Throughout the ages, there have been varying degrees of opposition to the use of musical instruments in worship by various religious groups, and occasionally a religious group has decreed the immorality of playing a certain instrument (like the fiddle) in any situation. I understand that in the 16th century, St. Teresa of Avila decreed that Carmelite nuns were to sing the Divine Office in a monotone because she was appalled that it took all day to sing the prayers in classical polyphony. It's my impression that many of the Protestant reformers suppressed the ornate style of music that had been used in the Roman Church - and for good reason. The Roman church revived Gregorian chant in the early 20th century for more-or-less the same reason - to counteract the pretentiousness of classical music that had taken over church worship.

But on the whole, religions have been very supportive of music, being the only reliable source of income for performers and composers in many periods of history. Even today, a huge number of paid musicians, are church musicians.

And when one style of singing or the use of instruments was prohibited by a religious group, what often followed was the development of a significant body of music that was NOT prohibited. What would Sacred Harp singing be with instruments?

For over a millennium, the Christian churches have shown a preference for organ music. What would Bach have produced without the support of churches?

So, hey, don't go around making blanket statements about religion suppressing music. It just ain't so.

By the way, what's the purpose of a Muslim minaret? -To call people to prayer, right?
And how do they call people to prayer? -By singing, right?
So, how can Muslims be opposed to music?

-Joe-



(as PopppaGator points out, I was in the seminary for my last 8 years of Catholic education, which is part of the reason why I got so much music training. Music education for non-musicians is rare in Catholic colleges, but required in seminaries)