Banner
Mozart and Vince Gill PDF Print E-mail
Liturgy and Worship - Musical Exhortation
Written by Douglas Wilson   
Thursday, 03 May 2012 11:53

Let me begin this post with a list of the last twelve songs I listened to (at the time of writing), somewhat randomly, and working backward:

(Sittin On) The Dock of the Bay by Sara Bareilles
Build a Levee by Natalie Merchant
29 Ways by Marc Cohn
Lake Charles by Lucinda Williams
Slow Dancing in a Burning Room by John Mayer
Slow Turning by John Hiatt
Cajun Moon by J.J. Cale
Moment of Forgiveness by Indigo Girls
Walkin' Daddy by Greg Brown
Sundown by Gordon Lightfoot
Give Me One Reason by Eric Clapton and Tracy Chapman
Boulder to Birmingham by Emmylou Harris

Having made that point, if there was one, last night Nancy and I went to hear the NSA choir perform Mozart's Vesperae Solennes de Confessore, which was of course glorious. It is kind of hard to fathom how all of that came out of one guy's head.

I mention this evening before and morning after musical contrast in order to make the point that it is not really a contrast. There is no tension between these different sorts of music for different occasions, any more than there is tension between cereal for a breakfast and a steak dinner for an anniversary.

Many of our problems in working out the ramifications of a true cultural education are problems in cataloging or grouping. Because we want to choose up sides before thinking through all the issues carefully, we tend to latch on to issues that are not really issues at all. For one example of this, in his (generally good) Music & Ministry, Calvin Johansson argues against pop music on the grounds that it is "mass produced."

But of course, virtually everything is mass produced now. The planet has billions of people on it now, and if somebody in London wants a CD of Vivaldi, then he will get one that was pressed in Los Angeles, and shipped in a crate from Baltimore. And that's the old fashioned way of mass producing Vivaldi -- it is quicker these days to just bounce it off a satellite.

Comparing Mozart to Vince Gill is like comparing your lawn mower to your dishwasher and asking which one is better. Better at what?

There should be no ordinary conflict between genres of music. There might occasionally be a conflict of opinions when it comes to an evaluation of "what kind of occasion this is," and one of the indicators of those differing opinions was the music chosen. For example, I once had a pastor acquaintance who had done a funeral, and the music selected for it was Kenny Rogers' "You Picked a Fine Time to Leave Me, Lucille."

There are three basic kinds of musical condemnation that I think are appropriate. I am writing here about the music itself, not music as contaminated by the lyrics.

1. Judging a piece of music as substandard within the rules of its genre -- bluegrass badly done, according to the standards of bluegrass, blues badly done, according to the standards of the blues, classical badly done, according to the standards of classical, jazz badly done, according to the standards of jazz, and so on.

2. Taking a piece of music on its face value and rejecting it, when that music declares openly its rebellion against God (e.g. John Cage's random music, Schoenberg's atonality, and Johnny Rotten's entire oeuvre). I leave room here for some very limited and lawful uses for atonal music -- as when you need some really creepy music in a movie, right before the axe murderer gets into the house.

3. Judging a piece of music for being wildly out of place -- say, Mozart's Requiem at a third grade birthday party, Scott Joplin's Maple Leaf Rag for the offertory, or Lipbone Redding's Dogs of Santiago for the bridal march. But with all such negative judgments, the problem is not the music itself, but rather the placement.

Outside these basic areas, if we reject a form of music out of hand because it is not the form of music we prefer, then we are trying to kick against the variegated world that the triune God created. And if we are doing this in a spirit of musical snobbery, we are demonstrating that, however adept we are in the form we prefer, when it comes to music at large, we don't really know what its for.

 

 



Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Mixx! Google! Live! Facebook! StumbleUpon! MySpace! Yahoo! BlogRolling! Twitter! LinkedIn! TwitThis
 
Comments
Search
Only registered users can write comments!
Matt Weber  Thursday, May 03, 2012 12:27 pm
Never knew you were such a relativist. Mozart is to Vince Gill as steak dinner is to McDonalds. Anyone who 'prefers' McDonalds is deficient in their tastes.
John Rabe  Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:00 pm
Matt: Anyone who prefers a steak dinner to McDonalds while, say, racing in the car to soccer practice is kind of a doofus. And that's not relativism.
Mark  Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:06 pm
Excellent post.

Listening to Vince Gill is better for your cholesterol than eating McDonalds, but both have their place in a trinitarian world.
Matt Weber  - re:  Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:37 pm
John Rabe wrote:
Matt: Anyone who prefers a steak dinner to McDonalds while, say, racing in the car to soccer practice is kind of a doofus. And that's not relativism.


That's rather bizarre parallel. I prefer a steak dinner to McDonalds all the time, even though constraints like time and place may prevent me from indulging. But what constraints would prevent you from listening to Mozart that would allow you to listen to Vince Gill?

If you prefer pop music to classical then your tastes are deficient. It happens, and it's not the end of the world, but it is important to recognize it for what it is rather than make excuses as Wilson does here.
Jane Dunsworth  Friday, May 04, 2012 6:13 am
"But what constraints would prevent you from listening to Mozart that would allow you to listen to Vince Gill?"

Appropriate background music for a family cookout rather than a quiet evening alone at home?

Vince Gill (or something similar, Vince isn't quite to my taste) is definitely "better" for some purposes. Mozart is definitely wrong for background music for chatter, and doesn't fit every mood (despite the diversity of moods Mozart itself displays.)
Matt Weber  Friday, May 04, 2012 7:05 am
Appropriateness isn't the same kind of constraint as time or place but ok. I would use the example of a tavern. You wouldn't play Mozart in a tavern, but that's mostly because a tavern is low-brow and makes no bones about quality. Remember, Wilson's original point was that there is no difference in quality between Mozart and Vince Gill. I take it we have settled the point that he is completely wrong about this?

Incidentally, you could listen to classical music at your backyard gathering. Vivaldi or something would go well with it. You wouldn't use it not because of apropriateness or the lack thereof, but rather because the people you invite prefer pop-country (or whatever) to classical.
Douglas L. Roorda  Friday, May 04, 2012 8:13 am
Here's my favorite critique of musical style, under the form of an Audi commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3snyXTNmFm8

Dustin Savage  Thursday, May 03, 2012 1:41 pm
Pastor Wilson, is there any books you would recommend on the evolution of music throughout Christian history, particularly pertaining to Church music? Hoping to do a lot of reading/studying on the subject, resulting in writing some articles etc.
Christopher Casey  - RE: E minor to C  Thursday, May 03, 2012 4:22 pm
Douglas Wilson, in the 'your church might be effeminate if..'list you listed "The worship music rides particular chord changes hard, with special mention being given to the shift from E Minor to C Major" I'm curious about the significance of that particular chord change.
Adam  - re: re:  Thursday, May 03, 2012 4:47 pm
Matt Weber wrote:

If you prefer pop music to classical then your tastes are deficient.


A couple hunded years ago classical music was pop music. If it hadn't been, you'd have never heard any of it.
Jonathan James  Thursday, May 03, 2012 5:23 pm
Can't we recognize different purposes between genres, as well as different absolute values for those genres as well? If we ask, "Which is better, epic or limerick?" It would be appropriate to answer, "Better for what?" But wouldn't it also, in a different sense, be appropriate to say, "Epic. Epic is better."

Perhaps what I mean to say is that there is a difference of nobility and value in the purposes of various genres, as well as an individual work's ability to fulfill that purpose.
Jane Dunsworth  Friday, May 04, 2012 6:17 am
I like this distinction. It's possible to rate something as having a greater sum of qualities, while finding it definitely inferior for specific purposes.

Kazuo Ishiguro is objectively a much better writer than Dr. Seuss. "The Remains of the Day" is objectively much worse to read to a sleepy three-year-old than "The Sleep Book."
David Henry  - More to the point...  Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:43 pm
...Pastor Wilson, you listened to a song about my people. I didn't even know it existed. Thank you.

Also, excellent. If you can't listen to both the violin and the fiddle, you're missing half the instrument.
David Henry  - More to the point...  Thursday, May 03, 2012 7:45 pm
...Pastor Wilson, you listened to a song about my people. I didn't even know it existed. Thank you.

Also, excellent. If you can't listen to both the violin and the fiddle, you're missing half the instrument. In a manner of speaking.
dave matre  Friday, May 04, 2012 5:04 am
Dustin,

I don't claim to be as well-read as Pastor Wilson, but I'd recommend "All God's Children and Blue Suede Shoes" by Ken Myers. I found his explanation of the three types of culture (high, folk, and pop) particularly helpful.
Dustin Savage  Friday, May 04, 2012 7:00 am
Thank you, Dave. I'll be on the lookout for it.
Dustin Savage  Monday, May 07, 2012 6:35 am
BAM! Sure enough, strode into the local thrift store and found a like-new copy for 50 cents! Such sweet providence!

Thanks again for the reference. I'm sure I'll enjoy reading it.
Josh D  Friday, May 04, 2012 5:49 am
I'm curious to know how one can equate atonality (or any musical style) with an open declaration of rebellion against God. If we consider a work's musicality, divorced from lyrical or other content, determining whether that work is an "open declaration of rebellion" is typically an arbitrary line-drawing exercise at best, and - practically speaking - leads us right back down the path you warn us to avoid: judging a piece's worth based on whether we prefer that style of music.
Matt Weber  - re: re: re:  Friday, May 04, 2012 6:15 am
Adam wrote:
[quote=Matt Weber]
If you prefer pop music to classical then your tastes are deficient.


A couple hunded years ago classical music was pop music. If it hadn't been, you'd have never heard any of it.[/quote]

I think this belief is common, but it isn't true. Popular folk music has existed since the dawn of time. The classical tradition is something else, which developed out of church music in the late middle ages. Classical composers often wrote popular tunes alongside their loftier pieces.

I too wonder how atonality represents a rebellion against God. It might be understood as a rebellion against the older traditions in classical music.
Jody Killingsworth  - Can't have it both ways...  Friday, May 04, 2012 8:09 am
Matt Weber wrote:

The classical tradition...developed out of church music in the late middle ages...

I too wonder how atonality represents a rebellion against God. It might be understood as a rebellion against the older traditions in classical music.


Inconsistency alert!
Jane Dunsworth  Friday, May 04, 2012 8:25 am
"You wouldn't use it not because of apropriateness or the lack thereof, but rather because the people you invite prefer pop-country (or whatever) to classical."

Nope. *I* prefer (substitution for personal application) Alison Krauss to Mozart *for a backyard gathering,* that's why I'd choose it. I don't prefer either to the other in the abstract.

Yes, I *could* use Vivaldi or some other more "appropriate" substitute than Mozart -- but Alison Krauss would still be better for the purpose. Vivaldi, while conceivably acceptable and not party-ruining, would still be a worse choice.
John Barach  Friday, May 04, 2012 9:00 am
Well, at least you got in one song about my (new) home town. We just bought a house in Lake Charles, the birthplace of Lucinda Williams.
Andrew Roggow  Friday, May 04, 2012 9:12 am
Quote:
And if we are doing this in a spirit of musical snobbery, we are demonstrating that, however adept we are in the form we prefer, when it comes to music at large, we don't really know what its for.


That pretty much nails some Christians I know. They would answer that music exists for worshiping God, and by that they would be mainly talking about corporate singing for 20 minutes on Sundays. So a problem that I think is connected with this is the issue of music types is the issue of what worship is.
Charles Long  - re:  Friday, May 04, 2012 2:23 pm
Josh D wrote:
I'm curious to know how one can equate atonality (or any musical style) with an open declaration of rebellion against God.
Josh, the simplest answer is that the composers of atonal and/or randomly generated music thought of it as an expression of their open rebellion against God. John cage was an angry atheist who tried very hard to write music that expressed the completely random disorder which he thought drove (or rather, didnt drive) the cosmos. Now I am willing to entertain the argument that even this sort of thing can be conquered by Christ, but let's all be honest about what is being conquered. At the end of the day, Bach is on the calvinistic Trinitarian end of the spectrum, and folks like Cage are on the nihilistic atheist end. Of course, even Bach has touches of dissonance, but glorious resolution always kicks its butt.
Josh D  Sunday, May 06, 2012 11:35 am
Charles, judging a work's value based on its composer's intentions might be the simplest answer (although I'd dispute that point), but it's a poor answer as well. What if Wagner was intentionally trying to write racist music when he composed Der Ring des Nibelungen? Do we then reject it?

I agree with Wils that we can reject a piece when the work is (1) inappropriate for its setting or (2) poorly written or performed as compared to its genre. But a blanket rejection based on a finding that its structure openly defies God (again, as considered apart from lyrical content) must rely on a subjective analysis of personal preference or interpretation. To say that a work is "better" or "more Christian" because it isn't dissonant or isn't atonal is like saying that the design of the UN building is better than that of Frank Lloyd Wright's "Falling Water." Is Pollock's work trash because he didn't use a brush?
Matt Weber  Friday, May 04, 2012 2:26 pm
Quote:
Nope. *I* prefer...


Very well then, you prefer it. Your preference still has no bearing on the quality; not even in the less relevant sense of whether it is appropriate or not. What you're saying is that yes, there is appropriate classical music for a backyard gathering but you like the pop music more. Great--so what?

Quote:
Inconsistency alert!


In "I too wonder how atonality represents a rebellion against God. It might be understood as a rebellion against the older traditions in classical music." The first sentence refers to atonal music in general, the second to atonal music of the Western musical tradition. Forgive my pronoun fail. Wilson could clear up confusion just by saying he meant one or the other.
Christopher Casey  Friday, May 04, 2012 3:52 pm
Matt Weber wrote:

Your preference still has no bearing on the quality


So how does one differentiate between their preference and quality?
Jane Dunsworth  Friday, May 04, 2012 4:08 pm
No, I think there is a marginally appropriate classical music for a *certain kind of* backyard gathering that could be used if nothing better offered. I think that Alison Krauss (who is not really pop country, FWIW, though I don't expect everyone to be familiar with every genre so that's not meant as a snipe; I'd call her "contemporary bluegrass" or something along those lines) is *better* for a backyard gathering (if you're talking about a certain kind of gathering with a certain tone; Vivaldi would be perfect for some kinds of outdoor gatherings.) Vivaldi would do if nothing more appropriate existed, but more appropriate stuff does exist.

My point in emphasizing "I prefer" was that you suggested that I would bow to the desires of my guests who prefer classical over country. But that's not it at all -- I don't prefer country over classical as a rule (or classical over country), but I think some kinds of music are *better* for certain settings than others.
Mark Dove  Friday, May 04, 2012 4:51 pm
This seems a good forum to confess that in addition to good literature I have enjoyed Tom Clancy novels as well as reading cartoons like Dilbert. I should also perhaps confess that while I do often try to talk with my children about deep theological matters, with appropriate stern and furrowed brow, at times I find myself falling into telling knock-knock jokes and even, at really low times when I act like a very, very common man, laughing at those same jokes.
Tammy Burns  Friday, May 04, 2012 8:52 pm
Jesus lived among the common man.
Matthew Heckel  Saturday, May 05, 2012 7:26 am
Lewis said, "Nothing is ever better than what is best in its own kind" (The Four Loves).
Kent Will  Saturday, May 05, 2012 12:29 pm
Perhaps all this argument is owing to confusion about honor. We'd probably all agree that Mozart is worthy of more honor than Vince Gill, but that's not equivalent to saying, on the one hand, that there is no place for Vince Gill, or on the other hand, that Vince Gill occupies the same place as Mozart.

I think Pastor Wilson is merely saying that there is a place in the world for both categories, the high and the low, which is different than denying the existence of categories altogether, or saying the lower deserves the same honor as the higher.