How are albums such as AKAPella considered a capella?

Question

AKAPella is an a cappella group that performs parodies on other artists' songs, often non-Jewish ones as of late, in a cappella for people to enjoy during sefira and the three weeks.

In their albums, they use what I assume to be computer filters to make their voices sound like real instruments. Although if one listen closely it's obvious that it's not the actual instrument, they do such a good job mimicking it at a cursory listening that they have actually printed on some of their CD's "So good it should be assur."

But why isn't it forbidden? Firstly, are computer synths not considered to be instruments? And secondly, even if it's technically permitted, how does it uphold the spirit of the time, in which we are supposed to mourn? We stay away from music as a sign of mourning, and they go ahead and put out a cappella that might as well be real music?

Computer synths aren't instruments as they don't make sound. Its Speakers that are as clear an instrument as anything — Double AA, Apr 21 '17 at 15:54
When you invent chumros you can invent kulos to circumvent them. — user6591, Apr 21 '17 at 16:10
@DoubleAA By extension, my electronic drums should be permissible. Banging the drums doesn't make a sound; it's the speaker they're attached to. For that matter, all instruments should be permitted: it's not the keys on the piano that make the sound, or even the hammer hitting the harp; it's the vibrations with the sound board. — DonielF, Apr 21 '17 at 16:12
@donie no that's backwards. They're all forbidden since speakers are isntruments — Double AA, Apr 21 '17 at 16:13
@DoubleAA Then listening to a cappella should also be forbidden since you play the disc through speakers. — DonielF, Apr 21 '17 at 16:14
Society, possibly with the guidance of Rabbis decided that electronically produced music has the same laws as playing an instrument. Society possibly with the guidance of Rabbis decided electronically manipulated voices do not have that rule. — user6591, Apr 21 '17 at 16:19
@DoubleAA Except that there are those that permit a cappella. So are speakers instruments or not? (See sources here.) — DonielF, Apr 21 '17 at 16:19
DonielF :) unfortunately that's part of what defines society. Everybody just does what everybody (else) just does. — user6591, Apr 21 '17 at 16:21
All those Poskim are clearly inconsistent. Nu nu... looking for consistent fixed axioms for a recent minhag is a bit of a doomed venture from the outset — Double AA, Apr 21 '17 at 16:29
@Double that's an opinion. Reb Shlomo Zalman who also was of that opinion at least clarified that the only music, live or recorded which must be avoided is music that brings one to dance. Other music is fine. He is also recorded as mocking people for obsessing over these laws and pestering him with questions about this while they never asked about other more important laws such as ribbis and kibud av v'eim (his examples). — user6591, Apr 21 '17 at 16:55
I've heard that Rav Yisrael Belsky discouraged listening to a cappella music if it's difficult to distinguish it from regular music. ( I'm not certain where I heard this from. This was either directly in his name, or else I heard it from his son in camp, in the context of the three weeks.) — MTL, Apr 21 '17 at 16:58
@user6591 - the term "music that brings one to dance" is subjective. Was it defined further in Reb Zalman's opinion? Some people dance to stuff that sounds like burglar alarms. — Gary, Apr 22 '17 at 02:45
@Scimonster - I'm far from an expert, but when opinions are used to set precedents for halacha, aren't more exactly defined nonsubjective terms better/more helpful for making the matter clear? — Gary, Apr 24 '17 at 01:17
@user6591 could you bring a source for the position of R. Shlomo Zalman and his mocking? — Chaim, Apr 24 '18 at 11:38
@Chaim see halichos shlomo chapter 11 footnote 53. The word used there was hissonen, not mislotzetz so I hope you aren't focusing on the fact that I wrote mocked. A better translation on my part would have been complained. — user6591, Apr 24 '18 at 11:54
@DonielF if you are looking for only those opinions that seem to say it is permitted, then you are essentially asking us a question about what they have printed on their CDs. That question should be addressed to them, not us. — רבות מחשבות, Apr 24 '18 at 13:20
@user6591 nope, just wanted to read about his balanced approach inside. Thanks — Chaim, Apr 25 '18 at 02:03
@DonielF Whoa. I remember deleting the AKAPella from my playlist a few Sefiros ago because I was convinced that I had accidentally downloaded the precious few non-a cappella tracks from AKAPella. (I was also really mad at the band for tricking me.) Now I want to add them back.... I don't understand why the restrictions below are not shevut d'shevut — SAH, Aug 14 '18 at 03:59

score 2 · Answer 1 · edited Apr 24 '17 at 15:31

The poskim today differentiate between digitally modified a capella music vs. straight voices:

Rav Belsky is quoted as saying,

There are basically three types of a cappella.

One is where the musical sounds originate from human voices but the natural properties are digitally modified with computer software to attain quality of sounds that are not humanly possible, thus making it sound more like regular music. Such a cappella is halachically not viewed as being any different from regular music.

There are other forms of a cappella which sound very similar to regular music, although no digital modification is done to the voices. These types of a cappella should also not be listened to during Sefirah and The Three Weeks, as will be explained shortly.

The third type of a cappella is where regular songs are sung by an individual or choir. There is nothing halachically objectionable about listening to such a cappella during Sefirah and The Three Weeks.

*I heard Rav Heinemann make the same chiluk as well.

This doesn't answer the question; if anything, it just strengthens it. You haven't said anything that provides a heter for digitally modified voices. — DonielF, Apr 23 '17 at 15:05
You're right, it seems a handful of contemporary poskim wouldn't allow such music during sfira. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the question "Why isn't this forbidden" is answered by "It is forbidden." — NJM, Apr 23 '17 at 21:21
They claim that it's permissible. I'm looking for a Rav who backs them up. — DonielF, Apr 23 '17 at 21:42

score 1 · Answer 2 · answered Apr 23 '17 at 05:56

The following is my own idea. I'm no scholar or rabbi, so take it with a heavy grain of salt. I'm certainly not your rabbi, so don't rely on it practically. (Also, I've never heard the band referred to in the question.)

One can differentiate between music whose tune is effected by means of an instrument (e.g. a trumpet) and music whose tune is effected orally but which an instrument then distorts (e.g. a synthesizer) or relays (e.g. a tape recorder). Both sound great (YMMV), but, arguably, the former is more music-like. And, arguably, only the former is considered music of the sort around which the original custom developed of refraining from music during the mourning period of s'firas haomer, simply because the latter type of music didn't exist until more recently than that custom developed. Thus, the burden of proof seems to be on those who would include the latter type of music in that custom.

As to whether listening to it is against the spirit of the season — sure, let's say it is for argument's sake. So go ahead and avoid it if it makes you happy. But that doesn't mean it's forbidden.

So we differentiate between music effected by an instrument and music affected by an instrument? :) — Scimonster, Apr 23 '17 at 06:39
I think that we need to check, what kind of music is used for a big festival, a wedding, etc, if it is synthe or some non instrumental way, it is prohibited. "So go ahead and avoid it if it makes you happy" is a very good approach — kouty, Apr 23 '17 at 07:55

score 1 · Answer 3 · answered Apr 24 '18 at 09:35

1

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky in Kovetz Halacha is quoted as having made the distinction that once the voices have undergone digital manipulation (AutoTune etc.) then the voices are technically considered at that point as instruments.

Rav Wosner was also of the opinion that that music processed is call instrumental music.

Regarding the spirit, Rav Chizkiyahu Nebenzahl (Chief Rabbi of the Old City) told me that acapella music not only is a violation of the technical law, but also the spirit.

When my wife was in school and felt that music in the background while working was needed to concentrate, we asked the Rav if she could listen to acapella, he said it was forbidden and that it was better to listen to Classical Music, as it (generally) does not bring someone to dancing, and it does not undergo the digital enhancement and processing as acapella does.

answered Apr 24 '18 at 09:35

Shoel U'Meishiv

15,505
1
37
80

1

This doesn’t answer the question. I’m specifically looking for someone who holds that it’s permissible, since everyone I’ve come across so far would hold that it’s not. (Or, like the ones you quote, even regular a capella is forbidden.) – DonielF Apr 24 '18 at 11:22
@DonielF it does answer the question: it’s forbidden, are you looking for a heter? That’s not how halacha works – Shoel U'Meishiv Apr 24 '18 at 11:35
No, I’m trying to understand the heter that they proclaim, as well as those who listen to their albums. I’m sticking with the shitos I already follow that permit a capella but not this stuff. I’m just trying to figure out this particular opinion - who exactly do they hold like? Chas v’shalom that I would go Rabbi shopping, and certainly not on a site like this where psak questions aren’t allowed. – DonielF Apr 24 '18 at 11:48
@DonielF they most probably rely on the fact that once its a voice, no matter the amount of digitization, its still a voice, and though agaisnt the spirit, so what, just like a reallly nice and attractive Shaitel is against the spirit of the law, but no one says its like a uncovered head. But i have no sources to support that, so i dont post it. – Shoel U'Meishiv Apr 24 '18 at 11:49
The problem is that nobody seems to hold that a computerized voice is still considered a voice... – DonielF Apr 24 '18 at 11:53
@DonielF true, but who then says that automatically means its a musical instrument. It’s not binary. Though that seems to be the assumption that the poskim quoted above that prohibited it. – Shoel U'Meishiv Apr 24 '18 at 11:54
@ShoelU'Meishiv Sorry, probably a stupid question, but why wouldn't forbidding this be shevut d'shevut or the like? – SAH Aug 14 '18 at 04:01

score -3 · Answer 4 · edited Apr 24 '18 at 00:50

-3

Generally when we pasken Halacha we don't look at the reasons for the mitzvah in making the psak.

The minhag is that instruments are assur but voice is ok

The spirit of the law does not make something forbidden if it's technically permitted.

edited Apr 24 '18 at 00:50

LN6595

5,360
1
20
48

answered Apr 23 '18 at 19:30

Benzi

1

2

What do you mean, we don’t look for reason? Of course we do. We’re not brain dead zombies. Besides, this is only minhag - there has to be a reason this is the accepted custom. – DonielF Apr 23 '18 at 19:31
2

@donielf no, the opposite is true. If it was halakha there would be a reason. If it's a Minhag there need not be a reason. People do all sorts of crazy or contradictory things on their own. – Double AA Apr 23 '18 at 19:34

How are albums such as AKAPella considered a capella?

4 Answers4

Linked