory Barz makes the following comments about “music” in East Africa: “For many East Africans, the concept of “music” does not exist, at least not in the sense we may be most familiar with.” Barz goes on to point out how the term “ngoma,” which is used in many areas in East Africa to describe what we think of as music, is an all-encompassing term that pervades daily life. The line between what is and what is not “music” is blurred.
These two examples illustrate how perspectives (in these cases, feminism and culture) can influence “meaning” in music. Surely no one would argue that a piece of high western art music would possess the same “meaning” when heard by the tribal people of East Africa, for example.
Brad
Brad,
Actually, quite a bit of cross-cultural study with regard to sound gesture has been done by Australian neurologist and musician Manfred Klein. Klein proves that human beings (from Aboriginal tribes through trained Western listeners) beings hear gesture in sound as a manifestation of the motion that accompanies emotion. Sadness, joy, fear - all these and more are heard across multiple cultures with an extremely high degree of accuracy without regard for previous education or training in music.
Secondly, John Makujina (Measuring the Music) argues very effectively from several passages in Scripture that this means of understanding music proven by Klein (called bioacoustic) is the one presumed by the authors of the Bible. He postulates that the Bible’s premise is that sound has direct connection to the human emotion via this connection with the various physiological responses that accompany our feelings.
There are many other explanations for the two examples you cite, including the biases that you readily describe (i.e. the feminist could easily override or deny a more normally understood interpretation of the opening of Beethoven’s 9th simply to further her agenda). Although, I’ll have to say, there’s a lot of anger in the opening of the Ninth symphony. Her attachment of murderous rape is no doubt her own personal association but she’s on the right end of the emotional spectrum in describing the violent anger Beethoven evokes with that opening.
Sorry Brad, but I think you’ve been hoodwinked by the spirit of this age with regard to musical understanding - this very new musical manifestation of postmodern, multi-cultural, relativism. Read Makujina and reconsider musical interpretation from a Biblical framework.
Tim
Tim,
You’re correct when you state McClary has multiple reasons for arriving at her conclusions. John Sloboda, who has done extensive research in the area of music and emotional response, said that when considering emotional response to music, two different but complementary factors must be considered: content and context. Your argument attends to one and ignores the other.
I would like you to answer the question I asked in my initial post: is the meaning you perceive in music, the music you state is “carried by the music itself,” absolute? I’m fairly confident I know the answer. However, I would still like to read your response.
As for Makujina, I have not read his book, but I have listened to some of his lectures online. When asked at a 2005 lecture about rock music, he states “music is difficult to quantify,” and that is it “it difficult sometimes to say, it must mean this (emphasis on this).” He then references dance and juxtaposes modern dance with the dancing often seen on stage by rock music performers. Makujina himself comments in the lecture on the “context” of music as being very powerful.
My point here is not to say that instrumental music is devoid of meaning- it surely does possess meaning. I think we’re talking about different things here. You’re stating instrumental music carries meaning, which I don’t dispute. However, my question once again is, whence comes the meaning?
Brad
Brad,
You ask very good questions. I do not deny context. But the prime context to consider is within the arena of the sound constructs of the music itself. Acoustically, this arena contains a sound context that boils down to four essential phenomenon within the physical world - the raw elements in nature from which music is created: waveform, amplitude, duration, and frequency. Perceptually, these four elements translate roughly into timbre, volume (dynamics), rhythm (in all its various manifestations), and pitch (including interval, melody, harmony, texture, etc.). These elements and their sub-parts interact with one another in complex and myriad (infinite?) ways to create what we call music. Composers leave us clues to their expressive intentions using symbols for these these elements. Performers decode these clues to the best of their ability, deciphering the symbols on the page and transferring them to sound across time. Listeners hear sound signifiers that include the elements of dynamics, pitch, timbre, and rhythm. These sound signifiers represent distance across time that signal motion to the listener. These motions indicators in turn trigger within the listener the emotions that are accompanied by the motions of human beings cross-culturally when human beings experience emotions; thus the term bioacoustic. Makujina says it something like this: when human beings (in all cultures) experience sadness, their body motions are slow, downward, smooth, soft, etc. Music represents in sound these motions of the body using melodic intervals (descending dominates), harmony (minor, with its lowered third), register (lower rather than higher ranges), tempo (slower, rather than faster tempi), rhythms (longer, rather than quicker note values), timbre (darker, rather than brighter instruments), articulations (slurred, legato passages, rather than staccato or marcato), and a variety of other musical elements. Composers (and performers to some degree) can control the degree to which these elements interact with one another to temper the emotion. Contrapuntal voices can offer contradictory sound signals to express complex emotions (sadness tinged with happiness, struggle foreshadowing triumph, etc.). The process of musical communication from the mind of the composer through the performer to the mind of the audience is a complex one, with multiple opportunities for a breakdown in communication. These breakdowns can lead to contradictory emotional responses on the part of various listeners - yet another viable explanation for differing opinions as to what music means.
Makujina does indeed observe external musical contexts as well, which I don’t deny either. These he notes are variously labeled (and sometimes distinguished from one another) by aestheticians, theorists, and musicologists as “iconic” or “associative,” as well as a few other terms. These associative responses to music do indeed carry meaning, but that meaning is brought to the listening experience by each individual listener through previous experiences and may well be completely unrelated to the sound constructs of the music itself - a kind of Pavlovian response to certain songs, certain timbres, certain styles. But Makujina argues for the bioacoustic model of interpretation as prime for the purposes of selecting music for worship. He argues that we base our evaluation of music’s meaning on the sound constructs of the compositions themselves as the alternative is to degenerate into chaos. As I say, I think he argues this very effectively from scripture.
The gist of all this, Brad, is to say that music communicate through two principal means: bioacoustic and associative. Makujina has made a believer out of me (using Scripture!) that music’s primary means of communication is bioacoustic - using sound through time to communicate motion, which in turn triggers emotion. It’s no coincidence that the words are related, or that we say we were “moved” to indicate intense feeling, or that a symphony’s divisions are entitled “movements,” I hope you’ll forgive me if my response is overly passionate. Multiculturalism, in combination with relativism, has commandeered the discussion these past 40 years so that no one should dare challenge the prevailing notion that we are all entitled to our own opinion (which of course we are), but in addition, that’s the end of the story. “No one had better dare tell me that this music objectively means thus and such,” is the attitude with which many individuals arrive on the scene. But in fact, while I won’t claim that music communicates propositional truth absolutely, it does (using motion) communicate affections within a fairly narrow band on the emotional spectrum such that certain emotions (sensuality and majesty, for example) are clearly distinguishable by listeners across cultural boundaries.
Thanks for the discussion, Brad. Did I answer your questions?
Tim
Tim,
I have no problem with your passion for the subject. The importance of “getting it right” warrants such discussions take place. I haven’t read Makujina’s book, therefore, I won’t comment on his bioacoustic theory on music and affective response (I’ll do that after I read his book).
Leonard Meyer’s “Emotion and Meaning in Music” is a major work in this area, and according to the author, the most important meanings in music do not correspond with extramusical concepts. However, he does not contend that other kinds of meaning are nonexistent. Meyer’s perspective advanced by the book is often described as that of an “absolute expressionist.” In his own words, “absolute meanings and referential meanings are not mutually exclusive.” One of the major tenets of his theory deals with inhibition and delayed response, that is, when music presents a listener with unexpected sounds or rhythms, it causes the listener to become suspenseful and expecting of an event. It is in this expectation (and delay, or inhibition) that emotional arousal occurs. Some of you may have seen Meyer’s three-part equation: expectation=emotion=meaning. This theory presents some problems, particularly in the area of the arousal of a pleasurable response. His theory does not account for “a good explanation of why pleasant emotions are aroused” (R. F. Miller, 1992).
Reinhard Kopiez has written an excellent article on music and meaning entitled, “Making Music and Making Sense Through Music.” In the article, he explains the three basic positions concerning music and meaning: 1. Music has no meaning at all (Kant indicated that music without text was a mere “amusement of the senses”). 2. The meaning of music is in its form. This theory gained prominence in the 19th century and was summarized by Eduard Hanslick, who stated that music comprises only “tonally moving forms” (from the comments you have made on Makujink, this theory seems to be the one he most closely attends. Hanslick speaks at length on the motion of music, the rise and fall, the fast and slow, weak and strong. However, Hanslick also states that motion is just one attribute of feeling, not feeling itself). 3. The meaning of music is the expression of emotion. Hausegger contended that, while there is a cognitive side to understanding music, there is also an universal and intuitive understanding of emotion in music. This is one possible explanation why the untrained musician may listen to music and find it expressive of emotion.
Obviously, there is much more to say on the concept of music and meaning. As shown in this post, there is no unified, “one-answer” approach to the subject. I am enjoying the discussion on music, emotion and meaning. I look forward to receiving comments on the three theories presented in this post.
Brad
Brad,
You’ve done your reading! I’ve read the Meyer and Hanslick’s little book, but not the Kopiez. I’ll look forward to that. It sounds as though we’re speaking from a similar starting point - two modes of communication. Content and context to use your terminology, bioacoustic and associative to use mine (which is stolen from Makujina).
I find Makujina’s summary of Meyer’s opinion telling:
“Meyer is convinced that of the two modes of signification, bioacoustic and iconic, the bioacoustic is dominant.”
And then, quoting Meyer:
“However important the associations formed by contiguity (iconic system) may be, their role in connotative signification (standardized associations between sign and referent) is a relatively minor one. Most connotations arise as the result of similarities which exist between our experience of music, on the one hand, and our experience of concepts, objects, activities, qualities, and states of mind found in the extramusical world, on the other. Generally associations formed by contiguity modify and delimit those formed by similarity. Both music and life are experienced as dynamic processes - as motions differentiated both in shape and in quality. Such motions may be fast or slow, continuous or disjointed, precise or ambiguous, calm or violent and so forht. Even experiences without literal, phenomenal motion are somehow associated with activity. Sunlight, the pyramids, a smoothly polished stone, a jagged line - each, depending partly upon our attitude toward it, is felt to exhibit some characteristic quality of motion and sound.”
Further quoting Meyer:
“The question is whether the processes of association are the same in different cultures; whether similar musical processes and structures give rise to similar or analogous connotations in different cultures. A modest sampling of the evidence indicates that these processes are cross-cultural.”
Makjuna then goes on to cite several other authorities whose writings point in the same direction (Lidov, Tagg, and others).
The passage you cite deals with how music creates meaning - basically through dashed expectations. Establish patterns and expectations, surprise the listener by contradicting those prepared expectations, and musical meaning results. (This is the basic formula for the creation of style.) But your passage doesn’t address the type of musical meaning achieved, or by what sound signifiers are used to produce it.
Hanslick had two major postulations: .
“The negative proposition that to express or arouse emotions is not the purpose of music, and the correlative positive proposition that whatever in music is beautiful is beautiful in a specifically musical way, wholly independent of our emotions and of natural beauty.”
Hanslick states:
“If the contemplation of something beautiful arouses pleasurable feelings, this effect is distinct from the beautiful as such. I may, indeed, place a beautiful object before an observer with the avowed purpose of giving him pleasure, but this purpose in no way affects the beauty of the object. The beautiful is and remains beautiful though it arouse no emotion whatever, and though there be no one to look at it. In other words, although the beautiful exists for the gratification of an observer, it is independent of him.” (pp.9-10)
“In music we see content and form, material and configuration, image and idea, fused in a mysterious, indivisible unity. This peculiarity of music, that it possesses form and content inseparably, opposes it absolutely too the literary and visual arts. . . In music there is no content as opposed to form because music has no form other than its content.”
Hanslick was writing in an atmosphere charged with hyper-emotion (the Romantic Era), and was reacting to the overt sentimentality rampant in the day. While I agree with Hanslick that musical meaning is inherent in the form, I would disagree that in music there is no content as opposed to form. Certainly there is intellectual meaning in the organization of the sound structures in music, but there is also emotional meaning to be found in the elements. Honegger (whom I have not read) seems to be arguing the opposite of Hanslick. The truth probably lies in a synthesis of their ideas.
Kant was simply wrong. The Bible mentions music more than 600 times and the vast majority of these times makes an integral connection between music and human emotion. Paul even discusses meaning in instrumental music in I Corinthians, presuming meaning in instrumental music as an analogy for meaningful speech in worship.
Have a blessed Lord’s Day!
Tim
Brad,
Further clarification:
I’m not arguing that context doesn’t give meaning. But I am arguing that musical content should be the prime means of evaluating music for the purpose of worship.
Tim
Tim,
You’re right, I didn’t offer any quotes that stated the types of meaning achieved. I simply wanted to present the main areas of thought surrounding music and meaning. While I know you are quite familiar with the three i mentioned in my last post, some of the others who read this blog may not be.
Hanslick is an interesting character. His critiques of composers of his time were biting, yet quite entertaining. He railed against the over-emotional music of Wagner and Liszt, yet he praised Berlioz’s “Symphony Fantastique” early in his career (his stance on the music of Berlioz and others changed in his 20s). Margaret Kartomi said, “He didn’t actually dislike any of the music of Berlioz or of Wagner or of anyone else. He was not a hater of anything Wagnerian in the music field, he just hated his ideas.” Of course, it didn’t help that Wagner was anti-Semitic. It is also important to remember that Hanslick’s formation of his opinions on music and emotion started with Mozart and ended with Brahms (see the quote later in this post).
It’s interesting to read how the opinions of Suzanne Langer and Leonard Meyer, though based on Hanslick’s writings, differ in their explanations of why we feel emotion when we listen to music. Here’s another interesting quote from Kartomi:
“Word-painting, program music, all that kind of stuff is out of the question. That music, to be properly respected, has to be regraded as music. Music is music. Music is sound in motion, as Hanslick said, that’s all it is, but we human beings associate emotional responses with certain things, so that [sings] that all means something to a western audience, horses racing along, or whatever. If you were in Eskimo land somewhere or in central Africa it would mean something else. That’s another thing that Hanslick was very forward-looking in thinking; his aesthetic, his meaning of music tracts really only referred to music, as you said, from Mozart to Brahms. It doesn’t refer to other cultures, and they have different ideas of the beauty in music.”
This is where my previous comments were leading concerning music of other cultures. Kartomi’s opinions also include consideration of culture (or context, as I might say). She goes on to say she tends to be terribly influenced by Hanslick, but with her students, she lets them make their own decisions on music and emotion. There are other sides to the argument (as I previously stated), and it is important to make a decision on the matter.
For those of you who would like to read the very interesting interview with Margaret Kartomi (a leading figure in the discussion on music and meaning), go to:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/arts/sunmorn/stories/s1498161.htm
Ok Tim…great discussion! Anyone else wanna jump in??
Brad
This is an excellent discussion. Thanks, gentlemen. Sorry I haven’t jumped in yet!
Brad; great to have you here!
My only comment here will be to reiterate that no one is denying that meaning exists in both content and context. And I would also agree that meaning in context (conventional meaning) can at times overpower the meaning in content (intrinsic meaning).
For instance, although the tune austrian hymn intrinsically communicates noble moods because of its natural association with how we feel when we are proud or stately, its conventional association with Nazi Germany created new meaning during WWII that overpowered the positive meaning with that which was quite negative. What must be remembered on this point, however, is that when conventional associations overpower intrinsic associations, it always happens in a negative direction and never in a positive one.
Perhaps an illustration will help here. If you are in the company of a happy person, his happiness will be communicated to you through his facial features, bodily gestures, and tone of voice. Those symbols are intrinsically associated with the state of happiness because that is exactly how you act when you are happy. However, even if a given individual looks and sounds positive, your personal relationship with him may cause you to have a negative feeling about him merely because of some negative association. On the other hand, an angry person will communicate his anger to you through facial features, bodily gestures and tone of voice, but no amount of positive association can contradict such expressions due to the nature of negative emotions.
Mr. Deceiver, Once Director of the choirs of Heaven,
I perceive you in this thread.
God’s Holy Word tells that your methods are as old as creation. Your intention here is not to bring light to this subject but darkness. As always, you seek to conceal the truth, not bring man to the knowledge of God nor his works (I Cor.14:33).
You have addressed the subject of music for generations but only to divide and destroy God’s creation. You act as if every generation has a new song; but the notes and chords, timing, metre, movement, and etc., were created by our God before the foundation of the worlds, and not by you; they have always been the same, unbounded by culture or generation. There is that that pleases God and that which he hates. You possess limited authority over God’s creation but from the beginning of man have sought to wield it as your own.
You once said that “You write the songs.” Those that you speak of are your perversions to the beauty of the natural as created by Jesus (Rom 1:26). You haven’t anything new to add. But your arguments change, such as “Western Culture,” which does not exist for the purpose that you try to use it.
You’ve divided man with your culture statement in America so you can bring man together under your oppressive rule; you do not rule with compassion. You seek your own and the destruction of man, God’s own image. You are trying to reunite the cultures under yourself that you someday can try to overthrow The Omnipotent.
We now have a new law, a perverted law, “Political Correctness.” This is derived because of the sensitivity brought about by perverting the separation of nations as mandated by God under the biblical account of the tower of Babel. Now we’re expected to believe that we are “Culturally Western” in our music. Again, to bring confusion; this bears your authorship.
You’ve done the same with God’s Word. “For ever …settled in heaven” (Ps 119:89), you have mankind running around in darkness, trying to find missing “jots and tittles”, and questioning those inspired by God.
Music is from God, is His creation, and is defined by Him alone. Music is no different in any culture just as God’s Word is no different and must be obeyed to the extent. When combined in an unnatural and carnal fashion, music breeds lust. As a meager example, one can take the unnatural beat of the “Western Culture” and incite the same response in the plains of Africa. The same demonic spirits, that when aroused with your music, entice the heathen to cut themselves and pierce themselves and mark themselves are the same ones that incite the “Westerner” to do the same – no matter how “Christian” the words are that you put to it. And it’s always been this way.
You desire us to bring this lust into our churches so you can remove from us the Power of God that only comes from the purest worship according to God’s Word. The music that is to be used in true worship is that music that is pure, holy, and fitting for man’s Creator/Redeemer. You know that Scott is right, because The Spirit bears witness of him. You have deceived many but “we wrestle not against flesh and blood;” (Eph 6:12) our battle is spiritual, this debate is spiritual not with those, that in ignorance, defend positioning themselves against that of their Creator.
Your beat, rhythm, timing, and movement bring a carnal empowerment that “feels” like we can conquer our oppositions and fears, no matter what culture; and you have preyed on man using his fears. But these are only weapons of the flesh and yield man completely powerless against you. The church is seemingly impotent. But God has preserved to Himself a remnant; that will not bow the knee. Oh, accuser of the brethren, God will preserve Himself a people of purity and obedience washed in the Blood of Jesus. And only one song will be sung to those words after you have poured out your hatred on mankind. I thank God that you will not be leading that choir.