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



## millionrainbows

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

When we say 'religious' music, it may fit that description for a number of reasons which do not concern the music itself, or the actual structure of the sounds; it may be 'religious' because it was used in church rituals, or based on sacred text, or about a religious subject, but none of these has to do with the actual structure of the music itself.

I am saying that the term 'religious' in 'religious music' (which is a misleading term in my opinion) is a quality which I define in general terms as 'spiritual' in nature. The music can produce, under the right conditions, a spiritual awareness or feeling, or effect, which may or may not be associated with a particular religion, or idea of religion.

You must first accept the given that "religious" is a misnomer in the sense that 'spiritual' music need not necessarily be connected to an established religion or institution. If we can accept that broadening and generalization of the term 'religious' music, then we can move ahead to the meat of the discussion.

I contend that music which is harmonically static, such as a drone, or one note and its partials, is inherently 'spiritual' because of its universal propensity to affect us as humans. This 'spirituality' is the note, or drone itself, so it is a structurally inseparable quality of the sound.

As a result, all things or sound events which follow are secondary, and inessential, as they are derived from this one sound. This sound, it could be said, is "God." This is a possible interpretation of the words "In the beginning was the word, and the word was God."

In other words, the unchanging note, or drone, is the center of being, which is sacred and holy. This center of being is impervious to the passage of time; it is stillness, it is being, it is no-mind. This is OM.

All change which follows, which is defined by change in time, is illusion. Being does not travel; things around it come and go, but it remains.

Thus, the early Gregorian chant was inherently religious music; its drone-like qualities attracted 20th century audiences with the smash hit "Chant," and revealed that people are in search of a stillness and peace which only the uncluttered effects of such harmonically centered drone-like music can bring. All other music which is 'busy' is music of the 'ego,' and while it has its purpose, ultimately it is a distraction, or artifice, or merely a metaphor for the spiritual.

This is the basis of Indian raga, which is spiritual music designed to enhance one's spiritual awareness. African music is based on the drone of a fundamental tone and its harmonics, a 'drone' which is manipulated with mouth-bows to bring out different harmonic resonances. This led to blues, such as the droney songs of Skip James. The blues is thus a sacred music, and these bluesmen were our avatars of this spirituality, holy men, traveling saints. Bob Dylan, Ry Cooder, and Alan Wilson understood this well. For the blues connection, refer to Canned Heat's "on the Road Again' by the late great Alan Wilson

'The drone' is universal. All folk and ethnic musics exhibit elements of it, as it is my contention that all people, no matter how 'primitive,' are inherently spiritual from their beginning. Of course, many are distracted away from the path.

The drone is the manifestation of being, not just a reference or metaphor for the sacred. The spirit is sound, and the sound is sacred.


----------



## Klavierspieler

So....

You're saying that "religious" should mean the same thing as "spiritual" when applied to music, and that it should refer to music which does not make use of harmonic progression?


----------



## Pugg

Please, let's not open can of worms again


----------



## Woodduck

There's something to this, but I think it oversimplifies things. I don't perceive harmonic stasis, or the mere presence of a drone, as necessarily expressing spirituality, unless spirituality can be synonymous with monotony or boredom. I think it does matter what the "sound events which follow" do. Neither do I perceive all nonstatic and droneless music as unspiritual; there are other ways of suggesting and expressing that which is permanent and transcendent.


----------



## Guest

So just call it 'spiritual' music. Why do you want to change the meaning of the word 'religious'?


----------



## Wood

MacLeod said:


> So just call it 'spiritual' music. Why do you want to change the meaning of the word 'religious'?


I think he means that music called religious music is in fact spiritual music, but only so long as the rest of the music doesn't distract the listener too far away from the drone.


----------



## DeepR

I like drone music, mostly ambient drone music. 
Here's what I think is a great drone piece, from the album "Dagaz" by Mathias Grassow. You have to listen to the whole thing, obviously.  https://app.box.com/s/0mrq5y2hzesu436lnnjafjdolsv2eqce


----------



## millionrainbows

Klavierspieler said:


> So....
> 
> You're saying that "religious" should mean the same thing as "spiritual" when applied to music, and that it should refer to music which does not make use of harmonic progression?


No, I'm saying that 'spirituality' is primary and universal, and that religion is a tool which is ideally supposed to enhance this state, and draw us into it further. This is like 'music' and music theory; theory comes after the fact.

In terms of pure sound, a fundamental and its harmonics are the primary substance or sound that all music derives from, including harmonic progression, which is an elaboration of the harmonic model stretched out over time.

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

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


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> There's something to this, but I think it oversimplifies things. I don't perceive harmonic stasis, or the mere presence of a drone, as necessarily expressing spirituality, unless spirituality can be synonymous with monotony or boredom. I think it does matter what the "sound events which follow" do. Neither do I perceive all nonstatic and droneless music as unspiritual; there are other ways of suggesting and expressing that which is permanent and transcendent.


"Monotony" or "boredom" as you call it is the thinking part of the mind shutting down, and making way for "being" or primary awareness. It's like an empty room, which can be seen as boring or as refreshingly uncluttered.

Of course I agree that "sound events which follow" matter, and should be manifest in all their diversity.

Yes, music which is not droney or static can be spiritual and can suggest things which are permanent and transcendent; but these are still elaborations or expansions of the source in some way. 
I'm not trying to do away with that, or invalidate it, or say it is inferior. It simply occupies a different place in the order of things, and at the center is the drone.

I'm saying that the most simplified aspect of sound is the one note, and its partials. I quaintly call this the drone.

This is reflected in Man's spiritual awareness; again, the most basic kind of awareness and being is the state of stillness, when it is simplified and uncluttered by the tickertape of thought.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> So just call it 'spiritual' music. Why do you want to change the meaning of the word 'religious'?


This does not change the meaning of 'religious.' 
I will not argue with you if you say that "religious music" means music which was written and used in a specific religion, or in specific rituals or settings. A Baptist hymn is an example of religious music, or a mass.

But the term 'religious' is limiting, in that it refers to religion, and that term means specific things to different people.

With the term "spiritual" (and keeping in mind that spirituality is universal to all, and that religion came after, and acts as a limiter and is specific), we can identify and explore the universal aspects of music which are not only common to all men, but can produce or enhance a sense of spiritual awareness which is universal and inclusive, which centers us and gets us to that common, universal state of being.

I say this not to invalidate any form of religious music, but to get people to recognize that our sense of spirituality is nearly synonymous, in sound terms, with 'the drone' or the single note.

From this beginning, all awareness and music proceeds.

This idea is not mine alone; it works in practice as well. The overwhelming success of the CD "Chant" is evidence that people were craving a sense of peace, and a centering experience. The companion book which came out with this discusses these ideas. Call it 'new age' if you wish, but this idea has real validity, as Indian raga demonstrates, and can't credibly be written off simply as a fad or trend.


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> I think he means that music called religious music is in fact spiritual music, but only so long as the rest of the music doesn't distract the listener too far away from the drone.


Not necessarily; some music is religious, and creates a visceral spiritual effect as well, and does this by other methods, perhaps using two chords and 100 singers, as in Handel's Messiah chorus as they sing "Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hallelujah," which is relatively close to being simple, and uses the force of voices and their implication as a large mass of people, and repetition, to create an effect on the listener.

I'm just saying that the most simplified, elegant, uncluttered way of expressing this sense is via the drone.

By the way, a 'pedal point' is a sustained note under two chord, as in the above "Messiah" section, so in a way, Handel was using a drone to convey the message.

That's what I think you really meant to say.


----------



## millionrainbows

Pugg said:


> Please, let's not open can of worms again


Oh, but Pugg, aren't these the most interesting worms? All squishy and wet and moving? Here, grab a handful, I'm sure you'll get a giggle.


----------



## Xaltotun

So... the _Rheingold_ prelude is a very spiritual thing, then? Can't argue with that!


----------



## Strange Magic

Question: what is the spiritual content of A) utter silence; B) ambient sound of seashore or meadow or forest? And can the effect of drone upon the human being be expressed and understood--if not right now, but eventually--as biology/psychology/neurophysiology? I like certain drones, especially raga and also Scottish bagpipes; the initial sound of bagpipes gives me gooseflesh every time.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> This does not change the meaning of 'religious.'
> I will not argue with you if you say that "religious music" means music which was written and used in a specific religion, or in specific rituals or settings. A Baptist hymn is an example of religious music, or a mass.
> 
> But the term 'religious' is limiting, in that it refers to religion, and that term means specific things to different people.
> 
> With the term "spiritual" (and keeping in mind that spirituality is universal to all,


Exactly so. Which is why I'm asking why you would want to use the term and redefine it, as you do in your OP.


----------



## ArtMusic

Best to describe it as church music - music intended for church services or based on religion that would be worshiped in a church/some place of worship. Bach's church cantatas are perfect examples.


----------



## millionrainbows

Xaltotun said:


> So... the _Rheingold_ prelude is a very spiritual thing, then? Can't argue with that!


Yes, a lot of art is like that. Art has always had strong ties to spirituality and religion. It seeks to affect us.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Question: what is the spiritual content of A) utter silence; B) ambient sound of seashore or meadow or forest? And can the effect of drone upon the human being be expressed and understood--if not right now, but eventually--as biology/psychology/neurophysiology? I like certain drones, especially raga and also Scottish bagpipes; the initial sound of bagpipes gives me gooseflesh every time.


It could be that a single, sustained note 'simplifies' music down to its most basic terms, and if we let it, can be a vehicle for concentration or meditation. This might have a physiological basis. It definitely relates to our ears, and the way they hear harmonics.

Utter silence is not sound; ambient sounds are usually not sustained pitches. For me, the sustained pitch is what distinguishes music from other sound. It also distinguishes talking from singing.


----------



## millionrainbows

MacLeod said:


> Exactly so. Which is why I'm asking why you would want to use the term and redefine it, as you do in your OP.


Because this forum section is called "religious music," and there is no comparable or appropriate place to discuss other music which might be spiritual or sacred in nature, but does not represent a religion per se.


----------



## millionrainbows

ArtMusic said:


> Best to describe it as church music - music intended for church services or based on religion that would be worshiped in a church/some place of worship. Bach's church cantatas are perfect examples.


So where should I go with this spiritual music? I've been gracious enough not to exclude religious music from my criterion; why not do the same for me?
Is this a members only type of thing?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Well, I do like La Monte Young and Eliane Radigue. Radigue has in particular Buddhist lyrics in some of her drone-based electronic music. Good stuff.


----------



## norman bates

It's a interesting discussion, but by the way how would you consider the highly chromatic music of a Bach?


----------



## Ingélou

*Any *piece of music has the possibility of being regarded as 'spiritual' by some people. So the term is too large and too undefined. I don't think one can tie spirituality to any particular style either. Drones - single notes etc - could belong to secular music and I for one don't automatically associate them with spirituality.

So I think I'd go by the music's intended *use*. If it's for use in a religious or spiritual ritual, then it's specifically religious or spiritual music. The latter term is broader in most people's minds - but the term _*religious*_ is also quite broad. Many people narrow it to mean Christianity or another Big World Religion, but it could apply, say, to animism or Wicca if music was specifically written for those sets of believers. There's also the term *faith*.

The forum that we're posting on has to have a name, and I think *Religious Music* is as useful as any of the alternatives. It's less woolly than spiritual, but doesn't preclude music written for Buddhist or Hindu Worship. Just because most of the music that's actually under discussion happens to come from a Christian context, for historical reasons, it doesn't make the term offensive or prohibitive.

I can't say that I find it much of a problem.


----------



## hpowders

OP: I see a very long encyclopedic article here. No querie.

So what's the point?

Seems like it would be more effective as a blog post.


----------



## regenmusic

How does the innovative of Debussy, Ravel and Satie come into this? How is innovation a sign of divine creation, out of the stasis of pre-existing forms? Obviously, introducing chaos cannot do it.


----------



## millionrainbows

Ingélou said:


> *Any *piece of music has the possibility of being regarded as 'spiritual' by some people. So the term is too large and too undefined. I don't think one can tie spirituality to any particular style either. Drones - single notes etc - could belong to secular music and I for one don't automatically associate them with spirituality.
> 
> So I think I'd go by the music's intended *use*. If it's for use in a religious or spiritual ritual, then it's specifically religious or spiritual music. The latter term is broader in most people's minds - but the term _*religious*_ is also quite broad. Many people narrow it to mean Christianity or another Big World Religion, but it could apply, say, to animism or Wicca if music was specifically written for those sets of believers. There's also the term *faith*.
> 
> The forum that we're posting on has to have a name, and I think *Religious Music* is as useful as any of the alternatives. It's less woolly than spiritual, but doesn't preclude music written for Buddhist or Hindu Worship. Just because most of the music that's actually under discussion happens to come from a Christian context, for historical reasons, it doesn't make the term offensive or prohibitive.
> 
> I can't say that I find it much of a problem.


But "use" is too subjective. I've seen girls go into religious ecstacy while listening to Cat Stevens' 'Tea for the Tillerman.'

Also, the criticism that 'any music can be regarded as spritual' is too subjective. I want objective, formal criteria, and formal structures, if possible. The drone is such a structure. Although it could be used in secular music, that's after the fact. I identify the drone as a Jungian archetype in music; it is a primal, prototypical form which is universal in its meaning and effect, in a basic sense.

But perhaps in the end, you are correct: "religious" music ,may be just that: music intended for religious use. That's rather boring, though, as it says nothing about the effectiveness of the music, or its universal, if any, qualities. By this definition, Kate Smith singing "God Bless America" is in the same category as Bach's B Minor Mass. That tells us nothing about the nature or even the intent of the music, or its possible effectiveness on people.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Utter silence is not sound; ambient sounds are usually not sustained pitches. For me, the sustained pitch is what distinguishes music from other sound. It also distinguishes talking from singing.


I ask: What is the spiritual content of A) Utter silence? B) Ambient sound of seashore, or meadow, or forest?


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> I ask: What is the spiritual content of A) Utter silence? B) Ambient sound of seashore, or meadow, or forest?


Probably quite a bit of content in utter silence, since that would represent "no mind" or the death of the waking ego.

Ambient seashore, meadow, and forest could all be connected to Taoism.


----------



## Wood

millionrainbows said:


> * I've seen girls go into religious ecstasy while listening to Cat Stevens' 'Tea for the Tillerman.'
> *
> .


Dare I ask where this might have been? :lol:

There may be a problem that members have with the term 'spirituality'. It is too woolly for religious folk (_pace _Ingelou) but it is too new age, or something, for the atheists. Buddhists would be happy?

But I like where you are coming from. There is a certain awareness, absorption or focus or something else that one gets with some simple natural sounds, drones and other seemingly simple music which is impossible to define or even put into words in a satisfactory way, so I admire your attempt to articulate this.

Perhaps it is like my motorcycle brethren say: 'If you have to ask why, then you just won't get it.'


----------



## millionrainbows

Wood said:


> Dare I ask where this might have been? :lol:


It was at a residence, and they put the record on and sat on the floor in front of the speakers, and bobbed back and forth. They were drinking beer, too.



> There may be a problem that members have with the term 'spirituality'. It is too woolly for religious folk (_pace _Ingelou) but it is too new age, or something, for the atheists. Buddhists would be happy?


No word will ever do; you just simply have to feel it, and be in that frame of...mind? Spirit?



> But I like where you are coming from. There is a certain awareness, absorption or focus or something else that one gets with some simple natural sounds, drones and other seemingly simple music which is impossible to define or even put into words in a satisfactory way, so I admire your attempt to articulate this.


I've always loved drones.



> Perhaps it is like my motorcycle brethren say: 'If you have to ask why, then you just won't get it.'


"If you don't know what diddy-wah-diddy means by now, lady, then you never will."


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

On top of drones, I think minimalism and repetition in and of itself is "spiritual" music, mainly because of cultural context. Religious Chant often also depends on repetition, such as saying a mantra. There is purpose to repetition, the effort to integrate the Other with the Self, and to enforce concepts. Also supplication and appeasement religion to gods that if you say or do something so many times, then you'll be answered.

Here are examples of minimalism/repetition being appropriate as a tool to produce a spiritual sound:






And read the video description on this one:





And Arvo Part's music in general, _Spiegel im Spiegel_ in particular.


----------



## isorhythm

Like others I think there is something to what you're saying, but would caution against extending one observation or idea into a blanket definition or even prescription of what religious music is.

Better to strive for a _de_scription of the relationship between music and human religious or spiritual experience as it is actually observed.


----------



## millionrainbows

Huilunsoittaja said:


> On top of drones, I think minimalism and repetition in and of itself is "spiritual" music, mainly because of cultural context. Religious Chant often also depends on repetition, such as saying a mantra. There is purpose to repetition, the effort to integrate the Other with the Self, and to enforce concepts. Also supplication and appeasement religion to gods that if you say or do something so many times, then you'll be answered.
> 
> Here are examples of minimalism/repetition being appropriate as a tool to produce a spiritual sound:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And read the video description on this one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Arvo Part's music in general, _Spiegel im Spiegel_ in particular.


I agree; also, repetition focusses and clears the mind of thought, as in doing the rosary beads, and also in Shingon Buddhism, there is a bead-counting process.

This focus can be very demanding. I am constantly amazed at the way musicians are able to keep track, stay focused, and not mess up in Steve Reich's and Philip Glass' ensembles.

So, as well as drone, insistent repetition could be another structural key in music which is intended to produce transcendence or trance-like states.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> Like others I think there is something to what you're saying, but would caution against extending one observation or idea into a blanket definition or even prescription of what religious music is.
> 
> Better to strive for a _de_scription of the relationship between music and human religious or spiritual experience as it is actually observed.


I can agree with that critique. I tend to avoid blanket definitions anyway, or try to. I'm more like a poet who is probing for meaning.


----------



## millionrainbows

norman bates said:


> It's a interesting discussion, but by the way how would you consider the highly chromatic music of a Bach?


I definitely sense a strong soulfulness in Bach's music. The Sinfonia Nr. 9 in F minor, as played slowly by Glenn Gould, is a good example. This piece uses 11 of the possible 12 notes; it is highly chromatic, yet has a stable sense of key. Most of these notes are passing notes, and they always lead us back to the chord.
There is a distinct atmosphere of 'yearning' and sadness in Bach's keyboard works, as if they were sort of a diary of his emotional life.

~


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> OP: I see a very long encyclopedic article here. No querie.
> 
> So what's the point?
> 
> Seems like it would be more effective as a blog post.


Well, I hate to disappoint you, hpowders, but it seems to be developing quite nicely. I am surprised and pleased.


----------



## millionrainbows

regenmusic said:


> How does the innovative of Debussy, Ravel and Satie come into this? How is innovation a sign of divine creation, out of the stasis of pre-existing forms? Obviously, introducing chaos cannot do it.


I think Satie was the most 'radical' in that he understood and used ideas of 'absurdity' and was more artistically oriented with painters and visual artists, thus the intense interest John Cage had in him. Same deal, basically.

Debussy and Ravel were obviously also aware of some of the poetic and artistic currents of their time. I think all 3 of these composers stepped outside of the box, so to speak, of the current state of music, which has always been more conservative than visual arts, and seemed to lag behind until innovators like these Frenchmen stepped in and 'freaked us all out.'


----------



## tdc

When I think of spiritual music Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_ certainly is one of the first works that comes to mind, the opening movement has kind of a drone effect I think.


----------



## isorhythm

This thread of course made me think of this....


----------



## regenmusic

millionrainbows said:


> I think Satie was the most 'radical' in that he understood and used ideas of 'absurdity' and was more artistically oriented with painters and visual artists, thus the intense interest John Cage had in him. Same deal, basically.
> 
> Debussy and Ravel were obviously also aware of some of the poetic and artistic currents of their time. I think all 3 of these composers stepped outside of the box, so to speak, of the current state of music, which has always been more conservative than visual arts, and seemed to lag behind until innovators like these Frenchmen stepped in and 'freaked us all out.'


Debussy and Satie did have somewhat of a religious focus in their life, which of course is not politically correct to talk about, unless we call them Masons, Rosicrucians, or mystics. Satie wrote a Mass, and Debussy wrote Le Martyre de Saint Sébastien.

Revisionism in these days seeks to claim these people more as almost atheists, wheresa maybe 50 years ago Catholics were claiming too much of them. Just because someone goes to a few Rosicrucians meetings doesn't make them a Rosicrucian. I don't think we will ever know exactly what these kinds of borderline figures really thought. It wasn't "fashionable" for many to be Christian in Europe in the last 120 years.


----------



## millionrainbows

The more I think about it, and see the various reactions to this thread, the more I become convinced that the obstacle for many here is that I'm really not talking about 'religious' or 'spiritual' music per se, but rather what common and universal elements of human psychology and physiology are triggered by certain kinds of sounds, namely drones and repetitions, and how these sounds can affect us and lead us closer to being 'in tune' and resonating sympathetically with certain kinds of sounds and music.

That's me; I've usually got things backwards, and tend to work from the inside-out. Apologies to those critics who find this irritating.


----------



## regenmusic

millionrainbows said:


> The more I think about it, and see the various reactions to this thread, the more I become convinced that the obstacle for many here is that I'm really not talking about 'religious' or 'spiritual' music per se, but rather what common and universal elements of human psychology and physiology are triggered by certain kinds of sounds, namely drones and repetitions, and how these sounds can affect us and lead us closer to being 'in tune' and resonating sympathetically with certain kinds of sounds and music.
> 
> That's me; I've usually got things backwards, and tend to work from the inside-out. Apologies to those critics who find this irritating.


Then it sounds like you are talking more about a secular psychological phenomena. Spirituality or "spiritual" can be interpreted in many ways by different people, but if it has none of the aspects of any world religion, I think it's more in the domain of science and psychology.


----------



## hpowders

Ingélou said:


> *Any *piece of music has the possibility of being regarded as 'spiritual' by some people. So the term is too large and too undefined. I don't think one can tie spirituality to any particular style either. Drones - single notes etc - could belong to secular music and I for one don't automatically associate them with spirituality.
> 
> So I think I'd go by the music's intended *use*. If it's for use in a religious or spiritual ritual, then it's specifically religious or spiritual music. The latter term is broader in most people's minds - but the term _*religious*_ is also quite broad. Many people narrow it to mean Christianity or another Big World Religion, but it could apply, say, to animism or Wicca if music was specifically written for those sets of believers. There's also the term *faith*.
> 
> The forum that we're posting on has to have a name, and I think *Religious Music* is as useful as any of the alternatives. It's less woolly than spiritual, but doesn't preclude music written for Buddhist or Hindu Worship. Just because most of the music that's actually under discussion happens to come from a Christian context, for historical reasons, it doesn't make the term offensive or prohibitive.
> 
> I can't say that I find it much of a problem.


Absolutely. Some of Bach's secular music for me is among the most spiritual music ever composed: All the Keyboard Partita slow movements and especially most of the fugues in the Well Tempered Clavier.

Bach was never far removed from worshipping God in his composing, whether the music was declared as religious or not. Probably why I consider him the greatest of all composers-his humility, wonder and ecstacy for the Lord. It's all in the notes!


----------



## dieter

hpowders said:


> Absolutely. Some of Bach's secular music for me is among the most spiritual music ever composed: All the Keyboard Partita slow movements and especially most of the fugues in the Well Tempered Clavier.
> 
> Bach was never far removed from worshipping God in his composing, whether the music was declared as religious or not. Probably why I consider him the greatest of all composers-his humility, wonder and ecstacy for the Lord. It's all in the notes!


The same with Anton Bruckner.


----------



## hpowders

dieter said:


> The same with Anton Bruckner.


I'll grant you that. Bruckner was supposed to be a very humble man, quite the opposite of Richard Wagner.


----------



## millionrainbows

regenmusic said:


> Then it sounds like you are talking more about a secular psychological phenomena. Spirituality or "spiritual" can be interpreted in many ways by different people, but if it has none of the aspects of any world religion, I think it's more in the domain of science and psychology.


That can be questioned, since in my view, "psychological phenomena" can be linked to spirituality, or a sacred sense of being, before it has to be connected to any religion, which in my view comes after the fact.

In fact, it sounds like you are saying that aspects of religion, such as scripture, belief, and faith, work by themselves apart from any connection to our psychology as humans. How could that be?

We can measure brain waves now. That was not possible in St. Augustine's day. Meditators are known to change their brainwaves when the go into deep states called Alpha.

Terry Riley's "Persian Surgery Dervishes" produces a similar effect on me. The frequencies of the music seem to lull me into a trance state.

If you ask me. this is "real" religious music, whose effect is audible, structural, and "in the music itself." Whereas other religious music seems to rely more on text, the setting, the belief and faith of the listener,etc, which are not universal or transferrable to all people. Perhaps users of the religious music forum feel more comfortable with that more restricted, less universal interpretation, so that *my* 'spiritual music' becomes 'mumbo-jumbo' compared to *real* religious music like theirs.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> Absolutely. Some of Bach's secular music for me is among the most spiritual music ever composed: All the Keyboard Partita slow movements and especially most of the fugues in the Well Tempered Clavier.
> 
> Bach was never far removed from worshipping God in his composing, whether the music was declared as religious or not. Probably why I consider him the greatest of all composers-his humility, wonder and ecstacy for the Lord. It's all in the notes!


As they say in bluegrass, when you listen to an old man playing a fiddle tune, you are listening to the man as well as the music.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows:* The more I think about it, and see the various reactions to this thread, the more I become convinced that the obstacle for many here is that I'm really not talking about 'religious' or 'spiritual' music per se, but rather what common and universal elements of human psychology and physiology are triggered by certain kinds of sounds, namely drones and repetitions, and how these sounds can affect us and lead us closer to being 'in tune' and resonating sympathetically with certain kinds of sounds and music.

That's me; I've usually got things backwards, and tend to work from the inside-out. Apologies to those critics who find this irritating.



regenmusic said:


> Then it sounds like you are talking more about a secular psychological phenomena. Spirituality or "spiritual" can be interpreted in many ways by different people, but if it has none of the aspects of any world religion, I think it's more in the domain of science and psychology.


This is a strange statement, and exactly what I'm talking about when I say "I'm Backwards" or inside-out. It sounds as though you are postulating a "religion without people." In order to preserve the "objective" meaning of religion, you are prepared to exclude all of the human elements which you say make it secular, psychological, and ultimately "not religious."

What, then is the meaning of 'religious' music which does not include the human elements of "resonance" and empathy? It seems that it would be on the verge of being emblematic or simply an agreed-upon term, with no real connection to human psychology or the fact that "God gave us brains."


----------



## Woodduck

hpowders said:


> I'll grant you that. Bruckner was supposed to be a very humble man, quite the opposite of Richard Wagner.


And yet Wagner, reputed to be the opposite of humble, composed _Parsifal_, which many consider a work of profoundly "spiritual" power (I suspect Bruckner did). There isn't a hint of a drone in it.


----------



## clockworkmurderer

Just figured I'd post and say that I know exactly what the OP is talking about when referring to a "drone." Why else does continuo bring out the lead instrument so well? I hereby present this piece for consideration of evidence for a "drone."






Listen to the simple melody laid out by the harpsichord. Listen to how it remains in the background, sometimes notes simply lingering, so that the violin does not stand alone. This drone engages the heart while the violin engages the ears and the brain. Feelings of transcendent joy and exaltation positively bleed from every stroke of the bow.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> When we say 'religious' music, it may fit that description for a number of reasons which do not concern the music itself, or the actual structure of the sounds; it may be 'religious' because it was used in church rituals, or based on sacred text, or about a religious subject, but none of these has to do with the actual structure of the music itself.
> 
> I am saying that the term 'religious' in 'religious music' (which is a misleading term in my opinion) is a quality which I define in general terms as 'spiritual' in nature. The music can produce, under the right conditions, a spiritual awareness or feeling, or effect, which may or may not be associated with a particular religion, or idea of religion.
> 
> You must first accept the given that "religious" is a misnomer in the sense that 'spiritual' music need not necessarily be connected to an established religion or institution. If we can accept that broadening and generalization of the term 'religious' music, then we can move ahead to the meat of the discussion.
> 
> I contend that music which is harmonically static, such as a drone, or one note and its partials, is inherently 'spiritual' because of its universal propensity to affect us as humans. This 'spirituality' is the note, or drone itself, so it is a structurally inseparable quality of the sound.
> 
> As a result, all things or sound events which follow are secondary, and inessential, as they are derived from this one sound. This sound, it could be said, is "God." This is a possible interpretation of the words "In the beginning was the word, and the word was God."
> 
> In other words, the unchanging note, or drone, is the center of being, which is sacred and holy. This center of being is impervious to the passage of time; it is stillness, it is being, it is no-mind. This is OM.
> 
> All change which follows, which is defined by change in time, is illusion. Being does not travel; things around it come and go, but it remains.
> 
> Thus, the early Gregorian chant was inherently religious music; its drone-like qualities attracted 20th century audiences with the smash hit "Chant," and revealed that people are in search of a stillness and peace which only the uncluttered effects of such harmonically centered drone-like music can bring. All other music which is 'busy' is music of the 'ego,' and while it has its purpose, ultimately it is a distraction, or artifice, or merely a metaphor for the spiritual.
> 
> This is the basis of Indian raga, which is spiritual music designed to enhance one's spiritual awareness. African music is based on the drone of a fundamental tone and its harmonics, a 'drone' which is manipulated with mouth-bows to bring out different harmonic resonances. This led to blues, such as the droney songs of Skip James. The blues is thus a sacred music, and these bluesmen were our avatars of this spirituality, holy men, traveling saints. Bob Dylan, Ry Cooder, and Alan Wilson understood this well. For the blues connection, refer to Canned Heat's "on the Road Again' by the late great Alan Wilson
> 
> 'The drone' is universal. All folk and ethnic musics exhibit elements of it, as it is my contention that all people, no matter how 'primitive,' are inherently spiritual from their beginning. Of course, many are distracted away from the path.
> 
> The drone is the manifestation of being, not just a reference or metaphor for the sacred. The spirit is sound, and the sound is sacred.


Except that I don't find religious music spiritual outside of a religious context...


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> Except that I don't find religious music spiritual outside of a religious context...


That must mean that it has no universal elements which enable us to tap into a sacred space. Additionally, that is a somewhat opaque statement.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> That must mean that it has no universal elements which enable us to tap into a sacred space. Additionally, that is a somewhat opaque statement.


The universal element of music is the process through which the human mind anthropomorphizes natural phenomena that have no inherent affectations in their content. There are no universals beyond that. There is no remotely logical presentation of aesthetics being ontically or metaphysically real.

"Religious" can mean anything. Language is utterly useless when terms are just thrown into a particle accelerator, and interpreted after they've blown up. Your model doesn't add to the explanatory power or scope, of our ability to understand religion and what various people have defined as spiritual experience. It only serves to express your own idiosyncratic ideas about the matter which don't necessarily apply to anyone else.

There is no "sacred space" beyond your own idiosyncratic understanding of metaphysics. I don't find spiritual content in something outside of thought processes that naturally proceed from my own religious worldview. That I have spiritual experiences doesn't compel me to ascribe universal qualities to them that other people must have.

Mysticism has been epistemologically invalid since the Middle Ages, and that isn't going to change any time soon. *Sorry, Augustine, we've moved pretty well past you in that area* Your whole metaphysical and ontological model there has indications of mystic epistemology seeping through it's pores.

- First, sound is ascribed some kind of metaphysical quality, that people can sense under the right conditions. We're already at a point where the mere anecdotal evidence of others can cancel the notion out.

- Second, it is posited that there is a component of the sound experience that underlies all spiritual sound experiences in particular. You call this component "God". Is this component ontically necessary and actual? If not, then there is hardly any meaningful sense in which it can be called "God".

- Third, you dive into the issues of monism vs dualism, and you nonsensically posit that there are non-being things that come and go; non-being is not a being/real-thing at all, by definition, so no inherent qualities, incidental properties, or actions can be ascribed to non-being. See here for an ontological argument that explains necessity, actuality, being vs non-being, a defense of multiplicity, etc. There are basic ontological grounds that make metaphysical models along these lines incoherent, because metaphysics proceeds from ontology and it isn't capable of saying anything sensible without sensible first principles.

Have you, by chance, been influenced in your reading by philosophers like Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysus, and Augustine? Mysticism isn't just old hat now, it was thoroughly refuted during the Enlightenment and Scientific Revolution in the Empiricism vs Rationalism, and ongoing Nominalism vs Realism debates.


----------



## Woodduck

Lukecash12 said:


> The universal element of music is the process through which the human mind anthropomorphizes natural phenomena that have no inherent affectations in their content. There are no universals beyond that. There is no remotely logical presentation of aesthetics being ontically or metaphysically real.
> 
> "Religious" can mean anything.
> 
> There is no "sacred space" beyond your own idiosyncratic understanding of metaphysics. I don't find spiritual content in something outside of thought processes that naturally proceed from my own religious worldview. That I have spiritual experiences doesn't compel me to ascribe universal qualities to them that other people must have.


This comes perilously close to saying that there is no such thing as human nature.

There's a difference between "statistical universals" and absolute universals. Individual humans may diverge from (statistically) universal human nature in almost any respect. That doesn't invalidate a concept of human identity _qua_ human, or rule out the likelihood that aesthetic qualities and principles have (statistical) universal validity as manifestations of human consciousness. Parallel aesthetic phenomena seen in widely divergent cultures tell us at least as much as individual differences in aesthetic response. The tendency to organize music around a central tone (tonally), found in nearly all traditional musics, is a prime case in point.


----------



## clockworkmurderer

A few years ago I never wasted an opportunity to start up an argument over whether there was or was not a god. I was firmly in the camp of "none." Nowadays, while my basic position on the science of the question (namely, that no evidence affirms a god's existence) has not changed, I find myself listening to many pieces of music in a very spiritual way. I would posit that since I don't normally feel or act spiritual outside of listening to my favorite pieces, there is some reason for the music to elicit a "spiritual response." I would also say that it's specifically a rush of chemicals through my body that is responsible for that state, but again, there must be a cause. I felt the same as I stood within the vastness of St. Peter's Basilica. Not because of the Christian God, but because of the sheer massiveness and grandeur of the place. Is it so strange to be moved by the massive grandeur of Bach's Chaconne or Biber's Passacaglia?

Whether others feel the same does not, as such, concern me. However, as it appears that the OP has given the same kinds of thoughts great consideration, it is clear that I'm not some kind of silent minority. Furthermore, as evidenced by the existence of religions worldwide and the continued adherence of millions of believers, believing in something strongly enough can indeed make it so (at least in the eyes of those who take part). If that particular belief is unrelated to war and strife (personal spirituality), then I am 100% a proponent of spiritual music for the sake of personal spirituality.

Finally, I also agree with the OP's thoughts on the concept of religion being a framework for spirituality; an effect of an inherent human desire for meaning in the world beyond the current life. This is mainly just a hunch of mine though, not something I would try to factually debate (anymore).


----------



## Guest

clockworkmurderer said:


> I would posit that since I don't normally feel or act spiritual outside of listening to my favorite pieces, there is some reason for the music to elicit a "spiritual response." I would also say that it's specifically a rush of chemicals through my body that is responsible for that state, but again, there must be a cause.


The cause is the music. Why must there be some other cause?


----------



## clockworkmurderer

Now we're just running in circles. Of course the cause is the music. But the entire point of this discussion has been to talk about the idea of the spirituality of the music. Or do I have this whole thing wrong?


----------



## Guest

clockworkmurderer said:


> Now we're just running in circles. Of course the cause is the music. But the entire point of this discussion has been to talk about the idea of the spirituality of the music. Or do I have this whole thing wrong?


Nah, it's probably me. It's just you seemed to suggest that whilst the music made the chemical rush, there must be something besides the music - some other external agent. I just wanted to assert that, IMO, there is no other external agent - it's just the music and the music alone. It's the music's interaction with your imagination and your emotions that cause the chemical rush.


----------



## clockworkmurderer

Then I don't actually disagree with you MacLeod. I am completely aware that my imagination is the source of any and all "spiritual thoughts." However, that doesn't stop me from enjoying the idea of there being something "more" tying those thoughts up with the music (even if all that means is that humans are similar to each other in primal reactions). Sure it's mumbo jumbo, and I actually think that almost all ritual falls right there with it. 

Now on to something a bit more ambiguous and highly idealistic: if there is such a thing connecting spiritual music with the chemical cocktail that music might fire off in one's brain, wouldn't it be great if violence could be stopped simply with loudspeakers? Obviously that would never happen, but it's the sort of thing I think about when truly moved by a piece.


----------



## Lukecash12

Woodduck said:


> This comes perilously close to saying that there is no such thing as human nature.


Sure, but it doesn't say that. What I was really challenging was this idea of the spiritual experience being reducible to million's model.



> There's a difference between "statistical universals" and absolute universals. Individual humans may diverge from (statistically) universal human nature in almost any respect. That doesn't invalidate a concept of human identity _qua_ human, or rule out the likelihood that aesthetic qualities and principles have (statistical) universal validity as manifestations of human consciousness. Parallel aesthetic phenomena seen in widely divergent cultures tell us at least as much as individual differences in aesthetic response. The tendency to organize music around a central tone (tonally), found in nearly all traditional musics, is a prime case in point.


*Or*, it tells us what is ubiquitous to most cultures. Here's the rub, though: even if every last one of us had a similar perspective to million on the subject, it wouldn't magically give inherent aesthetic content to something that is *not aesthetic by nature*. Particulars and universals of human nature may be telling, but they don't logically transport us in an instant to a place where we can ascribe metaphysical significance.

We can no more logically make a leap from anthropomorphism to an anthropomorphic universe, than we can coherently ascribe qualities to non-being. There has to be more involved than sagely, but propositionally meaningless, verbalization for us to arrive at any meaningful conclusions about reality.


----------



## DavidA

As one who doesn't believe we are merely chemicals put together by unguided forces by a lucky chance, I believe man is a being with an inbuilt capacity for spiritual experience. Certain music triggers that capacity whether people are actually believers or not.


----------



## Woodduck

Lukecash12 said:


> Sure, but it doesn't say that. What I was really challenging was this idea of the spiritual experience being reducible to million's model.
> 
> *Or*, it tells us what is ubiquitous to most cultures. Here's the rub, though: even if every last one of us had a similar perspective to million on the subject, it wouldn't magically give inherent aesthetic content to something that is *not aesthetic by nature*. Particulars and universals of human nature may be telling, but they don't logically transport us in an instant to a place where we can ascribe metaphysical significance.
> 
> We can no more logically make a leap from anthropomorphism to an anthropomorphic universe, than we can coherently ascribe qualities to non-being. There has to be more involved than sagely, but propositionally meaningless, verbalization for us to arrive at any meaningful conclusions about reality.


This is awfully abstract. What is this thing that is not aesthetic by nature? And what do you mean "metaphysical" significance?

I guess I'd have to ask _why_ something is ubiquitous to most cultures. I would at least, in the case of art, suspect something more than accident. If there are no patterns across cultures that show an association of certain musical forms with certain types of affect and behavior, then we can regard the whole idea of aesthetic universals with skepticism. Otherwise, we can't.

Or am I still missing the point?


----------



## regenmusic

Posting in the middle of the night, wrong thread, lol


----------



## Lukecash12

Woodduck said:


> This is awfully abstract.


Sorry. I understand that not everyone is intimately familiar with that kind of terminology, and I do remember your background. I tend to assume more familiarity on your part because of your natural facility and intuition with various subjects, and the pleasure I've had in reading your short theses here in the past.



> What is this thing that is not aesthetic by nature?


Anything in nature. When we anthropomorphize anything that doesn't instantly indicate that the thing in question genuinely has anthropomorphic qualities.



> And what do you mean "metaphysical" significance?


For clarity:

Metaphysics is philosophy's general inquiry into reality itself. Ontology and science are subcategories of metaphysics, although the epistemological ladder of the endeavor instead looks like this: ontology (the study of first principles about "being/_quidditas_/essence/what-it-means-to-exist" using logic), metaphysics, and then science. Ontology deals with the most fundamental questions and answers, the rest of metaphysics rests on what is established in ontology to address other subjects, and science, as a particular area of metaphysics, uses ideas derived from metaphysics to answer it's own questions within it's parent category.

Some examples to delineate the relationships:

Ontology asks questions like
-What is being?
-What is necessity and contingency?
-What is actuality and potentiality?

Metaphysics asks questions like
-What is time?
-Is reality deterministic?
-Is there a plurality or a unity?
-Are there particulars, universals, or both?
-Are there abstracts, concretes, or both?
-Is reality material or immaterial, or both, and what material and/or immaterial beings/things are there?

Science asks questions like
-What is time?
-What are the laws that govern the behavior of being/things within the universe?
-Is reality deterministic? *Yes, this is indeed a significant question being written about in science, and it demonstrates the import of scientific findings on other questions in general within metaphysics*

*I am using science in the typical colloquial sense here, but it is important to note that "_scientia_/science" is a term used by various other fields to denote any disciplined inquiry intended to arrive at knowledge. This is the classical definition that is still frequently used in most other fields. The term "science" in it's typical sense today is a reference to Logical Empiricism. Logical Empiricism is a synthesis of Rationalism and Empiricism, that came out of the Scientific Revolution. Because that historical process has been called the Scientific Revolution, and because Bacon, Leibniz, and Newton's theories were together used to compose what we now call the Scientific Method, it is unfortunately taken for granted today that all of what can be called "science" fits under that definition.*

So, what do I mean by "metaphysical" significance? I mean that making observations about human nature doesn't logically put us in a place where we can then make statements about the rest of reality. The rest of reality may be analogically similar to us, but it possesses different properties and qualities than us; that is, unless you're a Monist and would like to argue for Monism, lol, it would be entertaining to have a debate with a modern day Parmenides.



> I guess I'd have to ask _why_ something is ubiquitous to most cultures.


That's a fair enough question. But we have to remember _post hoc ergo propter hoc_, i.e. correlation does not equal causation.



> I would at least, in the case of art, suspect something more than accident. If there are no patterns across cultures that show an association of certain musical forms with certain types of affect and behavior, then we can regard the whole idea of aesthetic universals with skepticism. Otherwise, we can't.


I regard the whole idea of aesthetic universals with skepticism, at least in what I am assuming is your sense of the word "skepticism". As someone who writes in history and philosophy, I am at first skeptical of everything as a matter of methodology/epistemology.

Even if the pattern was universal, I wouldn't ascribe *inherent* spiritual qualities to certain elements of music. I would instead consider those spiritual tendencies in response to music to be inherent to culture itself.

My particular position on aesthetics is that it is merely a reflection of our own psyche, so it isn't a subcategory of metaphysics as has been suggested by other philosophers.


----------



## Jordan Workman

https://sites.google.com/site/obeya...ideos-and-more/music-its-influence-on-culture


----------



## clockworkmurderer

Jordan Workman said:


> https://sites.google.com/site/obeya...ideos-and-more/music-its-influence-on-culture


I hate to even post something as annoying as what I'm about to say, but I have to say it because I'm genuinely interested in what you're saying here: the yellow text on a black background is impossible to read. I'm copy-pasting your words into a word document because I want to read it, but at the same time I feel compelled to say that you might have better readership if you used normal coloration


----------



## clockworkmurderer

Now I'm wondering if I fell for spam. Wtf did I just read?


----------



## Woodduck

Lukecash12 said:


> Sorry. I understand that not everyone is intimately familiar with that kind of terminology, and I do remember your background. I tend to assume more familiarity on your part because of your natural facility and intuition with various subjects, and the pleasure I've had in reading your short theses here in the past.
> 
> Anything in nature. When we anthropomorphize anything that doesn't instantly indicate that the thing in question genuinely has anthropomorphic qualities.
> 
> For clarity:
> 
> Metaphysics is philosophy's general inquiry into reality itself. Ontology and science are subcategories of metaphysics, although the epistemological ladder of the endeavor instead looks like this: ontology (the study of first principles about "being/_quidditas_/essence/what-it-means-to-exist" using logic), metaphysics, and then science. Ontology deals with the most fundamental questions and answers, the rest of metaphysics rests on what is established in ontology to address other subjects, and science, as a particular area of metaphysics, uses ideas derived from metaphysics to answer it's own questions within it's parent category.
> 
> Some examples to delineate the relationships:
> 
> Ontology asks questions like
> -What is being?
> -What is necessity and contingency?
> -What is actuality and potentiality?
> 
> Metaphysics asks questions like
> -What is time?
> -Is reality deterministic?
> -Is there a plurality or a unity?
> -Are there particulars, universals, or both?
> -Are there abstracts, concretes, or both?
> -Is reality material or immaterial, or both, and what material and/or immaterial beings/things are there?
> 
> Science asks questions like
> -What is time?
> -What are the laws that govern the behavior of being/things within the universe?
> -Is reality deterministic? *Yes, this is indeed a significant question being written about in science, and it demonstrates the import of scientific findings on other questions in general within metaphysics*
> 
> *I am using science in the typical colloquial sense here, but it is important to note that "_scientia_/science" is a term used by various other fields to denote any disciplined inquiry intended to arrive at knowledge. This is the classical definition that is still frequently used in most other fields. The term "science" in it's typical sense today is a reference to Logical Empiricism. Logical Empiricism is a synthesis of Rationalism and Empiricism, that came out of the Scientific Revolution. Because that historical process has been called the Scientific Revolution, and because Bacon, Leibniz, and Newton's theories were together used to compose what we now call the Scientific Method, it is unfortunately taken for granted today that all of what can be called "science" fits under that definition.*
> 
> So, what do I mean by "metaphysical" significance? I mean that making observations about human nature doesn't logically put us in a place where we can then make statements about the rest of reality. The rest of reality may be analogically similar to us, but it possesses different properties and qualities than us; that is, unless you're a Monist and would like to argue for Monism, lol, it would be entertaining to have a debate with a modern day Parmenides.
> 
> That's a fair enough question. But we have to remember _post hoc ergo propter hoc_, i.e. correlation does not equal causation.
> 
> I regard the whole idea of aesthetic universals with skepticism, at least in what I am assuming is your sense of the word "skepticism". As someone who writes in history and philosophy, I am at first skeptical of everything as a matter of methodology/epistemology.
> 
> Even if the pattern was universal, I wouldn't ascribe *inherent* spiritual qualities to certain elements of music. I would instead consider those spiritual tendencies in response to music to be inherent to culture itself.
> 
> My particular position on aesthetics is that it is merely a reflection of our own psyche, so it isn't a subcategory of metaphysics as has been suggested by other philosophers.


I think you're arguing with a position that no one has advanced. I don't see that anyone has claimed that sounds can have "spiritual qualities" apart from our consciousness of them. I suspect most of us know that meaning doesn't exist without someone for whom things mean. Or am I giving people too much credit?


----------



## Lukecash12

Woodduck said:


> I think you're arguing with a position that no one has advanced. I don't see that anyone has claimed that sounds can have "spiritual qualities" apart from our consciousness of them. I suspect most of us know that meaning doesn't exist without someone for whom things mean. Or am I giving people too much credit?


Many people think that various beings/things in the cosmos have aesthetic qualities. I would forward that those beings are merely compelling aesthetic *thinking*.


----------



## millionrainbows

Remember that music is a two-way street, as all art is; it is merely a vehicle for meaning, but it is created with the awareness that there are commonalities in human experience. In this sense, art & music are metaphorical "maps of experience" that are meaningful, and charged with meaning, because they convey common, universal experiences derived from being human. This can be literalized and simplified in many ways: tall, rectangular canvases convey a sense of anthropomorphic presence, long, wide rectangular canvases convey a sense of landscape or repose, "subject and background", low, bassy sounds convey something big, high, delicate sounds convey something smaller. These are generalizations.
All I am saying is that certain human experiences, such as a sustained drone, are physiologically related to human experience, and for some reason, a drone conveys a sense of repose. This is often interpreted as being relaxing or as "zoning in" to a sacred or spiritual, meditative state in which the conscious thinking linear mind has nothing to grasp on to in the way of events happening, and so goes into a quiescent mode we might call 'spiritual' or meditative. This all seems perfectly logical to me.
Your critique of my position makes it sound as if I am "putting spirits" into inanimate objects. Rather, I am seeking catalysts for spiritual states in sound, and trying to identify some of the most obvious manifestations of this. "The drone" is certainly one of these, as it is found in all sorts of ethnic and folk musics, and for me underpins even more "complex" music. It could be said that the tonal system itself manifests this principle, as does all tonally-centered music, because we are all human, we all have ears, and this drone seems to affect many people in the same way, making us tune in to the sacred space of our being.


----------



## millionrainbows

If you really want to get weird, I suggest you seek out an obscure book called "The Archetype Experience," in which the author explores some obscure aspects of Carl Jung's "archetype" ideas. In letters, privately, Jung supposedly revealed that he thought that archetypes could be "externalized" and become physically real entities. In this way, archetypes could be "evoked into reality" much in the same way that Charles Manson did, where the archetype becomes real enough to take over people's minds and spur them to heinous acts, as we saw. This is similar to the deities that are evoked by the Tibetan Buddhists, who carefully guard such techniques from the uninitiated because of the inherent dangers of them "taking over" the minds of the evokers. Scary stuff!


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> If you really want to get weird, I suggest you seek out an obscure book called "The Archetype Experience," in which the author explores some obscure aspects of Carl Jung's "archetype" ideas. In letters, privately, Jung supposedly revealed that he thought that archetypes could be "externalized" and become physically real entities. In this way, archetypes could be "evoked into reality" much in the same way that Charles Manson did, where the archetype becomes real enough to take over people's minds and spur them to heinous acts, as we saw. This is similar to the deities that are evoked by the Tibetan Buddhists, who carefully guard such techniques from the uninitiated because of the inherent dangers of them "taking over" the minds of the evokers. Scary stuff!


Not sure what you're trying to say here... Do you mean that we can get the heebie jeebies and magic stuff into existence?


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> All I am saying is that certain human experiences, such as a sustained drone, are physiologically related to human experience, and for some reason, a drone conveys a sense of repose. This is often interpreted as being relaxing or as "zoning in" to a sacred or spiritual, meditative state in which the conscious thinking linear mind has nothing to grasp on to in the way of events happening, and so goes into a quiescent mode we might call 'spiritual' or meditative. This all seems perfectly logical to me.
> Your critique of my position makes it sound as if I am "putting spirits" into inanimate objects. Rather, I am seeking catalysts for spiritual states in sound, and trying to identify some of the most obvious manifestations of this. "The drone" is certainly one of these, as it is found in all sorts of ethnic and folk musics, and for me underpins even more "complex" music. It could be said that the tonal system itself manifests this principle, as does all tonally-centered music, because we are all human, we all have ears, and this drone seems to affect many people in the same way, making us tune in to the sacred space of our being.


Beyond the argument of music being tonal, I don't see how this holds water when so much music without a drone element is considered spiritual. Spiritual experiences are the result of a process that is both intellectual and emotional, and it is through enculturation that we associate that mental state with this or that exhibit of art. The universal element of it is that culture is involved, not that every culture is going to recognize spirituality in the same element of music.

What's more, in the OP you posited concepts way more loaded than that. The implication appeared to be that "God-thought" is reducible to such cultural affects, that drone progressions can appropriately be called "God".

I find this spiritually ecstatic:






No drone progression. In any case, what compels me to have a spiritual experience in the music is, first and foremost, the relationship between the methods of musical expression and the substantive content of the lyrics. In my mind's eye I can see this incomparable pulchritude, and it evokes an indescribably profound and pleasant experience:


----------



## clockworkmurderer

Maybe I'm compartmentalizing the different perspectives and only choosing what suits my opinion best, but it sorta seems like most of the responses to this thread are all willing to accept one basic premise: music can evoke powerful spiritual reactions. Whether it's necessary to say that the music is or is not "God" doesn't really matter to me. At any rate, this has been very interesting reading, and has many parallels to my own thoughts on spirituality. It's not my thread but I still appreciate every response. Great stuff!


----------



## Ilarion

A great thread this is - Indeed it is so.

The OP shares something very interesting. I noticed a focus was made on "the drone". If I may, the drone is a wee bit problematical and has "categorical" implications ergo, pidgeonholes the human musical experience. Yes, from Buddhist Cultures and from early Church Music we find the drone, but the development of non-Buddhist musical culture led civilizations down a whole different path imo, with all the composers we know of today. Of course, there are Buddhist composers and other composers from other cultures. 

With some careful research, the OP could probably write a cogent dissertation on the theme which the OP brought up.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> Not sure what you're trying to say here... Do you mean that we can get the heebie jeebies and magic stuff into existence?


That is what Jung supposedly thought, in letters, as he was hesitant to put forward this idea in public. And when you think about it, what's the real difference in physical manifestation of such entities vs. "channeling" them, if the results are the same?


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> Beyond the argument of music being tonal, I don't see how this holds water when so much music without a drone element is considered spiritual.


You're exaggerating my position into an 'all or nothing' argument. I only said that "drone" is only one of perhaps many spiritual triggers, which may be related to universal physiological phenomena which are 'pre-culture.'



> Spiritual experiences are the result of a process that is both intellectual and emotional, and it is through enculturation that we associate that mental state with this or that exhibit of art.


I think that definition is rather limiting.



> The universal element of it is that culture is involved, not that every culture is going to recognize spirituality in the same element of music.


I think the universal element is Man's inherent spirituality, which I do not associate with culture exclusively, but inclusively.



> ]What's more, in the OP you posited concepts way more loaded than that. The implication appeared to be that "God-thought" is reducible to such cultural affects, that drone progressions can appropriately be called "God".


I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.



> No drone progression. In any case, what compels me to have a spiritual experience in the music is, first and foremost, the relationship between the methods of musical expression and the substantive content of the lyrics...


...then if I can't speak English, it's not spiritual? I'm looking for universals, not culture-specific examples; in fact, that's the point of this entire thread.


----------



## Lukecash12

millionrainbows said:


> You're exaggerating my position into an 'all or nothing' argument. I only said that "drone" is only one of perhaps many spiritual triggers, which may be related to universal physiological phenomena which are 'pre-culture.'


If note drone progressions, then what is a universal physiological phenomena?



> I think that definition is rather limiting.


All definitions are limiting to a certain extent. Otherwise we're left with something amorphous, without any real content to grab onto. What is it that makes your understanding of "spiritual" at all meaningful?



> I think the universal element is Man's inherent spirituality, which I do not associate with culture exclusively, but inclusively.


What all is it associated with, then? What even is it?



> I think that's a bit of an exaggeration.


Was merely giving you the opportunity to clarify your own strongly worded expressions.



> ...then if I can't speak English, it's not spiritual? I'm looking for universals, not culture-specific examples; in fact, that's the point of this entire thread.


- We both hopefully can realize that your question here is either a red herring, or a confusion of what I meant with that Haydn reference. It was spiritual *for me*, and for reasons other than those you've provided. The implications of the text and the way it was rendered musically has everything to do with my spiritual experience listening to it.

- Except you haven't yet posited a universal, or even satisfactorily substantiated the idea that there must be something universal to spirituality in the first place. The assumption that there somehow *has* to be something universal is ad hoc.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> - We both hopefully can realize that your question here is either a red herring, or a confusion of what I meant with that Haydn reference. It was spiritual *for me*, and for reasons other than those you've provided. The implications of the text and the way it was rendered musically has everything to do with my spiritual experience listening to it.


That's fine, Lukecash. I don't think anything I have posited here is a threat to your paradigm.



> - Except you haven't yet posited a universal, or even satisfactorily substantiated the idea that there must be something universal to spirituality in the first place. The assumption that there somehow *has* to be something universal is ad hoc.


It's not my job to prove this idea. But being human is a universal thing which has more commonalities than differences, so it's not at all a stretch to posit that there are universal triggers in music and art which evoke spiritual effects in humans. Carl Jung's concept of archetypes, and of the collective unconscious, is not only an idea, but is based on physiological structures of the brain and mind which have evolved due to common shared experiences, and the fact that we are all human, with similar brain structures.


----------



## millionrainbows

Lukecash12 said:


> ...you haven't yet posited a universal, or even satisfactorily substantiated the idea that there must be something universal to spirituality in the first place. The assumption that there somehow *has* to be something universal is ad hoc.


We are talking about spiritual qualities of music, and my pre-religious assumption is that "the spirit" is not an idea but a state of being. I suspect that your disagreement is based upon some sort of "atheistic" idea or another, which is a convenient invisible shield in such religious or spiritual discussions, and only clouds the issue. I'm also beginning to see the ubiquitous, but concealed, nature of this attitude.


----------



## Klassic

Pity I am only seeing this thread now.


----------



## Klassic

millionrainbows said:


> I am saying that the term 'religious' in 'religious music' (which is a misleading term in my opinion) is a quality which I define in general terms as 'spiritual' in nature. The music can produce, under the right conditions, a spiritual awareness or feeling, or effect, which may or may not be associated with a particular religion, or idea of religion.


You poor soul. I never knew you discovered a spirit? How do you prove this?

I think you meant to say, "under the right conditions music can produce emotional awareness." Spirit has nothing to do with it.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Klassic said:


> You poor soul. I never knew you discovered a spirit? How do you prove this?
> 
> I think you meant to say, "under the right conditions music can produce emotional awareness." *Spirit has nothing to do with it.*


I dunno, I find this spirit often helps


----------



## millionrainbows

Klassic said:


> You poor soul. I never knew you discovered a spirit? How do you prove this?
> 
> I think you meant to say, "under the right conditions music can produce emotional awareness." Spirit has nothing to do with it.


Spirit is simply being. I didn't put it there by thinking about it. Ask any good tennis player.

Also, being is metaphysical, since we cannot prove another's being, but can only "be" our own being. R.D. Laing called this "Man's invisibility to Man."

If I cut open my brain and you saw no spirit there, I suppose that would be your "proof" that there is no spirit.

As I said, this is the full-fledged manifestation of the agenda I mentioned earlier. Typical.

Hey, why don't you prove your point, Klassic? You trying to make me do all the work?


----------



## Klassic

millionrainbows said:


> Spirit is simply being. I didn't put it there by thinking about it. Ask any good tennis player.
> 
> Also, being is metaphysical, since we cannot prove another's being, but can only "be" our own being. R.D. Laing called this "Man's invisibility to Man."
> 
> If I cut open my brain and you saw no spirit there, I suppose that would be your "proof" that there is no spirit.
> 
> As I said, this is the full-fledged manifestation of the agenda I mentioned earlier. Typical.
> 
> Hey, why don't you prove your point, Klassic? You trying to make me do all the work?


Finally, millions my friend, we get our chance (if the moderators don't shut us down).

This is not going to be a difficult conversation from my end.

The only agenda I have _is not to make up false entities_. You agree we have a brain, this is not controversial. Your entire position hinges on your idea of "spirit."

Now this "being" you speak of, is it material or immaterial? Can it be quantified or measured? I simply need to know how you know it exists?


----------



## Strange Magic

At last. A discussion between Klassic and millionrainbows. I await enlightenment.


----------



## Klassic

Strange Magic said:


> At last. A discussion between Klassic and millionrainbows. I await enlightenment.


Be patient my friend, we are only here to help.


----------



## Guest

Yes he is not enlightened yet.


----------



## amfortas

millionrainbows said:


> We are talking about spiritual qualities of music, and my pre-religious assumption is that "the spirit" is not an idea but a state of being.


Perhaps, then, it doesn't lend itself to discussion in a forum.


----------



## Guest

Exchanging views is still possible.


----------



## millionrainbows

Klassic said:


> Finally, millions my friend, we get our chance (if the moderators don't shut us down).
> 
> This is not going to be a difficult conversation from my end.
> 
> The only agenda I have _is not to make up false entities_. You agree we have a brain, this is not controversial. *Your entire position hinges on your idea of "spirit." *


*
*
It is not an idea. It is our innate being.



> Now this "being" you speak of, is it material or immaterial?


Being depends on the physical to manifest, but this manifestation cannot be measured or experienced except by the person whose being it is, which will always be totally subjective. You can make inferences about it, as in behavior, but you cannot experience another person's experience.



> Can it be quantified or measured? I simply need to know how you know it exists?


It can only be experienced by experiencing it as being.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> At last. A discussion between Klassic and millionrainbows. I await enlightenment.


Feel free to chip in, unless you're an atheist; then that is an immutable position which is inherently incomplete, just as religion is. We need to transcend mere dogma of either variety.


----------



## millionrainbows

amfortas said:


> Perhaps, then, it doesn't lend itself to discussion in a forum.


Not if we are surrounded by religious people and atheists, neither of which can ask any basic questions concerning their pre-dogmatic condition, if they even are aware of such a condition.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> At last. A discussion between Klassic and millionrainbows. I await enlightenment.


You're already enlightened, you just don't know it.


----------



## Guest

What I read is that you must not have preconceptions and in order to look one must be free from a clouding past.We can only clean our windows throuh selfknowledge.
Is it possible to be unconditional free.I think that is the origin of religion.Not all the dogmas .


----------



## DeepR

Other music imposes itself, forcing you to follow it under its own rules, while ambient and drone music merely provides an aural framework, a foundation, that supports the mind in free exploration and imagination. No other music provides the same degree of freedom... and it's this freedom that can lead to experiencing a different, but wonderful kind of beauty and mystery that can't be found in "regular" music. It's 10% music, 90% do it yourself. I suppose one could call these effects "spiritual", if you are receptive to it. I can't live without it.


----------



## millionrainbows

DeepR said:


> Other music imposes itself, forcing you to follow it under its own rules, while ambient and drone music merely provides an aural framework, a foundation, that supports the mind in free exploration and imagination. No other music provides the same degree of freedom... and it's this freedom that can lead to experiencing a different, but wonderful kind of beauty and mystery that can't be found in "regular" music. It's 10% music, 90% do it yourself. I suppose one could call these effects "spiritual", if you are receptive to it. I can't live without it.


Yeah, you have obviously got it. It does wonders for that left side of my brain.


----------



## millionrainbows

You know, it just occurred to me that there are so many people all over the world who obviously agree with my whole premise, judging by recordings, record labels, lifestyle changes, etc, that it is almost RIDICULOUS to disagree with it. Just groove on it, baby! We are here, and we are winning! Objectivists and literalists fall by the wayside, all around us. Another strawberry?


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> You know, it just occurred to me that there are so many people all over the world who obviously agree with my whole premise, judging by recordings, record labels, lifestyle changes, etc, that it is almost RIDICULOUS to disagree with it. Just groove on it, baby! We are here, and we are winning! Objectivists and literalists fall by the wayside, all around us. Another strawberry?


You've been saying lately that you've completely figured out a bunch of stuff that people have been thinking and talking and writing about for thousands of years - ask yourself whether this is likely.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> You've been saying lately that you've completely figured out a bunch of stuff that people have been thinking and talking and writing about for thousands of years - ask yourself whether this is likely.


Sure, it's likely, and like you said, grounded in history. It's about time that people of the West drop all that scientific literalism and objectivity, and re-connected with their being. It's great! And it's not dogmatic, or anti-dogmatic.


----------



## mmsbls

The non-musical discussion of religion, spirituality, or God needs to stop. If these threads continue to always lead to such contentious debates, we may have to discontinue this area of the forum.


----------



## isorhythm

To bring it back to music...million, I think you're making unsupportable generalizations of people's experience of music.

I agree that for many people music has what could be called a spiritual or mystical dimension. What I disagree with is the idea that music works the same way on everyone. There are lots of people who find the kind of spirituality you're talking about in Beethoven, or free jazz, music that doesn't really resemble the stuff you're talking about. So I think trying to identify certain qualities in music that are inherently religious or spiritual is a dead end.


----------



## millionrainbows

isorhythm said:


> To bring it back to music...million, I think you're making unsupportable generalizations of people's experience of music.
> 
> I agree that for many people music has what could be called a spiritual or mystical dimension. What I disagree with is the idea that music works the same way on everyone. There are lots of people who find the kind of spirituality you're talking about in Beethoven, or free jazz, music that doesn't really resemble the stuff you're talking about. So I think trying to identify certain qualities in music that are inherently religious or spiritual is a dead end.


Music is both "objective" and "subjective," so in this sense, whatever qualities are found in the music which produce similar effects in large numbers of people can be said to be, for all intents and purposes, "objective qualities.

You seem to want to emphasize the differences in people, rather than similarities. In this sense, this is an isolationist stance, typical of an independent "free spirit."


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

isorhythm said:


> So I think trying to identify certain qualities in music that are inherently religious or spiritual is a dead end.


When I first became acquainted with Bach's Christmas Oratorio, I was sure I was having some kind of spiritual experience on listening to the opening chorus, _Jauchzet, frohlocket!_... what with it heralding the birth of Christ in a hugely uplifting manner. I was rather surprised to discover, years later, that this chorus was a mere[*] recycling of entirely secular music from Bach's cantata BWV214, _Tönet, ihr Pauken_. The latter is thrilling music but, even though I know they're the same piece of music, I still find _Jauchzet, frohlocket_ more "religious", somehow. Context accounts for much.

[*] as if Bach could be "mere"!


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> Sure, it's likely, and like you said, grounded in history. It's about time that people of the West drop all that scientific literalism and objectivity, and re-connected with their being. It's great! And it's not dogmatic, or anti-dogmatic.


If you don't like all that "Western scientific objectivity" you can always move to one of those non-literal parts of the world and see how you like the cultures non-objectivity has created.

You might, however, find that the fruits of Western "objectivity" are proving quite appealing to many of them, including the West's "objective" music. Those non-literal folks seem to be "reconnecting" with parts of their being as well. Evidently no one has a monopoly on "being."

The best of all possible worlds would be one in which these dichotomous caricatures of "East" and "West" are recognized for what they are, and we stop assigning people, cultures and music to simplistic categories.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Sorry for butting in on your little chat, but I find both the notion that people of the West cannot "reconnect with their being", whatever that means (I think I know what it means, but I am not sure if it means the same thing for you) AND the notion that non-Western cultures are somehow inferior, implied in the phrase "see how you like..." potently ridiculous and insulting. 

Just my 0,02 euro.


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> Sorry for butting in on your little chat, but I find both the notion that people of the West cannot "reconnect with their being", whatever that means (I think I know what it means, but I am not sure if it means the same thing for you) AND the notion that non-Western cultures are somehow inferior, implied in the phrase "see how you like..." potently ridiculous and insulting.
> 
> Just my 0,02 euro.


It's fine to butt in - that's what we're all doing here, I think - but please don't assume that people intend what they haven't said. The phrase "see how you like..." to which you refer doesn't imply anything specific about any particular culture. It's simply a counterpoise to millionrainbows' continual running down of "Western" culture with its dreaded "scientific objectivity" and its lack of what he calls "spirituality." I have decried this simplistic stereotyping of "Eastern" and "Western" culture, and I'm absolutely certain that thoughtful "Eastern" people would agree and would be as quick to criticize the shortcomings of their own traditions as we are to criticize ours.

Personally, I am most grateful to have been born into the post-Enlightenment West and to have had the extraordinary life opportunities that a profound respect for individual freedom and personal fulfillment makes possible - opportunities that much of the non-Western world is still struggling to realize (and in some cases is fighting viciously to prevent). The idea that, because Western culture is "scientific," it is in some essential way devoid of or inimical to the cultivation of the spirit, does not accord with my experience of life as a Westerner. And as far as music is concerned - let's not forget music here! - that art, at least as much as any art, has power to express such a breadth and depth of meaning that an attempt to divide it up into "spiritual" and "nonspiritual" surely necessitates squeezing both musical styles and human psychological states into rigid and simplistic categories which do no justice to either and render the whole discussion foolish. The genuine differences between cultures, and the music that proceeds from them, deserve to be addressed with subtlety, not in terms of caricatures which insult both cultures and individuals.

But then, what do I know? I'm just one of those unspiritual, literalistic, objectivist, Western atheists who, I've been repeatedly told, has lost touch with my inner being and can appreciate music only as entertainment.


----------



## Barbebleu

Re - post #107. Nicely put. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> You seem to want to emphasize the differences in people, rather than similarities. In this sense, this is an isolationist stance, typical of an independent "free spirit."


In a sense...this makes no sense at all.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Woodduck said:


> Personally, I am most grateful to have been born into the post-Enlightenment West and to have had the extraordinary life opportunities that a profound respect for individual freedom and personal fulfillment makes possible - opportunities that much of the non-Western world is still struggling to realize (and in some cases is fighting viciously to prevent).


Some of the non-Western nations simply have a different definition of freedom and fulfillment, have you ever thought about that? I have lived most of my life up until now in a country that one of your previous administrations has called "the last dictatorship of Europe" - and yet I have never felt unfree or oppressed.



> The idea that, because Western culture is "scientific," it is in some essential way devoid of or inimical to the cultivation of the spirit, does not accord with my experience of life as a Westerner


Of course not. Just the other way, the Western culture provides some of the most spiritual experiences ever possible: music, art, nature - most of them created long before the modern hyper-individualistic definition of freedom took hold.



> I'm just one of those unspiritual, literalistic, objectivist, Western atheists who, I've been repeatedly told, has lost touch with my inner being and can appreciate music only as entertainment.


You are a smart, wise and spiritually sensitive man who is not entirely free of the limitations of his native American culture - but then none of us are. And if anyone can truly appreciate the depths of our Western spirituality - it is a Wagner afficionado :tiphat:


----------



## isorhythm

millionrainbows said:


> Music is both "objective" and "subjective," so in this sense, whatever qualities are found in the music which produce similar effects in large numbers of people can be said to be, for all intents and purposes, "objective qualities.
> 
> You seem to want to emphasize the differences in people, rather than similarities. In this sense, this is an isolationist stance, typical of an independent "free spirit."


I wish you would refrain from making these sweeping inferences about others' character, values, temperament, etc based on things we say about music. You have no basis for them and it's not helpful. I wouldn't call myself an "independent free spirit" and I don't set out to emphasize or de-emphasize anything. I just want to talk casually about music on the internet.

You have definitely hit on something real and interesting in this thread and I wouldn't want to deny it. In the music of the Notre Dame school you find drones and repetition of rhythmic cells. And that stuff largely disappeared from Western music in the late Middle Ages (which saw the real beginning of what became the Renaissance). Around the same time you find a shift in Christian writing from away from mysticism toward rationalism, e.g. Bernard of Clairvaux vs. Thomas Aquinas.

I just think your statements are too broad and, at times, prescriptive.


----------



## millionrainbows

SiegendesLicht said:


> Sorry for butting in on your little chat, but I find both the notion that people of the West cannot "reconnect with their being", whatever that means (I think I know what it means, but I am not sure if it means the same thing for you) AND the notion that non-Western cultures are somehow inferior, implied in the phrase "see how you like..." potently ridiculous and insulting.
> 
> Just my 0,02 euro.


Well, I'm not the only one...


----------



## SiegendesLicht

millionrainbows said:


> Well, I'm not the only one...


The people of San Francisco, the United States of America cannot reconnect with their being - something that can be expected. So?


----------



## millionrainbows

Humana: Humancare! It's a new concept in medicine: treating people like humans! This is just one example. War, politics, the whole sordid arena...


----------



## Woodduck

SiegendesLicht said:


> *The people of San Francisco, the United States of America cannot reconnect with their being - something that can be expected.* So?


How's that again?

As Thoreau, on his deathbed, said to the priest when asked if he'd made his peace with God: "I was not aware that we had quarreled."

Any well-connected San Franciscans like to chime in here?


----------



## Woodduck

One really has to keep an eye on these threads. Amazing, the things people come up with!


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> One really has to keep an eye on these threads. Amazing, the things people come up with!


What is it that you find so amazing? Man's inhumanity to man? That's what I'm saying. War transforms people into something less than human.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread seems to have run its course and is no longer discussing music. It is closed.


----------

