So what of the practical applications of the argument over musical holiness?
For instance, I like to listen to Jewish Music, oftentimes are work. Sometimes, I will walk the hall humming a tune, or maybe whistling (not loudly) to myself.
If I walk into the bathroom while doing this, is there a problem?
According to my theory on the matter, if humming the tune will cause me to think of the words, then I will thinking about words of Torah in the bathroom, and that is a no-no. If, however, I can avoid this, by either, thinking simply of notes, thinking of the words in english to the rock song that was ripped off or humming a tune that has no words like a niggun, then I am OK.
According to the theory that holds that music has intrinsic holiness, and it is to be determined by the intent of the singer/composer, then I am in trouble only if the tune was composed by someone with good intention.
Essentially, the second theory makes the rule unable to be be practically applied, because the true intent of any composer is impossible to know.
In my opinion, this works as a proof of sorts, philosophically, against the second theory. What I mean by that, is that Judaism is a religion of action. It serves no purpose to have a rule that can’t be practically applied. In fact, a rule with no practical application wouldn’t have been originally created by God, as it would have been a waste, and contrdictory to his perfect nature. So, therefore, such a rule can’t exist. Therefore, the rule necessary by the second theory must be wrong.