Ship of Fools: Crappy choruses: Really a dead horse?

Thread: Crappy choruses: Really a dead horse? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023609

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

Looking through the list of topics relegated to "dead horses," it's abundantly clear that most of the topics are weighty ones that are inherently polarizing:

- biblical inerrancy
- homosexuality
- the role of women in church and Christian households
- creation and evolution
- abortion
- closed communion

The last one is "bitching about church music."

It just doesn't seem to have the same gravitas about it.

If I recall correctly, it was added to the list one day when I posted something that upset the alligator (may her soul rest in peace).

While the particular thread that brought this about may not have met the very highest standards of discourse, I think that having the entire topic declared off limits in purg has the effect of stifling more legitimate discussion on the relative merits of various musical programs and styles.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

But many views of music style and programs are of the "I happen not to like THAT kind of music, and, as a result, I think that people who do have no taste"

which is hardly a discussion.

I'm not sure that the htread should really exist anywhere but Hell, since the topic is so personal-subjective.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

As someone who still considers themselves a relative newbie, I'm tentative, but I'd have thought DH or Hell are the best places. Music/'worship' is very emotive, and ironically (perversely?) divisive. People get very het up very easily, so having an incendiary subject corralled seems fairly sensible.

Does the existence of "Crappy choruses" actually preclude a civilized discussion on the merits or otherwise of a specific song elsewhere? After all, if you do want to actually debate the merits of something, rather than poor scorn on it from a great height, would that not render it less horse-like and more lively?

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Three words:

Shine, Jesus, Shine

Three more words:

Pro or con?

Will it be resolved this side of Heaven?

Answer: NO!

Dead Horses it is then.

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :

Music for Christian services varies wildly from traditional chants to praise bands to choirs with 25 altos, 2 basses, and an ancient wobbly soprano. Should church musicians be amateurs or professionals? Members of the congregation or recruited externally? Is "performing" getting in the way of worship? And so forth. OliviaG

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
Three words:

Shine, Jesus, Shine

Three more words:

Pro or con?

Will it be resolved this side of Heaven?

Answer: NO!

Dead Horses it is then.

Music is art. Music criticism, like art criticism, can be as banal as "I don't like that!" To which the reply would be, well, "Who are you?"

On the other hand criticism can be informed and address the various problems with a work intended for congregational singing: lyrical content, pitch range, rhythmic suitability for the untrained singer, etc.

I once replied to someone asking, "What is it that you don't like about SJS?" I thought it was an insightful conversation. I play and sing SJS and can appreciate the good and the bad in it. ::shrug::

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

I can't say I find myself likely to be drawn into a polarizing continuous loop of opinions about church music.

BUT, on the other hand, I will confess that I don't mind avoiding having to read anything about the eldritch horror that is church music anywhere outside of Dead Horses. I realize that this reasoning is probably counter to the fundamental raison d'être of Dead Horses, but I'm corrupt like that.

How about you demonstrate the value and feasibility by starting example discussions in Dead Horses that A) are interesting to more than a handful of people, and B) don't fundamentally devolve into simple counter-assertions. If this does seem to satisfy a demand and doesn't careen into annoyance, I could see value in reconsidering its status.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

{looks like the thread has indexing issues BTW. Page 1 as I access it clearly isn't page 1)

Can't Eccles be used for more general liturgical questions about the proper use of appropriate music? Provided it avoids "this is crap/oh no it isn't/oh yes it is!" type stuff.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Ecclesiastics is still used for general and more specific conversations about church music, anthems, hymnals, organs, worship bands, and the like. 'Crappy Choruses' originated in a Hell thread of tomb's. It is the place to go if one wishes to fulminate. The key word is 'bitching' not 'church' or 'music'.

[ 01. June 2012, 09:29: Message edited by: Amos ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Sorry, I wasn't clear on the indexing point. I meant the "Crappy Choruses" thread in Dead Horses - not this thread.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ecclesiastics is still used for general and more specific conversations about church music, anthems, hymnals, organs, worship bands, and the like. 'Crappy Choruses' originated in a Hell thread of tomb's. It is the place to go if one wishes to fulminate. The key word is 'bitching' not 'church' or 'music'.

This is entirely true. Constructive discussion of church music of every style is accepted, nay welcomed, in Eccles. The 'Dead Horse' rule is purely there to prevent such discussions turning into people whinging about their least favourite hymns without any possibility of debate!

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

PeteC and DJ are completely correct about the rationale for putting bitching about church music in Dead Horses.

Whether or not < insert name of musically styling here > is good, bad, indifferent or The Work of Satan is something that no one with strong opinions about the subject is going to change their minds about until they get to heaven. Then they will discover that God’s playlist and musical taste is more eclectic than they thought. [Biased]

Tubbs

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Ecclesiastics is still used for general and more specific conversations about church music, anthems, hymnals, organs, worship bands, and the like. 'Crappy Choruses' originated in a Hell thread of tomb's. It is the place to go if one wishes to fulminate. The key word is 'bitching' not 'church' or 'music'.

What Amos said. I couldn't help thinking that the person who formulated the OP couldn't have done much reading of Eccles threads over the years. [Confused]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
While the particular thread that brought this about may not have met the very highest standards of discourse, I think that having the entire topic declared off limits in purg has the effect of stifling more legitimate discussion on the relative merits of various musical programs and styles.

You can have legitimate discussions in Dead Horses. If that were not the case, then you wouldn't have almost 10K more total posts in Dead Horses than in Purgatory (DH is the second most posted in board, after the Circus). The word "Dead" does give the impression that threads are sent there to die. But that isn't the purpose of Dead Horses. It just makes way for less discussed issues to be featured on the front page.

And what Pete C said.

Posted by Bartolomeo (# 8352) on :

It seems to me that there are some topics like "using guns for self-defense" and "the morality of capital punishment" that are probably more deady-horsey but aren't on the list.

My main point is not that "bitching about church music" is a topic worthy of exploration. I'm just not convinced that it's nearly as serious a problem as other areas on the list or even a few that aren't.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Gun ownership and use would seem like a prime DH candidate. Every time there's an "incident" we seem to have a thread on it which quickly degenerates into a pond war and ends up achieving nothing.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bartolomeo:
It seems to me that there are some topics like "using guns for self-defense" and "the morality of capital punishment" that are probably more deady-horsey but aren't on the list.

My main point is not that "bitching about church music" is a topic worthy of exploration. I'm just not convinced that it's nearly as serious a problem as other areas on the list or even a few that aren't.

The problem is not that it a serious topic or not, its that we are always going to have the same arguments.

The usual bleating crowd will mock "Shine Jesus Shine" A few brave counter-cultural martyrs will defend it. We will all gang up on Jesus is my Boyfriend songs. The same dozen or so sexual innuendos will be rehearsed. Someone will say that this that or the other song is unsingable because of the language about blood and salvation. I will reply that "Dear Lord and Father of mankind" is far more heretical and a load of gnostic poo as well. We will rehearse the annual shockfest where Americans won't believe that most British people are never taught to read music, and the Brits are surprised that even competent musicians in America claim not to be able to pick up a hymn tune by ear but say they need the dots. Then we'll have fun collectively mocking 1980s Kingsway kids songs with inappropriate fluffy animals and la-la choruses.

I think we've done all those again and again and again.

(And I doubt if there are many people posting here who think that "using guns for self-defense" is wrong. But there are lots of people who are amazed by the insane way much of the USA carries guns around in situations where there is no real chance they will be used in self defence but a huge chance they will kill someone by accident, or in anger. And then some American will say Oh no you don't understand, even when you do, and fly off on one.)

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Gun ownership and use would seem like a prime DH candidate. Every time there's an "incident" we seem to have a thread on it which quickly degenerates into a pond war and ends up achieving nothing.

But that isn't our definition of a Dead Horse.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spike:

quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Gun ownership and use would seem like a prime DH candidate. Every time there's an "incident" we seem to have a thread on it which quickly degenerates into a pond war and ends up achieving nothing.
But that isn't our definition of a Dead Horse.

Fair enough it isn't a religious topic, but it does seem to qualify reasonably in most other areas.

quote:
Dead Horses is where we send discussion threads that have been debated endlessly on the Ship of Fools boards before. The reason we do this is so that predictable subjects are confined to one area, allowing more creative and original topics to have the run of the other boards.

It is endless, recurrent, and inevitably unresolved due to the entrenched positions of those who care enough to participate. On the other hand it does seem to be excluded by:

quote:
Dead Horses is not for things we're tired of, things that people disagree deeply about, or general arguments that go nowhere.

so I concede that it doesn't fulfil the board criteria.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

May I venture to suggest that there might be a place for Crappy Choruses in Circus?

After all, I liked the topic as something light-hearted and funny (in a cringing way!)

Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
May I venture to suggest that there might be a place for Crappy Choruses in Circus?

After all, I liked the topic as something light-hearted and funny (in a cringing way!)

No, no, Hell no, and no. First, just because it's light-hearted and fun doesn't mean it belongs in the Circus. Heaven and the Circus are not dumping grounds for shit that doesn't go elsewhere! Second, most every Christian website has a "bitch about bad music" thread. Everybody who attends church and hears songs has church songs they don't like—and, the purpose of church being as much to give people something to complain about as anything else, they take the opportunity to complain. DH isn't just a depository for bad threads, endless threads, or even threads we just don't like or don't think are important; it is, however, where you'll find threads on the same topics you'd find elsewhere. Third, you could put AH&CC's in most of the Ship's boards. An argument could (and probably has) been made for putting it in Heaven, Hell, Eccles, Circus, and DH.

This all boils down, in the end, to the view that DH is a ghetto for undeserving threads. It also ignores the fact that what goes where involves interpretation and judgment calls, without clear rules. Sometimes, things go where they go because that's where they got put. Call it inertia, call it caprice, even call it tradition, but that's kinda how it works 'round these here parts.

Plus, AH&CC's brings people to the Stable; it's a good bit of advertising for that board at the bottom.

That concludes my opinion on this month's obligatory round of "X should be a DH/X isn't a DH/DH shouldn't be called DH" chattering. I'll be back in four weeks.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
May I venture to suggest that there might be a place for Crappy Choruses in Circus?

After all, I liked the topic as something light-hearted and funny (in a cringing way!)

If you think that you have not seen it in full rant mode.

Jengie

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
May I venture to suggest that there might be a place for Crappy Choruses in Circus?

The probloem is a lot of the jokiness is some people making fun of things other people think are really important. So there are real arguments.

quote:

After all, I liked the topic as something light-hearted and funny (in a cringing way!)

A few days ago I re-read the recently closed Very Long Thread. Well, a lot of it. Lots of jokes, lots of mockery, lots of discussion as well. Tthere are probably more genuinely serious and constructive posts in it than there are in most threads here. If only because its so long.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
May I venture to suggest that there might be a place for Crappy Choruses in Circus?

After all, I liked the topic as something light-hearted and funny (in a cringing way!)
If you think that you have not seen it in full rant mode.

Jengie

Too true. In years gone by more posts were thoroughly critical of the lyrics; you could have put some posts in Purgatory or even Kerygmania.

Have a read of earlier posts. I seem to remember one that left barely a phrase of 'Dear Lord and Father of Mankind' standing. It was entertaining but not Circus material.

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

... and just to emphasise again that this kind of serious engagement with the lyrics or theology of hymns is still perfectly welcome, either in Ecclesiantics or in Purgatory if the issue relates directly to understanding of a theological matter (especially Atonement, which is usually the 'hot-button' issue).

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0