I recently bought a book called The Valley of Vision. It is a collection of Puritan prayers and meditations in verse. It has been a great experience for me to read through these reverent, eloquent, and imaginative poems. I would recommend the book to anyone, especially someone interested in worship and how we relate to God. The following poem, entitled "The Mover," is a great example of the wonderful, deep theology found in the collection.
O Supreme Moving Cause,
May I always be subordinate to thee,
be dependent upon thee,
be found in the path where thou dost walk,
and where thy Spirit moves,
take heed of estrangement from thee,
of becoming insensible to thy love.
Thou dost not move men like stones,
but dost endue them with life,
not to enable them to move without thee,
but in submission to thee, the first mover.
O Lord, I am astonished at they difference
between my receivings and my deservings,
between the state I am now in and my past gracelessness,
between the heaven I am bound for and the hell I merit.
Who made me to differ, but thee?
for I was no more ready to receive Christ than were others;
I could not have begun to love thee hadst thou not first loved me,
or been willing unless thou hadst first made me so.
O that such a crown should fit the head of such a sinner!
such high advancement be for an unfruitful person!
such joys for so vile a rebel!
Infinite wisdom cast the design of salvation
into the mould of purchase and freedom;
Let wrath deserved be written on the door of hell,
But the free gift of grace on the gate of heaven.
I know that my sufferings are the result of my sinning,
but in heaven both shall cease;
Grant me to attain this haven and be done with sailing,
and may the gales of thy mercy blow me safely into harbour.
Let thy love draw me nearer to thyself,
wean me from sin, mortify me to this world,
and make me ready for my departure hence.
Secure me by thy grace as I sail across this stormy sea.
Soli Deo Gloria
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
My Song Is Love Unknown
I found a great hymn recently and decided to dust off the ol' blog and share it here. It is entitled My Song Is Love Unknown, and was written by the Anglican minister and hymnwriter Samuel Crossman (1623-83). I've known this hymn for a while but really hadn't stopped to reflect on its great truths until recently. The tune, Love Unkown by English composer John Ireland, is marvelous as well and deserves to be better known than it is.
My Song Is Love Unkown
My song is love unknown,
My Saviour’s love to me;
Love to the loveless shown,
That they might lovely be.
O who am I, that for my sake
My Lord should take frail flesh and die?
He came from His blest throne
Salvation to bestow;
But men made strange, and none
The longed-for Christ would know:
But O! my Friend, my Friend indeed,
Who at my need His life did spend.
Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;
Resounding all the day
Hosannas to their King:
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
And for His death they thirst and cry.
Why, what hath my Lord done?
What makes this rage and spite?
He made the lame to run,
He gave the blind their sight.
Sweet injuries! Yet they at these
Themselves displease, and ’gainst Him rise.
They rise, and needs will have
My dear Lord made away;
A murderer they save,
The Prince of life they slay,
Yet cheerful He to suffering goes,
That He His foes from thence might free.
In life no house, no home
My Lord on earth might have;
In death no friendly tomb
But what a stranger gave.
What may I say?
Heav'n was His home,
But mine the tomb wherein He lay.
Here might I stay and sing,
No story so divine;
Never was love, dear King!
Never was grief like Thine.
This is my Friend, in Whose sweet praise
I all my days could gladly spend.
Soli Deo Gloria
My Song Is Love Unkown
My song is love unknown,
My Saviour’s love to me;
Love to the loveless shown,
That they might lovely be.
O who am I, that for my sake
My Lord should take frail flesh and die?
He came from His blest throne
Salvation to bestow;
But men made strange, and none
The longed-for Christ would know:
But O! my Friend, my Friend indeed,
Who at my need His life did spend.
Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;
Resounding all the day
Hosannas to their King:
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,
And for His death they thirst and cry.
Why, what hath my Lord done?
What makes this rage and spite?
He made the lame to run,
He gave the blind their sight.
Sweet injuries! Yet they at these
Themselves displease, and ’gainst Him rise.
They rise, and needs will have
My dear Lord made away;
A murderer they save,
The Prince of life they slay,
Yet cheerful He to suffering goes,
That He His foes from thence might free.
In life no house, no home
My Lord on earth might have;
In death no friendly tomb
But what a stranger gave.
What may I say?
Heav'n was His home,
But mine the tomb wherein He lay.
Here might I stay and sing,
No story so divine;
Never was love, dear King!
Never was grief like Thine.
This is my Friend, in Whose sweet praise
I all my days could gladly spend.
Soli Deo Gloria
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Novelty
A few days ago, my music theory teacher, Mr. LaFleur, kindly gave me a copy of an article by composer Webster Young. The title of the article is "Can There Be Great Composers Anymore?" If you can ever get your hands on it, I highly recommend it. It is in the Spring 2008 edition of The Intercollegiate Review. The author's conclusion is very interesting. He states that the reason there has been no recent composer to compare to Mozart, Beethoven, or even Copland or Shostakovich is not necessarily because of less artistry in composing, but because of warped expectations from music critics. He argues that critics today are concerned only with novelty and innovation instead of a good aesthetic. Because of this, modern composers feel the need to innovate, instead of merely creating beautiful music. It is almost as if beautiful music is "old-fashioned."
All of this got me thinking about the topic of novelty. How desirable is it to be original? Should novelty and originality be the primary goal of all music?
I will begin with some positive arguments. First of all, nobody likes a copycat. For one, it can be illegal in the case of plagiarism. Also, copying is very inartistic. One of the main components of art is creativity. Copying someone else's work is often illegal, certainly unprofessional, and definitely inartistic.
Second, there is a certain sense of excitement and discovery in something you have never experienced before. Novelty provides mental stimulation in that one is forced to think about the piece and evaluate it. You cannot retreat to the comfort of the familiar. In this way, new music and new techniques can be more mentally rewarding.
These are two benefits of novelty and originality. I am sure there are probably other benefits as well, but for now I will stick to those. In and of itself, I don't think there are problems with novelty. However, I think there are some dangers involved that come to light when too much emphasis is put on it. They are the following.
First, total commitment to novelty ignores the efforts of those who have gone before. The great tradition of Western classical music was not created overnight. Simple math had to be discovered before differential calculus. The Wright Brothers' Flyer had to be invented before the Boing 747. In the same way, the techniques of composition known as "common practice" were developed over centuries by composers from Palestrina to Bach to Mozart to Beethoven. They were musical geniuses. Why should we ignore their work and seek to start from square one in the name of "originality?" That would be like the physicist who chooses to ignore Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity, or the astronomer who chooses to ignore the Copernican theory. In the same way that modern science is based on the discoveries of Newton and those like him, modern classical music is based on the discoveries and innovations of Bach and Mozart and those like them. It is foolish to ignore them. The reason common practice music is "common" is because it fits the formula that appeals most to the human ear or, at least, to the Westernized ear.
A second reason why novelty can be dangerous is because it reflects a culture of individualism and selfishness. It say, "I will do what I want to do regardless of the consequences." Is it really that insulting to our ego to use the tried and tested methods of those who have gone before? Through historical examination, we can see that even those hailed in the past as "musical geniuses" were not necessarily all that original themselves in that they did not create entirely new styles of music single-handedly. Johann Sebastian Bach is a prime example. Arguably the best composer in history, he only used forms (such as the sonata, concerto grosso, and choral cantata) that had been developed by others. As a matter of fact, he is considered the pinnacle of the Baroque period of classical music, not because of his dashing innovation, but because of his skillful synthesis of all the musical techniques that had been developed by others before him. This is true musical greatness! We must lay aside our selfish tendencies that tell us to "go where no man has gone before!" Instead, we must show our wisdom by carefully selecting the best aspects of classical music and seeking to replicate them in our own music. Critics must learn to appreciate artistic sensibility and beauty above pure, raw innovation.
Up until this point, I have only tried to refute those who argue that innovation is the most important need in classical music today. However, there is another extreme: those who argue that classical music has "run its course" and has no more potential for innovation or freshness. I disagree with this position as much as with the previous one. Because good classical music is so intricate, it has unrivaled freshness and appeal. This contrasts greatly with the songs heard on hit radio stations, which receive airplay for an average of six months or so. The real classics go all the way back to the 60s (gasp!). This seems almost laughable when we consider the timeless works of Bach, who died in 1750, or Mozart, who died in 1791. That being said, however, there are to this day modern composers who are creating new music of similar appeal while still using traditional forms and styles. As a matter of fact, many modern composers are returning with great success to music that is very similar to Renaissance music, which was composed as early as the 14th century! Arvo Part, Eric Whitacre, and Morten Lauridsen are just a few of them. All three are still alive and composing music that is usually quite traditional in form (refuting those who argue that innovation is key) and yet fresh (refuting those who argue that classical music is near extinction). Contrast that with the works of men such John Cage and those like him, who would compose music that was often disorganized and that also relied heavily on chance (for example, 4' 33''). It is true that such compositions are original and innovative, but are they beautiful? Are they pleasant to the ear? Do they improve the listener? In many cases, I would have to say no.
In summary, I believe that we must treasure aesthetic beauty and artistry above innovation. The fact that something is new does not make it "art." Once again, however, I do not wish to discard novelty completely. I just think we must make sure that innovation conforms to traditional standards of beauty and artistry. I realize that this still leaves a lot of room for subjectivity, but we must at least consider this question. We must analyze the music we listen to and compose and make sure that it still retains some traditional form and artistry. We must not sacrifice beauty at the altar of the new.
Soli Deo Gloria
All of this got me thinking about the topic of novelty. How desirable is it to be original? Should novelty and originality be the primary goal of all music?
I will begin with some positive arguments. First of all, nobody likes a copycat. For one, it can be illegal in the case of plagiarism. Also, copying is very inartistic. One of the main components of art is creativity. Copying someone else's work is often illegal, certainly unprofessional, and definitely inartistic.
Second, there is a certain sense of excitement and discovery in something you have never experienced before. Novelty provides mental stimulation in that one is forced to think about the piece and evaluate it. You cannot retreat to the comfort of the familiar. In this way, new music and new techniques can be more mentally rewarding.
These are two benefits of novelty and originality. I am sure there are probably other benefits as well, but for now I will stick to those. In and of itself, I don't think there are problems with novelty. However, I think there are some dangers involved that come to light when too much emphasis is put on it. They are the following.
First, total commitment to novelty ignores the efforts of those who have gone before. The great tradition of Western classical music was not created overnight. Simple math had to be discovered before differential calculus. The Wright Brothers' Flyer had to be invented before the Boing 747. In the same way, the techniques of composition known as "common practice" were developed over centuries by composers from Palestrina to Bach to Mozart to Beethoven. They were musical geniuses. Why should we ignore their work and seek to start from square one in the name of "originality?" That would be like the physicist who chooses to ignore Sir Isaac Newton's law of gravity, or the astronomer who chooses to ignore the Copernican theory. In the same way that modern science is based on the discoveries of Newton and those like him, modern classical music is based on the discoveries and innovations of Bach and Mozart and those like them. It is foolish to ignore them. The reason common practice music is "common" is because it fits the formula that appeals most to the human ear or, at least, to the Westernized ear.
A second reason why novelty can be dangerous is because it reflects a culture of individualism and selfishness. It say, "I will do what I want to do regardless of the consequences." Is it really that insulting to our ego to use the tried and tested methods of those who have gone before? Through historical examination, we can see that even those hailed in the past as "musical geniuses" were not necessarily all that original themselves in that they did not create entirely new styles of music single-handedly. Johann Sebastian Bach is a prime example. Arguably the best composer in history, he only used forms (such as the sonata, concerto grosso, and choral cantata) that had been developed by others. As a matter of fact, he is considered the pinnacle of the Baroque period of classical music, not because of his dashing innovation, but because of his skillful synthesis of all the musical techniques that had been developed by others before him. This is true musical greatness! We must lay aside our selfish tendencies that tell us to "go where no man has gone before!" Instead, we must show our wisdom by carefully selecting the best aspects of classical music and seeking to replicate them in our own music. Critics must learn to appreciate artistic sensibility and beauty above pure, raw innovation.
Up until this point, I have only tried to refute those who argue that innovation is the most important need in classical music today. However, there is another extreme: those who argue that classical music has "run its course" and has no more potential for innovation or freshness. I disagree with this position as much as with the previous one. Because good classical music is so intricate, it has unrivaled freshness and appeal. This contrasts greatly with the songs heard on hit radio stations, which receive airplay for an average of six months or so. The real classics go all the way back to the 60s (gasp!). This seems almost laughable when we consider the timeless works of Bach, who died in 1750, or Mozart, who died in 1791. That being said, however, there are to this day modern composers who are creating new music of similar appeal while still using traditional forms and styles. As a matter of fact, many modern composers are returning with great success to music that is very similar to Renaissance music, which was composed as early as the 14th century! Arvo Part, Eric Whitacre, and Morten Lauridsen are just a few of them. All three are still alive and composing music that is usually quite traditional in form (refuting those who argue that innovation is key) and yet fresh (refuting those who argue that classical music is near extinction). Contrast that with the works of men such John Cage and those like him, who would compose music that was often disorganized and that also relied heavily on chance (for example, 4' 33''). It is true that such compositions are original and innovative, but are they beautiful? Are they pleasant to the ear? Do they improve the listener? In many cases, I would have to say no.
In summary, I believe that we must treasure aesthetic beauty and artistry above innovation. The fact that something is new does not make it "art." Once again, however, I do not wish to discard novelty completely. I just think we must make sure that innovation conforms to traditional standards of beauty and artistry. I realize that this still leaves a lot of room for subjectivity, but we must at least consider this question. We must analyze the music we listen to and compose and make sure that it still retains some traditional form and artistry. We must not sacrifice beauty at the altar of the new.
Soli Deo Gloria
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Jesus, Lover of My Soul
Here is a classic hymn by Charles Wesley. It was very well known years ago, but, to my dismay, when I mentioned it to a group of friends recently, very few of them had heard of it. The powerful words speak for themselves.
JESUS, LOVER OF MY SOUL
Jesus, Lover of my soul,
Let me to Thy bosom fly,
While the nearer waters roll,
While the tempest still is high;
Hide me, O my Savior, hide,
Till the storm of life is past;
Safe into the haven guide,
O receive my soul at last!
Other refuge have I none;
Hangs my helpless soul on Thee;
Leave, ah! leave me not alone,
Still support and comfort me.
All my trust on Thee is stayed,
All my help from Thee I bring;
Cover my defenseless head
With the shadow of Thy wing.
Thou, O Christ, art all I want;
More than all in Thee I find;
Raise the fallen, cheer the faint,
Heal the sick and lead the blind.
Just and holy is Ty name,
I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am,
Thou art full of truth and grace.
Plenteous grace with Thee is found,
Grace to cover all my sin;
Let the healing streams abound;
Make and keep me pure within.
Thou of life the fountain art,
Freely let me take of Thee;
Spring Thou up within my heart,
Rise to all eternity.
--Charles Wesley
Soli Deo Gloria
JESUS, LOVER OF MY SOUL
Jesus, Lover of my soul,
Let me to Thy bosom fly,
While the nearer waters roll,
While the tempest still is high;
Hide me, O my Savior, hide,
Till the storm of life is past;
Safe into the haven guide,
O receive my soul at last!
Other refuge have I none;
Hangs my helpless soul on Thee;
Leave, ah! leave me not alone,
Still support and comfort me.
All my trust on Thee is stayed,
All my help from Thee I bring;
Cover my defenseless head
With the shadow of Thy wing.
Thou, O Christ, art all I want;
More than all in Thee I find;
Raise the fallen, cheer the faint,
Heal the sick and lead the blind.
Just and holy is Ty name,
I am all unrighteousness;
False and full of sin I am,
Thou art full of truth and grace.
Plenteous grace with Thee is found,
Grace to cover all my sin;
Let the healing streams abound;
Make and keep me pure within.
Thou of life the fountain art,
Freely let me take of Thee;
Spring Thou up within my heart,
Rise to all eternity.
--Charles Wesley
Soli Deo Gloria
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Fear
I have been reading during the last couple days about the recent shooting of a congresswoman and 18 other people in Tucson, Arizona, which resulted in 6 deaths and 13 injuries of varying seriousness. Any occurrence like this one sparks much public debate about everything from gun control to public safety to political ideology. One topic which this violence particularly brought to my mind is that of fear. How can we, the general public, live in such a violent world without fear? Is it even bad to fear? How do we live in light of our fear?
First of all, I believe that fear is not necessarily a bad thing. God did, after all, create humans with a natural tendency to fear certain things. Though some may claim to fear nothing, I highly doubt that any person can honestly live without fear, even if that person's only fear is of fear itself.
That being said, almost anything in excess (for example, medicine, food, sleep) is potentially damaging and often wrong. Fear is definitely one of them. How, then, do we overcome it? The answer lies in the power to overcome the object of fear. Now, if I, an unarmed civilian, were suddenly confronted by a raging madman brandishing a firearm, I would not have the power to overcome him. If I had a similar firearm and the knowledge to use it, I would still not have the power to overcome a tank. If I had a tank, I still would not have the power to overcome a nuclear weapon. If I had the most secure bomb shelter in the world, I still would not have the power to overcome cancer. In short, humans are not as powerful as we think. The strongest human in the world has something that is stronger than him, something to fear. How, then, can a human overcome fear? The answer lies in a source of power outside himself. That power is God.
God is an infinite, personal being who is not confined to time or space. He has always existed. It was He who created the universe and everything in it. Not only did He create it, He sustains it and has complete power over it. We, as humans, are the crown jewel of His creation. Being His creation, all humans are under His complete control. So, supposing I am attacked by a shooter, can I just ask God to make him drop dead? The answer is no. God chooses not to work this way. How then, you may ask, can God possibly help me conquer fear? The answer lies in the fact that there is something infinitely more valuable than material and physical well-being. That something is spiritual well-being: fellowship with the all-powerful God. Consider the following verses from the Bible.
Matthew 10:26-31 “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. (ESV)
The crux of the matter lies in verse 28: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." At first, this is not a comforting thought at all! God, however, is not only all-powerful, perfect, and judgmental. He is loving. He loves every person in the world on an individual basis. John 3:16 says, "For God so loves the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
We, as everyone knows, live in an imperfect world. In fact, all humans are imperfect themselves. We not only are imperfect, we are fundamentally marred by sin. Sin is the inability of man to live up to God's standard of moral perfection. It literally means the "missing of the mark" of God's perfection. Because of our sin, we are condemned to hell, a place of eternal torment. We will go to this place after we die, and we will remain there forever in eternal torment. This definitely is the ultimate cause for fear.
How, you ask again, can I be free from fear? The good news is that God does not want us to go to hell. This is what John 3:16 means. He sent His Son, Jesus, the only perfect man ever to walk the earth, to die for us on the cross. His death payed the penalty that is ours because of our sin. He did not stay dead, however. No dead person can have power, much less give power to anyone else. Oh, no! He rose from the dead three days later and now offers His salvation to every person in the world. All we have to do is accept it through faith in Him. Romans 10:9 says, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." God will save everyone who believes in His Son Jesus Christ.
What, you may ask, is salvation? Salvation is the condition of someone who is free from sin. He no longer has to sin anymore. In addition, he is free from death, the penalty from sin. This does not mean that he will not die on the earth. It means that, instead of eternal death in hell, he will have eternal life in the presence of God in heaven.
Now, back to Matthew 10:26: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." We no longer have to be afraid of death because we have eternal life! Because of this, we do not have to fear rabid killers such as the one last week in Tucson, because we know that all he can take away is our life on earth. I am not saying that we will not feel fear whatsoever. Instead, we will not be slave to it. We are not terrified or paralyzed with fear. This is because no person or disease or catastrophe can ever touch our eternal life in heaven with the almighty, loving Creator of the universe. This is true freedom from fear!
If you have any questions whatsoever about how you can be saved, please comment and I will help in any way I can to point you toward God.
Soli Deo Gloria
First of all, I believe that fear is not necessarily a bad thing. God did, after all, create humans with a natural tendency to fear certain things. Though some may claim to fear nothing, I highly doubt that any person can honestly live without fear, even if that person's only fear is of fear itself.
That being said, almost anything in excess (for example, medicine, food, sleep) is potentially damaging and often wrong. Fear is definitely one of them. How, then, do we overcome it? The answer lies in the power to overcome the object of fear. Now, if I, an unarmed civilian, were suddenly confronted by a raging madman brandishing a firearm, I would not have the power to overcome him. If I had a similar firearm and the knowledge to use it, I would still not have the power to overcome a tank. If I had a tank, I still would not have the power to overcome a nuclear weapon. If I had the most secure bomb shelter in the world, I still would not have the power to overcome cancer. In short, humans are not as powerful as we think. The strongest human in the world has something that is stronger than him, something to fear. How, then, can a human overcome fear? The answer lies in a source of power outside himself. That power is God.
God is an infinite, personal being who is not confined to time or space. He has always existed. It was He who created the universe and everything in it. Not only did He create it, He sustains it and has complete power over it. We, as humans, are the crown jewel of His creation. Being His creation, all humans are under His complete control. So, supposing I am attacked by a shooter, can I just ask God to make him drop dead? The answer is no. God chooses not to work this way. How then, you may ask, can God possibly help me conquer fear? The answer lies in the fact that there is something infinitely more valuable than material and physical well-being. That something is spiritual well-being: fellowship with the all-powerful God. Consider the following verses from the Bible.
Matthew 10:26-31 “So do not be afraid of them, for there is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground outside your Father’s care. And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered. So don’t be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows. (ESV)
The crux of the matter lies in verse 28: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." At first, this is not a comforting thought at all! God, however, is not only all-powerful, perfect, and judgmental. He is loving. He loves every person in the world on an individual basis. John 3:16 says, "For God so loves the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life."
We, as everyone knows, live in an imperfect world. In fact, all humans are imperfect themselves. We not only are imperfect, we are fundamentally marred by sin. Sin is the inability of man to live up to God's standard of moral perfection. It literally means the "missing of the mark" of God's perfection. Because of our sin, we are condemned to hell, a place of eternal torment. We will go to this place after we die, and we will remain there forever in eternal torment. This definitely is the ultimate cause for fear.
How, you ask again, can I be free from fear? The good news is that God does not want us to go to hell. This is what John 3:16 means. He sent His Son, Jesus, the only perfect man ever to walk the earth, to die for us on the cross. His death payed the penalty that is ours because of our sin. He did not stay dead, however. No dead person can have power, much less give power to anyone else. Oh, no! He rose from the dead three days later and now offers His salvation to every person in the world. All we have to do is accept it through faith in Him. Romans 10:9 says, "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." God will save everyone who believes in His Son Jesus Christ.
What, you may ask, is salvation? Salvation is the condition of someone who is free from sin. He no longer has to sin anymore. In addition, he is free from death, the penalty from sin. This does not mean that he will not die on the earth. It means that, instead of eternal death in hell, he will have eternal life in the presence of God in heaven.
Now, back to Matthew 10:26: "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul." We no longer have to be afraid of death because we have eternal life! Because of this, we do not have to fear rabid killers such as the one last week in Tucson, because we know that all he can take away is our life on earth. I am not saying that we will not feel fear whatsoever. Instead, we will not be slave to it. We are not terrified or paralyzed with fear. This is because no person or disease or catastrophe can ever touch our eternal life in heaven with the almighty, loving Creator of the universe. This is true freedom from fear!
If you have any questions whatsoever about how you can be saved, please comment and I will help in any way I can to point you toward God.
Soli Deo Gloria
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Arise, My Soul, Arise
This is one of my favorite hymns. It is written by the great hymn-writer Charles Wesley. It is not very well-known, but speaks powerfully of the power of Christ's salvation to forgive the sinner.
Arise, My Soul, Arise
Arise, my soul, arise.
Shake off they guilty fears.
The bleeding Sacrifice
In my behalf appears.
Before the throne my Surety stands,
Before the throne my Surety stands;
My name is written on His hands.
He ever lives above
For me to intercede,
His all-redeeming love,
His precious blood to plead.
His blood atoned for all our race,
His blood atoned for all our race,
And sprinkles now the throne of grace.
Five bleeding wounds He bears,
Received on Calvary.
They pour effectual prayers;
They strongly plead for me.
"Forgive him, oh, forgive," they cry,
"Forgive him, oh, forgive," they cry,
"Nor let that ransomed sinner die."
The Father hears Him pray,
His dear Anointed One;
He cannot turn away
The presence of His son.
His Spirit answers to the blood,
His Spirit answers to the blood,
And tells me I am born of God.
My God is reconciled;
His pard'ning voice I hear.
He owns me for His child;
I can no longer fear..
With confidence I now draw nigh,
With confidence I now draw nigh,
And, "Father, Abba, Father," cry.
--Charles Wesley
Soli Deo Gloria
Arise, My Soul, Arise
Arise, my soul, arise.
Shake off they guilty fears.
The bleeding Sacrifice
In my behalf appears.
Before the throne my Surety stands,
Before the throne my Surety stands;
My name is written on His hands.
He ever lives above
For me to intercede,
His all-redeeming love,
His precious blood to plead.
His blood atoned for all our race,
His blood atoned for all our race,
And sprinkles now the throne of grace.
Five bleeding wounds He bears,
Received on Calvary.
They pour effectual prayers;
They strongly plead for me.
"Forgive him, oh, forgive," they cry,
"Forgive him, oh, forgive," they cry,
"Nor let that ransomed sinner die."
The Father hears Him pray,
His dear Anointed One;
He cannot turn away
The presence of His son.
His Spirit answers to the blood,
His Spirit answers to the blood,
And tells me I am born of God.
My God is reconciled;
His pard'ning voice I hear.
He owns me for His child;
I can no longer fear..
With confidence I now draw nigh,
With confidence I now draw nigh,
And, "Father, Abba, Father," cry.
--Charles Wesley
Soli Deo Gloria
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Minimalist music
Minimalist music is a style of modern classical in which, as the name would suggest, less is more. It started, if I am not mistaken, during the 1950s and 60s and continues to this day, although it has lost some popularity.
You may ask, "What, in musical terms, is less?" Well, minimalist music usually has fewer chord changes, and certainly fewer key changes, than other styles. In addition, it may be quite repetitive. It is relatively static compared to other styles of classical music, and can almost be a little hypnotic because of its repetitiveness. Here are a few examples I would recommend:
Phillip Glass: Metamorphosis 2. Glass wrote 5 piano pieces called Metamorphoses, all good examples of minimalism. I enjoy listening to all of them, but if you don't want to do this, I would recommend the second as my favorite.
Arvo Part: Spiegel im Spiegel. This is a gorgeous piece for violin and piano. You will immediately detect the repetitiveness of the arpeggios played by the piano, while the violin plays a beautiful, slow, and very simple melody in which every phrase ends on the note A. It is hauntingly and ingeniously simple.
Henryck Gorecki: Symphony of Sorrowful Songs, Movement 2. This may not be minimalism in its purest form, but if not it certainly is very closely related. This symphony features a solo soprano, who sings a long melody against a pretty static orchestral sound composed mostly of strings. The soprano part is very powerful because it is composed almost entirely of half and whole steps, which makes the rare leaps absolutely heart-rending.
James Newton Howard: The Village Motion Picture Soundtrack (The Gravel Road). This is a modern example of minimalism, particularly evident at the very beginning of this selection. The hypnotic effect of the constantly repeated arpeggios so characteristic of minimalist music is very evident here.
Now, what do I think of all this? As far as pure listening enjoyment goes, I love it. The minimalist genre is one of my favorite to listen to because it is so relaxing. It tends to be fairly quiet and subdued as far as dynamics go. I also enjoy listening to it because it is so intellectually undemanding. This leads me to a problem, though. It is enjoyable, but is it intellectually rewarding? I would say yes, to a certain degree; however, it is undeniable that the blossoming counterpoint of Bach, the thundering orchestral statements of Beethoven, and the rugged rhythms and harmonies of Brahms are much more demanding to the mind and, therefore, more rewarding. Am I saying that we should not listen to minimalist music? Absolutely not. I have no plans of doing this any time soon. However, we must not let our ears get lazy. We must also listen to music that engages our mind. The same goes for composing. At least for me (the same may not be true for everyone) it is fairly easy to create music that sounds nice but does not go anywhere melodically or harmonically. In other words: minimalist music. Is writing this type of music fun and rewarding? Undeniably. Will an audience respond well to it? Quite possibly? But will it hone my skills to make me a better musician? Probably not.
Soli Deo Gloria
You may ask, "What, in musical terms, is less?" Well, minimalist music usually has fewer chord changes, and certainly fewer key changes, than other styles. In addition, it may be quite repetitive. It is relatively static compared to other styles of classical music, and can almost be a little hypnotic because of its repetitiveness. Here are a few examples I would recommend:
Phillip Glass: Metamorphosis 2. Glass wrote 5 piano pieces called Metamorphoses, all good examples of minimalism. I enjoy listening to all of them, but if you don't want to do this, I would recommend the second as my favorite.
Arvo Part: Spiegel im Spiegel. This is a gorgeous piece for violin and piano. You will immediately detect the repetitiveness of the arpeggios played by the piano, while the violin plays a beautiful, slow, and very simple melody in which every phrase ends on the note A. It is hauntingly and ingeniously simple.
Henryck Gorecki: Symphony of Sorrowful Songs, Movement 2. This may not be minimalism in its purest form, but if not it certainly is very closely related. This symphony features a solo soprano, who sings a long melody against a pretty static orchestral sound composed mostly of strings. The soprano part is very powerful because it is composed almost entirely of half and whole steps, which makes the rare leaps absolutely heart-rending.
James Newton Howard: The Village Motion Picture Soundtrack (The Gravel Road). This is a modern example of minimalism, particularly evident at the very beginning of this selection. The hypnotic effect of the constantly repeated arpeggios so characteristic of minimalist music is very evident here.
Now, what do I think of all this? As far as pure listening enjoyment goes, I love it. The minimalist genre is one of my favorite to listen to because it is so relaxing. It tends to be fairly quiet and subdued as far as dynamics go. I also enjoy listening to it because it is so intellectually undemanding. This leads me to a problem, though. It is enjoyable, but is it intellectually rewarding? I would say yes, to a certain degree; however, it is undeniable that the blossoming counterpoint of Bach, the thundering orchestral statements of Beethoven, and the rugged rhythms and harmonies of Brahms are much more demanding to the mind and, therefore, more rewarding. Am I saying that we should not listen to minimalist music? Absolutely not. I have no plans of doing this any time soon. However, we must not let our ears get lazy. We must also listen to music that engages our mind. The same goes for composing. At least for me (the same may not be true for everyone) it is fairly easy to create music that sounds nice but does not go anywhere melodically or harmonically. In other words: minimalist music. Is writing this type of music fun and rewarding? Undeniably. Will an audience respond well to it? Quite possibly? But will it hone my skills to make me a better musician? Probably not.
Soli Deo Gloria
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)