From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Subject: Re: TANGENT: Re: Is music amoral??
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:16:49 GMT

In article <107410188@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rhm@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Bob Miller) writes:
>OK, Andy, slow down a minute...and reread my post.
>
>> >First, I do not agree that the only moral statement in a well-written song is
>> >contained in the lyric. If I'm doing my job as a writer, the music is written
>> >to specifically reinforce the lyric. The more succesful I am at that, the more
>> >the music is infused with the same moral statement as the lyric. 
>> 
>> Whoa.  This takes us right back into sin beats and demonic guitar riffs
>> territory.  Do you really believe this?  
>
>Of course not!! Re-read my post.

Okay.  I re-read your post.  And based on what I see above, I still have
to question what you're saying.  Maybe some of the confusion can be
cleared up by defining what you mean by music "reinforcing" lyrics.  
I agree that music can have a powerful effect on the listener, and 
that this power results from a fusing of the melodies, harmonies,
rhythms, etc. with the lyrics.  "She loves you yeah yeah yeah" 
is fairly stupid as a poetic statement, but it sure does stick in
your head when you hear the Beatles sing it.  So sure - in that sense 
I'd agree that music reinforces lyrics.  

But you're starting from there and arguing that the music itself is
infused by a moral statement.  I take that to mean that if the lyrics
are removed, the music itself should communicate the same truths or 
lies that were communicated by both the music and lyrics.  You
reinforce this same point later when you state that Bad Company's
"Feel Like Makin' Love" is not only immoral because of its lyrical
content, but also because of the guitar riff that is somehow
inherently linked to fornication.

And I'm saying it ain't so, and that the logical conclusion of this way
of thinking is that some rhythms, melodies, and harmonies are inherently
sinful, and others are inherently godly.  I know you've stated you
don't believe this.  But if music inherently communicates moral
statements, I'm not sure how you can avoid this conclusion.

>> Certainly music reinforces
>> lyrics.  That's why people decide to become musicians instead of poets
>> or Hallmark Card writers.  But I have balked, currently balk, and will
>> always balk at the idea that music - a series of sounds - contains a
>> moral statement.  History is full of examples of popular secular 
>> melodies, including drinking songs and songs about prostitution (ever  
>> hear "Amazing Grace" sung to the tune of "House of the Rising Sun"?) that 
>> are borrowed and used in a Christian context.  If your argument were
>> true, then the original immoral lyrical context should have "seeped" into 
>> the songs we now know as "A Mighty Fortress is our God" and "Amazing Grace,"
>> and the music should be permanently contaminated by the secular lyrics 
>> that were originally attached to the melodies.  
>
>Only if music *always* *by itself* contains a moral statement. As a writer,
>I strive for my music to be more than just a device to hang my lyrics on. 
>Oherwise, it has no more bearing on the finished work than the frame around
>a painting or the canvas under it! Plenty of songs are written to stock, 
>generic music ("Fortress and "Amazing Grace") included. My point is that if
>there is a well-crafted wedding of lyric, and tune by people who are spending
>*hours* trying to make a specific moral statement, it is likely to echo its
>origin loudly enough to be unsuitable for a totally different context.

Well, you left yourself an escape clause there with "well-crafted," 
which is one of those impossibly subjective terms that nobody's ever
going to agree on.  I don't disagree with your point if you're referring
to well-known melodies that would carry specific connotations to most people 
who would hear them.  Somebody could take the music to Frank Sinatra's
"My Way" and change the lyrics to "I did it God's way" and I would still
hear that song as an anthem to autonomy and self-centeredness because of 
all the other associations I have with the melody.  In that sense songs 
do indeed echo their origins.

But again - there's nothing inherent in the melody that makes it ungodly.
And certainly newly created melodies, rhythms, and harmonies, or the 
combination thereof, wouldn't carry those kinds of associations in my
mind.  

>Please note: I'm not arguing the extremes, I'm arguing for the middle.
>
>> 
>> >Now to say a 
>> >genre is corrupt is probably stretching it, particularly if numerous examples
>> >of the use of the genre can be found which make "good" statements. And one can
>> >find such back to the earliest days of rock (calls for justice, for example).
>> >On the other hand, remember the classic rock "feel like makin' love" by (??)?
>> >The music under and around the hook line is basically a libidinous picture of 
>> >physical sex. I can't think of anything *else* listening to that line. Put "I'm
>> >livin in Gods love" on top of that music and I'm still gonna be thinking about
>> >sex...and wondering about the competence of the writer.
>
>
>> But all you're saying there is that the melody or guitar riff has a 
>> strong association in your mind with some immoral lyrics.  I can buy
>> that.  But I don't think that means that the melody or guitar riff
>> somehow inherently fits songs about sex...
>
>Well, both the rhythm and the guitar riff are a pretty good musical 
>painting of an orgasm ("Gee, where've I heard/felt *that* rhythm before";-) I 
>am *NOT* saying all rock music is such...just that riff. Now, If I never
>heard the lyric, would the music still make me um... you know...? Maybe or
>maybe not ... I'll never know;-) I am suggesting that given its pretty explicit
>texture it is a lousy choice for "I'm livin' in God's love:. And before I get
>flamed for equating sex with sin/evil, I would not say the musical phrase is
>immoral. I'm just saying its about sex.

Like many other heavy metal songs, that song puts me to sleep, and I've
learned through long experimentation and painstaking research that that's 
a state that is generally not conducive to sexual intercourse.  I'm a
Mozart man, myself.

What can I say?  Apparently different songs and different styles of
music have different effects on different people.  Putting "I'm
livin' in God's love" together with "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" would
have had a weird effect on me too, and may have prevented my
youngest daughter from being born.

>> >Second, to those who hold that "only God can create, therefore everything is 
>> >good", I think one should realise that *man* has been given a limited 
>> >ability to create as well. And we can create both holy things and evil 
>> >things...So I would contend that it *is* possible for a musical work, and 
>> >possibly because of the intent of it's founders, a *genre*, to be evil...
>
>> Yes, man creates too.  And man sometimes creates holy things and sometimes
>> creates evil things.  But any musical genre is so big and encompasses so
>> many different artists within that genre that I find it fairly fruitless
>> to talk about the holiness or evil of the genre as a whole...
>
>Perhaps so. I didn't so much mean to create a big argument about it as to cast
>enough doubt on the statement "music *is* amoral" to cause a few people to ask
>a question or two about whether their music was really consistent with what 
>they want to say, or is the music the way it is because they just "dig it". I
>have heard some genuinely well-married rock, and I have heard a lot of groove
>tunes with a christian message to "bless" it.

I'm all for well-crafted songs and an aesthetically pleasing marriage
of music and lyrics.  That probably means something different to me
than it does to you, and that's okay.  I still don't think that 
certain lyrics or themes are more appropriate for certain genres
of music, though.  
 
>> This doesn't follow to me at all.  You can find Christian music in any
>> genre you care to name, including the ever-popular and controversial heavy
>> metal, rap, new age, thrash, industrial, and punk categories.  All the
>> evil founders in the world (whoever they are) don't negate the fact that 
>> Christians have created music to edify the body of Christ and to glorify 
>> God in every officially sanctioned and every controversial musical 
>> genre that exists...
>
>Well, I've heard no Christian texts to "The Stripper", yet...;-)

Maybe the passage in Genesis about Potiphar's wife, huh?  Then again,
maybe not.  

>> There are *no* evil musical genres.  There are only sinful people who are 
>> quite capable of producing lies and deceit through music.  
>
>Well, we certainly agree on the sinful people part... and, to tell you the 
>truth, I can't *name* a sinful *genre*. And the burden of proof must fall on 
>the one who would call one such, particularly if other sensitive christians
>are writing legitimate, quality works in the genre. But there is a difference
>between eating food sacrificed to idols because you know in your heart that
>such idols are only stone and metal and have no power to taint god-given food,
>and in saying "to hell with whether it's a sin or not...it's meat...let's 
>eat!!! I realise you are approaching the music from the former perspective. The
>*only* "but" I would say is to ask if music (I mean significant chunks of it, 
>not just tiny elemental snippets of melody, timbre or rhythm) as a work of
>someone's hands, is absolutely, completely, and unconditionally devoid of 
>moral statement. 

Well, I'm still going to argue that without any other context, music
(as in melody, timbre, rhythm, etc.) is absolutely, completely,
unconditionally devoid of moral statement.  Of course, there's
almost always other context - lyrics, song titles, liner notes,
past history of the performer, etc. to help us make our decision
to eat or not.  We all have to wrestle with those decisions.  All
I can say is beware of people named Wolfgang.  

>Bob (Puddleglum: Stop! don't eat another bite ... its a *talking* stag) Miller
>
>P.S. 
>
>>>My prescription? When a writer's heart is in touch with God and he knows his
>>>craft well enough to marry the right lyric with the right music so they 
>>>become a seamless whole, that's what matters. Perhaps because of differing 
>>>cultural conditioning, another hearer might not understand the connection, 
>>>but I would contend that while the writer must be sensitive to his audience,
>>>if the work is holy in the concert-hall of his Spirit-filled heart, let no 
>>>man dare to call it profane.
>
>> Amen on that.
>
>Glad you liked it. Its what I really had to say. I should have left out the
>other stuff ;-)

Nah, the other stuff is fine too.  This is all to be taken, I hope, in
the spirit of good-natured disagreement and my hopeless predisposition
to argue about anything and everything.  

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
att!cblpn!ajw  or
ajw@cblpn.att.com