P
- Status
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear CTA1967,
First, I think you have taken my qoutation out of context for if you refer back to my original posting you will find that I went on to say that “the point at issue is whether rock music can be singled out as having specifically sexual connotations”. It has been my contention throughout the debate that it can be so singled out and I have cited evidence to this effect but you have brushed it aside as mere worthless opinion. In any event our Lord’s words in the Gospel place the issue beyond dispute when He states “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his treasure brings forth evil” (St. Matt. 12: 34-35). Thus the state of a man’s heart will be revealed by his words, and by extention, what he writes or composes also; one simply cannot drive a wedge between the two and neither does our Lord.
As to who may or who may not agree with my position on this issue, this is surely a rather futile line of reasoning since it is all a matter of conjecture and there is no reliable way of assertaining the truth. Thus I have recently spoken to a Catholic priest about this very issue of rock music and he is in complete accord with my position and there may be multitudes like him, but what does that really prove in the final analysis. As someome has wisely said, one is a majority with the Lord - remember St. Athanasius and the Arians.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear RedIvan3,
Sincere apologies for not responding sooner but I have had a jolly hectic week, including being received into the Church last Saturday.
Surely the Papacy would not formulate their teachings on the basis that they would prove unpopular and alienate the faithful. If that were the case then they made a monumental error with Humanae Vitae back in the 1960’s, for if ever a dogma alienated millions that one most certainly did. However, the Church will always rise above the popularity stakes and declare the truth no matter how controversial it is or how unpopular.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
J
Joe_5859
Guest
That’s awesome, Portrait! What a grace-filled week! Congrats!
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Joe,
Greetings to you and many thanks for the above; it was indeed a very special and eventful week, one that I shall never forget.
Being received into the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” will always be a very important day in our lives. We pray that our heavenly Father will give us every grace along our pilgrim way until we reach our true homeland - even the heavenly city.
Please pray that we will always prove worthy members of His Church.
Warmest good wishes to you and your family,
Portrait
C
CTA1967
Guest
Are you suggesting that John Paul II was so cynical as to use musicians as pawns to improve his public image? If I were a famous musician and the Pope, or anyone for that matter, held my trademark guitar in his hands (as he did with B.B. King’s Lucille), or if he put on my symbol of of being a star (as he did with Bono’s shades), or if he referenced my lyrics (as he did with Bob Dylan), and it turns out he secretly disapproved of my music, I would be seriously offended.
By the way, very few young people these days even know who Bob Dylan is.
If you’re actually correct, which I seriously doubt, wouldn’t John Paul II be promoting sin on a large scale by hosting annual concerts with rock musicians? And how is my argument an “unfair argument” if you were allowed to make judgments based on your own personal inferences on indivudual song lyrics and musicians in previous threads? If you were allowed to think that their gestures clearly conveyed sinfulness, am I not allowed to think that Pope John Paul II’s gestures clearly conveyed approval?
I am both a classical and rock musician, and whatever other genre I need to play. So are many other Catholics, including posters on CAF. I think we have a better understanding of the nature of the very music we play. Rock music does not have “specifically sexual connotations.” (I thought we discussed the topic of sex in music enough in the opera thread
) However, producing it does involve work, effort, thought, concentration, and tedious listening, just like any other genre of music.
C
CTA1967
Guest
Portrait, to go back to my specific example, what do you think of the album Fragile by Yes? It’s a milestone album that falls under the genre of rock, and it came out a couple of years after “Whole Lotta Love” (a reference point, since you seem to be obsessed with using that song as a specific example). For the content of the music, see below. The lyrics have absolutely nothing to do with sex. If you think anything even remotely sounds like a sexual reference, Jon Anderson chooses words based on how they sound, not what they mean.
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:
Alright, I’m done, just thought I’d share.
- 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.
- 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.
- We Have Heaven - This is a vocal feature, with Jon Anderson overdubbing his vocals multiple times. No drum kit is used.
- 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.
- Five Per Cent for Nothing - This is the only 35 seconds of the album in which drums are featured prominently.
- 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.
- The Fish - Bass feature by Chris Squire with numerous overdubbed Rickenbacker riffs. In seven-eight time. Enough said.
- Mood for a Day - Steve Howe’s classical guitar solo. No drums.
- Heart of the Sunrise - Honestly, the guitar and bass lines drive this song much more than the drums, which simply add to its feel.
C
CTA1967
Guest
Are you suggesting that John Paul II was so cynical as to use musicians as pawns to improve his public image? If I were a famous musician and the Pope, or anyone for that matter, publicly held my trademark guitar in his hands (as he did with B.B. King’s Lucille), or if he publicly put on my symbol of of being a star (as he did with Bono’s shades), or if he publicly referenced my lyrics (as he did with Bob Dylan), and it turns out he secretly disapproved of my music, I would be seriously offended.
By the way, very few young people these days even know who Bob Dylan is.
If you’re actually correct, which I seriously doubt, wouldn’t John Paul II be promoting sin on a large scale by hosting annual concerts with rock musicians? And how is my argument an “unfair argument” if you were allowed to make judgments based on your own personal inferences on indivudual song lyrics and musicians in previous threads? If you were allowed to think that their gestures clearly conveyed sinfulness, am I not allowed to think that Pope John Paul II’s gestures clearly conveyed approval?
I am both a classical and rock musician, and whatever other genre I need to play. So are many other Catholics, including posters on CAF. I think we have a better understanding of the nature of the very music we play. Rock music does not have “specifically sexual connotations.” (I thought we discussed the topic of sex in music enough in the opera thread
P
Portrait
Guest
i
No, JPII was not being cynical in making use of rock musicians no more than was St. Paul in citing heathen poets, it was just good PR and a noble attempt to forge a bond that might not otherwise have been possible through the usual channels. In any event it would seem that the musicians concerned had a profound respect for him and were clearly not offended. Moreover young people are an extremely difficult target group to reach when it comes to matters appertaining to religion, especially nowadays, so perhaps desperate times do call for desperate measures. It is of course debatable as to whether this was a prudent strategy given rocks unsavoury connections, but the late Holy Father possibly thought of the “greater good” that might be done by not appearing distant or unsympathetic towards the young and their interests.
Your comments were unfair because there is no verifiable evidence to evince that JP II actually relished rock music, it is clearly all supposition; they were made to bolster, if I may be forgiven for saying, a very feeble standpoint and are really a desperate clutching at straws. On the contrary my comments on rock musicians were not “personal inferences”, but were based on verifiable data - sometimes facts and sometimes citations from the musical compositions, from the performers themselves and even from impartial sources; evidence which in a court of law would be both compelling and cogent.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Dear CTA1967,Are you suggesting that John Paul II was so cynical as to use musicians as pawns to improve his public image? If I were a famous musician and the Pope, or anyone for that matter, held my trademark guitar in his hands (as he did with B.B. King’s Lucille), or if he put on my symbol of of being a star (as he did with Bono’s shades), or if he referenced my lyrics (as he did with Bob Dylan), and it turns out he secretly disapproved of my music, I would be seriously offended.
By the way, very few young people these days even know who Bob Dylan is.
If you’re actually correct, which I seriously doubt, wouldn’t John Paul II be promoting sin on a large scale by hosting annual concerts with rock musicians? And how is my argument an “unfair argument” if you were allowed to make judgments based on your own personal inferences on indivudual song lyrics and musicians in previous threads? If you were allowed to think that their gestures clearly conveyed sinfulness, am I not allowed to think that Pope John Paul II’s gestures clearly conveyed approval?
I am both a classical and rock musician, and whatever other genre I need to play. So are many other Catholics, including posters on CAF. I think we have a better understanding of the nature of the very music we play. Rock music does not have “specifically sexual connotations.” (I thought we discussed the topic of sex in music enough in the opera thread
No, JPII was not being cynical in making use of rock musicians no more than was St. Paul in citing heathen poets, it was just good PR and a noble attempt to forge a bond that might not otherwise have been possible through the usual channels. In any event it would seem that the musicians concerned had a profound respect for him and were clearly not offended. Moreover young people are an extremely difficult target group to reach when it comes to matters appertaining to religion, especially nowadays, so perhaps desperate times do call for desperate measures. It is of course debatable as to whether this was a prudent strategy given rocks unsavoury connections, but the late Holy Father possibly thought of the “greater good” that might be done by not appearing distant or unsympathetic towards the young and their interests.
Your comments were unfair because there is no verifiable evidence to evince that JP II actually relished rock music, it is clearly all supposition; they were made to bolster, if I may be forgiven for saying, a very feeble standpoint and are really a desperate clutching at straws. On the contrary my comments on rock musicians were not “personal inferences”, but were based on verifiable data - sometimes facts and sometimes citations from the musical compositions, from the performers themselves and even from impartial sources; evidence which in a court of law would be both compelling and cogent.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
P
Portrait
Guest
QUOTE=CTA1967;6024497]Portrait, to go back to my specific example, what do you think of the album Fragile by Yes? It’s a milestone album that falls under the genre of rock, and it came out a couple of years after “Whole Lotta Love” (a reference point, since you seem to be obsessed with using that song as a specific example). For the content of the music, see below. The lyrics have absolutely nothing to do with sex. If you think anything even remotely sounds like a sexual reference, Jon Anderson chooses words based on how they sound, not what they mean.
Dear CTA1967,
As regards this group Yes (didn’t they have a hit called “Wondrous Stories” circa. 1977?) were you aware that this bands album ‘Tales from Topographic Oceans’ contains songs said to reveal the science of God, trantric sexual rituals and reincarnation. That they write such bilge is surely enough to strike them off any christians Christmas must haves list!
The reason I cite “Whole Lotta Love” is because it is widely considered a classic piece of rock. Moreover it affords hard evidence of rocks inherent lewdness (I refer to its erotic elements and simulated orgasm) and lack of sound variety. In this deplorable song they sing, ‘I’m gonna give you every inch of my love’, the reference is crude and patently obvious.
By the way Led Zeppelin also have a song called "Trampled under Foot’ in which they refer to a to a girl’s ‘transmission’ flowing like hot oil while the singer says he would like to ‘pump some gas’. Now if this sort of depraved and debased material is deemed suitable listening for Catholics, supposedly pursuing holiness in the fear of God, then forget a return to Protestantism, I may as well return to the world and all its unrestrained sensuality and pleasure seeking.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Dear CTA1967,
As regards this group Yes (didn’t they have a hit called “Wondrous Stories” circa. 1977?) were you aware that this bands album ‘Tales from Topographic Oceans’ contains songs said to reveal the science of God, trantric sexual rituals and reincarnation. That they write such bilge is surely enough to strike them off any christians Christmas must haves list!
The reason I cite “Whole Lotta Love” is because it is widely considered a classic piece of rock. Moreover it affords hard evidence of rocks inherent lewdness (I refer to its erotic elements and simulated orgasm) and lack of sound variety. In this deplorable song they sing, ‘I’m gonna give you every inch of my love’, the reference is crude and patently obvious.
By the way Led Zeppelin also have a song called "Trampled under Foot’ in which they refer to a to a girl’s ‘transmission’ flowing like hot oil while the singer says he would like to ‘pump some gas’. Now if this sort of depraved and debased material is deemed suitable listening for Catholics, supposedly pursuing holiness in the fear of God, then forget a return to Protestantism, I may as well return to the world and all its unrestrained sensuality and pleasure seeking.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
C
CTA1967
Guest
First of all, in general, Bono, Bob Dylan, and B.B. King do not appeal to the “young.” I have no idea why Pope John Paul II would choose such musicians if he were trying to be sympathetic toward the interests of young people.
Secondly, the following quote is a post of yours. It contains many personal judgments about the character of the musicians, even if there are a few facts. For example, Dennis Wilson was involved with the Mansons, but he broke away from them before the Tate and LaBianca murders even happened. The phrase “new wave” refers to a genre of music (like synthpop type groups), not spirituality. The “satanic lyrics” in the Eagles songs are personal inferences. The line about Beelzebub in “Bohemian Rhapsody” is obviously a parody of opera, especially in the context of the song. I can guarantee that Jon Anderson from Yes does NOT sing about “tantric sexual rituals and reincarnation.” That is absolute fabricated rubbish. And the bit about how the songs on Tales From Topographic Oceans “reveal the science of God” is an inane misinterpretation of the song title “The Revealing Science of God.” They do not “reveal” anything, except for the fact that Rick Wakeman really knows how to play that Mellotron.
C
CTA1967
Guest
You beat me to it!
I responded to that in my post right above this one. Have you listened to that album? It is certainly does not “reveal the science of God, trantric sexual rituals and reincarnation.” If anyone actually has the intellect/peculiarity to definitively interpret Jon Anderson’s lyrics, I applaud him/her. Even the other band members from Yes poke fun at him for writing essentially meaningless lyrics. Jon Anderson makes fun of himself in the song “Going for the One” by singing, “Now the verses I’ve sang don’t add much weight to the story in my head so I’m thinking I should go and write a punch line.”As for Led Zeppelin, I’m not a huge fan of their musical style. They have a few interesting songs, but their riffs are a bit too repetetive, and they’re sometimes sloppy when they play. Even in one of their slower songs “All of My Love”, John Paul Jones seems to hit some off notes in his keyboard solo. I also agree that some of their lyrics are rather unnecessary, but you could say the same of certain bands in any genre of music.
Edit" By the way, yes, Yes (hehe
) did release “Wonderous Stories” as a single in 1977. I think I have the music video for it somewhere.
R
RedIvan3
Guest
Portrait your back! And welcome aboard the SS Catholic Church lol! Good to have you!
But still the topic remains, the medium of rock music can be used for good or evil. Like I said, Christian rock bands use there music to glorify God and reinforce faith. To make a blanket statement that all rock is evil when you have some wonderful bands glorfying God is just ignorant. Saying that is like saying Christians are intolerant, sure there are some “Christians” who are intolerant, but that doesnt mean all of them are.
And yes the Popes plan on contraception was controversial, but not out of line with Church teaching since its beginning. But when the Church starts going places it doesnt belong in (ie the music scene) there is a problem there. Music is all perception, and a potientially God hating song can be seen as a rejection of worldly things (ie The Fight Song by Marilyn Manson). To make a blanket statement that rock music is inherently evil is just plain ignorant and shows a lack of knowledge of the genre itself.
Ok, NEVER disrespect Iron Maiden. No #1, the song is not called “666”, its called “The Number of the Beast”. Before you begin to criticize Maiden, please get there song titles right.
No #2, The Number of the Beast is not a Satanic song per se, in fact bassist Steve Harris got the idea of the song from nightmares he saw after watching the Omen. In the song the Satanic cult and the devil are things to be feared, not worshipped or glorified.
No #3, Despite the odd Satan song (typical of 80’s metal), Iron Maiden has many a great Christian song, paticulary after 1999 when drummer Nicko McBrian had a expriance with Christ and became a Christian. Listen to the song “Journeyman” or “Rainmaker” or even “For The Greater Good of God”, a song about how fanatics betrayed the tenets of what Christ stands for.
All in all, Maiden represents the BEST of Christian metal, and to denounce them as other wise is insulting not Maiden for there contributions to popular music as a whole, but to me as a fan and a member of the metal community.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear RedIvan,
Thankou for your warm welcome above - so very glad that I have boarded this ancient vessel that has remained seaworthy for so long.
First, no offence intended towards you personally re. the Iron Maiden band, but the album “The Number of the Beast” did originate as a result of nightmares following a viewing of The Omen. Now what sort of person watches egregious and dark films such as that?; it’s hardly surprising that Harris experienced nightmares. Moreover do you really maintain that the the things that went wrong during the recording session were all mere coincidence? Evidently Bruce Dickinson was not of that opinion as he remarked, “That was just too close for comfort. He (producer Martin Birch) was absolutely terrified and the rest of us were very shaken”.
Second, I was only drawing an analogy with contraception to illustrate the fact that the Church will, when need arises, not shy away from declaring her mind on controversial and unpopular dogmas. Given the indisputable and immense influence of rock/pop, especially upon the young, I do not think it beyond the realms of possibility that our Church will declare its mind on the matter at some point in the future; actually I personally think that time is long overdue and that the faithful urgently require guidance on this most thorny issue. Are there really any “no go areas” for the one true Church of Christ?
Third, owing to the Fall the Devil and his forces have, alas, deeply invaded man’s social and cultural structures and music has not been omitted. Moreover it is undeniable that rock has occutic connections and that Satan has employed it to influence and corrupt the minds of the young and impressionable. One of the Devil’s deceptions is to make rock seem innocuous and benign and even a creative art form; does not Sacred Scripture state that the Devil is a past master when it comes to deception: “even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (II Cor. 11: 14). It is for this very reason that the Church needs to pronounce emphatically on this issue without further delay. As a matter of interest if it did declare against rock/pop would you be happy to abide by this decision?; as you will probably ask me the same question, I will answer it in advance. Yes I would have to acquiesce with the Church’s decision (assuming it went against me) although I would find this exceedingly difficult and would probably be writing many missives to the Vatican pleading for a change of mind, or at least an appraisal of the current position.
RedIvan3, can I kindly ask you, and also CTA1967, to ponder the following words of St. Paul and ask yourselves if this text sits comfortably with the world of rock.
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things. (Philippians 4: 8).
Warmest good wishes as always,
Portrait
C
CTA1967
Guest
If you mean something like “Would you do that in the same room as Jesus?” then I don’t think it’s a strong argument. Here’s a well respected apologist, Jimmy Akin on the subject of “bad music”: jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/07/bad_music.html (be sure to read the whole thing for the rest of his argument)
I also still fail to see how Yes and similar bands would even fall under the subjective category of “bad music.” :twocents:
C
CTA1967
Guest
Oh, by the way, in case there is any confusion like the last time I used the term “scrupulosity,” here is Jimmy Akin on the topic of “scrupulosity” as it is commonly used by Catholics (as in an unhealthy obsession with finding sin in things that are not sinful): jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/01/scrupulosity.html
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear CTA1967,
Thankyou for posting and comments.
Having now read and inwardly digested Mr. Akin’s article I am bound to say, with the greatest of respect to him, that I think he somewhat oversimplifies the issue. One can appreciate his remarks respecting “scrupulosity”, or what they used to term being “righteous overmuch”, and that this can all too easily become some sort of compulsive disorder. Quite possibly so, but the arduous demands of our most holy faith surely enjoin a healthy scrupulosity of some kind. That is what I understand that St. Paul is enjoining in his Epistle to the Phillipians and the text I cited for your meditation. Unfortunately Mr. Aikin’s comments do not really grapple with the issue head on, since the issue revolves around what individual Christians deem to be unacceptable and forbidden pleasures; thus the individual, like myself for instance, who argues against rock music would only be deemed “over scrupulous” by those like yourself who vehemently demur from his, in their view, narrow and uninformed standpoint. Thus we are no further forward are we? To state that an individual “obssesses” about rock music is in the final analysis merely a subjective opinion by someone who strongly disagrees with that individuals assertions. If I sound obtuse then I apologise, but that is how I perceive the issue of scrupulosity - so very often it becomes a stick to figuratively thrash our opponent and discredit him.
Those who passionately contend for the case of separation and sanctity do so out of all sincerity and earnestness, not out of some morbid desire to be intentionally “prudish” or controversial; they simply wish to recall the Church to holiness of life and firmness of purpose. Moreover, they do so firmly believing that they have Sacred Scripture on there side and are not ashamed to declare this. The Puritans may well have been off beam on many issues, but that does not mean to say they were mistaken on everything; on the issue of separation from the world I think they had a biblically strong case and would challenge anyone to disprove that from Sacred Scripture itself and Sacred tradition. They simply obeyed St. James and kept themselves “unstained form the world” and in that they were surely correct.
Now on a lighter note, the band Yes, I would concede, are probably not as deplorable as some groups (e.g. Led Zeppelin); “Wondrous Stories” was a single that I bought as a young chap and I played it repeatedly on my record player. It is a very powerful and catchy number, though I could not make head nor tail of the lyrics.
You will note that most of my condemnation has been chiefly reserved for rock music; as regards commercial pop, I do think that that is in a slighty different category. Not all pop songs could be termed unwholsome or unsavoury, though many could. The following hits from the 1970’s I consider to be moderately acceptable, see what you think. I do not think that they would corrupt public morals at any rate.
youtube.com/watch?V=12WyCsltJ4U&feature=player_embedded#
youtube.com/watch?V=HrPYHqoLLQI
These two little numbers may be dubbed “commercial” and “corny” nowadays but it shows that pop music can be very listenable and inoffensive.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
C
CTA1967
Guest
That’s just the thing though, what defines “rock music” to you? I think any hardcore fan of Yes would probably injure you for putting the phrase “commercial pop” anywhere near the name “Yes” instead of mentioning something like “progressive rock”, “art rock”, or “symphonic rock.” (By the way, apparently Jon Anderson even can’t make “head nor tail of the lyrics”; in an interview, he says he’s still learning about what he sang while Rick Wakeman just thinks he’s nutty.
)Also, many musical groups frequently cross the line between “pop” and “rock”. Genres don’t live in separate plastic bubbles. How do you think we got pop rock (of course), jazz fusion, blues rock, southern rock, folk rock (actually, I think Bob Dylan himself preferred dropping the word “rock” from his genre), progressive rock, avant garde rock, etc? Just something to think about.
P
Portrait
Guest
::
Once again thankyou for your post but would you not agree that “Wondrous Stories” did have some commercial appeal at least to reach No. 7 here in the U.K. charts in 1977?. By the way I was unaware, until I looked it up, that Yes were composed of members from the U.K. as well as South Africa and that all of their subsequent single releases were not successful in terms of being major chart hits.
On this rather cheerful note I think I will now take my leave CTA1967, but it has been, as always, an interesting and enjoyable argumentation and I mean that most sincerely. We have been able to disagree, often quite strongly, but without being disagreeable or causing any breech of christian charity and that is exactly as it should be amongst fellow Catholics.
Blessings on you and may the peace of God be yours now and always.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
Dear CTA1967,That’s just the thing though, what defines “rock music” to you? I think any hardcore fan of Yes would probably injure you for putting the phrase “commercial pop” anywhere near the name “Yes” instead of mentioning something like “progressive rock”, “art rock”, or “symphonic rock.” (By the way, apparently Jon Anderson even can’t make “head nor tail of the lyrics”; in an interview, he says he’s still learning about what he sang while Rick Wakeman just thinks he’s nutty.
Also, many musical groups frequently cross the line between “pop” and “rock”. Genres don’t live in separate plastic bubbles. How do you think we got pop rock (of course), jazz fusion, blues rock, southern rock, folk rock (actually, I think Bob Dylan himself preferred dropping the word “rock” from his genre), progressive rock, avant garde rock, etc? Just something to think about.
Once again thankyou for your post but would you not agree that “Wondrous Stories” did have some commercial appeal at least to reach No. 7 here in the U.K. charts in 1977?. By the way I was unaware, until I looked it up, that Yes were composed of members from the U.K. as well as South Africa and that all of their subsequent single releases were not successful in terms of being major chart hits.
On this rather cheerful note I think I will now take my leave CTA1967, but it has been, as always, an interesting and enjoyable argumentation and I mean that most sincerely. We have been able to disagree, often quite strongly, but without being disagreeable or causing any breech of christian charity and that is exactly as it should be amongst fellow Catholics.
Blessings on you and may the peace of God be yours now and always.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
C
CTA1967
Guest
Of course, any top ten hit would have to have commercial appeal, but different songs can have that without necessarily falling under the genre of “pop.” Actually, the 80s Yes lineup with South African guitarist and keyboardist, Trevor Rabin, is more commonly identified as “commercial pop.” They had their biggest hit in 1983 with “Owner of a Lonely Heart”, complete with digitallly sampled orchestra hits and guitar parts put through various effects. There wasn’t much after that, but I still like some of their less well known songs.
Again, it’s been an interesting discussion with you, Portrait. Thank you for taking the time to answer our posts. I’m sure we’ve all gotten something out of this.
- Status