OT: Whatever, man.

[droolmaster0]

 

I can only assume that you've never heard the album, because you couldn't be further from reality.

 

 

I see your point, but it still seems to me that using electronic sounds to play the roles of 'real' instruments, is still basically mimicry - there is a vast gulf between music that does this, and music which simply works with sound without these preconceived roles.

 

I think that as usual there is a lot of imprecise huffing and puffing going on here - one can agree that this album was groundbreaking, but that it was doesn't mean that that with all of the people who were interested in developing electronic sounds that a breakthrough wouldn't have happened elsewhere. It's like people arguing that if it weren't for Bob Moog, there wouldn't be commercial synths at all, which I also think is silly. But this is not denigrating these accomplishments.

 

And obviously, it's very different to say that given the fact that Bach was very religious and wrote most of his music in that context, and obviously he came before other composers, that all genres of music therefore have any kind of direct influence from the religious nature of Bach's music. That was the point that was being made, and that just doesn't follow at all.

 

I love Bach's music - and perhaps his explicitly religious works are his best. But I really don't think that as a genre, hip hop has been influenced by religious music in the sense that the poster was proclaiming this. MUCH better arguments need to be made to bolster this (to my mind) wild claim.

[droolmaster0]

 

Lived through it. Didn't much care about it then, or now really. Not to denigrate the album but it wasn't earth-shattering in my little world.

 

 

I never liked it either. I appreciate the technical accomplishment, and obviously I love synthesized sounds, but as Bach's music, I just never liked it.

[Cygnus64]

Well, first of all, I appreciate that you can run off alternate versions of history in your head, so that you know (I personally don't) that if this album had not been released, electronic music wouldn't currently exist in anything like the form it does now.

 

It is what is. You can speculate til the cows come home, makes no difference. It was and is what happened. It's a futile argument to suggest otherwise. I made no opinions, I stated exactly what happened. If "New Coke" would have had a sexy chick on the can, we might be drinking new Coke. Speculation is useless either way, it's what happened.

 

Secondly - the point that I was arguing against was that ALL genres of music have been influenced by religious music.

 

All western music was. It's a language, it's traceable. It was the dominant western music, one cannot skip over that period and pretend that it didnt exist. Eminem might not be a Bach fanatic: he owes to Run DMC, who heard Grandmaster Flash, who may have liked (insert name), who may have liked Cole Porter, who went to Yale and studied with (insert name), who knew (insert name). Repeat until done, you'll end up with a religious connection. There's no way around it.

 

Television started as "plays" in a small box. "Seinfeld" is as much Shakespeare as it is Lucy or The Honeymooners, it's another link in a chain. It goes back to Sophocles and beyond.

[droolmaster0]

No. You're the one who is speculating by claiming that if it weren't for SOB, all of what we are referring to now wouldn't exist. I'm correctly pointing out that there is absolutely no evidence of that, and is most likely untrue. You're claiming that this is what happened, but all that happened is a sequence of events - you're the one who is imputing cause/effect to them.

 

Music isn't a language in the same sense that English is a language. It's a special usage. Specific meanings are not 'communicated' through music (lyrics are not music themselves, and are not necessary, obviously). You can speculate all you want about how this hip hop (or other electronic) artist might have liked so and so, who liked so and so - but finding one example or two doesn't mean that the genre itself is influenced in any meaningful sense by religious music.

 

This would be very obvious in any kind of context where you were expected to back up your claim in any kind of a formal way. But here on the internet you can just spout this stuff and there is no expectation at all that you can back it up.

 

It is what is. You can speculate til the cows come home, makes no difference. It was and is what happened. It's a futile argument to suggest otherwise. I made no opinions, I stated exactly what happened. If "New Coke" would have had a sexy chick on the can, we might be drinking new Coke. Speculation is useless either way, it's what happened. All western music was. It's a language, it's traceable. It was the dominant western music, one cannot skip over that period and pretend that it didnt exist. Eminem might not be a Bach fanatic: he owes to Run DMC, who heard Grandmaster Flash, who may have liked (insert name), who may have liked Cole Porter, who went to Yale and studied with (insert name), who knew (insert name). Repeat until done, you'll end up with a religious connection. There's no way around it. Television started as "plays" in a small box. "Seinfeld" is as much Shakespeare as it is Lucy or The Honeymooners, it's another link in a chain. It goes back to Sophocles and beyond.

[Cygnus64]

 

No. You're the one who is speculating

 

 

Say what? It's history, no speculation involved. You can play time travel all you want, doesn't effect a damn thing. Unlike you, I have nothing to speculate on. If you wanna play time travel and eliminate SOB: someone could have made a switched-on Allah album, which pissed off many people, started WWIII, earth blows up. That's as good a speculation as anything anyone can come about with, which is why it is called "speculation".

[gregwar]

personal note, related to switched on back, i once played it for my piano teacher near the end of our time together. we had done some bach who was one of her favourite composers and has fairly indisputable religious leanings. my teacher was a devout atheist and didn't like discussing religion even in musical contexts. however, when it came to sob she said its an abomination and turned it off after 30 seconds. she said bach's music sounded like "creation" to her and sob didn't sound like creation (in the christian sense). i love her to death and it was one of those things we agreed to disagree but sorta ironic.

about christian influences on current music IMHO its fair to downplay them. there's been at least 100 years steady of music that had really nothing to do with christianity or religion in general. i have to agree with droolmaster where genres aren't necessarily influenced by religion. from the origins of dada and musique concrete, avant guard, electronic sounds, recordings played back live, etc sob would have been about 50 years later. clearly guys like buchla and other "bug noize" modular types have far deeper roots than sob. also, pertaining to the beginnings of jazz dixie land funeral chunes clearly had a religious context and gospel music, etc is still going strong. but at the same time as blues, ragtime, cabarets and other "scandalous" music cannot be considered "christian".

here's a beautiful piece of electronic music from 1937:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRJmJzWibzA

there's the ondes martenot (played in the song above), theremin, nova chord and many others. i'm not disputing the popularity of switched on bach but to lump experimental electronic music isn't fair. wendy carlos' early works and the moog sound isn't doing any favours for the atonal nature of 20th century classical music built on textures, timbres, etc. much of the conceptual or even ideological roots of such music had no interest in christianity, worship music or anything of that kind. nothing is as simple as this post and clearly there are degrees of religiosity in music between 0 and 100% i'm just saying going over 100 years back to prove christianity's influence on music is more than a stretch given the styles i mentioned.

[gregwar]

also, if the human race is 10 000 years old what about the other 8000 years of "pagan" music ? what does that have to do with christianity and worship ? if anything the monks in the dark ages before the renaissance really played up their role in appropriating previously pagan music styles. christians intense need to "one up" pagan poets in the case of milton and revisionary readings of philosophy and other eurocentric crap really downplays the multitude of other traditions and music being played and created around the world. i can appreciate where the royal conservatory (here in canada) and others are coming from but in the future musicologists are really going to have to come up with a more satisfying inclusive view, which is already well under way. /rant]

[Don Solaris]

And the Lord said, 'Who, then, is the faithful and prudent steward whom the lord shall set over his household, to give in season the wheat measure?"

[soundwave106]

Regardless of the impact on anyone's individual level, it was an important, game-changing record in the general scheme of classical, electronic, and popular music.

 

I wouldn't call it *the* important game changer. But (reading history from someone who didn't live through it) it definitely counts as *one* of the moments where electronic music stepped out of academia / atonal, along with the appearance of the Moog modular in some psychedelia songs ("Lucky Man", Beatles, etc), the appearance of other electronic pop ("Popcorn"), and Kraftwerk (with honorable mention to TD and the Theremin in sci-fi movies).

 

I like Messiaen's Ondes works quite a bit, but it's definitely not as accessible to the casual public. Nevertheless, in the spirit of this thread, it's worth pointing out that my favorite Messiaen Ondes piece is flat out religious --

(The Wikipedia article even seems to indicate that some critics were absolutely aghast at using "strange" instruments like the Ondes to express religious themes.)

 

Religion and religious context were a big part of music up until about 75 years ago, I would say, and still remain an important sidenote I think. Even if you avoid Western music and look at the African-American origins of rock and roll, the stylistic origins of that was *heavily* based around the spiritual; gospel music still plays some influence in R&B. Sure, not all of this religious notion is Christianity, but it counts.

 

And, like I said, music with strong religious themes was written by some composers that privately appear to be skeptics (probably more agnostic than atheist). Berlioz, Faure, Brahms, Verdi, Schubert, Vaughan Williams -- they come to mind as potential candidates. They all may have had at least moments of skepticism, but definitely wrote religious works. In conclusion, whatever.

[droolmaster0]

It's history that certain things happened. It's not history that religious music has influenced rap music and noise music and other contemporary genres. You can repeat this all you want, but there is a difference between a sequence of events and the claim that one event caused or influenced another.

 

 

Say what? It's history, no speculation involved. You can play time travel all you want, doesn't effect a damn thing. Unlike you, I have nothing to speculate on. If you wanna play time travel and eliminate SOB: someone could have made a switched-on Allah album, which pissed off many people, started WWIII, earth blows up. That's as good a speculation as anything anyone can come about with, which is why it is called "speculation".

 

[Cygnus64]

also, if the human race is 10 000 years old what about the other 8000 years of "pagan" music ? what does that have to do with christianity and worship ?

Plenty, you're getting it.

there's been at least 100 years steady of music

100 years? That's like a blink. The Wizard of Oz is 71 years old.

Elvis was inspired by Church, it's where he heard his first music. So were the Beatles. Again, it's a chain, and everything in the chain counts. Where did John meet Paul? Church party.

[keybdwizrd]

 

 

 

 

[Purity_Control]

i love her to death and it was one of those things we agreed to disagree but sorta ironic.

 

 

I think I see where she was coming from and it isn;t really ironic. She disagreed with the sentiment behind Bach's music but still respected it and still saw the beauty in it, just something was missing from SOB for her.

[asynchro_nous]

 

The only thing laughable is your myopic and EXTREMELY limited knowledge of music history. Bach was a contemporary Christian worship service kinda guy, it was his day gig. He wrote the other stuff on the side. There's a chain in every single aspect of music to the past.

 

 

This is just a little silly.

 

First of all, I'm quite aware that Bach wrote both sacred (his paying gigs) and secular music and I'm saying that even his sacred music bears so little connection to contemporary Christian music as to be laughable.

 

I'm "myopic and extremely limited" in terms of my knowledge of music history because I fail to see a meaningful or interesting connection between Bach's grand and ingenious synthesis of the Baroque styles of Germany, France, and Italy in a body of work renowned for its sublime beauty, for its supreme balance of mathematical form and deep feeling, for its magnificent complexity expressed with amazing lucidity and simplicity and the completely derivative (one could call it parasitic, even), bland, and simplistic music that falls under the category of "Contemporary Christian Music?"

 

Bach most certainly was not "a contemporary Christian worship service kinda guy" in the way that we think of this genre and of someone writing music today that would fall under this category. It's just intellectual laziness or disingenuousness to conflate a musical genius composing enormously rich, sublime, enduring and influential works within the context of German Lutheran aristocratic culture in the 18th century with somebody churning out Christian pop songs in North America in 2011 or playing a Motif in a praise and worship band in their local church (even if it's a megachurch).

 

Everything is connected to everything else in some way, no kidding. That doesn't mean that for the purposes of a particular discussion any connection mentioned is particularly relevant or interesting.

 

I mean, if you tried hard enough you could link Lady Gaga with Puccini, or Bobby McFerrin with Gesualdo, or Justin Bieber with Handel, etc., etc., but the question is whether there's a meaningful connection in the context of a conversation or discussion, not whether it can be done or not.

 

You could probably trace aspects of the architecture of a Wendy's Restaurant back to that of the great Gothic cathedrals of Europe if you really wanted to, so what?

 

What's interesting to me is that in fact your own music does reveal the influence of someone like Bach in a way that contemporary Christian music -- from what I've seen, at least -- can't even touch.

 

You seem to have an appreciation for contemporary Christian music. If you could point me to contemporary Christian music or "praise and worship music" that is being done today (and is understood to fall under those categories -- I'm not talking Arvo Part here!) that is even in the same ball park in terms of creativity and quality and potential for enduring influence on subsequent generations of composers as something like Bach's Mass in B Minor I'd love to hear it.

[Acid Hazard]

As anti-religion as i am, i didn't find anything wrong with the thread. It seemed they were simply discussing the merits of using electronic instruments in a type of music and setting that may view them as "secular". At least that's how i took it. But with all this "extreme god" stuff i see lately aimed at younger kids, i'm sure there are plenty of synths involved in their in house bands.

[Cygnus64]

You seem to have an appreciation for contemporary Christian music. .

Not at all. Nor am I particularly religious. I have a deep appreciation for History.:thu:

Bach most certainly was not "a contemporary Christian worship service kinda guy" in the way that we think of this genre and of someone writing music today that would fall under this category.

He absolutely was. So was Johann Frederick von BarHopper, we haven't heard of him because he sucked. Yes, Bach was a genius, which is why we know him. He was also a contemporary church dude, he worked there, lived there, taught there. The music has changed, the gig has not. The guy wrote new music for the church, I can't think of another way of describing him than contemporary Christian. I'm sure a lot of old folks sat in the Church and complained that "these new kids and their dag nabit youngster music sucks, bring back Monteverdi con sarnit.":lol:

If you could point me to contemporary Christian music or "praise and worship music" that is being done today (and is understood to fall under those categories -- I'm not talking Arvo Part here!) that is even in the same ball park in terms of creativity and quality and potential for enduring influence on subsequent generations of composers as something like Bach's Mass in B Minor I'd love to hear it.

I couldn't find a secular composer that could fill those shoes either, nor could anybody. There's a reason he was so revered. If you're looking for a decent composer who is living and primarily writes Christian music, John Rutter fits the bill.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rutter

somebody churning out Christian pop songs in North America in 2011 or playing a Motif in a praise and worship band in their local church (even if it's a megachurch).

This is EXACTLY what Bach did. He was good. If ya wanna talk about why people suck today, we could discuss music education and a whole lotta stuff, but Bach was a church dude just like the one you described.

[asynchro_nous]

Thanks for the John Rutter link; he looks like someone worth checking out.

 

Unlike the dreck that falls under the contemporary Christian music category.

 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether Bach was a contemporary Christian music kinda dude -- I just see the context of his career and creativity -- and his actual output, of course -- as in a totally different category altogether as what is understood as CCM.

 

Keep up the good work with your own music, by the way!

[The Severalist]

I wouldn

[Cygnus64]

Thanks for the John Rutter link; he looks like someone worth checking out. Unlike the dreck that falls under the contemporary Christian music category. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on whether Bach was a contemporary Christian music kinda dude -- I just see the context of his career and creativity -- and his actual output, of course -- as in a totally different category altogether as what is understood as CCM. Keep up the good work with your own music, by the way!

 

Thanks. It's been a really interesting thread! It's one of those threads that appears one way, but in reality is not. I'm not interested in the religious aspects of religion, it's the history of it. Those dudes back then weren't all that different from us. I have a portrait of Handel in a book without his wig: he hasn't shaven and looks like Chris Daughtry. He's in an apt. that looks somewhat dishoveled. I saw it and said "Holy Sh*t, he was a friggin musician!":lol:

[tagutcow]

I wouldn

[Cygnus64]

As far as bringing electronic "art music" to a popular audeince, Subotnik's "Silver Apples of the Moon" had been released a year before SOB. .

Yes, and all 12 people that heard it really enjoyed it.

[wwwjd]

Don't forget "The Crusades" where evil Christians kill everybody. Yeah. Gotta get that in here somewhere. Discussions like this are WORTHLESS without bringing up the crusades.

Speaking of which, I'm a Christian and I better get back to slaughtering people. You know... like my God told me to do. Yeah.

I think there is CRUSADES music out there somewhere. Yeah.

[tagutcow]

Yes, and all 12 people that heard it really enjoyed it.

 

I was under the impression it was very popular, although a cursory search doesn't yield any sales figures.

 

http://www.newalbion.com/artists/subotnickm/

 

"The exciting, exotic timbres and the dance-inspiring rhythms caught the ear of the public -- the record was an American bestseller in the classical music category, an extremely unusual occurrence for any contemporary concert music at the time."

[Cygnus64]

 

I was under the impression it was very popular,"

 

Nope.

 

There were all kinds of synth recordings, computer music projects etc of music by the late (as of yesterday) Milton Babbitt, Lejaren Hiller, and other University affiliated composers. There was also Hollywood and various theremin and other effects. S-OB was not the first by a long shot: it was the first to break through to a mass audience. I'm not quite old enough, I was 4 when it came out. Still, when I was 10 or so, I would see it in people's record collections along with the Stones and Zep. It was like the Yo-Yo Ma of records: everyday people knew it and had it. It doesn't mean it was great or terrible, it means that it was the first to gain public acceptance. Because of it's success, companies like RCA were willing to put out recordings by people like TOmita, hoping to cash in.

[droolmaster0]

 

.... That said, it's pretty ridiculous watching Droolmaster tell people that they have to plead their case to him . If he hadn't derailed a thread with his off-topic rant, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

 

 

I have no clue as to what you're talking about. As in any discussion, one makes comments about what is being said. I don't believe I've said that somehow people need to answer to ME more than anyone else - I'm commenting on the merits of what is being said - same as you, or anyone else.