Is Music Neutral?

[pitbull]

IS MUSIC NEUTRAL?

Distributed by Way of Life Literature’s Fundamental Baptist Information Service. Copyright 2001.

These articles cannot be stored on BBS or Internet sites or sold or placed by themselves or with other material in any electronic format for sale, but may be distributed for free by e-mail or by print. They must be left intact and nothing removed or changed, including these informational headers. This is a listing for Fundamental Baptists and other fundamentalist, Bible-believing Christians. Our goal in this particular aspect of our ministry is not devotional but is TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO ASSIST PREACHERS IN THE PROTECTION OF THE CHURCHES IN THIS APOSTATE HOUR.

Reprinted December 26, 2006 (first published March 11, 1998) (Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, [e-mail]; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -
The following excellent material is excerpted from chapter six of the book The Battle for Christian Music by Tim Fisher (used by permission, copyright 1992, 211 pages -- order from Discover Christian Music, 519 Piedmont Golf Course Rd., Piedmont, SC 29673, 800-767-4326) --

Perhaps some of you are asking yourselves the question, “But how can a musical note be inherently good or bad? Aren't notes just a matter of pitch variation, tonal vibration, compressions and decompressions of air?” Those are fair questions. Let's look at this more closely.

Years ago I heard a tape of a man who was defending the neutrality of music in a public service. He walked over to the piano and played a C major chord. Then, he asked the audience if it was a good C major chord or an evil C major chord. After some scattered laughter, he said, “See, there's no such thing as good or evil music.” HE MADE A RATHER OBVIOUS MISTAKE, HOWEVER, IN HIS REASONING: A C MAJOR CHORD ISN'T MUSIC! IT IS A BUILDING BLOCK OF MUSIC--AND THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

Take the English language, for example. If I write the letter
e
is that a good “e” or a bad “e”? Neither. As a building block of the English language it is a neutral entity.

However, I as a creative writer can put that letter in conjunction with other letters and communicate something like ...
PraisE the Lord
or
I HatE God.

In both of the above usages I have taken neutral letters and put them together to communicate something to you. However, what I have communicated is definitely not neutral, and my intent is clearly conveyed.
Aspiring artists go to school to study neutral devices used in the creative process of painting--devices such as line, color, shade, perspective, texture, contrast, etc. A stroll through any major art gallery in our country will reveal that some artists use these devices to paint beautiful portraits, landscapes, or still images. Other artists take these same neutral devices and put them together in such a way as to paint nudity and lewd subject matter that would embarrass any decent person. What is the difference between the two extremes? It is what the artist desired to communicate!

If I were to go into my kitchen at home and pull out several “neutral” elements such as eggs, flour, sugar, and other things, I might try my best to bake a good cake, but the final product would be inferior and bad. (I am assuming that the ingredients are pure and untainted.) However, someone like my wife who knows the right way to use those same ingredients can come up with something that is both good and superior in quality. What is the difference? It is the knowledge of the craft that gives my wife the advantage.

Why are we willing to admit these facts when it comes to literature, art, sculpture, or any other form of creativity--but not music? Both the skill and intent of the creator determine what the final product will communicate. Music is no different. When you enter a freshman theory class as a music major in any discipline of music, among the first things you would study are the “ingredients” (neutral elements) of music: melody, rhythm, and harmony. You would look back through history to see how the great composers of the past used these elements to produce their music. Eventually you would learn to combine these elements into a musical language that communicates what you desire. As with all the other arts, you will have the final say as to what you desire to communicate through the music. Remember, it takes two things to communicate: knowledge of the subject matter and a desire to put across a specific message. CCM often uses rock music. What do its proponents claim that rock communicates?
“Rock and roll is 99% sex” (John Oates, interview in Circus, January 31, 1976).
“Everybody takes it for granted that rock and roll is synonymous with sex” (Chris Stein, interview in People, May 21, 1979).
“Rap is a musical form that they can appreciate--it's an interesting way to communicate with those kids. . . . They love the sound of a strong beat and pulsating rhythm. And if they don't relate, then they don't hear the music. then they won't hear the message. . .” (Michael Peace, Christian rapper, quoted in Youth!, January 1988, p. 15).

OBSERVATION
Many of those who defend the neutrality of music say that music can communicate good or bad only because of associations that culture puts on the music or because of an immoral text. In other words, rock music is only bad because it has been used for bad purposes in our culture and because rock music has centered itself for a number of years on bad subject matter (rebellion, immorality, drugs, etc.). While this statement is partially true (a culture can give specific associations to a particular piece of music), it denies what simple observation teaches us.

If you play a Sousa march (e.g., “Stars and Stripes Forever”) to a group of children, they want to get up and march around the room. This response has nothing to do with text (there is none) or cultural association (the children are too young to understand or apply associations). If you play a Strauss waltz (e.g., “The Blue Danube”) to the average crowd, most of them will begin to sway with the rhythm, or at least feel like doing so. This response has nothing to do with text (there is none) or cultural association (unless the crowd grew up in nineteenth-century Germany). In both these cases the response is drawn out by the construction of the musical elements in the pieces. Music always affects us, because music is not neutral.

Anyone who owns a television can turn on one of a number of dance programs. For a period of time rock music is played to a studio audience and the camera pans back and forth showing the viewer how these people are reacting to the music. If you want a clear lesson of the effect of rock music on these people, turn the volume down and watch them move to the music. Their movements have nothing to do with cultural associations, and nothing to do with the text of the songs. It is clear that they are responding to the music itself. If you were to view a similar program from Great Britain, Russia, Australia, or Argentina you would see the same responses to the music from people of different cultures. I realize that certain specific dances can be associated with certain cultures, but the basic sensual response will be the same regardless of culture or background.

In his book Sound Effects, Youth Leisure and the Politics of Rock, Dr. Simon Frith reminds us that the impact of rock is generated primarily from the music's sound and rhythm, not its words. “Rock is made,” he says, “in order to have emotional, social, physical, commercial results; it is not music made 'for its own sake.' Rock is in a sense primitive. It uses a primitive understanding of how sound effects and rhythms--prelinguistic devices--have their emotional and physical effects. Ignorance of how their music makes sense certainly puts no limit on a rock audience's appreciation. The response is to a large degree physical. The rock experience is essentially erotic” (Quotation taken from Blanchard, Pop Goes the Gospel, Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 1991, p. 32).

THE SACRED HARP
The Bible reveals the effect of music on King Saul in 1 Samuel 16. King Saul had sinned and faced rejection as king of Israel and was troubled by an evil spirit. He called for David, a shepherd boy at the time, to soothe him by his musical art. Verse 23 of that chapter reads, “And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an harp, and played with his hand: so Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him.” Please note that the verse does not say that David sang for Saul and that the words were a comfort to him. The Bible says specifically that David “took an harp and played with his hand.”

Purely instrumental music affected Saul in three ways: physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Though it would be possible to apply this verse in many ways, I believe that the basic sense of it is that the music had a definite effect on King Saul.

WHAT'S COOKING?
If we can conclude then, that music is not neutral, it remains for us to explore the difference between good and bad music. How can I take those neutral building blocks and come up with a bad (or, in some cases, inferior) product? This analysis is based on those basic elements of music: melody, harmony, and rhythm. (We could list several more basic elements of music such as form, dynamics, text, and performance practices. I am deliberately limiting myself to the three most basic elements (melody, harmony, and rhythm) for the purposes of this discussion.)

It is not our purpose to study basic music theory. But a few statements concerning these basic elements will be helpful for comparison. These concepts are presented as standards for good music by all reputable textbooks in the field. They have been universally accepted as general traits of superior music.

MELODY
The melody of a piece of music is the “story line.” Without it there would be no interest to the listener. Melodies do not just appear; they are built from a series of notes arranged in a specific pattern by the composer and perceived by the listener as a series of musical thoughts. These short musical thoughts are sometimes referred to as motives, phrases, or themes.

Aaron Copeland, called the dean of American composers, makes this observation: “Why a good melody should have the power to move us has thus far defied all analysis Though we may not be able to define what a good melody is in advance, we certainly can make some generalizations about melodies that we already know to be good” (Aaron Copeland, What to Listen for in Music, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1957, p. 40). Therefore, a good melody must exhibit certain general characteristics in order to be successful:
• It must have rise and fall (i.e., pitches going up and going down). A melody that remains static (on the same pitch) can through repetition produce a hypnotic effect (think of a Gregorian chant).
• It must have satisfying proportions (i.e., a beginning, middle, and ending) and give a sense of completeness. The melody tells the story of the piece.
• It must at some point (usually near the end) come to a climax and then a resolution. All good art will have a climax.
• It will be written in such a way as to elicit an emotional response by the listener. “As for the ability to recognize a beautiful melody when you hear one or distinguish between a banal and freshly inspired line, only increased experience as listener--plus the assimilation of hundreds of melodies of all kinds--can accomplish that for you” (Copeland, Ibid., p. 46).

Melodic appreciation requires us to be good listeners. Many people claim that they cannot appreciate good music, yet they give it no time in their schedules. DEVELOPING PROPER MUSICAL TASTE IS LIKE ANY OTHER PART OF OUR EDUCATION--IT TAKES TIME AND EFFORT. SOME YOUNG ADULTS HAVE GIVEN TWENTY YEARS OR MORE OF THEIR LIVES LEARNING TO LOVE ROCK MUSIC, YET THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO GIVE THIRTY MINUTES A WEEK TO LEARN GOOD MUSIC. In a music appreciation textbook written by H.E. Krehbiel:
“There is something so potent and elemental in the appeal which music makes that it is possible to derive pleasure from even an unwilling hearing or a hearing unaccompanied by effort at analysis. But, real appreciation of its beauty, which means recognition of the qualities which put it in the realm of art, is conditioned upon intelligent hearing. The higher the intelligence the keener will be the enjoyment, if the former be directed to the spiritual side as well as the material” (H.E. Krehbiel, How to Listen to Music, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1922, p. 15).

RHYTHM
“Rhythm is the orderly movement of music through time. Just as the heartbeat is the life of the body, rhythm is the life of music and provides its essential energy. Without rhythm, music is dead. Melody and harmony must unfold together, and rhythm makes this simultaneous unfolding possible” (Dr. and Mrs. Jay Cannon, Striving for Excellence (Oak Brook, IL: Institute in Basic Life Principles, 1989, p. 10). Everything in nature has rhythm, and it is certainly indispensable in music.

When rhythm is organized into regular recurring beats, we say that it has meter. Usually these groups of beats will come in patterns of two, three, or four. Repetition of these patterns in music is divided by measures. In any good piece of music, the strongest beat in a pattern (measure) is the downbeat (the first beat in the pattern). If a pattern has four beats, the strongest beat will be the first, and the second strongest beat will be the third, as pictured in the measure that follows:
ONE, two, THREE, four

Many kinds of music make use of a rhythmic device called syncopation. “Syncopation puts the accent on a beat other than the downbeat of a measure or on some portion of a beat other than its beginning. This creates a kind of metrical jerk.... these examples of syncopation put the emphasis on the wrong syllables” (Ronald Byrnside, Music, Sound and Sense, Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Publishers, 1985, p. 17). Syncopation is not bad in itself. It is simply a rhythmic device that, when used correctly, can have a tremendous impact in a piece of music. Good composers, however, know how and how much to use syncopation--and it is never used continuously throughout a piece of good music. It is like salt and pepper: In good proportions it can make the food taste great, but in excessive amounts it ruins the food.

HARMONY
A melody is almost always accompanied by chords which match the key structure in which the melody is written. These notes, played at the same time as the melody, are called harmony. “As a melody provides the 'profile' for a piece of music, the harmony provides its 'personality'“(Cannon, Striving for Excellence, p. 5).
Chords can provide both rest (consonance) and unrest (dissonance) in music. Good music will have a balance of rest and unrest. Harmonic chords can also color our mood as listeners. For example: What if every song were written with the harmonization in a minor key? That would definitely affect our mood. This aspect of music may be difficult for a non-musician to comprehend. You know it when you hear it, but you may not be sure how to define it

CONCLUSION
The key to being a good cook is knowing how much of each ingredient to put into the mix, and when. Too much salt, too much spice, too much sugar, too much flour--each of these can ruin what is cooking. The good cook--as well as the good artist, good musician, or good writer--knows the correct balance of the “main ingredients.”

In music the correct order is a good melody, supported by balanced harmony, undergirded with a firm and consistent rhythm. Concert music (i.e., a symphony or another instrumental piece of music) will sometimes vary from this order because of a desire to showcase the talents of the composer or the dexterity of the performer. However, our topic here is Christian music as it relates to communicating the spoken word. If you desire to correctly communicate a text with music, the order is clear: melody, harmony, then rhythm. For further study, I recommend a recent book by Dr. Frank Garlock and Kurt Woetwi called Music in the Balance (Greenville, SC: Majesty Music, 1992), where the authors apply the use of these elements to the Christian's life.