# Do you need to believe in the "divine" to fully appreciate sacred classical works?



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

*Do you need to believe in the "divine" to fully appreciate sacred classical works?*

Lately, I have been immersing myself into Schubert's masses, which are some of the gorgeous masses I ever heard.











I also a small collection of Bach and Mozart's sacred works. Then a small question popped in my head..

*Do you need to believe in the "divine" to fully appreciate sacred classical works?*

My view in religion is indifferent but these works are full of spirituality that it sends you in another plane of existence. I read somewhere that classical music has it roots in the church and some of the early classical works are Gregorian Chants.

So do you think, spirituality and classical music is intertwined?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Undoubtedly, spirituality has inspired many compositions especially in previous centuries.

"Do you need to believe in the "divine" to fully appreciate sacred classical works?"

No. I am an agnostic and LOVE to listen to compositions like Bach's Passions, Bach's cantatas, various Requiems thoughout the centuries and so on.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think Art Rock's answer is a perfect summary of all the reasonable points that could be made to answer your question.

I think to make the question less loaded, it would be useful to consider whether or not (for example) you believe it is necessary to believe in the Greek gods to fully appreciate the epics. If yes, then so be it. But if no, then your answer ought to be the same for sacred music.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

My answer is *yes*. I am not religious myself, but these are at least in some cases works intended to provoke religious sympathies. I cannot help but feel there is more there for someone who is religious than someone who is not. How could the Mass _not_ seem more glorious when it is carrying the message of one's salvation?



Polednice said:


> it would be useful to consider whether or not (for example) you believe it is necessary to believe in the Greek gods to fully appreciate the epics. If yes, then so be it. But if no, then your answer ought to be the same for sacred music.


I don't think that's a good analogy. The epics were not as far as I know intended to provoke religious sympathies. They don't contain any religious message I am aware of.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I guess the defining word is "fully" appreciate. How "full" are you asking? 

There are works I appreciate for their artistic worth and even enjoy hearing but which have a message which doesn't resonate with me or which I'm even repulsed by (like Bartok's Miraculous Mandarin). 

Believers will connect with sacred works to a greater degree than other works because these works resonate with an experience which, in them, is authentic; as someone said, "it makes my soul sing." This is not to say an agnostic won't have the same feelings of exaltation, peace, and joy - music has a way of reaching every emotion - it just won't be speaking to his experience in the same way. 

That would be the only difference in the degree of "fullness" that I can see.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

jalex said:


> My answer is *yes*. I am not religious myself, but these are at least in some cases works intended to provoke religious sympathies. I cannot help but feel there is more there for someone who is religious than someone who is not. How could the Mass _not_ seem more glorious when it is carrying the message of one's salvation?
> 
> I don't think that's a good analogy. The epics were not as far as I know intended to provoke religious sympathies. They don't contain any religious message I am aware of.


In that case, as with Manxfeeder's comment it depends what is meant by the 'fullness'. Speaking purely musically, the same appreciation is open to us all. Any religious sympathy is evoked by the _text_, not the music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The _Odyssey_ certainly has a religious element to it (the gods legitimate and support--effectively if only eventually--deserving human rulers; would-be usurpers _will_ die violently and humiliatingly at their hands).

However, that is off-topic. On-topic:

The answer to your question basically depends on whether you think there are some emotions or thoughts that only religious people experience.

I personally don't think that's the case. Any emotion or experience--awe, love, joy, fear, or whatever--that religious people feel and express through their religious tradition can also be felt and expressed in a secular way. I do not exclude ecstasy, trance, or possession.

I speak from experience here. Like many agnostic-atheists, before I lost my faith I was a very intensely dedicated Christian: my appreciation for old Protestant hymns from "The Kneeling Drunkard's Plea" to "Amazing Grace," Bach's masses, Byzantine Chant, Andrei Rublev's icons, Baroque church art and architecture, and many other things has _improved_.

It's a matter of further maturity, experience, education, and thought, not adherence to any particular creed. I will maintain this position until and unless neurologists find strong evidence of decisive inferiority in the artistic or sensual capacities of skeptics.

So you no more need to be Christian to appreciate Bach than you need to be Roman to appreciate Virgil. And with reference to Schubert's music, the right analogy might be that you don't need to be Christian to appreciate it any more than he needed to be Christian to write it; you don't need to be Christian to appreciate Schubert's music any more than you need to be Italian to appreciate _Romeo & Juliet_. (I would live in a world where no one would bother pointing out that Shakespeare was not Italian.)

I can imagine two possible sorts of oppositions: (1) there are some emotions that only religious people can have; (2) there are some emotions that only members of a certain [variety of] religious community or followers of a certain [variety of] religious tradition can have. Both of these intentionally deny that someone is fully human: in the first case, only the non-religious are denied to be fully human; in the second case, everyone outside of the blessed community or tradition is denied full humanity.

And of course _that_ is precisely the point.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

''fully'' > what I mean is ''comprising the entire work (music, message etc)''

@Manxfeeder

You hit the nail in the head. Anyone who appreciate classical music can appreciate the musical artistry and technical beauty of a sacred classical work. But religious people can *fully* appreciate and embrace the message of the music. I think in some ways, the music strengthens their beliefs and religious attitudes.

@science

Gread points.

Here's a quote from Schubert after composing the song, Ellen dritter Gesang no. 3, popularly known as *Ave Maria. *
*
''I think the reason for this is that I never force myself into devotion or prayers, unless i am truly overpowered by the feeling; that alone is true devotion.''*

That quote came from a composer who intentionally omits some important passages on setting his masses (''I believe in One True Catholic Church'') and probably rejects religion himself.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

peeyaj said:


> *Do you need to believe in the "divine" to fully appreciate sacred classical works?*


In order for me to answer that question, I would have to get in the minds of non-believers (of the "divine") in order to partake of the appreciation that they take away from them.

I'm not without talents, but "mind-meld" and ESP are not among them.

If a non-believer says that he has a keener appreciation of Masses and Motets since the diminution of his beliefs, I can't bring anything to the table with which to contradict him.

So I don't (bleeping) know... nor am I likely to EVER know.

So I'll set this aside and return my focus to things I CAN work out.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I fully agree that one need not be religious to appreciate these works. The real question is whether someone who is religious might feel certain emotions more strongly when listening. The music and words _alone_ presumably would affect religious and non-religious people roughly the same. But religious people may associate the work with other beliefs that elicit stronger feelings.



jalex said:


> I cannot help but feel there is more there for someone who is religious than someone who is not. How could the Mass _not_ seem more glorious when it is carrying the message of one's salvation?


Here I believe jalex is correct that certain works may bring other associations that could enhance the listeners overall sense of beauty, joy, or other positive feelings. I'm not sure if the OP intended these associated feelings as part of the question. I guess that depends on how "fully" was meant.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

The answer is no.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Actually I think we may well be able to know the answer decisively. I think it's possible that skeptics have a somehow different sort of brain - it's notable that a few (and _always_ only a few) people everywhere are skeptical of the local religious tradition. My guess is that there is a kind of personality variable in susceptibility to religious experience, with very strong skeptics at the low end of a spectrum and very highly talented religious leaders at the high end: there may be people who simply cannot experience trance, while others can fall into one very quickly. Don't know, just a guess. [Edit: Sorry, "personality" variable may not be the correct jargon. I'd guess that one's susceptibility to religious experience is rather adjustable.]

And I'd also guess that there is a personality variable about susceptibility to musical experience, with some very indifferent people at one end of a spectrum and very passionate music lovers at the other end of it. IF all that holds up, it is also possible that there would be a correlation between them, and I'd expect there to be, since music plays such an important role in most (if not all) religious traditions. But I'd also guess that if all that were to hold up, further research might find that susceptibility to rhythm is the key for religious experience, and susceptibility to melody would be much less significant.

Guesses and guesses and guesses - but I think we'll be finding out one way or the other about a lot of this stuff in the coming decades.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

is it necessary to be a believer to fully appreciate this?










or this?










i don't think so. So why it has to be different for music?
And wasn't Rachmaninov agnostic or atheist? And still he composed the amazing vespers.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

I suspect when the question will be asked on large pool of ordinary listeners, the answer would be resoundingly *YES.. *


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think if we're talking about the aesthetics of any artwork, then anybody is able to appreciate it to its full extent. But, if by "full" in this context you are including "an appreciation of the religious message", then I think it's fairly obvious that only religious people are going to be affected to full extent intended by the text.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Polednice said:


> then I think it's fairly obvious that only religious people are going to be affected to full extent intended by the text.


yes, but it's also by far the less interesting part. What is important here:









the fact that it's a sculpture that represents christ or the fact that is a beautiful sculpture?

And it's the same for music, we're talking about notes, Bach's music is not respected because he was a believer. I am agnostic and still a lot of my favorite artists are and were believers (in some case fanatic believers).


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

No. I am lactose intolerant and still find them awesome.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I think a certain understanding is missing if you don't follow the words of a sacred choral piece. Same goes for an opera that you never find the libretto for: it's beautiful, but you never get the full meaning. It might be worth a try to at least think about the words, even if you don't believe them, it's a way of getting in touch with the composer's inspiration too.

But do you need to be an atheist to fully appreciate Shostakovich?

:tiphat:


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I think a certain understanding is missing if you don't follow the words of a sacred choral piece. Same goes for an opera that you never find the libretto for: it's beautiful, but you never get the full meaning. It might be worth a try to at least think about the words, even if you don't believe them, it's a way of getting in touch with the composer's inspiration too.


I agree with that. Whether you're religious or not, if a piece of music has a text you ought to read and understand the text to get the full effect, regardless of what it's about.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

A lot of contemporary christian music is, admittedly, not of the highest calibre, yet I am still profoundly, religiously moved when I hear (and sing) it. If I weren't a christian, or if the text of the piece wasn't geared towards the faith that I hold in such high regard, then no way would I have the same appreciation for these songs that I hear week after week without end. There must be some truth to this in classical, religious works as well.

I'm not saying that one can't approach a work like _St. Matthew Passion_ in an entirely different way. Atheists and agnostics may find supreme beauty, an almost religious beauty even, in the powerful music of Bach and the compelling story of the Passion (no different than the beauty I myself would find in an opera such as _Tristan und Isolde_). Bach's music, in and of itself, is not 'magical', per se, in that it 'breathes the very voice of God'. In fact, I believe that Bach's music, in relation to human emotions, seeks _intentionally_ to stir up emotions that parallel religious awe and reverence. He wanted to make sure of this. So, when a 'non-believer' is greatly moved by such a piece, it really is no accident. Bach's music intends to stir one's emotions in a way that will only enhance the Passion.

As much as one can see the 'human beauty' or 'aesthetic greatness' of a work like _St. Matthew Passion_, I still believe that the greatest relevance applies to believers themselves. Relevance is not an outdated concept. How many times have you listened to a piece that touched a specific soft or sensitive spot within you... and how many pieces that do this on a constant basis are among the most dear to you? There is a great power to be found in music's ability to form connections... connections that make the music mean something even greater than the conglomeration of sound it is.

If one does listen to the _St. Matthew Passion_, then they are aware of the 'hymnal's' interspersed throughout the work. On close listening, my belief is that Bach's intention with these 'hymnal's' is to connect the events and emotions of the work to the lives of the listener... and I believe that when one is a christian these 'lessons' do in fact take on a greater relevance. We must remember that the work wasn't intended to be performed in the concert hall for solely aesthetic and musical purposes. Bach accomplished all of these, yet at the same time where and when did he likely intend it for most? Good Friday at the beloved Thomaskirche in Leipzig, Germany. I, and none of us, will ever know what Bach truly desired, but at least by the apparent nature of the composition and its historical context, we cannot completely ignore the purpose it sought to serve and the audience that it was intentionally directed towards.

Over time, music _can_ shift to serve different purposes and forms of appreciation, but I believe that religious music will continue to find the greatest relevance with those in its intended audience.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Music is not secular, but it is definitely spiritual. In order to fully appreciate music, you need to be able to go beyond normal human existence. Great music exists on a plane where there is no spoken language or secular belief, just a commonality of feeling between all mankind. You can call that the soul or spirit or whatever you like according to your own particular spiritual beliefs. But it is most definitely as close to divine as we mortals ever get.

"The sole purpose of music is the glorification of God." J.S. Bach


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

norman bates said:


> What is important here: the fact that it's a sculpture that represents christ or the fact that is a beautiful sculpture?


The meaning behind any creative work is more important than the surface aesthetics. I know Andy Warhol and his ilk have labored long and hard to destroy all traces of context in art, but their trivial accomplishments have never been able to match the power and beauty of contextual art.

I don't have to be Musilim to appreciate the spiritual elements of the Alhambra or a Persian manuscript. And I don't have to be Christian to appreciate the Pieta. But I do have to be able to be in sympathy with the spiritual basis of those things if I want to fully appreciate them. That means that the level I appreciate them on is beyond a simple schoolbook understanding of where they came from.

The only barrier to understanding great religious art is intolerance, and that's just as likely to come from atheists as it is secularists. I don't think one's particular religion or lack thereof is really the determining factor. It has more to do with a more fundamental level of spirituality.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Any religious sympathy is evoked by the _text_, not the music.


You're confusing secularism with religion.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

I am half-way between agnosticism and deism. When I listen to the _B minor Mass_, my deistic side surges out and overwhelms me with power and emotion. So, to a degree, I'd say "yes" it does enhance the experience. Mind you, this also applies to pieces that are not exactly sacred. For instance, I'd say the same thing about the _Art of the Fugue_. It gives me the same feeling that the _B minor Mass _does, even without any text.

Bach says it best:



J.S. Bach said:


> Like all music, the figured bass should have no other end and aim than the glory of God and the recreation of the soul; where this is not kept in mind there is no true music, but only an infernal clamour and ranting.


----------



## Fsharpmajor (Dec 14, 2008)

To turn the question around, are there any TC members who, while religious, don't much care for sacred music, preferring instead (let's say), Shostakovich, who didn't compose any religious music at all?--or who prefer the secular music of composers who did compose a significant amount of sacred music?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

bigshot said:


> Music is not secular, but it is definitely spiritual. In order to fully appreciate music, you need to be able to go beyond normal human existence. Great music exists on a plane where there is no spoken language or secular belief, just a commonality of feeling between all mankind. You can call that the soul or spirit or whatever you like according to your own particular spiritual beliefs. But it is most definitely as close to divine as we mortals ever get.
> 
> "The sole purpose of music is the glorification of God." J.S. Bach


Nonsense, but nice nonsense at least!


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

bigshot said:


> The meaning behind any creative work is more important than the surface aesthetics.


i don't think so, as we're talking of art and aesthetic values. If meaning was more important, there were no difference between a religious work of bach and an unispired religious work of a third rate composer with the same meaning.



bigshot said:


> I don't have to be Musilim to appreciate the spiritual elements of the Alhambra or a Persian manuscript. And I don't have to be Christian to appreciate the Pieta. But I do have to be able to be in sympathy with the spiritual basis of those things if I want to fully appreciate them.


So what about All night vigil? Rachmaninov was agnostic and still that it's a work that is considered (righty for me) one of the masterpieces of the twentieth century.



bigshot said:


> The only barrier to understanding great religious art is intolerance, and that's just as likely to come from atheists as it is secularists. I don't think one's particular religion or lack thereof is really the determining factor. It has more to do with a more fundamental level of spirituality.


It implies that this level of spirituality does not depends on the fact that one defined himself a believer or not. Delius considered himself an atheist and still his music has a deep sense of spirituality (in a pantheist way).
While a lot of people who consider them believers have a lot of problem to appreciate Messiaen, and instead i find it deeply spiritual (and he's one of my favorite composers) though i'm an agnostic.
I think we're simply talking of beauty after all, so the ideas on religion have very little importance.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

norman bates said:


> yes, but it's also by far the less interesting part. What is important here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'd say that knowing about the scene represented and knowing what it meant to the people who created that sculpture (including not only the artist but his community) does help us appreciate the sculpture. Any further amount of information could help: understanding the nature of the stone, the pieces that influenced the sculptor, and so on.

What is probably not necessary is believing that Jesus really was God incarnate born of a virgin, our only hope for everlasting life.

Really, I'm not sure I'm being fair to the proposal though. I'm not sure whether the argument is

- you need to have some kind of religion, any kind, to appreciate the work, or
- you need to be the particular religion represented by the work.

And if the second is our thesis, I wonder whether any kind of Christian can have the experience, or if you need to be a member of the particular denomination: perhaps only the Orthodox can really appreciate Byzantine chant; perhaps only Protestants can really appreciate Bach's Matthew Passion; perhaps only Catholics can really appreciate Schubert's masses.

It might even matter what kind of Protestant you are: Anglicans may find themselves unable to appreciate Bach as well as Lutherans do; the latter for their part will be unable to appreciate Tallis.


----------



## Goldberg (Oct 6, 2011)

This question is indeed very complex and difficult, but it's possible to offer a few directions. Basically, the answer for the question can be divided into two layers: The textual layer and the musical layer. Or in other words, the rational and the irrational.

A) Regarding the musical part. When we talk about religious experience, we should raise a weighty question which has been debated before by some of the greatest western theologians of the last century: Firstly, let's assume there's such thing as "religious experience". Now, is this unique experience matchless only in its object, namely God that is unique; or perhaps matchless also in its actual experience per se?

James, in the first pages of his book "The Varieties of Religious Experience", states that there's no difference at all between the object of the emotion. In his opinion, there's no difference between loving/fearing of people and loving/fearing of God. The experience of feeling is the same. On the other hand, Otto, who wrote "The Holy" (Das Heilige - Über das Irrationale in der Idee des Göttlichen und sein Verhältnis zum Rationalen), completely disagreed. He saw the uniqueness of experience of loving and fearing of God, and the huge difference between this and any other experience.

It seems that one side of the answer depends on the above controversy. Apparently, if a religious experience is fundamentally the same as any other experience, then our emotions that may arise from religious or "sacred" works are the same as those that may arise from general or secular works. But if we think that a religious experience is essentially different from other general experiences - not that our relation to God is unique alone, but also the related experience is matchless and cannot be imitated in any other form - then emotions like fear of God and loving of God that may arise within us from religious works would be fundamentally different from those of secular ones.

In addition, we should also present another weighty question (though not necessarily according to Otto): Is a religious experience differs from a general one quantitatively or qualitatively (or perhaps both)? To put it more pragmatically, what happens when a secular person experiences something which might or should have aroused a religious unique experience to their religious friend, does the secular person feel it on a lower power or doesn't feel it at all?

Here it's worth noting a psychological remark. On the one hand, we probably wouldn't necessarily feel religious experiences only from musical works called "religious" or "sacred". General feelings may also crop up here and there, because in some extent, it's inevitable for the composer to restore small parts from other general pieces with slight or substantial changes. On the other hand, it's possible and plausible that we might feel these unique religious sentiments by experiencing "secular" works. And now we should raise the third question: Whether a specific composer created a "sacred" or alternatively secular work, can he - by composing - actually control the types of emotions that may arise in his audience? Have Mozart or Brahms, when writing their Requiem, sought to stimulate more or less the same emotions in both their religious (or Christian for that matter) and secular audiences, or perhaps they assumed that each one would comprehend and experience it differently, according to their own theological conception?

B) Nonetheless, so far we mentioned the pure musical part - the irrational component of "sacred works", but what about the text of those works, text that is called and considered to be "holy"? Is it equally perceived or comprehended by both religious and irreligious people? The answer seems to me rather simple - of course not. For example, someone who believes in sentences like "Gratias agimus tibi propter magnam gloriam tuam" or "Agnus Dei […] Miserere nobis"; or alternatively sentences like "Unless Thy law had been my delight, I should then have perished in mine affliction" (Psalms 119:92) or "O give thanks unto the Lord, for He is good, for His mercy endureth for ever" (Psalms 136:1); someone like this would probably attribute to these kinds of pieces different meanings than a secular person that is not interested in such sentences. While for a religious person these could be heavily loaded with deep educational-moral messages that might even design and shape his whole conception; for the irreligious, it might be possible for him to receive it as a nice statement and nothing more. Most probably, nothing would make him obliged to do something against his secular wills.

It should be noted that, regarding the text, it's not about an emotional-experiential message, but rather a logical and a simple one that in some cases could even be obligated by the religious law. If so, however, you can apparently rightly claim that the message is perceived independently of musical components, and if the message could be perceived through a simple reading of the text without the musical texture, why bother to listen to sacred music at all? That leads us to another debate, which is appeared in the Jewish Talmud (Arakhin 11a): What is more important or essential in a musical sacred work, the musical component or the textual one? To put it another way, does the human voice serve the music, or the music serves the human voice? Eventually there is an agreement on the Talmud that the human voice is the major between the two, and if so, the fact that a specific ethical message is passed in the assistance of a musical background does not reduce its intrinsic value, but perhaps even adds an additional importance.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

norman bates said:


> i don't think so, as we're talking of art and aesthetic values. If meaning was more important, there were no difference between a religious work of bach and an unispired religious work of a third rate composer with the same meaning.


the difference between the two is the eloquence of how they express the meaning.

Jeff Koons made a beautiful porcelain statue of Michael Jackson and his monkey. Despite its surface beauty the work is as empty as the inside of his balloon dog. Meaningless and vapid. The medium is not the message.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

In addition to Rachmaninoff; Verdi, Berlioz and Faure are considered to be Agnostics. However Delius' "Mass Of Life" is composed to the text of Nietzsche's "Also Sprach Zarathustra".


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

Great thread. My answer would be no. Some additional questions I answered in my mind.

I'm asian. Do you think I can't fully appreciate classical music of western civilization? I think music touches something so primitive in human senses and mind so I think answer is no, I don't have to be a westerner to appreciate western music fully (not sure what defines _fully_).

So I'm not religious. Am I misinterpreting Bach's intentions if I understand his sacred works as human art that beautifies the human nature and universe around it? Of course, I don't believe in creator in traditional christian concept but I experience and admire the universe, human emotions, etc.


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

well, off topic. But I don't have any difficulties to appreciate some antichrist death metal tunes....


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

opus55 said:


> I'm asian. Do you think I can't fully appreciate classical music of western civilization?


Well, I'm a fan of a lot of ethnic musics, including Balinese gamelan. But although I enjoy it, I have to admit that I don't really understand it. It might be easier the other way around because of the Westernization of the whole world in the past few decades.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Well, I'm a fan of a lot of ethnic musics, including Balinese gamelan. But although I enjoy it, I have to admit that I don't really understand it. It might be easier the other way around because of the Westernization of the whole world in the past few decades.


Of course "don't" is different than "can't."


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

A b minor chord is still a b minor chord whether it is in a Bach Cantata or a Scriabin Piano sonata.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Personally, I do feel somewhat uncomfortable whenever I listen to a Christian work, because of my past history with Christianity and my current atheism. Because I don't share those beliefs, I have to distance myself a bit from the feelings of spiritual arousal the pieces are meant to convey. This is partly why I don't listen to choral music or church music unless I'm studying it for educational purposes.

I think it should be an a priori fact that a Christian will "connect more" and get more personal enjoyment from a Christian piece of music, just as a Muslim will enjoy a traditional Islamic song more than others, or an American will enjoy an American patriotic song more than others.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

As violadude's point demonstrates, it ought really to be a misnomer to call a piece of music 'religious'. It is only religious owing to its textual associations; the actual music itself is in no way religious but it could quite easily exist in precisely the same form without the religious text (or even if the text were changed to something secular).


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I suppose in order to address the issue, I must declare my own beliefs. I used to call myself an atheist, but became wholly sick of the "militant atheism" led by Dawkins and his ilk, and the way they seemed to be turning atheism in to an organised religion of its own. Recently I came to the way of thinking that if the universe has a creator, they probably have much more important things to do than worry about who's kneeling down for them in specially appointed buildings at specially appointed times. I think the benevolent creator who has designated the human race as its chosen people is at best a fairy tale, at worst a political tool, and at all points the single most arrogant thing ever conceived by human beings. Furthermore, it is a projection of human qualities (i.e.: favouritism, love) on to what is supposedly a perfect being, one who surely, if it were even capable of experiencing emotions, would not be swayed by such things.

I think it is most likely that the creator, if it exists, is either unaware of us (and probably any other life that may be out there) or unaware of the universe, the accidental creation of which perhaps being a by-product of the creator's own natural functions. Truthfully, the only thing I can reasonably say for certain is that I have faith in science and its methods.

Now, on to the issue. I know that I enjoy Handel's _Messiah_, Bach's _Mass in B minor_, Haydn's _Die Schöpfung_, Brahms' _Ein deutsches Requiem_, Verdi's _Messa da Requiem_, and that one of my all time favourite composers is Messiaen, a devout catholic who purposed almost all his works toward depicting what he called the "marvellous aspects of the faith". I am more than capable of enjoying music as music, regardless of sentiment, purpose or affiliation. The only time I have ever been offended or angered by a work centred around a religion (in this case, Catholicism) was when I watched a production of _Tannhäuser_. That someone should endure extreme physical torture under the threat of death in order to expurgate themselves of the "crime" of enjoying sexual activity in the eyes of violent and intolerant maniacs and their ringleader is a completely abhorrent idea. However, it is a testament to music that even when faced with a sentiment that disgusted me to my very core, I was still able to enjoy the music itself.

So, to answer the question; I for one have no need to believe in such things to appreciate the music created in their honour. Were someone who did believe in such things to say that they enjoy that music more than I do, I would first wonder where they found evidence of my lesser enjoyment, but also I would be unable to disprove them as I cannot truthfully know the minds of others.

Whew... You know, it really doesn't do anyone any good to be so serious for so long.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> As violadude's point demonstrates, it ought really to be a misnomer to call a piece of music 'religious'. It is only religious owing to its textual associations; the actual music itself is in no way religious but it could quite easily exist in precisely the same form without the religious text (or even if the text were changed to something secular).


First, addressing the literalism of your argument... You could change the words of the National Anthem, but people would still stand up if you played it at a baseball game.

Then addressing the core issue... It's possible to express an appreciation for the Divine without any words at all.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

science said:


> Of course "don't" is different than "can't."


I don't think I can fully understand the meaning of the Ramayana Monkey Chant without living in the culture. There are some things that "locals" understand that outsiders will never know. Religion is deeply embedded in culture. Outsiders can read about it in books, but that isn't the same as growing up and living in a culture based on that religion.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

bigshot said:


> First, addressing the literalism of your argument... You could change the words of the National Anthem, but people would still stand up if you played it at a baseball game.


Only because the piece has become associated with patriotism. The music itself is _not_ fundamentally patriotic. If the piece was written for completely different purposes and had never been associated with patriotic themes, people would not get a patriotic sense from it and would not stand up and have those feelings. The same is true of 'religious' music.



bigshot said:


> Then addressing the core issue... It's possible to express an appreciation for the Divine without any words at all.


Indeed it is, but no audience member would _ever_ know that a piece of absolute music is offered as an expression of such appreciation without the composer making this clear in their words. We might have those feelings ourselves if we are religious, but then we would be projecting our own thoughts onto the piece; not extracting thoughts from it. A piece of music cannot have such external associations without us being directed to think of them, either by a text or a composer's commentary.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Actually the National Anthem is a famous drinking song that someone set Francis Scott Key's poem to, so it isn't a good example. But I think most people know La Mer is about the sea without reading that in the liner notes. You may not know the particular political party of the religion the composer is talking about without words in his music, but you should be able to tell that you spell His Name with capitals.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

No, you don't need to believe in the divine


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

bigshot said:


> Actually the National Anthem is a famous drinking song that someone set Francis Scott Key's poem to, so it isn't a good example. But I think most people know La Mer is about the sea without reading that in the liner notes.


Hmm, I imagine that has something to do with the piece being called THE SEA.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

> Hmm, I imagine that has something to do with the piece being called THE SEA.


Aha! But what if you don't speak French?!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Mer, mermaid, woman of the sea, remove woman and you have "mer", which must mean sea, right?

I don't know if that's right but I'm happy with it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hmmm... How about "Merde"?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I don't know, how about mercredi?

Maybe people used to fling their **** in to the sea on wednesdays. La Mer has a whole new programmatic element to it now.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Hmm, I imagine that has something to do with the piece being called THE SEA.


BAHAHAHA that one made me laugh. But anyway, I imagine the average listener might have a whole plethora of images besides those of the sea come to mind if they listened to La Mer without knowing anything about it.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

violadude said:


> I imagine the average listener might have a whole plethora of images besides those of the sea come to mind if they listened to La Mer without knowing anything about it.


Perhaps, but only because the average person isn't too bright.

I would be able to tell La Mer was about the sea blindfolded.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Perhaps, but only because the average person isn't too bright.
> 
> I would be able to tell La Mer was about the sea blindfolded.


Huh? I don't think a perception about a piece of music has anything to do with intelligence...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bigshot said:


> I don't think I can fully understand the meaning of the Ramayana Monkey Chant without living in the culture. There are some things that "locals" understand that outsiders will never know. Religion is deeply embedded in culture. Outsiders can read about it in books, but that isn't the same as growing up and living in a culture based on that religion.


Ok, maybe nor or maybe so, but the issue is:

If I had sufficient familiarity with the culture that produced the Ramayana Monkey Chant, I would be able to appreciate the music even if I didn't believe the Ramayana accurately described actual historical events.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Off-topic, but I googled "Ramayana Monkey Chant" and was directed to a wikipedia article, where I read that it "was originally a trance ritual accompanied by male chorus. German painter and musician Walter Spies became deeply interested in the ritual while living in Bali in the 1930s and worked to recreate it into a drama, based on the Hindu Ramayana and including dance, intended to be presented to Western tourist audiences." 

So we might need a better example. I thought Schubert's masses were a good choice.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

I sure hope not. I'm a flaming atheist, but Palestrina/Lassus/Byrd/Josquin/Ockegham/etc. have been my life lately...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

lukecubed said:


> I sure hope not. I'm a flaming atheist, but Palestrina/Lassus/Byrd/Josquin/Ockegham/etc. have been my life lately...


You might love the religious works of those composers, but perhaps (the theory is) you will never _really_ appreciate them unless you convert to Catholicism (for some) or Anglicanism (for others). Like rainbows, puppies, and the laughter of children, only theists (and only the right kinds of theists) can _really_ appreciate them.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I wonder, is it really possible to appreciate Handel's Coronation Anthems without believing that God endorses the British monarchy?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Maybe the difference between being religious and appreciating religious works of music and being an atheist and appreciating religious works of music is not the difference between shallow and full appreciation, but perhaps it's just a matter of appreciating different aspects of the piece...this seems like an agreeable statement to me.


----------



## lukecubed (Nov 27, 2011)

The thing is, being religious now, in the 21st century, when we have science and skepticism and cellular technology, is an entirely different thing than being religious in the 15th and 16th centuries. "Faith" wasn't a question and religion was so universal that it was possible to experience profound spiritual joy without the sort of concern we have now over which sect and which interpretation was correct (though there was certainly some of that). So even if I were profoundly religious, even if I belonged to their sects, it would be an entirely different thing than what those guys felt/believed, and my religious take on their works would be different than theirs.

So I don't really worry about it. I can experience transcendence/humility/connection/universality/etc. without professing belief in anything, and I can appreciate Renaissance polyphony in the same way I experience any art from before my time: out of context. This is life...


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Well, I'm a fan of a lot of ethnic musics, including Balinese gamelan. But although I enjoy it, I have to admit that I don't really understand it. It might be easier the other way around because of the Westernization of the whole world in the past few decades.


I do believe it is much easier going the other way. In fact, Asian traditional music is not widely appreciated even in their own countries unfortunately. It is the effect of westernization like you say.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

violadude said:


> Maybe the difference between being religious and appreciating religious works of music and being an atheist and appreciating religious works of music is not the difference between shallow and full appreciation, but perhaps it's just a matter of appreciating different aspects of the piece...this seems like an agreeable statement to me.


Very agreeable. It's bound to make everyone self satisfied. I don't think it's true, however.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

How is it not true?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

There is a tendency today to "make nice" and pretend that everything and everyone is equal, even if that isn't the case. "Everyone is creative!" "All opinions are equally valid!" "We all are just as perceptive, just in different ways!" I don't think someone who isn't a part of the culture of a creative work can understand it like someone who is immersed in that culture... whether the culture is historical, social, ethnic or religious. I know there are things I've made a point to study and appreciate that are outside my own frame of reference. I have a certain understanding of them, but I'm not prepared to say for instance that my understanding of Bach is equal to someone who was familiar with his work in Bach's own time and place... and my appreciation of Persian manuscripts is anywhere near the appreciation of a person from that culture. I think it's the same for The Mass. I can understand the parts and appreciate the music making, but that isn't the same as having the Mass as a part of my worship. It's OK to admit that. I'm not so invested in myself that I can't recognize that I relate to certain things on a different level than other people.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> There is a tendency today to "make nice" and pretend that everything and everyone is equal, even if that isn't the case. "Everyone is creative!" "All opinions are equally valid!" "We all are just as perceptive, just in different ways!" I don't think someone who isn't a part of the culture of a creative work can understand it like someone who is immersed in that culture... whether the culture is historical, social, ethnic or religious. I know there are things I've made a point to study and appreciate that are outside my own frame of reference. I have a certain understanding of them, but I'm not prepared to say for instance that my understanding of Bach is equal to someone who was familiar with his work in Bach's own time and place... and my appreciation of Persian manuscripts is anywhere near the appreciation of a person from that culture. I think it's the same for The Mass. I can understand the parts and appreciate the music making, but that isn't the same as having the Mass as a part of my worship. It's OK to admit that. I'm not so invested in myself that I can't recognize that I relate to certain things on a different level than other people.


What I was that, while a non-christian might not be able to connect with a Bach mass on the religious, spiritual or emotional level as fully as a Christian might. They are still able to appreciate it on a musical level just as fully. That's what I meant by appreciating different aspects of the work....you don't agree with this?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

violadude said:


> What I was that, while a non-christian might not be able to connect with a Bach mass on the religious, spiritual or emotional level as fully as a Christian might. They are still able to appreciate it on a musical level just as fully. That's what I meant by appreciating different aspects of the work....you don't agree with this?


I agree with this. The alternative would have to be that the very fact of having a religious text tied to it makes the music better, which seems ridiculous to me.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Dear me, did I really say "what I was that?"?? What does that even mean??

I think I meant to say "what I was getting at" but was distracted somehow.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

lukecubed said:


> The thing is, being religious now, in the 21st century, when we have science and skepticism and cellular technology, is an entirely different thing than being religious in the 15th and 16th centuries. "Faith" wasn't a question and religion was so universal that it was possible to experience profound spiritual joy without the sort of concern we have now over which sect and which interpretation was correct (though there was certainly some of that). So even if I were profoundly religious, even if I belonged to their sects, it would be an entirely different thing than what those guys felt/believed, and my religious take on their works would be different than theirs.
> 
> So I don't really worry about it. I can experience transcendence/humility/connection/universality/etc. without professing belief in anything, and I can appreciate Renaissance polyphony in the same way I experience any art from before my time: out of context. This is life...


Great point.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

violadude said:


> What I was that, while a non-christian might not be able to connect with a Bach mass on the religious, spiritual or emotional level as fully as a Christian might. They are still able to appreciate it on a musical level just as fully. That's what I meant by appreciating different aspects of the work....you don't agree with this?


Yes, they could both appreciate equally on a musical level. But the Catholic (not all Christians have Mass) would understand and appreciate on an additional level that the non-believer wouldn't. The degree of understanding between believer and non-believer all other things being equal wouldn't be the same.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Yes, they could both appreciate equally on a musical level. But the Catholic (not all Christians have Mass) would understand and appreciate on an additional level that the non-believer wouldn't. The degree of understanding between believer and non-believer all other things being equal wouldn't be the same.


Does that extra level really matter when appreciating music though?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

violadude said:


> Does that extra level really matter when appreciating music though?


Music doesn't always exist in a vacuum. Sometimes it has a social function and context as well. If all you're doing is appreciating music, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that its purpose and context is unimportant.

I admire well made European sports cars. I appreciate their style and elegant design. But does that mean that my appreciation is equivalent to that of a race car driver or the mechanics in his pit crew? No. They have an understanding and appreciation that goes beyond mine as a mere spectator.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

lukecubed said:


> The thing is, being religious now, in the 21st century, when we have science and skepticism and cellular technology, is an entirely different thing than being religious in the 15th and 16th centuries. "Faith" wasn't a question and religion was so universal that it was possible to experience profound spiritual joy without the sort of concern we have now over which sect and which interpretation was correct (though there was certainly some of that). So even if I were profoundly religious, even if I belonged to their sects, it would be an entirely different thing than what those guys felt/believed, and my religious take on their works would be different than theirs.
> 
> So I don't really worry about it. I can experience transcendence/humility/connection/universality/etc. without professing belief in anything, and I can appreciate Renaissance polyphony in the same way I experience any art from before my time: out of context. This is life...


That is a good point - Maybe I should just try to remember this when I try to listen.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

From reading this thread, my earlier response to the question should be nuanced slightly: no, a belief does not make a significant difference, but this is because the varities of listening experience are so vast - even _within_ single communities of belief and non-belief - that it is misleading to divide people into religious and non-religious listeners.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Music doesn't always exist in a vacuum. Sometimes it has a social function and context as well. If all you're doing is appreciating music, that's fine. But that doesn't mean that its purpose and context is unimportant.
> 
> I admire well made European sports cars. I appreciate their style and elegant design. But does that mean that my appreciation is equivalent to that of a race car driver or the mechanics in his pit crew? No. They have an understanding and appreciation that goes beyond mine as a mere spectator.


You're comparing ignorance to skepticism. I _know_ far more about Christian theology, liturgy, and art than 99.9% of Christians. So if knowledge is the deal, I should have the advantage when it's time to appreciate a mass.

But the question was about _belief_.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

science said:


> You're comparing ignorance to skepticism. I _know_ far more about Christian theology, liturgy, and art than 99.9% of Christians. So if knowledge is the deal, I should have the advantage when it's time to appreciate a mass.
> 
> But the question was about _belief_.


Good points.

I think the fact that you are now an unbeliever somewhat invalidates your point.  Believers cling to their faith so much that every aspect of their belief is significant to them. For example, because you are now an agnostic, even though you _know_ than 99.9% of Christians, you now don't have the ''blind devotion'' most Christians have.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I suppose if the music has the potential to induce the kind of mass hysteria that you see in megachurches where exorcisms are performed, that's a form of appreciation I don't want access to!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

science said:


> I _know_ far more about Christian theology, liturgy, and art than 99.9% of Christians.


Congratulations. You are an exception. Read the post before this one to see the other side of the coin.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

bigshot said:


> Congratulations. You are an exception. Read the post before this one to see the other side of the coin.


If you think what I said doesn't happen, you need to watch more TV. And if you think I was characterising all Christians as being idiots, you're one of the idiots.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I suppose if the music has the potential to induce the kind of mass hysteria that you see in megachurches where exorcisms are performed, that's a form of appreciation I don't want access to!


Like these?? Every 9th on January, you can see that in our country..


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Congratulations. You are an exception. Read the post before this one to see the other side of the coin.


The point isn't about me, it's about the difference between knowledge and belief: even if knowledge is required to appreciate the music, that doesn't imply that belief is required. It is possible, contrary to much Christian propaganda, to have knowledge of the Christian traditions without having belief in their doctrines.

Edit: It may be helpful for me to clarify that to me, the topic is still that of the OP's question: whether it is _necessary_ to _believe_ Christian doctrines in order to appreciate Christian music. Not whether it is _helpful_ to believe in them, not whether it is necessary to _know_ about them, and certainly not whether it is helpful to know about them, but whether it is necessary to believe in them.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Polednice said:


> If you think what I said doesn't happen, you need to watch more TV.


i'll defer to your expertise on watching television.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

science said:


> : It may be helpful for me to clarify that to me, the topic is still that of the OP's question: whether it is _necessary_ to _believe_ Christian doctrines in order to appreciate Christian music. Not whether it is _helpful_ to believe in them, not whether it is necessary to _know_ about them, and certainly not whether it is helpful to know about them, but whether it is necessary to believe in them.


I already gave my opinion on that. All things being equal... a believer and a non believer with equal knowledge of the history and context of the music... both could appreciate the music, but the believer would have an additional level of appreciation because he would be a participant in the worship, not just a spectator.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Edit - withdrawn.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bigshot said:


> i'll defer to your expertise on watching television.


Ah, I see, you're just here to score points.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Much Baroque religious music were _church music_, meaning that the pieces were premiered in a church for a church service. Bach's numerous church cantatas and great _Passions_ for example, and the congregation might even have joined in the chorale movements.

Today, the vast majority of Bach's church cantatas are performed in a concert environment (which might well be inside a church) but not part of church services for church-goers, but for ticket paying audiences made up of religious and non-religious folks sitting next to each other. I would say both groups today are missing out on something special as part of the church and musical experiences of the premiere audiences. But that's perhaps irrelevant.

I'm an atheist and I do listen to A LOT of religious/church music and I would like to think my enjoyment of it today is not dminished because of my lack of religious belief.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

bigshot said:


> i'll defer to your expertise on watching television.


YouTube is as good a source; maybe you could substantiate some of your wild claims with that.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

We were talking about your "wild claim" associating Bach's Mass with a crazy religious service you saw on TV. I'm sure YouTube is full of crazy people, but I think I'll stick to the Bach. In any case, thanks for the reminder that there are idiots in this world. (As if anyone needs a reminder...)


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Let's keep the name-calling off this forum please.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

bigshot said:


> We were talking about your "wild claim" associating Bach's Mass with a crazy religious service you saw on TV. I'm sure YouTube is full of crazy people, but I think I'll stick to the Bach. In any case, thanks for the reminder that there are idiots in this world. (As if anyone needs a reminder...)


I didn't associate Bach's Mass with anything. I haven't talked about Bach's Mass once in this thread. I made a passing remark about a certain kind of religious experience that I find off-putting. You may find that your time on an internet forum is easier on your blood pressure if you don't take everything so seriously.


----------



## MartinClay (Jan 13, 2012)

It works both ways. Speaking as an evangelical Christian, I find music from someone like Bach seems to get right under the skin of the emotion engendered by the theology, and adds something which I would be incapable of adding. But if you get even similar words set by someone more "agnostic" e.g. Mozart, however beautiful the music, there seems to be something the words are commanding me to feel but the music isn't supplying. 

I imagine if you are unbeliever, you just appreciate the music as music, but I could be wrong. Maybe the music written by a man or woman of faith could lead a listener to faith?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

This thread should have been over in a NY second. I don't know what the beef is, for two reasons. One, this type of music is never on display at most churches, and only occasionally at others. Two, the nice thing about music is that it's not dependent on any knowledge.


----------

