# Music has no religion



## deeppurpled

I think music is the only thing left which is not associated with any religion. Here back in India , people differentiate between religion for small things but I think the hindustani classical music or Indian classical music has no religion because it is practiced the same way(even the devotional compositions) in any form of religion, whether hindu or muslim or any other.
Mohit Kumar
http://deeppurpled.blogspot.com


----------



## Guest

Music in general - no. But then that is a pretty broad generalization. Certainly Rap and Rock aren't inherently religious, although some might co-opt these genres to a religious hybrid genre. But when you get into other types, such as the mass, requiem mass, passions, then those are definitely religious - specifically, Christian.

Then you get into others which, while not necessarily religious, and for which there are many notable non-religious examples, but which still are very commonly associated with religious music. Examples for this would be cantatas, motets, and even quite frequently organ music, especially with the large output of Bach in this genre, and given that in centuries past the most likely place one was to find an organ on which to play would have been at a church.

So generally, no, music has no religion, and can be enjoyed by people of whatever faith/persuasion/non-faith. But certain sub-genres are almost inextricably tied to religions - although they can still be enjoyed by those who don't share in that faith just as well.


----------



## Weston

This same can be said of all the arts. Even if there are symbols, programs, or meanings, at their core they are abstract. The weird thing is, this very abstractness is what lends the arts a spirituality, whether a celebration of the indomitable human spirit or of the sacred.

(And now I'm tip-toeing out of this thread before it becomes a frothing fanatic frenzy.)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

deeppurpled said:


> I think music is the only thing left which is not associated with any religion. Here back in India , *people differentiate between religion for small things *but I think the hindustani classical music or Indian classical music has no religion because it is practiced the same way(even the devotional compositions) in any form of religion, whether hindu or muslim or any other.
> Mohit Kumar
> http://deeppurpled.blogspot.com


I wouldn't go as far as saying "small things". Rightly or wrongly, with intention or without intention, as an accident of history or otherwise, the Indian caste system which is still prevalent today, has it relation with religion, specifically Hinduism.


----------



## Sid James

I agree with Dr Mike's comments. I'd like to add that whether one perceives a work as religious or not depends upon the individual listener. Like I find a lot of this big Protestant religious thing in J. S. Bach's works, most of which I really dislike. In contrast, I don't get that feeling with Handel, quite the reverse, he seems to have been more of an nonconformist as regards to religion. With old J.S., I feel like I'm in a very confined space, but with Handel I feel that I'm as free as a bird. Of course, this is just subjective, any notions of morality or religion in these two geniuses works are not fixed, it depends upon the individual listener.

& to digress, I'm not sure if you're right HC as regards the Indian caste system. I think it was a cultural thing that was already there before the Hindu religion took root. I remember studying a bit of Indian history at uni when this was discussed. & the English (when they were the colonial power) had a low view of the caste system (eg. not introducing it with regards to train travel - anyone could travel in first, second or third class on the train as long as they could pay - it wasn't based on caste). After India became independent in 1947, I believe that any discrimination based on caste was outlawed. But you are right in suggesting that remnants of it survive to this day - but unofficially rather than officially...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Andre said:


> I agree with Dr Mike's comments. I'd like to add that whether one perceives a work as religious or not depends upon the individual listener. Like I find a lot of this big Protestant religious thing in J. S. Bach's works, most of which I really dislike. In contrast, I don't get that feeling with Handel, quite the reverse, he seems to have been more of an nonconformist as regards to religion. With old J.S., I feel like I'm in a very confined space, but with Handel I feel that I'm as free as a bird. Of course, this is just subjective, any notions of morality or religion in these two geniuses works are not fixed, it depends upon the individual listener.


I think there is a saying that goes something like: "Bach's music is Godly whereas Handel's music is worldly". As superficial as that might sound, I think there is some truth it that.



Andre said:


> & to digress, I'm not sure if you're right HC as regards the Indian caste system. I think it was a cultural thing that was already there before the Hindu religion took root. I remember studying a bit of Indian history at uni when this was discussed. & the English (when they were the colonial power) had a low view of the caste system (eg. not introducing it with regards to train travel - anyone could travel in first, second or third class on the train as long as they could pay - it wasn't based on caste). After India became independent in 1947, I believe that any discrimination based on caste was outlawed. But you are right in suggesting that remnants of it survive to this day - but unofficially rather than officially...


Yes, the caste system seemed to have originated a long time ago as a cultural thing. But I also think the modern caste system as we see it today has significant Hindu influences, rightly or wrongly, or just as an accident of history. A country with such a large population and rich cultural history, its religion and culture inevitably becomes inter-related.


----------



## Aramis

HEY, MUSIC!

<voice from the void> WHAT?

DO YOU HAVE RELIGION?

<voice from the void> ALLAH AKBAR!


----------



## Argus




----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I agree with Dr Mike's comments. I'd like to add that whether one perceives a work as religious or not depends upon the individual listener. Like I find a lot of this big Protestant religious thing in J. S. Bach's works, most of which I really dislike. In contrast, I don't get that feeling with Handel, quite the reverse, he seems to have been more of an nonconformist as regards to religion. With old J.S., I feel like I'm in a very confined space, but with Handel I feel that I'm as free as a bird. Of course, this is just subjective, any notions of morality or religion in these two geniuses works are not fixed, it depends upon the individual listener.

I somehow doubt that Handel was more of a non-conformist or any less religious than Bach. It would seem obvious that the two composers had very different patrons. Bach is admittedly more layered and complex... but I don't see that this is a criticism. It would seem just as misleading to suggest that Handel lacked Bach's depth and as a result was a compositional light-weight. The range of Bach's work is so immense and there is plenty that is open and light as well as heavy and complex. I sometimes get the feeling that you are far more influenced by your preconceived notions based upon morality rather than an open-minded evaluation of the music with Bach just as you are with Richard Strauss.

Returning to the OP, I think it is absurd to make the suggestion that music is not associated with music. Like painting, sculpture, architecture, literature, philosophy, etc... a great deal of music was created in support of a given religion and religious institutions. Indeed, I would note that far more music of real merit continues to be created in support of religion than can be said of painting or literature which are far more secular in their audience and patronage.

Ultimately, however, the enjoyment and appreciation of music (or any art) need not be limited to those who share the religious (or social, political, moral, etc...) convictions of the artist. I can appreciate the fact that the Qur'an is a great work of literature and any number of sculptures of Buddhist or Hindu deities are magnificent artistic achievements in spite of the fact that I might not share the beliefs they promoted. The human narrative of great art and the spiritual longing it can convey is something that can be appreciated by all.


----------



## Serge

Anyone else thinks the OP was a spambot?

Bach, Bruckner... I'll listen to them no matter how religious they were, I don't care.


----------



## Serge

Xenakis is making my night, quite surprisingly, due to somewhat random play. What religion is he of, btw, must be very unusual?..


----------



## Sid James

> I somehow doubt that Handel was more of a non-conformist or any less religious than Bach. It would seem obvious that the two composers had very different patrons. Bach is admittedly more layered and complex... but I don't see that this is a criticism. It would seem just as misleading to suggest that Handel lacked Bach's depth and as a result was a compositional light-weight. The range of Bach's work is so immense and there is plenty that is open and light as well as heavy and complex. I sometimes get the feeling that you are far more influenced by your preconceived notions based upon morality rather than an open-minded evaluation of the music with Bach just as you are with Richard Strauss.


I didn't really say that Handel lacked J.S.'s depth or was a light-weight. Go back & read my post. I said at the end, qualifying my earlier statements: "Of course, this is just subjective, any notions of morality or religion in these two geniuses works are not fixed, it depends upon the individual listener."



> ...Indeed, I would note that far more music of real merit continues to be created in support of religion than can be said of painting or literature which are far more secular in their audience and patronage...


I'd say that religious art of all types has been on the decline generally during the last 100 years or so. In music things have varied over the past 50 years - some composers like Messiaen, Arvo Part or John Tavener were/are greatly influenced by their religious convictions, other like Ligeti did produce one or two masterpieces in the field (his _Requiem _& _Lux Aeterna_) while staying clear of it generally, others still, like Lutoslawski, Carter, Dutilleux, Boulez, and so on have produced no religious works (that I know of, correct me if I'm wrong). Unless you count Hillsong albums, religious music is currently making much less of an impact than it did 100+ years ago...



> Ultimately, however, the enjoyment and appreciation of music (or any art) need not be limited to those who share the religious (or social, political, moral, etc...) convictions of the artist...The human narrative of great art and the spiritual longing it can convey is something that can be appreciated by all.


Agreed.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Music can be used by the religious to further their aims. However, music is just music. A "miracle" (possibly the wrong word) of nature. Music isn't the gift of a diety, although it can be used by humanity as a gift to a diety, proven or otherwise.


----------



## Serge

Edward Elgar said:


> Music can be used by the religious to further their aims.


I wonder if hellish music (death/black/doom metal etc.) has made any of the religious folks more dedicated believers by giving them an insight into a place that they wouldn't want to go to?


----------



## Comus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I think it is absurd to make the suggestion that music is not associated with music.


I agree unequivocally.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Serge said:


> I wonder if hellish music (death/black/doom metal etc.) has made any of the religious folks more dedicated believers by giving them an insight into a place that they wouldn't want to go to?


For me, hell would be Philip Glass played on a continuous loop.


----------



## Meaghan

Edward Elgar said:


> For me, hell would be Philip Glass played on a continuous loop.


:lol:
The continuous loop would hardly be necessary; Glass sounds that way already.


----------



## deeppurpled

I agree with Dr. Mike that Music can be associated with a religion and can help a religion grow(quoted by Edward Elgar). There is a very famous saying back here in India- " If there was a classical musician in every Indian house then partition wouldn't have occurred at all". Well to sum up I don't see anything as pure as classical music, consider the case of Hindustani music, the singing style and the learning process is same as it was 1000 yrs ago.
Mohit Kumar
http://www.deeppurpled.blogspot.com


----------



## Guest

Serge said:


> I wonder if hellish music (death/black/doom metal etc.) has made any of the religious folks more dedicated believers by giving them an insight into a place that they wouldn't want to go to?


Wait, I thought we were talking about music here?!?:devil:

(and . . . cue all the metal fans!)


----------



## demiangel

Serge said:


> I wonder if hellish music (death/black/doom metal etc.) has made any of the religious folks more dedicated believers by giving them an insight into a place that they wouldn't want to go to?


Actually, yes. I used to be a huge black metal fan, until it became blatantly obvious that an entity called Satan existed, was empowered by the belief of the religious, as well as his own followers, and was destroying me and using me to deceive and destroy others. I believe the line that scared me straight was something like "Lungs choked with embers / regurgitating boiling blood..." or something equally horrendous. I am now a devout Roman Catholic and carry my cross proudly.


----------



## Nicola

demiangel said:


> I am now a devout Roman Catholic and carry my cross proudly.


Heaven forbid.

Be sure now to keep us posted on your changing religious convictions. It's a fascinating story. I can't wait for the next instalment.


----------



## Boccherini

Nicola said:


> Heaven forbid.
> 
> Be sure now to keep us posted on your changing religious convictions. It's a fascinating story. I can't wait for the next instalment.


Might fall on our side one day. :tiphat:

Could be interesting.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

deeppurpled said:


> I think music is the only thing left which is not associated with any religion. Here back in India , people differentiate between religion for small things but I think the hindustani classical music or Indian classical music has no religion because it is practiced the same way(even the devotional compositions) in any form of religion, whether hindu or muslim or any other.
> Mohit Kumar
> http://deeppurpled.blogspot.com


I really don't know what is the value of this statement :" Music has no religion".

It says and means nothing.

Its like saying a car has no religion, books have no religion, the apple has no religion.

This kind of a statement has no meaning.

Religion is a unifying force that has influenced and refined the human character for thousands of years, and one of the methods it uses is music.

Music is an instrument of connection, that humans use to connect to God, and to be inspired, and not the other way around, God doesn't use music to connect to people.

Music is a created phenomenon by the God of the Universe, and it has nothing physical, its all spiritual. Music if used correctly can inspire humans to get connected to God and also to connect all human beings together as one. But if used wrongly, it can be a force of utter devastation, for it can be used for rap, pop, rock & roll, and other negative streams, to influence humanity to do negative things, like forget god and his commandments, and embrace and worship those same artists that promote their awful music.

Music is like water, it can assume itself to be negative or positive depending how its used, and by whom and to what purpose.

If you put water in a dirty cup, the water will get dirty. If you will listen to music written and sang by a decent spiritual god fearing person, you will be lifted and inspired yourself.

If not, then the opposite will occur, and you might be swept by the negative characters and traits of the indecent individual who uses music to communicate his messages.

That is why I personally don't listen to Wagner, rap, and heavy metal, cause all of this music was created by unworthy individuals who had empty and dark souls, who were and are full of hate, anger, arrogance, self -worship, and completely wrong views on the world at large.

I want to listen to the music of decent human beings, who lived worthy spiritual lives, who contributed to their society, and who had a strong sense of morality.

Regards,

Saul


----------

