http://theologica.blogspot.com/2006/10/voice-bethlehem.html This was a 34 pager by the time I even knew they were talking about it at SI. What say you?
Other Links
F&P #1
F&P #2
F&P #3
Challies
Mark Dever Interview on Worship with Ken Jones
The most telling quote from the SI board was this one: "Better a "cancer of elitism" than a cancer of compromise and carnality. Pick your poison." John Cereghin
That one made me shudder when I read it.
8 comments:
Amy, that makes me laugh...
Voice is fab, the quote from JC is fab, or the generally confused gnashing at SI is fab?
http://www.sharperiron.org/showthre
ad.php?t=3903
This thread might be appropriate...
What does Voice's music communicate? What does it feel like?
I didn't think the song was very great. My bionic ears didn't catch all the words, though my wife and others said they were sound. The general attitude and feel of the song would be much more appropriate to the words if Mr. Voice were claiming himself to be 'unstoppable'.
Jessie, I'd agree with you on this one. the verses were better than the chorus, IMO.
I think my view of this song is colored by the fact that I listened a little to DMX in high school.
The question is, does the music intrinsically communicate something contrary to the words or is it my past experience that colors my perception? I don't think the issue is as cut and dry as Aniol (therefore I wouldn't be as dogmatic), but it would seem the style doesn't lend itself to humility and godly emotion.
That being said, I don't for a second question Voice's heart in the issue. This is truly the first time I've ever seen a hip hop artist not completely consumed with self. He was from all appearances doing what he was doing (his intent) "to the glory of God."
You don't have to reassure me of your assurance of his heart. I try not to be very sure of things like that, since I can't be.
I haven't done a ton of reading on aesthetics, but I have a couple books, and a couple books on poetry, and have glanced through others at bookstores, and every one of them has agreed that there is universal communication in art. The ones that mentioned any history said that this was the majority approach throughout history as well. And these aren't Christian books (I dare say a Christian book might tell a different story, if the conversation at SI is any indication!).
It makes very much more sense to me that there is an inherent universality of communication in music, because there is an inherent universality of man's nature.
A book on metrical poetry that I am going through right now mentions that in different cultures with different languages, different techniques must be used simply because of the difference in the languages. In other words, the linguistic tool used for an effect in one language may be more one of duration than syllable, or vice versa. Both elements exist in english and latin, but by the nature of the languages one is slightly more emphasized than the other...and it often doesn't come through in translation. While duration of words may not be the primary method of communication in english poetry, it is still a method, and the communication is the same. Does that make any sense?
Yeah, I do agree that music communicates. And I'd even say that there are aspects of music that would communicate universally. On the other hand I think there are aspects of music that communicate subjectively based on the recepter. Music cannot be on the same level as language because it cannot be decoded as simply as language. Neither is authorial intent simply determined. It's an expression of emotion which is difficult to codify. I think to say there is always universality in expression is to oversimplify the issue, and worse to go beyond scripture in making moral judgments on it. Does that make sense? In theory, I like Aniol's view, but in actuality in light of the diversity of expression that exists, I don't think it holds up.
Post a Comment