From: hill@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Hill)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Is music amoral??
Date: 1 Sep 92 04:03:22 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Aug27.132349.12725@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> noel@crs.cl.msu.edu.UUCP (Noel Estabrook) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.191701.24034@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> hill@spot.Colorado.EDU (Michael Hill) writes:
>>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.

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".

>>>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.

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?

>>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.

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.

Again, none of the above comments are intended to "get personal", and
hopefully not taken that way.

In Him,

			--Michael

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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"
-------------------------My boss is a Jewish carpenter!------------------------
Did you ever notice that everybody in favor of abortion has already been born?!
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian