Blues/Rock Musician

[CTA1967]

As regards Jimi Hendrix, apparently the ‘major’ gospel influences were not major enough as they did not prevent him from meeting an early death as a result of drug abuse. I rest my case.

While this is slightly off-topic, it’s short unsupported assumptions like these that diminish your credibility. There is much more controversy surrounding his death than simply saying he died of drug abuse. The theory of his death involving drugs is that he took a prescription medication, which he overdosed on because the directions were written in a foreign language. Once again, please actually do some amount of research.

Also, just because someone listens to Gospel singers doesn’t mean they’ll automatically become Christian. Believe it or not, people can listen to music even if they don’t necessarily agree with the lyrics.

 

[CTA1967]

what the Holy Father has termed the “cult of the banal”

Actually, I’m fairly certain that was pop music, specifically. And it was his opinion as a Cardinal, not an official moral statement from the Church. Words like “banal” have a very subjective connotation. He’s basically calling a genre of music boring. Okay, I’m fine with that. Also, I don’t find much shock value in the word “cult.” The Church itself is technically a “cult.” I could say that you are part of the “cult of the hyper-scrupulous.” What would that accomplish?

As I stated previously, another Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, openly invited several rock muscians to perform at the Vatican. Should that mean anything?

 

[Portrait]

Ah yes, the infamous ‘evil beat’ arguement. The beat in most rock songs can be found in other types of music, like opera. Also, in Nothing Else Matters by Metallica, the same beat is used that can be found in other, more sexually charged songs like Pour Some Sugar on Me by Def Leppard. Nothing Else Matters is a wonderful, slow song that reminds me of the Lord. I literally pray with it. Not very evil imo.

Also I compared Dickens because Dickens was a master of his medium, as rock musicians are masters of theres. To reject true art when it comes is like throwing out a great literary masterpiece.

And also Portrait, I warn you againest making blanket statements about all genres of music, for instance I dont like hip hop, but I admit alot of the underground hip hop artists are extremely talented. Saying all rock is evil is like saying all Germans in WWII were Nazis. Simply not true.

Dear RedIvan3,

Thankyou most kindly for your comments above.

Whatever harmonic, melodic or verbal sophistication rock may contain, it would never appeal as it does without the undergirding of its simple and repetitively tedious pounding beat. As with repetition, rhythm plays a valid part in all music, however in rock music rhythm is replaced by a relentless, driving beat. Unlike other forms of music which may reveal melodic inventiveness, the focus of rock is usually on the beat - one could say it was a sort of drummer’s holiday.

Leaving aside extremes, it must be obvious that excessive beat has very real dangers. There is evidence, for instance, to indicate that when the beat overrides the other elements in a song the communication level is significantly altered to one which is primarily physical and often specifically sexual. Rock musician Tom McSloy has no doubts about this: “To get into rock you have to* give* into it, let it inside, flow with it to the point where it consumes you, and all you can feel or hear or think about is the music” (National Review, 30th. June 1970). That is quite a disturbing statement. The element of relentless beat in rock music increases the danger of a shallow, emotional, mindless response, made at the wrong level and for the wrong reasons. It is incontrovertible that an incessant beat erodes a sense of responsibility in much the same way as alcohol does; one feels in the grip of a relentless stream of sound to which something very basic and primitive in sinful human nature responds. Surely this is a highly dangerous thing? However a repetitive relentless beat is probably the least of rock musics evils, there is, alas, so much more that is amiss with this musical genre.

The issue is not about “blanket statements” but rather about music which reflects God’s glory and music that does not; rock music is inextricably bound up with anti-Christian philosophies and always will be and hence cannot reflect God’s glory. It is for this reason that it must be rejected.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CTA1967]

Whatever harmonic, melodic or verbal sophistication rock may contain, it would never appeal as it does without the undergirding of its simple and repetitively tedious pounding beat. As with repetition, rhythm plays a valid part in all music, however in rock music rhythm is replaced by a relentless, driving beat. Unlike other forms of music which may reveal melodic inventiveness, the focus of rock is usually on the beat - one could say it was a sort of drummer’s holiday.

Okay, I’m seriously thinking you’re just an internet troll at this point. You’re simply ignoring what I’ve said several times in the past, while showing you have very little knowledge of music theory.

Originally Posted by CTA1967
Constant repetition is NOT a “basic consitituent” unique to rock music. Are you even a musician? I mainly play clarinet and guitar. Believe me, there are plenty of orchestral pieces with extensive repetition, disorienting rhythms, simple chord patterns, backbeats, dissonance, motifs used over and over and over, etc. That includes classical music, not just modern pieces. And genres like progressive rock draw specifically from orchestral music to produce a similar style with innovative instrumentations. Many progressive rock pieces are just rearrangements of classical pieces, or they borrow motifs from them. You can’t just splatter upon all forms of rock music with the same paintbrush. Likewise, many characteristics typically associated with rock music are present everywhere in other genres.

Also, please don’t try to argue that classical musicians had “better” motives. I’ve explained several times in this thread about how many of their personal lives were no better than those of the rock musicians you’ve named.

Originally Posted by CTA1967
Okay, here is one excerpt from Seeds of Change by rock musician Kerry Livgren, emphasis mine.

"While rock music places a lot of emphasis on rhythm, it has harmonic structure, melody and all the other elements that can be found in other forms of music. Some critics focus on the beat and claim that it had its origins in the tribal music of Africa. Steve Lawhead effectively counters this criticism in his thoughtful and well-balanced book Rock Reconsidered. He shows that this is a complete falsehood; the banjo, not the drum, was the chief musical instrument of the slaves.

" 'Much that has been written against rock music is actually disguised racial hatred: racism. The words used to describe it describe it display this fact - “jungle music,” “black boogie,” “demon beat” and so on. There was a time when Whites discouraged rock ‘n’ roll shows for the simple fact that they drew both Black and White audiences. Concerned parents did not want their children mixing with other children of another race who were the same age.
" 'As for the charge that rock’s rhythm is demon inspired, most people overlook the fact that in other places where New World slaves landed (Jamaica, Haiti, the islands of the West Indies) nothing close to rock ever evolved. If the beat was so powerful and so much a part of the musical make-up of these people, why didn’t something like rock develop in the Caribbean as well? Or, to put it the other way around, why don’t calypso or reggae, the popular musical styles of the islands, utilize the same rhythms?
" ‘That rock and its “evil beat” organized with the slaves of Africa is a racist notion which will not stand up.’

“There is also the criticism that the “syncopated beat” in some rock music can “short-circuit centuries of refinement and sophistication, exciting our baser primitive instincts.” But as Lawhead writes, “Rock frenzies are self-induced, not rhythm induced, and each listener can choose how to react. Music does have the power to move, but not to override normal sensibilities.” Some of the arguments that people have raised in this area are patent nonsense. The whole universe is full of rhythm, there is a rhythm; our hearts beat in rhythm, we walk in rhythm, there is a rhythm to our solar system and galaxy. It’s also interesting that the hymns sung even in the most conservative churches are highly rhythmic.”

 

[CTA1967]

The issue is not about “blanket statements” but rather about music which reflects God’s glory and music that does not; rock music is inextricably bound up with anti-Christian philosophies and always will be and hence cannot reflect God’s glory. It is for this reason that it must be rejected.

You completely missed the point. I’ll slowly work this out for you. Saying that “rock music is inextricably bound up with anti-Christian philosophies and always will be and hence cannot reflect God’s glory” is an assertion that implies a logical connection. The blanket statement “rock music is inextricably bound up with anti-Christian philosophies and always will be” is used to support the conclusion that it “hence cannot reflect God’s glory.” Your blanket statement, which begs the question, uses a logical fallacy to support your conclusion. Your conclusion, therefore, is illogical. Yes, morality can be logical. Your version of it is not. We’re just trying to explain to you that you currently have very little credibility, whether you think you’re right or not.

 

[Portrait]

While this is slightly off-topic, it’s short unsupported assumptions like these that diminish your credibility. There is much more controversy surrounding his death than simply saying he died of drug abuse. The theory of his death involving drugs is that he took a prescription medication, which he overdosed on because the directions were written in a foreign language. Once again, please actually do some amount of research.

Also, just because someone listens to Gospel singers doesn’t mean they’ll automatically become Christian. Believe it or not, people can listen to music even if they don’t necessarily agree with the lyrics.

Dear CTA1967,

According to a highly esteemed work of reference, Chambers Biographical Dictionary Ed. Magnus Magnusson, fifth edition 1990, p. 692, Hendrix “…died from suffocation on his own vomit as a result of mixing drugs with alcohol”. Moreover it is widely known that he used psychedelic drugs, most notably L.S.D., and smoked cannabis, as of course did so many other rock musicians during that period. This surely would support my contention that the world of rock is drenched in drugs and why the U.S. Government back in the 1960’s found it an impossible task to find a ‘clean’ group to entertain the troops in Vietnam.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CTA1967]

Do you know who else used drugs like cannabis, opium, hemp, and alcohol? Early American founding fathers, politicians, poets, citizens, etc. Would you like to draw the “logical” conclusion that America is inherently druggy, and therefore inevitably damned?

Oh, and in case you forgot: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=395089

Do we really want to have this discussion again? Using ad hominem attacks on the artist does not invalidate his/her work. And anyway, it is unlikely that even the most excessive drug users would record their music while stoned. Paul McCartney himself said that people overestimate the influence of drugs on the Beatles’ music. John Lennon said he never took LSD in the studio. Once he accidently consumed acid while recording and ended up on the roof of the studio. There you go.

 

[Portrait]

Actually, I’m fairly certain that was pop music, specifically. And it was his opinion as a Cardinal, not an official moral statement from the Church. Words like “banal” have a very subjective connotation. He’s basically calling a genre of music boring. Okay, I’m fine with that. Also, I don’t find much shock value in the word “cult.” The Church itself is technically a “cult.” I could say that you are part of the “cult of the hyper-scrupulous.” What would that accomplish?

As I stated previously, another Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, openly invited several rock muscians to perform at the Vatican. Should that mean anything?

Dear CTA1967,

The Holy Father also made reference to rock music as well as pop and said:

On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populous). It is aimed at the phenomenom of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as the cult of the banal. Rock, on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions. At rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the experience of being part of a crowd and by the emotional shock rhythm, noise and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defences torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments" (The Spirit of the Liturgy, Ignatius Press, 2000, p.148).

What I think one can safely say, without fear of contradiction, is that the Holy Father does not speak approvingly of rock or pop music; rather his comments are extremely negative especially as he contrasts it with “the music of the Holy Spirit’s sober inebriation…”. He obvously feels that rock and pop are debased forms of music and these are my sentiments entirely.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CTA1967]

Okay.

And it was his opinion as a Cardinal, not an official moral statement from the Church.

As I stated previously, another Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, openly invited several rock muscians to perform at the Vatican. Should that mean anything?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=342339

As a cardinal Siri was free to make provocative statements and offer controversial opinions that, had he been elected pope, he no doubt would have reconsidered making public. Analogously, as a high-ranking cardinal for over twenty years, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger often had attributed to him such eyebrow-raising opinions that rock music is a “vehicle of anti-religion” (source) and that Buddhism is an “autoerotic spirituality” (source). As Pope Benedict XVI, he has either avoided offering personal opinion or taken great pains to label it as “personal opinion” and not Church teaching.

 

[Portrait]

Do you know who else used drugs like cannabis, opium, hemp, and alcohol? Early American founding fathers, politicians, poets, citizens, etc. Would you like to draw the “logical” conclusion that America is inherently druggy, and therefore inevitably damned?

Oh, and in case you forgot: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=395089

Do we really want to have this discussion again? Using ad hominem attacks on the artist does not invalidate his/her work. And anyway, it is unlikely that even the most excessive drug users would record their music while stoned. Paul McCartney himself said that people overestimate the influence of drugs on the Beatles’ music. John Lennon said he never took LSD in the studio. Once he accidently consumed acid while recording and ended up on the roof of the studio. There you go.

Dear CTA1967,

A rock musicians life style will necessarily influence and imbue their musical compositions - “for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his good trreasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of evil treasure brings forth evil” (St. Matt. 12: 34-35). Thus the state of a persons heart will be revealed not only by the words they speak but also by what they write. Now given rock music’s clear and unmistakable link with needles and pills. the lives of indvidual rock performers are, on the contrary, very germane to the debate. It is simply not possible to drive a wedge between the performer and his work and treat the latter in isolation, the two are inseparable as our Lord’s words from the Gospel clearly show.

Unfortunately drugs, witness the premature deaths of so many rock stars , will always be a part of the rock scene and a necessary ingredient for many rock musicians. I am aghast that so many Catholics (I am a recent convert to the Church from Anglicanism) are so acquiescent with regards to rock music and so ready to run to its defence. Surely Catholics of all people should be resolved to ‘expose’ it as intrinsically evil and warn of its dangers (Ephesians 5: 11); alas these waters are just too polluted and impure for the Christian to bathe in without being morally tainted and , in time, corrupted.

I make no apology for sounding like a moral crusader for I firmly believe that the entire rock music genre necesitates an aggressively critical appraisal.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Okay.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=342339

Dear CTA1967,

All manner of people are invited to the Vatican for an audience with the Holy Father but that does not necessarily imply a full and unqualified endorsement of those individuals or their work. Thus I do not believe that we should read too much into that - it could be merely a gesture of goodwill or some bridge-building endeavour towards those who are considered to wield a wide influence on the world stage or among certain demographic groups.

Given Pope Benedicts strong “personal opinion” on the subject of rock, he may well at some point in the future speak authoritively, in his capacity as Pastor and Teacher of the faithful.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[RedIvan3]

Portriat, you continue to make blanket statements, saying that since rocks root is evil, then it must be evil too. Arent we Christians good at taking initially evil things and making them good? I mean look at the cross, our universal symbol.

There is a CLEAR distinction from bands like this:
youtube.com/watch?v=UJ2o_z1UGXw

And bands like this: (WARNING: The following video is EXTREMELY disturbing! If you are easily offended and have not been exposed to Norweigen black metal DO NOT WATCH!! YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!)

youtube.com/watch?v=M7vw5Wydfi4

The Bible says all that is created by God is good, and its up to us to use of abuse it. Bands like Gorgoroth abuse it. Bands like Hillsong offer up there music to the glory of God. And through music like that, there has been many conversions. Check out this link of people who have found Christ through Christian metal:

metalforjesus.org/TESTIM.html

All I’m saying is you cannot judge music because its not your personal tastes, and neither can the Pope. If he says rock is bad as a teaching of the Church, he alienates millions of faithful Catholics. Its safe to say he will never do that. But once again, I dont like hip hop, but I dont go out crusading that hip hop is a evil the world must expunge. Gain tolerance for other peoples tastes and you can see that anything is open to God.

 

[CTA1967]

All manner of people are invited to the Vatican for an audience with the Holy Father but that does not necessarily imply a full and unqualified endorsement of those individuals or their work. Thus I do not believe that we should read too much into that - it could be merely a gesture of goodwill or some bridge-building endeavour towards those who are considered to wield a wide influence on the world stage or among certain demographic groups.

Are you seriously kidding me? In addition to any charity work involved, Pope John Paul II was clearly a fan of rock. I don’t see how you find it so hard to believe that the former Pope could enjoy rock music like any other human.

Pope John Paul II, who died Saturday of complications caused by a urinary infection, will be remembered as a religious and political figurehead, but the arts and popular culture also played a significant role in his adventurous life.

The pontiff, who was an actor and a playwright in his youth, held annual concerts at the Vatican, quoted Bob Dylan and met with U2 singer Bono about lowering Third World debt.

In 1997, John Paul II invited Dylan to perform for him at the World Eucharistic Congress in Bologna, Italy (see “Bob Dylan Plays For Pope, Delivers Acclaimed New Album”). After the concert, the pope referenced the singer/songwriter’s famous song “Blowin’ in the Wind,” describing Christ as “the road a man must walk down before they call him a man.”

Later that year, the pontiff hosted B.B. King at the fifth annual Christmas concert at the Vatican, where the blues legend presented one of his trademark “Lucille” guitars to the Roman Catholic leader (see “B.B. King’s ‘Lucille’ To The Pope After Vatican Concert”).

John Paul II then welcomed Ricky Martin, Jewel and British pop star Cleopatra to the concert a year later (see “Jewel, Cleopatra To Play For Pope”).

In 1999, the pope met with Bono to discuss his Jubilee 2000 mission, which looked to rich countries to help reduce the debt of the world’s poorest countries (see “Bono, Bob Geldof, Others Appeal To Pope For Debt-Dropping Support”).

“He’s one of the great showmen of the 20th century,” Bono said, dubbing him “the first funky pontiff” after their meeting (see "Bono On The Pope: ‘The First Funky Pontiff’ "). “I told him this and he picked up my wraparound shades and put them on. He’s great, such grace and humanity.”

John Paul II reportedly stayed in touch with Bono after their meeting, and in May of 2000, joined the Eurythmics, Lou Reed and Andrea Bocelli at a concert in Rome to reduce world debt (see “Eurythmics, Lou Reed, The Pope For Jubilee”).

 

[CTA1967]

A rock musicians life style will necessarily influence and imbue their musical compositions

Okay, these are your own words:

It is true that rock performers are not the only musicians to have murky morals - even some of the best-known classical composers were decidedly off-key in their private lives. Tchaikovsky was no paragon of virtue; Chopin had a reputation as a womaniser, Mahler was hardly blameless and Mozart’s leisure haunts were not exactly havens of sanctity. As for Wagner, well he has been described as ‘grossly immoral, selfish, adulterous, arrogant, wildl;y hedonistic, violently racist and …a theif to boot’! These few examples will be sufficient to show that we need to be cautious before condemning any kind of artistic expression because of the life-style of those who write or perform it. If one were to take that line to its logical conclusion we would be living in a cultural desert.

And early American politians frequently had to explain how their personal lives would not affect their role in office, which I find similar to this topic. Opponents would frequently attack their personal character, sometimes truthfully and sometimes they exaggerated or blatantly made junk up.

Similarly, you keep citing “bad” examples of rock performers (many of which are exaggerations, or your own personal inferences into their actions/words) and pretend like they’re the only guys out there, while you ignore our “good” examples (hence the phrase “blanket statement”). How is it that your “few examples” of rock musicians are “sufficient” to condemn the whole of rock music, while our “few examples” of classicial musicians are “sufficient” to show that we should be cautious before condemning them? By definition, that is hypocrisy.

Simply put, has the possibility ever occured to you that:
-if nearly all Catholics around you (including Latin Rite) think you’re wrong
-if nearly all non-Catholics around you think you’re wrong, for that matter
-if Pope John Paul II would most probably think you’re wrong if he were still alive
-if Pope Benedict XVI might not disagree with you, but would consider it wrong to say that rock music is intrinsically a moral evil according to the Church
Then you might just be wrong?

Edit: So about your “cultural desert.” Let’s pretend that we can only play classical music. Okay, what about what instruments we can use. What would we do with our Moog and ARP synths, our Mellotrons and Chamberlins, our Fender and Wurlitzer electric pianos, our Hammond and Vox organs, our electric guitars and basses? Play classical music with them? Oh wait, that’s what progressive rock musicians did. Oh wait, that genre has the word “rock” in it. Oh wait, it must be evil.

 

[CTA1967]

I feel that God has given me a natural ability to compose and write songs but if it is not permissible for me to play that style of music I am obliged to change. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks - Blake

Back to the original question, no the Church does not officially condemn specific genres of music for everyday listening/playing. And Portrait does not seem to understand that it is not required for us to take drugs or be the anti-Christ to write blues-rock songs. The process of music production really is not some sort of wild party. There’s plenty of work, effort, thought, concentration, and tedious listening put into making music. Yes, even blues and rock.

 

[CTA1967]

Edit: So about your “cultural desert.” Let’s pretend that we can only play classical music. Okay, what about what instruments we can use. What would we do with our Moog and ARP synths, our Mellotrons and Chamberlins, our Fender and Wurlitzer electric pianos, our Hammond and Vox organs, our electric guitars and basses? Play classical music with them? Oh wait, that’s what progressive rock musicians did. Oh wait, that genre has the word “rock” in it. Oh wait, it must be evil.

I realize this is my fourth post in a row, and I’m probably beating a dead horse at this point, but I have another insight on this. A lot of this debate has revolved around rock music that has its roots in blues music and features a prominent backbeat. Actually, that isn’t even true of a lot of the rock music that I listen to.

For example, today I was listening to the 1971 Yes album Fragile, which is widely regarded as a classic rock masterpiece. Its musical roots are in orchestral music and the drummer, Bill Bruford, plays a supportive role. Here is an analysis of each song:

1. Roundabout - The snare is disengaged from the snare drum, eliminating the snapping backbeat typically associated with snare drums. Drums aren’t even present during the melodic acoustic guitar passages, the most important parts of the song in my opinion.
2. Cans and Brahms - Rick Wakeman uses an electric piano, a grand piano, a Hammond organ, an electric harpsichord, and a synthesizer to play an excerpt from the third movement of Brahms’ Fourth Symphony. No drums are present at all.
3. We Have Heaven - This is a vocal feature, with Jon Anderson overdubbing his vocals multiple times. No drum kit is used.
4. South Side of the Sky - During the more aggressive parts of the song, the drums are barely noticeble underneath Steve Howe’s energetic improvised guitar licks. During the classical-styled piano section, Bill uses his drums to gently accentuate what the piano is already playing.
5. Five Per Cent for Nothing - This is the only 35 seconds of the album in which drums are featured prominently.
6. Long Distance Runaround - For most of the song, there is a light drum hit every five beats in four-four time. Not very significant compared to everything else going on.
7. The Fish - Bass feature by Chris Squire with numerous overdubbed Rickenbacker riffs. In seven-eight time. Enough said.
8. Mood for a Day - Steve Howe’s classical guitar solo. No drums.
9. Heart of the Sunrise - Honestly, the guitar and bass lines drive this song much more than the drums, which simply add to its feel.

Alright, I’m done, just thought I’d share.

 

[CTA1967]

I realize this is my fourth post in a row, and I’m probably beating a dead horse at this point, but I have another insight on this. A lot of this debate has revolved around rock music that has its roots in blues music and features a prominent backbeat. Actually, that isn’t even true of a lot of the rock music that I listen to.

For example, today I was listening to the 1971 Yes album Fragile, which is widely regarded as a classic rock masterpiece. Its musical roots are in orchestral music and the drummer, Bill Bruford, plays a supportive role. Here is an analysis of each song:

1. Roundabout - The snare is disengaged from the snare drum, eliminating the snapping backbeat typically associated with snare drums. Drums aren’t even present during the melodic acoustic guitar passages, the most important parts of the song in my opinion.
2. Cans and Brahms - Rick Wakeman uses an electric piano, a grand piano, a Hammond organ, an electric harpsichord, and a synthesizer to play an excerpt from the third movement of Brahms’ Fourth Symphony. No drums are present at all.
3. We Have Heaven - This is a vocal feature, with Jon Anderson overdubbing his vocals multiple times. No drum kit is used.
4. South Side of the Sky - During the more aggressive parts of the song, the drums are barely noticeble underneath Steve Howe’s energetic improvised guitar licks. During the classical-styled piano section, Bill uses his drums to gently accentuate what the piano is already playing.
5. Five Per Cent for Nothing - This is the only 35 seconds of the album in which drums are featured prominently.
6. Long Distance Runaround - For most of the song, there is a light drum hit every five beats in four-four time. Not very significant compared to everything else going on.
7. The Fish - Bass feature by Chris Squire with numerous overdubbed Rickenbacker riffs. In seven-eight time. Enough said.
8. Mood for a Day - Steve Howe’s classical guitar solo. No drums.
9. Heart of the Sunrise - Honestly, the guitar and bass lines drive this song much more than the drums, which simply add to its feel.

To put this in perspective, how would Bolero by Ravel sound without the snare drum? Alright, I’m done, just thought I’d share.

 

[angeljeanr]

hi silentrosary,
I just wanted to say that if you have a gift for creating music, then make your music. whatever genre you are interested in. You can create music with a positive christian message and let that be your ministry. I’m listening to the christian rock band THIRD DAY and the lyrics to their song “carry my cross” helps me to love God more, to the point where i’m so filled with the Holy Spirit that i can’t keep it in. So, if you need some inspiration listen to bands like them. And to the other participants in this thread, i hear what you all are saying, and you have each made legitimate arguments but i don’t hear your acknowledgement of each other’s statements. you’re dancing around each other without listening to each other. I’m sorry if i angered anyone, i’m not intending to attack you only asking that you listen to each other more. Thank you.

 

[angeljeanr]

i’m sorry silentrosary i forgot to tell you the best advice that i could give you. PRAY to God, let Him lead you where He wants you to go. Nothing any of us say is important, only God. so just pray.

 

[Portrait]

Are you seriously kidding me? In addition to any charity work involved, Pope John Paul II was clearly a fan of rock. I don’t see how you find it so hard to believe that the former Pope could enjoy rock music like any other human.

Dear CTA1967,

My sincere apologies for not responding to your postings sooner, but the past week has been been filled with incessant activity of one sort or another, including my wife and I being conditionally re-baptized, attending our first confession, confirmation and being received into the Catholic Church.

Thankyou for directing me to the links, but I rather think they support my position; be that as it may I do not see any hard evidence that the late JP II “really enjoyed rock music…” For example, he met with this U2 singer to discuss reducing the debt of the developing countries because he probably considered that Bono would “weild some influence on the world stage”. He was a good man to have on ones side.

As regards Bob Dylan’s invitation by the late Pope to perform at a youth rally in Bologna, this seems to me to be a sort of professional maintenance of a favourable public image on the part of the Holy Father. Surely he was endeavouring to build a bridge, via the connecting link of Dylan, to the vast assemblage of young people. Quite understandable, since Mr. Dylan is supposed to be a “rock legend” and therefore to be held in very high esteem by the young. By referencing “Blowing in the Wind” and saying that Christ was “the road a man must walk down before they can call him a man”, would seem to confirm this; to put it quite simply the late Pope was employing a figure who is very influential with youth - someone they look up to and respect. Even St. Paul was not averse to citing pagan Greek poets (Aratus and Cleanthes) when that was to his advantage (see Acts 17: 28); but this was not an unqualified endorsement of them or their pagan manner of living. However, since he was addressing pagan philosphers, albeit “earnestly reverential” ones, it was surely a good evangelistic strategy to cite two respected poets with whom they would have been aquainted - very good bridge-building.

To appeal to these goodwill gestures in support of papal endorsement of rock music is surely a specious and unfair argument, only appealed to because superficially it seems to favour your position.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait