Catholic's and musical taste

[andrewstx]

Personally I think the black gospel music is better than the vast majority of Gregorian Chant.

There is no moral difference between the major heptatonic scale and the pentatonic scale. There is no moral difference between a 12/8 and a 4/4 time signature. There is no moral difference between 120 beats per minute and 160 beats per minute.

Rhythm is essential to music, and all music has it, whether it is bach, Beethoven, the beatles, or lady gaga.

I listen to music because it sounds good, and to me Dies Irae sounds like a mess. Always has, always will. I like a lot of classical music, especially Beethoven, but I like other music as well. I would rather listen to Mark Knopfler, the Beatles, or Pink Floyd than Bach.

That is only because you have never heard the Verdi requiem.

 

[Joe_5859]

I stopped reading the moment my eyes hit upon the words ‘sacred music’. Sorry but my musical tastes go beyond what is deemed appropriate for a religious ceremony.

It was a bit of an effort for me to trudge through it. But he did bring up some interesting points about the focus on “rhythm” in modern music often to the detriment of harmony and melody. I’ve noticed that, too, that even in children’s shows, they seem to have to add a backbeat to everything.

Now, whether this means what he thinks it means, I’m not quite convinced. It seemed almost like he was denigrating rhythm in general (which seems peculiar to me). But I could be misinterpreting him.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It was a bit of an effort for me to trudge through it. But he did bring up some interesting points about the focus on “rhythm” in modern music often to the detriment of harmony and melody. I’ve noticed that, too, that even in children’s shows, they seem to have to add a backbeat to everything.

Now, whether this means what he thinks it means, I’m not quite convinced. It seemed almost like he was denigrating rhythm in general (which seems peculiar to me). But I could be misinterpreting him.

That again? This is the same argument I’m always hearing from high culture, classicist fanboys. These people just can’t accept the fact that ‘rhythm,’ ‘harmony,’ and ‘melody’ are ridiculously subjective.

I’ll take Avril Lavigne’s Rock n Roll over Tchaikovsky’s Nutcracker any day!

 

[Cat]

That is only because you have never heard the Verdi requiem.

I respectfully suggest that you never make assumptions about anyone when it comes to music.

Quite often, people HAVE heard certain pieces, and simply don’t like them.

 

[christus_vincit]

That again? This is the same argument I’m always hearing from high culture, classicist fanboys.

Have you read the articles? The author makes several respectable points and does so without coming across as a “classicist fanboy”. He is simply reiterating a very Catholic idea that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Beauty can and should be judged by objective standards. Relating to sacred music, the Church has affirmed this objective character of beauty time and again.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Have you read the articles? The author makes several respectable points and does so without coming across as a “classicist fanboy”.

Didn’t I just say that I stopped at the first mention of ‘sacred music?’ I don’t let ceremony grant the overall mandate of what sounds good to me.

He is simply reiterating a very Catholic idea that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder. Beauty can and should be judged by objective standards.

Right. Yet if I say I’m the more handsome choice than some ogre-faced competitor, I’m accused of vanity and being the Gaston to the maiden’s Prince Adam.

Believe me, I for one would love to have someone prefer an ‘objective’ standard if it means that standard is my own.

I wouldn’t call it Catholic though.

 

[christus_vincit]

Right. Yet if I say I’m the more handsome choice than some ogre-faced competitor, I’m accused of vanity and being the Gaston to the maiden’s Prince Adam.

Believe me, I for one would love to have someone prefer an ‘objective’ standard if it means that standard is my own.

I wouldn’t call it Catholic though.

Concepts like symmetry and proportionality can be judged objectively. So yes, one can make judgements regarding the physical appearance of one person being more pleasing than another. Your very admission that some people are indeed more attractive than others is an example of objectivity in beauty. That said, such a comparison is fruitless because physical beauty tells us very little about the all-important interior life of the person. (and herein lies the reason for which you would be accused of vanity)

When judging music, similar objective principles can be employed. Certain types of music are more fitting for liturgy than other types. Rhythm, for example, can and is one of the factors evaluated. As I have already pointed out, the Church would agree with this assessment.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

That said, such a comparison is fruitless because physical beauty tells us very little about the interior life of the person which is supremely important. (and herein lies the reason for which you would be accused of vanity)

By this very admission, you prove that objectivity is in fact superficial. Therefore, subjectivity easily becomes the norm. Such a superficial thing can be so casually dismissed that it’s so easily changed. So eventually, the taste will change in order to conform.

You’ve just lost pal.

As I have already pointed out, the Church would agree with this assessment.

Only as far as what’s appropriate for Mass, not when I’m walking down the street, trying to work, playing cards, or just plain chillin.’

 

[christus_vincit]

By this very admission, you prove that objectivity is in fact superficial. Therefore, subjectivity easily becomes the norm. Such a superficial thing can be so casually dismissed that it’s so easily changed. So eventually, the taste will change in order to conform.

It remains an objective fact that some people are more attractive than others. The superficiality you rightly point out is, I think, unique to this particular scenario. Only human beings have immortal souls. It is our souls that are judged at the end of our lives, not the physical beauty of our bodies. Other creatures are amoral and lack immortal souls. Therefore, this superficiality does not exist in them because there is no greater good to subordinate their outward objective beauty to. So yes, while objective beauty is still applicable to human physical appearances, it does become “superficial” in this unique scenario.

To clarify, I will provide an example. If one sees two women walking on the sidewalk - one hunched over and toothless, and the other well-kept and upright - we could make the judgement that the well-kept woman is more physically attractive and we would be correct. However, as you rightly pointed out, we would be chastised for having such a “superficial” (although true!) view because its “whats on the inside that counts” when speaking of human beings.

New scenario: You have two trees. One is withered and barren, the other is flowering and tall. An observer could make a judgement about these trees based solely on their appearances and be correct and sincere when he rightfully acknowledges the flowering tree as more beautiful. No one would call him shallow or his choice “superficial”, because for a tree, its not what’s on the inside that counts.

(I’m sure this is riddled with fallacies and loopholes, I’d just like to keep the dialogue going)

You’ve just lost pal.

Perhaps I’m not doing the best at defending objective beauty, but where I may make an error, I can safely fall back on the judgment of the Church and many of the brilliant philosophers She has produced over the centuries. I’m learning.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

It remains an objective fact that some people are more attractive than others.

Yet the mere insignificance of this factor can logically and easily extend to reduce the significance of other ‘objective’ standards as well.

The superficiality you rightly point out is, I think, unique to this particular scenario.

No. It’s not. It applies to a lot of things.

However, as you rightly pointed out, we would be chastised for having such a “superficial” (although true!) view because its “whats on the inside that counts” when speaking of human beings.

I can see you’re struggling. I’ll do you a favor and just say it here: You have missed my point already.

(I’m sure this is riddled with fallacies and loopholes, I’d just like to keep the dialogue going)

Okay, here’s for your next try: Your taste becomes subjective once superficiality is introduced. Nothing to do with immortal souls.

 

[christus_vincit]

Yet the mere insignificance of this factor can logically and easily extend to reduce the significance of other ‘objective’ standards as well.

No. It’s not. It applies to a lot of things.

I can see you’re struggling. I’ll do you a favor and just say it here: You have missed my point already.

Okay, here’s for your next try: Your taste becomes subjective once superficiality is introduced. Nothing to do with immortal souls.

If you are going to discard my argument in such a smug way at least have the courtesy to explain where I went wrong? You refute my claims without providing a shred of reasoning? That’s not debate.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If you are going to discard my argument in such a smug way at least have the courtesy to explain where I went wrong? You refute my claims without providing a shred of reasoning? That’s not debate.

I have provided. Your ego sounds just too hurt for you to read properly. (Or else you wouldn’t really care that I sound smug.)

But if you’re gonna insist, I repeat: Superficiality breeds subjectivity. There’s no point in an objective standard when the standard is dismissed as superficial.

Here’s me rephrasing your example with the trees: Say I prefer the dead tree over your flowering one. Why? Because the appearance of good health and growth are insignificant to me. Your objective standards of beauty are, as a consequence, wholly eliminated because I don’t care for them. I prefer dead things. :whacky:

That’s why I’ll take the riffs of metal over any chant, any day.

 

[christus_vincit]

But if you’re gonna insist, I repeat: Superficiality breeds subjectivity. There’s no point in an objective standard when the standard is dismissed as superficial.

Do you admit that there are such things as objective standards?

Here’s me rephrasing your example with the trees: Say I prefer the dead tree over your flowering one. Why? Because the appearance of good health and growth are insignificant to me. Your objective standards of beauty are, as a consequence, wholly eliminated because I don’t care for them. I prefer dead things. :whacky:

Say you prefer murdering people to not murdering people. Why? Because the innocence and dignity of human life are insignificant to you. My objective standards of morality are, as a consequence, wholly eliminated because you don’t care for them.

Isn’t murder wrong no matter what, regardless of how many commit it?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Do you admit that there are such things as objective standards?

Even if they exist, elements that reduce them to superficiality can unseat them. And at the very least, it’s so easily demonstrated in music and arts.

It’s like taking a blind woman to an art gallery. You could take her to the best ones in Paris, would it really matter? She can’t see.

Now simply replace blindness with taste. If I say, I simply don’t appreciate William Tell Overture outside The Lone Ranger, then what does it matter? You can do nothing. That’s just how it is.

Say you prefer murdering people to not murdering people. Why? Because the innocence and dignity of human life are insignificant to you.

That and I’m a deranged lunatic. :whacky:

My objective standards of morality are, as a consequence, wholly eliminated because you don’t care for them.

Indeed. That’s why they won’t save you if I come at you in a dark alley.

A shiv might but you do realize your comparison is strangely derailing the thread right?

Isn’t murder wrong no matter what, regardless of how many commit it?

You do realize that defining ‘murder’ is subjective in of itself right? Self-defense killing is murder for the attacker and the attacker’s family.

Man, this is starting to sound like a courtroom.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

When judging music, similar objective principles can be employed. Certain types of music are more fitting for liturgy than other types. Rhythm, for example, can and is one of the factors evaluated. As I have already pointed out, the Church would agree with this assessment.

When we ask ourselves which music to employ in mass, are we asking ourselves which music is the most beautiful or are we asking which music is the most fitting? Are most beautiful and most fitting for mass the same category or is there a difference there?

What does he mean for music to be beautiful? Did he define that at any point? Did I miss it?

When he continues to employ this argument from authority (which artists do music “experts” most prefer?), I wonder what it is that he’s trying to say about beauty. What does it mean if I, as a non-expert, listen to something that is very different from Bach and yet prefer it over Bach? What does it say about beauty, that I might find something he says is ugly to be more beautiful than that which he considers the epitome of beauty?

I ask this because when we talk about physical appearance, I do not need to be “classically trained in appearances” to recognize a beautiful appearance… I simply recognize it. Of course, I might find some appearance beautiful while you might not, but on the outer edges of both beauty and ugliness, we will probably share some overlap, and that required no training.

Ultimately, I understand almost nothing in this article. This is true for 2 reasons.

1. Much of what I do understand within the article is utterly fallacious.
2. The rest goes way over my head, and he probably made a few cogent points that I just can’t understand.

 

[Cat]

Interesting discussion.

I think that it’s obvious that the articles posted by the OP are not cut and dried and the Final Word on Catholic music.

There are plenty of people who can debate the author of the articles. I’m guessing that there are plenty of very knowledge music professors who could tear the articles to shreds, just as there are probably plenty of music professors who could defend the articles.

My point is, the articles basically say that human taste has selected Gregorian chant and polyphony as most fitting for Mass.

God did not and has not given anyone any definitive commands about Mass music.

Even the comments in the Documents of Vatican II are not sacred faith and morals, or dogma, which cannot ever change. They’re just guidelines.

We haven’t even touched on any ethnomusicology in this discussion. I’m guessing that a lot of world citizens would ask, “Why is that weird European male singing music considered the epitome of Mass music, but not our beautiful music?” And they have a point. Gregorian chant was not created solely in the Church–it had its origins in the “world” and was turned into church music by Pope Gregory. It’s even named for him, not God.

Again, I’m not saying that we should jettison Gregorian chant. I just don’t buy that there is something ethereal and heavenly about it anymore than any other kind of music. And I don’t buy that the Vat. II documents are definitive dogma that must be followed.

And I’m still waiting for Rome to definitely define exactly what “pride of place” means.