[/QUOTE]
The #4 ‘Bible’ is the determiner of what is ‘Biblical’. Are you sure that #4 ‘Music’ cannot be the determiner of what is ‘musical’?
Yes, because 4. means "this piece of music" - the percussion piece.
It can't mean both this particular piece and also music as an abstract concept.
A specific piece of music such as a percussion piece cannot determine what is musical, but the Bible(and only the Bible) can and must determine what is Biblical.
I would think even dynamic markings, tempo markings, and even articulations which the composer indicated in the music, can be considered as being “of the music” and therefore, musical.
Of course these things are musical. But they don't define what "musical" means.
The Bible (4) determines what is Biblical (2).
This piece of music (4) does not determine what is musical (2).
I'd like to say it's close enough for the point of the exercise, but I'm afraid I still don't know what the point of the exercise is.
[/QUOTE]
Though I don’t know if it makes a difference, I do want to get some facts straight by reviewing, so as to clear up or avoid some potential confusion. Remember, post #67 contains the critical changes. I changed (1) to ‘percussion’, as in the ‘percussion section of an ensemble’ (not a percussion solo like it used to) and (4) is ‘music’, not a ‘percussion piece’, but just a music composition which happens to have percussion as part of the ensemble. I’m not sure if it could, but I don’t want it to become something it isn’t. (1) Percussion; (4) music.
I apologize for what is to become a lengthy explanation. Although I know you’d like to say my example is close enough, given your explanations, I think it is closer than you realize. I think you, sort of, asked what my point of this exercise was. I want to come up with an example of the original, using a different, non-religious topic, which communicates in the same manner as the original. Does that answer your question, or are you asking to find out my motives for having such a goal?
Using (4) ‘music’ in my example is not an abstract concept. In my example, I use “the music” in the same way as the original author uses “the Bible”. The original author was referring to a specific Bible, the Holy Bible, of which there are many translations. There are, I imagine, other central texts (bibles) from non-Christian religions. The original author would not claim a doctrine from the Holy Bible as a Biblical doctrine from a non-Christian Bible, so when the author claims the doctrine is ‘Biblical’, we know of which s/he is speaking. Technically, a non-Christian religion could claim a doctrine of theirs is Biblical too, if the doctrine is “of their Holy Book”. Of course it would not be a Holy Bible ‘Biblical doctrine’, but I think you can see my point. We are assuming (and rightly so) that this author is speaking of the Holy Bible - Bible, when referring to something as being Biblical.
Now why can’t I speak of a piece of music in the same way? The original author is basically saying, since the substance of the doctrine is rooted in the Bible, it is “of the Bible” and therefore is ‘Biblical’. Yes, this Holy Bible determines what this author is terming ‘Biblical’, and only the Holy Bible, assuming it has been translated correctly from the original texts, can determine what is ‘Biblical’ from that perspective. I am saying that same thing in my example with something being musical. It is not an abstract concept. I would not use a piece of ‘classical music’ to determine what is musical in a piece of ‘rock music’ (although there are going to be similar components in both), or vice versa. Yet, someone might incorrectly say that the vocals in a specific piece of ‘rock music’ is not musical and is instead just a bunch of ‘noise’. Technically speaking, regardless of how it sounds, it belongs to that music and is by default, muiscal. I’ll explore that idea a bit more. If we take a look at the way I use the term ‘musical’ (which is in the same way that the original author uses ‘Biblical’), we can see it means “of or relating to music” (or in the original, “of or relating to the Bible” – whichever Bible is being referred to as the source). For example, in the middle of a traditional performance of the Haydn Cello Concerto in C-major, inserting vocalizations from a specific piece of rock music would not be musical, because those vocalizations are not “of the music” from Haydn. But in the performance of Dave Matthews’ & Tim Reynolds’ song, entitled “EH HEE”, the vocalizations are an essential part and are now musical. It is the piece of music that determines if those ‘vocalizations’ are musical, in the same way a specific Bible determines if something is Biblical in that piece of religious literature.
This is why I changed (2) in my example to say ‘musical’. I think, had I left (2) as ‘music’, I would have run into that exact abstract concept you mention.
I’m glad you agree that the dynamic markings, etc. are all musical. But I hope you can see why they are musical. Pieces of music do define what is musical. Certainly, hitting pots and pans in the sink while cleaning them doesn’t make them musical, but when a music composer/arranger sticks them in a composition of music, they transform from being cooking instruments into musical instruments.
In my example of the original, the percussion is a part of the ensemble performing a musical composition. The percussion section is not musical based on any melodic line in the piece, and I’ve also shown how the material makeup of the instrument(s) doesn’t even determine whether or not it is musical. Instead, it is musical because it is “of or relating to” a composition of music. In the original and my example of the original, the author states that main point: (4) possesses the substance of (1) and therefore, (1) is (2). You can see, (4) determines what is (2) in both cases.
Let me know if I need to clarify more.
Thanks.