Daniel Amos Message Board | Print: A question for Camrillo/Uncle Terry/Tim/whoever wants to chime in

Posted by Strange Animal on 03-24-2007 at22:10:

semantics [Gr.,=significant] in general, the study of the relationship between words and meanings. The empirical study of word meanings and sentence meanings in existing languages is a branch of linguistics; the abstract study of meaning in relation to language or symbolic logic systems is a branch of philosophy. Both are called semantics. The field of semantics has three basic concerns: the relations of words to the objects denoted by them, the relations of words to the interpreters of them, and, in symbolic logic, the formal relations of signs to one another (syntax).

In linguistics, semantics has its beginnings in France and Germany in the 1820s when the meanings of words as significant features in the growth of language was recognized. Among the foremost linguistic semanticists of the 20th cent. are Gustaf Stern, Jost Trier, B. L. Whorf, Uriel Weinreich, Stephen Ullmann, Thomas Sebeok, Noam Chomsky, Jerrold Katz, and Charles Osgood. In the linguistics of recent years an offshoot of transformational grammar theory has reemphasized the role of meaning in linguistic analysis. This new theory, developed largely by George Lakoff and James McCawley, is termed generative semantics. In anthropology a new theoretical orientation related to linguistic semantics has been developed. Its leading proponents include W. H. Goodenough, F. G. Lounsbury, and Claude Lévi-Strauss.

In philosophy, semantics has generally followed the lead of symbolic logic, and many philosophers do not make a distinction between logic and semantics. In this context, semantics is concerned with such issues as meaning and truth, meaning and thought, and the relation between signs and what they mean. The leading practitioners have been Gottlob Frege, Lady Welby, Bertrand Russell, Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, Alonzo Church, Alfred Tarski, C. I. Lewis, Ludwig Wittgenstein, J. L. Austin, W. V. Quine, P. F. Strawson, Steven Schiffer, John Searle, H. P. Grice, Saul Kripke, Donald Davidson, and Gilbert Harman.

Since the publication of the influential The Meaning of Meaning (1925) by C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, semantics has also become important to literary criticism and stylistics, in which the way that metaphors evoke feelings is investigated and differences between ordinary and literary language are studied. A related discipline, general semantics (so called to distinguish it from semantics in linguistics or philosophy), studies the ways in which meanings of words influence human behavior. General semantics was developed by Alfred Korzybski. The key term in Korzybski's system is evaluation, the mental act that is performed by the hearer when a word is spoken. Among the most prominent followers of Korzybski are Stuart Chase, S. I. Hayakawa, and H. L. Weinberg.

Posted by Crinklepot on 03-24-2007 at22:26:

The meaning of words (and more importantly, what they mean to the writer) is very important. Happy

Especially in the realms of comedy, music and other written arts. I spend a lot of time playing with words and their meanings...

Posted by Ron E on 03-25-2007 at00:17:

^as seen by editing 4 times! Smile

You'll have to ask PuP about the fine art of just reposting 12 times...

Posted by sondance on 03-25-2007 at18:09:

Ultimately this is a broad subject which could be approached from ethical, scriptural, aesthetic, financial, and more angles.
I start to track down any one of these and get tangled up in another two or three, which is my confession of my unworthiness to provide more than a few simple thoughts in response.

Paul was complimentary of the Bereans who studied to see if his teaching agreed with the scriptures. Generally if we assert that a work of art is for the purpose of ministry then we also intend it to be subject to scrutiny of some sort, else there is no ministry going on. Ministry assumes what is given is received for the sake of edification. There are at least 2 kinds of reception: simple faith (passive acceptance) and thoughtful consideration (active acceptance like the Bereans). I think in our best moments we reserve the first kind for God alone as He alone is worthy of complete trust. There is a geeky phrase to capture this: "in God we trust, all others bring data". Gosh, I just love springing that on some unsuspecting neophyte to the world of compulsive and endless analysis. What musician, artist, minister, commentator or critic deserves my complete trust?

What I would say to anyone who claims to offer us their artistic output in the name of Christian ministry and thereby claims an exemption from critique is "nonsense". Now they are in good company because I would say the same thing to the Pope if he were to tell me that his ideas are infallible. If they preach we evaluate their preaching, if they sing we evaluate their singing, if they interpret we evaluate their interpretation, if they minister we evaluate their ministry. And so do they to any one else claiming to engage them in similar fashion. It is how ideas are transferred from one heart to another.

What may be at times lacking in the Christian market place is a loving manner by which we tell the truth according to us about ourselves. That could be a meaningful vein of exploration for students of Christian media. Like much of what we do in Christ's name, it is not the thing itself but the manner in which it is done that gives the best evidence of its validity.

Posted by Audiori J on 03-26-2007 at09:36:

I agree sondance. I think its a big mixture of faith, spirituality, message, ministry, intention, goals, business, finances, so on and so on. The fact that it is a mixture I believe opens them up to the right for others to write negative reviews if they like. It is art, with a message of faith worked into it. The art can be critiqued, and the message can be held to the light of scripture.

Posted by Jeff Christworthy on 03-26-2007 at09:50:

Thumb Up!

If you express your faith through song, you just might be a CCM artist.

If you are sold in Christian Bookstores, you just might be a CCM artist.

If your tours consist of coffee houses, clubs, living rooms, barns and Churches, you just might be a CCM artist.

If you play at Christian music festivals, you just might be a CCM artist.

If you've ever been featured on the cover of CCM, you just might be a CCM artist.

If your albums are on a Christian label and distrubited by a Christian company, you just might be a CCM artist.

If you have a Dove award on your mantle, you just might be a CCM artist.

If you have appeared on the 700 Club, you just might be a CCM artist.

If most of your freinds and members of your band live in Nashville, you just might be a CCM artist.

If well known pastors ask you to play their big tent revivals, you just might be a CCM artist.

If your songs are ever played on Christian radio, you just might be a CCM artist.

Posted by Mountain Fan on 03-26-2007 at10:58:

ha ha Roll Eyes

Posted by dennis on 03-26-2007 at21:12:

I like what this guy has to say.

thoughts on Johnny Cash and CCM

Posted by audiori on 03-26-2007 at22:18:

Yeah, many aspects of the Christian Music industry have been a curse on many artists in many ways.

But, it is what it is. Many of the same criticisms I would have for the CCM industry, I would also have for the mainstream most of the time. Good or bad, thats the industry that we're still dealing with most of the time...

Posted by Eis on 03-29-2007 at22:05:

Here is my rough draft for my article: helpful criticism is welcomed.

Criticism: A Shot of Love?
In CCM Magazine over the last few months, there has been a bit of a rehashing of an old controversy in the Contemporary Christian Music industry. Though CIU is far removed from Nash Vegas, home of the CCM industry, I think this issue directly bears upon our lives. “But I don’t listen to Christian music and I’ve never even heard of CCM Magazine,” I hear someone saying. Well, as the wise man once said: ignorance is bliss. You go right back to listening to your Switchfoot and Mutemath, none the wiser and all the better for your lack of intimate knowledge of the inner workings of Nashville. But first, hear me out.

Our story begins in 1991 with the release of Carman’s Addicted To Jesus record. No, don’t go turn off the lights—it’s not a scary ghost story. Well, not that kind, anyway. John Styll, then editor and publisher of CCM Magazine and now president of the Gospel Music Association, picked up the assignment to review the album since no one else wanted to do it. He gave what I consider to be a very fair and balanced review—essentially, he said that it sucked. the Tuxedo Clad Megastar took this as a personal attack and it was a few years before he and CCM Magazine worked out their differences. This was not the first controversy over album reviews; in 1986 an open letter calling for Christian periodicals to abandon album reviews and music charts was signed by 66 well-known Christian artists and producers. What was their reasoning? “To attempt to judge a work that is born of the Spirit by the standards of the flesh and the world can only breed confusion and damage the hearts and the work of the people of God.” In a letter to the editor published in the March issue of CCM Magazine, the reasoning was as follows: “I don’t believe anyone—even those very familiar with the Christian music industry—should judge the work of fellow Christians. I have to believe that Christian artists who dedicate their lives to bringing others to God through music do so in response to an intimate calling.”

Now, I see a college tuition rate-sized problem with the argument here. While it is true that many Christian musicians see their work as a ministry, that ministry is wedded to a business world full of products and consumers. It’s all well and good to say that we shouldn’t judge an artist’s CD because it is her offering to God, but unless she wants to follow through on her convictions like Keith Green and give her music away for free, then she is asking me to pay $16 for her “ministry.” My pastor doesn’t ask me to pay for his sermons (well, I do come from a Baptist tradition…). So we’re already working with a different animal here; subjective a process as it may be, we are all going to judge the artistic merits of a CD and decide whether or not we like it. Album reviews can be helpful in guiding our choices of which products to purchase.

My real problem with the logic of the album-review dissenters, however, is the underlying notion that the application of the term ministry to an activity or product should make that thing exempt from critique. On an Internet message board that I frequent, I asked for opinions on this subject. Jerry Davidson, formerly of the band Jacob’s Trouble (they wrote a great song called “These Thousand Hills” that Third Day later covered on their Offerings record) had this to say: “If a doctor was called to the ministry of helping the sick in India or Africa is he still liable for malpractice? Should he not be held responsible for doing sloppy or substandard work just because it’s a ministry?” I fear that not only artists in the field of Christian music, but also film-makers, pastors, worship leaders, and university students may use ministry as a hiding place where our mediocrity can remain un-assailed. I cringe every time I hear a worship leader say “let’s just make a joyful noise unto the Lord;” not because I disagree with the idea that we can all worship God through song even if we are not musically gifted, but because so often those words are an apology for a band that has not practiced enough or an attempt to get an apathetic group of worshippers to at least pretend like they care.

The mediocrity in all aspects of life that I and many of my brothers and sisters settle for is frightening enough, especially in light of Col. 3:23-24: “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men […]. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve.” I know that in context Paul is exhorting slaves, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that these words may be applied to our lives generally. If then we ought to strive for excellence in all our work, how can we possibly use ministry as a shield to deflect the scrutiny and honest criticism of our brothers and sisters? I have an idea for how we might remedy the situation. I can’t promise that it’s a good idea, but I’m trying and I trust you to let me know where it’s weak. Perhaps we can counter this misuse of the word ministry by salvaging the word accountability from being restricted to problems with pornography and doing daily devotions.

For instance, I am a people-pleaser; I really want people to like me and am often devastated by criticism. I will mull over conversations for days, thinking how I might have better handled myself in a situation (If only I had told the joke about the priest, the rabbi, and the llama…). But the reason I do these things is mostly an image concern—I want to you to think that I did a good job with something more than I care about the job itself. Instead of being so concerned with how we are perceived by others, let us so love the truth that we invite the Body of Christ to speak the truth in love wherever there is room for improvement in our lives and ministries. And as we in turn examine the work of others, let us not condemn, but rather let us pursue a ministry of exhortation and correction. How could we fail to thrive in such a humbling yet uplifting community?

Posted by ladrtrk55 on 03-30-2007 at15:14:

RE: I like what this guy has to say.

quote:

Originally posted by dennis
thoughts on Johnny Cash and CCM

Amazing.
And then I segued into Phil Keaggy's semi-rant. If we only knew then what we know now about music, the gospel, CCM, and being relavant.

"JPMs", good grief....Lord please forgive them, for they shoulda known better.

Posted by peawinkel on 03-30-2007 at15:56:

You did a good job, Eis............

of course, that's really all you wanted to know
Wink

Posted by Audiori J on 03-30-2007 at16:25:

Well written and I agree with it Eis.

Posted by Eis on 03-30-2007 at17:18:

I've gotten to this weird place recently where I can't write a title for anything without tying it to a song title/lyrics.

Posted by dennis on 03-31-2007 at06:18:

Yes... good stufff Eis.

Reminds me of this:

Psalm 33:3
Sing a new song of praise to him;play skillfully on the harp, and sing with joy.

Posted by dennis on 03-31-2007 at06:32:

"...first you have to be able to play the kind of music the people are going to accept
and they'll say well that's professional I like what they play."
~Terry S. Taylor

Posted by sondance on 03-31-2007 at21:11:

Looks great Eis - thanks for sharing your process the DaMB, home away from home for all that is not CCM...

Posted by dennis on 03-31-2007 at22:11:

RE: I know what you're saying, but:

quote:

Originally posted by dennis
Take The 77s for example.

Mike Roes takes the history of Rock from folks like the Carter Family, Hank Williams and to Sun Records and onward with it's blues and gospel and soul and boogie woogie that showed the whole of life. Songs about work, family, life and religion are a part of the tradition of Rock and Roll.
The tradition of Johnny Cash.
Jerry Lee Lewis.
Elvis.
Carl Perkins.
Little Richard.

The great and noble tradition of Rock and Roll.

The 77s Reviews

Rolling Stone
Issue 500 May 21st, 1987
by Margot Mifflin

The 77's are a Bay Area band whose 1984 debut LP, All Fall Down, hit the top of many college charts. Their new release explores the terrain between rollicking rock and lugubrious blues, using memorable hooks, quirky guitars and heady lyrics. While this record suggests the group has varied influences – from Duane Eddy to Echo and the Bunnymen – it succeeds by virtue of Mike Roe's unusual singing and songwriting. Roe shows remarkable vocal diversity, from the Billy Idol baritone of "I Can't Get over It" to the Lou Reed-like talk-singing of "I Could Laugh," a ponderous, cynical plaint underscored by sparse acoustic guitar. In "Pearls Before Swine," the pick of this litter, he laments the selling of a soul.

None of the songs tells much of a story – they're more about attitude and ambiance. In the case of "Frames Without Photographs," Roe's lyrics are downright silly. But his delivery, idiosyncratic without being mannered, propels this record. The 77's have digested a smorgasbord of pop and rock history – mostly of the Fifties and Sixties – and come up with a sound that suggests not only that they know where they're coming from but also that they're going places. (RS 500)