Music and Its Relation to the Life of Virtue

[raindear]

If Plato and Jacques Maritain and Fr. Basil Nortz are Puritains, than I am in good company.

Pax!

[firefolk]

Okay, I've been gone for a couple of days and suddenly I come back and Ayn Rand is being advertised in the hateful little blurbs up top of the page. Something must be hideously wrong. Let's everybody calm down and remember that we're all on the same side here. I dunno how personal I should get here--but it's been a shitty few days for me, back at the place where I underwent the very worst of the miseries that led to the very best of my poetry, and all I can say in my weakling state of irascibility and drunkenness is that every wise and strong and holy person seems to go through states in which Puritanism seems wise, and also through states in which Nietzschean ubermenschmenism (to coin a term) seems wise--but real wisdom, and particularly real virtue, lies somewhere not merely in between these two states in a two dimensional sense but somewhere well above them in a third dimensional sense, and it's the peculiar virtue of real sanctity (as in the case of Joe of Cupertino) that it allows one to look down on the "railway smash" of opposing philosophies from a third dimensional perspective. We're all very smart here--no one denies that. And that's swell. But really, folks, does that @#$!ing matter? Hitler was smart. I'd rather be a retard, and be right; but that's not an option that seems to be offered to me--so I have to work at being subtle and nevertheless being right. Here, I lean on the people who are also subtle and smart but yet simple and saintly: like GKC, who ate like a hog and drank like a fish, or my friend Caitlin who seems to love everyone in the world irrespective of their filthiness or unworth. I freely acknowledge that I've abandoned the intellectual aspect of this argument here. It seems to me that no one is really convinced by argument unless they already (on some unadmitted level, as Lewis or Newman) believe--and that the real argument is simply to be found in joy and love, as is dimly seen in people like Clare and Francis or other such people that we Catholics wish that non-Catholics could perceive. But I'm not proselytizing here; I'm merely speaking to my brothers and sisters in the faith. Avowedly, I'm having a bad day and feeling unduly sensitive. But doesn't it seem that we're arguing about stuff that we all ultimately agree about? I may feel that Carbon Leaf or Black 47 falls inside the line of acceptable Christian music, and others feel that they fall just outside; but irrespective, we all agree that there is a line and that it can be intelligently debated and moved left or right as necessary. As said in the Acts of the Apostles, "it seems to the Holy Spirit and us. . ." that so and so is so and so. It seems to the Holy Spirit and us. Wow--and us. I can't think of anything to add to that.

[syme]

I totally agree. We are all on the same side and as frustrating as differences about issues like this might be, I think the thing we need to keep in sight is our love for each other, through our Lord, above all. I know ampleforth didn't really mean to offend, but I think we should self-ban name-calling of any sort on these forums. I think raindear is wrong, but I appreciate his (her?) efforts to look at this issue objectively.

And please accept my apologies if anything I've said seems to have gotten personal rather than dealing with the issue at hand. Remember that the problem with arguments is that they ruin good discussions.

God bless! Pax et Caritas!

I would say, though, that I do enjoy engaging in this sort of conversation as long as we can engage in it dispassionately and not think ill of each other because of what is said about the subject.

[ampleforth]

Raindear: I don't really see how you can claim Maritain as an ally. Whereas Maritain writes about the autonomy and "infallibility" of art, arguing that art is a type of making and follows only the rules intrinsic to the thing being made, you subvert both the end (the thing to be made) and the means (the rules of art are replaced by the rules of prudence). Moreover, the rules of prudence that you support aren't as obvious as they may seem. They are based on some dubious logical inferences based on a few psychological findings. Which, as cristina demonstrated, does not necessarily lead to the moral conclusions that you claim. In any case, I don't see how an artist can have any freedom to explore new ways of making under your regime. Maritain, who was friends with such people as the avant-garde playwright Jean Cocteau and who even said some complimentary things about the literary work of Sartre in his last book, the Peasant of Garonne, would have a hard time agreeing with you, if I dare say so.

I am not saying that the artist has no responsability. Of course he does -- everyone does. But my problem is that you aren't talking about prudential judgments that are extrinsic to the artwork. You are subverting the intrinsic rules of art for moral reasons. Therefore, a composer or musician who is trying something new cannot be faithful to the rules of art, he must submit to your rules of prudence, which, I repeat, aren't necessarily true or good. This is the clash between Prudence and Art that Maritain describes at the end of Art and Scholasticism, and unfrotunately the fault is on Prudence this time. Moreover, the fact that you can use your prudential judgements to retroactively condemn the music of cultures much older than your own -- cultures which you may not even have experienced -- also baffles me.

I am not name-calling to be mean. I am not a nominalist; the names I choose are based on the nature of the thing to be named. "Puritan" fits. Of course we must all love one another, but I think this is an important debate worth having.

[cristina]

raindear said:

You have to distinguish between music which is disordered in itself and a soul so disordered that it perverts everything received.

I agree. I did admit I was using an extreme example. But still, the question remains: what makes the music disordered in itself? Is a syncopated rhythm enough to make a piece of music disordered in itself? Conversely, does the absence of percussion accompaniments automatically make a piece of music "safe"? Is it not possible to have a melody that's sensual in itself, even without percussion accompaniments? I agree with what bluemaydie said that in assessing a piece, it's the overall effect that matters.

Would it be possible to post here the relevant excerpt of what Plato actually said about music? A few questions come to mind:
1) What does he actually mean by "disordered music"? Music that's not mathematically regular? Or was he referring to how parts relate with the whole?
2) When he said that harmonious music (whatever he meant by "harmonious music") is conducive to virtue, is it necessarily true that disharmonious is intrinsically evil?

[raindear]

Firefolk,

Thanks for the reminder. It was getting a little heated. And I love that point (Dietrich von Hildrebrand emphasizes this somewhere) about virtue being more than the mean between two extremes - it's something which transcends either. I was about to abandon this thread, with the Newmanian insight in mind; syllogisms fail unless the heart is ready to hear. This medium makes fruitful conversation difficult because it divorces argument from example. We are all relative "strangers," so our conversation lacks the element of trust and respect which true friendship supplies.

On the other hand, I think it is important to remember that sometimes "God is in the details." The moral power of music was taken very seriously for hundreds of years. Yes, there is room for disagreement about how to apply principles to particular songs, but we can't even seem to agree about principles.

Ampleforth,

I have not read Art and Scholasticism yet, so perhaps I am misreading what I have read of Maritain. However, he does make the point that, while Art is a virtue immediately concerned with an ontological good, because it is the virtue of a man, whose final end is first and foremost a Moral Good, the virtue of Art must in some way be subordinate to the virtue of Prudence. I think the idea is that, rhythms in themselves may have no moral character, but rhythms as heard by a moral being are not without some objective moral character.

Let me try to justify my point about culture. Culture is difficult to define, but it might be said to be the customs, art, and way of life which develop out of the common beliefs of a society. JP II said we are living in a culture of death. Are music forms which developed out of the Sexual Revolution or the Culture of Death as trustworthy as musical forms which developed in Medieval Europe, when the entire year revolved around liturgical seasons and peasants built incredible cathedrals, unsurpassed in beauty by all the creations of our technologically advanced age?

As to the name-calling( ), I understand where you are coming from. However, Puritan is not really an accurate label. You might be able to make an argument that I am over-scrupulous. Puritan implies a distrust of pleasure and things of the body. I am actually the most ardent advocate of pleasure here! For I believe that pleasure is more pleasurable when it is more in conformity with the Good, so when I exhort my Dappled friends to be more discerning in their musical tastes, it is only because I think they will receive greater enjoyment in the end.

Christina,

This thread is getting really long, so I'm losing track of what we said at the beginning. But I think we already hashed out some of that.

Here are a few quotes from Plato:

"Glaucon, musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful; and also because he who has received this true education of the inner being will most shrewdly perceive omissions or faults in art and nature, and with a true taste, while he praises and rejoices over and receives into his soul the good, and becomes noble and good, he will justly blame and hate the bad, now in the days of his youth, even before he is able to know the reason why; and when reason comes he will recognize and salute the friend with whom his education has made him long familiar. " Book III, Republic

The best guardian of virtue is:
"Philosophy, I said, tempered with music, who comes and takes her abode in a man, and is the only saviour of his virtue throughout life." Book VIII, Republic

"The newest song which the singers have, they will be afraid that he may be praising, not new songs, but a new kind of song; and this ought not to be praised, or conceived to be the meaning of the poet; for any musical innovation is full of danger to the whole State, and ought to be prohibited. So Damon tells me, and I can quite believe him;-he says that when modes of music change, of the State always change with them."Book IV, Republic

This is how Fr. Nortz explains:

"The degree to which each individual is affected by music will certainly vary due to temperament and character. Nevertheless, just as we can indicate general norms of virtuous behavior based upon the proper ordering of the passions to right reason, so too we can indicate general norms for good music based upon whether the passions imitated are according to right reason or not. In a word, good music will stimulate the emotions in such a way that these faculties of the soul, under the guidance of reason, are made to more effectively pursue the good of the individual and his neighbor. Bad music tends to absolutize the passions, making their pleasure or hate a good in itself, such that right reason more and more loses dominion with the result that the individual falls victim to the passions. Hence, it is not perchance that disordered music naturally advocates libertinism, rebellion and chaos."

"Good music touches the soul delightfully and elevates it nobly; whereas bad music corrupts the soul as profoundly as error corrupts the mind, because just as the mind should not be enslaved by untruth, so too the soul should not be enslaved by tyrannous passion. It is so very important to realize that it is not simply the lyrics that will affect man, but the music itself enters into the deepest recesses of the soul to influence man even more profoundly. Words must first be understood by the mind, but music is immediately grasped by the emotions."

I've already given a brief summary of why certain songs are believed to excite the passions in the wrong way. For a complete explanation, you will have to seek out a more competent source.


Pax Christi,
MISS Raindear

P.S. Please forgive me if there was a lack of charity or humility in any of my posts. I've already stated everything I know about this issue to the best of my understanding, so I think I'll sign off. Thanks for an interesting discussion!

[katycarl]

Aw, don't go away; it's just getting exciting! I don't think our differences are ones of principle at all, but of premise; I think we all see the necessary connection between good music and good morals, but want to debate cases and examples and try to integrate what we've experienced into the discussion. Like Syme said, we all agree there is and ought to be a line; we just disagree about where it is and why. And I think that disagreement, in some way, strengthens rather than weakens the case for the line itself.

[firefolk]

Raindear-chan, I think Katy's right. No one would have gotten worked up over this topic if it weren't so important. I toiled my way through the entirety of Barfield's Poetic Diction only to have him sum the whole book up at the end with a line from Emerson: "Language is fossil poetry." (If only he'd said that in the Foreword, I could've skipped the rest--sheesh.) But it seems to me that, similarly, poetry is fossil music: that is, a holier language which we've gradually lost the capacity to hear or understand has ossified into the High Speech and thence crumbled into simple prose in historical times. But insofar as we can still glimpse that higher meaning, it must surely lift our souls toward the Word of God. Problem is (and this never ceases to fascinate me), even the best hearts and best minds in the world seem to differ enormously over what constitutes good music and good poetry. I know practically nothing about music theory, so I'm fairly content to learn from the rest of y'all's folks here; but it'd be a shame to see this thread peter out now.

[raindear]

Katycarl and Firefolk,

I did not mean to imply that this discussion is not worthwhile or important. I only mean that I have limited knowledge/understanding to bring to such a discussion and it's spilling over five pages already. Also, not to be a wimp or anything, but eventually one tires of disagreeing with ten people at once, particularly when new folks keep jumping into the fray, (seemingly) without reading what was discussed at (tedious) length several weeks ago.

And, as Firefolk and I mentioned recently, personal influence over the human heart is often key to drawing the mind to truth. I received the argument I tried to express here from men holy and wise, and it was still difficult to accept. What persuasive power does my bumbling attempt to regurgitate their argument possess with a fairly random group of strangers? That said, I am willing to reopen discussion if you like.

Perhaps I ought to eradicate a few misconceptions about myself. As a teenager, I listened to plenty of pop and rock music, and enjoyed it too! Goo Goo Dolls, U2, Vertical Horizon, Nine Days, Three Doors Down, Cranberries, etc. I've also danced the Tango, ChaCha, Salsa, Rumba and Merengue on multiple occasions. And contrary to popular opinion ( ) I am not actually descended from stuffy northern European stock. I have a smidge of Celtic blood, but that hardly counts, for among Northern Europeans, the Irish are like the crazy and impetuous relation nobody likes to mention. My primary heritage is actually Mediterranean - 25%Sicilian and 25%Calabrian. Try telling my relatives they are cold and formal - you'll probably have to shout it out because our family gatherings are pretty noisy and everybody is too busy eating to pay any attention to an intellectual debate anyways. So I don't reject sensuous music out of some blind ignorance of passion. I love passionate people. My concern, rather, is that those beautiful passions achieve perfection by being pointed in the right direction. Like in The Great Divorce, when the one character chooses heaven and the ugly creature on his shoulder becomes a glorious stallion.

Katycarl,

I think I am using "principles" the way you are using "premises." True, we all agree that there should be principles/premises by which to judge the merit of particular songs. However, we cannot agree upon what those principles look like.

If I've understood correctly, Bluemadie and Ampleforth don't believe one can criticize a specific musical mode, or form. I am not quite sure where everybody else falls on that issue. Maybe we should start there.

[cristina]

raindear said:

I think I am using "principles" the way you are using "premises." True, we all agree that there should be principles/premises by which to judge the merit of particular songs. However, we cannot agree upon what those principles look like.

If I've understood correctly, Bluemadie and Ampleforth don't believe one can criticize a specific musical mode, or form. I am not quite sure where everybody else falls on that issue. Maybe we should start there.

On principles by which we should judge the merit of a particular song: The problem with attempting to establish principles is that art depends a lot on a knowledge of connaturality, while establishing principles depends a lot on discursive reasoning. That said, i do agree there should be principles, but how general or how specific those principles should be is unclear to me, at least for now.

Thank you, Raindear, for posting the quote from Plato and from Fr. Nortz. I also reviewed what you wrote at the beginning of this thread.

Really, the only problem I have with Fr. Nortz's position is the proposition that music is morally disordered just because it has a syncopated rhythm and/or rhythm that overpowers the melody. To begin with, I don't totally agree that rhythm appeals to the concupiscible appetite alone. Rhythm also appeals to reason; in fact, reason perceives rhythm. It is reason that counts beats and detects patterns.

Furthermore, certain melodies can also be sensuous as well as certain timbres, even if the music does not have a percussion accompaniment (note I don't write "even if the music has no rhythm because there could be no music without rhythm).

Still another reason I hesitate to say music is disordered simply because it has a syncopated rhythm is that some ethnic rhythms are imitations of sounds in nature. Would it be disordered to listen to the warbling of birds just because there are some bird calls which are syncopated?

As for the scientific findings that syncopated rhythms can stimulate sexually, I already responded to this in my earlier post. All I would add is that 1) there may be other studies refuting these findings, and 2) granted that these syncopated rhythms can stimulate sexually, is the degree of sexual stimulation intense enough to make these rhythms a proximate occasion of sin? Remember, we are only obliged to avoid proximate occasions of sin, not the remote occasions of sin. I don't know if something is a proximate occasion of sin if it takes a scientific study to detect the sinful influence.

In short, I do agree that music can be dispose one to vice. But I don't think a syncopated or overpowering rhythm alone makes music disordered. Like I said earlier, it's the overall effect of a piece of work that should determine whether it's morally disordered or not.

Finally, as to the question on whether music that originated from voodoo can be baptized, I dare say "yes". Nothing is bad from the very beginning, and evil is a privation of good, not a positive entity.

[raindear]

Christina,

Thanks for your remarks. I still think we should focus this discussion, beginning with the basic question: Is music(lyrics aside) only measured according to its ontological goodness, aesthetic beauty, or can it also be judged according to the moral affect it has on men?

Nonetheless, I will do my best to answer your objections:
I don't totally agree that rhythm appeals to the concupiscible appetite alone. Rhythm also appeals to reason; in fact, reason perceives rhythm. It is reason that counts beats and detects patterns.
I think rhythm is said to correspond to the concupiscible because it has the most obvious physiological effect on bodily organs - an effect which is evidenced by the natural and visible response of moving in time with the rhythm (this is true of "ordered" rhythms as well). Often, it is also the element of the song which stirs listeners most powerfully toward the emotion conveyed.

Furthermore, certain melodies can also be sensuous as well as certain timbres, even if the music does not have a percussion accompaniment (note I don't write "even if the music has no rhythm because there could be no music without rhythm).
Percussion merely aggravates the evil affects of a "disordered" rhythm.

Still another reason I hesitate to say music is disordered simply because it has a syncopated rhythm is that some ethnic rhythms are imitations of sounds in nature. Would it be disordered to listen to the warbling of birds just because there are some bird calls which are syncopated?
I am not an expert on music theory, but I think we are confusing syncopated notes with syncopated rhythm. Syncopation is defined as: a shifting of the normal accent, usually by stressing the normally unaccented beats. If you have a song written in 4/4 time, a dotted quarter note adds an element of syncopation to its respective measure, but you wouldn't call the entire song syncopated on account of that. Similarly, the interweaving parts of a polyphonic piece often include many syncopated notes, but the rhythm of the piece as a whole remains "unsyncopated" because of the way the parts fit together. Unfortunately, I don't know bird calls well enough to really consider them in this light. But, in any case, I suspect that their calls do not possess melody and rhythm in the same sense as a song composed by a man.

As for the scientific findings that syncopated rhythms can stimulate sexually, I already responded to this in my earlier post. All I would add is that 1) there may be other studies refuting these findings, and 2) granted that these syncopated rhythms can stimulate sexually, is the degree of sexual stimulation intense enough to make these rhythms a proximate occasion of sin? Remember, we are only obliged to avoid proximate occasions of sin, not the remote occasions of sin. I don't know if something is a proximate occasion of sin if it takes a scientific study to detect the sinful influence.
I cannot say much to the first. I guess its mostly a matter of which sources you trust. Although, I find the scientific claims are corroborated by my own experience. There is a huge difference between the atmosphere of dance where the music is rap/pop/rock and a dance with a string quartet. People behave very differently. I have also experienced the difference between a pop concert and an Alasdair Fraser or Tannahill Weavers concert. At the latter type: the audience sits quietly, except to sing along with a familiar song, applaud or perform some traditional celtic dancing. At the former type: people scream incoherently, jump up and down, throw their heads back and forth, body surf, get high and frequently act like animals rather than rational beings made in the image and likeness of God. If certain kinds of music are very commonly linked to certain negative behaviors, it is not unreasonable to suspect a connection between the two.

As to your second question - I think that depends partly on whether you agree with Aristotle that music forms character in its likeness: "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.” Again, Fr. Nortz would warn that: "Bad music tends to absolutize the passions, making their pleasure or hate a good in itself, such that right reason more and more loses dominion with the result that the individual falls victim to the passions."

[cristina]

Some links relevant to this discussion:

www.mercatornet.com/articles/birth_pangs_of_new_era_in_music/

www.americamagazine.org/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=3082&issueID=446

[bluemaydie]

Speaking of music...

I've just ben cast in the chorus of a local production of Pirates of Penzance! Yippee!

[firefolk]

It is, it is, a glorious thing to be a Pirate King.

[cristina]

Found this article which reminded me of this discussion we had some time ago. The article is about Japanese getting converted to Christianity because of Bach's music:

www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2007/003/4.42.html