From: noel@crs.cl.msu.edu (Noel Estabrook)
Subject: Re: Is music amoral??
Reply-To: noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook)
Organization: Michigan State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 92 13:23:49 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.191701.24034@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> hill@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Hill) writes:
>>However, we have reached an interesting point.  You say that music in
>>and of itself is not a moral agent.  But consider: until music is actually
>>conceived, composed and performed, IT DOESN'T EVEN EXIST.  Music only exists
>>AFTER someone has GIVEN THEIR purpose to it!  When we talk of music, we are
>>speaking of something that is already created.  Before man created the wheel,
>>we were unable to talk about it.  The same with music - until someone actually
>>writes a particular song, we are unable to even discuss it because it doesn't
>>exist.  Once it does exist, however, we can discuss it, and it is at that 
>>point that we can no longer view it as an amoral agent - because it does have
>>purpose and intent.
>
>Well, here's a good example.  The Imperials did a very good (IMHO) cover of
>Fleetwood Mac's "Stand on the Rock".  They *did* change a few lines in ONE
>(1) verse, to make it clear that they were singing about Jesus.  However,
>imagine the song without that one verse (as you hopefully will admit it
>could have been written).  If the Imps hadn't had that verse to change,
>the songs would have been identical (let's not get off on a tangent mincing
>words about differences between the two performances) for all intents and
>purposes - same lyrics, same melody & beat, basically the same.  Now where
>would the difference have lain?

You gave the answer yourself.  They _did_ change one verse, and I'm sure their
presentation was different - they had to alter it.

>>Like I said before, if someone sings it as mockery, they are going to have
>>to alter it, thus making it in essence a different song.
>
>I don't think so.  As you must surely know, meaning also accrues in
>inflections of the voice and other "body language".  All it takes for
>me to warp the meaning in the sentence, "John is *such* a good actor"
>is a different set of cues surrounding the words.  Therefore it would
>not take much to sing a CCM song (or even a Psalm, possibly) with a
>VASTLY different, mocking meaning.

Certainly, but that _is_ an alteration, and an important one.

>Granted.  However, don't forget that Paul uses a LOT of "mere human logic"
>to explain theology in his epistles.  He was quite the philosopher

Yes, but look at what his philosophy was based on.

>>Hmm, as far as a human CAN think, I've always considered myself a pretty good
>>one.  Sorry if I don't measure up to your standards.  I sure hope I measure
>>up to God's, though.
>
>Now who's using sarcasm?!  :^)

Actually, the above remark was not intended to be sarcastic.  It _is_ apparent
that I do not measure up to Jason's standards as a logician, but I do sincerely
hope that I measure up to God's.

>Note:  None of this is a flame, and none of it is intended against you or
>anybody else personally.  I also refrained from the use of sarcasm (not
>that I was so inclined anyway, but I was quite careful to check everything
>I said with that in mind).

No problem.


--
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