Don't Support Devilish Music(Rock Music)!!!

[Lycorth]

The only thing I read in the passages you cited are fanciful repeats of Euro-centric assertions already made that have yet to be proven in this thread.

1. That certain tones have inherent objective qualities.
2. The Church music “brings delight” to the listeners.
3. That Church music is superior without thinking of arbitrary standards of what is “superior” music.

I won’t discuss #1 seeing as many of us have already wasted our time posting evidence to the contrary even when those who insist have hardly done so.

Gotta love modernism. When even the popes and the genuine forces of cultural positivity behind Western civilization are sneered at because it’s not cool enough… just wow…

Nice try playing the race card, too.

#2 on the other hand, well I’ll warn you, I have a lot of venom stored against classical and religious music in terms of quality. It brings delight far less likely than it brings mental nausea.

Warn me? As if what, I’m supposed to be intimidated by that?

I couldn’t care less what your opinions are. Show me a thriving, advanced, morally vibrant culture based on modern music and mentalities and then we’ll talk. Till then, I’m in the “Eurocentric” camp

I’ll agree that many modern Christian musicians are sorely in need of a quality check, as their music is not up to snuff with their ideological intentions, but there’s no comparing modern music to the anthems of Western civilization’s finer hours.

As for #3…

Says the guy whose facts are nothing more than his opinion that Church music is “better” as a piece of music. When it comes to the arts, there are no “objective truths”. Standards for good music (regardless of era) are nothing more than popular opinions put on a pedestal and rationalized. Unlike you though, I’m not putting one over the other.

Objective truths knows no bounds, including in the arts, unless a crucifix in a jar of urine and Deicide are objectively equal to the *O Cristo Redentor *or Mozart’s Requiem. If you believe that, you are in my prayers.

I’m just calling a spade a spade. Don’t kill the messenger

I was heavy into death metal in high school and no, Deicide wasn’t really the norm at all; they were on another level. This was the only thing I ever heard that actually scared me. They make Slayer look like Mormon boy scouts.

But that said, there was a lot of semi-Satanic stuff out back then (circa 1991-1994) but I preferred the B horror flick gory stuff to the Satanic. My favorite bands then were Grave, Carcass, Benediction, Cannibal Corpse, and so on.

I remember those times; those were my high school years, and I loved the death metal back then, too. It was my way of rebelling against youth trends like alternative music and so on. Needless to say, discovering that there were Christian bands who played that sort of music was thrilling; if only most Christian bands were actually better at it…

Deicide was one of those bands I listened to. I used to rewrite their lyrics to Christian ones on a typewriter; good times. Benton was a blowhard, though, and former bandmates have confirmed this; most bigmouths who make noise “for Satan” are full of it though it definitely doesn’t justify their so-called “art”.

 

[Wampa]

Yes, but Christianity turned pagan (and not anti-Christian) things to good things.

If Christian e.g. death metal bands REALLY brought many people to Christ, and these people are TRUE Christians, then…

I would have a lot easier time following your meaning if you gave your conclusion, rather than ellipses.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Gotta love modernism. When even the popes and the genuine forces of cultural positivity behind Western civilization are sneered at because it’s not cool enough… just wow…

Nice try playing the race card, too.

Yeah, when unable to address the points, classicists play the modernism card. If that’s the so-called intellect being exhibited in your highly exalted classics then you’ve just proven my point.

Oh and FYI? Euro-centrism isn’t a racial bias. It’s a cultural one, just like Japanophilia.

Warn me? As if what, I’m supposed to be intimidated by that?

I couldn’t care less what your opinions are.

The feeling’s mutual. Unfortunately, unlike you, I didn’t start putting my opinions on a pedestal first.

Show me a thriving, advanced, morally vibrant culture based on modern music and mentalities and then we’ll talk. Till then, I’m in the “Eurocentric” camp

Again, more arbitrary standards. Culture is composed of many things and its still a matter of opinion as to how all of that can determine if its thriving. Music is only one of them. Furthermore, declaring the eras when classical music was a hit as “morally vibrant” is a barrel of laughs. As for being advanced… is that even a question?

I’ll agree that many modern Christian musicians are sorely in need of a quality check, as their music is not up to snuff with their ideological intentions, but there’s no comparing modern music to the anthems of Western civilization’s finer hours.

You mean the times when women were stuck at home, common and foreign peoples had no rights, and the right to rule was determined less by democracy and more about just having someone’s DNA? Yeah, finest hours all right.

Objective truths knows no bounds, including in the arts, unless a crucifix in a jar of urine and Deicide are objectively equal to the *O Cristo Redentor *or Mozart’s Requiem. If you believe that, you are in my prayers.

There’s a difference between arbitrary standards and no standards at all. Just because relativism doesn’t work for morality, it wouldn’t work for what makes for good music, literature, art etc.

I’m just calling a spade a spade. Don’t kill the messenger

Sorry, but if there’s anything I learned from 300 about “messengers”, being biased in favor of the message dispels that protection.

 

[EphelDuath]

If there is an objective way to determine the quality of music, then please tell me what the formula is. I have an open mind on the matter, really; just tell me the criteria and I’ll try to be convinced.

The only reason I think Haydn is superior to some average '70s rock band is because (a) Haydn’s music is pro-Catholicism, and (b) I get a better feeling in my gut when I listen to Haydn than another musician. The former says nothing about the actual music, and the latter is totally subjective.

 

[Joe_5859]

If there is an objective way to determine the quality of music, then please tell me what the formula is. I have an open mind on the matter, really; just tell me the criteria and I’ll try to be convinced.

The only reason I think Haydn is superior to some average '70s rock band is because (a) Haydn’s music is pro-Catholicism, and (b) I get a better feeling in my gut when I listen to Haydn than another musician. The former says nothing about the actual music, and the latter is totally subjective.

I’m very interested in the objective and subjective dimensions of art. If I ever have the time, I’d like to spend some time researching and pondering it.

I would have difficulty accepting that art is completely subjective. I think there is a very real sense in which we can say that Leonardo’s Mona Lisa is objectively better than the stick figure I scribbled on my note pad. Similarly, I think we can say that the music of Haydn is objectively better than my impromptu tapping of my fingers on my desk.

However, we cannot ignore the subjective dimension. I don’t know that we could say that Mozart is objectively better than Beethoven (or vice versa).

I don’t have any formula, though. I, too, would be interested in that.

 

[distracted]

OK, you say, that there’s nothing wrong to listen to metal. But, IMHO, some people started to growl and play metal because (maybe) it’s sound… demonic?
I read (on polish Wikipedia), that growl expression was firstly used to name **!!!do NOT listen to this band!!!] It’s anti-Christian]**Venom’s !!!do NOT listen to this band!!!] vocalist’s “singing” style. So, “roots” of growl are no good.

 

[Grizzly20]

Somebody said, that rock music have “roots” in african music.
I’m not a racist (sadly, I don’t like Gypsy a little bit ), but this music can have shamanic and hypnotic elements…

Is there anyone, who is against Christian rock/metal?
Finally, what about “driving beat” and “growl”?

 

[cthulhubryan]

Somebody said, that rock music have “roots” in african music.
I’m not a racist (sadly, I don’t like Gypsy a little bit ), but this music can have shamanic and hypnotic elements…

Is there anyone, who is against Christian rock/metal?
Finally, what about “driving beat” and “growl”?

I would say that much of rock music, like all music, has roots in religious music. The reference to “African music” is somewhat limited in that there are elements of tribal/ritual sounds.

My wife loves “contemporary Christian” music and I find much of it not pleasing due to the styles of music the “artists” use.

Certain elements of all music can stimulate baser parts of the animal side of us. Many cults use types of music to help indoctrinate their members/victims.

All musical styles originate in some form from the religious culture of the writers/performers. From the cosmovision of the composer comes the underlying “ritual” feel of the music.

Bach, Brahms and Beethoven were European and thus their historical Cosmovision is one of Christianity and older forms of worship of the divine as expressed in the form of god(s) and/or goddess(es).

Other cultures also introduce (consciously or not) elements of their historical Cosmovision. For example: East Asian forms of music bring forth the elements of their religious heritages which tended more toward ancestor worship and worship of ‘spirits and energies’ as opposed to a god or goddess.

Therefore from a Christian point of view there is a natural (NOT racist) view to recognize the inherent value of a Bach concerto that is not present in music native to non theistic cultures.

 

[Lycorth]

Yeah, when unable to address the points, classicists play the modernism card. If that’s the so-called intellect being exhibited in your highly exalted classics then you’ve just proven my point.

I’ve played no card, but rather cited Church teaching and pointed to Western civilization’s better times as proof. If that’s not good enough for you, I’m sorry for you.

Oh and FYI? Euro-centrism isn’t a racial bias. It’s a cultural one, just like Japanophilia.

Only because I didn’t buckle, eh?

The feeling’s mutual. Unfortunately, unlike you, I didn’t start putting my opinions on a pedestal first.

That’s because all you have are opinions.

Again, more arbitrary standards. Culture is composed of many things and its still a matter of opinion as to how all of that can determine if its thriving. Music is only one of them. Furthermore, declaring the eras when classical music was a hit as “morally vibrant” is a barrel of laughs. As for being advanced… is that even a question?

It’s only a barrel of laughs to a moral relativist. Most other folks, those who know how to put personal opinions aside to evaluate objective evidence, don’t have a problem seeing what I mean.

Otherwise, a crucifix in a jar of urine or the Blessed Mother sculpted in feces cannot be judged in terms of objective superiority or inferiority to the Sistine Chapel or the Pieta. Either standards exist or they do not.

You mean the times when women were stuck at home, common and foreign peoples had no rights, and the right to rule was determined less by democracy and more about just having someone’s DNA? Yeah, finest hours all right.

Nice Marxist claptrap, there. I could go to RevLeft and probably find a hundred such remarks. That’s the only sort I hear that drivel from.

I mean the times when morality was prized, decency was consciously striven for, governments were more streamlined, and God had primacy in society. Yeah, those times.

There’s a difference between arbitrary standards and no standards at all. Just because relativism doesn’t work for morality, it wouldn’t work for what makes for good music, literature, art etc.

No, it works for those things, too. Art is not worthy art when it requires subjective standards in order for it to be appreciated or interpreted, especially in the faces of art forms which are inherently more noble and practical.

Sorry, but if there’s anything I learned from 300 about “messengers”, being biased in favor of the message dispels that protection.

If I learned anything from 300, it’s that life is full of “harsh” and arbitrary standards to which we assent and benefit, or from which we dissent and suffer.

Is there anyone, who is against Christian rock/metal?
Finally, what about “driving beat” and “growl”?

Driving beats and growls are amoral in and of themselves, and hence not necessarily unsuited for nobler lyrical matter, but the powerful dissonance such beats and growls can cause also renders them unfit, in a way, for truly nobler purposes. One has to interpret higher meanings and ascribe greater worth than is already there, oftentimes, to truly elevate something.

It may not necessarily be like comparing the Mona Lisa to a stick figure, but it is like comparing the Mona Lisa to the works of a beginner’s painting student. There is still a measurable difference, even if one can’t describe it.

 

[Celtic_FC]

Firstly, the thread title made me lol. Secondly, does anyone else agree with me that listening to Christian or Classical music puts you in a more positive or happy mood? Thirdly, does anyone else agree with me that there really is some malicious and evil music out there?

 

[Joe_5859]

Firstly, the thread title made me lol.

I think that’s the appropriate response.

Secondly, does anyone else agree with me that listening to Christian or Classical music puts you in a more positive or happy mood?

That depends upon the piece. Some does, some does not. Similarly, some secular rock music does and some does not.

Thirdly, does anyone else agree with me that there really is some malicious and evil music out there?

Yes, there is.

Welcome to the discussion.

 

[iluvburpees]

You mean the times when women were stuck at home…QUOTE]

Wait, I’m confused. Do you have a problem with women staying at home as they are supposed to?

What strange logic. Wagner was indeed an antisemite and non-Christian, but that doesn’t mean any instrumental music he writes is evil. Perhaps the lyrics, but that’s a different story.

 

[Joe_5859]

Welcome back to the discussion, iluvburpees.

 

[Lycorth]

Welcome back to the discussion, iluvburpees.

Amen!

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I’ve played no card, but rather cited Church teaching and pointed to Western civilization’s better times as proof. If that’s not good enough for you, I’m sorry for you.

No, you cited an encyclical. They’re not infallible. I could very well just dismiss your whole list as one big bag of opinions, the same way you dismiss mine.

Only because I didn’t buckle, eh?

Just admit you shot yourself in the foot one that one. “Race card” indeed.

That’s because all you have are opinions.

Same with you. Your point?

It’s only a barrel of laughs to a moral relativist. Most other folks, those who know how to put personal opinions aside to evaluate objective evidence, don’t have a problem seeing what I mean.

Let’s review history shall we? What was rampant during those oh so wondrous times? Bloody crusades, oppression of the peasants, forced marriage, slavery of “pagan” peoples, and need I mention the ridiculous amount of superstition. Yes, quite a picture of a decent moral climate.

Otherwise, a crucifix in a jar of urine or the Blessed Mother sculpted in feces cannot be judged in terms of objective superiority or inferiority to the Sistine Chapel or the Pieta. Either standards exist or they do not.

Again, you act as if I actually said that. Again, note the difference between changing standards and no standards.

Nice Marxist claptrap, there. I could go to RevLeft and probably find a hundred such remarks. That’s the only sort I hear that drivel from. I mean the times when morality was prized, decency was consciously striven for, governments were more streamlined, and God had primacy in society. Yeah, those times.

Really now? I take my so-called “drivel” from my country’s historians. That’s pretty much what they have to say about the so-called wonderful “Western civilization” brought about by our Spanish conquerors: clerical abuse, racism, sexism, destruction of our cultural heritage, destruction of our calligraphy, the loss of many of our folk tales, the promotion of ignorance by Spanish friars, oppression of the press… I can go get my history book right now and list more if you want. The fact is, every human civilization (even one that claims Christianity as its main religion) is as morally repulsive as those that preceded it. The Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Mongolians could put their own civilizations upon a pedestal like you do and there would still be no difference.

No, it works for those things, too. Art is not worthy art when it requires subjective standards in order for it to be appreciated or interpreted, especially in the faces of art forms which are inherently more noble and practical.

Try citing scientific proof of these fictional inherent qualities. You’ll find none. Instead, you’ll just end up running into the mess of theories regarding semiotics, symbolism, and (in the case of literature and music) linguistics. Oh and by the way? I’d stop making so many assertions such as deeming things “not worthy” without evidence.

 

[Lycorth]

No, you cited an encyclical. They’re not infallible. I could very well just dismiss your whole list as one big bag of opinions, the same way you dismiss mine.

I know it’s not infallible, but it does represent the position of someone who was much more learned than either of us.

Just admit you shot yourself in the foot one that one. “Race card” indeed.

I did no such thing. Believe what you must.

Same with you. Your point?

Funny, you argue pretty strongly for just defending a bunch of opinions.

Let’s review history shall we? What was rampant during those oh so wondrous times? Bloody crusades, oppression of the peasants, forced marriage, slavery of “pagan” peoples, and need I mention the ridiculous amount of superstition. Yes, quite a picture of a decent moral climate.

Yes it was; the Crusades were a noble enterprise to defend Christian pilgrims against Muslim persecution, the peasants were no more oppressed than you are right now, arranged marriages served society quite well and rarely felt as “forced” as moderns make them out to be, no pagan people were ever enslaved as slavery was pretty much abolished within Christendom, and superstitions were few and far between.

Compare that to your modern world of abortion on demand, marginalized religion, unchecked Muslim violence, gross levels of immorality peddled in the media and defend by secularist governments, marriages ending in disaster and divorce, the relentless sexualization of everything and the spread of pornography - need I go on?

I’d start with Regine Pernoud and move on to Hilaire Belloc and Warren H. Carroll. It is a benighted Catholic who slanders his own religion’s history and rightful place in the world like you do.

Again, you act as if I actually said that. Again, note the difference between changing standards and no standards.

Which in either case render abominations as “art” and place them on equal footing with actual art.

Really now? I take my so-called “drivel” from my country’s historians. That’s pretty much what they have to say about the so-called wonderful “Western civilization” brought about by our Spanish conquerors: clerical abuse, racism, sexism, destruction of our cultural heritage, destruction of our calligraphy, the loss of many of our folk tales, the promotion of ignorance by Spanish friars, oppression of the press… I can go get my history book right now and list more if you want. The fact is, every human civilization (even one that claims Christianity as its main religion) is as morally repulsive as those that preceded it. The Romans, the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Mongolians could put their own civilizations upon a pedestal like you do and there would still be no difference.

Sounds very Marxist to me. You might want to question those history books and doubt the infallibility you seem to ascribe to them.

Try citing scientific proof of these fictional inherent qualities. You’ll find none. Instead, you’ll just end up running into the mess of theories regarding semiotics, symbolism, and (in the case of literature and music) linguistics. Oh and by the way? I’d stop making so many assertions such as deeming things “not worthy” without evidence.

I wish you *would *stop, yes. I don’t expect you to, though.

If these are all just meaningless opinions, then why not just walk away? Funny, that…

 

[EphelDuath]

I’ll try to explain this to you. The best music is that which most closely conforms to our nature. Now, we are composed of body and soul. We have three main components: intellect (which is the highest part of us and, along with free will, makes us like God), emotions, and passions. None of these things are bad in themselves; even the passions can be a good, provided they are controlled by reason. Remember that Our Lord showed many emotions in his lifetime, yet he never “went overboard.” Now, the distinguishing characteristic of man from any other animal, is that he has an intellect. In other words, he can reason. This, again, is what makes him better than the animals.

I agree with this, but not much of what follows.

Thus, the music that is most fit for our nature is the best. The three components of music are melody (which inspires the intellect), harmony (which hits the emotions) and rhythm (which drives the passions).

This categorization does not seem true to me. First of all, all music has rhythm; most has melody and some has harmony. The difference between the genres of music is in what manner they’re presented; hence why one can “Gregorian Chantify” a rock song if he so pleases. It’s only a manner of converting the instrumentation. The song is still substantially the same.

So it is obvious that melody is the most important thing; harmony follows, and rhythm is of the least importance. It is important to note that, just because the passions are the lowest thing in man, it doesn’t make them bad, and likewise make rhythm bad.

You’re so quick to say that the passions aren’t bad; then why is it the case that melodocentric music conforms most to our nature? Because the intellect is the greatest part of our soul? But how does it follow that the music that is most melodocentric is the best, as opposed to the music that amuses us the most?

Now, rock music, with its pounding, incessent beat, does not closely conform to man’s nature. On the contrary, it is most appropriate for the senseless animals that entirely follow their passions. One can see how dehumanized humans can be when they are exposed to loud rock performances.

You’ve admitted again and again that passions are part of the human being. Abusing them is a problem, but when they’re constrained by the intellect, what is wrong with enjoying rock music?

I’m sure many do not know that rock music was made specifically to target the new, modern, “teenage culture.”

No, it was not. Rock music was made because the first rock musicians, like all others, found the most enjoyment in it. Perhaps it was MARKETED towards teenagers, but that is not the same thing.

It is also a fact that rock comes directly form voodoo music.

Rock music comes from blues, which itself is largely derived from songs that slaves in North America wrote. If you wish to imply that these slaves were actually practitioners of voodoo, you need to study a bit of history. Furthermore, even if that were the case, that’s certainly not “direct” by any means.

And, of course, there is the quote from one of the rock stars (I don’t remember which one) who said that “Rock n’ Roll is 99% s-e-x.” This alone should be enough for Catholics to show maturity and trash this ungodly “art” form, yet many disregard the words of the artists themselves (ironically, they don’t disregard the words in their songs).

Then I apparently listen to the 1% minority, I suppose. And I see nothing wrong with that.

 

[Redratfish]

Then I apparently listen to the 1% minority, I suppose. And I see nothing wrong with that.

Agreed. Of course rock can be bad. Any genre of music can be bad. Pop, hip hop, and rap are all worse than rock IMO. I would rather listen to AC/DC than the Church choir anyday (well except Sunday of course). When was the last time you asked a guy what he was listening to, and he replied, “Oh a wonderful Gregorian Chant song.”?

Rock on Ephel

 

[Returning_Home]

Rock music comes from blues, which itself is largely derived from songs that slaves in North America wrote. If you wish to imply that these slaves were actually practitioners of voodoo, you need to study a bit of history. Furthermore, even if that were the case, that’s certainly not “direct” by any means.

100% correct. The songs slaves sung as they picked cotton became what we know of as gospel and blues from which all modern forms of music spring. Blues was greatly influenced by swing during the war and jump blues was the result. A few white musicians got into this style, specifically Bill Haley, who sped it up a little and ended up introducing the teenage culture to ‘rock and roll’ when "Rock Around the Clock’ was used as the introduction to the movie “The Blackboard Jungle.”

‘Rock and roll’ is a euphemism for sex and DJ Alan Freed is credited with coining the term, though it was in use in songs long before he started playing ‘race music.’ A lot of early jump blues was fairly raunchy with its thinly veiled references to sex: ‘Big Long Slidin’ Thing,’ ‘Sixty Minute Man,’ and ‘Rocket 69’ among others.

Yes, Voodoo has nothing to do with the evolution of music.

 

[LilyM]

100% correct. The songs slaves sung as they picked cotton became what we know of as gospel and blues from which all modern forms of music spring. Blues was greatly influenced by swing during the war and jump blues was the result. A few white musicians got into this style, specifically Bill Haley, who sped it up a little and ended up introducing the teenage culture to ‘rock and roll’ when "Rock Around the Clock’ was used as the introduction to the movie “The Blackboard Jungle.”

‘Rock and roll’ is a euphemism for sex and DJ Alan Freed is credited with coining the term, though it was in use in songs long before he started playing ‘race music.’ A lot of early jump blues was fairly raunchy with its thinly veiled references to sex: ‘Big Long Slidin’ Thing,’ ‘Sixty Minute Man,’ and ‘Rocket 69’ among others.

Yes, Voodoo has nothing to do with the evolution of music.

Funny. It’s a common enough myth (apparently not true, if wikipedia is to be believed) that ‘jazz’ is also a euphemism for sex. Yet no-one (at least not these days) cites the alleged derivation of its name (unlike rock ‘n’ roll) to prove that jazz music is ‘devilish’.