# There is no such thing as Religious Music



## Klassic

I'm sorry, I hate to break it to all those devotees, but there is no such thing as religious music. There are religious _words_, but there is no such thing as _religious music_.


----------



## Guest

Klassic said:


> I'm sorry, I hate to break it to all those devotees, but there is no such thing as religious music. There are religious _words_, but there is no such thing as _religious music_.


 The difficulty that rises is how to define what is religious.Music is organised sound ,does it matter how ?
Personally I agree with the idea that there is no such thing as religious sound.When people hear a churchbell the have an inner response wich is cultivated.


----------



## Klassic

Traverso said:


> The difficulty that rises is how to define what is religious.


One can say a piece was composed with the sacred in mind, as a dedication to the sacred, but fortunately for us (and Gene Roddenberry knew it well) there is no such thing as the sacred. Religion is literally founded on empty words, the same is true of religious music.

Religious people talk about religious music like it's special. The _music_ might be special, but the _words_ are just as empty as the texts upon which religion is based.

There is music, and then there are religious words that people add to music.

I would probably die of laughter if someone tried to explain the technical theory as to what makes a piece of music religious. Is it melody, rhythm, harmony? Is there an idiots guide on how to compose religious music?


----------



## ArtMusic

Semantics. There is definitely church music. Bach wrote hundred of them for church service. Fact.


----------



## Guest

ArtMusic said:


> Semantics. There is definitely church music. Bach wrote hundred of them for church service. Fact.


Off course is there church music.I think it is better to stop this delicate subject.


----------



## Klassic

ArtMusic said:


> Semantics. There is definitely church music. Bach wrote hundred of them for church service. Fact.


Take away the words... what makes it church music?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Klassic said:


> Take away the words... what makes it church music?


Why, the organ of course


----------



## Klassic

The fact that it's played in a church? The fact that a person who believes in religious words wrote it? One has music, but there is no such thing as religious music.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

To use wikipedia's definition, religious music is music performed or composed for religious use or through religious influence. So by that definition, Bach B minor mass is religious music since it was composed for religious use. But I don't think there is anything intrinsic in the music that distinguishes it from secular music.


----------



## Klassic

I should clarify something: there is such a thing as a _genre_ of religious music, but there is no such thing as religious music.


----------



## KenOC

I would say that religious music is similar to "pastoral" music. There are certain musical conventions that we associate with depictions of the countryside, and other conventions that immediately identify music as religious or, at least, for use in the church. These conventions have developed just as a language develops, and are instantly recognizable to anybody growing up in a Western culture.


----------



## Klassic

KenOC said:


> ...that *we* associate with depictions of the countryside...


So you admit there is no such thing as religious music.


----------



## KenOC

Klassic said:


> So you admit there is no such thing as religious music.


Admit what? Certainly there is religious music, music we identify as such by its conventions. There is also march music (for tromping off to war) dance music, and other musics all easily identifiable.


----------



## Klassic

KenOC said:


> Admit what? Certainly there is religious music, music we identify as such by its conventions. There is also march music (for tromping off to war) dance music, and other musics all easily identifiable.


I will repeat myself: One can say a piece was composed with the sacred in mind, as a dedication to the sacred, but fortunately for us (and Gene Roddenberry knew it well) there is no such thing as the sacred. Religion is literally founded on empty words, the same is true of religious music.

I'm afraid the equivocation here is yours.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Klassic said:


> I'm sorry, I hate to break it to all those devotees, but there is no such thing as religious music. There are religious _words_, but there is no such thing as _religious music_.


I am fine with that. I recall reading that Martin Luther set religious words to popular drinking songs.


----------



## Klassic

Florestan said:


> I am fine with that. I recall reading that Martin Luther set religious words to popular drinking songs.


What I'm about to say is totally tragic because it's true. If all religious people were this undogmatic perhaps the world would be a much easier and pacified place to live. There is no such thing as divine music, all music is the creation of man. Of course, we can pretend, but this does not make it so.


----------



## starthrower

Florestan said:


> I am fine with that. I recall reading that Martin Luther set religious words to popular drinking songs.


"In heaven there ain't no beer, that's why we'll drink it right here."


----------



## Klassic

starthrower said:


> "In heaven there ain't no beer, that's why we'll drink it right here."


Indeed, because there ain't no heaven, you have no other choice.


----------



## starthrower

Klassic said:


> Indeed, because there ain't no heaven, you have no other choice.


Oh, yes there is! When I've had too much to drink and I pass out, I'm in heaven.


----------



## bioluminescentsquid

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Why, the organ of course


I, too, hold my organ as sacred.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Klassic said:


> What I'm about to say is totally tragic because it's true. *If all religious people were this undogmatic *perhaps the world would be a much easier and pacified place to live. There is no such thing as divine music, all music is the creation of man. Of course, we can pretend, but this does not make it so.


Yet you go on very dogmatically:


Klassic said:


> Indeed, *because there ain't no heaven*, you have no other choice.


----------



## Pugg

Traverso said:


> The difficulty that rises is how to define what is religious.Music is organised sound ,does it matter how ?
> Personally I agree with the idea that there is no such thing as religious sound.When people hear a churchbell the have an inner response which is cultivated.


Wise words spoken Traverso .


----------



## Klassic

Florestan said:


> Yet you go on very dogmatically:


Difference, we can hash it out by reason, but this is not the way of religion. I will not be killing you or tyrannizing you should you so happen to disagree with me, but this will not stop me from confronting you with reality.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Klassic said:


> I'm sorry, I hate to break it to all those devotees, but there is no such thing as religious music. There are religious _words_, but there is no such thing as _religious music_.





Florestan said:


> I am fine with that. I recall reading that Martin Luther set religious words to popular drinking songs.





Klassic said:


> What I'm about to say is totally tragic because it's true. If all religious people were this undogmatic perhaps the world would be a much easier and pacified place to live. There is no such thing as divine music, all music is the creation of man. Of course, we can pretend, but this does not make it so.


But I don't see where that is being undogmatic to agree that music is not religious in and of itself. That seems pretty obvious. It isn't dogmatism that is the problem, but those who are pushy about it--some to the use of force. But really, everyone is religious. Everyone holds various beliefs by faith. Even atheists hold their position by faith.


----------



## helenora

Traverso said:


> Off course is there church music.I think it is better to stop this delicate subject.


yes, I believe it's a wise comment or people end up in some futile quarrels and the most ridiculous thing will be that those quarrels will be about words and their definitions


----------



## mmsbls

Please make sure this thread is about _religious music_ and not just about religion.


----------



## Guest

Klassic said:


> I'm sorry, I hate to break it to all those devotees, but there is no such thing as religious music. There are religious _words_, but there is no such thing as _religious music_.


I'm not sure which 'devotees' you're trying to break it to, but you might like to state the musically obvious in a slightly less confrontational manner.

Of course there's no such thing as music that is innately 'religious' - that is, music that in some way conveys a meaning or meanings associated with a divine being - but as you yourself agree, there is a genre of religious music, a tradition of music (not just textual-choral) that is associated with the practices of religions. There is also music that is used in some traditions to create states of mind with the intention of connecting with the spiritual or transcendental.

You might also like to grow your understanding of the flexibility of the use of the English language. It's quite acceptable for the phrase 'religious music' to mean 'music that is associated with, created for, and an integral part of the traditions and practices of organisations or communities who meet to express and celebrate their beliefs in a/many divine beings.'


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> There is also march music (for tromping off to war) dance music


Yes, but both of these examples are identifiable by a specific musical component - the rhythm. Klassic's obvious point is that while a march is usually identified by its strict tempo, there is no 'religious' rhythm, meter, tempo, time signature...

...is there?


----------



## Kivimees

MacLeod said:


> I'm not sure which 'devotees' you're trying to break it to, but you might like to state the musically obvious in a slightly less confrontational manner.
> 
> Of course there's no such thing as music that is innately 'religious' - that is, music that in some way conveys a meaning or meanings associated with a divine being - but as you yourself agree, there is a genre of religious music, a tradition of music (not just textual-choral) that is associated with the practices of religions. There is also music that is used in some traditions to create states of mind with the intention of connecting with the spiritual or transcendental.
> 
> You might also like to grow your understanding of the flexibility of the use of the English language. It's quite acceptable for the phrase 'religious music' to mean 'music that is associated with, created for, and an integral part of the traditions and practices of organisations or communities who meet to express and celebrate their beliefs in a/many divine beings.'


I seem to recall a time when you requested your posts not be 'liked' without comment, so 'nicely expressed'.


----------



## Nereffid

Of course there's no such thing as music that's inherently religious. If someone hears religiosity in music, it's because they're interpreting it through their own cultural filter.
The same, I suppose, as with "beautiful" or "profound" music or, dare I say it, "great" music.


----------



## Genoveva

I have never had the slightest trouble understanding what is meant by "religious music". Nor, I imagine, would the vast majority of people who know what the Christian religion is. 

It is music that usually has something pretty obvious in its title to identify it as such, e.g. "mass", "psalm", "stabat mater", "magnificat", "tantum ergo". 

To say that there is nothing "intrinsic" in the nature of this kind of music that makes it religious is a statement of the obvious. Of course there isn't. The same tune - as opposed to the lyrics - could be used for a "drinking song", a "love song" or whatever.


----------



## david johnson

I do not particularly care what Gene Roddenberry said regarding the sacredness, or lack thereof, of anything.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Klassic said:


> There are religious _words_, but there is no such thing as _religious music_.


There are surely exceptions; what about the "Amen" cadence?


----------



## Klassic

What I gather from all of this is that people are claiming there is religious music in the sense that such music reminds certain people of religious gatherings and rituals.


----------



## Guest

Klassic said:


> What I gather from all of this is that people are claiming there is religious music in the sense that such music reminds certain people of religious gatherings and rituals.


"Reminds"? It's a little more than that.


----------



## Woodduck

Nereffid said:


> Of course there's no such thing as music that's inherently religious. If someone hears religiosity in music, it's because they're interpreting it through their own cultural filter.
> *The same, I suppose, as with "beautiful" or "profound" music or, dare I say it, "great" music.*


Apples and oranges - and probably pomegranates. We call music "religious" by association and usage, which are culture-dependent. We call it beautiful or great _partly_ by virtue of aesthetic and technical qualities which transcend culture.

My mother probably would not have recognized an Indian devotional song as either religious or beautiful. I can hear it as both - the former because I've learned something about other cultures and their music, the latter for the quite different reason that I can detect aesthetic qualities in a broad range of musical styles. And the greatness of a master musician like Ali Akhbar Khan was never lost on me - as, I'm sure, the greatness of Bach would not have been lost on him.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

I kind of think that music IS a religion itself


----------



## Genoveva

I cannot see what the point is of suggesting that there is no such thing as religious music. It's a descriptor that has been used down the ages with hardly any dispute as to its meaning. 

I mean if, say, Beethoven was commissioned to write a piece of religious music (anything he fancied) I really cannot imagine that he would have argued the toss about what this meant. He would have toddled off and written a mass or a magnificat or such like work, and his audience would have been delighted. 

The same would apply to the likes of Hildegard of Bingen, Monteverdi, J S Bach, Mozart, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Elgar, or Messiaen. 

If it was perfectly clear to any of them what the difference was between religious music and non-religious music, why should it be any different for us here and now?


----------



## Woodduck

The PO was phrased either provocatively or carelessly (probably the former), but I take it to mean "There are no specifically musical qualities which distinguish religious music from other music, and none which make music more or less suitable for the expression of religious ideas or their associated feelings, and for the accompanying of religious rituals." 

Actually, I think it's too easy to suggest that any and all music, in any style, can serve equally well religious and non-religious purposes. Though I haven't made a study of the subject, I think it a fairly safe guess that there are common features to be found among the sorts of music that people have used for religious functions. We might begin by noting what kinds of music have never, or rarely, been felt to have religious meaning.

Is this a fertile line of thought?


----------



## TxllxT

Klassic said:


> I'm sorry, I hate to break it to all those devotees, but there is no such thing as religious music. There are religious _words_, but there is no such thing as _religious music_.


Weird. Any reciting of words already has inner music, real spoken words are never toneless. Your antithesis is a mind-construction that makes one deaf for listening to the song of words. I suspect this your a-musical mind-spider to be 'religious'.


----------



## TxllxT

I hear music here


----------



## Klassic

TxllxT said:


> Weird. Any reciting of words already has inner music, real spoken words are never toneless. Your antithesis is a mind-construction that makes one deaf for listening to the song of words. I suspect this your a-musical mind-spider to be 'religious'.


Then how do you draw a distinction between words and music? Are all words music?


----------



## ArtMusic

Klassic said:


> Take away the words... what makes it church music?


Depends on how you define it or how it was historical or currently received. Bach's great passions were first performed inside a church as were his cantatas that had church functions during the church calendar year, not inside a concert hall. People took communion, listened to the priest, prayed and might have even joined in at the chorals. People listened to the music at such services to bring them closer to their faith in their religion. This makes it church music. Simple.


----------



## Sonata

Klassic said:


> Take away the words... what makes it church music?


To what purpose would you remove the words? The words are part of the music itself are they not? Vocalists have a significant place in classical canon


----------



## Klassic

Sonata said:


> To what purpose would you remove the words? The words are part of the music itself are they not? Vocalists have a significant place in classical canon


If this is true then one should not be able to exchange the words for different ones.


----------



## Klassic

I have a question for all those who claim there is such a thing as religious music: what makes a piece of music religious?


----------



## Sonata

Klassic said:


> If this is true then one should not be able to exchange the words for different ones.


You could replace the text of Bach's Mass in B Minor with the menu from Denny's and sure you'd have something that wasn't strictly religious music. But what's the point? You'd certainly be the only one to bother with it and all the rest of us would likely stick to the original. But you could do the same thing with other works in other ways. Take a Rachmaninoff symphony and add a piano in place of one of the violins. There you go it's no longer a symphony but a piano concerto. Use nothing but two violins, a viola and cello and suddenly it's a string quartet. That doesn't NOT make it originally a symphony.


----------



## Sonata

Klassic said:


> I have a question for all those who claim there is such a thing as religious music: what makes a piece of music religious?


I think it's fair enough to say that the answer IS the text. but I don't see that as a problem. For a mass for example the piece of music is made religious by including a Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and an Agnus Dei. Those ARE the parameters for that style of music just as for opera the most defining parameters is also to vocals and the text. There doesn't need to be a stylistic similarity in the instrumental aspect of the music


----------



## Woodduck

Klassic said:


> I have a question for all those who claim there is such a thing as religious music: what makes a piece of music religious?


I don't claim that there is, or is not, such a thing as religious music, because that phrase, here as in your OP, is ambiguous. Do you see how that might be the case? A human being can be religious, in the sense of being devoted to a religious doctrine or practice, but obviously music is not capable of such devotion. To be "religious," music would have to be associated with religion in some other way. What other way? Well, it might be used in religious services, or might be combined with a text expressing the ideas of a religion. A lot of music is, and so we call it "religious music." Is there some reason not to do so? Is there another sense in which music has been said to be "religious"? What is it? What is it, exactly, that your OP is arguing - or inveighing - against? To whom were you speaking when you said _"I'm sorry, I hate to break it to all those devotees, but there is no such thing as religious music,"_ and_ "I would probably die of laughter if someone tried to explain the technical theory as to what makes a piece of music religious. Is it melody, rhythm, harmony? Is there an idiots guide on how to compose religious music? "_ What "devotees" are you speaking to? What do you think those devotees believe that you don't believe? Several people have already said that they don't think religious music has to be in any particular style. Does that not get at what you're asking?

I'll repeat my post #39, which you haven't responded to:

_The PO was phrased either provocatively or carelessly (probably the former), but I take it to mean "There are no specifically musical qualities which distinguish religious music from other music, and none which make music more or less suitable for the expression of religious ideas or their associated feelings, and for the accompanying of religious rituals."

Actually, I think it's too easy to suggest that any and all music, in any style, can serve equally well religious and non-religious purposes. Though I haven't made a study of the subject, I think it a fairly safe guess that there are common features to be found among the sorts of music that people have used for religious functions. We might begin by noting what kinds of music have never, or rarely, been felt to have religious meaning._

_Is this a fertile line of thought? _

Is this the sort of thing you're inquiring about?

If we want clear answers, we have to ask clear questions.


----------



## Klassic

Woodduck said:


> I don't claim that there is, or is not, such a thing as religious music, because that phrase, here as in your OP, is ambiguous. Do you see how that might be the case? A human being can be religious, in the sense of being devoted to a religious doctrine or practice, but obviously music is not capable of such devotion. To be "religious," music would have to be associated with religion in some other way. What other way? Well, it might be used in religious services, or might be combined with a text expressing the ideas of a religion. A lot of music is, and so we call it "religious music." Is there some reason not to do so? Is there another sense in which music has been said to be "religious"? What is it? What is it, exactly, that your OP is arguing - or inveighing - against? To whom were you speaking when you said _"I'm sorry, I hate to break it to all those devotees, but there is no such thing as religious music,"_ and_ "I would probably die of laughter if someone tried to explain the technical theory as to what makes a piece of music religious. Is it melody, rhythm, harmony? Is there an idiots guide on how to compose religious music? "_ What "devotees" are you speaking to? What do you think those devotees believe that you don't believe? Several people have already said that they don't think religious music has to be in any particular style. Does that not get at what you're asking?
> 
> I'll repeat my post #39, which you haven't responded to:
> 
> _The PO was phrased either provocatively or carelessly (probably the former), but I take it to mean "There are no specifically musical qualities which distinguish religious music from other music, and none which make music more or less suitable for the expression of religious ideas or their associated feelings, and for the accompanying of religious rituals."
> 
> Actually, I think it's too easy to suggest that any and all music, in any style, can serve equally well religious and non-religious purposes. Though I haven't made a study of the subject, I think it a fairly safe guess that there are common features to be found among the sorts of music that people have used for religious functions. We might begin by noting what kinds of music have never, or rarely, been felt to have religious meaning._
> 
> _Is this a fertile line of thought? _
> 
> Is this the sort of thing you're inquiring about?
> 
> If we want clear answers, we have to ask clear questions.


Seems to me the root premise of your position is the same as mine.


----------



## Klassic

Sonata said:


> I think it's fair enough to say that the answer IS the text. but I don't see that as a problem. For a mass for example the piece of music is made religious by including a Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, and an Agnus Dei. Those ARE the parameters for that style of music just as for opera the most defining parameters is also to vocals and the text. There doesn't need to be a stylistic similarity in the instrumental aspect of the music


But the words are not the music, they are sung to music.


----------



## Sonata

Klassic said:


> But the words are not the music, they sung to music.


In your opinion. In the opinion of others the two are inextricably linked. See: Robert Wagner


----------



## Klassic

Sonata said:


> In your opinion. In the opinion of others the two are inextricably linked. See: Robert Wagner


Words are not music, this is why we call them words. If we say that words are music then how do we make a distinction between words and music? Are all words then music?


----------



## Klassic

Sonata said:


> In your opinion. In the opinion of others the two are inextricably linked. See: Robert Wagner


Again, I know you think you have rebutted my point, but if this is the case then why can one exchange secular words for religious words? Would this automatically transform a religious _piece of music_ into a secular _piece of music_? If the answer is yes, then clearly the _music_ is not religious.


----------



## Sonata

If you feel like you have made a specific and profound point then I wish you congratulations. I am not sure what it changes in the scheme of classical music but there you go.


----------



## Klassic

Now, if you changed the melody (as if there could ever be such a thing as a religious melody), harmony, rhythm, etc. and this changed the music to secular music, then we are onto something! Good luck making this case when one has already admitted that it is the words which make the music religious. But consider, who could draw out the objective boundaries of what makes a piece of music religious? There are melodies and harmonies and these work together, there is nothing religious about it.


----------



## Sonata

Again, I have no issue with the words being the defining point of what makes it religious. You clearly do as that is your right.


----------



## Woodduck

Klassic said:


> Seems to me the root premise of your position is the same as mine.


The only position I'm taking at this point in the discussion is that there may be no specific style of music which can be said to express a specifically "religious" feeling. But that opens up questions such as:

What is a religious feeling? 
Are there any feelings, or complexes of feeling, which religious people have that other people don't, or that people begin to experience only, or often, when they become religious? 
Do the feelings religious people have depend on what religion they practice? 
Are there styles of music particularly well suited to expressing the feelings people of different religious faiths experience? 
Are there types of music prominently in use in association with the practice of religion? Why?
Are there types which are rarely or never used for religious purposes? Why?

Religion, as a phenomenon, embraces ideas and practices as well as feelings. We know that music does not, by itself, communicate ideas, although it may provoke ideation. So music can't be religious in the sense of advocating doctrine. It may accompany all sorts of religious practices, such as prayer, meditation, singing, and dancing. Presumably any music conducive to those activities is appropriate if we think it is, whether that music is composed for religious purposes or not. That leaves only the emotional expression of the music to consider, and all the above questions arise. It seems to me that if we're to tease out the possible meanings of the initial inquiry, we'll have to address them, and probably other questions as well.

(Maybe this isn't where you want to go. Is there a "correct" response to the OP which isn't simple agreement with the statement "there is no such thing as religious music"? I don't want what you call my "rhetoric" to shut down the discussion, but to open it up to considerations not necessarily apparent from the OP - which was all I wanted to do on that other thread too).


----------



## Klassic

Woodduck said:


> The only position I'm taking at this point in the discussion is that there may be no specific style of music which can be said to express a specifically "religious" feeling. But that opens up questions such as:
> 
> What is a religious feeling?
> Are there any feelings, or complexes of feeling, which religious people have that other people don't, or that people begin to experience only, or often, when they become religious?
> Do the feelings religious people have depend on what religion they practice?
> Are there styles of music particularly well suited to expressing the feelings people of different religious faiths experience?
> Are there types of music prominently in use in association with the practice of religion? Why?
> Are there types which are rarely or never used for religious purposes? Why?
> 
> Religion, as a phenomenon, embraces ideas and practices as well as feelings. We know that music does not, by itself, communicate ideas, although it may provoke ideation. So music can't be religious in the sense of advocating doctrine. It may accompany all sorts of religious practices, such as prayer, meditation, singing, and dancing. Presumably any music conducive to those activities is appropriate if we think it is, whether that music is composed for religious purposes or not. That leaves only the emotional expression of the music to consider, and all the above questions arise. It seems to me that if we're to tease out the possible meanings of the initial inquiry, we'll have to address them, and probably other questions as well.
> 
> (Maybe this isn't where you want to go. Is there a "correct" response to the OP which isn't simple agreement with the statement "there is no such thing as religious music"? I don't want what you call my "rhetoric" to shut down the discussion, but to open it up to considerations not necessarily apparent from the OP - which was all I wanted to do on that other thread too).


*"What is a religious feeling?"* A feeling provoked by a series of imaginary assertions.

*"Are there any feelings, or complexes of feeling, which religious people have that other people don't, or that people begin to experience only, or often, when they become religious?"*

This is a very good question, and it seems to me the answer is yes, they have feelings that imaginary assertions are real.

*"Do the feelings religious people have depend on what religion they practice?"* Probably, but even more so, they depend upon the initial linguistic assertions. 
*
"Are there styles of music particularly well suited to expressing the feelings people of different religious faiths experience?"* Too subjective to make any progress in the direction of solidification.

*"Are there types of music prominently in use in association with the practice of religion? Why?"* Yes, hymns. Because the words _assigned to the music_ embellish the imaginary words they believe.
*
"Are there types which are rarely or never used for religious purposes? Why?"* Yes, Varese would not be permitted in a church, because his music would sound scary to religious people. But this question hardly even makes contact with the subject. Saying (S) rejects (Y) is not proof that (P) is religious.

And it seems to me Woodduck that all your questions fall dead under this syllogism.


----------



## starthrower

Music is my religion. It's really the only thing in life that has my complete devotion. It's probably why my ol' lady left me afer 25 years. She didn't like playing second fiddle to my mistress. The term "religious music" is redundant. Music, like God (the source of creation, or however you may define it?) is inside us all. An intrinsic quality of humanity. The only difference between Bartok, and some of the anonymous authors of all that wonderful folk music he collected is that he was educated.


----------



## Klassic

starthrower said:


> Music is my religion. It's really the only thing in life that has my complete devotion. It's probably why my ol' lady left me afer 25 years. She didn't like playing second fiddle to my mistress. The term "religious music" is redundant. Music, like God (the source of creation, or however you may define it?) is inside us all. An intrinsic quality of humanity. The only difference between Bartok, and some of the anonymous authors of all that wonderful folk music he collected is that he was educated.


Music as religion is accurate, religious music is not.


----------



## starthrower

Klassic said:


> we can hash it out by reason, but this is not the way of religion. I will not be killing you or tyrannizing you should you so happen to disagree with me, but this will not stop me from confronting you with reality.


The reality is that we are all ignorant. There's no point in arguing about the so called supernatural because it can't be proven or disproven. There is so much ignorance between our ears about that organ between our ears. How does this three pound hunk of meat create language and music? And religion?


----------



## Woodduck

Klassic said:


> *"What is a religious feeling?"* A feeling provoked by a series of imaginary assertions.
> 
> *"Are there any feelings, or complexes of feeling, which religious people have that other people don't, or that people begin to experience only, or often, when they become religious?"*
> 
> This is a very good question, and it seems to me the answer is yes, they have feelings that imaginary assertions are real.
> 
> *"Do the feelings religious people have depend on what religion they practice?"* Probably, but even more so, they depend upon the initial linguistic assertions.
> *
> "Are there styles of music particularly well suited to expressing the feelings people of different religious faiths experience?"* Too subjective to make any progress in the direction of solidification.
> 
> *"Are there types of music prominently in use in association with the practice of religion? Why?"* Yes, hymns. Because the words _assigned to the music_ embellish the imaginary words they believe.
> *
> "Are there types which are rarely or never used for religious purposes? Why?"* Yes, Varese would not be permitted in a church, because his music would sound scary to religious people. But this question hardly even makes contact with the subject. Saying (S) rejects (Y) is not proof that (P) is religious.
> 
> And it seems to me Woodduck that all your questions fall dead under this syllogism.


My questions do not "fall dead" under any so-called syllogism. They are excellent questions, and one very good piece of circumstantial evidence for that is the fact that you haven't really addressed the issues they raise. You seem primarily concerned with denigrating religion, and oversimplifying it in order to do so. I am not religious, but I recognize it as something much larger than a set of "imaginary assertions." Perhaps you haven't investigated religious traditions enough to appreciate their philosophical, ethical, and psychological dimensions - or the qualities of the art, including music, they have inspired.

My final question - whether you're looking for more than a simple affirmation of a simplistic statement - is answered. Perhaps other people here will appreciate the complexity of the matter and have useful things to say.


----------



## Klassic

starthrower said:


> The reality is that we are all ignorant. There's no point in arguing about the so called supernatural because it can't be proven or disproven.?


This is not true, the second you define God or the supernatural (which you must do if you would use the term) is the second it can be proven or disproven.


----------



## Klassic

Woodduck said:


> I am not religious, but I recognize it as something much larger than a set of "imaginary assertions."


Then are the assertions of religion real Woodduck? Surely you admit that religion is based on assertions, if not, then what do you call revelation in the real world? A person *says* that God exists, or that something is spiritual, this is the foundation and axiom of ALL religion. I am curious to see if you can bypass or transcend this empirical fact. I highly doubt you would deny that religion could exist if someone did not say this? In order for religion to exist one man must convince another man that he has made contact with God (or some vague notion of the divine). Gene Roddenberry knew it well.


----------



## Pugg

starthrower said:


> The reality is that we are all ignorant. There's no point in arguing about the so called supernatural because it can't be proven or dis proven. There is so much ignorance between our ears about that organ between our ears. How does this three pound hunk of meat create language and music? And religion?


May I add a simple amen to this.


----------



## Klassic

Woodduck said:


> My final question - whether you're looking for more than a simple affirmation of a simplistic statement - is answered. Perhaps other people here will appreciate the complexity of the matter and have useful things to say.


Also, there is _another_ one of your subtle insinuations here (one trick pony exposed). The implication seems to be that I am taking the stance I do because I am not really concerned with the truth, but I am merely driven on by some kind of emotional animosity. But what if I am after the truth, what if I take the stance I do because I have examined it and found it to be true? Further, what if the truth of the matter does amount to something "simplistic" (as I am bound to believe it does)? The assertion that it is "complexity" is yours to prove. I believe this (your citation of complexity) is close to what Daniel Dennett calls a "deepity."


----------



## Woodduck

Klassic said:


> Then are the assertions of religion real Woodduck? Surely you admit that *religion is based on assertions*, if not, then what do you call revelation in the real world? *A person **says* *that God exists, or that something is spiritual, this is the foundation and axiom of ALL religion. *I am curious to see if you can bypass or transcend *this empirical fact.* I highly doubt you would deny that religion could exist if someone did not say this? *In order for religion to exist one man must convince another man that he has made contact with God (or some vague notion of the divine)*. Gene Roddenberry knew it well.


You're assuming: 1.) that all of religion's major assertions are untrue; and 2.) that belief in assertions, specifically assertions about God, is the primary source, focus and value of religion.

Taking this on _in extenso_ is outside the purview of this discussion, which is about religious music, not the doctrines or practices of religion. Those are relevant only if we're focusing on the expressive qualities of music that might be perceived as having religious value. But, to say _something_ about it:

I notice you're conflating belief in God with spirituality. Not everyone, and not every religion, would agree to that. Zen Buddhism, for one, has no theistic doctrine, yet its practice is certainly spiritual, and many people nowadays speak of spirituality, and engage in spiritual practices, apart from theistic beliefs. So your "empirical fact" is not a fact.

The source of religion in human nature is a large subject, but it is certainly not right to state that it arose merely out of some individual convincing another another of a doctrine of God (and I don't know exactly what Gene Roddenberry had to say, but it does sound like a good Star Trek scenario ). Even if that were true, the obvious question would be: where did that first person come up with such an incredible idea? Was he alone in coming up with it? And why would anyone believe him?

As ways of understanding both himself and his world, spiritual perceptions - not necessarily theistic, but spiritual - must be deeply rooted in the structure of man's brain. Religion, theistic or not, embraces, and in various ways tries to integrate, philosophy, ethics, aesthetics, and psychology in the development of the human individual. And we don't abandon those things if we practice no religion as such; they are fundamental aspects of human experience and thought, and there is no firm dividing line between religious and non-religious expressions of them. Our spirit, or consciousness, is what it is, and it seeks to express, understand, and develop itself. Different religions have different approaches to this project of being human in the universe, and we can dispute some of their tenets. But to condemn the project as based on nonsense is a misunderstanding.

I have reasons, which I regard as good ones, for not subscribing to any religion, theistic or otherwise. Religions, in their dogmatic, institutional incarnations, are unquestionably a mixed bag. I mean, they've inspired some of the most profound art, deepest thinkers, fervent reformers, and innumerable random acts of kindness - along with suicide bombers and Pat Robertson! But I don't mistake or undervalue the basic human impulses toward self-comprehension, reconciliation, and transcendence which religions seek, even if often primitively and erringly, to express, and to which they attempt to provide very diverse paths.

The common, defining element among religions is not that unprovable notion of a supreme being. I don't think that notion need figure at all in an attempt to determine whether music can have a religious dimension.


----------



## Woodduck

Klassic said:


> Also, there is _another_ *one of your subtle insinuations *here *(one trick pony exposed)*. *The implication seems to be that* I am taking the *stance* I do because I am not really concerned with the truth, but *I am merely driven on by some kind of emotional animosity. *But what if I am after the truth, what if I take the *stance *I do because I have examined it and found it to be true? Further, what if the truth of the matter does amount to something "simplistic" (as I am bound to believe it does)? The assertion that it is "complexity" is yours to prove. I believe this (your citation of complexity) is close to what Daniel Dennett calls a "deepity."


Your trusty one-trick pony has another trick to offer. 

I make no subtle insinuations, but try to state my thoughts plainly. I do indeed feel that you've phrased this issue as you have out of a wish to condemn religion, at least in significant part. You're demonstrating that in the way you're resisting my considered attempt to open up the discussion to questions of what religion is and of how music can relate to it. Why, in this very post you call your action here not an inquiry, not an invitation to discussion, but a "stance," and talk about "the truth of the matter" as if "the matter" were clearly defined by your OP, as if there were only one "truth" to be proclaimed trp, and as if you have the official doctrine inscribed on stone tablets and can just sniff at anyone's suggestion that maybe, just maybe, there's more to it than you think.

Sorry, Klassic, but I'm seeing a pattern here. Talk about a one-trick pony! I hear a one-note trumpet.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I notice you're conflating belief in God with spirituality. [...] The common, defining element among religions is not that unprovable notion of a supreme being. I don't think that notion need figure at all in an attempt to determine whether music can have a religious dimension.


Exactly so. Yet Klassic has a point that music has no inherently 'religious' or 'spiritual' meaning, and I've not noted anyone yet successfully argue the contrary. Who would? Music has no inherent 'meaning' at all, only meanings derived from that which we apply to it, or that derive from the uses we put it to. There's no doubt that those associated meanings can be very strong, have been maintained and cultivated through history, and have a significance for individuals and cultures that are hard to separate (without, in some instances, causing offence). There's also no disputing that some types and forms of music are more suited to certain purposes than others and they consequently become inextricably bound up with them (I'm thinking of anthems, for example).


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Exactly so. Yet Klassic has a point that *music has no inherently 'religious' or 'spiritual' meaning, *and I've not noted anyone yet successfully argue the contrary. Who would? *Music has no inherent 'meaning' at all, only meanings derived from that which we apply to it, or that derive from the uses we put it to.* There's no doubt that those associated meanings can be very strong, have been maintained and cultivated through history, and have a significance for individuals and cultures that are hard to separate (without, in some instances, causing offence). There's also no disputing that some types and forms of music are more suited to certain purposes than others and they consequently become inextricably bound up with them (I'm thinking of anthems, for example).


I agree that music has no inherent meaning - IF "meaning" is taken in the sense of propositional meaning governed by the laws of logic. Music doesn't make statements. But meaning as conveyed by aesthetic qualities is not that kind of meaning. Music is intensely meaningful; it relates to our psychic and physical natures in complex ways, and its meanings don't even exclude concepts, which we may or may not form as we listen. Such concepts, unlike those which form propositions, need not be exclusive, noncontradictory, or universal, and aesthetic meaning exists for us whether we apply names to it or not.

The meanings we take from music may vary, but not infinitely and not arbitrarily. Art is not a blank screen onto which we project our preconceived realities, even if those realities in part determine our reactions to it. Why would we even attempt to do that, if all we are hearing is pointless, abstract patterns of sound? Music has to have some representative aspect if it's going to seem meaningful at all, and the power, variety and subtlety with which it can evoke feeling in us points to deeply rooted correspondences between its forms and the dynamics of our physical and psychic processes. These dynamics are strongly influenced by culture, but culture can't create them. It can only create a music which expresses them.

If there are any psychic patterns which constitute specifically religious experience, it shouldn't surprise us if there are musical sounds and forms which correspond to them and result in certain kinds of music, rather than others, which we naturally feel to be religious. If this is true, then speaking of "religious music" may not be nonsensical. It only becomes nonsensical if we think of musical meaning as propositional.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I agree that music has no inherent meaning - IF "meaning" is taken in the sense of propositional


Well I would hope that in the context of this discussion, it would be inferred that that is what I meant...I certainly don't mean that music is entirely meaningless!


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Well I would hope that in the context of this discussion, it would be inferred that that is what I meant...I certainly don't mean that music is entirely meaningless!


No, I didn't mean to imply that you meant that musical is incapable of conveying meaning. But I do take your post as implying that what it conveys is entirely conventional, as in _"Music has no inherent 'meaning' at all, only meanings derived from that which we apply to it, or that derive from the uses we put it to."_ This is what I don't agree with. I just felt I had to begin by distinguishing types of meaning.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> No, I didn't mean to imply that you meant that musical is incapable of conveying meaning. But I do take your post as implying that what it conveys is entirely conventional, as in _"Music has no inherent 'meaning' at all, only meanings derived from that which we apply to it, or that derive from the uses we put it to."_


That is, the only propositional meaning.


----------



## TxllxT

Klassic said:


> Words are not music, this is why we call them words. If we say that words are music then how do we make a distinction between words and music? Are all words then music?


Listen to the Siren's song: do you listen to the words or to the music? Or... did you never *listen* to the Siren's song? The whole talk about religion here is Siren-less. Are all words then music? When I *listen* I hear both, how they support each other, create each other. It's surely a puritan point of view to distill 'words' without music. I don't understand puritans.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

TxllxT said:


>


^^^

Bob Dylan has let himself go.


----------



## starthrower

Bob Dylan is building pearly gates.


----------



## Varick

mmsbls said:


> Please make sure this thread is about _religious music_ and not just about religion.


He started it.



Genoveva said:


> I cannot see what the point is of suggesting that there is no such thing as religious music.


The point of the OP is to rile people up and attack the faiths of people with unprovable statements that is based on the same amount of faith (as if he *knew* this like we know the Earth is round):



Klassic said:


> ... but fortunately for us (and Gene Roddenberry knew it well) *there is no such thing as the sacred. Religion is literally founded on empty words*, the same is true of religious music.
> 
> Religious people talk about religious music like it's special. The _music_ might be special, *but the words are just as empty as the texts upon which religion is based.*





Klassic said:


> Difference, we can hash it out by reason, but this is not the way of religion. I will not be killing you or tyrannizing you should you so happen to disagree with me, *but this will not stop me from confronting you with reality.*





Klassic said:


> Again, I know you think you have rebutted my point, but if this is the case then why can one exchange secular words for religious words? Would this automatically transform a religious _piece of music_ into a secular _piece of music_? If the answer is yes, then clearly the _music_ is not religious.


Uh, did you not see Sonata's explanation of your question. In case you didn't, here it is again:



Sonata said:


> You could replace the text of Bach's Mass in B Minor with the menu from Denny's and sure you'd have something that wasn't strictly religious music. But what's the point? You'd certainly be the only one to bother with it and all the rest of us would likely stick to the original. But you could do the same thing with other works in other ways. Take a Rachmaninoff symphony and add a piano in place of one of the violins. There you go it's no longer a symphony but a piano concerto. Use nothing but two violins, a viola and cello and suddenly it's a string quartet. That doesn't NOT make it originally a symphony.


I haven't heard anyone disagreeing that music in and of itself can not be "religious" only that which we associate, hear, and compose can be associated with religiosity as you yourself have admitted.

But you clearly have taken it to the next step with such foolish statements like the ones I emboldened above. You obviously haven't realized that your statements about religion and the supernatural are completely unprovable and are statements that take as much faith as someone else saying that God does exist.

V


----------



## Klassic

Varick said:


> Uh, did you not see Sonata's explanation of your question.


Refuted at #53, #54, #56. Try answering the questions and see what happens.


----------



## Becca

Klassic said:


> Words are not music, this is why we call them words. If we say that words are music then how do we make a distinction between words and music? Are all words then music?


The distinction (if there even is one) between words and music is a very fuzzy one. Separating them is a very western-centric statement and is not true of some asian languages where variation of pitch is an inherent part of and key to the meaning of a sound. Even in English the change in pitch can change the meaning of a sentence. Also there are sounds which are not words yet still communicate meaning.


----------



## Klassic

Woodduck said:


> You're assuming: 1.) that all of religion's major assertions are untrue; and 2.) that belief in assertions, specifically assertions about God, is the primary source, focus and value of religion.


1) Well, insofar as the statements are empirically verifiable, can be confirmed and evidenced by the world, religion would have no problem with untruth. One is free to demonstrate or prove the veracity of religious assertions, but until this has happened I will be _intelligently_ suspending my belief. All assertions, religious or not, bear _the burden of proof_. If you think religious assertions are true then you should be religious.

2) Religion without God? Religion without the supernatural? If God is not the "primary source", "focus" of religion then what is? In your attempt to gain some kind of ground for religious music you have confused yourself about the ontology of religion.

God is the "primary source" and "focus" of the two most relevant and prominent religions in the world. God is the whole point of these religions, remove God and these religions would be no more religion.

The only thing that matters about religious assertions is that they are unknowable and make-believe (Mr. Rogers knew this well). In contrast, I for example, _know_ (and can prove) that trees and flowers exist.

*"I notice you're conflating belief in God with spirituality. Not everyone, and not every religion, would agree to that. Zen Buddhism, for one, has no theistic doctrine, yet its practice is certainly spiritual, and many people nowadays speak of spirituality, and engage in spiritual practices, apart from theistic beliefs."*

God and the supernatural are exactly the same kind of imaginary thing. Both fall outside empirical testing and therefore have no meaning. To appeal to either one is to appeal to nonsense.

I hate to break it to you my friend, but if a man beats on a drum and calls his beating "Buddhist Music," this will not mean that his beating on a drum is Buddhist. It will only mean he is _mistaking_ what he is doing for something it is not.

What is the original premise of this thread (which stands totally unrefuted): there is no such thing as religious music. There are religious words sets to music, but there is no such thing as religious music.

Even your best attempt, which was to ask whether religion creates any unique feelings falls flat. Even if it does, your question guarantees that music modeled after such feelings, would simply be that, man's feelings about religious words!

There is no such thing as religious music. This is a genera (by name), but not an actual thing. Please see #53, #54, #56.

But all this is so much more simple. You cannot start with a natural premise, and from that, get to the supernatural.


----------



## Klassic

Becca said:


> The distinction (if there even is one) between words and music is a very fuzzy one. Separating them is a very western-centric statement and is not true of some asian languages where variation of pitch is an inherent part of and key to the meaning of a sound. Even in English the change in pitch can change the meaning of a sentence. Also there are sounds which are not words yet still communicate meaning.


It is "very" deep and "very fuzzy." This is a deepity. It is not fuzzy for me. I am, at present, not writing music, I am writing words. If I was speaking to you, I would not be musicing to you. Reading Shakespeare is not the same as listening to Beethoven. If you say that words are music, then you have lost the distinction between words and music. But this is absurd, and more importantly, you do not believe it. A spoken word is not music. It can be set to music (this is why we can interchange words), but in itself, it is not music.

You are correct that words and music can both be categorized under the category of sound, but this does not make words music.


----------



## Becca

It is not fuzzy for you only because you are making very rigid definitions of the words to suit the argument and restricting them to specific language groups. So long as you do that, I see no value in attempting to go further. Have at it.


----------



## Guest

It is a very interesting thought that the distinction between music and words is not necessarily so.When people start communicating in ancient times ,they spoke perhaps for short messages and sang in order to give it more live and colour.In the near past there was a lively communication between construction workers.They could communicate ,because the voice has more power when you sing.Now is there a radio wich takes it over and the people are mute.
English is not my language and I have difficulties to express myself in it.I hope it has any sensible content


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Klassic said:


> This is a genera (by name), but not an actual thing.


A "genus", singular?


----------



## Klassic

Becca said:


> It is not fuzzy for you only because you are making very rigid definitions of the words to suit the argument and restricting them to specific language groups. So long as you do that, I see no value in attempting to go further. Have at it.


Then are all words music Becca? If not, how do you draw a distinction?

_It is inaccurate that some presume I bear the burden of proof here._

He that says there is such a thing as religious music is not justified by default. The default position is that of naturalism! If such an assertion was the default position, then it would mean reality was inherently religious; it would mean God and supernaturalism both stood indistinguishable from nature (unless one could deny nature without using it as a premise). But this would mean religious assertions never deviate from nature: welcome to naturalism! I would have no intellectual, empirical, existential objections with any religious person who wants to be this consistent, because such a person would be the exact same as a naturalist!


----------



## Klassic

Traverso said:


> It is a very interesting thought that the distinction between music and words is not necessarily so.


It is an assertion that no one on this forum really believes. The moment you make a distinction between music and words (as you must) is the moment this assertion is refuted. Am I writing music to you right now? If I was speaking to you on the telephone would I be musicing to you? Was Shakespeare a composer of music? The reason people are saying this is because they are desperate to retain the idea of the existence of religious music. By doing this they are hoping to smuggle in the premise that religious words, are in fact, music. They are not, they are religious words set to music. This is just another example of how religion is willing to distort reality in order to retain its wishful ideas.


----------



## Becca

Klassic said:


> Then are all words music Becca?


Reductio ad absurdum


----------



## Guest

post deleted,xxxxxxxxx


----------



## Klassic

Becca said:


> Reductio ad absurdum


In other words, no, *clearly* you do not believe that all words are music (as that would be absurd), *clearly* you make a distinction. If you are saying my question commits a fallacy (which RAA is not) I'm afraid you had better do some research on Reductio ad absurdum.


----------



## Woodduck

This thread has not managed to get past Klassic's original vague but provocative assertion that "there is no such thing as religious music." The reason it hasn't is that anything anyone says on the subject is ignored, misinterpreted, distorted, and swatted down sarcastically with a reiteration of "there is no such thing as religious music."

As a subject, that statement has no meaning, and therefore can't be discussed or debated seriously, without an investigation of both the dimensions of religion and the nature of musical meaning. I've tried to open up both areas, but have been met with nothing but contemptuous dismissal. I don't honestly know how much to attribute this to a simple inability to understand what I'm talking about, which would be the most charitable interpretation, or to a less excusable motivation. I admit the subject isn't easy: religion is not a simple phenomenon - certainly not a mere matter of false beliefs - but one that encompasses a vast range of human experience, and how the arts can relate to it ought to be fertile ground. But it's clear that Klassic doesn't want to explore that ground. I really can't resist the feeling that the purpose of this thread is not to discuss anything but, as Varick says, to rile people up. 

Well, I'm tired of being riled. To anyone considering continuing this pseudoconversation in hopes of getting anywhere - or even getting any respect - I can only say that you have a stronger stomach than I do.


----------



## Klassic

Woodduck said:


> This thread has not managed to get past Klassic's original vague but provocative assertion that "there is no such thing as religious music." The reason it hasn't is that anything anyone says on the subject is ignored, misinterpreted, distorted, and swatted down sarcastically with a reiteration of "there is no such thing as religious music."


Here are many false assertions about my actions. There are people who claim that religious music is a real thing (and they bear the burden of proof for this claim). I drew the accurate distinction between words and music. I have asked many relevant questions, which when engaged, demonstrate the accuracy of my position. Try interacting with my questions Woodduck and see what happens to your premises. Are all words music, is there not a distinction between words and music? Once we have answered this then we can proceed with less confusion.


----------



## Becca

There was a recent thread in which there was a considerable discussion of what constituted 'legal' and 'illegal' insults in terms of this site's ToS. This thread has amply demonstrated the art of not quite insulting while making it clear that one was intended. I'm with Woodduck.


----------



## Klassic

Becca said:


> There was a recent thread in which there was a considerable discussion of what constituted 'legal' and 'illegal' insults in terms of this site's ToS. This thread has amply demonstrated the art of not quite insulting while making it clear that one was intended. I'm with Woodduck.


Why would you make this conversation about me? I have stuck to the subject; my reply is exceedingly logical and impersonal. I am now being attacked (in my motives) because one has not been able to refute my arguments.


----------



## Klassic

The question is whether there is such a thing as religious music. Those who say yes must either argue that the music is religious, or argue that words and music are the same, but arguing that a certain melody or harmony is religious is exceedingly problematic, if not impossible, so one has attempted to argue that words and music are the same, but I refuted this. No one on this forum really believes that there is no distinction between words and music.

Next, because my argument could not be refuted, people start attacking and divining my motives. This is a true ad hominem. Even if my motives were lacking in integrity (which I can assure you they are not) how would this refute my argument?

Look at what Woodduck says, *"I really can't resist the feeling..."* did you catch that, its his "feelings" that determine his perspective? I, in contrast, am being fiercely logical.

Also, what the heck is this supposed to mean: *"This thread has amply demonstrated the art of not quite insulting while making it clear that one was intended."*

*Amply demonstrated while not quite insulting?* So I did not _actually_ insult, my crime is that I _intended_ to insult? Pray to God you were not my judge during the inquisition. Who could possibly defend themselves from such omniscience? How do you know my intentions? Did you ask me? Further, it is not my fault if people are insulted by reality. This is out of my control!


----------



## Klassic

Woodduck said:


> I've tried to open up both areas, but have been met with nothing but contemptuous dismissal.


This is not true. I answered your questions and interacted with your premises, it was you who "dismissed" my answers and ignored my questions. It is there for all to see my dear Woodduck.

It would be interesting to see if you could interact with my _position_ without smuggling in snide comments to insinuate negativity in my motives and character. The premise I have been consistently defending is that there is no such thing as religious music. Yes, this premise is liable to be offensive to people who believe there is, but convictions count for nothing here. What matters is whether or not there _really is_ such a thing as religious music, or only _religious words_ set to _music_?


----------



## Sonata

It's interesting that while more than one person to some degree actually accepted some of your original premise you still feel the need to smugly reject their discussion. I essentially said YES without the words the instrumental music itself is not religious music. That is in fact agreeing with a part of your premise. And in fact Wooduck and others have done the same. Now why is that exactly???


----------



## Klassic

Sonata said:


> It's interesting that while more than one person to some degree actually accepted some of your original premise you still feel the need to smugly reject their discussion. I essentially said YES without the words the instrumental music itself is not religious music. That is in fact agreeing with a part of your premise. And in fact Wooduck and others have done the same. Now why is that exactly???


I know you agreed, I even used the premise of your agreement to further my argument, do you not remember? Also, "you still feel the need to smugly reject their discussion," this is totally false, what I reject is the personal evasion and shifting of this conversation to the irrelevant divining of my motives.

What is interesting, my dear Sonata, is that people have had to fallaciously attack me because they could not refute my argument. And this is a fact.

I have heard Woodduck many times complain that people have personally attacked him in the course of conversation. Now look at him, where is his logical refutation? He is guilty of the very thing of which he has so often complained.


----------



## Woodduck

Klassic said:


> The question is whether there is such a thing as religious music. Those who say yes must either argue that the music is religious, or argue that words and music are the same, but arguing that a certain melody or harmony is religious is exceedingly problematic, if not impossible, so one has attempted to argue that words and music are the same, but I refuted this. No one on this forum really believes that there is no distinction between words and music.
> 
> Next, because my argument could not be refuted, people start attacking and divining my motives. This is a true ad hominem. Even if my motives were lacking in integrity (which I can assure you they are not) how would this refute my argument?
> 
> Look at what Woodduck says, *"I really can't resist the feeling..."* did you catch that, its his "feelings" that determine his perspective? I, in contrast, am being fiercely logical.


The statement "There is no such thing as religious music" is not a real proposition. It's like the statement "there is no such thing as religious architecture" or "there's no such thing as religious apparel." To make any of these statements is to engage in semantic chicanery.

"Religious music" is music which serves religious purposes. That's the normal meaning of the expression. Everyone here knows this. But everyone also seems to agree that the notes of a piece of music do not in themselves contain or convey religious messages, and that the music used for religious purposes might not be perceived as relating to religion if heard in other contexts.

If this is all you're (obliquely) implying in your OP, no one has disagreed since the very beginning. Some people do, however, think that the relationship of music to religion is an interesting subject with further ramifications that might be explored. Apparently you don't want to do this, or feel it's worthwhile, since your concept of "religion" is that it's nothing but a bunch of beliefs which you are eager to pronounce nonsensical. I might well agree that much religious doctrine is nonsensical, but whether it is or not has nothing to do with music, or what music associated with religion might express, or how it might do that, and why some music might be more naturally suited to religious purposes than other music. None of these matters seem to interest you. You would rather rattle on about what nonsense religion is, reiterate your original semantic game, and insist that everyone else is failing to "refute" you.

Well, Klassic, it may be that no one here is interested in "refuting"you. Maybe no one finds your original assertion worth refuting. One doesn't refute semantic dodges, one merely exposes them. Some of us do seem to think that there's a potential subject here, but instead of being pleased about that you seem merely to want to create imaginary antagonists - who, oddly enough, soon turn into real ones - so that you can "refute" them and show by contrast what a trenchant insight your original assertion is.

It isn't a trenchant insight. It's a play on words, nothing more. Any actual point you thought to make by it has apparently been made and agreed upon by everyone here. So where's the point in continuing the battle? There's nothing to "refute," everything appears to be settled, and the rest is noise.


----------



## Klassic

"The statement "There is no such thing as religious music" is not a real proposition. It's like the statement "there is no such thing as religious architecture" or "there's no such thing as religious apparel." To make any of these statements is to engage in semantic chicanery."

Then following your logic, saying there is such a thing as religious music, must equally be a thing which "is not a real proposition." Am I mistaken about this, why?

See how this is not personal? See how I _have not_ had to say anything about your person?


----------



## EdwardBast

Klassic said:


> The question is whether there is such a thing as religious music. Those who say yes must either argue that the music is religious, or argue that words and music are the same, but arguing that a certain melody or harmony is religious is exceedingly problematic, if not impossible, so one has attempted to argue that words and music are the same, but I refuted this. No one on this forum really believes that there is no distinction between words and music.


The meaning of the term religious music is music used to set religious texts or music used for religious ceremonies. No one thinks the purely musical portions are religious, whatever that is supposed to mean. Only people can be religious. This has been said above. You have raised a pointless non issue. I'm not sure why anyone, including you, thinks there is something worth arguing here.


----------



## Woodduck

Klassic said:


> "The statement "There is no such thing as religious music" is not a real proposition. It's like the statement "there is no such thing as religious architecture" or "there's no such thing as religious apparel." To make any of these statements is to engage in semantic chicanery."
> 
> Then following your logic, saying there is such a thing as religious music, must equally be a thing which "is not a real proposition." *Am I mistaken about this, why?*


Yes, you are mistaken. "Religious music" has a meaning. It means "music with religious functions or associations." To say, _without a redefinition of terms,_ that there is no such thing as religious music is either a simple false statement or a semantic game.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

EdwardBast said:


> The meaning of the term religious music is music used to set religious texts or music used for religious ceremonies. No one thinks the purely musical portions are religious, whatever that is supposed to mean. Only people can be religious. This has been said above. You have raised a pointless non issue. I'm not sure why anyone, including you, thinks there is something worth arguing here.


Yet we are on page 7. Even though I checked out of this thread after post #9, I have been perusing it whenever I get a change notification and to be honest, the patience of some posters is commendable.


----------



## Klassic

Woodduck said:


> Yes, you are mistaken. "Religious music" has a meaning. It means "music with religious functions or associations." To say, _without a redefinition of terms,_ that there is no such thing as religious music is either a simple false statement or a semantic game.


Then my dear Woodduck, you admit I was correct back at post #50? *'Seems to me the root premise of your position is the same as mine.' *

However, I suspect you will try to claim that the equivocation here is mine.

Now, do you mean "music with religious functions or associations," or do you mean, religious functions and associations (namely religious words) sets to music?


----------



## Haydn man

Religion was the starting point 
People needed gathering places to worship so they built churches which gave us religious architecture i.e buildings used for religion
Songs and music were developed as part of the act of worship giving us religious music i.e music who's purpose was part of the act of worship.
Seems pretty straightforward to me 
Now, I am away to consider the question 'Is reality simply a figment of my imagination?'


----------



## Klassic

Also, it should be clear then, we have refuted all those people (and many seem to agree) who would claim that there is such a thing as religious music. What I find interesting is that Woodduck, and others, are not actually arguing for _religious music_, as many people would define it in the ontological, supernatural sense of the term. In other words, if Woodduck is correct, then there is no such thing as religious music! This thread is epic because many many people are now confessing to the fact that there is no such thing as religious music. In other words, what Woodduck and the like are saying, is that there is religious music, but only as a genera, only as a subjective cultural event... guess what, this means they agree, there is no such thing as religious music! This is like saying, God exists as a cultural phenomena, but in reality, He does not exist. But _cultural phenomena_ is not what religious people mean when they say God exists. The same is true of religious music. And yet, this has been my point from the very beginning (refuting the supernatural claim). Several people have understood this, see Nereffid post #30.


----------



## Klassic

What then is a religious mass? It is a piece of music set to religious words, but it is not, a religious piece of music! He that thinks it is suffers from a confusion in ontology.


----------



## Klassic

EdwardBast said:


> The meaning of the term religious music is music used to set religious texts or music used for religious ceremonies. No one thinks the purely musical portions are religious, whatever that is supposed to mean. Only people can be religious. This has been said above. You have raised a pointless non issue. I'm not sure why anyone, including you, thinks there is something worth arguing here.


I have raised a "pointless non-issue" only if you are correct when you say that "No one thinks the purely musical portions are religious..." Are you sure no one thinks this? Anyhow, it is very doubtful they will have the courage to speak up now if they do. Surely many composers must have thought this over the years, but I am glad you agree with me my dear EdwardBast, that all those who do believe this are mistaken. 

Can I hear you say it clearly; "there is no such thing as religious music?"


----------



## Woodduck

Klassic said:


> Also, it should be clear then, *we have refuted all those people * who would claim that there is such a thing as religious music. What I find interesting is that Woodduck, and others, are not actually *arguing for religious music, as many people would define it in the ontological, supernatural sense of the term.* This thread is *epic *because many many people are now confessing to *the fact that there is no such thing as religious music. *


You seem to be under the impression that there are people - "all those people" - who have some concept of "religious music - " some "ontological," "supernatural" idea of it - which not one person on this forum, to my knowledge, has expressed. My memory may be going, but I don't recall anyone pointing to a piece of music and saying something like "God made Bach write music which contains the Holy Spirit right inside its notes, and instructed him that if he ever even thought of reusing its material in a harpsichord concerto he would be struck dead by lightning."

So what is this ontological, supernatural music that doesn't exist? And who are "those people" who believe in it? Where are they? Do you hear them speaking? Do they talk only to you? Do you talk back? Is it them that you've been arguing with and trying to "refute" all this time? Might we hear from them, so that we can all have the pleasure of "refuting" them?

Congratulations on winning a battle with a nonexistent opponent. But "epic" isn't the word I would use for it.

P.S. There is such a thing as religious music.


----------



## Klassic

Woodduck said:


> You seem to be under the impression that there are people - "all those people" - who have some concept of "religious music - " some "ontological," "supernatural" idea of it - which not one person on this forum, to my knowledge, has expressed. My memory may be going, but I don't recall anyone pointing to a piece of music and saying something like "God made Bach write music which contains the Holy Spirit right inside its notes, and instructed him that if he ever even thought of reusing its material in a harpsichord concerto he would be struck dead by lightning."
> 
> So what is this ontological, supernatural music that doesn't exist? And who are "those people" who believe in it? Where are they? Do you hear them speaking? Do they talk only to you? Do you talk back? Is it them that you you've been arguing with and trying to "refute" all this time? Might we hear from them, so that we can all have the pleasure of "refuting" them?
> 
> Congratulations on winning a battle with a nonexistent opponent. But "epic" isn't the word I would use for it.
> 
> P.S. There is such a thing as religious music.


I accept your humble congratulations my friend. 

*"P.S. There is such a thing as religious music."* really means, _there is such a thing as religious words set to music_, as EdwardBast has so clearly pointed out.


----------



## Sonata

Klassic said:


> Also, it should be clear then, we have refuted all those people (and many seem to agree) who would claim that there is such a thing as religious music. What I find interesting is that Woodduck, and others, are not actually arguing for _religious music_, as many people would define it in the ontological, supernatural sense of the term. In other words, if Woodduck is correct, then there is no such thing as religious music! This thread is epic because many many people are now confessing to the fact that there is no such thing as religious music. In other words, what Woodduck and the like are saying, is that there is religious music, but only as a genera, only as a subjective cultural event... guess what, this means they agree, there is no such thing as religious music! This is like saying, God exists as a cultural phenomena, but in reality, He does not exist. But _cultural phenomena_ is not what religious people mean when they say God exists. The same is true of religious music. And yet, this has been my point from the very beginning (refuting the supernatural claim). Several people have understood this, see Nereffid post #30.


1) If you feel your point has been proven, then what are you still going on about??

2) Lack of religious music by your definition does not prove lack of a deity. Your argument is that because music written for the use of religious ceremonies and sacred rituals does not have a unique harmony, meter,melody and all that, there is no God. I fail to see how one proves the other. You cannot prove scientifically absence of a God or gods, we cannot definitely prove the presence.

3) Spirituality gives to many people an added depth to their human experience. Clearly organized religion has caused damage on the earth and I'm not here to deny that. But for alot of it has lead to a transcendent experience. (In fact I believe we had a discussion on transcendent experiences yesterday regarding a different topic didn't we?)


----------



## Klassic

This thread is now complete. Objective accomplished.


----------



## Sonata

Klassic said:


> This thread is now complete. Objective accomplished.


Well. No, not really. Though you started the thread, you don't neccessarily determine that the subject is done if others choose to continue it.


----------



## Woodduck

Sonata said:


> Well. No, not really. Though you started the thread, you don't neccessarily determine that the subject is done if others choose to continue it.


Some people have a need to control others.


----------



## millionrainbows

There is no such thing as Religious Music

Actually, I tried to prove just the opposite on another thread I started, called *







"Religious" can be a structural term which transcends and supercedes other ideas*

in which I tried to "objectify" certain qualities about music and sound which have physiological and psychological effects on us as humans: such as drones, repetitions, repeating music, etc. I often get "trippy" or meditative effects from early Philip Glass like this, and there's always the "oooommmm" connection.

I did not succeed, but I did try.

For the most part, I agree that "religious music" is a term which defines its use and social meaning. After all, without people, music is just a tree that falls over in the woods with nobody listening.


----------



## EdwardBast

Klassic said:


> I accept your humble congratulations my friend.
> 
> *"P.S. There is such a thing as religious music."* really means, _there is such a thing as religious words set to music_, as EdwardBast has so clearly pointed out.


I said nothing of the kind. There is religious music without words, obviously. Organists, for example, improvise all kinds of functional music to enhance various religious ceremonies.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> There is no such thing as Religious Music
> 
> Actually, I tried to prove just the opposite on another thread I started, called *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Religious" can be a structural term which transcends and supercedes other ideas*
> 
> in which I tried to "objectify" certain qualities about music and sound which have physiological and psychological effects on us as humans: such as drones, repetitions, repeating music, etc. I often get "trippy" or meditative effects from early Philip Glass like this, and there's always the "oooommmm" connection.
> 
> I did not succeed, but I did try.
> 
> For the most part, I agree that "religious music" is a term which defines its use and social meaning. After all, without people, music is just a tree that falls over in the woods with nobody listening.


That was an interesting thread, million. I remember it well, and also recall your having broached the subject in the past. You may not have proved that religious meaning is objectively present in music, but I don't think that looking for correspondences between musical sounds and forms, and aspects of human subjective experience, is a meaningless or futile endeavor. On the contrary, I think it's potentially a rich vein to mine for many studies both humanistic and scientific. I thought at the time (as I remember it now) that in defining what "religious" or "spiritual" experience is and how music can reflect and stimulate it, you were limiting your conceptions too much. I might think differently if I were to look back over the thread.

Despite the obvious fact that no music carries an explicit religious message and that any music might be heard by someone for whom it would arouse no religious associations, I find it interesting to note that some forms of music have been widely considered appropriate for religious use, and to ask whether there's anything about them, as music, that makes us find them suitable. I don't believe for a minute that mankind's choices of music to express and accompany his life experiences are accidental, directed solely by his external circumstances, although those circumstances limit his thinking, choices and behaviors.

Back in post #58 of this thread I asked the following questions:

_What is a religious feeling?
Are there any feelings, or complexes of feeling, which religious people have that other people don't, or that people begin to experience only, or often, when they become religious?
Do the feelings religious people have depend on what religion they practice?
Are there styles of music particularly well suited to expressing the feelings people of different religious faiths experience?
Are there types of music prominently in use in association with the practice of religion? Why?
Are there types which are rarely or never used for religious purposes? Why?_

Such inquiry didn't fit into the party plans of the host, and only a few people were in attendance, so that was that. It would be nice if a few more people were inclined to bend their minds around stuff like this. Maybe now that the host has declared the party over, a group of us can go out for drinks and gab the night away. On the other hand, maybe I just need to go to bed after what I've been through.

Yeah.


----------



## regenmusic

I can't believe atheists come in here and try to say there is no such thing as the sacred because the creator of Star Trek said so.


----------



## KenOC

regenmusic said:


> I can't believe atheists come in here and try to say there is no such thing as the sacred because the creator of Star Trek said so.


Gene Roddenberry said that? Well, that's pretty darned convincing. Even Jesus would agree.


----------



## Gordontrek

Completely asinine. Who needs all these complex definitions and hair-splitting philosophical ramblings?
Does it have religious lyrics? Was it written for a religious setting? If you answered yes to one or both questions, then glory be, it's religious music! 
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


----------



## Varick

Klassic said:


> The only thing that matters about religious assertions is that they are unknowable and *make-believe* (Mr. Rogers knew this well). In contrast, I for example, _know_ (and can prove) that trees and flowers exist.
> 
> *God and the supernatural are exactly the same kind of imaginary thing. Both fall outside empirical testing and therefore have no meaning. To appeal to either one is to appeal to nonsense. *


You say this with such arrogance, it's baffling. Please please please PROVE that love exists. You can't. No one can, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. By that very statement, love has no meaning either. You're whole premise that just because one can not prove something, means it does not exist is folly and absurd in and of itself.

150 years ago, no one could prove DNA existed. By your (lack of) logic, it didn't back then. DNA miraculously appeared when Friedrich Miescher discovered it in 1869. Only then did DNA come into existence?



Klassic said:


> What is the original premise of this thread (which stands totally unrefuted): there is no such thing as religious music. There are religious words sets to music, but there is no such thing as religious music.


 In the technical sense you are 100% correct, and I have not seen ONE person in this entire thread who says otherwise.



Klassic said:


> Even your best attempt, which was to ask whether religion creates any unique feelings falls flat. Even if it does, your question guarantees that music modeled after such feelings, would simply be that, man's feelings about religious words!
> 
> There is no such thing as religious music. This is a genera (by name), but not an actual thing. Please see #53, #54, #56.
> 
> But all this is so much more simple. *You cannot start with a natural premise, and from that, get to the supernatural*.


Really? Then please explain the origins of the "natural?" How did life start when there was no life for billions of years, and then poof, out of thin air... Life! How did the universe begin? It created itself ex nihilo? Talk about a violation of human rationality and logic. Although there is no empirical proof (never has been nor probably never will be), I have deduced that it is certainly *more logical* that there was a "designer" or "creator" than all this happened by accident or the multi-verse theory which to me, takes a far bigger *leap of faith* to believe than to believe in a creator.



Klassic said:


> It is an assertion that no one on this forum really believes. The moment you make a distinction between music and words (as you must) is the moment this assertion is refuted. Am I writing music to you right now? If I was speaking to you on the telephone would I be musicing to you? Was Shakespeare a composer of music? The reason people are saying this is because they are desperate to retain the idea of the existence of religious music. By doing this they are hoping to smuggle in the premise that religious words, are in fact, music. They are not, they are religious words set to music. *This is just another example of how religion is willing to distort reality in order to retain its wishful ideas*.





Klassic said:


> This is not true. I answered your questions and interacted with your premises, it was you who "dismissed" my answers and ignored my questions. It is there for all to see my dear Woodduck.
> 
> It would be interesting to see if you could interact with my _position_ without *smuggling in snide comments* ...


 Boy, that's the pot calling a pot a pot. Look at all your words I've emboldened. You have nothing but snide comments about God and people's beliefs, yet you say them with such empirical arrogance.



Klassic said:


> Also, it should be clear then, we have refuted all those people (and many seem to agree) who would claim that there is such a thing as religious music. What I find interesting is that Woodduck, and others, are not actually arguing for _religious music_, as many people would define it in the ontological, supernatural sense of the term. In other words, if Woodduck is correct, then there is no such thing as religious music! This thread is epic because many many people are now confessing to the fact that there is no such thing as religious music. In other words, what Woodduck and the like are saying, is that there is religious music, but only as a genera, only as a subjective cultural event... guess what, this means they agree, there is no such thing as religious music! This is like saying, God exists as a cultural phenomena, but in reality, He does not exist. But _cultural phenomena_ is not what religious people mean when they say God exists. The same is true of religious music. And yet, this has been my point from the very beginning (refuting the supernatural claim). Several people have understood this, see Nereffid post #30.





Klassic said:


> This thread is now complete. Objective accomplished.


Yes, congratulations with winning an argument with yourself! It must have been grueling.

Wow, at least for Don Quixote there actually were windmills.

V


----------



## Kivimees

Klassic said:


> This thread is now complete. Objective accomplished.


The roar of the crowd is overwhelming.


----------



## Nereffid

regenmusic said:


> I can't believe atheists come in here and try to say there is no such thing as the sacred because the creator of Star Trek said so.


Whoa there! Atheist*s* did no such a thing. *An* atheist did. But also there was no "because" in his statement.

So you don't have to believe that it happened - it actually didn't!


----------



## david johnson

Religious music exists, I have head, performed, and written it.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Varick said:


> How did the universe begin? It created itself ex nihilo? Talk about a violation of human rationality and logic. Although there is no empirical proof (never has been nor probably never will be), I have deduced that it is certainly *more logical* that there was a "designer" or "creator" than all this happened by accident or the multi-verse theory which to me, takes a far bigger *leap of faith* to believe than to believe in a creator.


Right on brother!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Varick said:


> Really? Then please explain the origins of the "natural?" How did life start when there was no life for billions of years, and then poof, out of thin air... Life! How did the universe begin? It created itself ex nihilo? Talk about a violation of human rationality and logic. Although there is no empirical proof (never has been nor probably never will be), I have deduced that it is certainly *more logical* that there was a "designer" or "creator" than all this happened by accident or the multi-verse theory which to me, takes a far bigger *leap of faith* to believe than to believe in a creator.


More logical according to your definition of logic?

I find it takes far less leap of faith to believe that the universe and life came to be without a creator. If you believe in a creator then the natural question is "who created the creator?", which of course runs into big issues trying to explain using logic. If the creator always existed, how is that less leap of faith than believing the universe started with a Big Bang out of pure energy. If the creator was created then who created that creator and so on.


----------



## mmsbls

Purely religious discussions can certainly be interesting; however, experience has shown the TC moderators that they seem to almost always lead to inappropriate comments, thread closures, and resulting infractions. Since this is a music forum, we want such purely religious (or political) discussions to take place in the Groups area. You are welcome to take this discussion there if you wish, but further comments on religion not firmly tied to music will close the thread.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ok, Woodduck, I will attempt to probe these questions, hopefully without shutting down the thread.

It does create a tenuous situation that in a philosophical inquiry into the meaning of "religious music" might, of neccessity, have to address "purely religious" issues; but it seems that the original intent of the thread-starter might be of a purely "anti-religious" nature, paradoxically fulfilling the definition of a "purely religious" intent, or purely "anti-religious" intent. Confusing, isn't it?

If atheism is a "religion" then much complication can be avoided; but didn't Steve Martin base a whole comedy skit around the idea that atheism was NOT a religion, per se, because it had no hymns, etc?

If, on the other hand, Klassic has proven that, for example, Baptist hymns are not "religious" music, then he could use them in an atheist service, should he ever start a Church of Atheism.

_What is a religious feeling?
_Generally, I would say "love" of Humanity, in a broad sense; a sense of belonging, and of purpose. A strong sense of one's being, as well as one's connectedness to others.
_
Are there any feelings, or complexes of feeling, which religious people have that other people don't, or that people begin to experience only, or often, when they become religious?
_Very generally, "religious feelings" are our natural, healthy state of being. A person who feels isolated, such as a sociopath, or prisoner, or outcast, or leper, would not feel connected to Humanity. This is an unhealthy, unnatural state of being._

Do the feelings religious people have depend on what religion they practice?
_Probably. There can be "unhealthy" religions which ostracize non-believers, or kill "infidels," etc. But generally, a good religion should produce a healthy, balanced individual who is tolerant of other people, or even loves them!
_
Are there styles of music particularly well suited to expressing the feelings people of different religious faiths experience?
_Yes, but this is probably due to associations attached to that music. Sitar music would not go over well in a Baptist church. Baptists would also probably be offended by wild, rhythmic, dance-like music as is played in Jehovah's Witness "charismatic" churches, along with other practices such as speaking in tongues and writhing on the floor._

Are there types of music prominently in use in association with the practice of religion? Why?
_Yes, usually because of tradition. Organ and choral music, since these have a long association with the Church._

Are there types which are rarely or never used for religious purposes? Why?
_Not as of late. There is Christian "hard rock," churches now use modern instruments and PA systems, etc.


----------



## millionrainbows

Klassic said:


> One can say a piece was composed with the sacred in mind, as a dedication to the sacred, but fortunately for us there is no such thing as the sacred.


I think it is just as illogical to say "the sacred doesn't exist" as it is to say it does. Both are metaphysical, and based on subjective experience. This is the biggest fallacy of atheism; its assertion of non-existence of something that is metaphysical.



> Religion is literally founded on empty words...


Again, religious words are unprovable, as they are referring to metaphysical things.



> ...the same is true of religious music. Religious people talk about religious music like it's special. The _music_ might be special, but the _words_ are just as empty as the texts upon which religion is based.


This reminds me of a Doors story, when Ed Sullivan wanted them to change the line "Girl, we couldn't get much higher" because they thought it was a reference to drugs. John Densmore wanted to go along with it, and pleaded to Jim Morrison to acquiesce. "Come on, Jim, it's just a word!" Morrison responded, "Then why don't you change your name to Mortimer? It's just a word."



> There is music, and then there are religious words that people add to music.


Music has always been used to enhance words and poetry. Words can be powerful. The end of "Light My Fire" where Morrison sings "Try to set the night on….FI-yuhhh!" is very powerful. The Beatles singing "She's so….Heavy!"



> I would probably die of laughter if someone tried to explain the technical theory as to what makes a piece of music religious. Is it melody, rhythm, harmony? Is there an idiots guide on how to compose religious music?


At this rate, you will take all the poetry out of music! Words are a big part of most music. Listen to YOUR music in this way, and try to see this. Don't bother with trying to disprove an already-established tradition of "religious music." Go for what you know, and what appeals to your belief-system, and stop trying to invalidate religion and religious music.


----------



## Varick

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet: I have a very simple answer to your question, but alas I can not post it here. We have been warned! When I have more time, I'll message you the answer. It's a question I have heard often.

V

PS: Love your moniker. Lol!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> Music has always been used to enhance words and poetry. Words can be powerful. The end of "Light My Fire" where Morrison sings "Try to set the night on….FI-yuhhh!" is very powerful. The Beatles singing "She's so….Heavy!"
> 
> At this rate, you will take all the poetry out of music! Words are a big part of most music. Listen to YOUR music in this way, and try to see this. Don't bother with trying to disprove an already-established tradition of "religious music." Go for what you know, and what appeals to your belief-system, and stop trying to invalidate religion and religious music.


The musicality of words is not relevant here.

Klassic's proposition can be accepted in the sense that there is nothing innately 'religious' about music (though accepting the idea I allude to in post #70, more comprehensively explored by Woodduck - see post #117 - that there is evidence that some music seems to be more suited to religious tradition than others and this might be worth exploring).

Klassic's proposition can be rejected in the sense that his argument seems to focus on the non-existence of god. Plainly, if we accept that god exists, that fact cannot render the music any more innately religious.

Hum the tune of 'Onward Christian Soldiers' to someone who has never heard it before, I doubt they would recognise is it as 'religious'. Sing the words, and they would. It is the text that imparts the 'religious meaning', not the tune. Play the tune on an organ in a church, and they might pick up the clues - if they were susceptible to the associations.


----------



## TxllxT

Innately religious music is according to my taste: Parsifal. The music, Wagner composed, *IS* religious as innately as innate can be. That's why I find Wagner creepy, but that doesn't deny the religiousness of his music.


----------



## Xaltotun

So... Klassic will accept that religious music exists, if we can empirically find God, and see that He's a chicken, so then music that goes "cluck, cluck" is religious music?

Sorry, Klassic, but your argument seems ridiculous and unfalsifiable!


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> The musicality of words is not relevant here.


You missed the point that words and music can produce a cumulative effect, as in Handel's Hallelujah chorus. Even though I don't know what "hallelujah" actually means, the words are greatly enhanced and empowered by the music, which would not occur with either element in isolation.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> You missed the point that words and music can produce a cumulative effect.


Effect of what?


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Effect of what?


The effect "affects" us as humans.

Words and music can enhance each other's effect symbiotically.

Looking at speech and music in this way, music is primary and universal, and can be directly correlated to spirituality, not just conceptually, but in a more basic way, as if it is hard-wired into humanity. Thus it will reappear in many guises. All music which proceeds from this elaborates on this primal state of spirituality or religiousness or sacred awareness in one way or another.

I'm making an almost direct correlation between the music and Man's awareness of the sacred.


----------



## TxllxT

Xaltotun said:


> So... Klassic will accept that religious music exists, if we can empirically find God, and see that He's a chicken, so then music that goes "cluck, cluck" is religious music?
> 
> Sorry, Klassic, but your argument seems ridiculous and unfalsifiable!


Examples of antiquity show Zeus, the supreme deity, as a bull, so the religious music has more bass


----------



## millionrainbows

All music is a two-way street. It can't be "objectified" from this relation. The notion of "religious music" as an objectified thing, is inherently flawed. Music, and art, represents and embodies human experience. Therefore, "religious music" would embody the belief-systems of whatever people believed in that religion, in a symbolic, or talismanic way.

So that's why Klassic's assertions seem offensive to many here; he is not just attacking music, but is attacking the beliefs and values of the people who have injected this music with meaning. The music is a symbolic representation of those beliefs. The music represents, in a very real way, the religions and the believers who have given it this talismanic power.


----------



## Varick

millionrainbows said:


> So that's why Klassic's assertions seem offensive to many here; he is not just attacking music, but is attacking the beliefs and values of the people who have injected this music with meaning. The music is a symbolic representation of those beliefs. The music represents, in a very real way, the religions and the believers who have given it this talismanic power.


I respectfully disagree Rainbows. I don't think people are offended at his claim that there is "no such thing as religious music" because his argument to that is sound. Music (a culmination of notes) can NOT be "religious." Just like it can't be "angry" or "happy." It may convey such emotions or feelings in us and putting certain words to those notes may amplify those feelings, but in a purely technical sense, he is correct.

His post are offensive to many because he never left it that. He took it to the next level and attacked the belief in and existence of God and in religion in and of themselves as nonsense, and claimed such things with such arrogance as if he could empirically prove it. Which he obviously can not, as no one can anyone empirically prove the existence of said God. That is what was so offensive (and I hate that word because it's so overused. I wasn't "offended" - very little offends me, I was just surprised that someone could make such idiotic claims) to so many people.

V


----------



## millionrainbows

Varick said:


> I respectfully disagree Rainbows. I don't think people are offended at his claim that there is "no such thing as religious music" because his argument to that is sound. Music (a culmination of notes) can NOT be "religious." Just like it can't be "angry" or "happy." It may convey such emotions or feelings in us and putting certain words to those notes may amplify those feelings, but in a purely technical sense, he is correct.


That's not what he said, though. He said that the texts used are "empty words" and false, and that the music associated with the words has nothing to do with that.

I'm saying that such a separation of words from music is a flawed idea. Religious music, art, and architecture are "talismanic" works of art, and cannot be picked apart in such a manner.

Further, any "atheist" who says he is able to listen to the music "objectively" is being disingenuous.



> His post are offensive to many because he never left it that. He took it to the next level and attacked the belief in and existence of God and in religion in and of themselves as nonsense, and claimed such things with such arrogance as if he could empirically prove it. Which he obviously can not, as no one can anyone empirically prove the existence of said God.


He said everything pretty much all at once, as I saw it unfold.



> That is what was so offensive (and I hate that word because it's so overused. I wasn't "offended" - very little offends me, I was just surprised that someone could make such idiotic claims) to so many people.
> 
> V


It doesn't surprise me, as he is obviously a professed atheist, denies the existence of God, and was defending Nietzsche. To respond to Torkelburger, "atheism" has a narrowing spectrum of meaning:

1. Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. 

2. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.

3. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. 

Belief is the key word here. Even theists cannot prove the existence of God; they go on faith, and it's not up to them to prove it, as he asserted.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> ...any "atheist" who says he is able to listen to the music "objectively" is being disingenuous.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me, as he is obviously a professed atheist, denies the existence of God, and was defending Nietzsche.


So Klassic's actions don't surprise you because you know what atheists - _those_ people - are like? And people who defend Nietzsche - they don't surprise you either, because you know what they're like too? And you know how _those_ people hear music, and when they're lying about it?

After getting a related thread shut down yesterday, how can you keep this sort of thing up? What's driving you? I think you should stick to lecturing on music theory. Such academic subject matter can't altogether prevent the truly determined from stereotyping and denigrating people and looking self-important and ignorant, but at least there's less room for it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> So Klassic's actions don't surprise you because you know what atheists - _those_ people - are like? And people who defend Nietzsche - they don't surprise you either, because you know what they're like too? And you know how _those_ people hear music, and when they're lying about it?


I love you, too, Woodduck. 

I'm just going by what he is doing, which is only obliquely related to music.

I'm still talking about "religious music" as being talismanic, and not intended to be de-constructed as people have tried to do.

I am still amazed by the number of people who go on the internet and declare that they are atheists, like it's a badge of honor or something. It always seems condescending, as well.



> After getting a related thread shut down yesterday, how can you keep this sort of thing up? What's driving you?


That was a mean-spirited and useless thread. It deserved to be shut down, and if I was part of the reason, I am proud.

This thread is flawed as well, and also mean-spirited. The only good it has produced was a very entertaining "comedy" of professed "good atheists" who rushed to the rescue to redeem the "good name" of atheism, and rescue it from less tolerant non-believers. I was very entertained by this noble effort.



> I think you should stick to lecturing on music theory. Such academic subject matter can't altogether prevent the truly determined from…blah, blah.. but at least there's less room for it.


So, you like to "declare" your anti-beliefs, but you don't like it when someone discusses them in more depth? As an atheist, you should know that you are in a very mixed company. If atheism is a "lack," then there's no telling what other aspects of character that many other non-believers "lack."
Look at the most famous atheist, Madeline Murray O'Hare. She fell in with a couple of really bad people who ended up murdering her. Her demise was tawdry and pitiful.


----------



## Torkelburger

> To respond to Torkelburger, "atheism" has a narrowing spectrum of meaning:
> 
> 1. Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
> 
> 2. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.
> 
> 3. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.


You've narrowed it down to what some call "strong atheism". That is not the all-encompassing definition of atheism. Again, atheism literally means a lack of belief in a god. Period. Nice try, though.


> Belief is the key word here. Even theists cannot prove the existence of God; they go on faith, and it's not up to them to prove it, as he asserted.


I don't care if they go on faith, flip a coin, or consult the I Ching, if they want _me_ to believe, they must provide _me_ evidence when they make a positive assertion of the existence of a god. I will accept nothing else.


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> You've narrowed it down to what some call "strong atheism". That is not the all-encompassing definition of atheism. Again, atheism literally means a lack of belief in a god. Period. Nice try, though.
> 
> I don't care if they go on faith, flip a coin, or consult the I Ching, if they want _me_ to believe, they must provide _me_ evidence when they make a positive assertion of the existence of a god. I will accept nothing else.


That's not the point; you have free will, and free choice, especially in today's more tolerant world (ha-ha).

Atheists are like "atonalists." Their whole existence is based on an opposition (or lack of, same thing) to belief in a deity, the belief in which is a totally subjective thing which has nothing to do with them. Are they reacting against their overbearing mother or some other strong authority? Did they have an encounter with a priest? Who knows, but it seems to me that the concept of atheism is like a virus; it does not exist except as it has something to react against. Otherwise, it has no self-sustaining reason to be, except to deny, deny, deny.

On the other hand, if you are a savvy atheist like Woodduck, you are wise to align yourself in a benign way with the status quo of believers, and not make waves as Klassic has done.

To get back to music, I guess that Klassic was offended by "religious music" in that its very existence is "talismanic." Like most art, it is "magical" in nature, in that it is a tool which is used to "invoke" and reinforce the belief-system of the religion.

Might I also add that the swastika was also an ancient form of a talisman.


----------



## Torkelburger

> That's not the point; you have free will, and free choice, especially in today's more tolerant world (ha-ha).
> 
> Atheists are like "atonalists." Their whole existence is based on an opposition (or lack of, same thing) to belief in a deity, the belief in which is a totally subjective thing which has nothing to do with them. Are they reacting against their overbearing mother or some other strong authority? Did they have an encounter with a priest? Who knows, but it seems to me that the concept of atheism is like a virus; it does not exist except as it has something to react against. Otherwise, it has no self-sustaining reason to be, except to deny, deny, deny.


This is the old classic "There are no atheists" apologetic. That everyone really and truly believes in god, and anyone who claims not to believe is simply lying, or angry at god, or something bad happened to them in the past to make them a hardened atheist. It is presumptuous, arrogant, rude, and a strawman. How would you like it if someone did that to you? Are theists reacting against their strong fear of death? Does the idea of evolution bother them? Are they afraid of the unknown? Are they afraid some really bad people in this world will live a full life and never be punished? Are they really just atheistic nonreligious people who are just lying and merely angry at reality? Who knows, but it seems to me that the concept of theism is like a virus; it does not exist except as it has something to react against and label it "sin". Otherwise, it has no self-sustaining reason to be, except,react, react, react and oh yeah….power.

None of those "bad things" happened to me or many of the atheists I know. Hate to break it to you but that is not why we are atheists. Our atheism did not happen overnight, but rather came from many intense years of study, thought, and debate. The study of science, logic, critical thinking, history, the bible, etc. It came from a sincere yearning to understand the world around us as clearly and as best as we can. From wanting to believe as many true things as we can and disbelieve as many false things as we can.

You are wrong that "the (theist) belief is a totally subjective thing which has nothing to do with them (atheists)." 9/11 ring a bell? And Christians in this country especially want more god in our public schools, pledge of allegiance, public buildings, laws, etc. meanwhile getting evolution out of our textbooks and taking away gay rights and marriage, among a whole slew of other things. So no, it doesn't "has nothing to do with" us. I'd say those theist beliefs have quite the impact.

I have no idea what the rest of your post is babbling about.


----------



## EdwardBast

Torkelburger said:


> None of those "bad things" happened to me or many of the atheists I know. Hate to break it to you but that is not why we are atheists. *Our atheism did not happen overnight, but rather came from many intense years of study, thought, and debate.* The study of science, logic, critical thinking, history, the bible, etc. It came from a sincere yearning to understand the world around us as clearly and as best as we can. From wanting to believe as many true things as we can and disbelieve as many false things as we can.


This is not everyone's experience. Some people just heard about the concept of God at a young age and said: "You must be joking. That's a really dumb explanation for reality and existence." Not believing doesn't necessarily require any thought or effort whatever.


----------



## millionrainbows

Torkelburger said:


> This is the old classic "There are no atheists" apologetic. That everyone really and truly believes in god, and anyone who claims not to believe is simply lying, or angry at god, or something bad happened to them in the past to make them a hardened atheist. It is presumptuous, arrogant, rude, and a strawman. How would you like it if someone did that to you? Are theists reacting against their strong fear of death? Does the idea of evolution bother them? Are they afraid of the unknown? Are they afraid some really bad people in this world will live a full life and never be punished? Are they really just atheistic nonreligious people who are just lying and merely angry at reality? Who knows, but it seems to me that the concept of theism is like a virus; it does not exist except as it has something to react against and label it "sin". Otherwise, it has no self-sustaining reason to be, except,react, react, react and oh yeah….power.
> 
> None of those "bad things" happened to me or many of the atheists I know. Hate to break it to you but that is not why we are atheists. Our atheism did not happen overnight, but rather came from many intense years of study, thought, and debate. The study of science, logic, critical thinking, history, the bible, etc. It came from a sincere yearning to understand the world around us as clearly and as best as we can. From wanting to believe as many true things as we can and disbelieve as many false things as we can.
> 
> You are wrong that "the (theist) belief is a totally subjective thing which has nothing to do with them (atheists)." 9/11 ring a bell? And Christians in this country especially want more god in our public schools, pledge of allegiance, public buildings, laws, etc. meanwhile getting evolution out of our textbooks and taking away gay rights and marriage, among a whole slew of other things. So no, it doesn't "has nothing to do with" us. I'd say those theist beliefs have quite the impact.
> 
> I have no idea what the rest of your post is babbling about.


What does any of this have to do with music or religious music? It would seem that an atheist would want no part of the talismanic power of the church. Music is the propaganda tool of the Church, and always has been; yet you say that religion is being "shoved down everybody's throat." Make up your mind; why are you here, and why does "atheism" need defending?


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> This is not everyone's experience. Some people just heard about the concept of God at a young age and said: "You must be joking. That's a really dumb explanation for reality and existence." Not believing doesn't necessarily require any thought or effort whatever.


Then there must be two kinds of atheism: passive atheism, like you mention, and Aggressive atheism, where they walk around with a chip on their shoulder.

It would seem that religious music would be a complete anathema to these people. Why do they indulge? Tradition?


----------



## Torkelburger

EdwardBast said:


> This is not everyone's experience. Some people just heard about the concept of God at a young age and said: "You must be joking. That's a really dumb explanation for reality and existence." Not believing doesn't necessarily require any thought or effort whatever.


Yeah, I should have made myself more clear. I wasn't trying to speak for atheists on TC. The "our" I was referring to was the "atheists I know" I mentioned earlier in the paragraph. And I meant know _personally_. The ones I know who live near me today grew up in the Deep South and in the church so our paths were similar ones. Been an atheist over twenty years now and I believe my background as a former Christian has really helped me debate Christians both in understanding their position and where they come from, how to argue with them, but also knowledge of the bible.


----------



## Torkelburger

millionrainbows said:


> What does any of this have to do with music or religious music? It would seem that an atheist would want no part of the talismanic power of the church. Music is the propaganda tool of the Church, and always has been; yet you say that religion is being "shoved down everybody's throat." Make up your mind; why are you here, and why does "atheism" need defending?


You brought it up. I'm not pulling this out of my a$$. I'm replying to _your_ posts.

The answer is simple. Internet debates are one of the best ways to convert others. Debating was one of the methods that worked on me. Why convert others? I've already listed political reasons that are important to all of our lives and our progress as a species (9/11, religious conflicts, scientific progress). But I also believe it is best for a society for its members to believe as many true things as possible and disbelieve as many false things as possible.


----------



## mmsbls

Thread closed.......


----------

