Be forewarned, this is one of those posts where I go all Aristotelian and insist on quality in art. If you are offended by the notion that aesthetics has objective standards, this may not be for you, though somehow I envision most of the people who read this blog agreeing with me on this one.
I would like to begin this post by confessing one of my prejudices to you all: I am an unflinching "voicist"; that is to say, the sound of somebody's voice tends to predispose me to be either more or less receptive to what they have to say. I know, I know, that's how Hitler rose to power. Sorry, can't help it.
In regular life this is just a quirk and in the end doesn't really hold a large sway over my opinion of people. When you enter the realm of music, however, everything changes. Suddenly my distaste for certain voices is, I believe, perfectly validated. A quick illustration: some of my friends are into a band called Opeth, which for simplicity's sake I will label death metal (Alex, I'm sure you could point out the exact category, but that wouldn't mean much to most of my readers). Repeatedly they have insisted I listen and find quality in the music. To be honest, they really aren't that bad a group musically; in fact they strike me as quite talented. The one thing that keeps me from praising them is that the predominant style of singing is harsh, grating growling. The usual defense my friends use is "Just ignore the singing; it's really good." I think this example sets up the problem fairly well. We have ceased to view the human voice as an instrument, and see it merely as a messenger for lyrics and superfluous to the actual work of music.
Bzzt, wrong! The human voice is in fact the most basic yet significant instrument we possess. It surpasses even the cello in its lyricism and beauty. Or, at least, the best voices do. Therein lies the problem. Beautiful voices elevate us to sublime heights, but I firmly believe that everyone in Hell will speak in a New Jersey accent. It isn't as if someone can trade in their voice and get a bona fide Stradivarius model. For the most part, we are stuck with the voices God has given us. Some people therefore suggest that singers aren't to be blamed for their poor voices. No, I suppose not, but that doesn't mean they are cleared to belt in front of crowds. We wouldn't condemn a man for wearing glasses, but neither would we encourage him to become an astronaut. Surely these people are talented at something (certainly it isn't singing); let them go become sanitation engineers or middle management. [N.B. This is tangential, but I'd like to put it in anyway. Don't you find all that talk about "following your dreams" slightly ridiculous when applied to people who clearly have no talent in an area? This is the triumph of individualism over excellence.]
Of course, some troublesome people will say "How do we determine which voices are beautiful and which aren't?" For just a minute, I would like to soften a bit and admit that there is a certain range of acceptability in voices. For example, I like Randy Newman's voice, which many people find irritating. However, in my defense this stems both from a more intimate knowledge of his voice (i.e. it grows on you) and also the perfect pairing of his voice with his cynical, imperfect style. So don't think I am going around insisting that every singer be Kathleen Battle; still, there are standards. Getting back to said standards: I think that everyone will acknowledge that something in a voice is self-evidently good or bad. Postmodernism has destroyed our liking of the self-evident, but too bad. Even tone deaf listeners can tell between a lyrical voice and one that is reminiscent of chalk on blackboards. Beyond this we can once again gain wisdom from our old (some might say ancient) friend Aristotle. In our individualistic society we like to think of ourselves as the best judges of what is right. In Aristotle's model, however, excellence in an area is determined by those expert in the field. Let's all swallow some pride and admit that the professionals are just that for a reason and that maybe, just maybe, they know more than we do about what makes for good singing.
If there is one point I would like to make with this post, it is that the lead singers of every punk band ever should be systematically hunted down and execut... ahem, I mean that excellence in voices is as important as the ability to play the guitar.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Blue Train of Thought
I've been itching to do some actual writing for awhile now. So, with Rachmaninoff on the stereo and an hour or so at my disposal, I thought I might post something worth reading (imagine that!). You guys aren't getting any apologies about the infrequency and inadequacy of my posts, but I will say that the last one didn't turn out how I wanted. The idea was good, but I ran out of steam and ended up with a halfhearted post. These days I just seem tired when I try to do anything.
If you travel in any circles that could be described even remotely as "evangelical", you have probably heard of the book Blue Like Jazz: Nonreligious thoughts on Christian Spirituality by Donald Miller. Having spent several years hearing people insist that I had to read it, and encouraged by the positive reviews of several people I trust (here's looking at you, big sister), I decided last week to pick up the copy lying on my Dad's bookshelf and investigate the hubbub myself.
In the pattern of most of my reviews, I will begin with the technical aspects of the book. Miller has a writing style which I enjoy- it is relaxed and natural, not stilted yet not pedestrian. He also manages to be quite funny in many places, though I felt that sometimes he stretched too far with his jokes and came up a little short. Overall, however, the book is written well enough to hold your attention and keep you interested in what Miller has to say.
That he does this is very good, because most of what Donald Miller talks about in Blue Like Jazz is very solid. First of all, though, I would like to dispel what I see as a misconception. One thing I hear often about the book is that it is paradigm shifting and radically new. To this I say: yes and no. What I found when reading is that Miller's revolution is nothing more or less than the Gospel as it has always existed. Why are we surprised when people preach the Gospel? It is because we are sinful creatures who need hear over and over the radical message of grace found in the Bible. Donald Miller's views on what is wrong with American Christianity, when correct, are rooted in the truth of the Gospel. Interestingly, on the rare occasions when he missteps (and ends up sounding like many current evangelical mouthpieces), it is because he has strayed from the Gospel. More on that later; I like to start with the positive.
If I had to pick a thesis for Blue Like Jazz, I would say that it would be "Christianity is about relationship with God, not rules". What a perfect summation of the Gospel! I'm not sure that Miller would call himself a follower of Covenant theology, but he certainly has some of the basics down. One of the main pleas is for the reader to fall in love with Jesus- as the bride of Christ, that is what we must do (only because Christ first woos us, of course).
I greatly appreciate Blue Like Jazz for helping me to organize my thoughts on a subject which has bothered me for as long as I can remember: why does so much of American Christianity sound hateful? With some prodding from Miller and talks with my campus minister, I think I have at least part of the answer. Miller is the rare evangelical who refuses to kowtow to the Republican party- at times I would say he goes too far in the other way and takes pleasure in bashing conservatives in an unhealthy way (to be fair, he confesses this freely himself). How refreshing to hear someone rooted in orthodox Christianity who doesn't simply vote the party line. I suspect that Miller is a conservative on some issues, but he also cares deeply about concerns of social justice such as poverty. Why has social justice become a dirty word among evangelicals? God certainly cares about it- witness all the commands to care for the downtrodden and give justice to the oppressed. Many conservative Christians tend to say that doing to much social justice work interferes with the heart of Christianity (funny that this doesn't apply to works like protesting abortion), but I think a more accurate picture is this: if we acknowledged the truth of the Gospel, we would be forced to rethink our ideas about money and would probably have to give up a great deal of our own comfort. We cannot serve both God and Mammon.
A brief interlude to note something refreshing about Miller: he is always confessing his sins, especially his self-centered nature. Christ must purify his bride, but Miller wants that to come in a very real way, starting with himself.
Back to the thoughts above. One of the focuses of Miller's book is the earthshaking love of Christ. Why, he wonders, do we claim to know the love of Christ but preach only hate to so many people? This is a question that has come often to my head. I now posit a partial answer: loudmouths such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, even if they be genuine Christians, are caught in a web of moralism. Quick definition for the uninitiated; moralism is an emphasis on changed outward behavior instead of on belief in the promises of God. It is concerned with how you act but not with the heart. These pundits yell till they are blue in the face about "traditional morality", but they fall short of their purpose as members of the body. I am not against living in a Biblical manner, but here is the problem as I see it. First off, God's laws only make sense in the context of covenant. The drastic misunderstanding of the Ten Commandments and every other part of God's law is that they are guidelines for good living instead of acts of worship that stem from God's love for us. We cannot expect non-Christians to abide by the laws of Christ. Paul makes this perfectly clear- we must deal with believers who are obstinately disobeying, but not with non-believers. Somehow this got lost and churchgoers see it as their responsibility to be everybody else's watchdog. Note that I am not saying we should give up and let injustice run rampant. I guess this ties in to my second point, which is that to preach moralism is to lose sight of the Gospel. As if what God cared about was whether or not you smoke or cuss! [N.B. one thing I like about Miller is that he smokes a pipe- holla] People have replaced the truth that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" with a petty Phariseeism which makes them feel good that they are not as bad as x group of sinners. Bullshit. (*gasp*) (yes, I admit to putting that there for shock value. Sue me.)
Instead of yelling at people to change their behavior, we should (as the Bible makes clear and Miller emphasizes) reach out in love and gently point the way to Christ. What is our ultimate duty to others, to change their behavior or to "go and make disciples of all nations". Hmm, tough one, that.
One minor caveat I have with Miller's view on all of this is his attitude toward those in the church. Church discipline seems to be a dirty word with him. I agree that we should speak the truth in love, but we have the responsibility to correct obstinate sinning within the church.
Speaking of the church, I think that in general this is Miller's weak point. Most of the chapters in Blue Like Jazz are wonderful (the chapter on grace was amazing, har har), but to be blunt, his chapter on the church stinks. Ironically, he spends a great deal of time in the book discussing how self-centered he is, but when he gets to talking about the church, he proves it. His general advice about choosing a church seems to be "go somewhere that clicks for you". The reasons he lists for attending the church he does seems out of order and somewhat superficial. There is no real mention of going someplace which lifts high the name of Christ or anything like that. All in all it is a consumer mentality of church attendance (what am I getting out of it), instead of the Pauline idea of the body building itself up in love.
I suppose that's about all I have for now. As a final note, I would recommend Blue Like Jazz to just about anyone: Christians who want to fall in love with Christ again; non-Christians who have been jaded by the self-righteous hypocrisies of American Christianity; people seeking to know more about Christ. I was reading a book on how to do jazz improv, and it said "If you hit a wrong note, you only need to go up or down a halfstep and you will be on a right note". Donald Miller is akin to a jazz musician; playing freeform with the love of God, occasionally he hits something that is just slightly off, but he is never far away from the truth.
In the pattern of most of my reviews, I will begin with the technical aspects of the book. Miller has a writing style which I enjoy- it is relaxed and natural, not stilted yet not pedestrian. He also manages to be quite funny in many places, though I felt that sometimes he stretched too far with his jokes and came up a little short. Overall, however, the book is written well enough to hold your attention and keep you interested in what Miller has to say.
That he does this is very good, because most of what Donald Miller talks about in Blue Like Jazz is very solid. First of all, though, I would like to dispel what I see as a misconception. One thing I hear often about the book is that it is paradigm shifting and radically new. To this I say: yes and no. What I found when reading is that Miller's revolution is nothing more or less than the Gospel as it has always existed. Why are we surprised when people preach the Gospel? It is because we are sinful creatures who need hear over and over the radical message of grace found in the Bible. Donald Miller's views on what is wrong with American Christianity, when correct, are rooted in the truth of the Gospel. Interestingly, on the rare occasions when he missteps (and ends up sounding like many current evangelical mouthpieces), it is because he has strayed from the Gospel. More on that later; I like to start with the positive.
If I had to pick a thesis for Blue Like Jazz, I would say that it would be "Christianity is about relationship with God, not rules". What a perfect summation of the Gospel! I'm not sure that Miller would call himself a follower of Covenant theology, but he certainly has some of the basics down. One of the main pleas is for the reader to fall in love with Jesus- as the bride of Christ, that is what we must do (only because Christ first woos us, of course).
I greatly appreciate Blue Like Jazz for helping me to organize my thoughts on a subject which has bothered me for as long as I can remember: why does so much of American Christianity sound hateful? With some prodding from Miller and talks with my campus minister, I think I have at least part of the answer. Miller is the rare evangelical who refuses to kowtow to the Republican party- at times I would say he goes too far in the other way and takes pleasure in bashing conservatives in an unhealthy way (to be fair, he confesses this freely himself). How refreshing to hear someone rooted in orthodox Christianity who doesn't simply vote the party line. I suspect that Miller is a conservative on some issues, but he also cares deeply about concerns of social justice such as poverty. Why has social justice become a dirty word among evangelicals? God certainly cares about it- witness all the commands to care for the downtrodden and give justice to the oppressed. Many conservative Christians tend to say that doing to much social justice work interferes with the heart of Christianity (funny that this doesn't apply to works like protesting abortion), but I think a more accurate picture is this: if we acknowledged the truth of the Gospel, we would be forced to rethink our ideas about money and would probably have to give up a great deal of our own comfort. We cannot serve both God and Mammon.
A brief interlude to note something refreshing about Miller: he is always confessing his sins, especially his self-centered nature. Christ must purify his bride, but Miller wants that to come in a very real way, starting with himself.
Back to the thoughts above. One of the focuses of Miller's book is the earthshaking love of Christ. Why, he wonders, do we claim to know the love of Christ but preach only hate to so many people? This is a question that has come often to my head. I now posit a partial answer: loudmouths such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, even if they be genuine Christians, are caught in a web of moralism. Quick definition for the uninitiated; moralism is an emphasis on changed outward behavior instead of on belief in the promises of God. It is concerned with how you act but not with the heart. These pundits yell till they are blue in the face about "traditional morality", but they fall short of their purpose as members of the body. I am not against living in a Biblical manner, but here is the problem as I see it. First off, God's laws only make sense in the context of covenant. The drastic misunderstanding of the Ten Commandments and every other part of God's law is that they are guidelines for good living instead of acts of worship that stem from God's love for us. We cannot expect non-Christians to abide by the laws of Christ. Paul makes this perfectly clear- we must deal with believers who are obstinately disobeying, but not with non-believers. Somehow this got lost and churchgoers see it as their responsibility to be everybody else's watchdog. Note that I am not saying we should give up and let injustice run rampant. I guess this ties in to my second point, which is that to preach moralism is to lose sight of the Gospel. As if what God cared about was whether or not you smoke or cuss! [N.B. one thing I like about Miller is that he smokes a pipe- holla] People have replaced the truth that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" with a petty Phariseeism which makes them feel good that they are not as bad as x group of sinners. Bullshit. (*gasp*) (yes, I admit to putting that there for shock value. Sue me.)
Instead of yelling at people to change their behavior, we should (as the Bible makes clear and Miller emphasizes) reach out in love and gently point the way to Christ. What is our ultimate duty to others, to change their behavior or to "go and make disciples of all nations". Hmm, tough one, that.
One minor caveat I have with Miller's view on all of this is his attitude toward those in the church. Church discipline seems to be a dirty word with him. I agree that we should speak the truth in love, but we have the responsibility to correct obstinate sinning within the church.
Speaking of the church, I think that in general this is Miller's weak point. Most of the chapters in Blue Like Jazz are wonderful (the chapter on grace was amazing, har har), but to be blunt, his chapter on the church stinks. Ironically, he spends a great deal of time in the book discussing how self-centered he is, but when he gets to talking about the church, he proves it. His general advice about choosing a church seems to be "go somewhere that clicks for you". The reasons he lists for attending the church he does seems out of order and somewhat superficial. There is no real mention of going someplace which lifts high the name of Christ or anything like that. All in all it is a consumer mentality of church attendance (what am I getting out of it), instead of the Pauline idea of the body building itself up in love.
I suppose that's about all I have for now. As a final note, I would recommend Blue Like Jazz to just about anyone: Christians who want to fall in love with Christ again; non-Christians who have been jaded by the self-righteous hypocrisies of American Christianity; people seeking to know more about Christ. I was reading a book on how to do jazz improv, and it said "If you hit a wrong note, you only need to go up or down a halfstep and you will be on a right note". Donald Miller is akin to a jazz musician; playing freeform with the love of God, occasionally he hits something that is just slightly off, but he is never far away from the truth.
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Dragonforce: The Ultimate Guy's Band
Once again my apologies for not ever posting. Life since returning to Titusville has been frantically busy, what with working 50 hours a week.
Still, here's a little post to tide you over. I'd like to talk about a guilty pleasure of mine. As many of you know, my tastes range from the excellent to the terrible, but once in awhile I discover something that defies either of those categories. Dragonforce is, I think, one such band. There is no doubt that they have immense technical skill- the guitarists shred at speeds not sanctioned by the DOT. Still, there are many valid criticisms to be levelled at them, notably that their songs tend to sound quite similar and even run together.
One charge I would like to defend is that their lyrics are abysmal. Now, I will not try to equate the words to their songs as great poetry, but I think they have a certain something that makes them worthwhile. Let me explain: instead of the typical rock band subjects of love, etc., Dragonforce sings almost exclusively about things such as flying, dragons, fire, battle, et al. The wonderful thing is that they manage to avoid the "Tolkien trap" of many metal bands by being completely generic in their subject matter. Why should one listen to songs about wings of glory and battlefield despair? This is where the subject line enters in. I am firmly convinced that Dragonforce is a band for guys. What man has not dreamed of being the victorious warrior in a hard fought fight? Or of soaring over the countryside on a dragon's back? There is something distinctly noble about Dragonforce, in a goofy way. In a sense they are a modern Don Quixote, striving after battles from ages past. As far as I am concerned they should not stop tilting- their extreme rock carries us through the heavens.
Still, here's a little post to tide you over. I'd like to talk about a guilty pleasure of mine. As many of you know, my tastes range from the excellent to the terrible, but once in awhile I discover something that defies either of those categories. Dragonforce is, I think, one such band. There is no doubt that they have immense technical skill- the guitarists shred at speeds not sanctioned by the DOT. Still, there are many valid criticisms to be levelled at them, notably that their songs tend to sound quite similar and even run together.
One charge I would like to defend is that their lyrics are abysmal. Now, I will not try to equate the words to their songs as great poetry, but I think they have a certain something that makes them worthwhile. Let me explain: instead of the typical rock band subjects of love, etc., Dragonforce sings almost exclusively about things such as flying, dragons, fire, battle, et al. The wonderful thing is that they manage to avoid the "Tolkien trap" of many metal bands by being completely generic in their subject matter. Why should one listen to songs about wings of glory and battlefield despair? This is where the subject line enters in. I am firmly convinced that Dragonforce is a band for guys. What man has not dreamed of being the victorious warrior in a hard fought fight? Or of soaring over the countryside on a dragon's back? There is something distinctly noble about Dragonforce, in a goofy way. In a sense they are a modern Don Quixote, striving after battles from ages past. As far as I am concerned they should not stop tilting- their extreme rock carries us through the heavens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)