|
|
IMPLICATIONS FOR MODERN WORSHIP |
|
|
|
Please have patience while this page is loading; the content is
worth the wait!
|
|
|
| N.B.: A WinZip
(.zip) archive (17.9 MB) containing a PowerPoint Presentation (.ppt) and
sound files (.mp3) summarizing the historical and musical background to Suzanne
Haïk-Vantoura's work may be downloaded via
this link. |
|
|
|
|
This author firmly believes that "the Word of God is the foundation of knowledge."
In a very real sense, then, the music
to which the Word of God is set is "foundational". Without it we would not know just how sophisticated
ancient music could be in practice, or how it could apply the most basic techniques of "art" music to
achieve a particular goal.
But does this rediscovered music have broader implications? Specifically, can it tell us anything about what sacred
music should be like today? Is there such
a thing as a biblical standard of "good"
music (especially music for the worship of God) -- one which transcends style, culture or personal taste? |
|
This very issue was the reason why I began
to study Haïk-Vantoura's work in 1982. Several evangelical Christian sources had already mentioned it; my
first contact with the work was through the Newsletter
of the Associates
for Biblical Research (March 1982, p. 2, top). That source (which I cite
in facsimile elsewhere) found the musical results of Haïk-Vantoura's key nothing less than "awe-inspiring"
-- and asked, "Is is possible that we are hearing the word of the Lord
in the actual melody He inspired by the Holy Spirit?"
I had learned at an early age that the music of the Psalms and songs of the Hebrew Bible had been lost long ago.
I inferred that had that music been "inspired" in the same sense as the words, it would have been preserved
with them. Conversely, if there was music preserved in the Bible, then it ought to be "inspired" in some
sense -- for surely God would not allow something that fundamental to be added to or taken away from the Scriptures.
(I did not realize, then, the meaning of David's comment in Psalms 119:54: "Your statutes have been my songs in the house of
my pilgrimage.") Naturally, when I read of Haïk-Vantoura's thesis
and of ABR's reaction to its results, I realized I had to test for myself whether Haïk-Vantoura's methodology
was sound. If so, then I knew we would have a priceless touchstone -- the music of the Temple -- for many musical and exegetical issues.
This Web site has attempted to put forward the basic evidence for Haïk-Vantoura's thesis. Now it is time to
spell out its practical applications for today's musicians -- specifically, for the Christian communities who have
expressed the greatest interest in those applications for their own languages and musical cultures. |
|
|
Composers and arrangers have always chosen different instruments, rhythms, vocal effects,
lyrics, scales, modes and so on to promote different effects on the listener. Such choices concern the ethos or moral force of music. These choices transcend those of style or taste as such.
Style has to do with the form and structure of music, which changes from genre
to genre and over time and cultural boundaries. Taste
has to do with one's preferences in musical
style, and is partly inherited and partly learned. Ethos
has to do with the innate effects of music
on the performer and listener. In a phrase, ethos
has to do with how exposure to different styles
of music affect one's musical tastes,
and through them one's moral character.
It also has to do with how a particular style may be developed toward the same ends.
"Since music is an emotional language," wrote Mike Coyle, "and since some emotions are wrong for
the child of God, then some music is wrong for the Christian" (cited by Frank Garlock and Kurt Woetzel, Music in the Balance, Majesty Music, Inc., 1992,
p. 3). But why stop there, if all men are made in the image of God? Besides (as we will see), music expresses not
only emotions, but attitudes and impulses as well. If music is the language
of the attitudes, emotions and impulses, and if the expression of some attitudes, emotions and impulses is harmful
to human beings, then some music is harmful to human beings. The question
then becomes one of determining which
emotions are harmful to human beings, and how different styles of music express those emotions.
Of course, the Hebrew-Christian Bible says much about what kinds of emotions (and actions) are harmful to human
beings, and are therefore sin (e.g., Galatians 5:19-21). What may surprise the reader is how much consensus there has been among various students
(Christian, New Age, secular, ancient) of music and its effects as to what elements of music express what kinds
of emotions the most naturally. A few simple examples will suffice.
Rhythm is universally acknowledged as
that element of music which expresses passion.
It is the "body" of music, as melody
is the "spirit" and harmony
(or, in monody, the harmonic structure)
the mind or "soul" of music (cf. Garlock et al.,
p. 57). Taking another analogy, rhythm is the "pulse" of music, like that which keeps man alive. If the
rhythm is under control, then the music is "sound", just as a man with a steady pulse is "sound".
But if the rhythm is overemphasized or erratic, then the music is "sick", just as a man with a too strong
or erratic pulse is "sick".
In "good" music, then, the melody
should predominate, then the harmony,
then the rhythm -- just as the "spirit"
or rational faculty of man should predominate over his desires (the "soul") and his impulses (the "body").
But if these elements are out of order, or if they are emphasized in an imbalanced way, the melos is imbalanced and will have effects that are ultimately harmful. Even the relative proportions
of "balanced" music will have particular, subtle effects on the listener, suitable for expressing various theologies and philosophies. (Of
course, if the music is unbalanced the effects will be far less subtle.)
Gregorian chant (which represents Catholic theology so well in musical terms) is as "ethereal" as it
is precisely because it is so dominated by the melody.
Its harmonic structure is less well-organized
than is that of biblical prosody, and its rhythm
if anything is often even simpler than that of biblical psalmody. Thus, Gregorian chant detaches the listener from earthly reality, in a way biblical chant does not. By contrast, in "rock"
music (especially in its extreme forms), the rhythm
predominates. It is not for nothing that "rock" and its derivatives are the musical forms of choice for
expressing carnal passions and philosophies (even
to outright nihilism).
Particular kinds of rhythm have particular
effects upon the listener as well. The infamous "anapestic beat" (two short beats, one long beat), noted
for inducing frenzies and trances among
various pagan peoples, is used in modern forms in "rock" music and its derivatives. Indeed, this rhythm,
constant and driving, is the defining element of modern "rock". Other
techniques such as "riffs" and ostinato (repeated melodic and/or rhythmic motives) are used to add to
the sensuality and hypnotic quality of the music. Whereas the "dactyl" (the inverse of the anapest) and
its derivatives are characteristic of classical and traditional music in the West. However vigorous the dactyl
gets (and even the dactyl can be overused), it does not build up the nervous
agitation that the anapest does.
Different melodic techniques have their
effects as well. Long vocal ornaments on a syllable (as we have seen) are characteristic of "pathogenic"
or "pathos-born" vocal music.
In much popular music today (even though the music is "melogenic"), such ornaments and improvisations
are commonplace, expressing the attitudes
of the singer (again, generally sensual
ones). Modern popular music may also deliberately "bend" the note, "scoop" the voice, "swing"
the beat, and use various vocal tricks (breathy voice, extended wide vibrato after a pure attack, etc.) to express
sensual or "worldly" attitudes. Bent and scooped notes also exist in the music of some New Age artists
such as Enya (who draws upon Irish traditional music for much of her inspiration). Thanks to these techniques,
sensuality is still very much present, yet in the uniquely Celtic identification
of sensual and spiritual experiences. On the other hand, the rigidly constructed ornaments in Gregorian chant express
intensely aesthetic mindsets (and also
a sense of mystery transcending the meaning
of the words themselves).
The harmonic structure of a piece greatly
affects one's perception of its mood. Here lie the considerations of scale and mode, and also
of parallel voicings (heterophony and polyphony) and the intervals and chords that result. These elements are what portray the intellectual
thoughts and emotional desires of the composer or performer. It is commonly thought
in the West that the major mode is "happy" and the minor mode is "sad". This is not the perception
expressed by traditional Jewish music, for example; many of its most joyful works are in minor mode, or in other
modes entirely. Yet the Jewish perception does reflect the realization that "even in laughter the heart may
be sad", that in human life joy and sadness are seldom unmixed. Western thought tends to separate the two
states of mind more rigorously.
The choice of instruments and vocal resources
is another important factor. Once again, there is a surprising amount of common ground between cultures in how
various instruments have been chosen for various purposes. Harps and flutes, individually or in ensemble, were
considered both "romantic" and "spiritual" in ancient Egypt, much as they are today. Ancient
reed pipes were considered the instruments of sexuality par excellence, much as is the modern saxophone by some musicians. Large drums have always been favored for
strongly rhythmic music of any kind. Male and female soloists and choirs, having different tone colors, have likewise
been used in similar ways, though different symbolic and other restrictions as to their use have been in force
in different cultures. Some have forbidden women to sing publicly at all, due to their capacity for sensuality
in performance; others have encouraged women to sing, often for the same reason (as today).
Never forget, though, that none of the above musical factors can stand alone. Music worthy of the name -- melogenic music -- is a combination of all these factors, each one influencing the others. There
is nothing innately wrong with rhythm
as such, melodic ornaments as such, modality as such, or any other major element of music as such. Even biblical chant uses a variant of the anapest (the "retraction"
of an accent) to build and release tension
at given points; and it makes specific choices among melodic phrases, ornaments, modes, vocal resources, and instruments
to accomplish its ends. What is wrong
in principle is using the elements of music in an unbalanced way, where one element completely predominates over all the others or is in the wrong order.
Nevertheless, there are vocal and instrumental
techniques (and other techniques as well) that are explicitly designed to provoke spiritual and mental attitudes, emotional desires and bodily impulses that the
Bible defines as sin. Any such techniques
should be avoided completely -- not just
in sacred music, but in secular music used by God-fearing people. Any instruments specifically designed to provoke such responses
ought to be avoided as well. (One of a number of excellent sources that discuss the specific techniques and instruments
used in Western popular music, and their effects on the listener, is the above-mentioned Music
in the Balance. This book may be purchased with accompanying videos and other
instructional material.) Moreover, the human ear is adapted to certain kinds and levels of natural sound. Amplification to "unnatural" levels or the creation of utterly "unnatural"
sounds can be harmful to the ear and the rest of the body, and these should be avoided as well. As is so often
said, simply because something can be
done does not mean it should be done! |
|
|
|
How much concern should there be, then, over the rise of "contemporary Christian
music" (CCM)? More than a little.
There are a number of good sources, some of them quoting mostly secular authorities on music (including rock musicians
themselves), that point out the sources
of modern popular music (rock, jazz, New Age, etc.) and the goals of its proponents. Once again, as in the composition
of all music, specific techniques are
chosen (consciously or unconsciously) to encourage specific reactions in the listener -- carnal reactions
which have nothing to do with what the Hebrew-Christian Bible stands for. What is striking is that in non-Christian artistic circles,
virtually no one worth his salt claims that music is amoral. On the contrary,
the great musicians and philosophers of music of the past, and even many in the present, proclaim that music is
profoundly moral -- indeed, the most morally charged of all the arts! It seems that
only in modern times (with the rise of philosophies of rebellion and despair, such as existentialism and nihilism)
has this basic fact of life been challenged. Strangely, many non-Christians are now pointing out the errors of
such thinking in the strongest terms, while many mainstream Christians seem blind to the same errors. Yet even
among those mainstream Christians who recognize the moral factor in music, there are sharp differences of opinion.
On one side of the debate is Al Menconi, who promotes CCM (yet who has relatively
conservative tastes compared to some in the field). On the other are men like Dr. Frank Garlock (already mentioned
above), the founder of Majesty
Music, Inc. Curiously, both have spoken well of my involvement with Haïk-Vantoura's
work. This is no doubt because both men recognize the moral factor in music. Mr. Menconi perceives and appreciates
the biblical confirmation that music is a melos
(and therefore, that no one major element
of music is evil of itself), while Dr. Garlock appreciates the close correlation between the elements of Haïk-Vantoura's
renditions and the elements of sound music he has derived or inferred from the biblical narratives and other sources.
On the whole, though, I believe Dr. Garlock is far closer to the biblical truth than Mr. Menconi. The latter often
faces simplistic arguments against CCM and gives answers that befit those arguments. The deeper issues addressed
by Dr. Garlock and others, however, seem to go begging.
The central issue
in the whole debate lies in how the elements of music should be combined. Some combinations of musical elements express combinations of attitudes, emotions and impulses
that are not Godly. Some elements taken to extremes cause un-Godly imbalances. Some music that is otherwise good
is combined with lyrics that are not -- and vice versa. Some specific musical techniques are sensual (or idolatrous,
or whatever) of themselves and should
be avoided -- and so should any instruments or even musical styles whose purpose is purely to express sinful states
of mind, emotions or bodily impulses.
Often the argument is made: "Any style of music is OK, so long as the lyrics
are good." This is apparently what Mr. Menconi believes. Here is an excerpt from his answer to several criticisms
of "Christian rock" (which answer should be read in its context):
Christian music's main purpose is to minister to the believer, not merely to entertain.
Whether it be light spice or heavy spice, just because you enjoy the sound of the music, doesn't mean it is good
to listen to. To find out if it is worthy of your time, evaluate the message of the lyrics [emphasis mine] and see if it is meeting your spiritual needs.
But is this argument valid? Music as a medium, apart
from the presence or absence of words, carries its own message -- "the
medium is the message". The combination
of "sensual" music with "spiritual" lyrics gives a mixed
message at best -- and moreover, is no different in
principle than what the ancient Greeks and other pagans did in their own worship!
In the case of the ancient Greeks, we have extant musical works to prove the point (see Sacred Music in Antiquity
and listen to the MIDI version of the First Delphic Hymn, which -- being dedicated to Apollo -- happens to be a
mild example of the genre). Besides, in
rock music (even in CCM versions of it), the musical elements (especially the rhythm) often overwhelm the lyrics. The lyrics may simply underline what the music is already saying, or it may work
at cross purposes to it, but either way the lyrics are secondary.
Another argument goes: "Your taste is your taste, and mine is mine, and mine
is just as good as yours." But as we have noted, taste is partly innate and partly learned.
Those who study the effects of music have discovered it is all too possible to "put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah
5:20) -- that is, to develop a preference for music that is actually harmful to the spirit, soul and body! Moreover, some people
do have better taste in music than others,
because they have exercised their senses to discern good and evil (Hebrews
5:14).
Our Weblinks page has two links to articles by Dr. Samuele
Bacchiochi on modern popular music (especially rock music), which the reader may find helpful. An excellent article
on the rise of CCM due to an explicit desire
to "relate to modern culture" may be found here. We do not necessarily
recommend everything that these sites or other sources mentioned on this page say. Our main purpose is to point
out the basic principles of "good"
music (especially music used in worship) that the Bible illustrates by statement and example. Much if not most
of what these other souces say will underline and support these principles, both by statement and by clinical example.
|
|
|
What then are some of those basic principles of "good" music, as illustrated
by biblical chant?
First, the melody, harmony and rhythm are in proper order and balance. The melody predominates, its syntax (tonality) being interwoven with (not overwhelming) the
syntax of the words. The harmonic structure of both prosody and psalmody is rich, yet supportive of the words and
the melody. The rhythm, though not "regular" in the sense that ancient Greek song was or modern song
is, is nevertheless "metrical", with occasional "offbeat" accents to underline words where
necessary. Thus it should be with modern musical worship: everything in order and balance, yet with dramatic "spice"
where necessary to underline the verbal message.
Second, the modal palette is diatonic-chromatic and rich in variety. It is not limited to major-minor tonality, but uses a number of other modes (including some
with "variable degrees") that lend themselves well to both melodic and harmonic expression. This gives
the interesting result (in Psalms especially) of some works that sound "Western" and some that sound
"Middle Eastern" to many modern ears -- yet all procede from the same
self-consistent musical system! In this light, obviously not all "Messianic
Jewish" or other ethnic-Christian music is bad (far from it); and this author believes good examples of such
music should be performed by more people. However, pentatonic music lacks the full emotional expression of diatonic
and diatonic-chromatic music, while chromatic and enharmonic music (not to mention some other, even more bizarre
forms) can become vague or even "inhuman" in their expression. The biblical chant strikes the balance:
plenty of variety, but within the limits most "natural" to the human ear and voice.
Third, the ornaments are clear, precise and limited in principle to at most
three notes on a syllable. This adds to the respectful tone of the music,
brings out the meaning of important words in an exact way, and helps keep it balanced between logogenic and pathogenic
extremes. In modern music, too much emphasis on the words (extreme: rap) or on the melodic ornaments (extremes:
much R&B, black gospel, Gregorian chant, etc.) should likewise be avoided, especially in musical worship.
Fourth, the ambitus of the melody is limited to the normal human vocal range (eleven degrees). This means that the music may be performed by the widest number of people
possible (even if professional training is still required to do it well). This is one element that this author
thinks should be regained in modern music. One thing that pre-Renaissance and Renaissance musical harmony had that
was lost when four-part vocal harmony arose was the rational division of vocal
pitch ranges. Many second tenors in particular are forced to sing at the top
of their range or out of it -- whereas in early music, they would have found a comfortable range and stayed within
it. (Of course, the biblical example does not forbid people to perform music using a wider vocal range -- but it
does give a good example of how much can
be done within a constricted range, all the while focusing on the message rather than on the messenger.)
Fifth, the harmonic structure is rich, yet simple and well-organized. Above all, it revolves around the three basic degrees of tonality (1st, 4th, 5th). This adds
to the "accessibility" of the music on the spiritual, intellectual and emotional levels. Music that is
too "chromatic" or too "atonal" is difficult to follow, and expresses conceptions that are
either unclear or (in some cases) frankly psychotic.
Sixth, the music is reserved and respectful in its attitude toward God (thanks in good measure to its single, central tonic). The use of the Western octave, with
its two tonics at either end, allows for much greater range of tonal expression (especially once one breaks out
of the octave); but it also can point much more attention to the performer as such. Whereas when biblical chant does hit the octave above the tonic, it is as a "passing
tone", used to emphasize the words. The melos
itself is what matters; the performer is but a vehicle, an intercessor between God and man.
Seventh, the music makes the words easier, not harder to understand. Recent studies indicate that modern hymnody actually makes it more difficult for the singer
to focus on the words. This is no doubt because the music is not an extension of the normal vocal inflection as
is biblical chant. (One of the advantages of not limiting oneself to strict meter, or to a repeated verse form,
is that the normal vocal inflection can be maintained. This would have particular importance in Semitic languages,
where vocal inflection is important for understanding the meaning. In languages such as Greek, where vocal inflection
is not so important, regular meter is not so disadvantageous to understanding. This may well explain why the Hebrews
and other Semitic peoples eschewed regular meter in chanted texts while the Greeks did not.)
Eighth, the emotions expressed by the music run the gamut of Godly human experience. They range from holy joy to lamentation, from idealistic romantic love to philosophical melancholy,
from grandeur to utter quietude. That a music this simple can express such a range of emotions, and do so with
such realism, is compelling testimony to its origins with the biblical authors and to Haïk-Vantoura's exacting
decipherment of it. But this music also reminds us that not all music that is "Godly" must be joyful.
A good majority of the Psalms are anything but (at least in part). Thus vocal works meant to imimate the biblical
example should have simple rhythms, clear harmonies (including, in modern terms, clear
polyphonies), pure melodies, and subordination of the bass to the upper registers
and of the music as a whole to the message of the words. They can express quietude, drama, anguish, mourning, praise,
thanksgiving, or any other Godly attitude, emotion or impulse -- but nothing driven by the "works of the flesh"
(Galatians 5:19-21).
Ninth, the music was intended to be accompanied by suitable acoustic instruments. The harps, lyres, cymbals, shofarot,
and trumpets used in psalmody were the noble, "classical" instruments of antiquity. Being acoustic instruments,
they could be assembled in magnificent ensembles with the singers without overwhelming the ears of the listeners.
They produced by turns a peaceful, mournful, dramatic or other sound, depending on the needs of the particular
Psalm or other text performed. Instruments with particular "tone colors" (even reed pipes, during the
Second Temple period) were at times added to give "spice" to the music. However, it seems no deep-bass
instruments were used originally, as the harps and lyres were portable. Similar considerations should be used in modern performances. Acoustic instruments (which
generally produce sounds and decibel levels the human ear was designed to hear) should be used where possible.
Where electronic instruments and amplification are used, care should be taken regarding the level of sound and
the harshness of the timbres employed. "Classical" and "folk" instruments may be employed,
but not large drums or rhythmic bass. (Of course, this is not meant to forbid the use of the full gamut of the
modern scale as such, which is much wider
and therefore more expressive than that available to ancient musicians. Modern pianos, organs, synthesizers, bassoons,
'cellos and double basses, and concert harps, for example, can go much lower than could most if not all ancient
instruments. The bass register, however, should predominately act as a support to harmony rather than as a marker of rhythm.)
Tenth, the music (thanks to its melody, harmonic structure, and rhythm, in
that order) goes out of its way to avoid confusion between spirituality and sensuality.
The fact that the biblical musicians avoided large drums, reed pipes (usually), and bass harps and lutes underlines what the deciphered melodies indicate here.
The modern counterparts of the above instruments (especially electric bass and drums) have their great strength
in stirring the bodily impulses, which
must not be mistaken for spirituality.
Eleventh, the music as a whole was created and performed by inspired "professionals". While the music is indeed highly accessible tonally, to perform it well demands both talent and training (in the case of the psalm-singers, five
years). Many well-practiced church choirs, however, would be able to perform it. In such a case, a written or other
translation would need to be given to the audience, as the music is bound to its original Hebrew and Aramaic lyrics.
Naturally, where possible practiced musicians should perform sacred music, given that the music is for God and
His people.
Twelfth, the music suits the lyrics and shares a common inspiration. Certainly the Godly quality of the lyrics of the Bible should not be in question; and the music that accompanies them suits their dignity
and purity. But as ancient authors were almost universally poet-composers, so modern sacred authors should if possible
be encouraged to be poet-composers. Naturally, some people are gifted lyricists and some gifted melodists, and
may be better off working in teams (and many famous teams come to mind in modern music history). But perhaps more
lyricists would be melodists and vice versa if our modern music had a closer relationship with the natural vocal inflection of the lyrics!
Of course, it would be easier if everyone understood the biblical languages; then everyone could simply perform
the biblical texts "as they are". But as we must translate the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words of the
Hebrew-Christian Bible into many different languages, so we must translate the musical principles of the Bible
into terms that cross all boundaries of time and place. This page has made a beginning in doing just that. I hope
it has proven helpful to the reader. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Updated November 05, 2008
|
|
|
|
