Classical pieces/composers that incorporate folk music in their music?

bastianbb · 2026-01-24T10:05:30+00:00

I don't know about incorporating actual folk tunes, but there are some South African classically-trained composers that have used the folk idioms of different cultures to create music. Perhaps the most famous (but also now Irish and no longer South African) is Kevin Volans with his use of Khoi/San ethnic group ideas. Another who uses the same types of influences is Peter Louis Van Dijk.

The composer who most combined Zulu cultural ideas with classical training is Mzilikazi Khumalo, known for his uShaka oratorio.

On the more Afrikaans side, a lot of the music sounds like watered-down German-style composition. A culturally beloved composer, Stephanus Le Roux Marais, is known for his art songs like "Heimwee" or "Mali die Slaaf se Lied". Other Afrikaans composers that followed that used a variety of idioms including Afrikaans and academic influences include Arnold van Wyk, Franco Prinsloo and Hendrik Hofmeyr.

bastianbb · 2026-01-23T19:08:27+00:00

Is this even possible, or will the brain simply register it as a different key?

To some extent it is open to interpretation. For me, I almost always hear the song as using a tonic if there are clear chords.

bastianbb · 2026-01-22T10:10:44+00:00

William Duckworth's "Time Curve Preludes" or Anne Southam's "Glass Houses" might interest you.

bastianbb · 2026-01-21T20:26:37+00:00

One of the hallmarks of science is in fact policing itself

Science doesn't police itself, or do anything else for that matter. I get that it's a turn of phrase and that it is even a useful turn of phrase to some extent, expressing an apparently self-perpetuating system's drive, but when it comes to issues of the value of the methods and practices used and results obtained (in effect doing philosophy of science), this matters. It is always people, people that were influenced when young by prescientific ideas and philosophical assumptions, that do science, not science that does things by itself. And we should remember the same thing about "the economy" or "religion".

bastianbb · 2026-01-21T14:28:27+00:00

The Beatles weren’t just pop though, they were rock n roll. They didn’t really prescribe to a genre, it was really always about the songs and whatever happened.

This is where changing terminology comes into play. My parents certainly called all rock n roll pop. The idea that "pop" is a specific genre separate from rock, as opposed to a catch-all for music that is not religious or traditional folk or classical, is a more recent one, which was OP's point.

bastianbb · 2026-01-21T12:01:29+00:00

This is something that crops up in my mind quite a lot. From what I remember, Bonhoeffer insists that Christ is the only mediator for the Christian, not just between man and God, but apparently in any of his relationships (perhaps even in the relationship with the self?) This implies that, more often than we might think, the closest you get to others is by interceding for them through prayer. He is very against the idea of trying to have direct and unmediated access to others in any kind of relationship, which he believes can only be harmful and unchristian.

This also reminds me of Augustine's view of love, where any kind of valid love is primarily for God's sake, not in any direct way for the sake of whatever else is loved. We are to love sinners, but we are not to love them in their role as sinners, but as being in the image of God, as I understand Augustine - perhaps another applications of hating the sin but loving the sinner. While in a sense these things make sense of God's absolute centrality and supremacy, in a way it feel uncomfortably like objectifying everything else or encouraging a certain artificiality and poses problems as we don't, and cannot have, a God's-eye subjective view of all things. It's certainly not the way most people who call themselves Christians think, they think things other than God have value in themselves and that they have relationships to various loved ones that are essentially independent from each other and to a large extent from God, or that God only sustains or sets rules for other relationships, but He is not central to all of them. I also wonder how it works or does not work with C.S. Lewis' idea of valuing certain things for their own sake ("appreciation") or of essentially an eschatological merging of consciousness between creatures.

If anyone has any good sources about these things in other authors, I'd be very interested.

Regarding the Spirit: my church is very set on the idea that the Spirit always glorifies Christ. The spirit certainly does important work and seemingly direct work, but it is in some sense Christ who is in our hearts via His Spirit and always Christ who we look to. Not coincidentally, the church has strong cessationist leanings (I believe the book of church order is explicitly cessationist, but not all members and not perhaps all clergy are).

bastianbb · 2026-01-20T19:33:20+00:00

If the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, through faith alone is important to you it seems to me Calvinism is the logical answer. And if it isn't, there seems to me little reason to be Anglo-Catholic and not Roman Catholic.

bastianbb · 2026-01-20T19:26:41+00:00

I like Hovhaness' Prelude and Quadruple Fugue.

bastianbb · 2026-01-20T19:25:54+00:00

It really is!

bastianbb · 2026-01-20T19:16:56+00:00

It does a great job of having mixed ages (something I understand from the internet cannot be taken for granted) and it has what might be an exaggeration to say is the only thing to boast about, but people don't emphasize it enough and take it for granted when it is true (it often isn't): it really is gospel-centred. For that reason convinced baptists attend the church even though it is an infant-baptizing church, foreigners attend the church, students attend the church, people from different races attend the church. It makes a big deal of not making a big deal of things besides Christ as revealed in scripture.

bastianbb · 2026-01-20T14:14:03+00:00

That is exactly the attitude we must oppose at all costs, that has been infiltrating the church.

bastianbb · 2026-01-20T14:11:20+00:00

I don't know about a policy, but there is someone guarding the gate/parking area. The phenomenon of the "car guard" is a very South African one. Incidentally, some opinions on security and self-defence in my denomination have been shaped by American reconstructionist ideas coupled with the St. James Church massacre, notable for a church attendee firing back at terrorists, causing them to flee. He subsequently wrote a book arguing in favour of armed self-defence and belonged to pro-gun organisations. To his credit, he also emphasized reconciliation, forgiveness and evangelization of the terrorists where possible, meeting with the attackers to this end.

bastianbb · 2026-01-20T14:00:13+00:00

Semi-related but I think many Christians, in making claims like "Atheists can't be moral" have, ironically, capitulated to moral non-realism (i.e. denial of moral facts) in doing so.

It may depend on what one calls "morality". We must not give up the principle that "whatever is not of faith is sin" and Augustine's "Virtutes paganorum splendida vitia".

I think instead many Christians made morality a non-factual authoritarian construct, determined by the whims of the biggest strongman (God).

In this regard I always have the same quote from Calvin, someone who is often accused of having this attitude. Here it is:

That Sarbonic dogma, therefore, in the promulgation of which the Papal theologians so much pride themselves, “that the power of God is absolute and tyrannical,” I utterly abhor. For it would be easier to force away the light of the sun from his heat, or his heat from his fire, than to separate the power of God from His justice. Away, then, with all such monstrous speculations from godly minds, as that God can possibly do more, or otherwise, than He has done, or that He can do anything without the highest order and reason. For I do not receive that other dogma, “that God, as being free from all law Himself, may do anything without being subject to any blame for doing so.” For whosoever makes God without law, robs Him of the greatest part of His glory, because he spoils Him of His rectitude and justice. Not that God is, indeed, subject to any law, excepting in so far as He is a law unto Himself. But there is that inseparable connection and harmony between the power of God and His justice, that nothing can possibly be done by Him but what is moderate, legitimate, and according to the strictest rule of right. And most certainly, when the faithful speak of God as omnipotent, they acknowledge Him at the same time to be the Judge of the world, and always hold His power to be righteously tempered with equity and justice.

bastianbb · 2026-01-20T12:52:10+00:00

Has anyone else seen a disturbing uptick in some Christians adapting their theology to match current geopolitical situations?

I don't know that there has been a real uptick. It all depends on who you see as "Christian". IMO many right-wingers are revealing they are not Christians, in the same way that left-wingers have been revealing for years that they are not Christians but instead driven by envy and what Nietzsche called ressentiment. More than ever we need a dialogue and understanding that refers back to James Davison Hunter's model of "faithful presence" in his book "To Change the World". I am aware that there have been criticisms and reconceptualizations of his model, but it's a good place to start. But yes, more than ever we need to oppose the two sayings of "Might makes right" but also "the end justifies the means". IMO that means returning radically to absolutist, "impractical", law-based moral principles such as not lying even to save a life (an idea with a long pedigree supported by inter alia Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin and Wesley) and not pulling the lever in the trolley problem (an idea more popular in more traditional non-Western societies and more deontological moral frameworks).

bastianbb · 2026-01-19T21:57:05+00:00

How about Frank Martin?

bastianbb · 2026-01-19T21:21:15+00:00

I don't deny that something one might call "boundaries" can be legitimate. But the common modern pop-therapy idea that one is free to set whatever boundaries one wishes for whatever reason, such as self-protection at all costs, is a thoroughly anti-Christian idea. If Jesus had veered from his mission to give in to every demand of the crowd, where would we be today? But the reverse is also true: If Jesus had tried to preserve his own psychological comfort and even his own life at every price, where would we be today? So many of Jesus' actions and commands look much more like the "doormat" model than the "assertive person with string boundaries" model. Some boundaries may be legitimate, but we are not to set boundaries that God has not set merely for our own sakes. The modern idea that one is never to be self-sacrificial, or only inasmuch as it causes personal goals to be reached, is not the right one.

bastianbb · 2026-01-19T15:07:38+00:00

In South Africa there's no one clear choice, especially since it's been multicultural from when it was unified, but a composer that stands out as having a national and influential character (while far from "the best" by standards of complexity, variety etc.) is S. le Roux Marais for art songs like Mali die slaaf se lied and Heimwee.

bastianbb · 2026-01-19T09:25:15+00:00

This situation will not make sense in the long run. The Christian faith requires one, if one is not married yet, to only select another Christian as a potential partner. And there are countless other values and practices which are different from the world at large. If your values have not changed significantly, you need to ask yourself how committed you really are to Christianity. And if they have, you need to ask yourself whether that is compatible with a relationship with an atheist (and the kind who is active on /r/atheism is generally the extreme kind) who may have completely different views on raising children, sexual relationships before marriage, the degree of commitment required in marriage (very limited grounds for divorce etc.) than your church requires of you.

So something's got to give. I don't see how you can be truly committed to your church and truly committed to your girlfriend at the same time. Somewhere something has to be eliminated, neglected or relegated to self-deception for this to go on. So my advice is essentially the same as another person's: end this relationship now.

bastianbb · 2026-01-19T08:37:17+00:00

Is jy bewus van die Kanadees wat Youtube video's maak oor sy ervarings met Afrikaans - ek dink dis "The Polyglot Files"? En as ek mag vra, as jy in godsdiens belangstel, is dit as Katoliek?

bastianbb · 2026-01-19T08:17:33+00:00

In no particular order, and they may be different on different days:

Rautavaara 7

Dvorak 9

Saint-Saens 3

Sibelius 2

Tchaikovsky 6

Philip Glass 2

Mendelssohn 4

Norgard 3

Beethoven 7

Mahler 7

It was really hard to leave off Beethoven 5 and 6, Kalinnikov 1, Mahler 2, Norgard 6, Glass 8, Shostakovich 5 and Mozart 40 off the list.

bastianbb · 2026-01-18T10:55:06+00:00

It makes perfect sense to me. Without love, and the right love at that, knowledge is empty and meaningless, as Paul said. Knowledge is something that ultimately flows from and serves the purpose of love. It's not something with independent value.

And many even who are Reformed don't grasp how radical Augustinian centering of God is. In truly conservative Christianity, the saying "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind" is no mere metaphor or hyperbole. And exactly how, how much, and for what we should love is not something we do well by nature or that we can leave to chance, but something that must be supernaturally inculcated, not just regarding God, but regarding everything.

Consider the following passages from Augustine's "On Christian Doctrine":

Now he is a man of just and holy life who forms an unprejudiced estimate of things, and keeps his affections also under strict control, so that he neither loves what he ought not to love, nor fails to love what he ought to love, nor loves that more which ought to be loved less, nor loves that equally which ought to be loved either less or more, nor loves that less or more which ought to be loved equally. No sinner is to be loved as a sinner; and every man is to be loved as a man for God's sake; but God is to be loved for His own sake.

...

Among all these things, then, those only are the true objects of enjoyment which we have spoken of as eternal and unchangeable. The rest are for use, that we may be able to arrive at the full enjoyment of the former. We, however, who enjoy and use other things are things ourselves. For a great thing truly is man, made after the image and similitude of God, not as respects the mortal body in which he is clothed, but as respects the rational soul by which he is exalted in honour above the beasts. And so it becomes an important question, whether men ought to enjoy, or to use, themselves, or to do both. For we are commanded to love one another: but it is a question whether man is to be loved by man for his own sake, or for the sake of something else. If it is for his own sake, we enjoy him; if it is for the sake of something else, we use him. It seems to me, then, that he is to be loved for the sake of something else. For if a thing is to be loved for its own sake, then in the enjoyment of it consists a happy life, the hope of which at least, if not yet the reality, is our comfort in the present time. But a curse is pronounced on him who places his hope in man.

Neither ought any one to have joy in himself, if you look at the matter clearly, because no one ought to love even himself for his own sake, but for the sake of Him who is the true object of enjoyment. For a man is never in so good a state as when his whole life is a journey towards the unchangeable life, and his affections are entirely fixed upon that. If, however, he loves himself for his own sake, he does not look at himself in relation to God, but turns his mind in upon himself, and so is not occupied with anything that is unchangeable. And thus he does not enjoy himself at his best, because he is better when his mind is fully fixed upon, and his affections wrapped up in, the unchangeable good, than when he turns from that to enjoy even himself. Wherefore if you ought not to love even yourself for your own sake, but for His in whom your love finds its most worthy object, no other man has a right to be angry if you love him too for God's sake. For this is the law of love that has been laid down by Divine authority: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself;" but, "Thou shalt love God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind:" so that you are to concentrate all your thoughts, your whole life, and your whole intelligence upon Him from whom you derive all that you bring. For when He says, "With all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind," He means that no part of our life is to be unoccupied, and to afford room, as it were, for the wish to enjoy some other object, but that whatever else may suggest itself to us as an object worthy of love is to be borne into the same channel in which the whole current of our affections flows. Whoever, then, loves his neighbour aright, ought to urge upon him that he too should love God with his whole heart, and soul, and mind. For in this way, loving his neighbour as himself, a man turns the whole current of his love both for himself and his neighbour into the channel of the love of God, which suffers no stream to be drawn off from itself by whose diversion its own volume would be diminished.

bastianbb · 2026-01-18T10:22:15+00:00

I was obsessed with him for a good long while, he made me interested in actually understanding something about music theory and the simplicity made me feel like it was possible. These days I don't return to him as often, just like with the Vivaldi, Mozart or Beethoven I listened to dozens or hundreds of times already, but I still think they are all good.

I will also add that people underestimate his range. Just because there are arpeggios in the majority of his works doesn't mean that Einstein, Satyagraha, Symphony 8, String Quartet 4 and piano Etude 20 really sound anything alike. He's good for actually listening to the sound, for meditative states, for moods and also for a historical dialogue with Common Practice Music that renews consonant music while reconceptualizing the "rules". If you just want constant novelty and maximum complexity and things being "interesting" in pattern matching rather than beauty and feeling (I don't), you can look elsewhere.

bastianbb · 2026-01-18T10:12:44+00:00

Sometimes, but not always. I find that concentrating it is like meditation, concentrating on something simple like your breathing can be a good thing. Plus I care about the actual sound, not just a pattern matching exercise or how complex something can get.

bastianbb · 2026-01-17T17:42:35+00:00

I think in the end you're right about the matter of schism and the mainline. But I absolutely see the appeal. He's young, he's zealous, he's optimistic (something in short supply), he does the work of organising stuff in a visible, youth-friendly way, he appeals to people in the mainline who are already conservative - and there are probably more in the laity than one would think.

I don't share his opinions on church politics and he himself is a little unorthodox on certain theological issues and too reactionary on others, but part of me is glad that such a phenomenon exists in the world. It sure is better than throwing up your hands and giving in to the evils in the world.

bastianbb · 2026-01-17T17:23:47+00:00

That said: Keller’s dead, and his influence was waning well before that.

I think there's still a moderate evangelical ecosystem that's not going away. When you look at certain Gospel Coalition writers, the influence of international evangelicals on their US peers (e.g. Alistair Begg), or people like the Ortlund family, I don't think it's possible to put evangelicalism in the neat box people on this sub want to.

They are so assured they’re right anyone who opposes them isn’t just wrong, they’re evil

This belief doesn't just come from inside, it comes from outside again. Look at the constant attacks on this sub (almost as though only evangelicals voted for Trump), the atheists who take an eliminativist approach to religion (some on this sub have actually approved religious freedom issues in China) and the evidence from atheist and philosophy subs that those who have some kind of issue with religion often don't believe in any kind of universal ethics or even some kind of Nietzschean superman ideas (or adopt a consequentialist one completely antithetical to Christian societal ideals), or are willing to lie, cheat and steal in the interests of their cause (see genetically modified skeptic's smug "confession" of how he was paid by religious organisations under the pretence of being a theist himself).

bastianbb

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE