I was listening to an interview with Sam Amidon yesterday and I was intrigued by his story. He is primarily grounded in variations of scared/folk/roots music from decades ago. Much of what interests him is Sacred Harp and similar musical styles. As he described those styles of music, it was an instance of people taking the text of various sacred pieces of music, and arranging them to more popular tunes intended for singing in a large group of people. (I probably explained that poorly) In short this was an attempt to make the sacred music of the day more accessible to more people. As I listened to the interview it became clear that his interest in the music was historical, not theological. It seems clear that he has no faith motivating him to share the theological messages of the songs, but wants people to experience them as historical artifacts. Much like the Lomax recording and other similar attempts to capture music with historical value. From a preservation standpoint, and to share this music with a new generation, I applaud his efforts.
My question, however, is this.
Does taking music that was originally written and sung within a spiritual/sacred context, removing the intended spiritual/sacred purpose, change the effect or neuter the music? I see this much like I see the phenomenon of pop stars, who are clearly anything but Christian or anti Christian, recording Christmas hymns. On the one hand, it's probably good that this spiritual/sacred music is getting more exposure on the other it's clearly not intended to further the original purpose of worship.
I don't think this negates the value of this music as history, but it also seems to be minimizing the sacred aspect.
On a related note, Springsteen has borrowed liberally from many church traditions (especially the black church) in terms of the language he uses, his cadence for many of his stage raps, and the tonality of his speech. It's almost like he's trying to pass off a rock concert as a quasi religious experience.
------------------
I discovered a live Fleetwood Mac recording from 1977 this weekend. It was recorded on the Rumors tour, with out all of the auxiliary musicians they added on later tours. It sounds really good, and I enjoyed it a lot. They did Oh Well part 1 and I don't know if I'd ever heard this verse before.
"Now when I talked to God, I knew He'd understand
He said "Stick by me and I'll be your guiding hand
But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to."
Obviously they weren't trying to do theology here, but I think there's some Truth to be gleaned here.
4 comments:
Interesting post. To the original concern, I don't care who sings a religious song so long as they do a good job of it and not perform it in a disrespectful manner. That last bit is of course totally subjective, as I know it when I hear or see it. The Christmas song example is a good one, as so many want to cover the old standards. Some songs work in different genres, others seem to be somewhat sacrilegious in doing so. Again, subjective opinion.
All in all, this could be said as that which represents the concept that what man does for evil, God uses for good...if you know what I mean. For many people, considering the words beyond knowing them enough to sing a song with a melody which pleases isn't even secondary. I'd wager more people than not have found the song they were diggin' meant something they straight up oppose. But for a good hymn, carol or praise song, the message is out there, and that's a good thing.
I get that, and I don't necessarily disagree. I do wonder if, for example, Ozzy Osborne performing Silent Night or Joy to the World undermines the meaning given his notorious lifestyle and use of occult/Satanic imagery.
Obviously YHWH can use anything to work His will, but I still wonder if removing the sacred nature and intent of the music doesn't somehow water down the message.
And yes, it is subjective.
I have to guess it depends on the beholder...so to speak.
Obviously.
Post a Comment