P.S. For those of you who care to think like an adult, reconsider Carson Holloway and All Shook Up: Music, Passion and Politics.

We previously touched on his thesis in another context.

http://remonstrans.net/index.php/2007/09/05/privacy_rights

"Not unlike a viper with black glasses, a big plastic nose, a thick mustache and a cigar."

Apt.

Serious about being not unlike a viper with black glasses, a big plastic nose, a thick mustache and a cigar, maybe?

Author..."I agree with the possibility of cultural association being attached to music."...

I read this and soon realize that this is NOT my fundamentalist culture...

That's all for now, I have to go squelch some imaginative, anthropocentric "worship" music...now, where is my "Bach"-engraved cricket bat? Oh, yah, it's behind the organ...

Author: "It is true that the church is badly trailing the rest of the world in terms of musical excellence."

The notes, as played on his CDs, sound like they were performed as written--so, technically, the CDs excelled technically--depending on one's metrics.

The arrangements, as played, sound like they were performed as imagined and written, so again, technically, these excelled technically--depending on one's metrics.

I think I am sounding like the Rob Bell of music critics...sorry.

So, what makes these recordings progress to a point equal to, or beyond "the rest of the world?"

Is it the choice of the music style attached to the "hymns?"

Is it the content of the lyrics attached to these "hymns?"

Is it...?

Postman noted, “Ignorance is always correctable. But what shall we do if we take ignorance to be knowledge?" Throughout the linked article, Howlett repeatedly asserts his own ignorance as though it were knowledge and definitive expertise. It comes, then, as no surprise to read on his website that he is "heavily influenced by Christian pianists such as Dino” K. Oh, but he is very serious about the need for pianists to incorporate ninth tones into their tonic chords. Right. At least we know what Howlett is serious about.

Thanks, Dissidens, for putting Howlett's article in the perspective it deserves and warning naive readers. I can only pray that the naive pay careful attention.

Unk:

Dunno. I think it would make for an interesting thought experiment: “Of the universe of things, which ones could a fundamentalist apprehend seriously?” If they act and speak unseriously about things that so obviously impinge on their beliefs, what are the chances they can be taken seriously on anything?

It could make for an interesting doctoral dissertation. About what sort of thing could a fundamentalist reliably speak?


Sam:

I’m not sure what question you are asking exactly. Because a) I can’t refer to the sheet music, b) I don’t know the technical capacities of the studio, and c) I have no notion of how these works were “conceived, imagined and written”, I am not in a position to judge their excellence. At least not in these categories you mention. These recordings could memorialize a sad sequence of compromises. A good orchestrator and a good record producer might find this work criminally inferior.

But I am not critiquing these things. [I’m not saying they could not profitably be critiqued, just that that is not what I’m doing here.] When Howlett compares unfavorably to Bach we are talking about a different set of virtues, a whole different set of successes and failures.

When I suggest we listen to Howlett, I am doing so in the context he himself put forward. If he wants us to make our judgment on the grounds he supplied us with, how good is his work? For instance, how successful has he been in “embracing innovation”?

Please, my great aunt would find nothing innovative here! This is the kind of music I can hear anytime I want from the pianist at the Galleria Macy’s.

Second, as to the gist of his criticism, does this conservative/progressive antithesis explain anything about how the real world works? When we are moved by a great opus, is it because we judge it as “conservative” or do we value the thing being conserved? When we are moved by a great innovative opus (as “conservatives” are), is it because we love this disembodied innovation, or do we value the innovation because it was the perfect device, the ideal expression of the idea?

My point is that not only is Howlett’s music trivial; his criticism is trivial and his advice to us is worthless.

Because the stereotype is somewhat reliable....

His article is no surprise because he is currently the owner of two health-supplement companies.:)

I have heard his music before. It is just emotionistic rubbish. Also, if you look at the chords he uses, they appear to be nothing more than jazz chords. For example, I found this sheet music on his site: http://www.greghowlett.com/justasiam.aspx.

This is a perfect example of mindless fundamentalism.

partially in response to John Whit, but mostly to everyone in the whole wide world:

Well, I agree with you that Greg Howlett’s music is mindless, maudlin and perverted.

But I also want everyone to understand that my objection here is not to its mindlessness, maudliness and perversion. My first and most important objection is to his misrepresentation of the facts and his mischaracterization of those he chooses to call extremists.

This is a pernicious evil.

I want the record to be clear on this point. Of the folks who tipped me off to this, four are pastors who have every expectation that their members might read this or have it forwarded to them. Some have children. They have every expectation that troubles now loom for them.

Howlett is wrong.

Not wrong according to me, and not harmless because these are “just trivial preferences”.

We have for nearly three years now presented and discussed alternative views that make sense. From Holloway to Noll to Kaplan to Copland…. No music is a matter of trivial preference, and modes of worship are not trivial preferences either. “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do most things to the glory of God.”

Greg Howlett is free to sell all the garbage he can manufacture. I hope he makes enough money to go buy some books.

Folks, there is good reason men have squabbled over art as they have. And those reasons involve a lot more than one’s attitude toward change.

But back to John Whit: Yes, this is a fine example of mindless fundamentalism.

Howlett’s article is, frankly, embarrassing for its gross oversimplifications and generalizations and its poor reasoning. I’m not sure which I find more alarming–that the article was so written, or that it was published and received by some with open arms. In reality, the article represents poor musicianship, a flawed understanding of music history (not to mention form and style), and poor persuasive writing.

Howlett asserts many things vital to his argument without ever explaining why and how his assertions properly lead to his conclusion. For example, he wants his readers to accept that music has “progressed” far beyond that which was produced by Bach and even Beethoven, but he never explains how or in what way(s) music has progressed. He calls those who think serious music reached its pinnacle “somewhere between Bach and Beethoven” naive and likens them to the KJVO crowd. But how are they naive? And, though his pejorative comparison to the KJVO folks is likely to produce a visceral reaction in many of his readers, he never identifies the similarities between the two groups, leaving that to the imagination. Again, he asserts that “the writing of Bach, while wonderful during the period, is no where [sic] near as advanced as musicians wrote during the following centuries.” On whose authoritative judgment is his assertion based? Howlett seems to be appealing to his own expert opinion without ever telling his readers of what his expertise consists and why they should give it weight.

He engages in vague, grossly generalized assertions without ever defining his terms. Consider this rhetorical question: “Would you want to write music for a movement that rejects your writing just because of cultural bias?” What kind of music? What kind(s) of cultural bias, and whose culture? Again he states that, “knowledgeable musicians would find it hard to deny that music has advanced in many ways since the baroque and classical eras.” What does he mean by advanced? Advanced can carry the connotation of having evolved or of having improved, and those differences mean a great deal when considering how one should assess Howlett’s assertion.

His reasoning is equally problematic. Again Howlett states that, “knowledgeable musicians would find it hard to deny that music has advanced . . . since the baroque and classical eras.” So if we don’t agree with his characterization, we must not be knowledgeable musicians, eh? Later he opines, “that being said, the mean-spiritedness of some is not what we need, whether the attacks are on Frank Garlock, Steve Green, or Casting Crowns. Reasonable people see through that. . . .” Apparently, if we disagree with him or warn others of moral danger, we are unreasonable and mean-spirited. Again Howlett seems to suggest that music choices should be made along democratic lines; majority opinions should rule. (“If, for example, only a small group of Christians believes that a certain musical element is wrong, isn't it reasonable for them to at least consider the possibility that they are mistaken rather than accusing the rest of Christendom of being desensitized to worldliness?”) Is this how fundamentalists are now to judge morality and truth–by majority vote?

The admonitions and justifications offered to those who disagree with Howlett’s ideas are equally enlightening. Someone suggests that “if God's people had their eyes on Jesus,” it would bring “relief” to the “small segment . . . that ‘blows up’ all the time over music.” Another seems to indicate that Howlett’s music really must be okay, as Brian McCrorie has reviewed and recommended it.

I am profoundly saddened over the poor quality of thinking, writing, and musicianship that has advanced such silly arguments. Christian musicians who are serious must do better, both for the sake of the God Whom we profess to love and that of our children, whom we are enjoined to train to be reverent, fearful worshipers of God.

Dissidens is right, I believe: what Howlett has proposed is pernicious evil. (I do not mean this as a judgment of his motives, but rather his product.) For those of us who are parents, I am left wondering what we are doing to actively shape our children's religious affections so that they are not shaken by such dangerous philosophies. May God deliver us from mindless fundamentalism.

This is very interesting. I am familiar with Greg Howlett. I have been given his CDs before as gifts, and was at the same church as him a few years ago here in Georgia.

I am not a fan of his music for many of the same reasons already mentioned. It is not serious music; give me Handel any day.

That being said, when I knew Greg (admitedly not very well), I knew him to be sincere and kind. He is one of those internet millionaires that has money to spend recording in Nashville with orchestras. The shame is more talented musicians never get that opportunity. I don't even think he would deny that.

By the way, he is a marketing expert, and I have to wonder if he is not pretty happy about what you guys are doing. I can just see him picking that title out about Bach and the Devil's Music to get people talking.

Thank you, Dissidens, for addressing Howlett's essay. Unfortunately, his article is powerfully persuasive to the mind predisposed to its implications. Your response exposes its lack of substance and asks pertinent questions that demand an answer.

Clay Baker:

Well by virtue of what I consider to be a divine mercy, I don’t know Greg Howlett personally. Perhaps he is sincere. What I do know is that he is not kind.

As for his being a marketing expert, I’m short of evidence. For him to publish this silliness on SharperIron.com does not strike me as a stroke of genius; this is exactly their kind of skollership. Ever since its tendentious statistical work, SharperIron has a reputation as a kind of Internet Roach Motel. It’s like one of those gritty little Midwest motels you have to use when you’d just as soon try to drive through the midnight blizzard but unfortunately the police have closed the road.

This piece really is bizarre. Lyn Marshall is exactly right, it has all the marks of the 6th-grade book report everyone wishes the dog had eaten. Once his readers discover the meaning of “mi contra fa est diabolus in musica” I suspect his stock is not going to soar.

But of all the laughable material here, it really does do a nasty thing. This topic has been in contention for millennia, and Greg reduces it to a simplistic alternative: either you are naïve and resist inevitable change or you join the 98% and embrace the progress of enlightened culture.

Now where have we heard that before?

I suspect Greg’s audience will be limited to those people who’ve never experienced that proverbial second thought.

This is in response to Lyn's comment (#10):

I'm not a musician or a music historian, but I have recently listened to numerous lectures by Robert Greenberg (search for his courses at www.teach12.com) and he seems to have significant musical expertise and qualifications (and is not, to my knowledge, an Evangelical of any sort). He adores Bach (has an entire lengthy course on Bach and the Baroque). But when you listen to his courses on other composers, he frequently advances the view the music has, in fact, "evolved" since Bach. Mozart (according to Greenberg) built on Bach and took music to another level; Beethoven built on those before him; Liszt and Brahms and Schubert the same. So, there's a part of me that thinks there is some factual/historical basis for part of what Greg Howland says.

Sorry that I can't cite chapter and verse - these were oral lectures. But, I would commend to anyone Professor Greenberg's lectures - he is an excellent and passionate teacher, and his course on CD are well worth purchasing and listening to (and I have purchased and listened to many of them).

The roach motels are down south.

“I would vote for Bach, all of Bach, streamed out into space. We would be bragging, of course.”

That is an epigraph from the teach12 link mentioned above. I thought it was humorous and worth your enjoyment. I would add to that idea that if we were to stream Bach into outer space we would be offering incontrovertible proof that God has indeed visited our planet and done a gobsmacking thing.

My knowledge of Greenberg is limited so—though it shouldn’t have to be said—take my eager recommendation of him with that in mind.

I hesitate to insert myself at this point of the conversation except to clarify one point. This is a bit tricky because this is being discussed elsewhere; I don’t object if the subject should bleed over onto Remonstrans, but by the same token I wouldn’t want anyone to assume what happens at the party going on over at the Roach Four Seasons informs the opinions expressed here. It looks like there is some pretty heavy drinking going on over there, maybe some drugs.

I make no claim that Western music has not changed, advanced, developed or been refined since Bach. I would rank such a claim with those found in Howlett’s article.

But as Lewis reminds us, to judge the excellence of a thing requires that we know its use, its purpose. Before we conclude that Tom’s work is more complex or more advanced than Harry’s and therefore better, we must consider what use each is put to. Mozart clearly introduces some complexities not found in Bach, but it doesn’t follow that Mozart is therefore better than Bach. It does not mean that those who prefer Bach over Kartsonakis are “taking a dogmatic and/or extreme position”. And that is the clear inference and implicit argument in Howlett’s Howl.

It is possible (though I’m not making that argument here), it can be debated among informed people, that once we have taken all advances and refinements into consideration, Bach’s music remains the best medium for worship. Again, it’s not my point that this is true; my point is that the possibility is precluded by the loutish assertions which provoked this discussion. In fact careful readers will recall that I would not impose Bach on the modern church.

Walter, Dissidens saw and responded to your comment before I did. I agree with his characterization of these issues, and therefore I am not jumping in to repeat what he has covered (particularly since I am confident that I would not say it nearly so succinctly). However, I am not trying to dodge a question, so please feel free to ask again if something remains unclear. If you are interested in further tracing the history and development of classical music, I have found Grout's A History of Western Music quite good.

By the way, I was interested in your experience with Professor Greenberg, since I am ordering his tapes on understanding classical music to use for supplementary musicology instruction for my homeschooled children.

After having recommended Grout's A History of Western Music, I thought perhaps I should clarify that my familiarity and recommendation relates to the Third Edition. The work is now available in its 7th edition, but I have not stayed current on the changes in subsequent editions to mine.

Thanks for the recommendation of Grout's History. I will look it up.

One note about The Teaching Company course. NEVER buy a course that is not on sale. Virtually every course goes on sale at least once a year (for about 6-8 weeks or so). The sale prices are only a small fraction of the retail list price - and are well worth waiting for.

Some of Greenberg's course are currently on sale. His Great Masters courses are extremely interesting in my opinion.

The Teaching Company has courses in many subject areas that run the gamut from poor to great. I should know - I have a 3 hour daily commute and I've been listening to their courses for more than 5 years. (You can also find many of them, in excellent condition, on eBay.)