# Classical music - is it an 'Ersatz-Religion'



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I was just reading the lengthy introduction by Benjamin-Gunnar Cohrs to his _Bruckner, Ninth Symphony, Finale: The Conclusive Revised Edition 2012_ in which he makes the following fascinating comments. While I am not willing to totally agree with it, I can see a lot of validity in the arguments I am sure that any number of our TC members will delight in offering opinions, so go for it.

_Scholars such as Willem Erauw and Peter Schleuning had already shown that the way music was experienced in Central Europe gradually took on features of a kind of ›Ersatz-Religion‹ in the course of the 19thcentury: As the influence of the Church declined, cultural activities adopted its transcendental functions into bourgeois life. Since then, the German/Austrian tradition of musical aesthetics has worshipped a limited canon of selected musical ›monuments‹, as Erauw described cynically, yet accurately: »With Beethoven's symphonies as the new Holy Scripture, the audience would never become bored of listening to the same music, in the same way people in a Church would never tire of listening to the same words at Holy Mass every Sunday.« (Acta Musicologica 70, No. 2, 1998, p. 109-15) His assertion is confirmed by the dominant position of such ›Holy Scriptures‹ in the world of classical music on the one hand, and the neglect to which major composers of other countries tend to be subjected to on the other.

Erauw also observed that »in classical music, almost all music making has to do with texts. The belief that the real truth is only to be found in the score, this obsession with the musical text, means that during a classical concert, musicians are interpreting musical texts instead of playing music.« This may be put a little drastically, but many musicians and musicologists who rely entirely on the score still frown at the idea of trying to understand a work from the context of its origin. Scholars outside Ce ntral Europe have long since begun to focus on the complex relationships between the listeners and the music they hear, whereas many German and Austrian music researchers continue to see themselves as ›closet music critics‹, the aesthetic underpinnings of late-romantic musical experience never being called into question_

[Note to moderators, I am not intending this a religious discussion, hence putting it in this forum]


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I find the level of abstraction here a little frustrating, and wish the author had provided more concrete examples of how this "ersatz religion" manifests itself. I can see that there has been, historically, a "canon" of masterworks which have dominated the repertoire, but that canon would seem to be too large to indicate the sort of narrowness implied by the term "religion." As for musicians "interpreting musical texts instead of playing music," that sounds a little goofy to me, and more than a little "postmodern" in its choice of words.

It may be just my ignorance, but the only thing that comes to mind is that the arts, in the Romantic era, began to take on a somewhat mystical aura - to be seen as sources of insight or revelation into the human spirit rather than as mere entertainment. I see Beethoven, with his independence, his innovativeness, and his idolization after his lifetime, as a key figure in this transformation. I think this shift was indeed most characteristic of German culture, and 19th-century composers did in some cases see their own works as deeply serious expressions of spiritual or philosophical concerns which might be characterized as quasi-religious, especially the "progressive" line from Wagner and Bruckner to Mahler and Schoenberg. Wagner, in his incomparably megalomaniac idealism, even saw art (especially his own) renewing religion by revealing the true underlying meanings of its outward forms, which he regarded as moribund. So I can see the cultural context being invoked here, but I can't speak to the specific manifestations mentioned.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

There does seem to be some truth to this, in an allegorical or figurative fashion, perhaps, but this tract describes the listening habits of few. We tend to value erudite and individual interpretations, which I think is genuinely playing music, versus an amateur and rote adherence to the score.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ersatz? Says who? It's the real thing. And whosoever shall play it in a way that is WRONG shall be cast into the outer darkness and their listings struck from the Holy Rolls of Amazon!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Since I started a membership with the BPO Digital Concert Hall, I get information about their season plans along with lists of all the works in their archive, and I am often struck by the relative narrowness of the repertoire and the frequency with which some pieces are performed. Needless to say, the repetitions tend to be in the class central European canon with notable omissions in areas outside. This is in stark contrast to what I am familiar with from the major US & UK orchestras. Now clearly some of that is just down to cultural familiarity, but is some of it also a commentary on_ the dominant position of such ›Holy Scriptures‹ in the world of classical music_? Whether it is true or not, I still think that it's an intriguing concept.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> Since I started a membership with the BPO Digital Concert Hall, I get information about their season plans along with lists of all the works in their archive, and I am often struck by the relative narrowness of the repertoire and the frequency with which some pieces are performed. Needless to say, the repetitions tend to be in the class central European canon with notable omissions in areas outside. This is in stark contrast to what I am familiar with from the major US & UK orchestras. Now clearly some of that is just down to cultural familiarity, but is some of it also a commentary on_ the dominant position of such ›Holy Scriptures‹ in the world of classical music_? Whether it is true or not, I still think that it's an intriguing concept.


We may need to talk with some Germans about this.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Any artistic endeavour that provides a purpose in life, a focus for partisanship, definitive texts, 'heretics' who oppose the establishment interpretation & a way of transporting the listener/ reader/ watcher beyond this mundane life can be seen as a quasi-religion. In the earlier twentieth century, mavericks were criticising the 'worship' of Shakespeare, 'bardolatry'.

On a psychological level, music can be an 'idol' that disrupts the worshipper's life and relationships, or it can be a minor by-road by which one approaches The Way.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I find the level of abstraction here a little frustrating, and wish the author had provided more concrete examples of how this "ersatz religion" manifests itself. I can see that there has been, historically, a "canon" of masterworks which have dominated the repertoire, but that canon would seem to be too large to indicate the sort of narrowness implied by the term "religion." As for musicians "interpreting musical texts instead of playing music," that sounds a little goofy to me, and more than a little "postmodern" in its choice of words.
> 
> It may be just my ignorance, but the only thing that comes to mind is that the arts, in the Romantic era, began to take on a somewhat mystical aura - to be seen as sources of insight or revelation into the human spirit rather than as mere entertainment. I see Beethoven, with his independence, his innovativeness, and his idolization after his lifetime, as a key figure in this transformation. I think this shift was indeed most characteristic of German culture, and 19th-century composers did in some cases see their own works as deeply serious expressions of spiritual or philosophical concerns which might be characterized as quasi-religious, especially the "progressive" line from Wagner and Bruckner to Mahler and Schoenberg. Wagner, in his incomparably megalomaniac idealism, even saw art (especially his own) renewing religion by revealing the true underlying meanings of its outward forms, which he regarded as moribund. So I can see the cultural context being invoked here, but I can't speak to the specific manifestations mentioned.


The idea that a canon should be narrow doesn't seem as obvious if Hinduism or Buddhism are taken into account. That might not be relevant because most of the 19th-century cultural pioneers who are supposed to have been turning the arts into a religion would not have paid very much attention to non-Christian religions; but if the question is humanistic/anthropological rather than historical then we might expect the canon of the arts to be huge.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything." (G K Chesterton)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> Any artistic endeavour that provides a purpose in life, a focus for partisanship, definitive texts, 'heretics' who oppose the establishment interpretation & a way of transporting the listener/ reader/ watcher beyond this mundane life can be seen as a quasi-religion. In the earlier twentieth century, mavericks were criticising the 'worship' of Shakespeare, 'bardolatry'.
> 
> On a psychological level, *music can be an 'idol' that disrupts the worshipper's life and relationships, or it can be a minor by-road by which one approaches The Way.*


St. Augustine wrote that he felt guilty when he enjoyed the music too much at worship services, because music was supposed to be a means to religious contemplation, not a distraction from it. Poor fellow.

When I was a kid discovering classical music, I found it more thrilling than anything that happened in church, by a wide margin. I'm afraid music has corrupted me, and I'm too old now to change.

:angel: or :devil:? I guess I'll find out soon...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> The idea that a canon should be narrow doesn't seem as obvious if Hinduism or Buddhism are taken into account. That might not be relevant because most of the 19th-century cultural pioneers who are supposed to have been turning the arts into a religion would not have paid very much attention to non-Christian religions; but if the question is humanistic/anthropological rather than historical then we might expect the canon of the arts to be huge.


Could be. We haven't been told what this "canon" is, or the exact nature of the "faux-religion" it's supposed to represent, so who knows what to think?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

My thoughts on this have two sides: classical music cannot succeed as a religion for most people, although it might for some of its fans; classical music is a part of a new religious tradition that has been taking shape for the past 200ish years.

The first one might be obvious. In my younger and more mischievous years, I used to enjoy leading along a certain Christian fundamentalist interlocutor in his Francis Schaeffer-esque speculations that Schoenberg and all that was really a manifestation of classical music breaking down under the strain of trying to be a replacement for Christianity. Of course such an idea is almost entirely a product of the human pattern-finder discovering faces in the clouds. However, instead of taking such a literalistic, reductionist approach, we can simply notice that as traditional religion became less powerful (on both personal and political levels), institutions like the concert hall and the museum began to take over some its functions. Hard for us to imagine in the day of mobile phone games, but once upon the time the mass was entertaining, the experience of going to church - with its play of sound and stone, light and glass, symbolism, incense - would've been among the aesthetic highlights of most people's lives. So classical music might be ersatz religion in that sense. 

Anyway, the second idea is more interesting. We are creating a humanist tradition, and we are incorporating into it all the art of the past - both religious and secular. It's a messy process, amorphous, chaotic, full of misunderstandings and failures, indeed even human, but it is taking place, and we are discovering our values and expressing them and celebrating them. Our banks and museums are our temples, UNESCO sites our pilgrimage destinations, literature and film and academic journals our scripture, scientists and artists our priests. Classical music has been doing its part. This is not ersatz religion, this is the real thing. It's going to be ok.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything." (G K Chesterton)


Religious adherents often have peculiar ideas about non-adherents. That one's a doozy.

My impressions of Chesterton is that he's a very clever fellow, but predisposed, like his buddy C. S. Lewis, to blind spots, rationalizations, and glaring lapses of logic - all done up in dignified Oxfordian rhetoric.

But what does G. K. Chesterton (did these guys call each other by their initials?) have to do with the subject at hand? After all, classical music is not something one "believes in," nor is it an alternative to religious belief. We're talking about quasi-religious attitudes here, not actual religion, which I believe is a different forum.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

In my view, classical music isn't so much a religion as it is a cult.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> In my view, classical music isn't so much a religion as it is a cult.


But is it an ersatz cult?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> St. Augustine wrote that he felt guilty when he enjoyed the music too much at worship services, because music was supposed to be a means to religious contemplation, not a distraction from it. Poor fellow.
> 
> When I was a kid discovering classical music, I found it more thrilling than anything that happened in church, by a wide margin. I'm afraid music has corrupted me, and I'm too old now to change.
> 
> :angel: or :devil:? I guess I'll find out soon...


Religion isn't all about worship, though, is it? 
*"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."*

In terms of the question - does Classical Music as an ersatz religion make its adherents more altruistic?
Possibly, sometimes...


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> ...we can simply notice that as traditional religion became less powerful (on both personal and political levels), institutions like the concert hall and the museum began to take over some its functions. Hard for us to imagine in the day of mobile phone games, but once upon the time the mass was entertaining, the experience of going to church - with its play of sound and stone, light and glass, symbolism, incense - would've been among the aesthetic highlights of most people's lives. So classical music might be ersatz religion in that sense.
> 
> We are creating a humanist tradition, and we are incorporating into it all the art of the past - both religious and secular... Our banks and museums are our temples, UNESCO sites our pilgrimage destinations, literature and film and academic journals our scripture, scientists and artists our priests. Classical music has been doing its part. This is not ersatz religion, this is the real thing. It's going to be ok.


I don't see the value of divorcing the concept of "religion" from the ingredients of structured observance, ritual, moral codes, contemplation, worship, the supernatural, and spiritual disciplines. Not all traditionally recognized religions utilize or recognize all of the above, but "secular humanism" and its manifestations is simply too unfocused a concept and diverse a way of being to be characterized as a religion. Or do I misunderstand you?

Classical music has been spoken of as a _quasi_-religion in the OP quote, not an actual one or even an ingredient in an actual one.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

science said:


> But is it an ersatz cult?


Depends on what threads you read, perhaps. Some of the ones about modern music seem sort of like ersatz Crusades to me.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ingélou said:


> Religion isn't all about worship, though, is it?
> *"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.*'
> 
> In terms of the question - does Classical Music as an ersatz religion make its adherents more altruistic?


I'm just being facetious here and free-associating a bit. Really, I don't think music is in any way comparable to a religion, or has any ethical implications. The word "religion" is used too loosely, as I point out in another post here. I think we ought to try to keep it reined in a bit.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I don't see the value of divorcing the concept of "religion" from the ingredients of structured observance, ritual, moral codes, contemplation, worship, the supernatural, and spiritual disciplines. Not all traditionally recognized religions utilize or recognize all of the above, but "secular humanism" and its manifestations is simply too unfocused a concept and diverse a way of being to be characterized as a religion. Or do I misunderstand you?
> 
> Classical music has been spoken of as a _quasi_-religion in the OP quote, not an actual one or even an ingredient in an actual one.


What could be more ritualistic than our behavior at a concert? That kind of point could apply to all those issues except "the supernatural." Admittedly we are losing that entirely, replacing it with pure wonder.

One thing to keep in mind as we translate between your thoughts and mine is that I don't take Christianity or any other such tradition as the paradigm for religion. The state religions of the past 5 millennia have been anomalous even in their own times; from a broader point of view they're downright exceptional. Instead, most of the time, religion has been pretty unstructured: people didn't have a word for it, didn't have a name for their religious tradition. They just did what they did - told stories, sang songs, danced dances, warded off bad luck, appeased invisible powers, venerated heroes, considered what sort of person they wanted to be - without thought for -isms or orthodoxies. Unstructured is the norm.

Classical music as a quasi-religion is what I meant to be talking about in the second half of the paragraph about church as an aesthetic experience.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

'Ersatz' coffee was what the French had to drink when real coffee wasn't available in WWII.

Any pursuit can become an ersatz religion. 
So - fairly light-heartedly - consider these questions:

*Goodness, sacrifice of one's life to save others, denying one's own will to serve others?*
*Classical music doesn't usually involve that.*

*An ordered lifestyle, ritual, meaning and purpose, a feeling of being in touch with beauty, one's higher self, and timeless truth? *
*Classical music can do all that.*

*Casting out the sinful, burning heretics, slaughtering the infidel?*
*Classical music (thankfully) doesn't do that.*

*A feeling of self-righteousness, the will to attack those who aren't 'one of us', promotion of pure doctrine, a blinkered approach to modern thought?*
*Classical music can do all that.*


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> What could be more ritualistic than our behavior at a concert? That kind of point could apply to all those issues except "the supernatural." Admittedly we are losing that entirely, replacing it with pure wonder.
> 
> One thing to keep in mind as we translate between your thoughts and mine is that I don't take Christianity or any other such tradition as the paradigm for religion. The state religions of the past 5 millennia have been anomalous even in their own times; from a broader point of view they're downright exceptional. Instead, most of the time, religion has been pretty unstructured: people didn't have a word for it, didn't have a name for their religious tradition. They just did what they did - told stories, sang songs, danced dances, warded off bad luck, appeased invisible powers, venerated heroes, considered what sort of person they wanted to be - without thought for -isms or orthodoxies. Unstructured is the norm.
> 
> Classical music as a quasi-religion is what I meant to be talking about in the second half of the paragraph about church as an aesthetic experience.


I see your point. I wouldn't want to try to draw a sharp line between a "value system and a way of life that expresses it" and a "religion," but I do question the suitability of the term "religion" to designate the "humanist tradition" you describe. I simply don't see that "tradition" as focused enough to warrant it. There's too much diversity of belief, values, and lifestyle to make for a "thing."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I see your point. I wouldn't want to try to draw a sharp line between a "value system and a way of life that expresses it" and a "religion," but I do question the suitability of the term "religion" to designate the "humanist tradition" you describe. I simply don't see that "tradition" as focused enough to warrant it. There's too much diversity of belief, values, and lifestyle to make for a "thing."


I'm pretty sure we don't disagree about the disunity of humanism as much as about the supposed unity of other traditions - in practice rather than theory.

Anyway, classical music as a tradition certainly has a higher degree of unity than most religious traditions.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Religious adherents often have peculiar ideas about non-adherents. That one's a doozy.
> 
> My impressions of Chesterton is that he's a very clever fellow, but predisposed, like his buddy C. S. Lewis, to blind spots, rationalizations, and glaring lapses of logic - all done up in dignified Oxfordian rhetoric.
> 
> But what does G. K. Chesterton (did these guys call each other by their initials?) have to do with the subject at hand? After all, classical music is not something one "believes in," nor is it an alternative to religious belief. We're talking about quasi-religious attitudes here, not actual religion, which I believe is a different forum.


Just open your eyes and you'll see it's not quite such a doozet as you imagine!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> Religion isn't all about worship, though, is it?
> *"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."*
> 
> In terms of the question - does Classical Music as an ersatz religion make its adherents more altruistic?
> Possibly, sometimes...


I think you need to quote the verse in its context. Jesus is warning about false prophets - those who lead people astray from the faith while making a show of piety - what he calls, "Wolves in sheep's clothing" they called Jesus 'Lord' while not actually doing what he said.
The proof of true faith, according to Jesus, is to actually do what he says. Part of that involves worship but as the words for work and worship derive from the same root in the Greek of the New Testament, then worship is a lifestyle which is much more than (eg) hymn singing.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> *"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."*


And I have always taken this verse to mean something like this: if you go to church on Sunday to sing and pray and worship, but during the week you have argued with your parents, or not taken out your trash, or overslept and was late for classes, or felt angry at your college prof, then you could just as well not go because your worship will not mean anything to God since you have not done His will as well as you should.

Fortunately, when I listen to classical music, even though sometimes it feels like communicating with the spirits and the minds of the long-gone masters, those spirits do not keep a list of my moral failings. I'd probably feel guilty listening to Wagner if I had failed a German exam the day before, but that is not going to happen


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Religious adherents often have peculiar ideas about non-adherents. That one's a doozy.
> 
> My impressions of Chesterton is that he's a very clever fellow, but predisposed, like his buddy C. S. Lewis, to blind spots, rationalizations, and glaring lapses of logic - all done up in dignified Oxfordian rhetoric.
> 
> But what does G. K. Chesterton (did these guys call each other by their initials?) have to do with the subject at hand? After all, classical music is not something one "believes in," nor is it an alternative to religious belief. We're talking about quasi-religious attitudes here, not actual religion, which I believe is a different forum.


My own feeling is that people who think Lewis and Chesterton are predisposed to blind spots might just have blind spots themselves! And for your information Lewis' friends always called him 'Jack', a name he insisted on being called since childhood! Not sure about Chesterton.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

DavidA said:


> "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything." (G K Chesterton)


I couldn't disagree more with this statement. Some of the most brilliant people I know and others I don't, happen to be agnostics and atheists.
They can definitely think for themselves quite nicely, thank you very much. Fickle, they are not!!

As for classical music being a religion, I have never considered it as such.

For me classical music is a beloved, amazing hobby!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

DavidA said:


> My own feeling is that people who think Lewis and Chesterton are predisposed to blind spots might just have blind spots themselves! And for your information Lewis' friends always called him 'Jack', a name he insisted on being called since childhood! Not sure about Chesterton.


Let's pull it back to topic - do Clives or Gilbert or yourself have any insight into classical music as religion? Particularly perhaps the aspects of religion mentioned in the OP?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

DavidA said:


> "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in anything." (G K Chesterton)


"Don't believe everything that you read on the internet." (Genghis Kahn)

The religious power of the internet to delude is far more powerful than classical these days. That quote was from Émile Cammaerts in a book about Chesterton, not by Chesterton at all. It is also regularly ascribed to Dostoevsky and a few others.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

quack said:


> "Don't believe everything that you read on the internet." (Genghis Kahn)
> 
> The religious power of the internet to delude is far more powerful than classical these days. That quote was from Émile Cammaerts in a book about Chesterton, not by Chesterton at all. It is also regularly ascribed to Dostoevsky and a few others.


It was the quote that was important as it happens to be true of our society in general. Not who originated it.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DavidA said:


> It was the quote that was important as it happens to be true of our society in general. Not who originated it.


Yeah, keep telling yourself that...In the meantime, we could get back on topic.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Of course music can become a pseudo-religion. Why is there a programme called "Pop Idol"? In fact anything can become a substitute. I remember football fans referring to a certain player as, "He's God!" And such fans often follow their team with the dedication of a religious zealot. Of course classical music is no different. I remember collecting some records for school donated by a woman whose husband had recently died. The whole of his room was set out as a shrine to Beethoven. Similarly John Culshaw, describing how uncomfortable the seats were at Bayreuth, remarked, "But it's not a theatre, it's a shrine!" 
To me it's just a glorious hobby, a wonderful means of entertainment.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Becca said:


> »With Beethoven's symphonies as the new Holy Scripture, the audience would never become bored of listening to the same music, in the same way people in a Church would never tire of listening to the same words at Holy Mass every Sunday.« (Acta Musicologica 70, No. 2, 1998, p. 109-15)


"Never tire of listening to the same words at Holy Mass?" This moronic statement alone should be enough to destroy this writer's credibility. People have been bored in church forever - first, incomprehensible droning in Latin, and then, even worse, having to process this droning as a simulation of coherent human speech after Vatican II when the Mass began to be "celebrated" in the vernacular. No one had to threaten me with eternal burning in a lake of fire to get me to listen to Beethoven.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Music is not a religion. Humanism is not a religion. Enthusiasm ≠ religious feeling; rational systems of thought ≠ religious dogma. This sort of nonsense is just the religious trying to drag the rest of us into their sinking ship.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

quack said:


> "Don't believe everything that you read on the internet." (Genghis Kahn)
> 
> The religious power of the internet to delude is far more powerful than classical these days. That quote was from Émile Cammaerts in a book about Chesterton, not by Chesterton at all. It is also regularly ascribed to Dostoevsky and a few others.


Good to know!

Misattributions are doomed in the age of digital information.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> No one had to threaten me with eternal burning in a lake of fire to get me to listen to Beethoven.


But would it have helped? That is the question.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I never get tired of hearing Mass, and I never get tired of watching Hamlet, either. Where something is profound and beautiful, it can bear repetition. 
Does one tire of one's spouse because one sees him or her every day? Luckily, *I* don't!
Do you know, I have never heard of anyone that I actually knew being threatened with Hellfire* - it's not a very modern way of catechesis. Certainly, in my own case, coming from an anti-religious background, it was the positives that drew me to Christianity. 
Just as it's the positives that draw me to music.
Eternal Life starts now.

(*Edit: Actually, Taggart was - don't know how I forgot that. But in the 1950s, in my neck of the woods, it wasn't stressed at all.)


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Does this make musicians exempt from tax? *crossing fingers*


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I think they should be, like writers in Ireland. Why not encourage the Arts?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> I never get tired of hearing Mass, and I never get tired of watching Hamlet, either. Where something is profound and beautiful, it can bear repetition.
> Does one tire of one's spouse because one sees him or her every day? Luckily, *I* don't!
> Do you know, I have never heard of anyone that I actually knew being threatened with Hellfire - it's not a very modern way of catechesis. Certainly, in my own case, coming from an anti-religious background, it was the positives that drew me to Christianity.
> Eternal Life starts now.


This threat was standard in Catholic schools in the U.S. Failure to attend Mass on Sunday was held to be a mortal sin punishable by eternal damnation. This tenet was only phased out when, after a good run of 1,500 years, it was found to have a negative impact on market share. In the U.S. the balance was tipped with the rise of competition from a resurgent Christian fundamentalism.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2015)

May I just say at this juncture that _if_ CM was a religion and this thread was a poll, then *Beethoven* would be one of the deities to whom I would give my *vote*.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I felt the relation of my earlier post to yours wasn't clear, and I was aware that my response had unfortunately left out a lot of the ideas of your OP. So I wrote all this.



Becca said:


> As the influence of the Church declined, cultural activities adopted its transcendental functions into bourgeois life.


As a matter of historical fact, I don't think this can be denied.



Becca said:


> Since then, the German/Austrian tradition of musical aesthetics has worshipped a limited canon of selected musical ›monuments‹, as Erauw described cynically, yet accurately: »With Beethoven's symphonies as the new Holy Scripture, the audience would never become bored of listening to the same music, in the same way people in a Church would never tire of listening to the same words at Holy Mass every Sunday.« (Acta Musicologica 70, No. 2, 1998, p. 109-15) His assertion is confirmed by the dominant position of such ›Holy Scriptures‹ in the world of classical music on the one hand, and the neglect to which major composers of other countries tend to be subjected to on the other.


There is definitely an analogy between the "canons" of music, literature, art, and so on and the various canons of scripture: the analogy was made the first time someone applied the word "canon" to any of them!

But the analogy is limited in that the canons of art are not merely received from an almost unknown past: they are constantly challenged and recreated. I doubt anyone can even call them "canons" without an ironic undertone, so that (in the case of the arts) the label itself calls its contents into question.



Becca said:


> Erauw also observed that »in classical music, almost all music making has to do with texts. The belief that the real truth is only to be found in the score, this obsession with the musical text, means that during a classical concert, musicians are interpreting musical texts instead of playing music.«


This is true. Classical music is an essentially literate tradition. (Of course, like all literate traditions, it exists in the context of a huge amount of oral culture, almost folklore.)

But religion isn't essentially literate. For most of human history we were religious without literacy; since the invention of literacy, most of us have remained illiterate. Religion has been dance, rituals of grief and passage, "magic" and "superstition," possession and trance and visions, folklore and festival much more than it has been textual; much of the time when it has been textual, it has treated the text like a magic object rather than written information. On a _per capita_ analysis, the literate aspects of even text-centered traditions like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism have in practice usually been little more than a superficial gloss over a mass of illiterate tradition. Five hundred years ago, for every Christian pouring over the scriptures there were twenty blessing their fields with offerings and fifty treating their bodies' aches with charms.

I guess that's semi-irrelevant in that the religion the author has in mind was the Christianity of the upper and middle classes in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which was _more_ literate than most religious traditions. But still, in case the author is suggesting an equation of text with religion in general, it's worth explaining that there is no such connection in reality.



Becca said:


> This may be put a little drastically, but many musicians and musicologists who rely entirely on the score still frown at the idea of trying to understand a work from the context of its origin. Scholars outside Central Europe have long since begun to focus on the complex relationships between the listeners and the music they hear, whereas many German and Austrian music researchers continue to see themselves as ›closet music critics‹, the aesthetic underpinnings of late-romantic musical experience never being called into question[/I]


I don't know about any of that, but I don't see the connection to the idea of ersatz religion.

To get to my own ideas on classical music as ersatz religion, I want to begin with an analogy between religion and science. This should be easy, what could possibly go wrong?

Science properly understood (I know this is debatable but I'll just state my own view here) is nothing more or less than intersubjective empiricism, but when we think of "science," we often think of its trappings rather than its essence. Thus, "pseudoscience," which apes the trappings of science without actually adhering to its core principles.

Here's the analogy to religion: religion properly understood (also debatable but here I go again) is human attitudes and behaviors that relate to spirits (supernatural persons).* But as with science, when we think of "religion" we often think of its trappings, particularly those of the traditions most familiar to us.

In this sense, it's very easy to see how classical music could be ersatz religion, a pseudo-religion (analogous to pseudo-science). We treat the scores like scriptures, with theologian-like scholars studying them; we make pilgrimages to special sites for festivals; as the most flamboyantly religious people often gain status in their communities, the most flamboyantly passionate about classical music can gain status in ours. I'm sure there's more, but that's enough to establish the principle.

There's another aspect to it in that religion is ordinarily musical (and music is very often religious): an interesting thing is going on when we non-believers attend a "concert" of the ordinary of the mass, and that is something very much like "ersatz religion."

And of course, for a time in European history the upper classes tried to replace the legitimacy they'd derived from religion with legitimacy derived from, among other things, artistic taste. It worked, to some degree, for a century or two, but ultimately the bourgeois and finally even the working class learned to ape the upper class's pretensions, so in the end there was nothing for the former to do but lament the "decadence" of culture and surrender to democracy. (Our conceptual dichotomy between populist and modernist art is a relic of the aristocracy's last stand.) Still, their attempt to derive legitimacy from musical taste (among other things) had a decisive impact on many of the traditional pretensions of classical music, and though the world has changed a lot and classical music does not have the cachet that it once had, I doubt we'll ever be entirely without those pretensions. Again, recalling that they originally were part of a strategy for replacing religious legitimacy, it's more than fair to call this a pseudo-religious aspect of the classical music tradition.

But as I tried to argue earlier, I believe we are creating a new pseudo-religious tradition. I called it "humanism," which is a careless but conventional label. Like all young traditions, it incorporates elements of older traditions, and one of those is classical music. In fact, in that the bourgeois and working-classes co-opted classical music for their own social or political goals, it has played a central role in the creation of the humanist tradition. I think all this is wonderful, it is the way forward for humanity, but for at traditional believer it would have to be something like "ersatz religion."

*A taxonomical footnote: Magic relates to impersonal supernatural forces. The boundary between religion and magic is often hazy, as whether some supernatural entity is supposed to be a force or a person is often unclear even to its believers. The definition of "supernatural" is also tricky, particularly in cultures without Cartesian dualism, but also in the context of post-modern pseudo-scientific religious traditions such as alien religions - so, tricky, but ultimately useful. The boundary between magic and technology is also hazy: proven effectiveness is good, but magic often "works," and seems to do so even more often. There's a spectrum rather than a perfect boundary. In the same way, there is a spectrum rather than a boundary between religion and ordinary social behavior with ordinary people. Also, the boundary between "superstition" and either religion or magic is nothing more than social prestige. So now you know the answers to all that. If you want to discuss it further, we should take it to the religion discussion group.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Becca said:


> Since I started a membership with the BPO Digital Concert Hall, I get information about their season plans along with lists of all the works in their archive, and I am often struck by the relative narrowness of the repertoire and the frequency with which some pieces are performed


Could it be that, as the city of Berlin has about 7 major orchestras and both a modern and an ancient music orchestra, not to mention countless ensembles and performers, that the various orchestras have concentrated on their specialties?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> Does this make musicians exempt from tax? *crossing fingers*


What's the point of being tax exempt if you have no income to begin with?


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

If the essence of what people tend to criticize in religion is an unquestioning acceptance of doctrine in spite of reasons to believe otherwise, then yeah, classical music has that......everything has that, including science and medicine.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> Religion isn't all about worship, though, is it?
> *"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."*
> 
> In terms of the question - does Classical Music as an ersatz religion make its adherents more altruistic?
> Possibly, sometimes...


One thing that has become clear particularly in the last 100+ years is that religion and theology are not always aspects of the same thing. But I will leave that alone as it belongs in a separate forum.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Ingélou said:


> *Casting out the sinful, burning heretics, slaughtering the infidel?*
> *Classical music (thankfully) doesn't do that.*


Although in a rather symbolic way it does ... just consider a few of the new music threads :lol:


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Ersatz religion? I'd go with sports over music.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

science;854118
[SIZE=1 said:


> *A taxonomical footnote: Magic relates to impersonal supernatural forces. The boundary between religion and magic is often hazy, as whether some supernatural entity is supposed to be a force or a person is often unclear even to its believers. The definition of "supernatural" is also tricky, particularly in cultures without Cartesian dualism, but also in the context of post-modern pseudo-scientific religious traditions such as alien religions - so, tricky, but ultimately useful. The boundary between magic and technology is also hazy: proven effectiveness is good, but magic often "works," and seems to do so even more often. There's a spectrum rather than a perfect boundary. In the same way, there is a spectrum rather than a boundary between religion and ordinary social behavior with ordinary people. Also, the boundary between "superstition" and either religion or magic is nothing more than social prestige. So now you know the answers to all that. If you want to discuss it further, we should take it to the religion discussion group. [/SIZE]


The 3rd of Arthur C. Clarke's three "laws"
_
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic._


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2015)

How to discuss (ersatz) religion but not in this forum. Seems a tough one. I don't think even the major world religions have sufficient universal similarities never mind other endeavours such as CM. Huston Smith famously suggested (six) some but not all six are common to all religions... But "ersatz" is a great word!


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Any hobby, interest, passion or pastime could be seen as ersatz religion... by some. The rest of us spend far more time on the things we enjoy than on praying.


----------



## Polyphemus (Nov 2, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> Any hobby, interest, passion or pastime could be seen as ersatz religion... by some. The rest of us spend far more time on the things we enjoy than on praying.


And nobody gets killed.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Becca said:


> _Scholars such as Willem Erauw and Peter Schleuning had already shown that the way music was experienced in Central Europe gradually took on features of a kind of ›Ersatz-Religion‹ in the course of the 19thcentury: As the influence of the Church declined, cultural activities adopted its transcendental functions into bourgeois life. Since then, the German/Austrian tradition of musical aesthetics has worshipped a limited canon of selected musical ›monuments‹, as Erauw described cynically, yet accurately: »With Beethoven's symphonies as the new Holy Scripture, the audience would never become bored of listening to the same music, in the same way people in a Church would never tire of listening to the same words at Holy Mass every Sunday.« (Acta Musicologica 70, No. 2, 1998, p. 109-15) His assertion is confirmed by the dominant position of such ›Holy Scriptures‹ in the world of classical music on the one hand, and the neglect to which major composers of other countries tend to be subjected to on the other.
> 
> Erauw also observed that »in classical music, almost all music making has to do with texts. The belief that the real truth is only to be found in the score, this obsession with the musical text, means that during a classical concert, musicians are interpreting musical texts instead of playing music.« This may be put a little drastically, but many musicians and musicologists who rely entirely on the score still frown at the idea of trying to understand a work from the context of its origin. Scholars outside Ce ntral Europe have long since begun to focus on the complex relationships between the listeners and the music they hear, whereas many German and Austrian music researchers continue to see themselves as ›closet music critics‹, the aesthetic underpinnings of late-romantic musical experience never being called into question_


I've always thought this to be a valid idea, and have discussed it before on this forum (See thread File Under Popular). The score and composer are at the top of the hierarchy, and the score is "sacred gospel." If a player deviates too far from the supposed intent of the work/score, or detracts attention from it by putting the focus on the performance, this is "heresy" to many traditionalists.

From that thread:
_Glenn Gould is cited as the first classical musician to consider the "performance" (as a fixed artifact, not simply a commodity, although it is that as well) as the ultimate reference. For Gould, there was no "absolute" standard or "best/most faithful" version of anything; only what he deemed "the best take." 
This is very similar to Chris Cutler's view of "performance" as in jazz, without score, as being the ultimate record or product. 
Gone is the older "Biblical" paradigm of the composer as God, issuing-forth his written score as the "Gospel" to which all performances are subsumed as mere attempts at manifestation of "The Word;" after all, in the era before recording technology, it's easy to see how this paradigm of the score held power.
As a comparison, the use of printing technology revolutionized the view of the Bible, in the same way; the "artifact" of the printed book changed everything. In the same way, the score once held sway, as a form of "writing and reading," but is being displaced by the recorded performance.
So, take heart, ye bearers of 50 different versions of Mahler symphonies; each one is different, none will ever attain perfection as the "definitive" version, just as The Bible can be interpreted in different ways. _


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I also notice that classical music does not "get old" or out-of fashion like popular music does (REO Speedwagon, anyone?). Hard-core traditionalists are still listening to Furtwangler recordings from the 1940s, and Geisking's Debussy in mono from old acetates...

This because classical musical performances and ideas (like Beethoven's) are considered to be timeless truths, or gospels.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Interesting thread,Becca.
It is a complex question. One factor is that for Centuries Religion defined the meaning of life for many people. With the Enlightenment came widespread disbelief. What to replace Religion as something to be in awe of , that perhaps may hold the secrets of life? Music is a learned Art, that seems to hint at greater profundities. Certainly the awe and reverence surrounding an Artist like Furtwangler approaches that that has been bestwoed upon Clergymen.
Then there is the link between Music and Religion. As music for liturgical services became more developed, it not only provided a welcome diversion for the believers, entertainment for the non-believers, but also probably became fused in the minds of many with Religion itself.


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

Polyphemus said:


> And nobody gets killed.


Unless your hobby is serial killing!!!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> *Religious adherents often have peculiar ideas about non-adherents.* That one's a doozy.
> 
> My impressions of Chesterton is that he's a very clever fellow, but predisposed, like his buddy C. S. Lewis, to blind spots, rationalizations, and glaring lapses of logic - all done up in dignified Oxfordian rhetoric.
> 
> But what does G. K. Chesterton (did these guys call each other by their initials?) have to do with the subject at hand? After all, classical music is not something one "believes in," nor is it an alternative to religious belief. We're talking about quasi-religious attitudes here, not actual religion, which I believe is a different forum.


Yes. It's called *intolerance!*

Classical music, by the way is no religion. It's a hobby.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> And I have always taken this verse to mean something like this: if you go to church on Sunday to sing and pray and worship, but during the week you have argued with your parents, or not taken out your trash, or overslept and was late for classes, or felt angry at your college prof, then you could just as well not go because your worship will not mean anything to God since you have not done His will as well as you should.
> 
> Fortunately, when I listen to classical music, even though sometimes it feels like communicating with the spirits and the minds of the long-gone masters, those spirits do not keep a list of my moral failings. I'd probably feel guilty listening to Wagner if I had failed a German exam the day before, but that is not going to happen


Yes but some religions have failsafe mechanisms provided for the hypocrites among them.

Screw up big time all you want during the week and go to the confession booth and get absolved of all sin.

Classical music by the way is no religion. Who the heck would even suggest that?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I think it might be interesting to ask a similar but slightly more specific question: to what extent, and in what ways, do the arts, and music in particular, actually perform some of the functions performed by religion? Can they give us experiences or knowledge or states of consciousness which religion also seeks to give us? Are they in fact used by religion precisely because they do constitute, at least potentially, a source of or avenue to such experiences, knowledge, or consciousness? Might this even be their original or ultimate function in human life? Might the more important truth and problem be, not that a secular culture has overinvested art with meaning and made it into a quasi-religion, but that that a modern, secular culture has become confused about or distracted from the highest, most important functions of art, and has sometimes tried, perhaps clumsily, to recapture them in the context of a world whose uses for those functions are not defined by religious tradition?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> I think it might be interesting to ask a similar but slightly more specific question: to what extent, and in what ways, do the arts, and music in particular, actually perform some of the functions performed by religion? Can they give us experiences or knowledge or states of consciousness which religion also seeks to give us? Are they in fact used by religion precisely because they do constitute, at least potentially, a source of or avenue to such experiences, knowledge, or consciousness? Might this even be their original or ultimate function in human life? Might the more important truth and problem be, not that a secular culture has overinvested art with meaning and made it into a quasi-religion, but that that a modern, secular culture has become confused about or distracted from the highest, most important functions of art, and has sometimes tried, perhaps clumsily, to recapture them in the context of a world whose uses for those functions are not defined by religious tradition?


WD, I will have to give this some time to digest but, as usual, you seem to hve gotten to the real nub of the issue. As soon as I read the original quote yesterday, I just knew that some would use it as a fascinating springboard for discussion.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I think it might be interesting to ask a similar but slightly more specific question: to what extent, and in what ways, do the arts, and music in particular, actually perform some of the functions performed by religion? Can they give us experiences or knowledge or states of consciousness which religion also seeks to give us? Are they in fact used by religion precisely because they do constitute, at least potentially, a source of or avenue to such experiences, knowledge, or consciousness? Might this even be their original or ultimate function in human life? Might the more important truth and problem be, not that a secular culture has overinvested art with meaning and made it into a quasi-religion, but that that a modern, secular culture has become confused about or distracted from the highest, most important functions of art, and has sometimes tried, perhaps clumsily, to recapture them in the context of a world whose uses for those functions are not defined by religious tradition?


I suppose there are two types of religious states of consciousness -- cognitive ones (perceptions, knowledge) and conative ones (emotions -- loving kindness.) As far as the cognitive states are concerned, I suspect that there is an analogy (something to do with the way you can focus when listening to music, be "in the moment") But I expect also that it's pretty shallow -- the states of the experienced mystic are probably not like listening to music really.

I don't know about the relation between music and the development of the emotional dispositions which religions sometimes talk about, states like loving kindness.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Yes but some religions have failsafe mechanisms provided for the hypocrites among them.
> 
> *Screw up big time all you want during the week and go to the confession booth and get absolved of all sin.
> *
> Classical music by the way is no religion. Who the heck would even suggest that?


_(Wearily - I get so fed up of this old chestnut) - *It doesn't work like that. Such a person would not have the right 'disposition'. *. A priest is passing on God's forgiveness and he won't absolve you unless you appear to be truly sorry and purpose not to do it again. If you're just acting, he might say the words of absolution, but you wouldn't actually be getting God's forgiveness and you would know it. _

I like Mandryka's point very much. Music *is* a sort of minor mysticism. Better to have the real deal, though, and see God and humanity as united in a bond of love - something which ought not to stay in one's head but be translated into action. The rest is just commentary.

I can believe that one might come out of a good concert, and feel full of love for one's fellow man. How long would it last, though?


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2015)

Give or take a second or two, about 4'33".


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> *Casting out the sinful, burning heretics, slaughtering the infidel?*


I think that's reserved for opera.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Ingélou said:


> _(Wearily - I get so fed up of this old chestnut) - *It doesn't work like that. Such a person would not have the right 'disposition'. *. A priest is passing on God's forgiveness and he won't absolve you unless you appear to be truly sorry and purpose not to do it again. If you're just acting, he might say the words of absolution, but you wouldn't actually be getting God's forgiveness and you would know it. _


You are right, it doesn't work like that. And blessed is he whose spirit does not get mired up in this day-to-day drudgery: have I taken out my trash? Have I said "thank you" and "please" enough today? Have I loved my enemies enough, even though they have not the slightest inclination to love me back? - and who does not lose his joy or confidence because he has not done - cannot do! - everything perfectly.

I am looking into Germanic/Norse Paganism right now: gods as embodiments of either natural forces or human values, death as a part of living, nature-bound rituals (the Christian cultures have inherited some of them - the Christmas tree, the Easter bunny and the very name of Easter, etc.), the "Nine Noble Virtues" - courage and overcoming one's fears, joy at living, mental and spiritual freedom, loyalty to one's own family, kindred and folk as extension of the family, hospitality and goodwill to strangers, but only when reciprocated, that is not allowing oneself to be used, reliance only on one's self, a search for wisdom, knowledge and beauty as an integral part of life, respect and understanding of one's native history, culture etc. Classical music certainly has its place within this framework of values, and it is not likely to make one feel guilty.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> Music is not a religion. Humanism is not a religion. *Enthusiasm ≠ religious feeling*; rational systems of thought ≠ religious dogma. This sort of nonsense is just the religious trying to drag the rest of us into their sinking ship.


I'm not trying to drag anyone on to any sinking ship. But, if you look at the etymology of the word *enthusiasm*, it originally meant "possessed by a god; inspired" -- from French enthousiasme, or via late Latin from Greek enthousiasmos, from enthous 'possessed by a god, inspired' (based on *theos* 'god').

So I don't think that your equation is as straightforward as you presume.

I think religion and music tap similar wellsprings in the human consciousness. Of course, _they don't serve the same purpose; they are not the same thing_. But it can't be a mere coincidence that music and religion have walked hand-in-hand throughout recorded history, can it?!?!?


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2015)

science said:


> Here's the analogy to religion: religion properly understood (also debatable but here I go again) is human attitudes and behaviors that relate to spirits (supernatural persons).


A good post I think. I would just make one point. Regarding the suggestion of religion fundamentally involving a supernatural aspect, I would like to point out there are atheistic schools within various religions of the world (if not entirely atheistic) eg Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Daoist, Jewish. But I'm sure you know that! It is difficult to talk about "we" when, as just one of 8 billion each of us, whatever our beliefs, are in a minority. A majority of the world does NOT share one's beliefs.

Rather like one's tastes in music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

dogen said:


> A good post I think. I would just make one point. Regarding the suggestion of religion fundamentally involving a supernatural aspect, I would like to point out there are atheistic schools within various religions of the world (if not entirely atheistic) eg Buddhist, Hindu, Jain, Daoist, Jewish. But I'm sure you know that! It is difficult to talk about "we" when, as just one of 8 billion each of us, whatever our beliefs, are in a minority. A majority of the world does NOT share one's beliefs.
> 
> Rather like one's tastes in music.


That's a good point, but there are some important qualifications. I haven't got time right now, but later (maybe even 2-3 days later!) I'll make a post about this in the religion discussion group. I'll PM you when I do.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)




----------

