|
Post by raindear on Jan 25, 2007 16:07:49 GMT -5
At the request of Katycarl, I am going to put forth an argument that certain styles of music are objectively unfavorable to the virtuous life. Before I begin, a few caveats are in order: A)The argument depends heavily upon Plato's Republic and Aristotilian(and thus Thomistic) Ethics, so it may not be very meaningful or persuasive to those who are unfamiliar with or unappreciative of that philosophical tradition. B)I am merely recounting, to the best of my ability, an argument I received from more competent sources. If you are really curious, I recommend that you order Fr. Basil Nortz's Music and Morality lecture( "http://www.opusangelorum.org/Tapes/tapeoffer.html ) for a more substantial exposition. C) I know this is a sensitive, controversial issue. Please do not take offense if you enjoy the types of music I criticize here. I found this a "hard saying" myself - when you are concientiously striving for virtue it is difficult to believe that something you enjoy on a regular basis is morally objectionable. However, such is the nature of bad habits. Once your moral taste is formed the wrong way, it's difficult for the soul to perceive things clearly.
Now, according to the Christian philosophical tradition, art imitates nature. Among the fine arts, music is the most important to moral formation because: it imitates moral states of the passions; and because it tends to dispose the soul of the listener to the state it imitates. In the Republic, Plato claims that “Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul.” Boethius also stated: "Music can both establish and destroy morality. For no path is more open to the soul for the formation thereof than through the ears. Therefore when the rhythms and modes have penetrated even to the soul through these organs, it cannot be doubted that they affect the soul with their own character and conform it to themselves.” Likewise, in the Politics, Aristotle states that "emotions of any kind are produced by melody and rhythm; therefore by music a man becomes accustomed to feeling the right emotions; music has thus the power to form character, and various kinds of music based on the various modes, may be distinguished by their effects on character — one, for example, working in the direction of melancholy, another of effeminacy, one encouraging abandonment, another self-control, another enthusiasm, and so on through the series.”
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the soul has three appetitive powers which follow upon its two powers of apprehension(ie., powers of receiving knowledge). The first and lower kind of apprehension is that of sensation - we perceive material reality through our five bodily senses which depend upon the soul for their operation. Two appetitive powers, known as the passions, follow upon that sensible knowledge. He divides these powers into the concupiscible and the irascible. The object of the former is "is sensible good or evil, simply apprehended as such, which causes pleasure or pain"(STI-II.23.1) and that of the latter is "this very good or evil, inasmuch as it is of an arduous or difficult nature." In a loose sense, you can think of the concupiscible passions as bodily desires (for food, comfort, etc.) and the irascible passions as the emotions which arise in your pursuit of those goods(or avoidance of corresponding evils). The second power of apprehension is the intellect, which perceives immaterial reality, universal truthes. Rational appetite, or free will, follows upon this knowledge.
This ethical tradition of St. Thomas, rooted in Plato and Aristotle, holds that the virtuous man is the man who achieves the proper order of the soul, reason ruling the concupiscible appetites with the aid of the irascible passions and directing all toward man's final end, happiness(can be regarded in two senses: as an object, God, or the activity by which He is possessed, contemplation.). Fr. Nortz argues that the parts of a song (rhythm, harmony and melody) correspond to the parts of the soul (concupiscible, irascible, rational) and should be ordered in the same way. A song can be disordered in basically two ways: if the parts of the song are not ordered properly in relation to one another; and if the whole song imitates a disordered passion. For example, the rhythm and harmony should serve the melody, but in many pop and rock songs, the rhythm is powerful and throbbing, while the melody is very simple or repetitive, with no clear beginning or end. Sorry, cannot finish this now. I have chronic brevity issues. Will try to get to it tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by antonio449 on Jan 25, 2007 16:37:21 GMT -5
Hombre, you have to finish this. It looks promising.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on Jan 26, 2007 11:26:49 GMT -5
Ok, I'll try and wrap this up with relative cogency. Scientific study has shown that musical rhythms and resonance match up with the frequency of bodily organs. Some rock music stimulates the adrenal glands, sets the heart racing, and raises blood pressure. Music with a more syncopated sensual beat stimulates sexual organs. According to researchers: "Rhythm for which drums provide or generate the basic beat, produces measurable responses in the body’s muscular system,brainwave patterns and hormone levels. Briefly, (1) muscle coordination and control become synchronized with the basic beat; (2) brainwave activity itself aligns with the rhythm so generated; and (3) various hormones (specifically, opiates and sex hormones) are released as a result of electrophysiological synchronization with the rhythm. These results have been regularly documented by various researchers, and though individual subjects may vary in their response over narrow ranges of controlled input, all normal subjects have reacted as indicated when the rhythm exceeds 3-4 beats per second—roughly speaking a rhythm exceeding the rate of the average heartbeat.” (Daniel and Bernardette Skubik, The Neurophysiology of Rock, published separately as an appendix in John Blanchard, Pop Goes the Gospel: Rock in the Church, page 187) There are a couple of easily recognizable signs of this influence. First, many people find their pop/rock music somewhat addictive - not surprising if it makes them feel perky or sexy due to the increase in adrenalin or sexual hormones. Secondly, this kind of music encourages sensual movement. Imagine the typical free dance - people swaying and gyrating in sensual abandonment - without the music. Their movement would appear absurd and distasteful. In contrast, more "ordered" types of music, like the waltz, match up with the frequency of the thyroid gland and the rhythm of human heart beats. Often classical pieces by composers like Bach or Mozart, stimulate the pituitary gland and help one think more clearly. There is more interesting information here: www.internationalparentingassociation.org/Music/studies.html In short, a disordered song can overthrow the order of the soul, through the power influence it exercises over the body.
A song can also be disordered when it is directed toward an emotional state(even a neutral one) outside of an appropriate or rational context. For example, some songs jolt you into a particular emotion (anger or melancholy) and fade out without resolution. Other songs direct you toward a passion always unsuitable, such as lust.
In some disordered songs, the melody is "unreasonable," as in atonal music. Other songs don't seem to have any melody at all - they are entirely unpredictable, without pattern, without beginning or end. Disordered harmonies might employ excessive dissonance, ii.e. dissonance for its own sake, rather than for making true harmony appear more lovely by contrast. I suppose this is really a third kind of disorder - belying my original distinction - when the parts of the song fail in their specific role. There is also the question of whether a particular song is fitted to a particular activity or purpose. But that is probably worthy of separate consideration. In any case, I apologize for the poor organization of my post and for the casual footnotes. Even if my arguments fail to convince, I hope everyone finds them food for thought.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on Jan 26, 2007 11:35:43 GMT -5
Btw, antonio449, thank you for your encouragement!
|
|
|
Post by syme on Jan 26, 2007 13:02:50 GMT -5
There's one problem. Even if all that you say were true (and I am not convinced that it is, especially given some over-extended generalizations about rock and pop music) that does not mean that listening to these songs is immoral. It is just like watching sin being commited in a movie, or reading about it in a story. The work may well be "disordered" but one may have very legitimate reasons for listening/reading/watching nonetheless. As long as one is not going to commit a sin, there is very little reason to shun such music on moral grounds, especially if one is a mature individual that can discern between the things that are of value in the music and those that aren't. While certainly there are some times of music that have very little of value to compensate for their defects that if far from being the case in general. I'm listen to a lot of indie rock and find both in the lyrics and the music itself much that speaks to various states of the human condition.
I don't like rock because it makes me feel "sexy" or move in a "suggestive" manner. I actually think rock is totally useless as dancing music. But I think it makes great listening music. If anything, it makes me feel creative and helps me keep what I think is a healthy degree of non-comformity towards things. I realize there is a lot of rock music that reflects morally reprehensible stances, but that is only because it is made by people who inevitably project many of their imperfections into their music. However, just like among my friends their are saints and sinners (and most often those qualities are found within the same person) and I still enjoy their company, so with the music to which I listen. And that's fine with me.
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Jan 26, 2007 15:34:20 GMT -5
I think there's a lot of interest in that sort of throwaway point at the end of your post, raindear: that on a sort of sliding scale, there are some of these songs that are suitable for some activities and not others. For example, there are certain pop and rock songs that make effective workout motivators precisely because of the physiological effects you describe them as having. Some of these are songs I wouldn't even enjoy in another context, because they're not suitable to the activity of writing, reading, driving, walking around a museum looking at pictures, or whatever else. And a question: how do lyrics play into the overall impression? Thinking of bands like U2, which (for me) have success both in creating good rock music and creating effective catalysts for lifting up the heart to God, I think there must be some extra complexity here. In short -- and I think there's much more to be said here, but I'm trying to hurry -- I agree with the basic Aristotelian/Thomistic principle that music is formative to the soul. However, I'm not totally sure that it follows that all music with certain rhythmic characteristics is automatically, necessarily a cause of negative formation or weakening. For example, Celtic dance music goes at fast speeds and uses drums for a main rhythm line; does that make the ceili disordered? I also agree with Syme that there is a certain sifting process in the consciousness; whether the negative influences work their way through to the subconscious mind, I think is an open question -- but I know that, when writing, for example, I've found certain kinds of rock music that I don't normally listen to, serve as an entry into the minds and emotional states of characters I wouldn't have understood as well otherwise. I think we can talk about a number of different levels of operation here, about God's working good through less-than-ideal sub-creations maybe, and also about a scale of qualitative value in music on which there may not be as clear a cut-off point, but then again there may be. I'm just not sure -- and in a terrible hurry now -- so we'll continue this.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on Jan 26, 2007 16:01:26 GMT -5
Thanks for your comments Syme and Katycarl!
Syme, I would hesitate to use the term immoral in any case - it's more accurate to say that "bad" music disposes the soul toward vice. If you believe that that is true and listen to "bad" music without good reason, then your listening could probably be called immoral. Movies are somewhat different than music, because they don't have the same tendency to put you in the moral state depicted (though the soundtrack might). And I should note that I believe some kinds of sins should never be depicted on screen. Nonetheless, there are other sins that it can be helpful to depict, in the proper context, and the same is true with music. For example, a movie (and its soundtrack) might portray a murder in such a way that the viewer is moved to abhor that act. However, a movie is poorly done when it moves you to inordinate sympathy with an immoral act. For example, I have a pet peeve with movies like The Patriot, because they move you to a desire for revenge. In any case, it seems ok to portray certain evils through song, so long as the song puts that evil in the proper context.
I think there is a modern tendency to view art as pure entertainment. Of course, the folks gathered at this forum have a better understanding, but I think we've all been influenced by that tendency to a certain extent. The purpose of fine art is only secondarily pleasure - it is, more properly, to help us know and love the good and true. It is supposed to "subconsciously" shape your taste and understanding. A rational, mature individual can fight that tendency, but it seems foolhardy to do so unless there is some other valuable good at stake.
If music has an objective physical effect on you which you've become accustomed to through habitual listening, you may not be able to discern its effects as clearly. As to your point about sinners and saints, I will have to think about that more, but I think music has a moral purpose and should not be judged by the same standards as friends.
Katycarl, I will address your thoughts later. No time at present...
|
|
|
Post by Bernardo on Jan 27, 2007 1:18:20 GMT -5
He he... I wouldn't make rash comments about what the "proper" purpose of art is around these parts... you might get a lot of people riled up! A rather long and intense discussion was conducted on that topic just recently on two different threads. I refer you to "Christ, Culture, and the Culture Wars" thread on "Dappled Discussion" and another on the "Art & Culture" forum that I think is titled "Religious Humanism: A Manifesto."
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Jan 27, 2007 2:48:24 GMT -5
As to the "purpose of art" discussion, briefly: I was thinking about this again the other day, and it seems to me that it stemmed from a confusion between the purpose for creating art, or the artist's reasons for so doing, and the purposes which art can serve in society, not all of which are always the same. Obviously, related questions will also come to bear here -- so if anyone wants to get a read on a number of our positions, those topics are a good place to do it. Raindear, what are some of the "other valuable goods" which might be at stake when listening to a piece of music, or engaging with any other piece of art, that embraces or promotes (rather than just depicts) a moral stance short of that to which you hold yourself? And how do you weigh them against the possible evils in the case? This is a question that's long interested me, and I'd like to hear your take on it (and anyone else's who's willing to jump into the fray, although we've discussed this in other threads as well).
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Jan 27, 2007 5:05:15 GMT -5
As usual, you guys have given me a lot of things to think about. Let me collect my thoughts on this issue. For the meantime, I'd recommend a very interesting three-part documentary entitled "The NAture of Music" produced, written, and directed by JEremy MArre. The back of the VHS container says:
"Music is more than entertainment. People incorporate music into sacred rituals and use it for healing, dance, worship, and protest. Music confirms our individual, national, and cultural identities. Now JEremy Marre's landmark series, "The NAture of Music" explores the importance of music in socieites around the world -- from Bali to your own backyard."
The documentary is divided into three parts: 1. Sources and Sorcery, 2. Songs and Symbols, and 3. Legends and Labels.
|
|
|
Post by syme on Jan 27, 2007 11:59:58 GMT -5
One big problem I have with everything raindear is saying is that it is all based on doubtful extrapolations from Aristotle's/St. Thomas's principles to a very varied and broad class of music as a whole. Beats, rhythms, and melodies in rock music vary *significantly* from song to song and band to band. Some are slow, some are frenzied, some have repetitive melodies and some are practically symphonic in scope.
Then there are raindear's assertions about "absurd or distasteful" movements. I'm not sure what "movements" he is refering too, but I'd still like to know by what standard he judges them absurd. Frankly, I've always thought that if we took away the music, all forms of dancing would look pretty absurd. I've often thought of this while engaging in forms of dance that I presume raindear would find acceptable. I mean, if you think about it, it seems pretty absurd that a pair of grown-ups would get up and start prancing about a hall together in front of other people. But it is a lovely absurdity nonetheless. (Obviously, some forms of dancing, especially some that have been adopted for hip hop music are problematic given the fact that people *are* acting lustfully and engaging in what ends up being little better than occasions for imitating the marital act with a total stranger, albeit with clothes on. However, I think people could dance lustfully in subtle ways with almost any form of music to which people can dance. That doesn't make dancing or music as a whole disordered, however.)
Honestly, and I hope you will forgive me for putting it in such crude terms, I think raindear's apparently complex argument boils down to this: "rock music makes you horny, therefore it is bad." I don't think the first part of that statement is true, so of course I don't buy the second one either. There is certainly *some* rock music that makes me *excited,* but I do not remember a single time in my life in which it has made me *lustful.* And then there are other songs that soothe me, or make me feel melancholy, or very simply happy. Surely there must be some songs that are indeed suggestive, but that is not the music to which I listen.
|
|
|
Post by katycarl on Jan 27, 2007 14:23:11 GMT -5
Honestly, and I hope you will forgive me for putting it in such crude terms, I think raindear's apparently complex argument boils down to this: "rock music makes you horny, therefore it is bad."
I've read a form of the argument which runs in the way you boil it down here, syme. I'm not sure which raindear is making here, though, this one or the one that runs, "If you find that rock music (or any other kind) is turning you on (or moving you to any other serious passion) in inappropriate times or circumstances, then it's probable that it's unhealthy for you and that you need to look for other listening choices." I'd be much more willing to accept, or at least engage with, the latter argument than the former. Chesterton (always quotable) has some line about how the saints' penances have often taken the form of rejecting goods personally which they did not condemn for everyone (from food, wine and liquor to marriage and family), and that this is how the Church's encouragement of extreme penance stays within the limit of sanity. You don't move from the particular, "this is bad for me," to the general, "therefore it must be bad for everyone," unless there's compelling evidence.
Of course, that begs the question whether rock music is categorically disordered and whether the evidence against it is compelling, which is exactly what we're debating here. A couple other questions have arisen in my mind: how is dissonance in classical music, especially in an opera like Mozart's Don Giovanni where the character being portrayed is pretty wicked, different from dissonance in the genre of rock or other, more modern symphonic music?
I think I see what you mean about the "absurd and distasteful," though -- I'm always disappointed when we go to the symphony and I find, sandwiched in between two pieces I wanted to listen to, something atonal, scattered, formless that leaves me wondering, "Now what was the point of that?" Where you find the corrolaries of these in more popular genres, I'm less clear, but curious.
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Jan 28, 2007 2:22:56 GMT -5
We should remember that music itself is good, and composing music and listening to music are morally neutral acts. The acts of composing and listening to music can be bad based on the intention (for example, deliberately composing sexually suggestive music to stimulate lust, or listening to sexually suggestive music because it's sexually suggestive and not because of the complexity of the rhythm, melody, and harmony.)
I think that if ever rock music, in itself, could be morally questionable, it's not because of the music itself but because it has been associated with less innocent aspects of modern life. Rock music is frequently melded to sexually explicit lyrics (and in some cases even sexually explicit sounds, like when the singer or rapper uses a seductive voice) and visuals. Not a few rock singers wear immodest clothes, and rock stars aren't exactly stereotyped to live saintly lives (although I'd like to believe there are some exceptions.)
Of course, I know this reply does not really help because it raises the question of whether the inherent characteristics of rock make it more susceptible to being associated with immorality, loosely understood.
|
|
|
Post by cristina on Jan 28, 2007 2:50:17 GMT -5
A couple other questions have arisen in my mind: how is dissonance in classical music, especially in an opera like Mozart's Don Giovanni where the character being portrayed is pretty wicked, different from dissonance in the genre of rock or other, more modern symphonic music? The dissonance in classical music is actually a studied dissonance. Composers deliberately combine tones that sound dissonant together to achieve a particular effect (like in the example you mentioned: to portray a villainous character). In classical music, "dissonant" does not necessarily mean "unharmonious"; it means more that the combination of tones creates a restless effect. In classical music, composers usually resolve dissonant tones in consonant tones. In the more modern forms of music, composers use dissonant tones more, and resolve dissonant tones not by using a consonant tone but by using a "less dissonant" dissonant tone. In fact, in more modern forms of music, dissonance can be an end in itself rather than action which prepares for or anticipates something. You also have the even more avant garde forms of music that just bang sounds together on the theory that whatever the result will be, will be music. An example that comes to mind is a piece of aleatory music where the players tune in to different radio stations at the same time and increase or decrease volumes or switch stations at the conductor's signal. I read this discussion on consonance and dissonance in music from Roger Kamien's textbook entitled "Music: An Appreciation": "Some chords have been considered stable and restful, others unstable and tense. A tone combination that is stable is called a consonance. Consonances are points of arrival, rest, and resolution...A tone combination that is unstable is called a dissonance. Its tension demands an onward motion to a stable chord. A dissonance has its resolution when it moves to a consonance. When this resolution is delayed or accomplished in unexpected ways, a feeling of drama, suspense, or surprise is created. In this way, a composer plays with the listener's sense of expectations. Dissonant chords are active and move music forward. Traditionally, they have been considered harsh and have been used in music that expresses pain, grief, and conflict.
Now that consonance and dissonance have been defiend, be aware that they can exist in varying degrees. Some consonant chords are more stable than others, and some dissonant chors are more tense than others. Dissonant chords have been used with increasing freedom over the centuries, so that often a chord considereed intolerably harsh in one period has later come to seem rather mild." (pp. 60-61).
|
|
|
Post by raindear on Jan 29, 2007 11:51:38 GMT -5
Hi folks, I will do my best to address your comments, but a lot has been said since I last checked in. Katycarl, I agree that some songs are unsuitable for certain activities, but I also think that a song "disordered" in itself is unsuitable for any purpose. For example, there are some types of music where the rhythm should be stronger, such as music for dancing or marching. However, in marching music the rhythm is still at the service of reason. It compels the body to move in a purposeful way, with fortitude and resolve and attention. Similarly, ceili music compels the body to move, but if one observes the forms of dance which developed with it, they involve ordered patterns of graceful, albeit lively, movement. One of my philosophy professors compared marching music with Jock Jams - when you listen to the latter, you feel a sort of wild, pent-up energy. He joked that playing such music before a battle, your soldiers might attack their own companions. Fr. Nortz says that lyrics are, of course, important. If lyrics are bad, the song is bad. However, he thinks the music is a more subtle danger, because it effects the soul directly and subconsciously - it is easier to recognize the evil of lyrics because, insofar as they are understood by the intellect, they are also consciously judged. If the music is bad and the lyrics are good(as he would claim with U2), than the song lacks integrity, for the music should make the meaning of the lyrics clearer. If there is spiritual good at stake in listening to certain kinds of music, than listening to them can only be justified for the sake of some more significant spiritual good. When I said other valuable goods, I was thinking of a monk from the Community of St. John who said that one brother from their order had received permission to attend rock concerts in order to research the music industry. In this case, the good of saving souls outweighed the dangers of the music. Bernardo, Thanks for the warning. I will proceed with care. In all seriousness, though, I skimmed through the beginning of that post on "Christ, Culture...etc." It is misleading to distinguish too starkly between the Beautiful, the Good and the True. St. Thomas calls them the transcendentals and says they are different aspects of the same thing - BEING. In the Prima Pars (Q.5.1) he says:"Beauty and goodness in a thing are identical fundamentally; for they are based upon the same thing, namely, the form; and consequently goodness is praised as beauty. But they differ logically, for goodness properly relates to the appetite (goodness being what all things desire); and therefore it has the aspect of an end (the appetite being a kind of movement towards a thing). On the other hand, beauty relates to the cognitive faculty; for beautiful things are those which please when seen." So, in a real sense, a thing cannot be beautiful without being good and vice versa. Truth relates to beauty similarly. Cristina, Thanks for the recommendations. I found the information on dissonance very interesting. Katycarl and Syme, It seems to me that you are making a similar objection: We should be able to recognize which songs are arousing and avoid them. From what I understand, the genres of pop and rock always involve some form of syncopated rhythm and syncopated rhythms are inherently sensual. This is from Wikipedia (sorry to use such goofy sources - I am just googling to find articles that confirm facts I originally received from more trustworthy sources): "The back beat is now used in virtually all forms of popular music." and "Back beat refers to a percussion style with a strong accent is sounded on the second and fourth beats of the bar, most often from striking a snare drum. This is the simplest form of syncopation, and the tension between the normally much stronger first and third beats (downbeats) and the backbeats creates interest." Bob Larsen noted in his work, The Day Music Died, "Syncopated rhythms evoked the most sensuous response from the human body, particularly when they are electronically accentuated. Many of the vital processes of life are based upon rhythm. The vascular, respiratory and autonomic nervous systems all use it to perform their functions. Man is a rhythmic being and therefore has an inherent affinity for certain rhythms."( www.av1611.org/crock/crocknob.html) Now, there are other aspects of a song which can acerbate this effect. Certainly, in some popular songs, the sensual tendency is not as intense. Furthermore, some temperaments are less inclined to sensuality and so may be influenced less. Nonetheless, sensuality seems to be a scientifically proven effect of syncopated rhythms and I have not found research to the contrary. Even if you note other (arguably positive) influences the music has over you, such effects do not justify listening to a morally "disordered" song. As I said at the beginning, it is difficult to recognize the influence once your passions are habituated to literally override your reason in this respect. One way to test this claim is to fast from "disordered" music for a period of time (a month or two) and then listen to it again after accustoming yourself to listen only to "ordered" music. Katycarl, With regard to your point about moral generalizations, I think it is valuable to make some historical observations. First, music was recognized as an important moral influence and regulated by pagan and Christian societies. The penitential types confined themselves to chanting the Divine Office, but the music for the masses was also measured by definite moral standards; innovators met with public outcry. Enlightenment ideals exulted moral liberty and led to radical developments in all the arts. Now we have no cultural standards for music, so we may judge the lyrics, but the music itself is almost always measured by personal taste. From a historical perspective, this is an unprecedented state of affairs. Secondly, rock music developed as part of the sexual revolution and the disastrous confusion of the 60's. At the beginning, its effects were quite starkly apparent. Now we have become desensitized to the extent of it's unwholesome influence. Considering the history of these genres, however, it seems more reasonable to begin with distrust. From my perspective, the burden of proof is on those who uphold the merits of pop/rock music. Once again, Fr. Nortz's lectures are much more convincing than my muddled ramblings. He is very well-researched and approaches the issue from a philosophical, historical, and (musically) technical perspective.
|
|