# Is Religious Music Really Real?



## millionrainbows

In other words, is, for example, Gregorian chant actually a form of worship, and a way of actually invoking God or the Holy Spirit, as well as being "just music?"

The Church fathers thought that it was, indeed, a form of worship; a form of "religious technology" designed to invoke God and create believers. 

In fact, on this very forum, I was criticized by a 'true believer' for saying that I could enjoy Gregorian chant without being a Christian. He said I was "missing it," compared to a believer who listens. What do you say?


----------



## JAS

Gregorian chant certainly can be, and for much of its early life probably was, a form of worship. I suspect that the experience is different if one adheres to the context in which it was created, but the additional aspects are beyond musical experience. I know people who prefer the Catholic mass to be done in Latin, even though they don't speak or read Latin. To them, it all carries a sense of history and adds, in some strange way, to the mystery. The closest I can come to that is that I find actually knowing the literal words and meaning of the libretto to many operas to be considerably less fulfilling than my imagination of what they are saying (just knowing something about the characters and plot).


----------



## Bourdon

millionrainbows said:


> In other words, is, for example, Gregorian chant actually a form of worship, and a way of actually invoking God or the Holy Spirit, as well as being "just music?"
> 
> The Church fathers thought that it was, indeed, a form of worship; a form of "religious technology" designed to invoke God and create believers.
> 
> In fact, on this very forum, I was criticized by a 'true believer' for saying that I could enjoy Gregorian chant without being a Christian. *He said I was "missing it," compared to a believer *who listens. What do you say?


Some unbelievers have better ears than believers, which makes this whole idea absurd.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I've listened to religious music both as a Christian and non. I believe the music says more about the person who wrote the music, in its expression, than the object of their faith. It doesn't affect me differently either way as a believer or not. Although as a believer the music did invoke other thoughts, hyperboles when facing the unknown (in retrospect). I recall the movie The Omen (1976 version). It used to scare the lights out of me, but as a non-believer, it's sort of humorous.


----------



## Coach G

"Is Religious Music Really Real?"

It seems real to me.

When it comes to religion, I have my doubts, but when I hear Bach I want to be a Lutheran. When I hear Schubert's _Ave Maria_, the _Sanctus_ from Berlioz' _Requiem_, or Bruckner's apocalyptic symphonies, I want to be a Roman Catholic. When I hear Rachmaninoff's _Vespers/All Night Vigil_ or Rimsky's _Russian Easter Overture_, I want to be Russian Orthodox. When I hear Mahalia Jackson, Shirley Caesar, Marion Williams, or The Blind Boys of Alabama, singing Gospel music, I want to be a Baptist. When I hear Bruch's _Kol Nidrei_ or Bernstein's _Chinchester Psalms_ I want to be Jewish.


----------



## pianozach

Coach G said:


> "Is Religious Music Really Real?"
> 
> It seems real to me.
> 
> When it comes to religion, I have my doubts, but when I hear Bach I want to be a Lutheran. When I hear Schubert's _Ave Maria_, the _Sanctus_ from Berlioz' _Requiem_, or Bruckner's apocalyptic symphonies, I want to be a Roman Catholic. When I hear Rachmaninoff's _Vespers/All Night Vigil_ or Rimsky's _Russian Easter Overture_, I want to be Russian Orthodox. When I hear Mahalia Jackson, Shirley Caesar, Marion Williams, or The Blind Boys of Alabama, singing Gospel music, I want to be a Baptist. When I hear Bruch's _Kol Nidrei_ or Bernstein's _Chinchester Psalms_ I want to be Jewish.


Off topic, but when I hear TV Preachers like Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham Jr., Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, and Kenneth Copeland I want to be an atheist.


----------



## Ingélou

It seems rational to me that a believer would get more out of listening to music from their own religious tradition. I enjoy music from the Hindu tradition but would readily grant that a Hindu gets more out of it because for him/her it's a form of worship. 

Of course, I don't know anything much about Hindu music. And again, logically speaking, a musically-educated non-believer may get much much more out of Christian music than a worshipping Christian with a more superficial understanding of music.

Honestly, does it matter? How, in any case, can we measure 'how much we get out of it' in comparison with someone else? 

Just enjoy the music!


----------



## Bourdon

Ingélou said:


> It seems rational to me that a believer would get more out of listening to music from their own religious tradition. I enjoy music from the Hindu tradition but would readily grant that a Hindu gets more out of it because for him/her it's a form of worship.
> 
> Of course, I don't know anything much about Hindu music. And again, logically speaking, a musically-educated non-believer may get much much more out of Christian music than a worshipping Christian with a more superficial understanding of music.
> 
> Honestly, does it matter? How, in any case, can we measure 'how much we get out of it' in comparison with someone else?
> 
> *Just enjoy the music!*


*
*

That's the idea !


----------



## erki

I do not believe in any god. But I enjoy some religious music. I think it is the same if I enjoy the sound(music) of a african native drumming. Or buddhist ragas. Or some soviet "propaganda" music.


----------



## Coach G

erki said:


> I do not believe in any god. But I enjoy some religious music. I think it is the same if I enjoy the sound(music) of a african native drumming. Or buddhist ragas. Or some soviet "propaganda" music.


The Soviet national anthem is a great tune, if you can ignore the context; which makes it quite different, for me, from religious music where the context becomes more meaningful via the music. If Stalin puts a gun to your head, threatens to send you and your family off to Siberia, if you don't come up with a rousing national anthem it's one thing. The great religious works of classical music were either composed by musicians who actually believed it and were moved by it, or even they were more-or-less agnostic felt it as something that was part of their culture, or maybe the Bible narrative that they were highlighting had a profound effect on them even if they didn't believe in it in a literal sense.


----------



## Woodduck

We respond to music based on both its intrinsic qualities and its associations. If I associate a Bach cantata with my religion, then I'm likely to feel something while listening to it that someone outside my religious tradition will not. But I shouldn't fail to see that a nonbeliever may experience something in the music that I don't, based on his own set of associations. We should be cautious about judging anyone else's experiences of music - or of anything, really.


----------



## Bourdon

Woodduck said:


> We respond to music based on both its intrinsic qualities and its associations. If I associate a Bach cantata with my religion, then I'm likely to feel something while listening to it that someone outside my religious tradition will not. But I shouldn't fail to see that a nonbeliever may experience something in the music that I don't, based on his own set of associations. *We should be cautious about judging anyone else*'s experiences of music - or of anything, really.


Sound's reasonable


----------



## SanAntone

Religious music divorced from its ritual use renders it entertainment as opposed to having a spiritual purpose. It may accomplish some of its purpose for people who wish to experience it in order to reach a spiritual state - but that must be the conscious intention of the listener.

In the early centuries, 9th - 16th, the sacred music that was written or performed, from chant to Palestrina masses, was specifically for the purpose of enhancing the environment to make the worship service, mass or office, more conducive to prayer and meditating on God. In later centuries, this purpose became compromised and then there were areligious composers writing "sacred" music as just another choral form, not unlike their approach to writing a string quartet or symphony.

So, my answer to the OP is the early sacred music was real although today we listen to recordings of chant for entertainment, and the later not so much even at the time of its creation.


----------



## Woodduck

Bourdon said:


> Sound's reasonable


Well, we do try to keep our heads around here, difficult as it sometimes is. :angel:


----------



## Woodduck

Interesting in this connection is Augustine's remark that he sometimes felt guilty about being distracted from proper worship by the sensuous beauty of church music. Centuries later, a Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church told Rachmaninoff that his _All-Night Vigil_ _(Vespers)_ was "too beautiful" and that worshipers would be unable to keep their focus where it ought to be.

Ah, the arcane fears of the pious...


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Of course a Christian is better than you at listening to Gregorian chant! :devil:


----------



## pianozach

Bourdon said:


> Sound's reasonable


It *does* sound reasonable that Sound *is* reasonable.

In other words, it sounds reasonable that sound's reasonable.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and as such can appreciate music that has spaghetti-like shape better than the non-believers.


----------



## amfortas

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and as such can appreciate music that has spaghetti-like shape better than the non-believers.


"Better"? Who knows? But you're likely to have a different take on that music than non-believers (as in, you'll actually listen to it).


----------



## pianozach

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and as such can appreciate music that has spaghetti-like shape better than the non-believers.


What are your Top Ten spaghetti-like shaped musical works?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

pianozach said:


> What are your Top Ten spaghetti-like shaped musical works?


Top ten? Too many to think about now; I'll give you top 3.

3. Eine Kleine Nachtmusik - the opening theme has a wonderful spaghetti-iike contour truly appreciated by the true believers only .
2. Mahler Symphony 4 - probably more shaped like ravioli but still quite pasta-like, especially the 2nd movement.
1. John Cage - 4'33'' - the most spaghetti-iike of all pieces. The silence is just linguine.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

This just turned into an ideas for stupid threads thread  Love it! Anyway, I used to say that music was my religion, kind of opposite than this thread.


----------



## erki

Coach G said:


> The Soviet national anthem is a great tune, if you can ignore the context; which makes it quite different, for me, from religious music where the context becomes more meaningful via the music. If Stalin puts a gun to your head, threatens to send you and your family off to Siberia, if you don't come up with a rousing national anthem it's one thing. The great religious works of classical music were either composed by musicians who actually believed it and were moved by it, or even they were more-or-less agnostic felt it as something that was part of their culture, or maybe the Bible narrative that they were highlighting had a profound effect on them even if they didn't believe in it in a literal sense.


This is very interesting argument. Because I have experienced soviet "religion" personally and not the christian I can say two things: there were creators that truly believed in the ultimate good of equality among people in soviet and made great art to illustrate their ideals; and if soviet system would have had the opportunity to be around hundreds of years like christianity has it may be viewed as positively as the christianity is today.
What I learned by growing up in USSR and living in western culture last 30 years that religion or any other ideology does not matter really in order to enjoy great works of art. Maybe it helps someone to understand the work but I am not sure if art(music) need understanding _per se_ anyway.


----------



## starthrower

pianozach said:


> Off topic, but when I hear TV Preachers like Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham Jr., Jimmy Swaggart, Jerry Falwell, and Kenneth Copeland I want to be an atheist.


What's puzzling is the fact that believers listening to these swindlers think they're sincere and send them money. On the occasions that I've accompanied my wife to a Catholic mass I'm perpetually bored by the age old sermons and parroted dogmas but I enjoy the hymns and music of any kind.


----------



## JAS

Woodduck said:


> We respond to music based on both its intrinsic qualities and its associations. If I associate a Bach cantata with my religion, then I'm likely to feel something while listening to it that someone outside my religious tradition will not. But I shouldn't fail to see that a nonbeliever may experience something in the music that I don't, based on his own set of associations. We should be cautious about judging anyone else's experiences of music - or of anything, really.


Yes, that is basically what I meant. It is the difference between seeing an old picture of some woman you don't know, and seeing one of your mother (assuming that one thinks kindly of one's mother).


----------



## JAS

starthrower said:


> What's puzzling is the fact that believers listening to these swindlers think they're sincere and send them money. . . .


Many of them sincerely want your money. (There are also good people motivated by other things, but you generally won't see them on TV, hear them on the radio, or read about them in the newspaper on a regular basis. José Andrés is one you might have heard about. Dolly Parton is another.)


----------



## starthrower

I'll stick to giving to those doing work in my own community. But to reiterate Woodduck's point I think it's safe to say that we all respond to the intrinsic qualities in music and may or may not connect with religious associations to varying degrees. I was raised in the Lutheran church but it really has no bearing on my appreciation for Bach's music. When I listen to Bach I don't want to be a Lutheran. I'm just listening to the music and enjoying it.


----------



## neofite

Woodduck said:


> Interesting in this connection is Augustine's remark that he sometimes felt guilty about being distracted from proper worship by the sensuous beauty of church music. Centuries later, a Metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church told Rachmaninoff that his _All-Night Vigil_ _(Vespers)_ was "too beautiful" and that worshipers would be unable to keep their focus where it ought to be.
> 
> Ah, the arcane fears of the pious...


I am certainly not an expert on religion [or music], but I had always been under the impression that beauty, in whatever form, is an expression of the greatness of G_d and helps glorify him.

If Rachmaninoff's All-Night Vigil (Vespers) was "too beautiful" and thus too distracting for worshipers, perhaps all the great cathedrals and temples should likewise be demolished and religious services instead be conducted in tents in the parking lots that replace them.


----------



## amfortas

neofite said:


> If Rachmaninoff's All-Night Vigil (Vespers) was "too beautiful" and thus too distracting for worshipers, perhaps all the great cathedrals and temples should likewise be demolished and religious services instead be conducted in tents in the parking lots that replace them.


As history shows us, you're not the first to hold such a view.


----------



## Flamme

neofite said:


> If Rachmaninoff's All-Night Vigil (Vespers) was "too beautiful" and thus too distracting for worshipers, perhaps all the great cathedrals and temples should likewise be demolished and religious services instead be conducted in tents in the parking lots that replace them.


Thats done today...In covid america.


----------



## amfortas

Flamme said:


> Thats done today...In covid america.


Well, no, but OK.


----------



## Barbebleu

Ah, religion. The great unifier of all creeds.


----------



## starthrower

I have religious devotion to music. Because music is the only religion that delivers the goods!


----------



## Coach G

I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that one can enjoy and appreciate a piece of religious music without really understanding or bothering to understand the context. Even though I've become critical of Christian institutions and skeptical when it comes to taking the Bible literally, my Christian background and my continuing interest in the Bible as great literature, seems to enhance my understanding of the music.

To make a comparison, I have many CDs by Ravi Shankar, and one that was produced by George Harrison has traditional Hindu chants. I find the music to be quite beautiful, but since my knowledge of Hindu religion and culture is so superficial and incomplete, I wouldn't want to say that I enjoy or appreciate it on the same level as someone who has experienced the Hindu culture and and has a deeper more nuanced knowledge of the Hindu faith.

The way some of the people here talk, it wouldn't make a difference if we took Bach's _St Matthew Passion_, or Rachmaninoff's _Vespers/All Night Vigil_, or Verdi's _Requiem_, and replaced the liturgical texts and with nonsense lyrics from songs like _London Bridges_, _Ring Around the Rosy_, and _Old MacDonald_. There's a an important narrative there, a sense of drama that relates to the human condition. To just say, well, "I'm in it for the music", is like listening to a complete opera in another language and not bothering to look at the libretto, or at least understanding the story arc.


----------



## Coach G

re:erkl

While I respect the fact that you grew up in the USSR, and while I agree with you that there are common denominators between Soviet culture and religion, the comparisons don't compare in any way to what the Christian narrative has contributed to art, architecture, and music.

I don't doubt that the Soviet Union and communism had it's share of true-believers, and I was even told by a tour guide when I visited China to be careful what I say about Mao because some there still worship him almost as a "god"; but despite all that I think that religion reaches people on a much deeper level. I' can't predict the future but I doubt that 500 years from now we're going to visit an art museum and see those cheesy posters of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Kim Jung-un, standing side-by-side with Michelangelo's _Pieta_, da Vinci's _Last Supper_, or Rembrandt's _Head of Christ_. I don't know that any music that was composed to honor Lenin or Stalin will be revered as Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ is revered the world over, even by non-Christians. And if I had to make a bet, I'd wager that if I were to visit Red Square the lines would be longer to get into _St. Basil's_ than _Lenin's Tomb_.


----------



## Woodduck

Coach G said:


> I think it's a bit presumptuous to say that one can enjoy and appreciate a piece of religious music without really understanding or bothering to understand the context. Even though I've become critical of Christian institutions and skeptical when it comes to taking the Bible literally, my Christian background and my continuing interest in the Bible as great literature, seems to enhance my understanding of the music.
> 
> To make a comparison, I have many CDs by Ravi Shankar, and one that was produced by George Harrison has traditional Hindu chants. I find the music to be quite beautiful, but since my knowledge of Hindu religion and culture is so superficial and incomplete, I wouldn't want to say that I enjoy or appreciate it on the same level as someone who has experienced the Hindu culture and and has a deeper more nuanced knowledge of the Hindu faith.
> 
> The way some of the people here talk, it wouldn't make a difference if we took Bach's _St Matthew Passion_, or Rachmaninoff's _Vespers/All Night Vigil_, or Verdi's _Requiem_, and replaced the liturgical texts and with nonsense lyrics from songs like _London Bridges_, _Ring Around the Rosy_, and _Old MacDonald_. There's a an important narrative there, a sense of drama that relates to the human condition. To just say, well, "I'm in it for the music", is like listening to a complete opera in another language and not bothering to look at the libretto, or at least understanding the story arc.


I'm sympathetic to this, but we certainly have a complex issue here, so bear with me while I think aloud.

Surely any work of art can be enjoyed legitimately in different ways, even by the same person at different times. It's undeniable that if you're listening to a vocal work without knowing the text, or at least what the text is about, you aren't experiencing the work in its entirety. As a lover of opera I almost always want a libretto, or at least a detailed synopsis of the story, when I'm first getting to know a work. I realize as well that if the opera is in a language I don't speak, I will probably be missing nuances even with a translation in hand. However, I may sometimes simply listen to music from an opera while paying little or no attention to its dramatic meaning. That can be an interesting and worthwhile experience in itself. I have sometimes put on a CD of songs without knowing what's being said, just to hear a beautiful voice singing beautiful music. I may tell myself that I'll someday pull out the texts and read along as I listen, but chances are good that I'll never get around to it.

Having had, like you, a religious background, I may experience religious-themed or religion-inspired works of music somewhat differently than people without my background. But just as every person has, in a real sense, his own religion, depending on how his life experience is touched by the tenets and practices of his faith, so each individual will react to a religious work of music in his own way. A Unitarian-Universalist, rejecting the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment, is not going to have the same reaction to depictions of the "day of wrath" in a requiem mass that a Roman Catholic - or some Roman Catholics - will. And someone who, having been a believer, has come to reject the religious ideas he formerly upheld, may find himself in the peculiar position of getting more out of a religious work if he ignores a text which now seems nonsensical or offensive. He may at least have to translate its doctrinal specifics into less literal, more general humanist terms in order to make the work palatable. Of course that purpose wouldn't be served by, as you've suggested, substituting nonsense lyrics for the proper ones.

The different perspectives of listeners make this matter difficult enough, but musical works themselves, whatever they're supposedly "about," are not necessarily easy to pin down. For one thing, different musical treatments of the same texts may express entirely dissimilar things to us, and their texts as we read them and their music as we feel it may even seem to us to contradict each other. It may be impossible for a single person to experience both Poulenc's _Gloria_ and the Gloria from Beethoven's _Missa Solemnis_ as having a simil.ar meaning, or as being a meaningful expression of his own feelings. And some works with religious themes may actually seem irreligious, blasphemous, or simply unconvincing to certain listeners. As an opera lover with a particular interest in Wagner, I opened a thread on TC to inquire into the religious significance of _Parsifal,_ which was composed by a man who considered himself both a Christian and an atheist (either of which we may choose to dispute - but, again, the issue is complex!). People's reactions to this work have been all over the map since 1882; Christians of sincere belief have both revered and denounced it, and the range of theories as to what the opera "means" illustrates better than anything else I can think of the unwisdom of trying to impose preconceptions on what the human response to art "should" be. Whatever _Parsifal_ is thought to be about, the one thing in it nearest to a constant is its magnificent, soul-piercing score, which forced even that skeptic Nietzsche to set aside his hostile stance toward the composer's supposed religious conversion and, as he picturesquely put it, "lose his manhood under a rosebush."

Speaking for myself, there was a moment in the distant past when I followed the words of the mass while listening to Bach's _B-Minor Mass._ Some of those words remain in my head, while some are forgotten. I now listen to that mass and others without a care for who sitteth on whose right hand, who is trembling with fear at the last trumpet, and whose blood was shed for whose sins. And I must say, with pure delight, that I don't feel as if I'm missing a thing!


----------



## pianozach

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> 1. John Cage - 4'33'' - the most spaghetti-iike of all pieces. The silence is just linguine.


I like transposing 4'33" to the key of Rice.

I know, I know, the purists will go bonkers about this, but the result is pastaphoric.


----------



## Coach G

Woodduck said:


> ...Speaking for myself, there was a moment in the distant past when I followed the words of the mass while listening to Bach's _B-Minor Mass._ Some of those words remain in my head, while some are forgotten. I now listen to that mass and others without a care for who sitteth on whose right hand, who is trembling with fear at the last trumpet, and whose blood was shed for whose sins. And I must say, with pure delight, that I don't feel as if I'm missing a thing!


I think there's different levels of understanding. For me, Bach's _St. Matthew's Passion_ and _St. John Passion_ meant almost nothing to me until I heard them in the English translation. I heard the _St. Matthew_ by Leonard Bernstein, in an abridged and thoroughly un-HIP version; and the _St. John_ in a very fine un-HIP but very reverent (still one my favorite), renditions by Benjamin Britten. Along a similar line, I can't imagine really "getting" what Haydn's _Creation_ or Schoenberg's _Moses Und Aron_ is all about without understanding the Biblical narratives in Genesis and Exodus respectively. On a more secular note, Mahler's _Song of the Earth_, and Schubert's _Winter's Journey_ did little for me until I bothered to follow along with the lyrics, although maybe reaching middle age, may have also had something to do with it, and that also touches upon context. I concede there are some excerpts from opera that I loved hearing without ever knowing the meaning of the lyrics; for example the duet for tenor and baritone from Bizet's _Pearl Fishers_. There's a lot to listen for in classical music, and for me, it's about a harmony, dynamics, craftsmanship, and unless it's Schoenberg or someone else from his serial bandwagon, I'm also listening for a good tune. Along with all this, I guess that mind works in a way where I'm always looking for the "story". Maybe because I didn't come from a musical family, and grew up in a home full of pop music, I'm always looking for a narrative in the music, as with songs like _Both Sides Now_, _The Rose_, _Seasons in the Sun_, _My Way_, and _Sunday Morning Comin' Down_. Even when I listen to symphonies, concertos and chamber music that doesn't have lyrics or any other extra musical cues, I'm still looking for a story to follow.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Coach G said:


> I think there's different levels of understanding. For me, Bach's _St. Matthew's Passion_ and _St. John Passion_ meant almost nothing to me until I heard them in the English translation. I heard the _St. Matthew_ by Leonard Bernstein, in an abridged and thoroughly un-HIP version; and the _St. John_ in a very fine un-HIP but very reverent (still one my favorite), renditions by Benjamin Britten. Along a similar line, I can't imagine really "getting" what Haydn's _Creation_ or Schoenberg's _Moses Und Aron_ is all about without understanding the Biblical narratives in Genesis and Exodus respectively. On a more secular note, Mahler's _Song of the Earth_, and Schubert's _Winter's Journey_ did little for me until I bothered to follow along with the lyrics, although maybe reaching middle age, may have also had something to do with it, and that also touches upon context. I concede there are some excerpts from opera that I loved hearing without ever knowing the meaning of the lyrics; for example the duet for tenor and baritone from Bizet's _Pearl Fishers_. There's a lot to listen for in classical music, and for me, it's about a harmony, dynamics, craftsmanship, and unless it's Schoenberg or someone else from his serial bandwagon, I'm also listening for a good tune. Along with all this, I guess that mind works in a way where I'm always looking for the "story". Maybe because I didn't come from a musical family, and grew up in a home full of pop music, I'm always looking for a narrative in the music, as with songs like _Both Sides Now_, _The Rose_, _Seasons in the Sun_, _My Way_, and _Sunday Morning Comin' Down_. Even when I listen to symphonies, concertos and chamber music that doesn't have lyrics or any other extra musical cues, I'm still looking for a story to follow.


It seems that it comes down to what we look for in music. You are looking for a story even when one doesn't exist, or at least the composer did not write a story in their music as in symphonies in general. I never look for a story in music. To me, music is an abstract art that is completely independent of narrative. That is why I strongly prefer pure music like symphonies over opera or religious music, which often relies on narrative for at least parts of its message and appeal. Still, I enjoy some religious music even if I don't understand what it says nor do I care. The Gloria of Bach's B minor mass is a great example of this. The chorus could be singing repeatedly "Bamboozle" and it wouldn't make an iota of a difference to me (although there might be some challenges with the cadence )


----------



## hammeredklavier

*Are Rainbows Really Real?*

For those of you who don't know - the OP likes to ask this sort of vague "trick questions". And there is usually a hidden agenda behind them.



millionrainbows said:


> Why are there only seven letter-names for notes, A-B-C-D-E-F-G, and yet there are twelve notes? Watch out, it's a trick question.





TalkingHead said:


> You have to realize that Million is very much like minimalist music _à la_ Reich: a process whereby the material is worked through over an extended period until most of the avenues have been exhausted, followed by a short _dénouement_.


We'll just wait for his _dénouement_.


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> In other words, is, for example, Gregorian chant actually a form of worship, and a way of actually invoking God or the Holy Spirit, as well as being "just music?"


Does this invoke the Great Leader Kim Il Sung? If not, is it "fake music"?


----------



## Flamme

amfortas said:


> Well, no, but OK.


https://www.christcommunityhealth.o...ke-place-across-the-mid-south-today?locale=en


----------



## amfortas

Flamme said:


> https://www.christcommunityhealth.o...ke-place-across-the-mid-south-today?locale=en


How does this relate to "all the great cathedrals and temples should likewise be demolished and religious services instead be conducted in tents in the parking lots that replace them"?


----------



## Flamme

I'm pretty certain that I saw somewhere how priests in tents give blessings and otehr religious services to people who are in their cars outside...


----------



## JAS

Flamme said:


> I'm pretty certain that I saw somewhere how priests in tents give blessings and other religious services to people who are in their cars outside...


Drive through salvation seems very apt for our overly rushed modern age.


----------



## Handelian

Flamme said:


> I'm pretty certain that I saw somewhere how priests in tents give blessings and otehr religious services to people who are in their cars outside...


I think if you look in the Bible in the new Testament you will find that Jesus and the apostles held most of their meetings outside.


----------



## erki

to: Coach G



> While I respect the fact that you grew up in the USSR, and while I agree with you that there are common denominators between Soviet culture and religion, the comparisons don't compare in any way to what the Christian narrative has contributed to art, architecture, and music.


I agree with you but as I say the soviet culture did not have much time(80 years) to evoke such contribution as christianity(2000 years). However it may very well be that communism would not have had strong moral basis to become all-encompassing religion as christianity has but it produced outstanding creations in "religious/ideological" music, film, architecture, literature and art never the less. Also it is not too difficult to find very cheesy music, incompetent art and ridiculous literature praising God.


----------



## eljr

millionrainbows said:


> In other words, is, for example, Gregorian chant actually a form of worship, and a way of actually invoking God or the Holy Spirit, as well as being "just music?"
> 
> The Church fathers thought that it was, indeed, a form of worship; a form of "religious technology" designed to invoke God and create believers.
> 
> In fact, on this very forum, I was criticized by a 'true believer' for saying that I could enjoy Gregorian chant without being a Christian. He said I was "missing it," compared to a believer who listens. What do you say?


Like all of life, we each have our own perspective. So the answer becomes, it is simply music for some and invokes God for others.

That was a way easy question! :angel:


----------



## Flamme

Here is a guidance...https://www.churchofengland.org/sit...D 19 Outdoor Worship and Churchyards v4.0.pdf


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream

Obviously atheists can enjoy religious music. However, I think that for the believer, religious music participates in the "religious-language game" and so has added or different meaning because it is perceived within a network of words (scripture, sermons, conversations) and religious acts (prayer, worship, etc.) in the sense Wittgenstein meant besides just art and music. Then there is the more spiritual side of music, and I think the atheist has an obstacle if he just thinks that religious composers like Messiaen or Bach had stupid beliefs, or were confused, or were only speaking in metaphors—I think, atheist or theist, one must have a minimum level of respect for the composer's beliefs insofar as they relate to the music if they are going to sincerely engage with it. I think that a sneering attitude towards religious sentiment, i.e. you think it's just stupid, is a real obstacle to truly appreciating music like Bach's passions. But of course one can at the same time believe that Christianity is totally wrong.


----------



## pianozach

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> Obviously *atheists can enjoy religious music*. However, I think that for the believer, religious music participates in the "religious-language game" and so has added or different meaning because it is perceived within a network of words (scripture, sermons, conversations) and religious acts (prayer, worship, etc.) in the sense Wittgenstein meant besides just art and music. Then there is the more spiritual side of music, and I think the atheist has an obstacle if he just thinks that religious composers like Messiaen or Bach had stupid beliefs, or were confused, or were only speaking in metaphors-I think, atheist or theist, one must have a minimum level of respect for the composer's beliefs insofar as they relate to the music if they are going to sincerely engage with it. I think that a sneering attitude towards religious sentiment, i.e. you think it's just stupid, is a real obstacle to truly appreciating music like Bach's passions. But of course one can at the same time believe that Christianity is totally wrong.


I think that Christians would have a hard time enjoying atheist music, if there were any really pointedly atheist Classical music.

There is definitely some atheistic pop music and metal music. Christians do NOT listen to any of THAT.


----------



## Ariasexta

All good music invoke devine power, no matter if they have words of devotion or not. Lukewarmness is the only enemy of god, if demons were results of devotion, then so be it. Human beings can not probe Gods mind, so we can only learn from our wrongs and experiences about how to find better way to live and believe. Some forbid music out of passion, I forgive them, anything out of passion is forgivable.


----------



## SanAntone

eljr said:


> Like all of life, we each have our own perspective. So the answer becomes, it is simply music for some and invokes God for others.
> 
> That was a way easy question! :angel:


I agree, but you are considering only the response of the listener. I think the intention of the composer is of primary importance.

Maurice Duruflé was a devout Catholic and his _Requiem_ was informed by his beliefs, the same is true for Olivier Messiaen. Bach was quoted as saying something to the effect that his motivation for composing music was for the glory of God.

It becomes less clear for composers such as Igor Stravinsky, whose Russian Orthodox beliefs may have been more nostalgic than religious, but I don't think it is productive to question someone's private religious beliefs. Even Brahms, whose "German Requiem" has been called secular, mentions "the Lord" several times in the text and quotes from the Beatitudes ("Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted") .

My feeling is that even music that was written with religious intentions can be enjoyed by both those who share the religious convictions and those who enjoy it as pure music, devoid of any religious associations.


----------



## neofite

Handelian said:


> I think if you look in the Bible in the new Testament you will find that Jesus and the apostles held most of their meetings outside.


Yes, but probably surrounded by awe-inspiring nature and/or the magnificent architecture of that era (e.g. Second Temple) rather than in ugly, toxic, asphalt parking lots.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba

We might yet advance the magic of music to invoke . The invocation will be a secret . You'll see .


----------



## Handelian

neofite said:


> Yes, but probably surrounded by awe-inspiring nature and/or the magnificent architecture of that era (e.g. Second Temple) rather than in ugly, toxic, asphalt parking lots.


It is certainly warmer weather than here. The point is though that Christianity does not depend on buildings. There are no sacred spaces in the New testament.


----------



## Handelian

SanAntone said:


> I agree, but you are considering only the response of the listener. I think the intention of the composer is of primary importance.
> 
> Maurice Duruflé was a devout Catholic and his _Requiem_ was informed by his beliefs, the same is true for Olivier Messiaen. Bach was quoted as saying something to the effect that his motivation for composing music was for the glory of God.
> 
> It becomes less clear for composers such as Igor Stravinsky, whose Russian Orthodox beliefs may have been more nostalgic than religious, but I don't think it is productive to question someone's private religious beliefs. Even Brahms, whose "German Requiem" has been called secular, mentions "the Lord" several times in the text and quotes from the Beatitudes ("Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted") .
> 
> My feeling is that even music that was written with religious intentions can be enjoyed by both those who share the religious convictions and those who enjoy it as pure music, devoid of any religious associations.


Stravinsky was a Roman Catholic I believe when he wrote Symphony of Psalms.


----------



## RICK RIEKERT

Handelian said:


> Stravinsky was a Roman Catholic I believe when he wrote Symphony of Psalms.


Stravinsky and his wife had rejoined the Russian Orthodox Church when he wrote the Symphony of Psalms. Although he was tempted at times by Roman Catholicism, to the end he considered himself stanchly Russian Orthodox, remaining with the faith of his fathers "for linguistic reasons." He attended church services regularly until 1939 when he complained that the music all sounded "like Rachmaninoff".


----------



## Handelian

RICK RIEKERT said:


> Stravinsky and his wife had rejoined the Russian Orthodox Church when he wrote the Symphony of Psalms. Although he was tempted at times by Roman Catholicism, to the end he considered himself stanchly Russian Orthodox, remaining with the faith of his fathers "for linguistic reasons." He attended church services regularly until 1939 when he complained that the music all sounded "like Rachmaninoff".


Sorry my mistake. I had read somewhere that he converted to Catholicism because of his wife but I was maybe wrong. Wiki says:

Stravinsky was a devout member of the Russian Orthodox Church during most of his life, remarking at one time that, "Music praises God. Music is well or better able to praise him than the building of the church and all its decoration; it is the Church's greatest ornament."
As a child, he was brought up by his parents in the Russian Orthodox Church. Baptized at birth, he later rebelled against the Church and abandoned it by the time he was fourteen or fifteen years old. Throughout the rise of his career he was estranged from Christianity and it was not until he reached his early forties that he experienced a spiritual crisis. After befriending a Russian Orthodox priest, Father Nicholas, after his move to Nice in 1924, he reconnected with his faith. He rejoined the Russian Orthodox Church and afterwards remained a committed Christian. Robert Craft noted that Stravinsky prayed daily, before and after composing, and also prayed when facing difficulty. Towards the end of his life, he was no longer able to attend church services. In his late seventies, Stravinsky said:

I cannot now evaluate the events that, at the end of those thirty years, made me discover the necessity of religious belief. I was not reasoned into my disposition. Though I admire the structured thought of theology (Anselm's proof in the Fides Quaerens Intellectum, for instance) it is to religion no more than counterpoint exercises are to music. I do not believe in bridges of reason or, indeed, in any form of extrapolation in religious matters. ... I can say, however, that for some years before my actual "conversion", a mood of acceptance had been cultivated in me by a reading of the Gospels and by other religious literature


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

pianozach said:


> I think that Christians would have a hard time enjoying atheist music, if there were any really pointedly atheist Classical music.
> 
> There is definitely some atheistic pop music and metal music. Christians do NOT listen to any of THAT.


Bizet, Busoni, Delius, Grainger, Janacek, Khachaturian, Ligeti, Prokofiev, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Saint-Saëns, Shostakovich, Tippet, Varèse, Verdi, Xenakis were all atheists.

Atheists in music => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_music


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

I recently listened to Enoch zu Guttenberg's recording of Mozart's Requiem.

zu Guttenberg is a devout catholic conductor. In the booklet of the cd he states his artistic point of view. The religious aspect of the music prevails for him over the "beauty" of the music.

(quote from booklet=>)
"It's not the joy of Mozart's "beautiful' music that the conductor is tracing down. "There's no pleasure in a requiem!" says Guttenberg. "I refuse to perform this work merely to satisfy anyone aesthetic needs. The main reason why I am a conductor is because I believe that the great composers very often have something to say that is of critical importance to the people. And this is what I'm trying to pass on. We live in a time in which the most appalling statements are degraded to ever available, pleasing consumer goods and then commercialised. But this is exactly what they are not. Mired in artistry, we tend to see only how beautifully the Issenheim Altar is painted. But that wasn't Matthias Grünewald's point. His art serves to mediate a message. Just like Mozart's Requiem. Nobody needs to buy this recording for mere aesthetic pleasure!"


----------



## science

Andrew Kenneth said:


> I recently listened to Enoch zu Guttenberg's recording of Mozart's Requiem.
> 
> zu Guttenberg is a devout catholic conductor. In the booklet of the cd he states his artistic point of view. The religious aspect of the music prevails for him over the "beauty" of the music.
> 
> (quote from booklet=>)
> "It's not the joy of Mozart's "beautiful' music that the conductor is tracing down. "There's no pleasure in a requiem!" says Guttenberg. "I refuse to perform this work merely to satisfy anyone aesthetic needs. The main reason why I am a conductor is because I believe that the great composers very often have something to say that is of critical importance to the people. And this is what I'm trying to pass on. We live in a time in which the most appalling statements are degraded to ever available, pleasing consumer goods and then commercialised. But this is exactly what they are not. Mired in artistry, we tend to see only how beautifully the Issenheim Altar is painted. But that wasn't Matthias Grünewald's point. His art serves to mediate a message. Just like Mozart's Requiem. Nobody needs to buy this recording for mere aesthetic pleasure!"
> 
> View attachment 147328


I wonder if he needed to record it or needs to get revenues for religious reasons as well.


----------



## Handelian

Andrew Kenneth said:


> Bizet, Busoni, Delius, Grainger, Janacek, Khachaturian, Ligeti, Prokofiev, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Saint-Saëns, Shostakovich, Tippet, Varèse, Verdi, Xenakis were all atheists.
> 
> Atheists in music => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_music


I think that sort of nonsense of lumping people together as 'atheists' is just about as dim as lumping people together as 'Christians' because they might believe in God. Religious feelings go far beyond that. For example Verdi was a man who had no time for organised religion but when push came to shove some of the statements he made may have led one not to call him an 'atheist'. Similarly Bizet was ina position along with a lot of other young men of his time of accepting the in vogue rationalism of his day and having no time for organised religion, but whether he was a paid up atheist can be doubted by some of what he said. In any case I am quite happy to hear works by men who are not believers as long as those works are not objectionable to my faith just as a non-believer might enjoy a religious work. After all we are in it for the music. There are some in the above list I wouldn't listen to because I do not enjoy the music


----------



## Handelian

science said:


> I wonder if he needed to record it or needs to get revenues for religious reasons as well.


Statements like this always amuse me that a statement of religious intent must always have some monetary aim behind it. I think if we know anything about likely net revenues and expected profits on such a recording, no-one will be in it for the money!


----------



## science

Handelian said:


> Statements like this always amuse me that a statement of religious intent must always have some monetary aim behind it. I think if we know anything about likely net revenues and expected profits on such a recording, no-one will be in it for the money!


I'm not sure what your point is. My point was that if he really wants to perform it as a religious event, it probably shouldn't be recorded -- because who is going to be serving a mass with a CD? -- but if it actually were to be recorded for that purpose, it should probably be made available for free.


----------



## SanAntone

science said:


> I'm not sure what your point is. My point was that if he really wants to perform it as a religious event, it probably shouldn't be recorded -- because who is going to be serving a mass with a CD? -- but if it actually were to be recorded for that purpose, it should probably be made available for free.


A formal liturgical setting is hardly the only manner in which a religious recording can be used. I have listened to sacred music in order to create a meditative, spiritual, environment for my own private "religious event". I think you are being unnecessarily confrontational about this topic and that recording in particular, and questioning the motives of this conductor.


----------



## Handelian

science said:


> I'm not sure what your point is. My point was that if he really wants to perform it as a religious event, it probably shouldn't be recorded -- because who is going to be serving a mass with a CD? -- but if it actually were to be recorded for that purpose, it should probably be made available for free.


Why on earth shouldn't it be recorded? Sounds a very strange attitude to me. I am quite used to acquiring recordings of religious events and paying for them to cover the costs. After all somebody has to pay for them. Who do you think should pay for them otherwise? The point is we all know recording costs money and so I do not see the harm in paying for something you get benefit from. In any case the conductor has not said he records it purely as a religious event if you read it carefully


----------



## Andrew Kenneth

science said:


> I wonder if he needed to record it or needs to get revenues for religious reasons as well.


I don't think he had a particular need to earn money with his music.

The late Enoch zu Guttenberg was quite rich. (net worth +- 400 million EUR)

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_zu_Guttenberg#Vermögensverhältnisse


----------

