Spirituality and Music

At Christmas, I had a book about drone metal and spirituality, which was a fascinating read. 6 months later, this is a much deeper reflection on the wider issues around this.

Now, just to do this properly, I will start by defining terms. This is not just about drone, but wider, however, it draws on experiences recently attending a gig with two drone bands. This will therefore be a longer post than usual, seeking to explore the wider understanding. I have also seen some interesting techno artists at Bluedot, which also feeds into this.

Spirituality

This is a difficult question as to what this means. Especially coming from a Quaker perspective, because we don't really like to define this. In a broad sense, and for this post, I am defining this as a sense of connection to an "Other" a "numinous". An understanding of a wider reality. This is deliberately broad, and covers a vast range of experiences.

And specifically, this was my experience with the gig I attended. The band - Nadja - make a lot of noise, and it is all-enveloping. And as part of this, I found that I experienced something very special - a real sense of being enveloped by the music, held by it, and transported by it. That was a spiritual experience.

Music

This is actually as complex a question as the spirituality one. And the answer will be as challenging to define.

Most formal definitions of music would include the elements of Melody, Harmony and Rhythm. This is where is becomes difficult, because some drone music has none of these. Well, sometimes there some rhythm, but that is usually all. And lyrics are scarce and utilised as another instrument, rather than as words to sing along with.

While one of the bands I saw did have some interaction - the singer came into the audience to scream into her mike. But there are a lot of bands of various forms (not just drone) known as shoegaze which is explicitly not interacting with the audience. It is - for these - about the music, not the performance, although the actual performance of the music is a different experience to just listening at home.

For the context here, music realy covers any aural experience. Probably a positive one for at least some people. Even though my parents might say "You call this music?".

To add to this, a lot of techno is heavily dependent on rhythm - although that is often also played with. And often little or not melody or harmony.

So, worship songs then?

Let me make one point firstly, that is probably contraversial, but I feel very strongly (which means that there is a very good chance that others feel the same).

Most of the music that we consider "spiritual" isn't. It is words put to music, and so often the purpose of the music is to lend a background to the words. Whether this is hymns played on an organ or songs played by a band, the music is not the important part. In fact, if the music is too prominent, there will probably be complaints that the band are "performing". This applies to great classical works too - those mostly considered very deeply spiritual includes words - singing.

Often, when we sing songs and hymns, while the words are considered important, we often sing them without really engaging with them. This is why songs can be really good for remembering information. We remember, but don't engage with the meaning of the words so much. It means that whether the information or idea is correct, we will embrace it. That is part of the power of music and songs, that we can absorb the words easily.

It is important to remember that, just because an expression rhymes doesn't mean it is good theology.

This sounds obvious, but I have seen so much theology that seems to think that word-plays make for good theological ideas - sometimes, they do, but that is when someone has worked to make an easily-remembered phrase from a truth.

A lot of the music traditionally associated with "worship" consists of "tunes" - either hymn tunes or song tunes, often designed to be straightforward to learn and/or play. Which does not necessarily make for good music. Songs are great for learning and remembering. But not always for anything deeper.

Songs without words?

For me - spiritual music is just music, without words. I am not down on words, but they serve a different purpose for me. 

The problem for me is that I want to - need to - engage with the words and understand them and process them. But when there are no words, but there is music, I can let it flow through me, take me on and move me. Music engages with a different part of the brain, and that part of the brain engages with our emotions. 

For grabbing and engaging, for taking you to another place, doing without the words means that you can engage with the emotion of the music instead, the feel, the other-ness.

Spirituality and music is complex.And so often, in church environments, because there is a clearly defined place for music, we don't explore this any deeper. And, of course, in Quakers, we typically have no music at all (which is fine for me, because I get my music injection elsewhere). But maybe we miss out, because we don't have ways of exploring spirituality and music - we dont have the discussions either, because they are not seen as specifically relevant.

And why is this on a Quaker blog?

Always a relevant question! But I think there are good reasons for this.

When I look at words, when reading, learning, exploring, I focus on the words. There is an intensity of word-focus there. Within Quakers, our silence is also intense. We do have words, of course, but they are also brief and intense in intent. The ultimate focus that the silence gives us is the purpose, and anything else comes out from this intensity.

But the music I love most is also intense. And, I think, for me at least, it is this intensity that helps me to engage with the more, the other, and so inspires my spirituality, my sense of the reality of the other. And I think - to an extent - this is why I could no longer stay in a church where the music was not inspiring. Rather - where music as a concept was not really given prominence.