Mittelgrund
Robin Johnston, curator of The Center For The Study of Oneness Pentecostalism (a.k.a. my illustrious boss), pointed me to a chapter in a very interesting book, “The Future Of Pentecostalism In The United States” by Eric Patterson. Chapter four, entitled “Music in the Pentecostal Movement,” by Calvin M Johansson, hit directly on some of the conversations carried out on this blog. As time and space do not permit me to share it all, I wanted to present an interesting point or two from this chapter.
“The arts influence as well as reflect the values of a culture. They also influence and reflect the values of religious institutions. Everyone, including believers, has a worldview which regulates artistic choice.” (pg 49) Johansson then sets out to follow the progress of the arts in the Pentecostal movement, dividing them into three categories: Hintergrund – ca. 1900-1945; Mittelgrund – 1945-2000; and Vordergrund – 2000-present. (pg 50)
Because of the aforementioned limits, I wanted to bring up a few points Johansson made in reference to the “Mittelgrund- 1945-2000.” Prior to this period music was chosen on the basis of its functionality. Music during the period 1900-1945 mirrored the popular songs of this time. Johansson shares that most people preferred “low art” – folk songs, ballads, etc. – and so the church “fostered a philosophical attitude of musically accommodating the gospel.” (pg 52-3) I found this very interesting in light of the recent conversations on this blog regarding the hymn/chorus debate, in addition to other arguments on this website which claim hymns to be more “spiritual” than choruses.
On to the Mittlegrund….
Johnansson states that the “strong worshiper participation in congregational singing waned as the years of the Mittelgrund (1945-2000) advanced.” (pg 54) Folks no longer felt free or compelled to simply shout out a musical selection; instead they were chosen by a song leader or worship band. He states that music in the church became less of a congregational effort and shifted more to the “leaders and electronic gadgetry.” (pg 54) This next statement, which I’m still pondering, has troubled me quite a bit: “Going to church became an activity in which one sat back lost in the crowd to watch worship unfold.”
Contemporary Christian Music (CCM), according to Johansson has taken church music by storm. He makes the argument for the “objective Biblical connections” found in hymns, which were left behind for “emotionalistic euphoria” found in CCM. (pg 57) It seemed to me that, after considering that early church music simply resulted from putting religious words to popular music tunes/styles, that we haven’t really changed that much. But then I read this next statement, which again, I’m still pondering: “The music of rock [1950’s] was entertainment music, pure and simple. It had no redeeming qualities of edification or aesthetic enrichment – qualities that the better gospel songs shared in to some degree.” Johansson goes on to argue that when we place lyrics to “a music of rebellion, frivolity, or amusement” we do not change the music’s basic ethos. Entertainment music used in worship transform[s] worship into entertainment.” (pg 57)
And so I wonder....
Having quoted and said all that, I have to wonder if the source of the friction we often feel in our music comes from this supposed shift to entertainment as opposed to spontaneous participation. We all have to admit that our music has become more and more complicated. I’m as guilt as the next person of setting in service at my church or a music conference and focusing on the complexity of the music (the pushes, the syncopation, the progressions, etc.) instead of participating and absorbing the message. I don’t know that this argument will ever be settled – seems it’s been going on since the beginning of our movement. I’ve got a lot to think about here – and the rest Johansson’s chapter to read!
“The arts influence as well as reflect the values of a culture. They also influence and reflect the values of religious institutions. Everyone, including believers, has a worldview which regulates artistic choice.” (pg 49) Johansson then sets out to follow the progress of the arts in the Pentecostal movement, dividing them into three categories: Hintergrund – ca. 1900-1945; Mittelgrund – 1945-2000; and Vordergrund – 2000-present. (pg 50)
Because of the aforementioned limits, I wanted to bring up a few points Johansson made in reference to the “Mittelgrund- 1945-2000.” Prior to this period music was chosen on the basis of its functionality. Music during the period 1900-1945 mirrored the popular songs of this time. Johansson shares that most people preferred “low art” – folk songs, ballads, etc. – and so the church “fostered a philosophical attitude of musically accommodating the gospel.” (pg 52-3) I found this very interesting in light of the recent conversations on this blog regarding the hymn/chorus debate, in addition to other arguments on this website which claim hymns to be more “spiritual” than choruses.
On to the Mittlegrund….
Johnansson states that the “strong worshiper participation in congregational singing waned as the years of the Mittelgrund (1945-2000) advanced.” (pg 54) Folks no longer felt free or compelled to simply shout out a musical selection; instead they were chosen by a song leader or worship band. He states that music in the church became less of a congregational effort and shifted more to the “leaders and electronic gadgetry.” (pg 54) This next statement, which I’m still pondering, has troubled me quite a bit: “Going to church became an activity in which one sat back lost in the crowd to watch worship unfold.”
Contemporary Christian Music (CCM), according to Johansson has taken church music by storm. He makes the argument for the “objective Biblical connections” found in hymns, which were left behind for “emotionalistic euphoria” found in CCM. (pg 57) It seemed to me that, after considering that early church music simply resulted from putting religious words to popular music tunes/styles, that we haven’t really changed that much. But then I read this next statement, which again, I’m still pondering: “The music of rock [1950’s] was entertainment music, pure and simple. It had no redeeming qualities of edification or aesthetic enrichment – qualities that the better gospel songs shared in to some degree.” Johansson goes on to argue that when we place lyrics to “a music of rebellion, frivolity, or amusement” we do not change the music’s basic ethos. Entertainment music used in worship transform[s] worship into entertainment.” (pg 57)
And so I wonder....
Having quoted and said all that, I have to wonder if the source of the friction we often feel in our music comes from this supposed shift to entertainment as opposed to spontaneous participation. We all have to admit that our music has become more and more complicated. I’m as guilt as the next person of setting in service at my church or a music conference and focusing on the complexity of the music (the pushes, the syncopation, the progressions, etc.) instead of participating and absorbing the message. I don’t know that this argument will ever be settled – seems it’s been going on since the beginning of our movement. I’ve got a lot to think about here – and the rest Johansson’s chapter to read!
posted by aahrens at
Friday, June 13, 2008
4 Comments:
The music of rock [1950’s] was entertainment music, pure and simple. It had no redeeming qualities of edification or aesthetic enrichment
I disagree with the author, and think that empirically judging a piece on "aesthetic enrichment" is foolhardy. What is aesthetic enriching (re: sounds good) to one person doesn't enrich another -- no mater the genre or spirituality of the piece. Moreover, edification, as it appears in the above, is sort of meaningless. Whose edification, what type of edification, as evidenced and measured by what standards?
Vague criticisms that talk nothing of the tonality, rhythmic characteristic or any meaningful aspect of music theory tell us nothing of exactly what about the music he finds fault with. Attacking on artistic grounds will always fail as art is undefinable.
I heard that Israel Houghton did something unique at his last conference/recording. He had his vocal team stand out in front of the congregation facing towards the platform... removing a little of the "watching worship" that we seem so often to do.
It's on the list to "try"... but has not been implemented yet.
I do agree that a lot of our people watch worship happen, but cannot fathom going back to the days of "anyone got a special?"
Gamemaster,
Your comment makes me think of a very old arguement from the 19th century between Richard Wagner, the self-proclaimed "lord" of opera and "beautiful music" and Edward Hanslick, a music critic. Their argued and wrote BOOKS to each other about their differing viewpoints - Wagner said music was judged shearly by its ability to move you and elicit an emotion, whereas Hanslick said music must be judged only by it's aesthetic quality - they structure, quality melody, well put together harmonies, cadences, and corresponding large sections.
Seems this debate still rages! I think the authors criticism of
50's rock was very much referencing the tonality and rhythmic characteristics you mention. In my study of this era and the birth of rock, those are the very things that turned many, especially the Christian community, away from this genre.
Along this line, I often wonder why Christians will listen to Country music (I don't) but seem to loathe Southern Gospel? Seems there's more afoot than we admit.
AA
RJ,
Agreed - on your last paragraph. I don't ever want to go back to those days of "anyone got a song?" I just love structure WAY TOO MUCH!! But I do agree that we could build sponteneity into our services - such as you suggested by Israel Houghton. That's a great idea. Let us know if you try it.
AA
Post a Comment
<< Home