Thinking Critically About Music
Music to the Glory of God: Why You Should Think About Music, Humphrey Dobson. Wapwallopen: Shepherd Press, 2024. Softcover, 256 pages.
Every now and then I ask my catechism students about their favourite music. Over the years, I’ve been surprised that there are always a couple of students who say they don’t know because they never listen to music. I can’t imagine life without music. It’s been part of my daily life for decades. Since I also believe it’s important to acknowledge God in all my ways (Prov. 3:6), this book by Humphrey Dobson caught my eye right away. Given the author’s Orthodox Presbyterian background and training in music, I was hoping for a well-reasoned Christian treatment of the subject. Sadly, it didn’t live up to my expectations.
We’re told from the start that “this book contends that there is objectively good-quality music and bad-quality music, and that music in some forms is being corrupted in our day. Music is not neutral” (p.19). It sounds like a promising thesis. However, its execution falters on several key points. All of them exhibit fallacious reasoning.
The author’s starting point is that there are four transcendent norms of beauty: proportion, harmony, simplicity, and complexity. By these norms, he writes, music can be judged as to whether it is objectively beautiful. What is the argument for these norms? Western civilization has recognized them. Yes, Christians “recognize these norms to flow from the character of God” (pp.39-40), but the argument for these norms is that people have declared them to be such. This is a fallacy of relevance, specifically appeal to tradition, in this case the tradition of “Western civilization.”
Later in the book, Dobson appeals to the authority of architect Quinlan Terry. He argued that “these principles of beauty derived originally from the biblical Tabernacle and Temple and were later copied by surrounding nations.” However, there is no way to prove such a highly speculative thesis. To the contrary, there’s plenty of evidence in Greek literature to disprove this thesis. Dobson goes on to quote another erroneous notion of Quinlan Terry, this one about the meaning of the Greek word “architecture.” It allegedly “describes that way of building which is not only great and important but also originated at the beginning of time” (p.99). But there is no Greek word “architecture.” There is architecton, ‘architect,’ and architektoneo, ‘to be the architect.’ In both of those words archi- refers to someone being the chief or head builder. It has nothing to do with the beginning of time. This is an etymological fallacy.
Another fallacy committed several times is the hasty generalization. Consider three examples. Dobson writes that the words of rock music “constantly celebrate sexual immorality, impurity, and blasphemy” (p.135). Is there rock music which does this? Who would deny it? But “constantly”? You’d have to listen to every rock song ever created to be able to argue that. He approvingly quotes philosopher Allan Bloom, “Rock music has one appeal only, a barbaric appeal to sexual desire” (p.137). How did Bloom know that there is only this one appeal to everyone? This claim is logically impossible to verify. Finally, the author himself argues about pop music: “none of it is high quality music according to the objective principles of beauty.” Notice “none of it.” Did Humphrey Dobson listen to every pop song from every sub-genre? Such arrogant overgeneralizations might have rhetorical or polemical value, but they don’t get us closer to thinking soundly about music.
I did appreciate the chapter surveying various classical composers. Even though the included musical notation was lost on me, I appreciated the information about these men and their music. Dobson did help me value classical music more. For example, he introduced me to Beethoven’s arrangements of Scottish, Welsh, and Irish folksongs. My concern is that he elevates this genre above others without solid reasoning.
I’m all in favour of thinking critically about the music to which we listen. However, part of that is using sound reasoning. Because this book fails on that score, it leaves the impression of an elitist prejudicial argument against popular music and for classical music. Those who already agree might find it persuasive, but I didn’t.
Originally published in Clarion 75.5 (March 10, 2026)
