Here’s something really nice: an impromptu choir formed to join David Byrne in singing a David Bowie song. These are the kinds of communal heroes we should encourage.
Byrne comments:
What happens when one sings together with a lot of other people?
A couple of things I immediately noticed. There is a transcendent feeling in being subsumed and surrendering to a group. This applies to sports, military drills, dancing… and group singing. One becomes a part of something larger than oneself, and something in our makeup rewards us when that happens. We cling to our individuality, but we experience true ecstasy when we give it up.
The second thing that happens involves the physical act of singing. I suspect the regulated breathing involved in singing, the act of producing sound and opening one’s mouth wide calls many many neural areas into play. The physical act, I suspect, releases endorphins as well. In singing, we get rewarded by both mind and body.
No one has to think about any of the above-we “know” these things instinctively. Anyone who has attended a gospel church service, for example, does not need to be told what this feels like.
So, the reward experience is part of the show.
That was spine-tingling awesome!
If only those mean athiests would stop trying to ban singing. Like the wee free church of Scotland. Some of the best songs are religious. And some of the most automatic dreary drivel is too. But what does God like? Every believer knows God, and His taste in music. In their personal relationship, that by stunning coincidence mirrors 1:1 their personal preferences. A supernatural magic mind beyond our comprehension would most probably favour simple rhymes a child would find embarrassing. And what could delight a transcendent being more than repetitive air vibrations? It’s what He lives for!
It’s missing summat…oh yeah, Bowie’s voice and Fripp’s guitar.
I love Byrne’s comments (one of the smartest singers and songwriters ever, imo).
I have been advocating for a while now that atheists should try to reclaim the word “spiritual” from the theists. There is a real need for a word that means “The emotion that comes from being a part of something larger than oneself.” It can come from lots of things — being out in nature, music, architecture, a political rally — but it is a powerful emotion, it needs a name, and “spiritual” looks like the best candidate to me.
I don’t know David Byrne very well, the only thing I could think of regarding him was David Byrn’s Things – a short by the maker of Scenes From a Multiverse.
…And I spelled his name wrong.
brucegee1962:
Bah.
Like AA’s “higher power”, that is. Not everyone’s cup of tea.
(Why you exalt being a cog in some machine escapes me, but then so does religiosity)
—
PS You might want to check out “temple of the future” or Alain de Botton… right up your alley. Fucking spiritual and all that shit.
PPS group activities are not for everyone. Some of us chafe at the need.
(I have successfully recused myself, mostly)
I second that wholeheartedly. I consider myself a spiritual person, in the sense that finding/making meaning in life is my main motivation for, well, just about anything including living. Unfortunately, the word has also been hijacked by woo lovers.
Byrne’s comments about the physicality of making music really ring true to me as a trombone player as well. And I suspect that’s one of the reasons I’m completely prejudiced against electronic music – when you’re just pushing a button and not using your body to make the music, I think something’s lost.
But I don’t think there’s any word for the word ‘spiritual’ for that feeling you get when you’re playing in an orchestra and suddenly you’re part of an 80 person organism that’s thinking and moving and breathing together. Transcendent is a more accurate and overall better word, in my opinion
Boy, I wish he’d either warm up or learn to use his diaphragm better. I think I even saw him pat his belly in recognition of how off key he was in the beginning. Mass choirs always give me goose bumps, though.
rietpluim:
<snicker>
Spiritual is the adjectival form for spirit. Spirit and soul are basically synonyms, in ordinary language. It’s woo.
Seeking meaning is teleological — the adjectival form for teleology. It’s not woo, I guess… but it’s not for everyone. Some of us don’t need that.
John Morales, no need to be so smug. If I was interested in an etymological argument I would have posted on a linguistics forum.
If you are wanting David Byrne to sing beautifully and on-key, then you are wanting somebody else, not David Byrne. His voice is perfect for what he does, and I couldn’t imagine anybody else doing justice to “Psycho Killer” or “Burning Down the House”. He doesn’t sing like a singer, he sings like some random guy pouring all his energy into that wail.
I also get how wonderful singing with a really good group is. The transcendence of the group participation, plus the “flow state” from total focus on doing something you are really good at makes that one of my favorite activities and stress-relievers. Singing with a chorus is the one thing about church that I didn’t give up when I left religion.
I also think we need a better word than “spiritual” because it comes with so much woo-woo baggage. I’ve been looking for the right word for a long time, a word so that I can say “Some people say they are spiritual but not religious. Well I’m not spiritual. But I am ______”
Nah. Solidarity forever! (For the Union makes us strong!)
I guess it’s inevitable that they would cut the second verse–after all, in this black and white world our heroes can never be mean, and certainly can’t drink all the time. But having the chorus chant “Shame shame shame” subverts the meaning of the song. They’ve taken an expression of individual defiance against totalitarianism and turned it into a public shaming (of whom? the lovers kissing at the wall?). I guess it’s a good reminder of how quickly even a chorus can turn into a King’s Landing mob, but I hope no one there was handing out eggs.
John @7: Perhaps people are talking about an experience or feeling that you have simply never had. It’s not necessary or sufficient to participate in “group activities” to achieve this. It’s actually very difficult to describe, but I’m pretty sure I know what Derek @10 is talking about. “transcendence” and “loss of self” are often used, but they do seem inadequate. As does “spiritual” (too vague, really). Back to your bahs and snickers, young man!
Perhaps transcendent is a better word — though also somewhat tainted with woo (all those transcendentalists of the 19th century definitely had some woo.
This sense doesn’t need other people, though. Many find it in nature — as when Wordsworth says
“Therefore am I still
A lover of the meadows and the woods
And mountains; and of all that we behold
From this green earth; of all the mighty world
Of eye, and ear,—both what they half create,
And what perceive”
14 Ubi – Oh, he’s been one of my favorite dinners since maybe 1985, when I got a copy of Speaking in Tongues. But compare how by the end of the sing he’s sort of intentionally swooping around the note vs. how in the beginning he’s just going some sour notes.