|
Post by cristina on May 15, 2007 5:42:57 GMT -5
In any case, I am a little discouraged by the responses posted here. Christianity demands radical transformation of life, and this forum is dedicated to a new flowering of Catholic art and culture. When I present a reasoned challenge to popular music, in the end, the only response offered to science, tradition and philosophy is: "Give me a break. It's fun to listen to so it cannot be wrong." There is also a common misapprehension that the alternative to popular music must be boring and stuffy. Well, let me break the news to you, mankind has always enjoyed dancing and festivity. But there have been times in history when, from their very culture, Christians understood virtue and pleasure and festivity more truly than most of us do now. So, if we look to their musical precepts and their musical forms for guidance, we might find there room for joyful creativity, within the bounds of order and grace. I think there's no issue that -- 1) Certain types of music can be more conducive to virtue than others. 2) There are certain types of music that can stimulate listeners in a sinful way, and in fact, music has been used for that purpose. I think what's problematic is the proposition that the acts of making or listening to syncopated, heavily rhythmic music are intrinsically sinful -- even if such music is not made or listened to with the intention of sexually arousing oneself or the listener, and even if such music is not mixed with obscene lyrics. There may be research findings that more upbeat forms of music -- even if they're not directly linked to sex -- can stimulate sexually. Still, there is a difference between listening to music that happens to be sexually stimulating, and deliberately seeking the sexual stimulation. To use an extreme example, if one happens to be sexually stimulated by Mozart's music, it would be sinful to listen to Mozart's music to deliberately seek sexual stimulation. Another point: just because music appeals more to the passions than to reason does not make it morally disordered. We have to remember that the passions, in themselves, are good, and we are human beings, not angels. Still another point: perhaps one reason I hesitate to accept the proposition that making or listening to syncopated, heavily rhythmic music is sinful is that, as Bernardo and I pointed out, some of it comes from traditional African music. Not that I believe that just because something is cultural, it's not bad. Definitely, a culture can be wrong. But can we conclude that it's the music that's wrong with a culture? If there's something inherently wrong with the mesmerizing beats played by the African slaves in Latin America, the Spanish missionaries would not have allowed them to be mixed with lyrics like Ave Maria Morena. Or should the Spanish missionaries have forbidden it?
|
|
|
Post by cristina on May 15, 2007 5:45:41 GMT -5
Bernardo & Cristina-- Any idea where I can listen to some of the recommended Latin music? Bernardo's phrase "dancing music" perfectly sums up the majority of what's sung in Spanish at my parish. Thanks! The song I mentioned, Ave Maria Morena, is a traditional Cuban song. The batucada I mentioned is what's played during the carnival in Rio de Janeiro. My sister says there are several versions of it. She'd know sources of those music better than I do.
|
|
|
Post by bluemaydie on May 15, 2007 8:15:32 GMT -5
Cristina--
I'll have to try to find that <i>Ave Maria Morena</i>--I've been enchanted by the Cuban music I've heard so far.
Raindear--
I must say I was surprised that I was already familiar with much of the music you mentioned. I sang, in fact, the King Singers madrigals when I was in high school. Their settings of the Beatles' music were far tamer than the actual Renaissance madrigals I sang, as far as sex goes. But I do find it disingenuous of you to decry popular music so loudly, and then to slip a Beatles song into your list of properly ordered music. I also find it difficult to countenance your objections to Latin forms that did not originate in "Spanish Catholic culture," and then provide me with a list of Irish music that did not originate in the Church. Moreover, Irish music can be just as dance-inspiring as Latin music and the lyrics just as disordered.
This seems to be a case of folk music vs folk music. But as far as I can tell, from studying a little the history of rock music, rock music IS folk music--it's a combination of the country and blues styles that developed regionally, among the lower classes, and it's still the music that people with next to no training get together and make. Madrigals don't have that distinction any more.
Your main objction to popular music seems to be its heavy beat. Others have raised the concern that this objection rejects African folk forms out of hand, as well as all forms inspired by them (such as, through a long heritage, rock and roll). But the heavy beat has perfectly legitimate uses. How many Irish folk songs originated in the laborer's need to work in a rhythm, as when harvesting? A heavy, repetitive beat makes that easy. What's more, while a heavy beat is not suitable for all lyrics, that sense of forward movement makes it well suited to psalms--to songs of hope, desire, and longing. All of which can be scripturally sound themes.
To conclude, this is not a case of, "Well, I like it so it must be all right." It's a case of, "I like one form of popular music, and I'm being told to reject it in favor of other forms of popular music without convincing arguments. So I'm going to stick with the preferences I already have." Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by syme on May 15, 2007 8:41:16 GMT -5
A couple of points, raindear:
First, you misunderstand if you think we've somehow blinded ourselves to reason. The problem is that some of us think your abstract argument, even if correct, fails at the level of making connections to the concrete. In other words, there may be "disordered" music, but we don't agree with you about what that would be.
I think you singnificantly overblow the extent to which a syncopated rhythm can overwhelm the senses and become an occasion for sin. Eating certain foods, drinking, or physical excercise can also excite the senses in very similar ways, but we don't shun these things as sinful or inherently disordered. These things by themselves are highly unlikely to lead us to sin, in part because they need a wider and "disordered" framework or context for them to have a negative effect. For example, Latin music danced in a party with scantly clad women and heavy drinking is likely to lead one to sin, but the same songs shared in one of Cristina's family gatherings most probably lead to joy and fellowship.
I think you have seized upon the fact that certain rhythms have somatic effects and obsessed over that detail while forgetting to connect it with the rest of reality. It is as if an economist tried to organize a policy for development completely based on the fact that consumers prefer cheaper goods to expensive ones, while forgetting that this assumes identical goods, pefect competition, perfect information, rationality, and the fact that participants in the market seek to maximize their utility (i.e., satisfaction) rather than just the amount of money they save. Such an economist would reach very erroneous conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on May 15, 2007 11:46:37 GMT -5
Yikes! Raindear's being pretty hard on us. We will all have to brush up our science, tradition and reason in the next volley of questions and responses. *removes tongue from cheek* -- In all seriousness, thanks for the audio clips; those were fun. I don't think the opposition being presented is at all against that kind of music, or even in favor of music that's really and obviously disordered (which I think we all recognize exists). Obviously I can't speak for others, but I find myself wondering if there isn't more of a middle way that incorporates whatever may be good in contemporary music and leaves what's bad. Or do you think there's any good in contemporary music, or am I confusing "contemporary" with a particular set of styles in that question? Christina, I am not quite sure what you're getting at here. If by contemporary music, you refer to pop or rock, I would say that the elements which make them distinctly pop or rock are the problem, so we would not want to incorporate them. But, if you refer rather to music composed or performed by current artists, I think there is plenty of contemporary "ordered" music available. In fact, I remembered another lovely cd of folk music which I discovered earlier this year: www.amazon.com/When-I-See-Winter-Return/dp/B00000AEG3/ref=sr_1_2/002-8785890-0837656?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1179247620&sr=1-2
|
|
|
Post by raindear on May 15, 2007 12:05:56 GMT -5
I think what's problematic is the proposition that the acts of making or listening to syncopated, heavily rhythmic music are intrinsically sinful -- even if such music is not made or listened to with the intention of sexually arousing oneself or the listener, and even if such music is not mixed with obscene lyrics.
Do you think that art is morally neutral and that its morality is determined purely by circumstances and intention? I think a book or a movie or a painting can be just plain evil, for everyone, under any circumstances. Lyrics are more an accidental - to deny that the musical form can be evil is to make music itself morally neutral.
There may be research findings that more upbeat forms of music -- even if they're not directly linked to sex -- can stimulate sexually. Still, there is a difference between listening to music that happens to be sexually stimulating, and deliberately seeking the sexual stimulation. To use an extreme example, if one happens to be sexually stimulated by Mozart's music, it would be sinful to listen to Mozart's music to deliberately seek sexual stimulation.
You have to distinguish between music which is disordered in itself and a soul so disordered that it perverts everything received.
Another point: just because music appeals more to the passions than to reason does not make it morally disordered. We have to remember that the passions, in themselves, are good, and we are human beings, not angels.
It's not so much the appeal to passions that is the problem. It is the appeal to the passions in a manner that is contrary to or subversive of reason
Still another point: perhaps one reason I hesitate to accept the proposition that making or listening to syncopated, heavily rhythmic music is sinful is that, as Bernardo and I pointed out, some of it comes from traditional African music. Not that I believe that just because something is cultural, it's not bad. Definitely, a culture can be wrong. But can we conclude that it's the music that's wrong with a culture?
In the conferences by Fr. Basil Nortz which I mentioned at the beginning, he points out that the rhythms used in Jazz music originated in Satanic vodoo ceremonies. Now, we certainly wouldn't equate the two, but it raises the question: can musical forms rooted in the most perverse kinds of evil be baptized?
If there's something inherently wrong with the mesmerizing beats played by the African slaves in Latin America, the Spanish missionaries would not have allowed them to be mixed with lyrics like Ave Maria Morena. Or should the Spanish missionaries have forbidden it?[/quote]
I am not familiar with that song. However, as we discussed earlier in this thread, a strong beat is not necessarily equivalent with a disordered beat.
|
|
|
Post by bluemaydie on May 15, 2007 12:23:18 GMT -5
"If by contemporary music, you refer to pop or rock, I would say that the elements which make them distinctly pop or rock are the problem, so we would not want to incorporate them."
I have to ask, Raindear, what are "the elements which make them distinctly pop or rock"? Folk, after all, is by its nature a form of popular music, so you must mean elements other than of-the-people popularity must be rejected. But the heavy beats of rock and pop descended from folk forms--although not "folk" as it came to be understood in the sixties. And folk as it came to be understood in the sixties is now so riddled with disordered lyrics (which I consider to be far more damaging than any beat) that, generically speaking, I have trouble recommending it to Christians. Rock, on the other hand, is now as full of (badly written) Christian lyrics as folk ever was.
I think in considering any music, we must consider all its parts, of which rhythm is only one. We must also consider lyrics and, as Syme pointed out, the context in which it's heard. I would call any piece of music "ordered" in which all three of those--and any other elements--all suited each other.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on May 15, 2007 12:28:58 GMT -5
Raindear-- I must say I was surprised that I was already familiar with much of the music you mentioned. I sang, in fact, the King Singers madrigals when I was in high school. Their settings of the Beatles' music were far tamer than the actual Renaissance madrigals I sang, as far as sex goes. But I do find it disingenuous of you to decry popular music so loudly, and then to slip a Beatles song into your list of properly ordered music. I also find it difficult to countenance your objections to Latin forms that did not originate in "Spanish Catholic culture," and then provide me with a list of Irish music that did not originate in the Church. Moreover, Irish music can be just as dance-inspiring as Latin music and the lyrics just as disordered. Have you read the earlier part of this thread? There were some important distinctions made which might help us understand each other better. I purposely stuck the Beatles sung in there to emphasize the importance of the musical form. Written in the madrigal style, that song is completely different. No syncopated rhythm. Bad lyrics can certainly make a song morally unacceptable, but not qua song. In the strictest sense, it is the musical form which makes a song disordered.
I realized that I drifted into more "subjective" territory with my remarks about Spanish Catholic culture. However, my remarks are not entirely without objective foundation: The Voice Squad is a traditional Celtic group - that means they consciously imitate traditional Celtic music, the folk music that developed out of a vibrant Catholic culture. From what I understand, Salsa music (though it may contain elements of traditional Spanish music) set out to be something new and I am more wary of something new in the 20th century than something new in 12th century Spain.
This seems to be a case of folk music vs folk music. But as far as I can tell, from studying a little the history of rock music, rock music IS folk music--it's a combination of the country and blues styles that developed regionally, among the lower classes, and it's still the music that people with next to no training get together and make. Madrigals don't have that distinction any more. Same explanation applies here.Your main objction to popular music seems to be its heavy beat. Others have raised the concern that this objection rejects African folk forms out of hand, as well as all forms inspired by them (such as, through a long heritage, rock and roll). But the heavy beat has perfectly legitimate uses. How many Irish folk songs originated in the laborer's need to work in a rhythm, as when harvesting? A heavy, repetitive beat makes that easy. What's more, while a heavy beat is not suitable for all lyrics, that sense of forward movement makes it well suited to psalms--to songs of hope, desire, and longing. All of which can be scripturally sound themes. Again, it might be helpful for you to read the earlier part of the thread. I explained there that strong beats are perfectly suitable for marching or dancing, but there are different kinds of strong beat. Jock Jams is different from a fife and drum band (another great cd: www.mcvfifesanddrums.org/mcvga.html#songs).To conclude, this is not a case of, "Well, I like it so it must be all right." It's a case of, "I like one form of popular music, and I'm being told to reject it in favor of other forms of popular music without convincing arguments. So I'm going to stick with the preferences I already have." Sorry.
|
|
|
Post by bluemaydie on May 15, 2007 12:30:46 GMT -5
"to deny that the musical form can be evil is to make music itself morally neutral."
But as far as I can see, Raindear, you're saying that certain beats are morally evil. But all a beat is is time; it's a mathematical ratio, and I would call math morally neutral. Chords, likewise, are morally neautral for the same reason. To say that "Lyrics are more accidental" is to confuse what can and cannot be intentional and, therefore moral. Lyrics are deliberate combinations of words (words which are in and of themselves morally neutral), much as melodies and songs are deliberate combinations of notes and rhythms (which are in themselves morally neutral). Only the combination can be examined in a moral consideration. Heavy beat paired with lyrics about booty-shaking: yeah, I'd say that's be be eschewed. Heavy beat about the desire of husband for wife, or soul for God: bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on May 15, 2007 12:33:30 GMT -5
Fair enough. But there is a big difference between calling food morally neutral and calling an art form morally neutral. I guess our real disagreement probably boils down to the purpose of art. A couple of points, raindear: First, you misunderstand if you think we've somehow blinded ourselves to reason. The problem is that some of us think your abstract argument, even if correct, fails at the level of making connections to the concrete. In other words, there may be "disordered" music, but we don't agree with you about what that would be. I think you singnificantly overblow the extent to which a syncopated rhythm can overwhelm the senses and become an occasion for sin. Eating certain foods, drinking, or physical excercise can also excite the senses in very similar ways, but we don't shun these things as sinful or inherently disordered. These things by themselves are highly unlikely to lead us to sin, in part because they need a wider and "disordered" framework or context for them to have a negative effect. For example, Latin music danced in a party with scantly clad women and heavy drinking is likely to lead one to sin, but the same songs shared in one of Cristina's family gatherings most probably lead to joy and fellowship. I think you have seized upon the fact that certain rhythms have somatic effects and obsessed over that detail while forgetting to connect it with the rest of reality. It is as if an economist tried to organize a policy for development completely based on the fact that consumers prefer cheaper goods to expensive ones, while forgetting that this assumes identical goods, pefect competition, perfect information, rationality, and the fact that participants in the market seek to maximize their utility (i.e., satisfaction) rather than just the amount of money they save. Such an economist would reach very erroneous conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on May 15, 2007 12:35:50 GMT -5
I have to ask, Raindear, what are "the elements which make them distinctly pop or rock"? Earlier in the thread, I posted an article by Wikipedia. The distinctive element is a rhythm that stresses the offbeat.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on May 15, 2007 12:43:41 GMT -5
Yes, but the problem is that art has a purpose - broadly speaking, to help men be virtuous; more specifically, to help them know and love the good/true/beautiful, moving the soul through sensible "images." When rhythm is employed in art, it automatically takes on a moral character because art has a moral purpose. You judge its morality by how well it serves the moral purpose. "to deny that the musical form can be evil is to make music itself morally neutral." But as far as I can see, Raindear, you're saying that certain beats are morally evil. But all a beat is is time; it's a mathematical ratio, and I would call math morally neutral. Chords, likewise, are morally neautral for the same reason. To say that "Lyrics are more accidental" is to confuse what can and cannot be intentional and, therefore moral. Lyrics are deliberate combinations of words (words which are in and of themselves morally neutral), much as melodies and songs are deliberate combinations of notes and rhythms (which are in themselves morally neutral). Only the combination can be examined in a moral consideration. Heavy beat paired with lyrics about booty-shaking: yeah, I'd say that's be be eschewed. Heavy beat about the desire of husband for wife, or soul for God: bring it on.
|
|
|
Post by bluemaydie on May 15, 2007 12:44:20 GMT -5
I suspected as much. But Raindear, a beat is nothing more than a mathematical ratio. It's just time. Math is morally neutral. Beethoven stressed an offbeat in the "Ode to Joy." Horrors!
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to drop this discussion. Not only do I not have time for it, but I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall that keeps repeating, "The only good Christians are the ones who listen to my hippy folk," a wall that calls the paint colors on a palette morally loaded without reference to the subject depicted. But there can be no morality without intention and free will, and the paints themselves have no will, no more than the beats and notes. Tradition is no guarantee of purity, nor newness of disorder.
|
|
|
Post by raindear on May 15, 2007 13:23:50 GMT -5
You are making my position more extreme than it really is, probably because you take my recent remarks outside the context of the original discussion. As I explained earlier, there must be a certain order among the parts of a song with regard to each other and with regard to final purpose. Excessive dissonance makes a song disordered, but dissonance used sparingly can show forth the beauty of harmony. Similarly, in Ode to Joy, the offbeat is not stressed throughout the entire song. Here are a few quotes from Jacques Maritain pertinent to our discussion: "In other words it is true that Art and Morality are two autonomous worlds, each sovereign in its own sphere, but they cannot ignore or disregard one another, for man belongs in these two worlds, both as intellectual maker and as moral agent, doer of actions which engage his own destiny. And because an artist is a man before being an artist, the autonomous world of morality is simply superior to (and more inclusive than) the autonomous world of art. There is no law against the law of which the destiny of man depends. In other words Art is indirectly and extrinsically subordinate to morality." "For, as I have said, Art is not an abstract entity without flesh and bones, a separate Platonic Idea supposedly come down on earth and acting among us at the Angel of Making or a metaphysical Dragon let loose; Art is a virtue of the practical intellect, and the intellect itself does not stand alone, but is a power of Man. When the intellect thinks, it is not the intellect which thinks: it is man, a particular man, who thinks through his intellect. When Art operates, it is man, a particular man, who operates through his Art." "Every work of art reaches man in his inner powers. It reaches him more profoundly and insidiously than any rational proposition, either cogent demonstration or sophistry. For it strikes him with two terrible weapons, Intuition and Beauty, and at the single root in him of all his energies, Intellect and Will, Imagination, Emotion, Passions, Instincts and obscure Tendencies. The question is, as Léon Bloy put it, not to hit below the heart. Art and Poetry awaken the dreams of man, and his longings, and reveal to him some of the abysses he has in himself. The artist is not ignorant of that. How will he deal with this problem?" The quotes pasted above come from The Responsibility of the Artist. Jacques Maritain claims that the immediate end of art is beauty, which is an ontological good, rather than a moral good. But because art is produced by moral agents, it receives a moral character (as do its elements, like rhythm) and must be subordinated to the good of man, namely virtue. The moral character is not directly related to the intention of either the artist or his audience, for a wicked man can compose a beautiful song. Thus, the moral character must in some way be intrinsic to the art itself. I suspected as much. But Raindear, a beat is nothing more than a mathematical ratio. It's just time. Math is morally neutral. Beethoven stressed an offbeat in the "Ode to Joy." Horrors! I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to drop this discussion. Not only do I not have time for it, but I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall that keeps repeating, "The only good Christians are the ones who listen to my hippy folk," a wall that calls the paint colors on a palette morally loaded without reference to the subject depicted. But there can be no morality without intention and free will, and the paints themselves have no will, no more than the beats and notes. Tradition is no guarantee of purity, nor newness of disorder.
|
|
|
Post by ampleforth on May 15, 2007 14:16:39 GMT -5
[ftp][/ftp]"Fortunately for the rights of man, our fine cities have no Prince, and all that works for idolatry and lechery, in dressmaking or in literature, is not thwarted by Plato." --Jacques Maritain, "Art and Morality," Art and Scholasticism. I think your problem, Raindear, is too much thought and too little observation. You create a system--based on the teachings of some Jesuit philosopher--and whatever art does not fit into this system is morally illicit. Your system is an ideology that, no matter how many times you quote Maritain to the contrary, subverts the end of art, which is harmony and beauty, into a "virtuous" end, which is also in doubt. For lack of a better term... No. This term actually fits quite well. I am going to call you a name: Puritan. I don't mean it maliciously. I use it to shock you into more observation. Maybe you should go out with Bernardo Aparicio for a night on the town and do some salsa dancing. Or come to Latin America, my family would be glad to have you. More data collection, less systematizing, is in order. Bernardo: From what you said, it looks like we have a lot in common. I also did the whole childhood thing in South America. I disagree wtih you slightly: it's not the music that makes us happy and lighthearted; rather, the music is what it is because we are lighthearted and happy. Everyone in the north worries so much about their career and their future. In south America, we don't have any certainty that we will have enough to eat next month. So we take things in stride, confident in the Resurrection (or not so confident, but at least not thinking about bad things) I agree with what cristina said, too. And one last thing: Raindear, check out some of the footnotes in Art and Scholasticism. Maritain is so soft and so fair: he takes back some of the mean things he implied about Stravinsky, for example. Let's finish with a classic, Juan Luis Guerra's "La Bilirrubina": www.youtube.com/watch?v=cosT3X-owzkOye, me dió una fiebre el otro día por causa de tu amor, cristiana que fui a parar a enfermería sin yo tener seguro de cama. Y me inyectaron suero de colores, ey y me sacaron la radiografía y me diagnosticaron mal de amores, uh al ver mi corazón como latía. Oye, y me trastearon hasta el alma con rayos equis y cirugía y es que la ciencia no funciona sólo tus besos, vida mía. Ay negra, mira búscate un catéter, ey e inyéctame tu amor como insulina y dame vitamina de cariño, ¡eh! que me ha subido la bilirrubina. Ay... Me sube la bilirrubina ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina cuando te miro y no me miras ¡ay! cuando te miro y no me miras y no lo quita la aspirina ¡no! ni un suero con penicilina es un amor que contamina ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina. Oye, me sube la bilirrubina ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina cuando te miro y no me miras ¡ay! cuando te miro y no me miras y no lo quita la aspirina ¡no! ni un suero con penicilina es un amor que contamina ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina. ¡Oye!... Oye, me sube la bilirrubina a mí ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina cuando te miro y no me miras ¡ay! cuando te miro y no me miras y no lo quita la aspirina ¡no! ni un suero con penicilina es un amor que contamina ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina. Me sube la bilirrubina ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina cuando te miro y no me miras ¡ay! cuando te miro y no me miras y no lo quita la aspirina ¡no! ni un suero con penicilina es un amor que contamina ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina. Ay negra, mira búscate un catéter, ey e inyéctame tu amor como insulina vestido tengo el rostro de amarillo, ¡eh! y me ha subido la bilirrubina. Ay... Me sube la bilirrubina ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina cuando te miro y no me miras ¡ay! cuando te miro y no me miras y no lo quita la aspirina ¡no! ni un suero con penicilina es un amor que contamina ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina. Oye, me sube la bilirrubina a mí ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubina cuando te miro y no me miras ¡ay! cuando te miro y no me miras y no lo quita la aspirina ¡no! ni un suero con penicilina es un amor que contamina ¡ay! me sube la bilirrubin
|
|