From: noel@crs.cl.msu.edu (Noel Estabrook)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Is music amoral??
Date: 1 Sep 92 14:59:17 GMT
Reply-To: noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook)
Organization: Michigan State University

In article <1992Sep1.040322.19749@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> hill@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Hill) writes:
>>You gave the answer yourself.  They _did_ change one verse, and I'm sure their
>>presentation was different - they had to alter it.
>No no no!  You responded to the first three sentences, while entirely
>ignoring the point I was trying to make with the rest of the paragraph.
>The key is, imagine if the song had originally been written without that
>single verse.  Use your imagination, don't just say "But it wasn't".

I don't generally like to deal with non-existent hypothetical situations, but
ok.  First, it was altered (significantly, I think).  IF they had performed
it exactly as Fleetwood Mac had, then, yes, I would agree that the meaning
would have been the same and I would have a hard time accepting it.
>
>>Certainly, but that _is_ an alteration, and an important one.
>
>I think you're mincing words here.  (I *asked* you not to do that,
>remember?  :^)  )  You started out speaking of wholesale changes,
>wide sweeping alterations, to change the intent of a song; now it seems to
>be ANY change, no matter how slight.  How fine do you want to split those
>hairs?  How about if two Christian groups sing the same song, but one
>group sings a different harmony line?  Is the meaning of the song altered?
>I'm asking, where's the cutoff point between significant and insignificant
>changes?

First off, no, I did NOT start off talking about wholesale changes.  I started
off talking about SIGNIFICANT changes.  A significant change is one which will
render a different meaning.  There was a REASON the Imperials changed those
lines - because if they hadn't, the meaning wouldn't have been what they 
wanted to convey.  I don't want to split hairs, but if changes are made that
allow different interpretations, then the change is significant and 
sufficient.
>
>Doesn't matter.  Either philosophical logic is competent for seeking truth,
>both in the Scriptures and outside, or it isn't.  But it can't be solely
>good for Scriptures but invalid for anything else.

I don't think I agree with this.  All true philosophy is based on God, His
word, or His law.  I didn't say all other logic is invalid, it is simply
going to miss the mark in some way if not based on God's ways or thoughts.
>
>Again, none of the above comments are intended to "get personal", and
>hopefully not taken that way.

Definitely not.  I hope mine aren't either.
>
>Michael Hill   <><  Isaiah 9:6 | "Give me one more chance to do things right/
>hill@spot.Colorado.EDU         |  Just one more chance, I'll follow the light/
>Ball Aerospace Systems Group & |  But there's no second chances, the Host of
>University of Colorado@Boulder |  heaven cried/ No second chances, you listened
>$ mv net.flames /dev/null      |  to lies!"   --Whitecross, "No Second Chances"

Great group, great song.

Noel Estabrook          |       Let us not merely do that which is our
noel@crs.cl.msu.edu   __|__	RIGHT, rather, let us desire to do that
Educational Technology  |	which IS right - Me
Michigan State Univ.    |				Romans 12:2
--
Noel Estabrook          |       Let us not merely do that which is our
noel@crs.cl.msu.edu   __|__	RIGHT, rather, let us desire to do that
Educational Technology  |	which IS right - Me
Michigan State Univ.    |				Romans 12:2
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian