Two things.

Funny, I agree with what you're saying but from a purely logical standpoint your argument is null and void. If we're talking about lyric-free music then you can't use any of the songs you mentioned since they have lyrics. Yes they have short instrumental intros and interludes but you know they content of the lyrics well enough that that could be clouding your mood if you will. Consider the song Luca by Suzanne Vega. The music soundsreally nice during the intro somewhat soothing and then the lyrics talk about a little boy who is being abused upstairs. Now that I know the lyrics well, that nice happy music gives me a knot in my stomach.

Second
I totally misunderstood Josiah's intent (somehow I missed the drivel part). I propose that being Creed for those with degrees is actually a good thing. One's first thoughts on Creed... Hmm Cristian in the mainstream... not so bad musicians... might be a good thing. I must admit that I liked them initially. Never enough to buy albums but liked them none the less. In my eyes they just got old. OTR on the other hand are a Christian band in the mainstream made up of good musicians and good lyricists and they aren't as formulaic as Creed.
I guess I see Creed for those with degrees as saying that those without brain cells firing like the mundane formulaic Creed and those with some intelligence need some sort of intelligent music which is OTR.

Well I took that approach because the guy in the essay is talking about the music of songs with lyrics -- he's saying that the music of those songs have their own morality regardless of what the lyrics say. I do have a bias since I know the lyrics, but I still think "Streets" would come across as triumphant, hopeful, and inspiring apart from the lyrics.

As for Over the Rhine, I knew Josiah meant the Creed comment as an insult. I honestly can't see how anyone could find their music "drivel" -- it's intelligently written and it's soulful. To each their own, I suppose.

Ahhh.

I understand much better now. Just from the excerpt from dude I thought that we were going at instrumentals solely. Either way I can see that music can have an effect on our emotional state but I'm not sure that that is necessarily a/moral. I guess you could consider morality of making music if the intent is to bring someone up or down but then again that's pretty hazy also as different people can react differently to different music.

Ok I just read dudes full article because I had a brain fart and wasn't sure where I was going and he's just not in the least bit convincing. He seems to be taking an inductive leap larger than he's able to.

I need to think more. I'll get back to you on this one.

Few things:

Consider that music is never a-moral because it is never subject-independent. It never is without a performer (including say, somebody like a DJ playing the song) or a listener. Since humans are inherently moral beings, an "act" is occuring when someone listens to and/or plays music. So, from that perspective, music is always moral. Have no fear though, I don't think that this leads us down some road to where we can't listen to say, Led Zeppelin because John Bohnam was on occasion a drunken bafoon.

But that position doesnt, at least on a surface reading, help us with our "aesthetic." But since at least immediately you were concerned with the moral aspect, I hope that's somewhat helpful.

Actually talking about a piece of music and trying to determine whether or not it, in and of itself is "good" by it's adherence to some set of objective criteria. Well, ya, don't really think that's possible to nail down with anything remotely near "certainty." I'm sure though there are some musical objectivity mongers out there, and who knows, they may be right and they may be not. Me, I'll just respect their passion and taste about it. Just like I respect you, your brothers, and Holton's passion about U2 (approaching near worship), while I myslef, enjoying them, dont' feel as strongly.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that I might be more helpful to consider certain bits of music and art good because we respect the people who think that art/music is good. It's risky though. If you've got friends happen to be people who think that Staind qualifies and thoughtful, talented musicians. Well, you might be in for trouble.

Anyways, my position isn't well thought out. But one thing I'm certain of is that it can help you avoid being an "objectivity asshole" or a "taste-tyrant." If you're concerned about the people first, it's hard to go wrong, even if it's not "true" or whatever.

Down with modernism.

I LOVED the article. I struggle with the "music issue" often, and listen to ALL kinds of music from ALL kinds of viewpoints.

I think the question we should be asking is "what are we wanting to get out of the music we listen to, and on what level?" ...Not that I immediately even have an answer to it.

I will say this, though, after praying/studying on a regular basis, my need/interest to listen to music - of any kind - kinda disappears.

This is a personal thing, and, by no means an indictment. It's just, for me, as I get deeper and deeper into my spiritual walk, the pleasure from music can't compare to the pleasure of being taught spiritual truth from the Word.

My CD's can, at times, collect a lot of dust. And this is coming from a guy who writes songs, and plays 2 instruments...

The extreme anarchist punk/hardcore scene has a saying that I'm aware of: "the music is the message." Of course, they mean that their stuff sounds abrasive for a reason...they're trying to scare the crap out of those they consider enemies. It strikes me that if they believe this (being anarchists/relativists and all), how can your average Christian deny it too?

Who can control music though? Who would want to? Personally, I don't think I could ever support any kind of human legislative view of creativity, be it artistic or musical. Music is a profoundly spiritual thing. If anything, if we want better music, it has to start within the church, as it did in the middle ages. But I suppose that begs the question in a way: how do we know what kind of music is most pleasing to the One who gave us the music in the first place?

I agree that music has to have ethical roots of some sort, but we have to be really careful about seeing it on a right/wrong basis, and about being overly wise when it comes time to get your body on the dancefloor.

Heck, if we're gonna outlaw rap or punk because it's antithetical to the gospel, why don't we just outlaw snakes too?

Another thought: Christ came into the world as God in the Judeo/Roman culture of the first century AD, and lived among those people as a fellow man. I'm sure if we could've seen Him, we would have thought, yep, He's one of them Jews alright.

Drawing an analogy: the Church's music (and I'm speaking strictly of worship music) should flow from the character of God, but for each culture, bare a cultural resemblance. While we should feel free to learn technique from the world, the spiritual aspect of our worship music should be distinctly biblical. Since everything really flows from worship, that's where to start redeeming and understanding all kinds of music.

I cannot see how you're even having a debate about this, of course music is amoral, i.e. without morality. If the music doesn't have lyrics which allow some sort of moral statement to be made, then it is intrinsically without morality, and therefore neither immoral, nor moral.

Music can be used for any moral reason, and the same music can have different ends. For example Wagner (his music not his ideology) can inspire both positive feelings, and anti-semitic nationalism (some-times simultaneously). There is an ambiguity to the emotional connotations of a piece as personal response is purely subjective, whereas accepted language has some objective meaning.

Being from the "60's generation, I am familiar with the "greats" of Rock - most of whom had (and still have, thank you Rolling Stones) a clear opinion on whether music was moral or not. Many have made statements that they intentionally used their music to physically influence people toward that age-old credo of "drugs, sex and rock and roll". For example, Frank Zappa formerly with the Mothers of Invention, who also had an advanced degree in music, so I understand, was known to brag that if one had in times past had an LSD trip, then he and his band would guarantee a flash-back at their concert. I suppose that folks could stand around all day discussing whether music is amoral or otherwise, but one has only to turn to the advertising world to see that they consider research on the effects of music to physically "move" people to purchase their product - and one might note that they seem to use music that is cross-cultural. In my mind, that negates the argument that it is learned behavior that produces physical responses. An example of this stands out vividly in my mind - I was researching "Christian Rock" that was of the "edgier" sort several years ago. I had purchased several tapes (it WAS a while ago!) and was lying on my living room floor listening to them on my stereo. My toddler wandered in the room and stood before the speaker, listening intently. Of his own accord he began to "dance", swaying his hips in time to the music. Now I can tell you that he had no exposure to dancing - we didn't participate as a family - and he had not been exposed to those who did on TV or elsewhere, so where did he get the idea that ones hips neded to be moved in time with this music? I could only conclude that indeed, music has the power to affect on physically.
Looking at whether this type of music has a place in the church I can only conclude that if it is "ministering" to the body, then it is not ministering to the spirit, and God tells us in the gospels that "the rue worshipers must worship Him in spirit and in truth" -

re: previous posting - sorry, I forgot to finish my thought on advertisers. It should read "advertisers consider research worth spending millions of dollars to find how music moves consumers." Sorry!

If one is to determine whether music is amoral or not then there must be something to which the music is measured or compared. How could it be said that something is right based on cultural or personal preference? Since when did this become the "standard"? If the Bible is known to be all truth, and if man is a sinner and therefore prone to sin, then why is it that we do not "filter" our music through the principles taught in the Bible? Sure...the Bible doesn't say that rock music is wrong...neither does it say that viewing pornography on the internet is wrong. Think about this for a minute! Who made man the deciding force in what is right and wrong? Why not let the truths of the Word of God dictate that to us? Are we so scared of having to give up the music that we love that we are not willing to surrender it to God?