So, as I said at the eighteenth annual Concordia Catechetical Conference in Waukesha, Wisconsin last Thursday, there is such a thing as Dionysian music, as Dr. Daniel Reuning proposed some twenty-five years ago, and that it is to be discouraged, even disallowed in the Church.
Dionysian music, as I recall his having explained it, is music with a profound beat; music which resonates well with the natural rhythms of natural man (who is opposed to all that is spiritual, according to St. Paul).
I'll even venture to put it another way: natural man has a natural life which is defined by a naturally beating heart. The heart thumps as it pushes blood through the body, by which we live. And this, I would further venture to suggest, is what is so appealing about many kinds of popular music. It has a strong beat. We like a beat, because our hearts beat.
Once upon a time music had no beat at all. It was melodic and lilting, but tones and melismas moved with the syllables which were spoken. Gregorian Chant is the name given to this ancient type of music.
The first use of metical music in the churches was likely to have been a bit jarring to the people, to say nothing of their bishops. My guess is that one could find evidence of controversy surrounding its introduction into the churches, though I have not done the research.
Nonetheless, it gained acceptance, and my guess is that the Church determined it was at length admitted because although it now had a beat, its beat was determined (or, more likely, instinctively considered) not to have been so profound that it became the driving force in the music. Thus hymns and chorales as we now know them became acceptable.
Then came the mid-twentieth century, when 'contemporary music' invaded the churches. The argument has been made that this was just another step in the same direction. Jarring at first, but eventually, the reasoning goes, it will become counted as acceptable.
So, what's the problem?
My take is that it has crossed a line into what may be termed Dionysian music. In classical mythology, Dionysus, also known as Bacchus, was the god who inspired ritual madness and ecstasy or frenzy (bakkheia). I call Dionysian music a musical style driven by the natural impulses and rhythms, a drive which so governs the genre that the other elements of it are relegated to a sometimes distant second place.
This is certainly true with regard to many forms of rock music, jazz music, and pop music. As a musician, I find myself so enjoying these musical forms that I care little what the lyrics are saying. It bothers me that, say, some Led Zeppelin lyrics are raunchy, but admittedly it doesn't bother me all that much. I love the music. I love the beat. I am driven to a miniature kind of frenzy when I listen to it.
Hence, my reasoning goes, if it were employed in worship, in a manner of speaking it would be found to be in service to the god Dionysus: given to frenzy and ecstatic experience.
One can scoff at this idea, but I believe it is well worthy of considering, and I am thankful that Dr. Reuning explained it to me back when.
Thus I repeat the comment I made the other day: if I enter your church before the service commences, and I see an organ, fine. If I see a flute, or a violin, or even a guitar, ok: I would not be yet able to make a value judgment. But if I see a drum set, I know there's something wrong. A drum set keeps the beat, and strongly. It bespeaks a pulse, as it were a strong and powerful heartbeat. Too strong. Dionysian. Inappropriate for the service of God's Holy Word.
And this, I will dare to declare, is the very heart(beat) of what's wrong with contemporary worship.
+BFE
Praise him with timbrel and dance;
ReplyDeletepraise him with strings and pipe!
Praise him with sounding cymbals;
praise him with loud clashing cymbals! (Psalm 150)
I'm sure you could see this one coming a mile away, but I had to quote the obvious. Psalms 81 and 142 could also be included.
I guess they were banging on those timbrels in an arhythmic manner.
were they doing this banging, clanging, jumping and gyrating in the tabernacle or temple? most, if not all the dancing in old testament scripture is related to a lot of people dying (or one of David's wives being cursed) either right before or right after each dancing event. That's an association we'd rather ignore, but it is there nonetheless. And, as far as i know, there are only a couple new testament references to dancing and they have nothing to do with praising God. And cymbals, well, in the new testament they don't seem to be portrayed in a positive light. (1 Cor. 13)
ReplyDeleteMaybe agree to a point... but what about tympani? These are the exception to the rule, don't you think?
ReplyDeleteApart from the scriptures Pr. Cwirla pointed out, I see a basic error in this line of reasoning. All music that is not arrhythmic has a steady beat, and you don't need a drum set to make it a strong one. The melody itself can drive the beat every bit as strongly.
ReplyDeleteA rather interesting example, and a shock to me when I joined the Lutheran Church, is A Mighty Fortress Is Our God. Compare LSB hymns 656 and 657. 656 is the arrangement traditionally sung in the LCMS; 657 is very close to what I grew up with, but still slightly different.
656 is not only full of unnecessary melodic ornamentation, but it actually gives the song a beat--especially when it's sung in cut time. o_O Even 657 has been messed with to make it feel more upbeat (the final note of the first and third lines is shortened). But in the case of 656, not only does it ruin a perfectly good song, but it seems to bring the song under the categories you're talking about.
What's the point of my strange observation? Simply that the things you're talking about cannot be objectively measured. Every person hears music differently, depending on his background.
This little bit of confusion about musical style and perception is really a distraction, which we can entirely avoid if we focus on the theology behind it all. Today's contemporary worship has its roots in Pentecostalism; those who practice it are practicing Pentecostal belief whether they admit it or not. We should be focusing on exposing the false doctrines behind contemporary worship, not relying on contrived theories about musical beats--theories which incidentally have their origins in fundamentalist legalism.
Having said all that, I am also very much put off by drums in a church. I can't disagree with you there.... ;-)
Blanket rules almost always say too much and go too far, because there are generally nuances and exceptions that come into play in the bump and grind of life.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that Father Eckardt is grappling with a legitimate and significant distinction in musical idioms. One really can't have music without some kind of rhythm; yet, there is a difference between music that is chiefly defined and driven forward by the strong pulse of its rhythm, and music that is guided by its underlying rhythm, but not dominated by it. Or the rhythm of the music may be defined by the linguistic rhythm of a text, instead of the music constraining its text to fit its strong and steady beat.
I am not inclined to rule out categorically the possibility of drums ever being used appropriately. But a trap set dominated by snare drums, especially as displayed in some prominent position as one enters the church? I agree with Father Eckardt: Bad news. No thanks. The leading edge in such a case is not the Word, but the rhythm of the heart.
To take a page from the old SAT style of question:
ReplyDeletetympani is to snare as trumpet is to...kazoo.
Could we have a kazoo Divine Service? In a vacuum I say, yes. It is conceivable that there arise an alien culture in which the kazoo is the height of beauty and regal honor, or even, for that matter, remotely beautiful.
As with all matters in this discussion, I believe the real question if often overlooked. "Why" do we want a snare drum in the service? And "why" if one puts a snare drum in the service does it inevitably include the removal of all previous tunes, melodies, instruments and words?
It's not about the drum and it never has been. But as Ft. Eckhardt succinctly has noticed, that drum has become the contextual portent of all things revival.
I have heard this with drums, and found it compelling and even Dionysian precisely because of what the words say:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOwziWDdkc0&feature=related
(Forgive me if I'm not supposed to post links.)
PS. I neglected to add in my note about the alien culture that find the kazoo regal that such is certainly *not* our reality. I hope the inclinations of my comment are obvious, but in our current day one should not assume.
ReplyDeleteI am, in the end, very much opposed to the snare drum as co-opted by revival!
Is this more of a matter of aesthetics than theology or musical anthropology? I tend to think so.
ReplyDelete'tympani is to snare as trumpet is to...kazoo.'
ReplyDeleteThis statement, besides simply being untrue, would deeply (and unnecessarily) offend a great many people. A much better argument is this one:
'As with all matters in this discussion, I believe the real question if often overlooked. "Why" do we want a snare drum in the service?'
That question is valuable because we can use it to identify what is really going on with contemporary worship. For people willing to engage in reasoned discussion, this is the starting point for showing how their feelings are being manipulated to introduce a foreign "gospel."
Another thought: I'm not aware of any scriptural basis for saying that it's bad for something to resonate with our heartbeat. Can you spell out for me exactly why this in itself is a problem? I mean, it's not like we reject the physical in the Divine Service (at least, not those of us who take the Real Presence seriously).
ReplyDeletePastor Cwirla, why would you "tend to think" that the topic is about something other than what Pastor Eckardt has described and set forth? If you disagree with his premise, his logic, or his conclusions, why not address those points? Or if he has overlooked other considerations that ought to be brought to bear upon the discussion, then why not offer those observations?
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I think it is somewhat superficial and too simplistic to equate trap sets and snare drums with the heart of the problem of "contemporary worship." But the point that Father Eckardt is making is one that does need to be considered and grappled with, in my opinion. There are differences in musical idioms, and they evoke different emotional responses in hearers. It is worth asking what those differences are, how they might be identified and measured, and how those factors pertain to the appropriateness and helpfulness of different musical idioms to the service of the Word of God.
As far as I am concerned, I have no aesthetic objections to drums. I rather like them, actually. But I don't believe that trap sets and snare drums serve the Word of God in a meet, right and salutary way; both because of the character of the music that is driven by such percussion, and because of the broader associations now attaching to drum kits (both within and outside of the church).
I agree that there are fundamental questions to be asked. In particular, I think it needs to be asked and explored: What are the several purposes of music in connection with the Divine Service? How, then, can those purposes best and most beautifully be served? Is the question of "beauty" a matter of aesthetics? Indeed, it is. I don't think aesthetical questions are out of bounds in discussing what it appropriate and helpful to the life of the Church; but I do think that aesthetics are best considered contextually, rather than absolutely.
In any event, there is a science to music, as well as art; and there is a science to the physiological affect that music has upon the listener. Endeavoring to understand those things, even if one flounders a bit in doing so, is a worthwhile pursuit. Perhaps it would help us to get beyond the disputing of tastes. The real concern is the catechesis and confession of the Word of God, unto the right worship of God by faith in Christ Jesus. Do snare drums tend to serve and support that purpose, or to distract from it?
"But I don't believe that trap sets and snare drums serve the Word of God in a meet, right and salutary way; both because of the character of the music that is driven by such percussion, and because of the broader associations now attaching to drum kits (both within and outside of the church)."
ReplyDeleteThat also a purely aesthetic argument. It's an argument based on what one deems appropriate.
How does this square with the African Lutheran churches that freely incorporate rhythmic percussion and even dance in the liturgy while using TLH?
The original post seems to be engaging in some sort of quasi-scientific musical anthropology implying that beat-driven music is somehow less than "holy." If it is indeed true that there is a "Dionysian" form of music, something deeply imbedded in our darker libidinous rhythms, then this should be transcultural phenomenon and just as unacceptable in the African churches as in the American churches.
This sounds scarcely different than the Orthodox claim that a cappella singing is the only acceptable form in church. It is also reminiscent of the objections to the pipe organ in earlier centuries of the church.
For what it's worth, no less than Frederich Nietzsche deals with Dionysian vs Apollonarian music in his "The Birth of Tragedy" (1871):
ReplyDelete"And now let us imagine how in this world, constructed on illusion and moderation and restrained by art, the ecstatic sound of the Dionysian celebration rang out all around with a constantly tempting magic, how in such celebrations the entire excess of nature sang out loudly in joy, suffering, and knowledge, even in the most piercing scream. Let’s imagine what the psalm-chanting Apollonian artist, with his ghostly harp music could offer in comparison to this daemonic popular singing. The muses of the art of “illusion” withered away in the face of an art which spoke truth in its intoxicated state: the wisdom of Silenus cried out “Woe! Woe!” against the serene Olympian. Individualism, with all its limits and moderation, was destroyed in the self-forgetfulness of the Dionysian condition and forgot its Apollonian principles."
I here cite Nietzsche as an example of one who used this term in the philosophical discussion of aesthetics, which is what I tend to think this is.
http://www.denisdutton.com/nietzsche.htm
Heavens, where to begin?
ReplyDeleteI think perhaps Pastor Cwirla and Anonymous Lutheran did not catch the point of my post, which, as Fr. Stuckwisch has rightly noted, is not quite about drum sets, notwithstanding the title of the post.
I am talking about Dionysian music. First, whether it can be said to exist or not, and second, if it can, whether we could not categorically say that it does not belong in the service of God's word.
This is manifestly not a case of personal preference. I believe that in fact these things can be measured, or at least recognized.
In this regard there is a profound difference between a drum set and tympani, or even a timbrel. Imagine attending a sacred canata in a church or, say, the seminary chapel. Tympani might well be part of that. A drum set would be right out.
Why? Because a drum set is virtually always used to set a profound repetitive beat, usually throughout a piece of music. The beat goes on, as Nancy Sinatra used to croon. And the beat drives the music.
Moreover, I repeat, I love drum sets and many kinds of music they are used to accompany. But not in church, for the reason that they make the music profoundly beat-driven (to the detriment of the content).
Rev. Fisk posted a link to a choir singing Gaudete, a very syncopated piece, but which, in spite of its syncopation, is, I would argue, still governed by the lilting melody and lyrics. Add a drum set, and things will change for the worse.
Is this just a matter of my opinion? I think not. I'd say it is a matter of musical judgment, related to the question of Dionysian music.
To Pastor Cwirla's red-herring reference to the timbrel and dance might also be added the clapping of the hands (Ps. 47), which ought not be used as an imprimatur for applause in church, but as a reference to victory in battle. So also David's ecstatic dancing, presumably accompanied with the timbrel.
Finally, Anonymous Lutheran chooses to quip that "we should be focusing on exposing the false doctrines behind contemporary worship, not relying on contrived theories about musical beats--theories which incidentally have their origins in fundamentalist legalism," which sounds rather like a cheap ad hominem to me. My very point is that the theory does not seem to be "contrived" at all, but in fact makes perfect sense. Consider: Would "Lord, Thee Love with All My Heart," certainly a doctrinally acceptable hymn, still be acceptable if it were dressed up in a contemporary style with a bass and drums? No, it would not.
He who ignores the style question and focuses only on the substance has already lost the battle.
Does this not rule out all rhythmic music, whether the beat is generated by a drum set per instrumentum or the rhythmic use of the pedals on a pipe organ? Why would all other percussive instruments not also be banned if they are played in a rhythmic fashion?
ReplyDeleteWould bluegrass music be acceptable as it does not usually employ a drum set?
How do we know that those "red-herring" instruments of the psalms were not used in the temple and the synagogue? Do we know for a fact that the music of the OT was indeed arhythmic and sung without percussion?
Are there also chordal progressions and tonalities that might be considered "Dionysian" as well? It is a well known fact that certain chordal progressions elicit an emotional response even without lyrics attached.
Pastor Cwirla, I have suggested that aesthetics is (and rightly should be) part of the discussion. I have qualified that by my assertion that aesthetic considerations include (or should include) contextual factors. You are the one who frequently cites the Ecclesiastes text: there is a time for this and a time for that, and a time for every purpose under heaven. What is lovely in one setting may be horribly out of place in another.
ReplyDeleteIn response to you original comment about aesthetics, I simply asked why you would "tend to think" that some other agenda is at work in Father Eckardt's words than that which he articulates. I have noticed that this sort of thing seems to be levelled at him rather often. He'll offer some observation or comment, and next thing you know someone is suggesting, implying or asserting outright that what he is really wanting to say and do is something else altogether. I find that frustrating, unfair and unhelpful.
Well, anyway, I can't speak for Father Eckardt, and I won't attempt to do so. He does quite well speaking for himself. But for my own part, I have acknowledged that rhythm belongs to the character of music; but I have also suggested that rhythm can function in a variety of ways, including a contrast between what might be called the function of a servant or handmaiden, on the one hand, and a driving, dominant dictatorial function on the other hand. However one wants to describe or define it, there is a difference, and it does effect the way that music affects the listener. Father Eckardt has attempted to approach that topic for discussion, and in doing so he has called upon the work of others to describe a difference in contrasting musical idioms. I find that to be interesting and helpful.
I rejoice in the goodness of God's creation, and I do not despise the many different forms of music that exist in the world. However, I do not begin with the assumption that any given sort of music is inherently appropriate to every sort of situation or purpose.
You are correct, Pastor Cwirla, that I have made an assertion on the basis of what I deem appropriate. That is the nature of discussion. I'll freely admit that I'm still searching for an assessment of what I deem to be appropriate; as to whether I am mistaken, or as to whether there is a reason behind what I perceive to be a measure of appropriateness. For the sake of clarification, I have not suggested, nor do I suppose, that any and all percussion is out of order or inappropriate. But I question and doubt whether a dominantly percussive sort of music is the best means to carry the catechesis and confession of the Word of God. It tends to dominate whatever text it may accompany, and it does have a physiological affect upon the hearer. Rock music does not simply coincide with the natural heartbeat; it relies upon changes in tempo and beat, which actually change the tempo and rhythm of the listener's heartbeat. Now, whether that is inherently problematic or not, it does indicate that the music is exercising a power over the person, distinct from any word. Whereas, I would argue, music that is intended to serve liturgically (including also hymnody) ought to be supportive of the Word above all.
If these are aesthetic arguments, fine; let's discuss aesthetics. Along with the science of music, there is also the art of music. The fact that music is both is part of its power, whether that be used for good or otherwise.
Where did I say that I was arguing for arhythmic music? You are not listening, sir.
ReplyDeleteI note that I posted concurrently with Fr. Stuckwisch, whose comments I find most helpful. I was referring to the comment prior to his, of course.
ReplyDeletePastor Cwirla's references to African forms of music in support of the liturgy and hymnody have piqued my interest. I'm thinking of the way in which different languages operate with different qualities, different sounds, different rhythms, and other such differences. Which makes me wonder whether different sorts of music might lend themselves differently to the support of the Word in one language as compared to another. This is part of Luther's point, it seems to me, when he discusses his approach to the German Mass. He was dissatisfied with the efforts of those who had simply translated the text from Latin into German, "aping" the music of the one for the other. German is clearly a different sounding language than Latin; as Greek is different in its sound and qualities than Hebrew; and English is different than Swahili; and French and Italian are different than Russian; and Spanish is different than Chinese; etc. Some languages are more dental, others more gutteral, others more nasal, others more fluid. Perhaps a more percussive musical idiom would be called for in the case of certain languages, but would clash and distract if used with other languages.
ReplyDeleteAlong these lines, there are also the cultural considerations to be taken into account. If music is its own kind of "language," then it is contextually defined, at least to some extent. Different cultures operate with different scales and hear tones differently. There are developed perceptions, not to say "tastes," that depend upon established standards (ingrained in people from the womb, as they are immersed in the sounds of their own native context). So, whether an aesthetic consideration or otherwise, the associations and connotations of "drums" in our cultural context lend quite different sets of meaning than the "drums" used in Africa. None of these things are given or received in a vacuum.
For me, a drum set immediately calls to mind John "Bonzo" Bonham, Lars Ulrich, Nikki Sixx, Ringo Starr, and Phil Collins. These aren't negative associations for me (with the exception of Nikki Sixx), but neither are they conducive to focusing on the Word of the Lord. Drums draw me bodily in another direction, rather than drawing my body along with my soul into the worship of Christ by faith in His Word of the Gospel. Maybe that's just me, but I do think it belongs to Father Eckardt's original point. "Guys like us" aren't opposed to the use of drums in church because we don't like them, but precisely because we DO like them. If that makes sense.
Where did I say that I was arguing for arhythmic music? You are not listening, sir.
ReplyDeleteLet's roll the video tape:
"The heart thumps as it pushes blood through the body, by which we live. And this, I would further venture to suggest, is what is so appealing about many kinds of popular music. It has a strong beat. We like a beat, because our hearts beat."
"Once upon a time music had no beat at all. It was melodic and lilting, but tones and melismas moved with the syllables which were spoken. Gregorian Chant is the name given to this ancient type of music."
"I call Dionysian music a musical style driven by the natural impulses and rhythms, a drive which so governs the genre that the other elements of it are relegated to a sometimes distant second place."
"A drum set keeps the beat, and strongly. It bespeaks a pulse, as it were a strong and powerful heartbeat. Too strong. Dionysian. Inappropriate for the service of God's Holy Word."
Or perhaps you are advocating the use of some sort of "unnatural rhythms," a liturgical "rhythm method" if you will.
"For me, a drum set immediately calls to mind John "Bonzo" Bonham, Lars Ulrich, Nikki Sixx, Ringo Starr, and Phil Collins. "
Don't forget Keith Moon, arguably the greatest rock drummer ever. We should also mention Buddy Rich, though his style of drumming only corresponds to the human heartbeat if one has a heart condition.
""Guys like us" aren't opposed to the use of drums in church because we don't like them, but precisely because we DO like them. If that makes sense."
You just don't like them in church. Nor do I. Let's just admit it. We don't like to look at them, and we don't like the sound of them in the sanctuary. In fact, drums sets don't even work in small spaces. You have to hide them behind plexiglass, which I always thought was bullet proof glass to protect the drummer but have since learned otherwise.
So, whether an aesthetic consideration or otherwise, the associations and connotations of "drums" in our cultural context lend quite different sets of meaning than the "drums" used in Africa.
Ah, so it's cultural after all. So much of the "science" of music. Treating music scientifically strikes me as somewhat similar to Daniel Dennett investigating religious beliefs scientifically.
Anonymous L - If it is offensive to suggest that the snare is a lesser form of the same mode of instrument as a kazoo is (perhaps hyperbolically) a lessor form of the same mode of instrument, then there is not much I can do about offending. Perhaps there are no such things as "lesser forms" or tone which strike the ear at a more brazzen level - perhaps not.
ReplyDeleteIronically, it is because these discussions so readily cause "offense" that our dear Formula would have had us never embark down the path of radical change, no matter the context.
Ah, so it's cultural after all. So much of the "science" of music.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's not an either-or scenario. There is a science to music. It is highly mathematical, for one thing; and it functions scientifically in both its creation and reception (bodily and in the brain). But it is also an artistic expression, and, as such, it functions within a cultural context.
You're right, Pastor Cwirla, that I don't like drums in church. But I think it is worth pursuing, whether that is simply a bias on my part, or whether there is some reason for my reaction. Since I happen to love the use of drums in much of the music I enjoy, it seems reasonable to wonder whether my dislike of drums in church is rooted in some fundamental dissonance between the two.
Interesting discussion....but Nikki Sixx played bass. Tommy Lee was the drummer for Motley Crue. However, bass guitar should have no more place in church than a drum set.
ReplyDeleteAh, yes, thank you for the correction, Matthias. Goes to show what a fondness I ever had for Motley Crue ;-)
ReplyDeleteI should have left off any reference to the Crue, and included Mick Fleetwood instead.
"However, bass guitar should have no more place in church than a drum set."
ReplyDeleteOn this note, let us pay silent homage to John Entwistle, easily the most creative bass player in rock bar none.
Is this ban of the bass due to its use as a rhythmic instrument?
Are there other Dionysian instruments that should be banned from the house of God? (Personally, I would like to see a ban on Roland keyboards, primarily because people look really dumb while playing them standing. There is really no way one can look cool standing at a Roland keyboard. This is why Stevie Wonder plays the piano.)
Speaking of piano: The piano is a partially percussive instrument. Should it be classed among the Dionysian?
Why must everything be classed in all-or-nothing terms? I don't believe that even the original post indicated a complete moratorium on rhythm or percussion. There is a point, however, at which the beat of the rhythm and the dominance of percussive sounds take over and drive the music in certain idioms. It is at that point, I would suggest, that a text is no longer being served in the most helpful way. And, if I have understood the original premise and argument correctly, such a strong beat tends to drive one into himself, rather than drawing his attention outward.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to put my vote in for banning the pan flute.
ReplyDelete"And, if I have understood the original premise and argument correctly, such a strong beat tends to drive one into himself, rather than drawing his attention outward."
ReplyDeleteIt's noteworthy that Nietzsche, who coined these term, argued oppositely. Dionysian music drew one out of one's limited and moderated Apollonian individualism into the throbbing mass of self-forgetfulness and excess.
"Individualism, with all its limits and moderation, was destroyed in the self-forgetfulness of the Dionysian condition and forgot its Apollonian principles."
To paraphrase Nietzsche: Let’s imagine what the psalm-chanting [liturgical] artist, with his ghostly [Gregorian chant] could offer in comparison to this daemonic popular singing.
"I don't believe that even the original post indicated a complete moratorium on rhythm or percussion."
ReplyDelete"But if I see a drum set, I know there's something wrong. A drum set keeps the beat, and strongly. It bespeaks a pulse, as it were a strong and powerful heartbeat. Too strong. Dionysian. Inappropriate for the service of God's Holy Word."
Pastor Cwirla,
ReplyDeleteAre you playing devil's advocate, being purposely objectionable, or in serious disagreement with what has been written here? I'm confused and would appreciate it if you would clarify your position. Thanks.
First, let me state very clearly that I would never intentionally be an advocate for the devil.
ReplyDeleteAm I being "purposely objectionable"? I prefer to think of it as purposefully contrarian.
Do I have a serious disagreement with what has been written here? I think it's a weak post hoc aesthetic argument against a musical form and instrumentation the author doesn't like in church, a personal preference hidden under a coyly paradoxical "I like it therefore it's wrong" with a thin veneer of scientific objectivity and the physiology of music.
The purpose of my objection: Because I agree with the conclusion of the original post, and I too run as fast as I can away from any drum set in the sanctuary (not to mention the aforementioned Roland keyboard along with mimes, clowns, and barefooted liturgical dancers), simply appending my Amen would be nothing more than the mindless refrain of a choir having been preached at.
Recognizing that an advocate for a drum set in the sanctuary is not likely going to be reading Gottesdienst on a regular basis, except perhaps to thank God that he is not like other men, I offer my criticisms in the interest of honing what I believe is a weak and potentially fallacious argument.
If this argument is going to play outside of liturgical Peoria, it will have to stand up to a few critical questions. You can't simply call citations of relevant Scripture "red-herrings" and plead "you misread me" whenever someone disagrees.
Pastor Cwirla, in the quote that you have again shared from Pastor Eckardt's original post, you will note that he refers, not simply to the presence of a beat or rhythm, but to the strength of the beat. That is the point that I understood from his original comments, and he has since clarified that point; unless I have misunderstood him altogether.
ReplyDeleteI still think you are being unfair in your assessment and characterization of Pastor Eckardt's comments. But I concur that it is important to question assertions and debate the merits and demerits of a case. Dismissing arguments on either side of the discussion is not conducive to clarity or precision.
I'm confused by your citation from Nietzsche, but I suppose I am rather glad to be on the opposite side of his opinion in these matters.
Pastor Eckardt indicated, in comments he made at the CCA this past week, the he first became aware of the Dyonisian vs. Apollinarian distinction from an article by Dr. Reuning some twenty-five years ago or more. He also noted that the article in question marked a turning point for him, in his own thinking.
Pastor Cwirla cites some of what I wrote in an effort to prove that I was advocating arrhythmic music, but of course none of the quoted material proves his point, as any reader can see. Non sequitur.
ReplyDeleteAt least he admits to being "purposefully contrarian." I'll say. Is there some unwritten rule that it's good to be purposefully contrarian? I'd say such an approach is unhelpful, to put it charitably, which I am straining to do. Frankly I am as bewildered as Dr. Stuckwisch is as to the reason for this kind of discourse.
So now my argument is "weak and potentially fallacious," but only to someone whose logical fallacies in rejoining my case are in plain view. All that remains, finally, is a rejection of my point for no other expressed reason than purposeful contrariness, without which we can all get on quite well.
The record certainly does speak for itself. Keep preaching to the choir boys, Fritz. I'm glad to know this is a criticism-free zone.
ReplyDelete"It is better for a man to hear the rebuke of the wise than to hear the song of fools."
I have no problem with honest arguments, as most everyone who knows me is well aware. But your abuse of the rules of argument is rather startling, frankly. How can we proceed, if you aren't even listening, but merely choosing to be purposely contrarian, as you put it? And as for your quotation of Proverbs, are you now presuming to classify yourself among the wise? Judicat lector.
ReplyDeleteEcclesiastes 7:5
ReplyDeleteHere is the basic problem with the original post as I see it:
1. The Scriptures seem to extol a variety of instruments in the service of "praise," including the percussive and rhythmic timbrel. No evidence was presented to indicate these were not used in the temple and synagogue.
2. If there is such a thing as a "Dionysian" form of music, then it needs to be clearly defined by its characteristics. The definition of the original post is music that has a prominent (strong) beat that "resonates with the natural rhythms of natural man." Is this 72 beats per minute? What are these natural rhythms?
3. If there is such a thing as a "Dionysian" form of music that corresponds to some "natural rhythms," then this should be transcultural phenomenon since all human beings will share in the same "natural rhythms." The same criticism should then pertain to the use of rhythm and percussive instruments in African Christian churches.
4. The offending instrument is claimed to be the modern "drum set," though other instruments would seem to be equally capable of establishing a strong beat that corresponds to our natural rhythms. There is no reason to single out the drum set if a "strong beat" is the criterion for "Dionysian music," if there indeed is such a thing.
5. The stakes of the discussion would appear to be fairly high, as the opening paragraph indicates that such things are to be "discouraged, even disallowed in the Church." The article concludes by saying that a drum set is "inappropriate for the service of God's Holy Word." This is very strong statement based on nothing more than an appeal to authority (Reuning) and speculation without supporting evidence.
6. I offered Frederich Nietzsche who uses the terms "Dionysian" and "Apollonian" principles, as an example of someone who agrees with the major premise (that Dionysian is bad) but for a different reason (that Dionysian is group rather than individual). I realize that Nietzsche is somewhat notorious in Chirstian circles, but he is the only one I can find who uses these terms in an aesthetic argument.
7. The argument as presented proceeds as follows:
a. Dionysian music is bad for worship because it has a strong beat.
b. A drum set is used to establish a strong beat.
c. Contemporary music uses drum sets.
d. Therefore, contemporary music is Dionysian.
e. Therefore, contemporary music is bad for worship.
I am challenging the validity of (a) and the exclusivity of (b).
Ok, this I can entertain, thank you. Open discussion on these matters is, after all, something we need, if we are to make headway in the contemporary worship wars.
ReplyDeleteI would offer the following by way of response.
First, the percussive nature of certain instruments is not at issue, as far as I am concerned. As you pointed out, even a piano is percussive. The drum set, however, is a percussive instrument which sets and keeps a profound audible beat. Perhaps it is the fact that the beat--the pulse of tempo--is profoundly audible that makes this instrument unlike various other percussive instruments. I'm not sure, but I do believe that there is something quite fundamentally characteristic of it which is discernable and recognizable. Perhaps a wave analysis could even provide scientific data, I don't know.
Second, the resonance with the natural impulses of man is also something I would like to explore. I do not believe it is accidental that there are sexual overtones in the origins--and even in the nomenclature--of rock and roll, and jazz music. Dancing to a beat is a cultural expression of certain rhythms of the body, which no doubt also has something to do with movements considered 'sexy'. I am not suggesting here that I know exactly what the correlation is, only that it exists.
Third, I don't believe I am the first to question the wisdom of employing tribal percussive instruments in African Christian Churches, not least because of the syncretism they might suggest.
Fourth, I believe the drum set is not only emblematic of certain styles of music, but plays no small role in defining those styles, for reasons I indicated above.
Fifth, my reference to Dr. Reuning was not meant as an appeal to authority, but as an appropriate reference. I would have thought that was self-evident.
Sixth, I find Nietsche's reference interesting, and perhaps worthy of further study.
Finally, it seems that everyone on this thread seems agreed that drum sets in church are always a bad thing. So, let's simply put the question out there: why is that so?
It is indeed an appropriate reference. Here it is: http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/1459
ReplyDeleteRecognizing that an advocate for a drum set in the sanctuary is not likely going to be reading Gottesdienst on a regular basis...
ReplyDelete=======
What--no lurkers here? Not sure about that.
Who are you...I really wanna know...Yeah, I really wanna know...
"Finally, it seems that everyone on this thread seems agreed that drum sets in church are always a bad thing. So, let's simply put the question out there: why is that so?"
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the modern drum set (or the electronic equivalent, to eliminate the visual element) is an instrument of musical idioms that don't work well with liturgy and hymnody, namely jazz, pop, and rock. None of these forms are conducive to through-composed liturgical chant or the extended, text-driven corporate singing that hymnody demands. Mine is a purely pragmatic argument - it doesn't work.
I am assuming when you speak of drums, you are referring to a drum set as is normally used in popular music. Various drums and configurations more suited to orchestral use may not bother me so much, depending on how they are being used.
ReplyDeleteI don't like drum sets in church because of the nature of the instrument. They are *not* a lesser instrument, but they are an instrument of a category not compatible with traditional worship--and it's for the exact same reason that you don't generally see them in an orchestra: They are designed for solo or small-group performance.
Now if a group of people want to get together and sing some praise songs that are doctrinally sound, and do so in a format and setting that is suitable for small group and solo performance, awesome! But the Divine Service is not a spectator event. The songs sung are a teaching tool, and one of the ways the congregation receives the Word is in the songs that are sung *by the congregation*.
Some may answer that the congregation sings in contemporary worship too; but I would argue that it's simply not the same thing. In contemporary worship, the praise team is (in theory) doing the worship, and the congregation is supporting the praise team. It sets a completely different tone for what's going on in the service. The drums are not the point, but a drum set indicates the use of the praise team format. I could go on about this forever, but I'll stop for now. :o)
Not to beat a dead horse, but I did not believe that I was engaging in an ad hominem argument. For one thing you're neither a fundamentalist nor (as far as I know) a legalist. I certainly believed that this was the origin of that theory, though it looks like I may have been mistaken.
An association with that doctrinal framework (if in fact there is one) would not necessarily discredit this view of music, but I think it is something that should be considered. Then again, maybe I'm just overreacting. When I was a kid, I was taught that all modern music is always sinful...and the reasons given were the exact reasons you're describing here for forbidding it in church.
The sounds of church music matter. They affect our frame of mind; and our frame of mind can influence how we interpret the words and actions which are heard, seen, and done in worship. Across all cultures, many mothers, babysitters, and daycare workers have observed that infants fall asleep easier when listening to certain kinds of music. Wisconsin dairy farmers have observed that even their cows give more milk when certain kinds of music are played. Most remarkable is the music David played on his harp which was able to cause the evil spirit to depart from King Saul. The prophet Daniel (7.11) even characterizes the sound of a horn as speaking actual words. It appears as though at least some musical sounds might have universal affects regardless of cultural conditioning.
ReplyDeleteno scriptural reference to worship music describes God’s people singing to or for anyone except the Lord and those (circumcised?) people already living among His people. i think this is interesting because many times have i heard CCM advocates try to justify the use of CCM in church because they think it is something to which visitors and their children can relate.
ReplyDeleteSome may consider Paul and Silas’ prison-time to be an exception (Acts 16:16-40), but the hymns which Paul and Silas sang were not sung to an ‘unchurched’ audience so much as they were sung for the building up of the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:12). During their time of persecution their hymns strengthened the faith which was increased by the Word of God they sang, even in the midst of persecution. The Philippian jailer was saved not because of the hymns they sang, but because Paul was there to tell the jailer how people are saved. Paul, the Apostle sent by God, was there to deliver the goods God had sent him to deliver. Rather than run away from persecution, Paul and every Christian strengthened by the traditional hymn singing, remained in the jail even after the doors had been opened by an act of God. The act of God which kept Paul from fleeing imprisonment and persecution spared the life of the jailer and allowed other unbelievers to hear Paul’s message.
ReplyDeleteWriters like Augustine (d. 430) were concerned that the sensuous qualities of the arts could lead to idolatrous worship of the creation rather than to the proper worship of the Creator. i've seen video of Lutheran churches in Africa using a historic liturgy while employing small, hand beaten drums and body gestures some would call dancing. While in America, these same instruments and gestures are used to evoke an individualistic 'spiritual' experience, the African's i saw were reverent and communal. This was evident in an obvious lack of squinty eyes; and the gestures were performed in unity and in relation with other congregants rather than as an expression of individual emotive/ecstatic experience.
ReplyDelete"While in America, these same instruments and gestures are used to evoke an individualistic 'spiritual' experience, the African's i saw were reverent and communal."
ReplyDeleteI think this is precisely to the point: Corporate vs individual participation. Singing along with a band is not the same as singing a hymn all together. The former is an individual activity; the latter is a corporate activity. Percussion and rhythm are really beside the point. The drum set is a band instrument, and band-led music is not conducive to unitive, corporate participation.
For the record, I do not deny the inherent power of music to tap into the emotions - not only rhythm but also harmony and melody. There are Beethoven piano sonatas whose melodic progressions move me to tears without any word associations whatsoever.
A lot of what is called "contemporary Christian music" can be very emotionally manipulative. From what I have read, tune often precedes text in CCM composition.
PBS had a decent documentary this week - Wednesday night here (Nova?) - about the study of music & neurology/brain activity. Much of the questions being raised here dovetail with what was presented there. Secondly, within the last two weeks I remember reading a citation of early missionaries' experience - either with Aborigines or in Papua New Guinea (I'll try & find the citation) - where the natives refused the adaptation of their drums into the new-to-them worship of Christ, since their former pagan usage equated the drums with calling forth dead spirits. Again, if I can find the citation, I'll post it; but the point is that modern missionary practice in Africa has undoubtedly been influenced by a more lenient Western culture - just as it has here in the States - and as such, carries its own "contemporary" baggage as well.
ReplyDeleteI'm coming into this whole discussion rather late. But I just (sorry I couldn't resist the word "just") wanted to say that in ancient Israel and modern Judaism the Festival of Succoth (Booths/Tabernacles) involved dancing as part of the ritual. Also Simchat Torah. I'm totally in agreement with those that our Divine Service is more of a stately, reverent service. But in Israel, there were worship occasions where unbridled dancing was part of the worship, and I'm sure drums and tambourines were all a part of it (cf. Miriam's dance and song at the end of Exodus 15). What is bothersome, probably, to most of us, is that the Divine Service derives from the more solemn Passover Seder. I don't think there was any dancing during those services. Bringing in snare drum and dancing into our Divine Service "just" seems out of place to the flow of the "drama" of the liturgy. But as far as tradition is concerned, both ancient Israel and modern Judaism did have a "place" for drums and dance.
ReplyDeletePastor Moriarty,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input. The question of whether our Divine Service derives from the Seder is seriously debatable, though on the other hand it does not really derive from the synagogue either.
More likely, as Gregory Dix has shown in his monumental tome The Shape of the Liturgy, it is a mixture of the synaxis of the synagogue and the ritual meals of Jewish families or friends. It's a fascinating study.
More to the point, however, the idea that ecstatic dance, whether Miriam's or David's, was part of the ritual of worship comparable to our Mass, is questionable at best.
We, too, have a "place" for drums and dance. That is, we do not condemn their use among Christian people. But as there is a time and place for all things, so we do not condone certain things in certain places.
Solomon was concerned about the loud noises of the masons during the erection of the temple, so he ordered that they did their stone carving at another location. From this we may derive the idea that the temple was not a place for certain activity which was not proscribed elsewere. Et cetera . . .
If Pr. Cwirla is taking a pragmatic approach to the music in the liturgy, would he take a pragmatic approach to other aspects of liturgical life that have traditionally been the object of artistic, aesthetic expression? For example:
ReplyDeleteChurches would best be made out of corrugated steel and cinder blocks? They function to shelter the worshipers, provide a place to gather, and for the liturgy to be held.
Vestments would best be made out of burlap or plastic? They would still serve functionally to designate the minister and any assistants.
Paintings and statuary could be replaced by stick-figure images with printed-out labels (sans serif) below them to indicate who the picture is of.
People would rightly reject these because they would be ugly and would cause a scandal in the congregation, just like a well-intentioned but tone-deaf singer or untrained organist would.
I can't see how Pr. Stuckwisch isn't right; there is a place for aesthetics and aesthetic discussions in the liturgy.
What's the opposite of a scandal? Whatever it is, it's what beautiful elements in worship serve to uphold.
"If Pr. Cwirla is taking a pragmatic approach to the music in the liturgy..."
ReplyDeleteA careful reading will show that I am not taking a "pragmatic approach" to the music of the liturgy. I am, in fact, arguing that it is precisely an aesthetic argument. The original post attempts to make a pseudo-scientific argument, based on a questionable category (Dionysian music) and a quasi-science (Scentics).
I would instead argue that worship offers up the material in service of the holy by way of the aesthetic.
The sainted Martin Franzmann said it well: "Another argument might be called the "tin whistle" argument. Its essence is something like this: "After all, a man can make music on a tin whistle to the glory of God, and God will be pleased to hear it." True, true, true-if God has given him nothing but a tin whistle; but God has given us so infinitely much more. When He has given us all the instruments under heaven with which to sing His praises, then the tin whistle is no longer humility but a perverse sort of pride."
I'm presently enjoying a book on the science of music, Music, the Brain, and Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination (Harper, 1997), by Robert Jourdain. I'm only about halfway through it, and have been interested by the intersection of that book with our conversation here. An upcoming chapter promises to be all the more apropos, but already the discussions of harmony and rhythm have been quite fascinating to me.
ReplyDeleteI'll not provide extended quotes here in the comments of this post, but I have gathered thus far that harmony (based upon tonal centers and guided along culturally-defined scales) is processed in the same portion of the brain as language; and that basically all forms of music are established upon harmony. The one exception to that norm is the "purely percussive." That would mark a difference, for example, between the percussiveness of a drum vis-a-vis the percussive characteristics of a piano or a bass guitar. If I have understood the author correctly, the processing of meter (or "beat") occurs in a different part of the brain than language and harmony. Whether this pertains to Dionysian categorizations or not, it does offer something to think about in connection with the observations and comments of this thread. Predominantly percussive music may draw the listener away from text and language, toward a different manner of hearing and "feeling" than more harmonious music.
The book also discusses two different kinds of rhythm, distinguished in a way that is also germane to our conversation. There is the rhythm of meter, which "gives order to time" by providing "a sort of grid upon which music is drawn." Then there is the rhythm of "phrasing," which follows the contours of language and "imparts a kind of narrative to music," the "mechanism by which a composition can play out a grand drama." "Phrasing" allows music to tell a story, because it is closely related to language. It allows the organization of music on a large scale, in contrast to meter, which organizes music on a small scale.
"Without meter," says Jourdain, "music takes on the static quality of Gregorian chant. Without phrasing, music becomes repetitious and banal." He also goes on to say that, "when one kind of rhythm is emphasized, it tends to obscure the other," because "the two kinds of rhythm are not entirely at peace with each other" (pages 123-124).
Thus, as Pastor Eckardt suggested in his post, and as I have tried to suggest in some of my comments, music that is dominated by drums with their percussive emphasis on meter, competes with the phrasing of language and its emphasis on the text. I think that is pertinent to the sort of music that is put into the service of the liturgy and hymnody, and, apparently, not only for "aesthetic" reasons. In making that observation, I should also clarify (again) that I don't find aesthetic discussions to be inappropriate or out of place. By the same token, I do not believe the discussion of music can be removed entirely to the aesthetic realm. There is also a science to the way that music is conceived, performed, conveyed, received and "interpreted" at the fundamental level. I find these things interesting, and I am inclined to think they may be significant.