Excerpting a quote from a comment on a previous entry, I wish to elaborate on this concept of the musical language. It has been said the music is indeed a universal language, and for what it's worth, I have subscribed to this myth for much of my life. The problem with the concept is that it is just not true, at least not literally. Perhaps in some kind of general philosophical sense as related to all of humanity, one could argue that music--albeit organized sound produced from vibration, is universal. But music as we call it in our culture is not comprehensively universal when other cultures are included in the discussion.
In other words, unless one expands the definition of music to include all sound regardless of its organizational system or to include a broad emotional experience to any kind of sound, a questionable practice attempted during the Baroque period, what we call music in our culture is not universally the same in other cultures. This means that music is not and cannot be considered a universal language. Ironically, in many ways, this is comforting for it does indeed demonstrate that music has its own meaning and application to different people.
It stands to reason if music is not a universal language, then it must be a specific language indigenous to a specific culture, type of person, or even a generation. Music, as in any ideal, cannot be two antithetical events--universal and non-universal. This requires us to delineate and define music's role in prescribed cultures or age groups, at least to an extent. Is it possible or even likely that music must be approached and understood in terms of the listener or performer rather than in broad, sweeping ideals that actually lessen its greater meaning? I think so.
Obviously, at this point while there are dangers in excessive generalization of expectations of certain sounds to specific age groups, there is enough truth in the quest to make it a worthwhile gesture. This brings me back to the statement "It's their musical language." The argument, and I believe it is a good one, is that youth tend to respect, acknowledge and respond to "contemporary" sounds more than "traditional" ones. Before proceeding, I must qualify that I am leery of using these terms, weak terms at best, due to their inherent nebulous definitions. What is contemporary to one could in fact be traditional to another. Yet for now, these terms will have to suffice in our discussion.
Regardless of the accuracy of the terms, the point is well-taken. Teenagers do seem to prefer the sound of syncopation, drums, guitars, and a casual approach to music in churches. Going back almost 50 years, youth do respond to a solid beat with drums. I certainly did, my children do, and the students I taught in public school always did. While that need for a driving beat does wain somewhat with time, and certainly most of us no longer appreciate the volume or roar of a loud guitar, in a sense the "contemporary" concept always stays with us. As an experiment, try playing "Stayin' Alive" sometime in a crowd of people. Almost instantaneously, people of all ages begin to move their bodies in rhythm, in a natural response to the beat.
Having talked around this subject quite a bit, it is time to support the comment from my friend in San Diego. No question that our youth speak a particular musical language and to battle that or deny that or even disparage that truth is to polarize the very essence of our future. As previously stated, we do not expect people to read their Bibles in Greek or Hebrew, why do we ask our youth to respond to music that is outside of their preferred language? With that in mind, I must concur that music in our churches, without sacrificing theological truth, should continue to reach people of all ages, all types, and all backgrounds. That is why I propose an eclectic musical language, drawn from many sources and one that is inclusive for and about everyone.
Yet, conversely, I am not interested in anything but a "traditional" and established textual presentation. The Bible does not change. People change, societies change, cultures develop, attitudes alter, technology governs, but the Bible and its truth is immutable.
Special thanks to the person in San Diego for inspiring this entry.
1 comment:
Thank you for your insightful observations. I have a couple of comments:
1. Plato and Bloom (The Closing of the American Mind) both agree that music is used to "inspire" or move people in a specific way. You seem to be saying that this is true within the context of individual cultures. Let's agree on that for now. Plato and Bloom both argue that rhythm is important in producing some desired effect--say, to fuel the inner fire of youth to march to a specific tune--say, using Sousa to fire the blood of military or the Bolero for erotic purposes. Cultural examples? Yes! However, the "cultural" use of rhythm in the music does seem to (especially) effect the youth. So...
2. When we use music in the church that is similar in beat to that the youth listens to in the culture, are we bringing them to worship God or are we firing their passions in ways that they can't explain? In-other-words, are they worshiping the music or the Creator of all music. I have seen students in chapel responding to the worship music in the same way that I have seen people responding to music at rock concerts. Are they worshiping the music or the Creator of all music. You may be able to answer that question better than I, since you are certainly closer to music than I am. (By-the-way, I do totally understand that music has specific, and sometimes individual, context).
3. Is our purpose in church to entertain or to worship? We both agree that it is to worship. Should our worship be driven by cultural forces? I submit that the youth who is turned off by non-contemporary music needs to have their heart right with God, not to be entertained in our local meetings.
Post a Comment