# The 'God' inspiration



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

Many composers - e.g. Bach, Bruckner, Liszt, - got inspired/motivated to compose from belief in God. 
How much of the beauty of their music do you think comes from that inspiration or faith? And if these beliefs were removed, do you think it would have affected their music?

- I do *not *wish to engage in theological discussion.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

We'll never know of course, but as there have been countless masters not inspired by faith, I would expect them to have been just as successful as they were, although maybe with a different output (probably not 50+ church cantatas from Bach - unfortunately).


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

BenG said:


> Many composers - e.g. Bach, Bruckner, Liszt, - got inspired/motivated to compose from belief in God.
> How much of the beauty of their music do you think comes from that inspiration or faith? And if these beliefs were removed, do you think it would have affected their music?
> 
> *- I do not wish to engage in theological discussion.*


...well good luck with that Ben.....


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

As I understand it there are certain configurations of brain activity involved in religious experience. I have not seen anything convincing that atheists are unable to experience the same brain activity.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

There can be a general sense of spirituality that is not necessarily aligned with any particular religious tradition, although having such a tradition can make it easier (or harder, depending on how well they mesh or how badly they clash).


----------



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> ...well good luck with that Ben.....


Yes, I might as well have started a Wagner threat and written:
"I do *not *wish for antisemitism to be brought up"


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

BenG said:


> Many composers - e.g. Bach, Bruckner, Liszt, - got inspired/motivated to compose from belief in God.
> How much of the beauty of their music do you think comes from that inspiration or faith? And if these beliefs were removed, do you think it would have affected their music?
> 
> - I do *not *wish to engage in theological discussion.


I think that all creativity in art is brought about by the presence and development of the artist's "being," which is the totality of the artist's experience and personality.

This "being" factor is very important, and can often override and compensate for other deficiencies in an artist's capacities, such as 'Bob Dylan not having a great voice' yet still creating great art, John Cage (many will disagree), blues artists (Little Walter, the genius of the harmonica), Son House, and other numerous examples.

Ideally, religion is a tool for enhancing our 'spirituality' and thereby creating 'a better Man." To the extent religion can do this, it would therefore be a factor in producing art which is the expression of a healthy fullness of "being."

Although, after listening to Franz Liszt's organ works, I wonder.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Both Mozart and Stravinsky claimed that their music was inspired by God.

My first recording of Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ was an LP Columbia reissue of Stravinsky himself conducting the Columbia Symphony Orchestra. On the back of the record cover were some tart liner notes penned by the composer (Stravinsky was particularly bitter in the paragraph where he slammed Walt Disney for short-changing him when they used _Rite_ in _Fantasia_ without paying him enough money for it. Then he went on to call that the movie _Fantasia_ an "imbecility" and at the same time made clear that he couldn't even dignify Stokowski's interpretation with a comment.)

Anyway, the long and pretentious liner notes ended with Stravinsky getting back to how _Rite_ came to him like a dream, as he stated "I am the vessel through which _Rite of Spring_ passed."


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

More than one composer attributed their inspiration to God; they often couldn't explain how they got the ideas themselves. But then some, like Vaughan Williams, were famously atheist and still wrote some of the most sublime music for church use. There is an interesting book written by Arthur Abell from 1964 titled "Talks with Great Composers". Abell lived in Europe from 1890 to 1918 and got to know R Strauss, Brahms, Puccini, Humperdinck, Bruch and Grieg. The book deals with their psychic, spiritual and intellectual aspects. Brahms, at least according to Abell, thought that inspiration came from Divinity. It's fascinating reading and is still available from resellers. How much of it you believe is up to you.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Bach's and Bruckner's music sounds like it comes from Heaven, but Liszt's music sounds best when it is "demonic." Christus bores me.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

BenG said:


> Many composers - e.g. Bach, Bruckner, Liszt, - got inspired/motivated to compose from belief in God.
> *How much of the beauty of their music do you think comes from that inspiration or faith? *And if these beliefs were removed, do you think it would have affected their music?
> 
> - I do *not *wish to engage in theological discussion.


Why on earth do you ask a theological question if you do not want to engage in theological discussion?


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Coach G said:


> Both Mozart and Stravinsky claimed that their music was inspired by God.
> 
> My first recording of Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ was an LP Columbia reissue of Stravinsky himself conducting the Columbia Symphony Orchestra. On the back of the record cover were some tart liner notes penned by the composer (Stravinsky was particularly bitter in the paragraph where he slammed Walt Disney for short-changing him when they used _Rite_ in _Fantasia_ without paying him enough money for it. Then he went on to call that the movie _Fantasia_ an "imbecility" and at the same time made clear that he couldn't even dignify Stokowski's interpretation with a comment.)
> 
> Anyway, the long and pretentious liner notes ended with Stravinsky getting back to how _Rite_ came to him like a dream, as he stated "I am the vessel through which _Rite of Spring_ passed."


Stravinsky composed a lot of religious music, including Threni, Requiem Canticles, his Mass, and Babel.


----------



## EmperorOfIceCream (Jan 3, 2020)

Music IS God. _______


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

EmperorOfIceCream said:


> Music IS God. _______


I thought it was Clapton?


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

I think Million Rainbows really hit on something. Whether you believe in God, Gaia, Zues, The Big Bang, multi-verses, or a big spaghetti monster that is the source of all creation. We are religious animals, not in the "organized religion" sense, but in the sense that we seek things to "believe" in that are bigger than ourselves.

However that manifests, if there is deep faith, that can be an extremely powerful impetus. When honing in on a force of creation, giving in to it, so-to-speak, paying homage to it, that can be a powerful resource of creativity. Some would call that finding the "divinity within", some would call that a psychological reaction. To not get theological, whatever it is, it's powerful. So, for many of these composers, I believe the answer to your question is yes. I believe faith was a great inspiration to the beauty they created. 

V


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

does it really matter where a composer gets inspiration? A god, a woman, nature, or just ambition - all ultimately lead to the same product which is music. Church had a certain musical tradition, which inspired composers to compose Church music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

ORigel said:


> Bach's and Bruckner's music sounds like it comes from Heaven, but *Liszt's music sounds best when it is "demonic."* Christus bores me.





Coach G said:


> Both Mozart and Stravinsky claimed that their music was inspired by God.
> 
> My first recording of Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ was an LP Columbia reissue of Stravinsky himself conducting the Columbia Symphony Orchestra. On the back of the record cover were some tart liner notes penned by the composer (Stravinsky was particularly bitter in the paragraph where he slammed Walt Disney for short-changing him when they used _Rite_ in _Fantasia_ without paying him enough money for it. Then he went on to call that the movie _Fantasia_ an "imbecility" and at the same time made clear that he couldn't even dignify Stokowski's interpretation with a comment.)
> 
> Anyway, the long and pretentious liner notes ended with Stravinsky getting back to how _Rite_ came to him like a dream, as he stated "I am the vessel through which _Rite of Spring_ passed."


That's interesting about Stravinsky, Coach G. Whatever spiritual realm it came from, I get the feeling that it was the result of his being in touch with the "self", which in Stavinsky's case (and Carl Jung, if you read about him), was not all "lightness." There is plenty of scary darkness there (_The Sacrifice_ still gives me cold chills), which includes both "God" and "Devil," not unlike the Zoroastrian idea of a "God" which includes the "Devil." I know, I know, it's heresy.

According to Jung, this dark/light composite self is the complete version of Man's "being" and the sacred, which he deemed was necessary in order to fulfill one's "complete" self, or being.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Why on earth do you ask a theological question if you do not want to engage in theological discussion?


I think it's possible, as long as we are not accosted by fundamentalist thinkers. :lol:


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

BenG said:


> Many composers - e.g. Bach, Bruckner, Liszt, - got inspired/motivated to compose from belief in God.
> How much of the beauty of their music do you think comes from that inspiration or faith? And *if these beliefs were removed, do you think it would have affected their music?*


While it is entirely possible it would have "affected" their music, I don't think it would not have lessened it's quality or beauty. Their skills and talent would have still been part of them and their music, even if their motivation changed.

Quite a few composers were atheist/agnostic, and had no problems creating 'beautiful' music. So, it seems like god beliefs are not a major variable in creating beauty.

Here's just a small sample of atheist/agnostic composers, whom I would assume, many people on TC would accept, created some beautiful music.

Berlioz
Bizet
Debussy
****
Saint-Saens
Schubert
Schumann
Shostakovich
Richard Strauss
Tchaikovsky
Verdi
Ravel
Sibelius
Brahms
Rimsky-Korsakov

EDIT - Hayden believed Beethoven was an atheist. But it seems Beethoven was a pantheist, which is basically, just relabeling the universe as "god".


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's possible, as long as we are not accosted by fundamentalists. :lol:


Fundamentalist - is that another word for..... Ah, better not go down that road!


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Many composers - e.g. Bach, Bruckner, Liszt, - got inspired/motivated to compose from belief in God. How much of the beauty of their music do you think comes from that inspiration or faith? And if these beliefs were removed, do you think it would have affected their music?_

In Bach's case there'd have been no passions or cantatas; he wrote the latter for performance on Sundays in service. That would mean no _B minor mass_ or _St. Matthew Passion_, arguably his two greatest compositions.

In Handel's case there'd have been no oratorios meaning no _Messiah_ meaning no Hallelujah chorus, the most often performed and well-known piece of classical music in history.

Had these works not been written I think the entire history of classical music may be different than it is.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Simon Moon said:


> Here's just a small sample of atheist/agnostic composers, whom I would assume, many people on TC would accept, created some beautiful music.
> 
> Berlioz
> Bizet
> ...


I'm not going to take time to check all those, but I know for certain that Prokofiev was a practicing Christian Scientist. He kept it mostly hidden when he returned to the Soviet Union, but remained a believer until the end.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

> In Bach's case there'd have been no passions or cantatas; he wrote the latter for performance on Sundays in service. That would mean no _B minor mass_ or _St. Matthew Passion_, arguably his two greatest compositions.
> 
> In Handel's case there'd have been no oratorios meaning no _Messiah_ meaning no Hallelujah chorus, the most often performed and well-known piece of classical music in history.
> 
> Had these works not been written I think the entire history of classical music may be different than it is.


Why would you assume that, these composers would not, or could not, have created equally beautiful pieces in their stead?

Again, the list of non-believing composers that wrote beautiful religious music, is not exactly short.

Verdi, , Saint-Saens, Janacek, Ravel, Vaughan Williams, Britten...

Vaughan Williams even stated, "there is no reason why an atheist could not write a good Mass".


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> While it is entirely possible it would have "affected" their music, I don't think it would not have lessened it's quality or beauty. Their skills and talent would have still been part of them and their music, even if their motivation changed. Quite a few composers were atheist/agnostic, and had no problems creating 'beautiful' music. So, it seems like god beliefs are not a major variable in creating beauty.


But as I explained, I feel that creativity and artistic quality emerge from the artist's "being," not a belief system. That's putting the horse before the cart. So I agree that "god beliefs" are not the source of creating beauty; it's the artist's being, and his connection to the sacred realm of being. After all, this is not a theological discussion. :lol:


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> I'm not going to take time to check all those, but I know for certain that Prokofiev was a practicing Christian Scientist. He kept it mostly hidden when he returned to the Soviet Union, but remained a believer until the end.


Yes, a couple of them are questionable.

I will edit out those composers.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Simon Moon said:


> While it is entirely possible it would have "affected" their music, I don't think it would not have lessened it's quality or beauty. Their skills and talent would have still been part of them and their music, even if their motivation changed.
> 
> Quite a few composers were atheist/agnostic, and had no problems creating 'beautiful' music. So, *it seems like god beliefs are not a major variable in creating beauty.*


I'm not sure whether I entirely agree with this because I don't think it's self-evident that faith itself is even a variable in the equation of compositional greatness. I might prefer seeing it as a variation/value of a variable "inspiration". For those composers, whose major source of inspiration was their faith, it was probably a very important aspect of their work because inspiration itself is. No matter _what_ is the source of inspiration, it's likely to be a major variable. Whether a composer is inspired by religion, nature, mythology, emotions, or something else, it plays a very important part in their compositional language and style.

For example, one could say that nature is an unimportant factor because there are many great works which weren't inspired by nature. At the same time, it was a very central source of inspiration for Sibelius. I could say so about very many things which served as major sources of inspiration for particular composers and thus could come to a conclusion that only things which inspired the majority of great composers and works are truly important. To avoid that, I think that this should be approached on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Why would you assume that, these composers would not, or could not, have created equally beautiful pieces in their stead?_

They both composed great music that was not religious -- the Brandenburg concertos and Royal Fireworks Music to name a pair.

However, the compositions I named are about Jesus and God and the crucifixion and the resurrection. Had not the St. Matthew Passion been written Mendelssohn would never have discovered it, resurrected and performed it, and it would not have gone onto become the most profound utterance on the passion of Jesus Christ in musical history.

I think it possible Mahler would never have written his Resurrection symphony without knowing the St. Matthew Passion.

Handel's Messiah carries similar weight, perhaps even greater weight, regarding the birth of Christ. It is only played by virtually every choir is the Christian world each year at Christmas and Easter. Now imagine all these choirs -- every one in the Christian world -- never performing the Hallelujah chorus or other parts of Messiah.

So yes they would -- and did -- write beautiful music aside from religious music. But the musical world would be much different without their overwhelming compositions about Christ.

There are many followers of classical music that came to it through Handel and the Messiah, as well. Now imagine those millions never doing that. It would be an incomprehensible loss of membership in classical music society.

Without their religious compositions J.S. Bach and Georg Frideric Handel would no longer belong in the top 10 of classical music composers.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> Why would you assume that, these composers would not, or could not, have created equally beautiful pieces in their stead?
> 
> Again, the list of non-believing composers that wrote beautiful religious music, is not exactly short.
> 
> ...


Elgar was a practising Catholic all his life.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

larold said:


> _Many composers - e.g. Bach, Bruckner, Liszt, - got inspired/motivated to compose from belief in God. How much of the beauty of their music do you think comes from that inspiration or faith? And if these beliefs were removed, do you think it would have affected their music?_
> 
> In Bach's case there'd have been no passions or cantatas; he wrote the latter for performance on Sundays in service. That would mean no _B minor mass_ or _St. Matthew Passion_, arguably his two greatest compositions.
> 
> ...


Yes but.

If this were a parallel universe in which Bach had no interest in the Christian religion would he not still have written lots of wonderful music? And perhaps in that parallel universe there is a classical music forum where people are saying that if Bach had not been a devotee of Huitzilopochtli there are so many of the masterpieces he wrote for that god that we would never have had and the history of classical music would have been disastrously different. I believe that the music - the toweringly great music - was in Bach and it would have come out whatever his motivation and whoever his muse.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

larold said:


> But the musical world would be much different without their overwhelming compositions about Christ.


It would seem like you have a point, but one that is not exactly related to the question the OP asks..

But my contention still stands, equally beautiful, secular music would have been (and was) created by religious composers. And without their god beliefs, it still would have been created. And that is what I took the OP to mean.

The OP asked, "*do you think it would have affected their music?*", and I took that to mean, the _quality_ of their music. He didn't ask how it would have changed the history of music.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> Yes but.
> 
> *If this were a parallel universe in which Bach had no interest in the Christian religion would he not still have written lots of wonderful music?* And perhaps in that parallel universe there is a classical music forum where people are saying that if Bach had not been a devotee of Huitzilopochtli there are so many of the masterpieces he wrote for that god that we would never have had and the history of classical music would have been disastrously different. I believe that the music - the toweringly great music - was in Bach and it would have come out whatever his motivation and whoever his muse.


Definitely not the same kind of music. I think that influence of religion is difficult to avoid if it's such a central theme as it was in Bach's compositions. Things like religion can affect person's whole understanding of the world and different aspects of this. As a result, it's influence, even if we saw religion simply as a life experience or understanding, is almost impossible avoid. Influence of life on one's understanding and knowledge is not possible to avoid and our worldview and thoughts, in turn, are consciously or unconsciously very likely to have an effect on artistic output.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

annaw said:


> Definitely not the same kind of music. I think that influence of religion is difficult to avoid if it's such a central theme as it was in Bach's compositions. Things like religion can affect person's whole understanding of the world and different aspects of this. As a result, it's influence, even if we saw religion simply as a life experience or understanding, is almost impossible avoid. I don't think Bach would have written the same kind of works had he born in a different town for example. Influence of life on one's understanding and knowledge is not possible to avoid and thus consciously or unconsciously is very likely to have an effect on artistic output.


this is not about Bach or God, but about several centuries of church musical traditions. Medieval polyphony evolved into Baroque counterpoint. Bach composed in a style of his period. Had he been born in a different century, his music would have been different


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Speaking of Mahler a great deal of his "inspiration" came from the many funeral marches he heard and participated in as a young boy. Almost all his symphonies begin with a funereal march and death plays a role in Kindertotenlieder and the Sixth and Ninth symphonies. 

He famously retreated to a cabin in the woods when not conducting, doubtless the inspiration for his nature music from the Third symphony, Youth's Magic Horn and elsewhere.

We can only imagine what kind of composer he may have become had he not been exposed to funeral marches as a young boy or gone to the woods to compose when away from the podium.

Mendelssohn's father converted the family to Christianity in Felix's and Fanny's youth. Felix went on to become exposed to Bach, dug out the St. Matthew Passion, wrote the oratorios Elijah based on that book of the Bible, wrote the Fifth Symphony based on a religious tune of Bach's, copied the cantatas of J.S. Bach with his cantatas Opp. 42, 95, 98, 114 and 115, and copied Bach's preludes and fugues with his own.

It's probably a good bet had he grown up Jewish none of this would have happened.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Jacck said:


> this is not about Bach or God, but about several centuries of church musical traditions. Medieval polyphony evolved into Baroque counterpoint. Bach composed in a style of his period. Had he been born in a different century, his music would have been different


(Edited my post to make my thoughts a bit more clearer )

But that's exactly my point. Religion itself is a similar factor as surrounding society. It has an effect on one's worldview which in turn is very likely to affect artistic expression.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Brahms was so intimidated being in the shadow of Beethoven he destroyed most of his early works, the reason he never published a symphony until in his 40s. Imagine ten Brahms symphonies.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Enthusiast said:


> Yes but.
> 
> If this were a parallel universe in which Bach had no interest in the Christian religion would he not still have written lots of wonderful music? And perhaps in that parallel universe there is a classical music forum where people are saying that if Bach had not been a devotee of Huitzilopochtli there are so many of the masterpieces he wrote for that god that we would never have had and the history of classical music would have been disastrously different. I believe that the music - the toweringly great music - was in Bach and it would have come out whatever his motivation and whoever his muse.


Holy [email protected]! Bach was a devotee of Huitzilopochtli!? I KNEW it! Somehow.... I ALWAYS knew it!

V


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_The OP asked, "do you think it would have affected their music?", and I took that to mean, the quality of their music. He didn't ask how it would have changed the history of music._

History is loaded with examples where a change in time or place or circumstance would have altered everything in addition to a composer's music.

Another example is Beethoven. He wrote his titanic music about brotherhood, freedom and humanity because he lived through and witnessed the American and French revolutions and was inspired by their promise of liberty, equality and fraternity.

This was his motivation to write the 9th symphony and his only opera which took place in a Spanish prison and had a glorious ending where the prisoners were all freed.

Had he been born 1720 and not 1770 he would likely have been frustrated by the class society that existed and instead gone onto become the Shostakovich of the Classical era, writing music that expressed his disillusionment instead of his adoration of heroism and the free world to come.

Don't forget he tore up the inscription on the Eroica symphony slated to go to Napoleon after he learned Napoleon became a dictator instead of liberator.

All we know of Beethoven would have been different had he been born in a different time.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

It's quite clear from history the First World War and the inventions of automobiles and aircraft profoundly affected composers in the 20th century. This was part of Schoenberg's decision to create a new form of music -- 12 tone music. Imagine a world where this didn't happen.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's possible, as long as we are not accosted by fundamentalist thinkers. :lol:


That includes atheistic fundamentalists? :lol:


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

Barbebleu said:


> Fundamentalist - is that another word for..... Ah, better not go down that road!


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Bourdon (Jan 4, 2019)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

DavidA said:


> That includes atheistic fundamentalists? :lol:


Someone who is really, REALLY, not convinced that gods exist. :devil:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Varick said:


> I think Million Rainbows really hit on something. Whether you believe in God, Gaia, Zues, The Big Bang, multi-verses, or a big spaghetti monster that is the source of all creation. We are religious animals, not in the "organized religion" sense, but in the sense that we seek things to "believe" in that are bigger than ourselves.


I can think of exceptions, but the point is probably valid in a general sense.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Jacck said:


> this is not about Bach or God, but about several centuries of church musical traditions. Medieval polyphony evolved into Baroque counterpoint. Bach composed in a style of his period. Had he been born in a different century, his music would have been different


Or he might not even have been a musician or composer at all.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

JAS said:


> Or he might not even have been a musician or composer at all.


Possibly.

But the point several of us have been making, is whether a specific composer believes in a god or not, these composers still have: inherent talent, passion, knowledge, the drive, etc, to compose.

Seems to me, if Bach had those things, which he obviously had, then any motivation would have been enough for him to have created masterworks.

As contemporary British composer (living in Australia), Chris Dench recently said in an interview, "a composer is someone for whom there is a music that is intolerably absent from the world, and he/she feels an obligation to supply that music".


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Simon Moon said:


> But the point several of us have been making, is whether a specific composer believes in a god or not, these composers still have: inherent talent, passion, knowledge, the drive, etc, to compose.
> 
> Seems to me, if Bach had those things, which he obviously had, then any motivation would have been enough for him to have created masterworks.


Yes! When Bach had a secular gig at Cöthen, he was perfectly happy writing secular works and would have happily done so his entire life if the money was right. And he was a composer in part because it was the Bach family business, which his sons carried on. What else does a family of composers and musicians have to hand on to the next generation? In short, I think all of the answers in Bach's case are quite down to earth and practical.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

Of God : Sometimes a spirit of peace , love and beauty comes unbidden . It is graceful . A child's crying in the night becomes a song , a first song of creation .


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Simon Moon said:


> Someone who is really, REALLY, not convinced that gods exist. :devil:


Someone who is convinced that if there is something beyond the understanding of their 30lb brain it cannot exist? Actually, it is as Chesterton said, the most daring of all dogmas - the assertion of a universal negative. Interesting to read at the moment Professor Mc Grath's own journey from fundamentalist atheism to faith which he describes as being awakened from his 'dogmatic slumbers' to a 'historically and philosophically informed approach to the natural sciences'. The belief that man's creativity as expressed in things like music, arts, literature can be explained merely by scientific rationalism is too a narrow reductionist explanation. To me it fails to acknowledge the spiritual impulses, conscience, compassion, and other felt experiences, not least the sheer creativity expRested by the human race, via the human mind, that show up in all of human history and that set our species apart from others.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

A theist attributes man's creativity to the fact he is made in the image of God. In the same way as his rationality finds a need to explore the rationally created universe, so his creative instincts wants to create works of art, literature, music, architecture, etc., which are a reflection of the image in which he is made, whether or not the individual has faith or not. Interesting that Sir Georg Solti said, "I am not religious but when I hear Mozart I believe in God." ie he believes in a creative gift that is God-given. We do not see theism as necessarily an inspiration of individual works but as a lens through which we see man's God-given creativity expressed.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

annaw said:


> Definitely not the same kind of music. I think that influence of religion is difficult to avoid if it's such a central theme as it was in Bach's compositions. Things like religion can affect person's whole understanding of the world and different aspects of this. As a result, it's influence, even if we saw religion simply as a life experience or understanding, is almost impossible avoid. Influence of life on one's understanding and knowledge is not possible to avoid and our worldview and thoughts, in turn, are consciously or unconsciously very likely to have an effect on artistic output.


I agree but my point was a little different. I imagined a world where the god(s) of a dominant culture were different from the ones we had and the Bach of that world composed different music but great masterpieces nevertheless. The people like us in that world would have no idea about the Christian Bach but would feel that the loss of *their *Bach's music would be world changing.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> DavidA: "Someone who is convinced that if there is something beyond the understanding of their 30lb brain it cannot exist?"


That is a daring dogma. More daring still is the compulsion to believe not only that trans-physical, non-detectable things exist, but that they must exist! Truly startling and amazing.

Yet what is the actual evidence? The Wise move on to other issues; the credulous remain to sift endlessly through the debris, and, it is clear, they cannot help themselves......


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> That is a daring dogma. More daring still is the compulsion to believe not only that trans-physical, non-detectable things exist, but that they must exist! Truly startling and amazing.
> 
> Yet what is the actual evidence? The Wise move on to other issues; the credulous remain to sift endlessly through the debris, and, it is clear, they cannot help themselves......


I think you need to answer Chesterton's point rather than calling other people credulous. The fact that they have never investigated anything outside of the material and therefore cling to the reductionist view of the universe is touchingly credulous to me. It is quite peculiar to me that people say that they must not exist when they haven't a clue that they do not and absolutely no proof to the contrary. Your problem is that your means of detection may be faulty! That never occurs to you. Because the deaf man cannot detect music does not mean the music does not exist. As Professor Kirk said, "What do they teach them at these schools?"


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

What are the sensory and intellectual tools with which we are to assess the trans-physical, non-detectable world and its phenomena? A vivid imagination clearly is a great asset, along with bold inventiveness, and a willingness like Wile E. Coyote to step off cliffs into the void of pure speculation. Some have those gifts and live within a rich dream world.

I also gather--correct me if I err--that everything must exist unless or until it can be proven that it does not exist. I think our friend G.K. himself would balk at that howler.:lol:


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I agree but my point was a little different. I imagined a world where the god(s) of a dominant culture were different from the ones we had and the Bach of that world composed different music but great masterpieces nevertheless. The people like us in that world would have no idea about the Christian Bach but would feel that the loss of *their *Bach's music would be world changing.


If we are talking about a fantasy idea of Bach, then there is no reason to let restrictions on what that might be acting as curbs (and probably not much meaning in the fantasy). But my point was that what people end up doing is a combination of ability, experiences and opportunities. It isn't really possible to pull out one thread of person's life (in this case, I think, a rather significant thread in terms of prominence and effect) and assume that we know what the result would be, or that the rest of it would remain intact.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> What are the sensory and intellectual tools with which we are to assess the trans-physical, non-detectable world and its phenomena? A vivid imagination clearly is a great asset, along with bold inventiveness, and a willingness like Wile e Coyote to step off cliffs into the void of pure speculation. Some have those gifts and live within a rich dream world.
> 
> I also gather--correct me if I err--that everything must exist unless or until it can be proven that it does not exist. I think our friend G.K. himself would balk at that howler.:lol:


Oh dear! We are now coming to the intellectual level of cartoons! I watch them with my 8 year-old grandson! :lol:

Funny you are avoiding GK's actual statement like the plague. Because of course as any thinking person knows that sort of nonsense that something cannot exist because it cannot be proven within the narrow limits of certain peoples materialistic parameters is just unreasonable. Because of course as a new thinking person knows the sort of nonsense that something cannot exist because it cannot be proven within the narrow limits of certain peoples materialistic parameters is just unreasonable? If you set those parameters Yourself that is fine but don't reckon everyone Just blithely accepts them. Some of us have learnt to think outside the box.Some of us have learned to think outside the box The other thing of course is that your dogmatic assertion itself cannot be proved within the parameters you have set yourself. So your statements are self-defeating and irrelevant.The other thing of course is that your dogmatic assertion itself cannot be proved within the parameters you have set yourself. So your statements are self-defeating and irrelevant to the case in point. They are defeated by the narrowness of your own vision. Like the guy who believe that Beethoven couldn't write the ninth symphony because he was deaf because in his well deaf people couldn't write music. Or Yuri Gargarin saying ge couldn't find God in space. It depends on how big your parameters are.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

DavidA said:


> I think you need to answer Chesterton's point rather than calling other people credulous. The fact that they have never investigated anything outside of the material and therefore cling to the reductionist view of the universe is touchingly credulous to me. It is quite peculiar to me that people say that they must not exist when they haven't a clue that they do not and absolutely no proof to the contrary. Your problem is that your means of detection may be faulty! That never occurs to you. Because the deaf man cannot detect music does not mean the music does not exist. As Professor Kirk said, "What do they teach them at these schools?"





Strange Magic said:


> What are the sensory and intellectual tools with which we are to assess the trans-physical, non-detectable world and its phenomena? A vivid imagination clearly is a great asset, along with bold inventiveness, and a willingness like Wile e Coyote to step off cliffs into the void of pure speculation. Some have those gifts and live within a rich dream world.
> 
> I also gather--correct me if I err--that everything must exist unless or until it can be proven that it does not exist. I think our friend G.K. himself would balk at that howler.:lol:


Guess what's going to happen now.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Perhaps the thread might be closed! God willing!:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It was fun while it lasted...my philosophy of "being" is not metaphysical. You just sit there. :lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The OP is a question I also had. I always felt the 'spirituality' of Klemperer's version of St. Matthew Passion to be striking. There was some special kind of rapport there, from the composer, through the conductor and to the listener. I also feel a strong spirituality in Faure's Requiem. Faure was not thought to have strong religious beliefs, but could have been motivated by the death of his parents, although he didn't state any reason for its undertaking. The weird thing is I feel much more 'spirituality' in the music of Wagner than in Bruckner.

Messiaen was also a devout Catholic/Christian, but I get no sense of spirituality in his music, and I suspect anyone who thinks they do is projecting into the music from preconceptions in knowing the background more than anything (Like I feel Piero Scaruffi does. Show me a case where a listener didn't know anything about the piece / composer in Chronochromie or something, and hears some religious conviction). But this can be attributed to the idea, that my good friend 1996D suggested, that music moved away from its fundamentals or source of inspiration.

Due to my Wagner/Bruckner/Messiaen contradiction, I don't feel that religious conviction necessarily reveals itself in music, but I can see how it can motivate a composer, which money/fame also could.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Someone who is convinced that if there is something beyond the understanding of their 30lb brain it cannot exist? Actually, it is as Chesterton said, the most daring of all dogmas - the assertion of a universal negative. Interesting to read at the moment Professor Mc Grath's own journey from fundamentalist atheism to faith which he describes as being awakened from his 'dogmatic slumbers' to a 'historically and philosophically informed approach to the natural sciences'. The belief that man's creativity as expressed in things like music, arts, literature can be explained merely by scientific rationalism is too a narrow reductionist explanation. To me it fails to acknowledge the spiritual impulses, conscience, compassion, and other felt experiences, not least the sheer creativity expRested by the human race, via the human mind, that show up in all of human history and that set our species apart from others.


The answer to Chesterton is easy: Atheists assert nothing. They simply don't share one of your beliefs. Why must everyone accept your belief?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Barbebleu said:


> Perhaps the thread might be closed! God willing!:lol:


Actually, DavidA and I kept our discussion confined entirely to what might be called "philosophy". There were no overt references to religion or deities. Our hands are clean!:angel:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Actually, DavidA and I kept our discussion confined entirely to what might be called "philosophy". There were no overt references to religion or deities. Our hands are clean!:angel:


It's Tikoo Tuba's fault in post #47. That's pretty overt.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

The Bible and the culture of Christianity are so interwoven into European and American history that it's always a part of the experiences and creative output of the great composers, even though some of them, as has been noted in this thread, were atheists or agnostics. While they could no longer accept the Bible, God, or the afterlife, as literal truth, it was still part of their frame of reference, and could still exist as a source of comfort and inspiration.

When I think of Rachmaninoff's solemn and beautiful, _Vespers/All Night Vigil_, and then read that Rachmaninoff was non-religious, I have to wonder what it really means to be "religious". Even if Rachmaninoff could not be sure as to the existence of God or the afterlife, or even if he couldn't take the Bible literally; if he was so inspired to create something so beautiful on the basis of just the _ideas_ concerning the existence of God, the afterlife, and a literal Bible interpretation, then how far could he have been from being a religious man?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DavidA said:


> Oh dear! We are now coming to the intellectual level of cartoons! I watch them with my 8 year-old grandson! :lol:
> 
> Funny you are avoiding GK's actual statement like the plague. Because of course as any thinking person knows that sort of nonsense that something cannot exist because it cannot be proven within the narrow limits of certain peoples materialistic parameters is just unreasonable. Because of course as a new thinking person knows the sort of nonsense that something cannot exist because it cannot be proven within the narrow limits of certain peoples materialistic parameters is just unreasonable? If you set those parameters Yourself that is fine but don't reckon everyone Just blithely accepts them. Some of us have learnt to think outside the box.Some of us have learned to think outside the box The other thing of course is that your dogmatic assertion itself cannot be proved within the parameters you have set yourself. So your statements are self-defeating and irrelevant.The other thing of course is that your dogmatic assertion itself cannot be proved within the parameters you have set yourself. So your statements are self-defeating and irrelevant to the case in point. They are defeated by the narrowness of your own vision. Like the guy who believe that Beethoven couldn't write the ninth symphony because he was deaf because in his well deaf people couldn't write music. Or Yuri Gargarin saying ge couldn't find God in space. It depends on how big your parameters are.


I am pleased to repost DavidA's edited version of his previous post here. It is wonderful! I urge all to read it carefully.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> The answer to Chesterton is easy: Atheists assert nothing. They simply don't share one of your beliefs. Why must everyone accept your belief?


Is atheism a philosophic position in its own right or merely the absence of one? Does it require a conscious, explicit rejection?

It's OK to discuss this, since it isn't about religion; it's about the _absence_ of religion.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> I am pleased to repost DavidA's edited version of his previous post here. It is wonderful! I urge all to read it carefully.


For a man who dogmatically keeps asserting the unprovable and then seeks to cover his lushes that's is pretty rich! Back to Wiley- Coyote! :lol:

But we perhaps need to stick to the OP. The fact is that theism is the medium whereby we see the creativity of composers through not necessarily the direct inspiration.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> The answer to Chesterton is easy: *Atheists assert nothing. *They simply don't share one of your beliefs. Why must everyone accept your belief?


That is of course wrong. Read Russell or Dawkins. I'm not asking people to share my belief I'm just giving my views as a theist on how I see the OP. It appears to be others who want everyone to share their views as there is an immediate contradiction.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Is atheism a philosophic position in its own right or merely the absence of one? Does it require a conscious, explicit rejection?
> 
> It's OK to discuss this, since it isn't about religion; it's about the _absence_ of religion.


It's not even about the absence. It's not a philosophical position. It's not about anything. It's just answering "no" when one is asked a certain five-word question.



DavidA said:


> That is of course wrong. Read Russell or Dawkins.


I have. See my answer to MR above. Anything these men say beyond "no" when a certain question is put to them is above and beyond what defines them as atheists. The rest is just elaboration for the benefit of those who insist on claiming there's more to it.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Various things are called atheism and there are multiple paths to it. Mark Twain and Saint-Saëns are often counted as atheists, but they seemed to have become so as the result of the loss of loved ones, and their repudiation of a god that could so arbitrarily and seemingly maliciously strike at them has an element of furious rejection that many can understand. Twain then found many instances in the Old Testament of a punitive god of similar arbitrariness that it reinforced his rejection.

Almost everyone is inculcated with notions about gods and ghosts and spirits by their parents or other early influencers, though I am fond of repeating Ursula Le Guin's observation that all children are born atheists. For myself, after youthful enthusiasm, augmented by actual, tangible proofs, for the existence of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa, the transition to "belief" in the existence of god(s) was to be expected. But when no evidence for--or requirement for--such ever materialized, I lost interest. Such belief became like unto astrology: understandable in its origins and motives, but utterly devoid of content. I like the analogy that atheism is to religion as Not Collecting Stamps is to hobbies.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

DavidA said:


> For a man who dogmatically keeps asserting the unprovable and then seeks to cover his lushes that's is pretty rich! Back to Wiley- Coyote! :lol:
> 
> But we perhaps need to stick to the OP. The fact is that theism is the medium whereby we see the creativity of composers through not necessarily the direct inspiration.


It's blushes, not lushes. It's though, not through and finally, it's Wile E. Coyote, not Wiley- Coyote. Happy to help!:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> It's not even about the absence. It's not a philosophical position. It's not about anything. It's just answering "no" when one is asked a certain five-word question....Anything these men say beyond "no" when a certain question is put to them is above and beyond what defines them as atheists. The rest is just elaboration for the benefit of those who insist on claiming there's more to it.


That's convenient. What, then, are you talking about? Nobody asked you *that* question. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> I like the analogy that atheism is to religion as Not Collecting Stamps is to hobbies.


That seems like a cop-out to me; if atheism is the absence of belief in a deity, it has already entered into a dialectic contrast with it. Why specifically deities? Why not giraffes? Unicorns?

dialectic: A contradiction of ideas that serves as the determining factor in their interaction.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> That seems like a cop-out to me; if atheism is the absence of belief in a deity, it has already entered into a dialectic contrast with it. Why specifically deities? Why not giraffes? Unicorns?


Because that would be agiraffeism or aunicornism. Check out their web sites!


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

amfortas said:


> Because that would be agiraffeism or aunicornism. Check out their web sites!


Is there abigfootism? I was a big fan as a kid, but have grown weary of all the silly tv shows.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Why aren't there any atheist hymns or cantatas?

Atheist Requiem text: _They're dead, dead, dead....now cry, cry cry!_


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

The thread has been derailed to discussions of pure religion. The OP asked to what extent individual composers' faith affects their music. This forum is not the place to discuss purely religious topics. You may do so on the Groups but not here. Please return to the discussion of a composer's faith _in relation to music_.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I can remember listening to Haydn’s creation with a friend and we agreed that it was an expression of the man’s devout faith, whatever that might have been. Interesting that years later Beethoven gave a similar expression in the Midas Solemnis. Although Beethoven was not traditionally religious he wanted to give an expression of faith.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

If religious faith is made up of being communally minded, responding affirmatively (obediently?) to power and, for some, the enjoyment of a potent mix of neurochemicals ... it is quite easy to see how so many great artists found inspiration in it. It is perhaps more interesting to look at how these beliefs varied between them and even at how some composers managed to create great work without these props.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I have removed some purely religious posts after my comment asking members to refrain from purely religious posts.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I see the posts have renumbered themselves therefore making any reference to any post prior to the removal of the offending posts redundant! That’s a bit of a nuisance!


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> Various things are called atheism and there are multiple paths to it. Mark Twain and Saint-Saëns are often counted as atheists, but they seemed to have become so as the result of the loss of loved ones, and their repudiation of a god that could so arbitrarily and seemingly maliciously strike at them has an element of furious rejection that many can understand. Twain then found many instances in the Old Testament of a punitive god of similar arbitrariness that it reinforced his rejection.
> 
> Almost everyone is inculcated with notions about gods and ghosts and spirits by their parents or other early influencers, though I am fond of repeating Ursula Le Guin's observation that all children are born atheists. For myself, after youthful enthusiasm, augmented by actual, tangible proofs, for the existence of the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Santa, the transition to "belief" in the existence of god(s) was to be expected. But when no evidence for--or requirement for--such ever materialized, I lost interest. Such belief became like unto astrology: understandable in its origins and motives, but utterly devoid of content. I like the analogy that atheism is to religion as Not Collecting Stamps is to hobbies.
> 
> I hope this helps.


I disagree with Ursula Le Guin's "Babies are born atheists" idea, because I would contend that,if anything, the brain is hard-wired towards religion. I think that comparative psychology confirms this. Jane Goodall observed chimps in the wild standing in awe at the sight of a waterfall. Nature documentaries I've seen on TV show elephants visiting the bones of their dearly departed fellow elephants, and tenderly caressing the bones with their trunks. Therefore, if we see those chimps as being in the primal stages of animism, and those elephants as being in the primal stages of ancestor worship, and we know that modern religion has evolved from animism and ancestor worship, then how far are those chimps and elephants from being among the devout?

It's my contention that there is a harmony between religion, psychology and music. Both religion and music involve the search for truth and beauty.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Interesting that years later Beethoven gave a similar expression in the Midas Solemnis. Although Beethoven was not traditionally religious he wanted to give an expression of faith._

Beethoven was a Catholic and non-practicing. At the time his missa solemnis was published there were those that believed it could be used in a Catholic service. It soon became apparent the music would have dwarfed the service and devotion.

It should be remembered Beethoven also wrote a mass on the traditional religious text. He also wrote many songs on religious messages and scripture including one of my favorites "Die Ehre Gottes aus der Natur" or loosely translated "God's Glory in Nature."

It is sung here by Heinrich Schlusnus, one of my favorite singers from between the wars. The wobble is the recording not Heinrich.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

But are the chimps in the primary stages of animism? Are the elephants in the primary stages of ancestor worship? The chimps may be unfamiliar with waterfalls, or visit them infrequently, and are astonished/disturbed/disoriented every time. The elephants may be experiencing an empathetic response to the remains of their own kind. If you wish to call this religion, why not, though it begins to expand the definitional membrane to a point where it may no longer have much meaning. Whether such behavior is a proof of the existence of deities is also another matter.  Edmund Burke had much to say about the experience of the sublime, and I can testify that even ice-cold monsters like myself :angel: can have what are called cusp experiences.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

larold said:


> ...
> 
> Beethoven was a Catholic and non-practicing. At the time his missa solemnis was published there were those that believed it could be used in a Catholic service. It soon became apparent the music would have dwarfed the service and devotion.


Beethoven was always transforming things to his own vision. He took the symphony as established by Haydn and Mozart and pushed the form to new heights, culminating in the _Symphony #9 "Choral"_ which becomes all-embracing. Likewise, Beethoven takes the concerto, the piano sonata, and the string quartet, to a grand scale of length, and depth. As a composer, Beethoven is probably the most difficult one to categorize, part Classical, part Romantic, the man always seems to be in a class by himself, and dominate so that even the New York Yankees, the New England Patriots, and the Los Angeles Lakers, can't touch the shadow that Beethoven casts upon his field of rivals. So too, it would be that when Beethoven embraced God and the church, he would do so on his own terms.


----------



## Tikoo Tuba (Oct 15, 2018)

A revelatory and mystical , beautiful reality exists - just not every day of course . When a musician is witness to such an event , an inspired impression of it may carry on in creating music respectful of the experience . The music need not be explained with words of faith : so reasons the bless-ed and godly .


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

larold said:


> Beethoven was a Catholic and non-practicing. *At the time his missa solemnis was published there were those that believed it could be used in a Catholic service.* It soon became apparent the music would have dwarfed the service and devotion.


Really? Other composers had composed masses of more than 1 hour duration in length, "cantata-masses". As liturgical compositions, their religious significance was only symbolic; they weren't really for practical use. There are no catholic mass services where music is played for 1 hour and 20 minutes, I believe. Hence the reason why the genre "missa brevis" developed.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Barbebleu said:


> I see the posts have renumbered themselves therefore making any reference to any post prior to the removal of the offending posts redundant! That's a bit of a nuisance!


Those sneaky little posts. You never know what they will do once your back is turned.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Someone who is convinced that if there is something beyond the understanding of their 30lb brain it cannot exist?


That is not my, nor the vast majority of atheists, position.

I am completely open to accepting the existence of anything, as long as it meets its burden of proof.

But, until I am provided with: evidence, reasoned argument, and valid and sound logic, what should be my justification to believe?

I am not saying that the supernatural cannot exist. All I am saying is, there is not warrant to believe it does exist.

The time to start believing an existential claim, is when there is evidence and reasoned argument to support it. Not a second sooner. If one believes something without it having met its burden of proof, they are admitting to being irrational.

Besides supernatural beliefs (gods, ghosts, miracles, etc), it's hard to find other claims that people consistently believe, sans evidence and reasoned argument.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> But are the chimps in the primary stages of animism? Are the elephants in the primary stages of ancestor worship? The chimps may be unfamiliar with waterfalls, or visit them infrequently, and are astonished/disturbed/disoriented every time. The elephants may be experiencing an empathetic response to the remains of their own kind. If you wish to call this religion, why not, though it begins to expand the definitional membrane to a point where it may no longer have much meaning. Whether such behavior is a proof of the existence of deities is also another matter. Edmund Burke had much to say about the experience of the sublime, and I can testify that even ice-cold monsters like myself :angel: can have what are called cusp experiences.


I think that the proof of deities, God, the afterlife, etc. is besides the point. It's the inclination towards believing in such that I think is at the heart of the matter. Some on this thread have mentioned great composers who were atheist or agnostic, but are still famous for having composed religious works. I could be wrong, but I'd say that if Verdi (allegedly agnostic) is going to all the trouble of composing a Requiem and if Rachmaninoff (allegedly non-religious) is going to go to all the trouble of composing his _Vespers/All-Night Vigil_, then they had to have some level of reverence and respect for those vehicles of worship despite their skepticism regarding the supernatural. They had to have found some truth in it.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

millionrainbows said:


> Why aren't there any atheist hymns or cantatas?
> 
> Atheist Requiem text: _They're dead, dead, dead....now cry, cry cry!_


I mean, Brahms's _Ein Deutsches Requiem_ kind of is. But a much better example would be Hindemith's _When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd_.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

What would an atheist hymn be directed at? Maybe there could be a Humanistic hymn, and some poetry might qualify (if set to music).

Edit: Maybe 4'33" qualifies.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Knorf said:


> I mean, Brahms's _Ein Deutsches Requiem_ kind of is (an atheist cantata). But a much better example would be Hindemith's _When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd_.


Hindemith's _When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd_, composed to commemorate the death of President Franklin D Roosevelt, is a wonderful and not very much recorded work, as close as Hindemith ever got to composing "Americana". A generation later, Roger Sessions put the words of Whitman to music with his own When _Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd_ to commemorate the death of President John F Kennedy. The Sessions is a serial work, very fine, but more difficult to get one's mind around.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

JAS said:


> What would an atheist hymn be directed at? Maybe there could be a Humanistic hymn, and some poetry might qualify (if set to music).
> 
> Edit: Maybe 4'33" qualifies.


It's because the Bible is a book that captures the human condition in all it's dimensions, that it has retained universal appeal. The Bible demonstrates the full potential of the human spirit, as well as, humanity at it's worst. If we took out the violence, the war, the brother-against-brother family dysfunctions, and left in all the "Love the neighbor" parts then the Bible would lose it's humanity and no longer speak to people. Along this line, I'm fascinated to know the disciples of Jesus as ordinary, deeply flawed men who Jesus chose from the working class. Peter was a hot-head who denied him, Thomas doubted him, and all but John skipped town when Jesus needed them most. And this is why I think so many great works by the great composers are based on Bible themes: be it Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ and _St. John Passion_, Handel's _Messiah_, Haydn's _Creation_, Mendelssohn's _Elijah_, Rachmaninoff's _Vespers/All Night Vigil_, Stravinsky's _Symphony of Psalms_, Bernstein's _Chinchester Psalms_, Schoenberg's _Moses Und Aron_, or the many Masses and Requiems by Beethoven, Mozart, Berlioz, Verdi, Faure etc.

Our great religious works are not so much a constant bombardment of trumpets and harps and angels singing "Hosanas" and "Allelujiahs" (I think that would be very boring) as much as they demonstrate the human relationship and reconciliation with God.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

JAS said:


> What would an atheist hymn be directed at? Maybe there could be a Humanistic hymn, and some poetry might qualify (if set to music).
> 
> Edit: Maybe 4'33" qualifies.


Yes, being skeptical of theistic claims does not, in and of itself, have the ability to motivate hymns directed at anything. Just as being skeptical at other, non-theistic supernatural claims, would have.

Just a quick google of "humanism and classical music" brings up quite a few scholarly articles on the classical music of the Renaissance, and the influence of humanism.

John Cage was a Buddhist, so the silence and the sounds of the immediate environment, seems to have more in common with Buddhism, than skepticism.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

If you follow a religion which has persisted until today you'll probably be ... because of the likelihood of error. The math is against you.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Coach G said:


> Our great religious works are not so much a constant bombardment of trumpets and harps and angels singing "Hosanas" and "Allelujiahs" (I think that would be very boring) as much as they demonstrate the human relationship and reconciliation with God.


To us atheists, that last clause has no meaning, because to us God appears in all likelihood to be fiction, and there will be no ultimate reconciliation with the Christian God, the Hebrew YHWH, the Islamic Allah, nor any other god or gods, be they Zeus or Thor or Isis.

What moves me personally, is what these myths say about our humanity: our thirst for understanding, our need to find answers to mysteries. And mystery remains eternal, not in a spiritual sense, but in metaphorical one, and also a literal one, since the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light and that means there will be things at the further reaches of the universe that will never, ever be knowable by us in space & time as we understand them.

Also, let's be clear: just because someone uses a sacred text in a composition does not mean they believe in it in a literal sense.


----------

