 sj |
||
|
||
Does Religion Deny Music to Children?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children? From: olddude Date: 03 Jul 10 - 08:12 PM Here is how I see it for what it is worth. God is an amazing and wonderful being .. the joy that one can get from knowing God is beyond words ... Religion .. on the whole .. is usually evil or border line evil. Since they are ruled by man they tend to corrupt, twist, and bastardize faith until it is something that is as far from God as one can get. So in my humble opinion does it deny music ... sure many do, it also denies basic human rights, free thought and love which is what it is all suppose to be about and anyone who knows God knows what I am saying. Many churches do some amazing good things so I don't want to generalize for that is wrong ... but one doesn't need religion to know God ... and the one I know gave us music .. and the ability to use it for good and to pass it on to our children |
|
Subject: RE: Some people think God doesn't like music... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jul 10 - 07:15 PM How about that for a better thread heading? |
|
Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children? From: GUEST,andrew Date: 03 Jul 10 - 07:15 PM http://www.youtube.com/user/aarnouddegroen |
|
Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children? From: Don Firth Date: 03 Jul 10 - 02:48 PM Actually, Martin Luther was all in favor of music in general and liturgical music in particular. But he did strongly object to the way many church services, complete with choir and organ, were being presented more as entertainment than as an integral part of the liturgy. He favored singing by the congregation over singing by a choir. Most churches these days do both. #### I had a music prof when I was attending the Cornish School of the Arts who, in addition to being a composer, was a church organist. One day, he took the class to the church where he played to demonstrate the organ there. Episcopal church, bloody great organ. We stood up by the console while Prof. Cowell demonstrated how things work, stops, multiple manuals, etc. Then, he launched into Bach's Toccata and Fugue in Dm. There we stood, by the console, pipes to the left of us, pipes to the right of us. BEEG pipes, some as big as tree trunks, all the way down to about the size of a penny whistle. RUMBLE RUMBLE!! Prof. Cowell commented that, while playing the music of God, and with all that power at his fingertips, sometimes the organist can tend to forget who is Who!! Mention was made of the names of prominent organists, saying that they were all very imposing. The name of E. Power Biggs came up as an example. Someone asked, "What does the 'E' stand for?" Came the inevitable voice from the back of the room: "Enormous?" Don Firth P. S. Actually, it's Edward, but that's beside the point. |
|
Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children? From: Smokey. Date: 03 Jul 10 - 02:11 PM It seems to me that the culprits are people and politics, not religion. There may be instances where religion is used as the excuse, but it isn't decided by God, Allah, or whatever, it's decided by people for the purpose of political suppression and control. |
|
Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children? From: Tug the Cox Date: 03 Jul 10 - 02:06 PM It wasn't even about A religion....it was speculation about some ( specifically) muslim people who MIGHT adhere to a non Koranic idea abroad amongst ( reprtedly) 10% of the Muslim population of UK. Basically it's racist scaremongering. |
|
Subject: RE: Does Religion Deny Music to Children? From: Mrrzy Date: 03 Jul 10 - 01:59 PM Wimpy, wimpy wimpy! Not you, Joe, but come on, the thread was about a religion yes denying music to kids, not a general question about religion and music. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jul 10 - 01:45 PM Now, since we're talking about organs, I'd like to say that it seems to me that the art of playing a pipe organ as accompaniment to singing, has largely been lost. Back In The Day, that's all we had was organs in the Catholic Church, and here and there you could find a good organist and a good choir and an singing congregation - and they could make beautiful music together. This happened as a rule in seminaries, where music at Mass was often sublime - and I went through eight years of seminary, with terrific music every day. But you don't hear organs very much in the Catholic Church any more. You still find them in the big, pretentious, old churches, but it always seems to me that modern church organists get overcome with machismo and play their powerful instruments to show off their power. In other words, they play organs TOO DAMN LOUD nowadays. I try to sing along (and I can sing quite loud), and I can barely hear my own voice. The pipe organ in my seminary had one stop marked "Sforzando" that played all the ranks at once. My friend the organist said that stop was to be used very rarely - but nowadays, "Sforzando" seems to be the only stop organists know how to use. I would think that one or two ranks, plus a pedal rank, would be enough to accompany singing. alas, they don't do it that way any more. I'm quite happy with pianos and guitars and flutes and such at worship, but it would be nice to once more hear an organ accompanying singing and sounding good. The original title of this thread was Religion denies music to children? The thread originator, Keith A, said long ago that the title of this thread didn't come out as he intended, and he has asked that the title be changed. I had suggested Some Muslims Deny Music to Kids, and Keith said that would be acceptable. The trouble is, the thread has ended up following the original title, and it's more about religion in general than about a segment of Islam. So, I'll soften the title but leave it closer to what it was originally. How about Does Religion Deny Music to Children? -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: mousethief Date: 03 Jul 10 - 12:16 PM As a past church pipe organist, I think that such people should be sentenced to sing multiple 100 verse dirges at the pace they consider 'respectful to the Lord' , but only as long as no one else is forced to be there with them.... :-) Actually that is probably a good punishment for some other sin. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 03 Jul 10 - 10:19 AM "My SIN was that I was playing "TOO FAST" for the "HOUSE OF THE LORD." " As a past church pipe organist, I think that such people should be sentenced to sing multiple 100 verse dirges at the pace they consider 'respectful to the Lord' , but only as long as no one else is forced to be there with them.... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 03 Jul 10 - 05:46 AM Lox and Jo, I said I am happy to have title changed. Go with Joe's (Lox did not provide one). I think Lox does not believe we should discuss this at all though. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Manitas_at_home Date: 03 Jul 10 - 04:16 AM Psalm 150. But I daresay there's an opposing view somewhere else in the Bible. Oh, Cromwell is said to have danced all night at his daughter's wedding. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Mavis Enderby Date: 03 Jul 10 - 03:32 AM Would if I could Arthur! Alas, won't be going to Write Note today as mega busy. Hope to make several future ones though... Pete. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Arthur_itus Date: 03 Jul 10 - 03:09 AM Now then Pete, are you going to do that first song at the Write Note, Lincoln Library UK today from 12 to 2pm? |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Mavis Enderby Date: 03 Jul 10 - 03:02 AM I'll admit to only scanning this thread but this excellent 50 min documentary seems relevant: Sufi Soul Pete. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Joe Offer Date: 03 Jul 10 - 12:26 AM The religious people at Mudcat are more-or-less the same as the non-religious people. For the most part, we're intelligent, independent souls who think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions. We don't take orders from anyone, not even from those who claim religious authority. We reject intolerance and injustice, and we strongly support the rights of the downtrodden. Most of us spend our lives asking questions, rather than claiming to have control of the answers. Some of us are pacifists. Yes, we know that there are religious people who use their faith as rationalization for hatred and violence and all sorts of horrible things - but we aren't like that, and we think that such people desecrate the very essence of religious faith. We're very much like other Mudcatters, but we come from various religious traditions, and those traditions are part of who we are. We belong to religious organizations/communities, and we fully acknowledge that people often have done wrong in the name of those organizations - and we abhor and reject that wrongdoing. Nonetheless, our roots are in those communities, and they are part of who we are. It's a puzzle to me why a traditional music community should have such a hard time accepting religious communities, which are also rooted in tradition - but such seems to be the case. There were two comments that distressed me particularly, maybe because they came from a person I like very much. The first comment I quoted above: Religion is really not good for children, of which this is just another example. When I questioned that, I got this response: Joe, I think it's wrong to tolerate rather than correct the wrong. It does a disservice to the world. I've gotten the similar responses from right-wing fundamentalists. Isn't it disturbing that tolerance could be thought of as wrong? And what makes her so certain that religion is so harmful to children? It didn't hurt ME none. This person isn't the only one - most of the anti-religious posts here at Mudcat, come from people I like and admire and think of as friends. I grew up in the U.S. peace and civil rights movements of the 1960s. I thought that mine would be the generation that would end intolerance. Guess I was wrong. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: LadyJean Date: 03 Jul 10 - 12:09 AM As a child, I endured 18 months of DelCatto therapy. Delcatto therapy forbids music. I don't know why, but it does. The therapy is born of (seriously flawed) science. It purports to fix damaged brains. It didn't fix mine. I also had to crawl in the approved DelCatto style for 45 minutes a day. I was supposed to walk like a chorus girl pretending to be a robot. (That did not happen.) and sleep in a special position. (You're kidding, right?) Science has caused it's share of unhappiness too. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: mousethief Date: 02 Jul 10 - 11:01 PM I don't understand, String, why religious people should have to go into the closet, like pre-Stonewall gays, in order to not offend anybody by displaying their religion in public. That seems to be what you are saying. I understand the separation of church and state, and support it wholeheartedly, for the good of both. Don Firth said, Brakes on, folks! Martin Luther wrote "Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott" ("A Mighty Fortress is Our God"), along with a whole batch of other hymns. It doesn't sound to me as if he was opposed to music in the church. I didn't say he was opposed to music. He was opposed to instruments in the church. Two different things. Tootler said: They were notorious for objecting to music and dancing but in fact they did not, on the whole, object to music and dancing as such but to music and dancing in Church - other than the unison singing of the Psalms. If you've ever seen so-called "liturgical dance" I think you can have some sympathy for their point of view. ;) buddhuu said: So, I don't think I was too wide of the mark comparing some Christians and Jews objecting to some music, with some Muslims objecting to some music. Right, understandable. But the OP was about some Muslims who apparently don't like ANY music. Comparing those Muslims (who apparently are a very small majority, thankfully) to Christians who don't want their kids to listen to rock and roll really is apples and piston rings. ibid: Please also point out to me any impolite or intolerant langauge in my posts in this topic. and To me, most religions seem equally dishonest, arrogant and frankly offensive to one or another degree. That is extremely rude, and saying "To me" at the beginning doesn't make it any less so. Not terribly tolerant either. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Jul 10 - 07:23 PM This is ostensibly a music topic but it may belong in the BS section. Problem: how can you separate music from religion and politics? As Pete Seeger has said, "All music is propaganda (including a lullaby)." |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Jul 10 - 07:20 PM The reason that much music is religion-based is economic. The Church supported the music. The music could have been there without the Church but it paid the bills. Sometimes the music bound people together who were oppressed but it was still the Church that paid the bills. They exacted their price which was loyalty. If fundamental Islam wants to isolate its children, there is nothing anyone can do about it except that if it becomes a Separation of Church and State issue then it must be addressed legally. I don't think ultimately that Islamist extremists who pull their children out of music classes can prevail. (Kat Stevens notwithstanding). This is analogous to the Christian fundamentalists who eschew dancing and early hard-shell Baptists who thought that the fiddle and banjo were instruments of the devil. And then there was Ars Nova. Music is often revolutionary and will not succumb to religious authoritarianism. The only way out of this ignorant morass is through education. Religion may not be monolithic but the problem is that the degrees of fundamentalism can't be mapped specifically. There are those who maintain they are "liberal" in their religion that will excuse extremism on the part of others, the forgiveness of child abusing priests for example, or the assault on peaceful flotillas in Gaza. Bigotry has been the province of religious groups for a long time. In fact, it may be religion that fostered the whole concept of bigotry by xenophobia and isolation. John Wesley, Martin Luther and early Catholics supported witch burning. The bible has been used to justify all kinds of bigoted atrocities based on "the Sons of Ham" and "Leviticus 22". This is not to say that all religious people are bigoted. Many are content to see other points of view than just their own. The intelligent ones keep their religion to themselves and don't try to force it on others. They are smart when they don't talk about it publicly. When religion becomes a public forum, then the trouble begins. The preachers cause havoc. The battle lines are drawn between Catholic and Protestant, Zionist and Islamic groups such as Hamas. Then there is McChrystal who has tried to Christianize the military. (I wonder about Petraeus.) In this application, religion does become monolithic in its destructive behavior. It is not bigotry to point this out. It bears a relationship to this thread topic. The solution is to make religion a private matter and uphold the Separation of Church and State. In the US, people are supposedly free to believe whatever they want without forcing it on others. I can respect this right if it isn't breached by religious zealotry forced on the public. The question remains, can religious people honor this uniquely American tradition? |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jul 10 - 07:05 PM But back to the topic of discussion: it seems to me that the general feeling about music education in the United States, is that it is an unnecessary luxury - far less important than varsity sports, for example, which accommodates only the best athletes. In the rest of the world, schools at least seem to express regret when they cannot afford to provide music instruction. Not so in much of the United States. It's still offered as an option in many American schools, but I think it's rare to find it as a mandatory part of the curriculum. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Jul 10 - 07:02 PM Agreed! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jul 10 - 06:58 PM buddhuu Your statement:
Your question:
Well, your statement isn't quite as bigoted as the others - you show at least minimal tolerance toward Muslims and Sikhs. But I doubt that there are many Muslims and Sikhs for you to offend here. How would a member of any other religious group feel about what you said? Many religious people are well aware that religions can be "dishonest, arrogant and frankly offensive" - and they do their best to ensure that their own religious practices avoid those faults. And I suppose you could say that many governments are "dishonest, arrogant and frankly offensive"; and that many (if not most) organizations of people are thus; and that many individuals are the same. Why single out religions? (or, at least, all religions other than Muslims and Sikhs) Your complaint that I quoted you out of context is laughable. My quotation did not change the meaning of your statement in any way. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: GUEST,^&* Date: 02 Jul 10 - 06:41 PM McGofH Well said! |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jul 10 - 06:33 PM By far the biggest threat to the rights of children to have a chance to learn to love music while at school are the budgetary and curriculum pressures that have largely driven out and ground down music in many/most British schools. If there really are schools which are providing musical teaching which is worth having, and children who are being denied access to this because of the way their parents misunderstand and misapply their religion, that is a shame. But I would suspect that the number of children denied access to music in this way is only a fraction of those for whom taking part in religious services is the main place where they have any real access to live and participatory music. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Tootler Date: 02 Jul 10 - 06:29 PM I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Ollie Cromwell and his merry band of Puritans, who carried the denial of music and dance to the extreme limit of actually killing people who dared to show, publicly, any enjoyment of life, or colour of dress.. You clearly didn't read my post. The first edition of Playford's dancing master was published in 1651 just two years after the end of the civil war and the execution of Charles I. A second edition was published in 1652 and a third in 1657, all during the commonwealth. Given that all publication had to be the licensed by the Stationer's Company at that time, how does that square with the alleged suppression of music and dancing during Cromwell's time? In fact the suppression was in church and it is likely that public events involving dancing were suppressed, but not social dancing. It is reputed that Cromwell himself enjoyed social dancing. It was a recognised social accomplishment at that time. I agree that some of Cromwell's more extreme followers may not have liked music and dancing, but The Dancing Master would not have required three editions during the Commonwealth if dancing had been totally suppressed or at best it would have circulated as a clandestine publication rather than being on open sale. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:58 PM I have to say that I was disappointed to see loudspeakers on minarets. I've seen lots of minarets in my travels, but never a live muezzin. And for that matter, the only Jewish cantors I've heard were women. They were terrific, but what about "Tradition"? And we have electronic bells in the bell tower of our Catholic church - we had to turn them off because the neighbors complained...probably just as well. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Lox Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:55 PM The whole premise is utter crap. Taking issue with it is a waste of time as the OP has no interest in the fact that the information provided in the first post does not for one minute support the heavy implication, if not outright dishonest assertion in the thread title and first post combind that that Moslems are out to hurt children. There are numerous Islamic musicians who have made it in the west, from Zakir Hussein to Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan (no need to mention Cat Stevens). There are millions of others all round the world who play religious and non religious music daily with no thought of incongruity with the Koran. But Keith has seen fit to begin a thread with a deliberately provocative claim. And I stand by my assertion that Keiths posturing as The Objective Voice of Reason when all else are losing their heads is dishonest in the extreme. He makes insinuations and implies conclusions whether in response to other peoles points, or as in this case, without prompting of any sort. His political leanings are very clear and his impartial facade is utterly transparent. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:53 PM By the way, Joe—heard recently in the news: There is some controversy among Muslims regarding the performance of the five-times-daily call to prayer. Some want to equip the minarets with loudspeakers and broadcast the call from tape or other recording. Others object to this and want to continue having the call done by live "muezzins." But with the proviso that the muezzins take singing lessons. The reason? Within recent years, too many muezzins have been ear-jarringly off-pitch, inspiring many devout Muslims to crawl under their prayer rugs rather than kneel on them! So—the muezzins had better shape up or they'll be replaced with modern technology. And would you believe it!?? Not all Muslims are in agreement about this! What a shock!! #### My basic beef: Consider the number of religions in the world, and the number of different sects and denominations within each of those religious groups—and the different tenets and beliefs, often within a specific sect or denomination. For example, among Lutherans, there are several different synods that do no agree with each other. Some ELCA churches will give Holy Communion to anyone who comes up to the altar during the service, whereas Missouri Synod Lutheran churches will give communion only to those who are specifically identified as Lutheran. But—this does not hold true for all ELCA or Missouri Synod Lutheran churches! Methodist, Presbyterians, Baptists (the Baptist church that Jimmy Carter attended withdrew from the Southern Baptist Leadership Conference because of differences in beliefs and practices), Rastafarians, Buddhists, Druids, and all other bodies of religious belief differ from eash other. And within themselves. (Can you say "schism?"). "Religion" is not monolithic. So it puts me to shriek and to stamp on my hat when some nincompoop insists that "religion" does this, that, or something else. It demonstrates a pompous amd simplistic worship of the God of Abysmal Ignorance, generally fueled by prejudice. (Which, in itself, is a mark of abysmal ignorance.) Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:37 PM Religion doesn't deny music to anyone. Fundamentalists, and fundamentalism, are the culprits here. I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned Ollie Cromwell and his merry band of Puritans, who carried the denial of music and dance to the extreme limit of actually killing people who dared to show, publicly, any enjoyment of life, or colour of dress.. There are like examples in almost every religion on the face of this planet, but there are also those who espouse and advocate a life without enjoyment, who have no religion whatever. In the words of the old adage, "Misery Loves Company". There are plenty of miserable atheists. All generalisations are wrong, even this one. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jul 10 - 05:11 PM 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) |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:32 PM Brakes on, folks! Martin Luther wrote "Ein' feste Burg ist unser Gott" ("A Mighty Fortress is Our God"), along with a whole batch of other hymns. It doesn't sound to me as if he was opposed to music in the church. Also, Johann Sebastian Bach, one of the foremost composers of religious music, was a Lutheran. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: buddhuu Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:29 PM Mousethief: "Changing the subject slightly: I think, buddhuu, the problem with your analogy is that denying ALL music and denying rock-and-roll and/or jazz to one's constituents aren't even on the same level. They're not even in the same ballpark. They're not even playing the same sport. I may not want my child to listen to rap songs that glorify slapping one's bitch ho and shooting police officers, but that's not even LIKE the same thing as not wanting her to experience music at all." I see your point, but I suggest it isn't as clear cut as it may seem. Islam, overall, does not ban all music. Some adherents interpret teaching as dictating that no instruments should be used. Possibly some frown upon all music. Certainly some traditions within Islam do embrace music, as is shown in Sufi Qawali - which variously features instruments and unaccompanied singing, and which I like very much. So, I don't think I was too wide of the mark comparing some Christians and Jews objecting to some music, with some Muslims objecting to some music. Obviously, YMMV. Our perceptions vary. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: buddhuu Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:11 PM With respect, Joe, I consider that you quoted me out of context. The full passage by me read: "To me, most religions seem equally dishonest, arrogant and frankly offensive to one or another degree. In fact, Sikhism is the only religion to which I am regularly exposed that seems to retain some core values that have not been thoroughly twisted to suit the agendas of an elite". I was stating a personal perception of how things seem to me. Not making any factual negative claim about any specific religion, nor a general claim about all religion, as is shown by the point abut Sikhism seeming to be a religion that maintains unadulterated values. Joe said: "I suppose it's not fair to say that "Mudcatters" are bigoted against religion. It's just that when the subject of religion comes up, the voices of bigotry always seem to be the loudest. It's a funny thing, though - just when religious people are starting to learn to be polite about non-religious people, the non-religious people turn the tables and jump on the bigotry bandwagon." I object to my post being quoted out of context and used as an example of "voices of bigotry". I opened my post with an appeal for the topic not to descend into Islam-bashing. Where is the bigotry in saying that I consider many religions to be invalid? It is an opinion based on education, observation and the appliance of ethical values to what I see. I have spoken against bashing one religion and expressed a degree of respect for another. What bigotry? Please also point out to me any impolite or intolerant langauge in my posts in this topic. Thanks, Rick |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Tootler Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:06 PM Let's keep this in perspective. Go to most Islamic countries and turn on the radio and you'll hear plenty of music. This was certainly the case when my Father was with RAF in the Gulf in the 1960's. The particular problem highlighted by the OP applies to a minority. The article says "as many as 10%" which suggests that 10% is an upper limit. Also in much of the discussion about music in relation to Christianity has dealt with music in Church. While I am sure there are a some Christians who object to music per se, more often the objections or restrictions concern music in Church rather than music in the world as a whole. I know it was a long time back, but John Playford was able to publish A highly successful dance manual at a time when the Puritans controlled the government in England. They were notorious for objecting to music and dancing but in fact they did not, on the whole, object to music and dancing as such but to music and dancing in Church - other than the unison singing of the Psalms. If people want to impoverish their lives by denying themselves the benefits of music, then so be it. What is objectionable is that all too often, such religious fundamentalists (of whatever persuasion) are control freaks and want to impose their model for living on others. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: mousethief Date: 02 Jul 10 - 04:00 PM Actually, mousethief, the way I read the historical references that you cite, there must have been a widespread tradition of instrumental music in the Christian church immediately prior to the Protestant Reformation; otherwise, Wesley, Luther, et al, would not have had anything against which they could object. I can't find it online but I remember reading one of the reformers calling organs "a papish novelty" or some such thing. I think maybe the folks at Trent weren't terribly representative in that respect. Or the organs were just becoming popular in some Catholic places, and the folks at Trent, like the Reformers, were reacting with horror. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: frogprince Date: 02 Jul 10 - 03:03 PM ...thinking of the thinking...? remind me not to jump on anyone else for garbled wording. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 02 Jul 10 - 03:02 PM Christians loving music: Ba dum ba dum (A big part of me so wants to applaud these peeps having fun, but I just can't..) |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Ebbie Date: 02 Jul 10 - 03:01 PM My long-ish post must have bumped into someone else's in the tube- as former Senator Ted Stevens once explained - and disappeared. Suffice it to say that I agree with just about all of what has been said here. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: frogprince Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:59 PM Mousethief, the question for me remains, why did Calvin, Luther, et al, get it into their heads to consider all instrumental music in church evil? I can imagine them reacting against what they judged to be wild goings-on involving instrumental music. But they all would have read Biblical references to the use of instruments in worship; how did they get from there to such blanket negativity? Howard, again I'm happy to learn something here about the thinking of the thinking of the Orthodox church. If any person, or group, simply finds it more conducive to worship with unacompanied voices, I have nothing in the world against that. I would just disagree with anyone who condemned the use of instruments in church as some sort of evil. Not rise up against 'em, just disagree with 'em. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: PoppaGator Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:54 PM "Actually instrumental Christian worship is pretty new, as Christianity goes." Actually, mousethief, the way I read the historical references that you cite, there must have been a widespread tradition of instrumental music in the Christian church immediately prior to the Protestant Reformation; otherwise, Wesley, Luther, et al, would not have had anything against which they could object. Joe: Intersting that your 16 years of Catholic schooling included 16 years of music education. I had 16 years of Catholic school, too (well, 17 counting kindergarten), and had a fairly thorough education in music theory and vocal music through 8th grade, but that was the end of it ~ no music at all in my prep-school and college years. At least part of your high school and college years were spent in the seminary, if I'm not mistaken ~ right? Since Catholic priests are expected to sing regularly ~ solo, often unaccompanied, and in public ~ I would imagine that music education has a much higher priority in the seminaries than in Catholic schools intended primarily for the laity. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:49 PM "Religion" does not deny music to anyone. In the main, it supports and promotes it (Who paid Bach's salary all those years?) I guess it all depends on the umm 'agenda' of said religion. For those who have wished to present an impressive portfolio, there has been no shame in spending vast amounts on the arts. Be they grand paintings with pricely colours (such as the lapis used for Mary's robe), architectural, musical and so-on. Others have had a humbler disposition and reject such ostentatious displays of material wealth and indeed 'idolatry'. Yet others are repressive, morally offended by all things sensual, and seek to extract all beauty or joy from the religious experience! |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Don Firth Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:40 PM Gotta agree with Joe! When you consider that some of the world's most glorious music is religion-based (Handel, Bach, Mozart, ye gods, the whole pantheon of composers!), the idea that music and religion are inimical to each other is ridiculous on the face of it. Music is a major part of every religious event or rite that I have ever attended, and many churches of my acquaintance have children's choruses and/or special musical events for and with children in the congregation. Throughout its history, singing (chanting) has been an integral part of the Christian church, as it always has in the Jewish religion. True, in medieval times, the use of musical instruments in churches was discouraged, but that got quickly rescinded and rare is the church that isn't equipped with an organ, some of which are downright monstrous (some of the huge cathedral organs in Europe). So the idea that "Religion denies music to children" is simply not true. Some religious groups, yes. But very few in comparison to denominations in which music is an integral part of worship. The thread title is misleading in that it's simply not true. "Religion" does not deny music to anyone. In the main, it supports and promotes it (Who paid Bach's salary all those years?) And some folks here are being downright disingenuous. Don Firth P. S. Same holds for the graphic arts. Islam forbids the depiction of Mohammed in paintings or drawings. But think of the thousands, if not millions, of paintings and statues of Jesus and other religious figures (saints, martyrs, etc.) turned out by Renaissance artists. And how many statues of the Buddha are there out there? |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: mousethief Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:34 PM Not to harp on (pun not intended), but it is worth considering that "a capella" means "in the style of the church." |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: mousethief Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:33 PM That is entirely different from the view that all instrumental music is forbidden. Let alone that all music, instrumental or vocal is forbidden. Nobody would say the Russians are slackers in the instrumental music department*. Yet both Rachmaninov and Tchaikovsky wrote a capella music for the Orthodox Church as well. (Indeed I have sung some of their music in church -- Tchaikovsky's "Holy God" ("Svyati Bozhe") is gorgeous.) *prompting the Rolling Stones to write their famous song, "I know you own a rock-and-roll balalaika". |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Howard Jones Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:27 PM Frogprince, I understand the rationale for Orthodox religious music being entirely vocal is that instrumental music was considered to be something secular that tends to evoke a kind of emotionalism and is foreign to the Orthodox spiritual life. That seems perfectly understandable to me. I don't think there is any suggestion in Orthodox Christianity that secular instrumental music is wrong, simply that it is not appropriate for religious music. Both Russia and Greece have strong traditions of instrumental music which surely could not have existed had the church disapproved. That is entirely different from the view that all instrumental music is forbidden. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: mousethief Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:25 PM I personally just don't see the rationale of those who think that God doesn't want them to play instruments in church Actually instrumental Christian worship is pretty new, as Christianity goes. John Calvin (d. 1564) considered instruments in worship anathema. Martin Luther (d. 1546) considered the organ an "instrument of Baal." Lutherans didn't begin using instruments in worship until he had been dead 100 years. Charles Wesley (d. 1788) said, "I have no objection to instruments of music in our chapels, provided they are neither heard nor seen." The Catholics came this close to condemning instruments in worship at the Council of Trent (1545 ff) -- which would have sealed it permanently. The real question is why and how they came to be accepted, rather than why they are still rejected in some places. It is the accepting, not the rejecting, of musical instruments in Christian worship that is the novelty. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Joe Offer Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:18 PM Howard, I'd disagree with this statement of yours: The difference between religious and non-religious views is that the latter may be changed by discussion or education, whereas the former are matters of faith and not open to argument. It's simply not true for most religious denominations. If you look at almost any religious denomination, you will see a long history of debate and a wide spectrum of perspectives. The authoritarian model of religious belief imposed by a higher authority, applies only to a segment of religious people. For most, belief is something that is commonly held, not imposed. Interestingly, many public school districts in the United States deny music to children for budgetary reasons. They wouldn't dare cut back on athletics, but music isn't a priority for much of the United States. For many Americans, if you want music, you buy it. I had 16 years of Catholic education, which means I had 16 years of music education. That's not what you'd get in many public schools in the United States. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Arthur_itus Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:18 PM >>The question is, should schools insist on teaching music according to the National Curriculum, or should they show some sensitivity and flexibility where parents object on religious grounds?<< Schools should insist on teaching music according to the National Curriculum Lets stop all this bullshit. |
|
Subject: RE: Religion denies music to children? From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies) Date: 02 Jul 10 - 02:17 PM "Religion, whilst undoubtedly a force for good," I think that it can be doubted myself. Decent people and organisations (including religious) do decent things. Shitty people and organisations (including religious) do shitty things. |
| Share Thread: |
