Pablo Massa wrote:

>Robert Peters:
>
>>Music has been used as propaganda for ages, that is: mostly propaganda
>>for the Roman Catholic Church (later for all the regimes you can think of,
>>for countless monarchies, for communists and capitalists and so on).  All
>>the masses e.g.  do not speak exclusively about faith and the condition
>>humaine in the face of God but also very often of the "one and only
>>true" church who ordered and used them.
>
>That's a bit unfair and simplistic.  Western musical language was
>developed almost entirely at the church practice: our posibility of
>writing music down is a result of this.  "Propaganda" means in some way "a
>malicious lie", and I don't think this expression fitted to Catholic Church
>music (which is its most ancient liturgical custom).  ...

Let me explain my point once more.

1) I do not want to hurt any religious feelings (being myself, in my own
sweet way, a religious person).  I have respect for any religion.  But my
problem with them is that they all claim to speak the "truth".  (And worse:
some want to missionize.) For me there is not one truth, there are a lot of
truths and every religious statement is a metaphor not something factual.
So, far from saying that Judaism or Roman Catholicism are "malicious lies",
I think it is true to say that orthodox Jews and Catholics propagate their
truth (and think it exclusive).

2) I love church chants and listen very often to music by Josquin,
Hildegard, Perotin and the likes.  It is soothing, meditative music which
speaks of a mysterious and moving faith.  But this world is this world:
religion has always been political.  Take a piece like Mozart's Coronation
Mass.  It is religious music and speaks of faith.  But it is written for
a political occasion (a coronation) and it is not meant to criticize the
crowned ruler.  Church and monarchy go hand in hand and the artist is the
servant who celebrates both.  (Examples from worldly music: Britten's
"Gloriana" for Elizabeth II, Monteverdi's "Orfeo" for the Duke of Mantua)
So artists served all the time for the mighty, often were paid by them,
gave them music, usable as and sometimes actually designed to be
"propaganda", as I want to call it.

3) My conclusion: I, as a teacher, want to awaken in my pupils a sense
of history and interconnections.  So it is okay to just enjoy and analyze
a work of art.  But I think the occupation with art is incomplete without
contemplating on the whole history of the work of art and that means, too:
why has it been written, for whom has it been written.  I like people who
are able to enjoy AND criticize.  (Because, you know, like Beethoven, I
want the world to be changed - by people with emotion, passion, tolerance
and critical mind).

Robert Peters
[log in to unmask]