I watched a skit once with this title, it was full of music, singing and dancing college seniors. It was a well-prepared presentation, powerful and touching story, and I think, overall a good message. I won't spoil it for you in the event you want to watch it. The whole production is called G-Live, the specific skit if you haven't surmised already is called "No Regrets". Which got me thinking about a question that perhaps a lot of us ask, which is, "What would I do over?" A lot of times I have wished that I could do entire parts of life over again, or maybe go back in time with my current knowledge, which sounds ideal, and really cool, but having watched enough science fiction to know about creating a space-time paradox or alternate unstable timeline, and all that random pseudo-science (or maybe real science, I don't know the difference) type jargon.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Historically Relevant
I am a pretty big NBA fan. I mean, I can list off stats, such as the fact that only three teams hold 15 of the last 21 NBA championship titles (Chicago Bulls 6, Los Angeles Lakers 5, San Antonio Spurs 4), but while that is an interesting bit of trivia, what does that really mean to me? In other words, how does that impact what I do day-in and day-out? In short, so what? Maybe it would mean more to me if I were directly involved in the NBA, such as working in a franchise front office or somehow working for a team, because then I might see how I might emulate the success of these three teams. However, as the casual fan, other than as pieces of interesting (or random depending on your perspective) trivia, it doesn't really affect what I do or how I live.
What about when it comes to something bigger? I recently finished the book The Case for Christ by journalist Lee Strobel, and realized that behind all of the apologetics, the facts, the history, this question needs to be addressed: so what? Having the privilege of serving as a youth leader this past year I realized both the import and the challenge in addressing this question, particularly with young people of today (it makes me sound kind of old, but I suppose I mean this term in a general sense, and perhaps to some degree include myself in it). So behind all of this historical evidence for Jesus what impact does it have for me in my life? Should it have one? I believe the answer is yes.
What about when it comes to something bigger? I recently finished the book The Case for Christ by journalist Lee Strobel, and realized that behind all of the apologetics, the facts, the history, this question needs to be addressed: so what? Having the privilege of serving as a youth leader this past year I realized both the import and the challenge in addressing this question, particularly with young people of today (it makes me sound kind of old, but I suppose I mean this term in a general sense, and perhaps to some degree include myself in it). So behind all of this historical evidence for Jesus what impact does it have for me in my life? Should it have one? I believe the answer is yes.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
A Lack of Discernment
I don't know about you, but I have spent a lot of time agonizing over the idea of what God's will is. What is God's will in my life? There are numerous verses in the Bible that give us an indication of what God desires for us in essence, wills, for us, but again the question comes out, what does that look like specifically? Is it God's will that I take this job or that one? That I go to this church or that one? That I marry this person or that one? I can't count the number of times in life where I have been idle, sitting around "trying to figure out God's will". Don't get me wrong, it's important to know and to do God's will, as Jesus says in Mark 3:35 doing God's will is how we demonstrate that we are of his family. Yet I suppose that begs the question as to what God's will exactly is. How can I do something that I don't know?
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Relational Thinking
You know, it's something that I've probably heard all my life growing up, and a word that I've learned to take entirely for granted: relationship. It's a word that I feel has changed significantly over the course of the years, or maybe it's just me, I know that how I now understand the word relationship is very different from how I once understood the word. Now, of course, we ought to have the technical definition of the word, and according to dictionary.com:
Okay, fair enough. For a while growing up, I generally only thought of the word relationship in the context of the fourth definition presented above. I blame television and my own naivete. As I grew older, I became more and more aware of the breadth of the word, and it began encompassing the other three definitions. Relationships nowadays for me, encompass more and more the third definition, that is my "default definition", what I automatically think of when I hear the word.
1.
a connection, association, or involvement.3.
an emotional or other connection between people: the relationship between teachers and students.4.
a sexual involvement; affair.
Okay, fair enough. For a while growing up, I generally only thought of the word relationship in the context of the fourth definition presented above. I blame television and my own naivete. As I grew older, I became more and more aware of the breadth of the word, and it began encompassing the other three definitions. Relationships nowadays for me, encompass more and more the third definition, that is my "default definition", what I automatically think of when I hear the word.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Does this mean I've sold out?
Okay, for those non-music junkies out there, sorry, this is going to have some terminology that may not be understood to the general public, though I will try, because I can't rightly call myself a music junkie either. Now, today, I'm probably going to offend a number of Indie music fans, and for that, I apologize, but, hey, you're Indie fans, you're used to it. Have I sold out? Well, that's an interesting question. I can humorously answer "no" because frankly, I haven't sold anything. However, recently, I've been considering a couple of things, and they're all somewhat interestingly tie together. In his book How Now Shall We Live, Charles Colson writes that art ought to be a reflection of the beauty of creation. God was very intentional when he created sound, and that's why we have these nice mathematical ratios (which I won't talk about because I don't really get it entirely) for consonance (sounds that sound good together). Now, if that is the case, then there are a limited number of sounds that sound good together (chords) and therefore, a limited number of chord progressions that will work. Given 400 or so years of written musical history, I'm sure that it's understandable why we recycle some musical ideas. So, this idea of a sellout, well, what is it? This can be broken down into a number of questions, the first, who did we sell out to? The common answer may be, mainstream audiences, money, I suppose. The second question then is, who did we sell out from? The arguable answer is the abstract concept of "musical integrity". Which, I honestly find kind of funny. However, the general principle I think behind it is the motivation, do I write songs in a certain way because people will listen to it and therefore I will make lots of money because it'll sell? Yet, I would posit, despite perhaps insincere motivations, these "sellouts" (and "musicians") alike have stumbled upon something that we've lost over the years.
Now Colson goes into this little tirade in his book about how pop culture has produced and influenced these things that may not be bad, but aren't necessarily good for us either. He pretty much equates it all with being "cultural junk food". I personally have a hard time swallowing that. While I would agree that classical composers were tremendously gifted in their grasp of music in general, I would also posit that a lot of them composed because they needed to make money (I believe Mozart at least early on was money motivated, at least his father was). While the medium of rock-and-roll may have been have been produced and refined in the morally questionable, drug-induced '80s, I don't necessarily think that other music doesn't have its follies as well. Certainly, classical music generally tends to be more complex, thereby requiring us to think harder to appreciate it, and I do agree there is some merit to working to understand what you are listening to, but inherently, I hold more that content is kind of the deal-breaker. As much as the argument of "God gave us brains for a reason" is used, likewise the argument "God gave us hearts for a reason" is equally valid. Okay, so this is a big tangent, but I felt I needed to clear that up.
Recently, I revisited a couple of old musical comedy bits, the first by Rob Paravonian who remarks how the Pachabel Canon in D chord progression (FYI: D A Bm F#m G D G A) is found in every song (and the piece itself makes for a crappy cello part), the second is by a group called Axis of Awesome (who, because they are Australian, can be humorously introduced as Destiny's Child, if they were white... and men) talking about how all pop hits have the same 4 chord progression (FYI: I-V-vi-IV, which incidentally, essentially can function as the first four chords of Pachabel's Canon). As a brief warning to those who actually finish reading before they click on a link, there may be a little bit of crass language in this, in case you have sensitive ears, but overall it's pretty clean. While we find it funny at these people ridiculing all these songs, it inherently remains true that anyone that has listened to the radio in the past decade or two will probably have heard a lot of these songs on the radio somewhere at some point in time. Of the most popular songs, for example, U2's hit With or Without You (which is mentioned in both comedy pieces) literally uses the Axis of Awesome's 4-chord pop song formula the ENTIRE song. Another of U2's popular songs, Where the Streets Have No Name, additionally pretty much use the same 4 chords (perhaps not in that exact order) and throw in a flat-VII chord at the end before resolving each chorus, but the basic structure is the same. Yet we still listen to these songs. Sure we can agree that nobody likes Justin Bieber's music, or that U2 is awesome, but they're still flooding the charts. Why?
Frankly, I think it's because that is the fundamental nature of music. From the Beatles to Green Day, they've stumbled across something that inherently "works". As much as the musician in me chafes at boiling it down to something this simple, it really is the foundation of music. Sure there will be good music not based on this, but generally speaking, I find most music is. When I've tried to compose songs, I've always tried to do something "original" but in the end always end up coming back to the four basic chords of music (I-V-vi-IV, not necessarily in that order), frankly, because they sound good. God made those four chords sound good together in a progression, now how do we use that to glorify Him?
Now Colson goes into this little tirade in his book about how pop culture has produced and influenced these things that may not be bad, but aren't necessarily good for us either. He pretty much equates it all with being "cultural junk food". I personally have a hard time swallowing that. While I would agree that classical composers were tremendously gifted in their grasp of music in general, I would also posit that a lot of them composed because they needed to make money (I believe Mozart at least early on was money motivated, at least his father was). While the medium of rock-and-roll may have been have been produced and refined in the morally questionable, drug-induced '80s, I don't necessarily think that other music doesn't have its follies as well. Certainly, classical music generally tends to be more complex, thereby requiring us to think harder to appreciate it, and I do agree there is some merit to working to understand what you are listening to, but inherently, I hold more that content is kind of the deal-breaker. As much as the argument of "God gave us brains for a reason" is used, likewise the argument "God gave us hearts for a reason" is equally valid. Okay, so this is a big tangent, but I felt I needed to clear that up.
Recently, I revisited a couple of old musical comedy bits, the first by Rob Paravonian who remarks how the Pachabel Canon in D chord progression (FYI: D A Bm F#m G D G A) is found in every song (and the piece itself makes for a crappy cello part), the second is by a group called Axis of Awesome (who, because they are Australian, can be humorously introduced as Destiny's Child, if they were white... and men) talking about how all pop hits have the same 4 chord progression (FYI: I-V-vi-IV, which incidentally, essentially can function as the first four chords of Pachabel's Canon). As a brief warning to those who actually finish reading before they click on a link, there may be a little bit of crass language in this, in case you have sensitive ears, but overall it's pretty clean. While we find it funny at these people ridiculing all these songs, it inherently remains true that anyone that has listened to the radio in the past decade or two will probably have heard a lot of these songs on the radio somewhere at some point in time. Of the most popular songs, for example, U2's hit With or Without You (which is mentioned in both comedy pieces) literally uses the Axis of Awesome's 4-chord pop song formula the ENTIRE song. Another of U2's popular songs, Where the Streets Have No Name, additionally pretty much use the same 4 chords (perhaps not in that exact order) and throw in a flat-VII chord at the end before resolving each chorus, but the basic structure is the same. Yet we still listen to these songs. Sure we can agree that nobody likes Justin Bieber's music, or that U2 is awesome, but they're still flooding the charts. Why?
Frankly, I think it's because that is the fundamental nature of music. From the Beatles to Green Day, they've stumbled across something that inherently "works". As much as the musician in me chafes at boiling it down to something this simple, it really is the foundation of music. Sure there will be good music not based on this, but generally speaking, I find most music is. When I've tried to compose songs, I've always tried to do something "original" but in the end always end up coming back to the four basic chords of music (I-V-vi-IV, not necessarily in that order), frankly, because they sound good. God made those four chords sound good together in a progression, now how do we use that to glorify Him?
Monday, December 19, 2011
A study in vocation
What does the word "vocation" mean to most people? I can do the first natural thing which is to look at a dictionary, which tells me:
nounOkay, fair enough. I would posit that generally, we trend towards the first definition of vocation, and that's it. Now, there's nothing wrong with that, and I won't go into the etymology of vocation extensively except to point out that its root is in the Latin vocatio, which means "to call". So generally speaking, the word vocation probably most accurately has the meaning of "a calling". I was attending a men's Bible study group when these questions in regards to vocation were brought up and frankly, while I feel they have been overlooked, when you stop and think about it, they're really quite natural and frankly, something that we don't consider enough. When we consider our "calling" the two questions that immediately should be considered are these: called by whom? and for what? Generally speaking, we only really consider what we're called to do, but seldom who called us and why.
1. a particular occupation, business, or profession; calling.
2. a strong impulse or inclination to follow a particular activity or career.
3. a divine call to God's service or to the Christian life.
4. a function or station in life to which one is called by God
Friday, December 16, 2011
Watch what you sing...
As a worship leader, I'm often contemplating over what songs to choose often because I am often mulling over the lyrics of each song. It's a long, but relatively straightforward, process that I won't labor you with. That being said, it's given me a perspective in regards to how we treat music in our everyday lives. Frankly, in this generation, with our iPods and Pandora and even just our car radio, it's pretty rare to go a couple of steps without hearing some kind of music. Sometimes we're inclined to sing along, sometimes we hum, sometimes we memorize all the lyrics (maybe because we like karaoke), but that being said, do we really pay attention to what we're singing? Some might say that music is an "expression of the soul" and therefore the lyrics don't really matter, it's all about the melody or sound that is conveyed. Now, I grant that a catchy tune makes the song that much better (or in some cases worse), but does that really justify ignoring the lyrics? If music truly is "an expression of the soul" as some are wont to put it, don't the lyrics matter that much more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)