Cool.
A discussion about classical music on a Catholic forum. As an amateur classical pianist (by passion) and a database administrator (by profession) this is commendable (and interesting).
I am curious how one would see the spirit of "Protestantism" in the music of J.S. Bach and the spirit of "Catholicism" in the music of Bruckner. Of course if one writes a Mass, that of course is for the Catholic service. Similarly, Bach's cantatas were for the Lutheran service. But outside of musical form, I am not sure how one discerns "Catholic" from "Protestant" in musical style.
In other words, if there were two composers writing at the same time in roughly the same musical style..one Catholic and the other not Catholic what distinct attributes of their music (outside of forms..cantata versus mass for example).
BTW I'm not Catholic..
Wagner part of your musical Trinity? Wagner was a revolutionary, a sexual degenerate, and an anti-Semite, and his music is an act of cultural terrorism. Keep it in the Venusberg, that is to say, in Hell.
Perhaps the best cure for an admiration for Wagner might be to watch the nazified version of his opera Tristan und Isolde, in which Nazi soldiers goose step into a giant female sex organ.
Hi Ben,
Yep, Wagner was a scoundrel, etc., and one of the greatest musical geniuses of all time. I trust that you can separate the two, and that you don't check out the moral credentials of every single painter whose art you admire, or scriptwriter, director, actor of every movie you like.
Not likely. Tchaikovsky was a homosexual, Schubert died of syphilis (so they think), Brahms frequented prostitutes; many other great composers were not saints, by any stretch of the imagination. You don't listen to any of them? You only listen to Vivaldi (who was a Catholic priest)? Obvious reductio ad absurdum there.
This is a typical "trad" mindset. What is great art is so regardless of the character of the man who wrote it, just as, if I write a good and true, edifying piece of apologetics, it is valid and good whether or not I happened to have sinned that day, or am not a perfect man (I can readily testify that I am NOT!).
As for the Nazis' use of Wagner, he can hardly be blamed for that, so that is neither here nor there. Obviously, they would use German music and exploit and co-opt it for their own evil ends.
But Hitler also admired Bruckner, and he was of good catholic character. The Wikipedia article on Bruckner shows Hitler admiring a bust of Bruckner.
That clinches it! Throw out all your Bruckner albums because Hitler admired his music!
Also, Wagner had some not insignificant Christian elements in his operas (notably Parsifal, which had to do with the holy grail: the cup used at the Last Supper). It's inconsistent and mixed in with pagan German elements, but it is far from evil and hellbound, as you make out.
This is surprisingly shoddy thinking on your part. I think it's a case where your trad framework overcomes your intelligence and common sense.
Needless to say, it is a bit amusing for you to mention (of all things) Wagner's anti-Semitism (which I was well aware of, before you were even born), seeing that you just figured out that the guy you worked for and defended for years has perhaps a touch of that, too. C'mon, Ben. You need to have some sense of proportion and propriety here.
Hi Rob,
Thanks for your post. Music and history were my first loves, long before theology. I've written many articles on music (see the index page on the sidebar), have made discographies, and have written occasionally on classical music (e.g., Mozart and his Catholicism).
I think there is no good answer to your interesting question; it being almost entirely subjective (except, as you note, for any liturgical lyrical elements).
I think some of the writers I cite meant the observation as simply an analogy:
Bach writes great music that is pervasively influenced by his Lutheranism.
Bruckner writes great music that is pervasively influenced by his Catholicism.
In both cases, their religion had a profound effect on their music. But as to whether one could tell that it was "Catholic" or "Protestant" music (not knowing any facts about religious affiliation), I highly doubt it.
I think, in analyzing seriously Christian composers, that there is a broad consensus in both camps (and also the Russian Orthodox composers) that certain things are unquestionably true, so that the music (in a generic sense) somehow reflects that assurance of faith, as opposed to the uncertainties and confusions of unbelief.
Even that, however, doesn't necessarily translate directly into "good" or "bad" music. Debussy was an atheist and wrote extraordinarily beautiful music. Francis Schaeffer argued that his radical shifts in key were analogous to relativism. Yet Wagner had pretty strong (not "relativistic") beliefs and he was almost as radical in the ever-shifting chromaticism (40 years earlier) of Tristan und Isolde, in particular.
I don't think it's nearly that simple. In any event, it's very interesting to me how all these secular musicologists, or those of unknown religious affiliation, write so much about how Bruckner's music reflects his Catholicism.
To me that primarily suggests that a robust faith is conducive to great art, generally speaking. In other words, if a composer has a strong religious faith, his music will prosper, rather than suffer, just as if a scientist has strong faith, his science will improve, not get worse.
Secularists often argue that the converse is true in the latter instance (but I would say it is demonstrably untrue). In matters of art, they rarely even try to make such a cynical deduction, since there is such a strong bond between Christianity and great art. No one is dumb enough to even try to deny that.
I think the connection between "worldview" and music that people like Schaeffer (and, alas, Ben Douglass) make is more of the absurd explain-everything-with-presuppositionalism approach that has degraded even the possibility of critical field study. It's ironic that what could be one of the best examples of how good can be drawn from evil, viz., musical creation by a moral degenerate, is turned on its head. Instead, what is objectively beautiful, a clear sign of God's work, is trashed in favor of a ruthless presuppositionalist logic that says that no good fruit comes from a bad tree (which is thoroughly misused when taken to refer to natural rather than supernatural good). This llogic that rules out the entire concept of God's sovereignty drawing good from evil. It's this sort of reasoning that leads to Protestantism, as if creating evil solely for the sole purpose of destroying it were somehow demonstrative of God's glory and justice.
Music is a natural good, and while it can be taken to supernatural heights in its spiritual dimension, it remains the sort of good and beautiful thing that even the evil can give to the world. Luke 11:11-13 "What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!"
Anyway, as someone with little knowledge about classical music, I find your articles have been quite helpful in providing this complete novice with an introduction to classical music. And I'm extremely glad that you have focused on the music itself, rather than cutting off everyone who isn't morally admirable.
Glad you liked it Jonathan! I'll do my best to get you hooked on one or more of Wagner, Beethoven, Mahler, Bruckner, Debussy, and others. I think, for most people not well-acquainted with classical music, they just need a little guidance into what style would have the potential of pleasing them the most.
For me it is orchestra, brass, SOUND. I'm what is known as an "audiophile." The sound is of supreme importance.
If you want to tell me what you think you would like best in classical music, I could make some recommendations for you. You can purchase classical CDs used for around $7-8 (at least around here there is a great music store that has used CDs). Also, of course, on amazon, you can find used stuff if you don't want to invest a lot in building up a collection.
But I'm far ahead of myself . . . LOL
Dave:
I think there is a danger in Christians over-spiritualizing with respect to music. If we are not careful, we can make ourselves look really ridiculous.
If I apply Occams Razor to Debussy, a more reasonable explanation to his Chromaticism was that as a creative genius, he wanted to try writing in an unexplored idiom. This makes more sense than it is somehow an expression of relativism.
LOL..I've heard quite a few inane statements concerning music and Christianity by Christians. My favorite is that a Christian should listen to only Christian music because somehow the evil, wordly bent of the secular composer shines through the music.
This argument has been used against me concerning my love for Mozart. Of course the only thing the person knew about Mozart was through the movie Amadeus.
But anyway, this assertion should be easily testible. Just ask its proponent to listen to two musical works..one by a devout Christian composer and another by an agnostic that wrote in the same time and in a similar style. He should easily be able to identify the devout Christian composer.
But then again, maybe I am going to hell because in addition to liking Mozart, Brahms and Beethoven I also like 60s and very early 70s classic rock.
I like far more than that, so I am in big trouble. Somehow when I leave this mortal coil, I can't imagine God telling me "you listened to Jimi Hendrix, the Doors, Richard Wagner and [drug-soaked, mostly irreligious fornicators] the Beatles, so you have to go to hell." You know: "all you need is love" and "she loves you" and "yellow submarine" as wicked, evil messages from hell . . .
It is a fascinating discussion with some Christians regarding music because it is so subjective that it can quickly get ridiculous if Christians try to create absolutes where none exist. I've heard many arguments but I think I have yet to hear anyone defend one of these sweeping negative judgments when challenged on it. You notice that Ben didn't respond. Perhaps he still will. I think it would be very interesting.
Actually (on a related but fundamentally different note), I became largely turned-off of Christian contemporary music because of how the Sandi Patti scandal was handled. She and some guy had engaged in an affair and broke up two families. But no one seemed to care. She went right back to recording.
Why would anyone want to hear her sing about God after that? What's the point? That was my reasoning at the time. A friend of mine had connections to that scene and he said all kinds of things like that were going on.
This, to me, was quite scandalous and revealing as to CCM (at least how it is run at the top). The difference, of course, is that these are musicians who are specifically supposed to be doing ministry and evangelization through their music. I loved the music of the late Keith Green, who was totally committed to Christian outreach, and even gave away his (very good) albums for free. In the early 80s I seriously considered joining his ministry down in Texas.
CCM artists are supposedly representing the Gospel and God and Christianity. So one would hope that the standards would be far higher than the secular pop or classical worlds (not to mention rap and hip hop).
That turned me off and I basically stopped buying the stuff, because I didn't want to support some moral hypocrite posing as especially spiritual when the truth was quite otherwise. And when I stopped buying their stuff I wasn't making a blanket rule that others should follow.
I just didn't want to support it anymore. It was a sort of protest in my own mind. The only one I follow at all these days is Phil Keaggy, who is a very humble and committed Christian (I've met him), and (as a bonus) the best guitarist alive today.
With Wagner or rock stars, on the other hand (even proclaimed Christians like U2), they aren't claiming to be any sort of example of the Gospel in the first place. Nor is anyone (most people, anyway) who listens to their music connecting it to their virtues or lack thereof.
That's another huge discussion, of course: the whole bit about whether one is a "Christian musician" or "a musician who happens to be a Christian." Bru
(cont.)
Bruce Cockburn, for example, would be an example of the latter (though he may be quite liberal theologically; I know he is politically).
I'll do my best to get you hooked on one or more of Wagner, Beethoven, Mahler, Bruckner, Debussy, and others.
You've got an easy task with respect to Mahler, Beethoven, and "Reekard," as Wagner is known on classical radio. When I moved out to California, there were so many "morning zoo" shows (which I despise), I decided to start listening to classical on the way to work. Both the late (at least on FM) K-Mozart and Classical KUSC love Wagner, Mahler, and Beethoven, along with Bach and (of course) Mozart. And BTW, I *really* like Dvorak, which falls right in line with your recommendations. Feel free to email me a starter list (along with what to listen for) if you like.
Incidentally, the "I can't believe I've been robbed of this music" moment was hearing Vivaldi's Summer. Everybody's heard Spring, but the energy in Summer is so palpable, it just grabs you and drags you through the piece. That was a new experience of classical music for me; it resonated more with the frenetic energy of the punk/ska music that is my usual favorite.
BTW, I am NOT trashing the often-played classical pieces like "Spring." I got to hear Beethoven's Fifth conducted by the LA Phil's new director Gustavo Dudamel. Everybody's heard that one a thousand times, but when a good conductor like Dudamel gets a-hold of it, it's amazing how it sounds like new again.
got to hear it on the radio that is. Would love to hear it in person! 
Commenting by HaloScan
