Sorry, I thought you were interested in having a discussion about what I think (foolishly no doubt) is not just a serious subject but an extremely fascinating one. I'll know next time.

I listened to Macmillan's lecture on Radio 4 yesterday evening, and the heading of this thread seemed a complete travesty of what he said and the tone he said it in.

He did not use the term "mean to drive out".  What he said to me was that there is a tendency is to completely ignore the religious aspect of music (which is relevant, he suggested, in a study of Stravinsky, Schonberg and Messaian) and of the religious aspects of society.

The article quoted him as saying what was needed was acceptance of pluraity, which as he admitted is not something Christian bodies have been noted for in the past.  However I reckon we should always be learing, after all, none of us is infallible, as the Archbishop of Canterbury said to the Pope.

I think Macmillan was had a very good point when he said that there is a lot of hostile comment on religion from people whose study of it is superficial in the extreme.  As Terry Eagleton said in his LRB review of Richard Dawkins, "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology..."

PS to JimD. I'm not sure that I post anything which isn't at some point ironic.

Ah yes, but the point surely is how many of your gentle readers appreciate it as such?

Well, Don B, I've just listened to the whole talk and it's certainly true that the Torygraph gave a very distorted picture of what was contained in it.  Do you think the religious affairs correspondent was stressing the combative elements that he himself wanted to advance?

I listened in vain, though, for any concrete evidence of the 'secular project' that JM disparages and got the feeling that an enormous straw man was being erected to give the speaker an opportunity to advance his theories.  I haven't seen a transcript but, to the best of my memory, we didn't get a single name or verifiable incident to suggest that any such 'project' exists; merely anecdotes and unnamed 'academics'.  And the names we got were most illuminating for me, because I remember the likes of Gubaidulina, Kancheli & Macmillan himself from the Philharmonia's free pre-concert performances and, around the same time in the mid-90s, a whole series of concerts at the SBC being devoted to the work of Arvo Pärt.  No attempt whatsoever was made to deny the influence of their religion on their music.  Coming back to the present day, I don't remember the Proms introducing us to 'Olivier Messiaen - his music was still pretty good even though he was religious'.  The importance of religion to all those artists isn't denied by anyone I know of.  I wonder if Macmillan's problem isn't that he has a little evangelistic project of his own?  He clearly thinks there is a direct connection between his god and his music; but he can hardly expect those of who don't believe his god exists to accept the reality of such a connection.  I like some of Macmillan's music - I think I gave his 2nd PC a glowing write up on these very boards - just as I like a great deal of music by religious composers.  But I also, without taking narcotics myself, enjoy a lot of music by drug-addled artists; and, while it's highly unlikely the music would have been written without the drugs, nobody would seriously claim the drugs had an active role in the creative process.  They were, at the very most, tools used by the human being who conceived the art.  I really don't think Macmillan made any convincing points.

I wouldn't be a tiny bit suprised


Macmillan quoted an anecdote about an academic publisher proposing a series of books on Music and..  Society, Gender, Sexuality, etc.

Someone suggested Music and Religion.  The idea was met with amazement.

And surely there's a very strong anti-religious line in society: from intelligent and articulate people like Richard Dawkins and Polly Toynbee to some of the illiterates commenting on the Telegraph article.

He was not commending any particular religious belief so much as arguing forcefully that it is an element to be taken seriously.

He's talking out of his pseudo-religious orifice, then. There have been numerous recent books on the subject, including by such highly-respected figures as the composer Jonathan Harvey.

I was however unaware until now of the book Richard's just linked to. I want that book!!

All positions - pro, contra and neutral with respect to religion - have their illiterate proponents and their more intelligent and articulate proponents. There are as many intelligent and articulate defenders of religion (and interested sceptics like myself) as there are intelligent and articulate anti-religionists.

Of course it's an element to be taken seriously, but MacMillan's arguing with a straw man.