I don't think it far fetched at all to believe great musicians (or artists or writers, etc.) somehow tap into a greater consciousness. Whether you call that God or a collective subconscious (as proposed by Carl Jung), the result is the same. For me, there must be some degree of mysticism or it isn't art.

 

This is quite an interesting topic. Particularly intriguing is the idea--espoused by a number of legendary composers--that atheism and artistic inspiration are fundamentally at odds.

Although I don't subscribe to the traditional Judeo-Christian idea of "God," I do believe there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy; and the philosophy of the atheist, in particular, shuts out many important possibilities. Atheism is basically the flip-side of theism, ostensibly opposite but with corresponding flaws, as might be expected from a polemic point of view.

The idea of a source of inspiration beyond our own minds goes back at least as far as ancient Greece, when the 8th century BCE poet Hesiod began his tales by invoking the nine Muses: "Sing, O Heliconian Muses..." he commenced, claiming that the daughters of Zeus had thus instructed him to begin all his works, that mankind would know their divine source.

Though some may scoff at such "quaint" tales, the notion of supernormal inspiration runs down through human history in many forms, a consistent throughline, and many (if not most) of the great composers imputed their gifts to powers beyond their own intrinsic skill.

For this reason alone, if for no other, the idea of extranormal inspiration should not be lightly thrown aside. If the most brilliant stars in the musical firmament believed that something beyond themselves inspired them, who are we to dismiss it out of hand?

Simply saying "I don't believe in god" is not really a complete answer to the question, it's more of a cop-out to avoid really considering the question. It's easy to say "I don't believe in god": it's less easy to consider that there might be more to the infinite universe than those five words can contain.

 

Simply saying "I don't believe in god" is not really a complete answer to the question, it's more of a cop-out to avoid really considering the question. It's easy to say "I don't believe in god": it's less easy to consider that there might be more to the infinite universe than those five words can contain.

1. I wasn't answering a question.

2. I don't believe in god. It's not difficult or easy, it's just the truth. Belief -or faith- is based on emotion rather than logic. I don't think it's possible to persuade yourself to feel the existence of god, that is, to feel something that's just not there.

 

When I was young I thought that Mozart took dictation from the Angels. I am a Christian and do believe that music is one medium inspired by God, at least the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. Not all music is from God. One-third of the angels followed after Lucifer, or Satan, and some music is inspired by the devil. Those angels who followed after Lucifer are in reality demons. On the other hand, Christians partake of the gifts of the Holy Spirit and one is discernment of spirits. This comes in handy when playing or listening to music of all types, also, in interpersonal relationships. I have discovered that unless an acquaintance is also a Christian in the true sense, having a personal relationship with Jesus, the Holy Annoited Son of God, they are not to be trusted and it is impossible to form a genuine friendships with such a person. Music, as a distinct medium of expression, follows these principles and one can quickly discern what is genuine and what is not.

With best regards, Mary Jane Lang

 

Hi Mary Jane,

I used to believe these same things, so I know exactly where you're coming from.

Life experience, however, has led me to see that the scenario presented here is only one version of reality, and not the version agreed upon by everyone. So while you have every right to believe in this particular religious story, it is worth bearing in mind that other people in the world believe very differently from you, and that no one is "right" or "wrong."

That said: I'm open to the possibility that something--call it "god," "angels," "muses," "the ether," "the collective unconscious," or what you will--can and does affect the creative thought processes of artists. Most of the artists I know believe this to be the case in one form or another.

What exactly the nature of that something is, can be, and has been, debated; and of course you can disagree altogether if you like. But it seems to me a great deal of evidence exists that something more than a squishy three-pound lump of gray tissue in our skull exists behind the immortal works of art and beauty that make up humanity's artistic legacy.

 

Everyone has the right to believe in God or to believe in No-God. Belief gives strength. Once in a meeting of famous physicists it turned out that only one of them, Dirac, didn’t reckon with God in his thoughts. Dirac, who believed in another god, called communism, argued vehemently against the god of his collegues. At the end one of the big ones, I forgot which one, perhaps Heisenberg, concluded: “God is inexistent and Dirac is His prophet.”

 

If an artist or composer feels the need to be inspired what does it matter where the inspiration comes from "God, Tree, Fish, The UV etc"
Saying I do not believe in god is fine but to say there is no such thing as God is mindless it boils down to definitions once again and brains much smarter than ours are still debating this.

 

I firmly believe in God, but I have a very different take on the question to Mary Jane:

The universe exists as a result of God's creative genius. Everything, from galaxies down to subatomic particles, shows the mark of his mind. A part of this creation, called the human being, has been gifted with a creative intellect, capable of either searching for or rejecting the creator. This creative mind of the human is also capable of discovering and manipulating what God put there in the first place - including music. I do not think that the great musicians were directly inspired by God, in any way comparable to taking dictation from an angel. But I do think that music can come from a divine gift - a unique mind capable of discerning in some way some of the order, pattern and beauty of the universe. Music is a physical thing, however abstract, and I believe it was first conceived by the mind of God, as was language, mathematics, moral imperatives, in short the things that can raise the human from the level of the ape. But the human mind nonetheless cabable of independant thought.

 

The universe exists as a result of God's creative genius. Everything, from galaxies down to subatomic particles, shows the mark of his mind. A part of this creation, called the human being, has been gifted with a creative intellect, capable of either searching for or rejecting the creator. This creative mind of the human is also capable of discovering and manipulating what God put there in the first place - including music.

Though I am not a firm believer in the God most organized religions portray, your thoughts remind me of statements I have made elsewhere. That is, if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, creativity may be the sincerest form of worship. This holds true even if there is only an attempt at creativity, since we cannot just sit down and decide to be creative.

 

As for morality or lack of it between believers and non-believers this is a separate issue altogether. Those who believe in God are not necessarily any more moral or conscience-led than those who profess to be atheists. Both can be the utmost rogues.

The difference is that those who believe in a higher deity have a clearer idea of what is right and what is wrong. Theirs is a discipline. It is a belief that inspires creativity. It is up to the deity believers to then practice or not.

The atheist's lines in the sand are much less clear and shift with the times. They can draw inspiration only from less fertile soil. As Wagner surmised: 'Nothing great or lasting has been achieved by atheists.' Atheism is the true immorality. As the saying goes: "God doesn't believe in atheists."

 

The atheist's lines in the sand are much less clear and shift with the times. They can draw inspiration only from less fertile soil. As Wagner surmised: 'Nothing great or lasting has been achieved by atheists.' Atheism is the true immorality. As the saying goes: "God doesn't believe in atheists."

Huh? Say that to Einstein and Shostakovich. Or countless scientists advancing the technological and theoretical progress. The whole notion of superiority of one that has some sort of belief in invisible omniscient beings over one who doesn't even bother himself with such things is absolutely ridiculous.

As for the composers who advertised or believed in their Christian ideas - Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, etc., etc., all those guys lived in Europe well before or near the 20th century. It would be strange if they didn't.

 

Hail Satan

 

It is interesting that everybody discusses here God and similar topics far more passionately than music…

"If God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him" (Voltaire). In the same vein, "If invention didn't exist it would be necessary to invent it." Logic says: This sentence is self-contradictory: nothing can be invented without the capacity for inventing things that don't exist yet. But we see that the world snaps finger to logic. Aristotle, founder of logic as a science, held that a five lb stone falls five times faster than a one lb stone. Actually they fall with the same speed, against the most flawless logic. Man did invent invention without being capable of doing so. Prior to that he was created by God from earth or evolved alone from lifeless molecules into a kind of still earthbound monkey; this second hypothesis is even more fantastic and illogical and if it is true, it should inspire us even more religious feelings than the first one. Now all of a sudden this poor earthbound being starts to create - himself doesn't know how - not earthbound gods, heavens, spiritual worlds, divine music, without which he can not live any more…

 

I don't understand one thing: the title of the thread (Are great musicians God's voice?) is basically a "yes" or "no" or "maybe" or "to some extent" or "I don't know" kind of question. All of these answers to the question are valid. But the question itself contain one very important element: it might very well look like a question, but it's also a definite statement: the statement that god exists. So, how could an atheist respond to such a question?

How is it then that the discussion has been hi-jacked?

 

So, how could an atheist respond to such a question?

He would probably say something like: "I don't believe in god."

Oops, sorry...I forgot, that's not an answer to the question.

 

Even if there is no god the answer could be "yes". If I would strongly belive that there is a magical elephant called Ezehiel who rules the rabbits, masters of music, and when I will look into a rabbit's eyes I will be inspired and compose a piece, and if I would do so, and then write a piece of music - wouldn't I became this elephant's voice? I would. If someone belives in God, he can be inspired by him and be his voice, no matter if this God exists or not. Because even if he doesn't exist in general, he may exist in composer's brain and affect him. So, if there is no God in general, he lives in pieces of faithful composers. So there is a god. God exists. Hallelujah!

 

If someone belives in God, he can be inspired by him and be his voice, no matter if this God exists or not. Because even if he doesn't exist in general, he may exist in composer's brain and affect him.

I think Aramis (though perhaps half-jokingly) makes a very profound point: that the mere act of believing, alone--regardless of whether the object of that belief is real or not--confers inspiration on the believer. How many stories have we heard of people achieving things against incredible odds, because they believed they could? Faith alone can move mountains--even if there's no "god" working miracles behind the faith.

So even if there's no god, the belief in one can elevate the human spirit--and from that elevated height what works of art might spring? Perhaps it is in this principle that Wagner's dictum finds its truth: that it's not so much the existence of god that inspires the artist, but the belief in the existence of god.

 

You lost me there Aramis.

 

Even the existence of the material world has been questioned by philosophers, and not by the least famous of them. That did not prevent them from talking of it a lot.

One of them replied to the objection that what he just said was disproved by the facts: "Too bad for the facts."

I don't understand why those who deny God's existence participate in this thread at all: for them the question whether "Great musicians are the voice of God" must be devoid of sense, just as would be a question like, say, "Why is the elephant the most beautiful bird?"

I must correct myself. It was not entirely true that I don't understand why. I think I do. In my opinion just as we believers want God to exist, by the same token atheists want God not to exist (or rather want Ungod to exist). If He doesn't, too bad for us. If He does, too bad for Him.

 

I must correct myself. It was not entirely true that I don't understand why. I think I do. In my opinion just as we believers want God to exist, by the same token atheists want God not to exist (or rather want Ungod to exist). If He doesn't, too bad for us. If He does, too bad for Him.

I don't think this is true, at least not always. Belief for me has never been a question - I simply never have believed in a god - never. I realized I was an atheist as soon as understood what that meant. I don't think this is desire, but something to do with how my brain works.

I have witnessed some quite extraordinary religious evocations - speaking in tongues - fainting - streams of tears. I can see how a belief system, and what it implies (that a god is out there, and you are made in his image, that you can be taken in or thrown out of paradise etc etc) could have a profound effect on ones creativity. Good and bad.

 

I don't subscribe to a religious affiliation by any means. I'm more of an Agnostic than anything. I believe there's a higer power out there, but I'm just not sure how this Earth got here. I don't go for the religious establishments at all. I also don't believe everything that's in The Bible, because The Bible was written by man and man has great tendency to exaggerate. I do feel there's something behind all of this, nobody knows what it is or what it isn't, but there's got to be reason why we're all here.

To Scott Good, how can you believe that something beyond yourself doesn't exist? How do you think the Earth and everything this world entails got here?

 

To Scott Good, how can you believe that something beyond yourself doesn't exist? How do you think the Earth and everything this world entails got here?

Beyond myself?

I don't believe in god(s) - entities - but, I believe in other things - energy and it's conservation for instance - and love - and evolution.

I also believe in non belief - nothingness. I think it an unanswerable question to ask where it all comes from. A human made paradox - an affliction of consciousness. Like Douglas Adams said, "maybe we aren't asking the right questions."

For instance, if there is a god, where did it/they/he/she come from? Never ending. So, I just follow what scientists are doing with great fascination and hope for more insight, and don't worry about the very beginning. It is not for me to know.

But, I'm not anti-theist. If it works for you, your system, agnostic and that, great.

 

I was raised in a church going family I belonged to the choir not questioning, then in my 40-50s when I started to think it all seemed so far fetched and improbable so I called myself an Atheist, now I realise that even that is a cop out, so I seem to be agnostic, a belief in a close, personal God that is concerned with us mortals does not make sense to me, but a basic question that probably will never be answered is whether the UV or Uvs just happened or were created, now if you say they were created you just start the whole thing over again.

 

We have a lot in common, Andante. I, too, was raised in a church going household. I stopped going when I was around 16, because I just didn't like the people that went there...still don't. Some of the most judgemental people you'll ever meet go to churches. Not too many years ago, I joined a "30s Something" group at a church just to meet some new people and maybe even make some new friends and not even one person spoke to me or even noticed I was there. Not even the group leader talked to me. Needless to say, I've had my fair share of the "plastic people." But a person never stops meeting plastic people. It's a vicious never-ending cycle.

 

That is the whole point of life, get to the end and say wow what a ride

 

This is about religious belief more than music. I believe that Music is God.

 

Inspired?

What is that, to be inspired by God or the angels? Well, if the composers said that they were inspired, we can not deny that. Of course we can question that God exists, and then we can ask what this "divine inspiration" really is. A deep subconscious contact of some kind?

In the early days it was of course "comme il faut" to be inspired to God. Nobody questioned "his" existence. Today that would be much more controversial. I think composers today has much the same feeling when they are inspired, but they name the experience differently. The times has changed, and so has the names.

I am of course no Bach or Mozart, but still a composer. I would not dare to say that I've been inspired by God or his angels, and I don't feel too sure that such spirits exists. But I would still call my experiences with music "religious" of some kind.

The feeling is, that the best of my music is not "my own". When I play through it, I hear beautiful music, but don't think: "Wow, what fine music I've made. Oh boy, am I really gifted!" It's the same feeling that with children: We don't really make children, do we? Compose them? That is done for us. We just "plant" the seeds. I think that is the feeling with great composers as well. They feel that the music just grow within them, like the child grows within the mother. To say: "This is mine and only mine" would feel like blasphemy of some kind...

So - that is the view on the topic by one modern composer...

www.myspace.com/kjaersdalen

 

Interesting thread, sorry I joined late.

I don't see why music would divinely inspire while carpentry isn't. Or is it? If everything creative action is divinely inspired, that kind of removes the musical focus of this thread.

 

I think you make a good point; and if you were to launch a discussion of inspired carpentry on some carpentry forum somewhere, I'm sure the carpenters who take pride in their work might welcome it.

I do agree that the spirit of creativity can be invoked in many different kinds of creations: from art to architecture, inventions to the remodeling of a bathroom. Anything that is "made" can be imbued with creative energy or "flow."

There is something lofty about the fine arts though, because they ennoble the human spirit like nothing else; and perhaps for this reason, classical music (which one might say resides at or near the pinnacle of the fine arts) seems an ideal milieu to discuss this topic.

 

First of all, I must say that, however much these individuals believe themselves to receive inspiration from God, it is a psychological delusion due to the fact that God (most likely) does not exist. It was an excusable thought in past ages, but I find it dreadfully annoying that so many artists espouse theism in the 21st century.

Secondly, I would very strongly refute the notion that atheism and artistic inspiration are at odds. People who believe this don't truly understand how atheism allows the human mind to open up and perceive the grandeur of the universe, and our blissful insignificance within it. Realising this is the key to the ultimate artistic temperament and, more than that, it's a hundred times more humble than a theist's stance! As Christopher Hitchens said of a certain born-again Christian: "I woke up one day and suddenly realised that the entire universe is all about me."

 

First of all, I must say that, however much these individuals believe themselves to receive inspiration from God, it is a psychological delusion due to the fact that God (most likely) does not exist.

The difficulty with such dogmatic statements is that they leave themselves open to exactly the same criticism as religious fundamentalism. Atheism simply becomes a new One True Way, and quite apart from the philosophical difficulties involved, merely in practical terms it leads to all the usual problems that arise from intolerance of other world views. (Indeed, I'd suggest that to believe one can possess such security of knowledge about anything is a psychological delusion.)

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, it really doesn't matter what our personal beliefs are, here. Artists are inspired by a wide range of insights and beliefs, and theism has inspired some of the most breathtakingly fine art down through the ages. We interfere with the belief systems of others at our peril, I think - particularly when considering those who are responsible for enriching our lives so deeply.

 

How about ... another thread perhaps? Can anyone recall any great musician saying he or she owed ( some of ) his inspiration to the Almighty?

Well, if that were the initial title of your thread then 1) I would 've understood it much better, and 2) I would have realized that the only on topic kind answer would to be to find and list quotes from great composers, rather than embark on a discussion of religious or spiritual beliefs.

 

I think that just about sums it up. I'm not going to argue semantics, but I'd like to point that a different kind of logic needs to be used in reference to religion. What we call "science" is simply a method of logic. And also, if you were to use even the Scientific Method, you could legitimately (and justifiably on a logical standpoint) come to a conclusion that people are, in fact, a sentimental design. Take careful heed of the fact that consciousness seems almost as if it inhabits a different realm than we can physically predict. It feels as if it is a central awareness, but apparently activity is going on throughout our brains to interpret what we are consciously musing upon. Furthermore, there is no definite measurement of emotion, and we can only observe the trail it leaves behind. It has literally no physical manifestation, yet it is very much our keenest human perception, and magnified in us to an extent that is unique in the animal kingdom.

Now if that is just natural evolutionary progress (cognitive perception), than how is it that in the 20k-30k years we've been around (mind you I don't believe there is any precise time line in the bible. They say it took seven days, and then in another passage they state that to God a day is as to one thousand of ours, which is obviously a symbolic reference to the fact that they had no idea due to a lack of scientific achievements yet had), that no other animal hasn't developed similar attributes of cognition (not a single one on even a remotely close magnitude)? One might argue that that is because the hominids died out, and other species were left in the gap so far behind, but also it is theorized from the large variety of different peoples that is so well built in that it obviously would have taken a rather long evolutionary chain to develop such distinct differences, and that our current Homosapien species probably has to be a crossbreed of several different strains of our predecessors: the hominids. Which means that we are a unique strain that has developed capabilities that the other species simply can't replicate (honestly, from an atheist's standpoint, they probably should have by now). There has been ample time: somewhere in the neighborhood of 50k years, which is more time than it took for the ecosystem to entirely change each other time an useful ability presented itself. For proof of such a statement, I would like to relate to you that the eyesight of most species on the planet developed at mostly the same rate (due to competition). Why isn't it that another species didn't rise to the occasion at the same time as us and develop cognitive abilities comparable to ours, so that they fit into a new niche in the food chain?

Now tell me, if things were perfectly definable from a scientific, mainly evolutionary standpoint, than why is it that we trivialize our thoughts with things that are often detrimental to our survival? Why was this very site made if we were designed to be efficient only at living, and reproducing to pass on our genes?

And most importantly, why is that the Bible conveniently seems to solve all of our problems if we listen to it? Just by reading one scripture, I am forever invulnerable. Any guesses as to which passage? I'll oblige you: "As long as I keep my eyes fixed upon the glory of the heavens, all of the treasures of this world seem as rubbish." Bulletproof armor that saves me from shame, contempt, grief of any kind.

Now enough digressing into our own logical shortcomings as humans.

 

I'm sorry if you feel that most of us have digressed, but if you had reworded your question to your recently stated alternative, then I believe the response wouldn't have been as it has been.

However, you must admit that your thread title is: Are great musicians God's voice?, and such a question is going to attract great controversy in the 21st century.

As for some of the responses on here, I won't deride my adversaries by saying that I have found them 'amusing'. However, I would draw attention to the comments of Lukecash12 on the previous page and say that, while your rationale is understandable and I credit you with a good 'attempt', I'm afraid your conclusions are drawn from a woeful misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution. Too many people feel as though they can argue about the theory without actually knowing it properly. I am not here to teach such matters, but I suggest that, if people want to think on their own two feet with actual logic, then you take as a starting point some of Steven Pinker's work on evolutionary psychology, Dawkins' recent book The Greatest Show on Earth and, you never know, even Darwin might help you out.

If that's too much, then I'd highly recommend Dawkins' internet forum, as I have been there often myself, with my own questions, and the community is largely made of up intelligent individuals with insightful knowledge about these issues, who are very much open to strong debate on these matters with rigid logic (hence my forceful tone on this subject; it's a matter of habit).

This time I'm really not going to look at this thread again or my blood will boil!

 

Sorry for my part in pushing your thread the wrong way, but they are interesting tangents.

I'm afraid I don't know enough biographical details to really help you but I find belief in God and more importantly, belief in "music as a God-given gift" most evident in the music rather than quotes. Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms is dedicated to 1) The Boston Philharmonic, and 2) The Glory of God, and many find the latter's influence evident in the work.

Religion aside, I keepo hearing musicians refering to themselves as conduits for music to flow through. It's interesting they don't seem to claim the credit for their work. I'm trying to remember specific examples ... Thom York (singer of Radiohead) is one, in reference to Street Spirit (Fade Out):
"I wish that song hadn't picked us as its catalysts, and so I don't claim it. It asks too much. I didn't write that song."

Also, polednice, your logic is consistantly awful. Sorry.

 

Well that's interesting considering the fact that I didn't demonstrate any use (good or bad) of logic in my most recent post. Evidently, when I leave the realms of a serious debating forum like that of Richard Dawkins, and enter the world of art - particularly classical music, where atheists are lamentably under-represented - I must not expect anywhere near the same level of intellectual rigour. Hopefully time and education will change this sad fact.

 

That's quite possibly the most insulting thing I think I may have ever seen you say.

Forgive me if I misquote it, but here's a little bit of old wisdom for you (interesting enough, it was an Amish proverb): "The one who expresses him/her self most vehemently is normally in the wrong."

Emotions cloud opinions, and yours have obviously gotten the best of you. However much you want to insult my 'intellectual rigour' or somesuch (which I can tolerate unto the end of time), why don't we have a civilized discourse?

If you honestly think you have so much of a better understanding of evolution (heavily subject to assumption; as is the rest of theoretical science), than try to educate me. However much such and such has an ego that gets in the way, however much it should hurt some sort of silly thing folks think I have to have (let's call it the sin of pride), I'm doing this for your own benefit.