200
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 42:
Line 42: + +
→Rewrite: bible/history reply
The debatable material had a source, that's true (although the source was "a private phone call with Terry H"), but the statement itself that music "can be the most dangerous of the arts, when misused" is terribly vague (what constitutes a "misuse" of art?) and very arguable: haven't people rioted over stage plays too? And there has been huge outcry over certain works in the field of visual arts which were considered offensive, or blasphemous. I don't know how one could quantify such things, so I can't see any reason to include the statement. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 12:09, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
The debatable material had a source, that's true (although the source was "a private phone call with Terry H"), but the statement itself that music "can be the most dangerous of the arts, when misused" is terribly vague (what constitutes a "misuse" of art?) and very arguable: haven't people rioted over stage plays too? And there has been huge outcry over certain works in the field of visual arts which were considered offensive, or blasphemous. I don't know how one could quantify such things, so I can't see any reason to include the statement. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 12:09, 4 May 2008 (EDT)
Regarding the Bible / History section, I made two separate sections because Biblical statements about Lucifer being the first musician, or post-flood music dating from the time of Abraham are not verifiable by the methods of historians. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 12:11, 4 May 2008 (EDT)