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

[BrooklynBoy200]

As I stated before, look up the film, “They Sold Their Souls for Rock and Roll” on You Tube. They do a great job of explaining it. By the way…I defy you to find where I said “all of rock music is bad.” Many of the most influential rock artists have been affected by Aleister Crowely, either directly or second hand. Also, bringing up one Elvis tune does nothing to disprove his adherence to eastern mysticism and occultism. He actually didn’t write any of his songs.

Well he wrote some of them. Yeah, i know, not that one.
And i’m sorry if i’ve misread what you’re trying to say, it’s just that the thread’s name is calling rock music evil, and i’ve heard some other people say that, so i guess i got it confused.
But if you’re not saying that, then what are you saying?
And i would go so far as to say “most” influential rock artists. I highly doubt it. Maybe most of the rock legends. But that’s to be expected. I mean, they are extremely rich, famous individuals, so they are already given to material goods. I’m sure many of the people that fall under the categories of “rich” and “famous” were/are influenced by mystics and such. What does it matter that a small handful were also rock musicians?
Lennon for one, he never really put anything occult-like in his music.
And Crowley was a …mystical person, not a straight-up satanist. Being influenced by him would be the same thing as believing in astrological predictions. Wrong, but not exactly going to poison their entire art.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dear fellow posters,

It is an indisputable fact that the Devil and his forces have deeply invaded man’s social and cultural structures - and music has not been overlooked. The catalougue, and it could be extended, of musicians I have given above clearly demonstrates beyond any question the Satanic and occultic connections that regularly occur in the world of rock. Now this being the case how can we, as Christians, justify any involvement with it let alone champion it as a perfectly acceptable musical genre?

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them” (Eph. 5: 11).

“What fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

For a Christian to retain inward grace and holiness and yet at the same time enter voluntarily into intimate communion with the world, is as impossible as to combine light and darkness, holiness and sin, happiness and misery.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

And yet - the disciples were sent into the world, very explicitly not taken out of it. Moral separation from it goes too far, if it leads to reversing what Christ intended. The Church’s life is intimately, inescapably, bound up with that of the world - how can the Church be a leaven in the world if it shuns the world ?​

STM there is a tension between the words of St. Paul you’ve recalled, and the words I’ve recalled - for the Church to live within this tension, without denying either element in it, and affirming both of them, is AFAICS one of the conditions of its life; difficult in practice though this affirmation is.

 

[CTA1967]

In case you’ve missed my posts (like the last the last one ) I’ve actually watched it. Here, I’ll do you a favor and quote myself so you won’t have to go back

Sensible posts do tend to be overlooked in conpiracy theory forum threads, don’t they?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dear CTA1967,

Hello again.

Re EWF

The groups name comes from the three major elements in the cosmos. Their song ‘Serpentine Fire’ speaks of the sinal life entity system found in the Shah Krishna Yogi Meditation Cult. On U.S. TV show they were filmed in the home of a member of the group which was full of Eastern gods and occultic symbols. On the programme, they claimed to ‘have an interest in Eastern religion, astrology, numerology and the occult’. Lead vocalist, Maurice White, believes that he possesses powers from previous incarnations and has the group join hands in a circle before beginning a show, so as to tune into the force of the ‘higher powers’.

This might help explain why I feel that I should not be listening to the music of EWF.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

OTOH. there is a video about Elizabeth Clare Prophet which is the background for a very beautiful rendering of the hymn “Holy God, We Praise Thy Name”:​

• youtube.com/watch?v=q1ukK395d0Q

and

• en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Clare_Prophet

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Sensible posts do tend to be overlooked in conpiracy theory forum threads, don’t they?

sighs I know. Sometimes I even wonder why I bother posting.

P.S.

A little bit off topic. I feel kinda bad and left out though that I’m the only one here who listens to foreign (a.k.a. non-western) rock music… and for mediocre reasons to boot. >_<;;

 

[Geremia]

This is a good article: “Music and Spirituality: To the Tune of St. Thomas Aquinas” by Fr. Basil Cole, O.P.

 

[Joe_5859]

Well, there’s been a bit of activity since last I had the chance to grace the forums with my presence.

I appreciate your civility, Portrait. This is a topic that I like to explore, and it’s nice to do so with someone who isn’t constantly condemning me to hell.

Actually I myself have had a very similar experience to yourself. For many years I have been a great devotee of 1970’s Disco and Funk music and still continue to listen to it even now at the age of 48!! However, I always feel very ill-at-ease doing so since some of the songs have sexually immoral overtones and are quite sensual and I feel very unclean and impure after listening to it.

Oh, Portrait! It profit not a man to give up his soul for the whole world. But for Disco? (Sorry, couldn’t resist the “Man for All Seasons” allusion. )

I do understand what you’re getting at, though. I recall someone describing to me how, when they went and saw a movie that profusely used the Lord’s name in vain, they walked out of the movie theater feeling “slimed” (and thus now he makes it a habit to walk out of a movie at the first occurrence of blashpemy).

It’s not as though people listen to a song and suddenly are overtaken by the mysterious desire to fornicate and use drugs. But it can still leave people feeling unsettled and “not quite right.” My wife feels that way when she listens to the music that I like to listen to (hence why I never listen to it in her presence).

First, it is said that Christian rock music draws the crowds. [snip]

I’d say that’s pretty accurate.

Second, What spiritual, moral or ethical demands does Christian rock make?[snip]

Fair enough. Back when I was in high school, the Christian rock band Jars of Clay had a fair bit of popular success with their song “40 Days.” I remember some of my friends (many of whom even owned the album) did not even know they were a Christian band until I pointed it out to them! I suppose the fact that many people largely ignore a song’s lyrics cuts both way: they might miss certain scandalous lyrics, but they also miss the good ones.

I do understand your point about “semi-conversion”. It’s akin to the seed planted in the shallow soil. The plant sprouts quickly, but soon withers for lack of roots. I don’t think that’s a problem unique to Christian rock, though. I’ve observed the same phenomenon with certain youth retreat programs. The kids get a feeling of euphoria from the retreat, and they want to go on more retreats to sustain that feeling. Eventually, though, they must either come to the realization that Christianity is not about good feelings, or else they simply go back to their former way of life. And I’ve seen different people choose either path.

Certainly, if such music is the only tie one has to Christianity, one is not going to advance very far in the spiritual life.

Third, Unfortunately we are living in days of unprecedented spiritual declension and depresssion,…[snip]

I agree to an extent. There is a sense in which the “meet people where they’re at” approach can be taken too far (such as, IMHO, using “beat” music at Mass). But I think the approach does have some validity, as spelled out in the Church’s comments on inculturation (see CCC 854). The General Directory for Catechesis also explores this topic in Part Four, Chapter V (paragraphs 202-214) spelling out the right way to go about it. Whether or not “Christian rock” has a place in such efforts is up for debate, though.

Fourth, is there not a distinctive difference between Christian rock and secular rock? [snip]

I think this is the point that I most struggle to get my head around. You make a good point in regards to Christian rock. If you take a song and sub in Christian lyrics, how much have you really changed the song? Many people freely admit that they don’t pay attention to the lyrics anyway. Music does communicate without words (as Pope Benedict stated just this past Saturday).

But then, this is where I start to think about what is it that really unites “rock” as a genre. Not all rock songs employ the same meter or time signatures. There are differing drum beats. Some “rock bands” stick mostly with acoustic guitar, while others utilize mainly electric guitar. Of those bands that use electric guitar, some employ mainly a “clean” guitar sound, while others opt for a “crunchy”, distorted guitar sound. Some bands even involve orchestral arrangements. Others don’t.

I also don’t think we can say that all rock songs have the same effect on an individual. Listening to the Beach Boys and listening to Metallica are two substantially different experiences. Even listening to two songs by the same band will yield different emotional results (such as ballads vs. “high-energy” songs).

And yet, when we hear all these variations, something about them is still similar enough for us to group them together into one genre (even though we come up with thousands of sub-genres). It’s that similarity that I really cannot put my finger on. This is unfortunate as it would seem most useful to be able to do so in discussions such as these.

I’ve kind of worked on this post in a piecemeal fashion (and then it was too long and I had to edit it down), so I apologize for any rambling and/or lack of cohesiveness.

 

[Portrait]

Dear Joe5859,

Thankyou most kindly for your courteous comments - some excellent points and observations. It is quite evident that, whilst we differ on some points, there is nonetheless much clear blue water between us on this very thorny issue.

Blessings on you and may the peace of God be yours now and always.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CTA1967]

And there’s plenty of classical music with blatant connections to freemasonry, which was strongly condemned by the Church. Mozart’s Magic Flute, for example. Are you suggesting good Christians should shun all secular music altogether?

sighs I know. Sometimes I even wonder why I bother posting.

May I politely ask that someone specifically answer my point about classical music’s connection to heretical spirituality?

I mean, given that Pope John Paul II liked rock music, and Pope Benedict likes Mozart, who was an open freemason, where does that leave us if they’re both wrong? And if only Pope John Paul II is wrong, isn’t that setting a double standard?

 

[Portrait]

Dear Lost Wanderer,

Greetings to you once again.

Notwithstanding your very passionate apologia for rock music, I do beleive that your arguments are sophistical, incomplete and only superficially plausible. There is much that you have overlooked and neglected to say and to that extent your position is seriously wanting. Thus I submit the following to enlarge your perspective:

First, the fact is Rock is communication without words, irrespective as to what ideology is inserted into the music; the lyrics only inform us what the music is already declaring. In other words the music per se is its own message and as such it can completely alter the message of the words, assuming of course there is any! Thus rock music is not merely a sort of pliable medium that can be bent in any direction. Some art forms express certain philosphies and are so wedded to those philosphies that they convey a certain kind of outlook, now rock music is a prime example of this and is decidedly not a neutral medium. Now this would only be repudiated by those who have a particular theory to uphold, like the pro-Christian rock clan who clutch at every and any straw to legitimize and baptize it, in spite of its occultic and unsavoury connections.

Second, one of the basic consitituents of rock music is constant repition. Listen to any rock track of your choice and one of its major features will be the constant repetion of chord patterns, beat, a narrow range of notes or a rhythmic figure.

Obviously there is no ‘law’ about the amount of variety that is required before a peice of music becomes ‘legitimate’; the most one can say is that variety is one of the traits of any good good music. In response it may be said that there is considerable repetion in certain classical music, this is undeniably true. However, it is creative, with subtle variations woven into it. Is there honestly any parity between, say, the repetion in a Vivaldi concerto movement and that in Led Zeppelin’s ‘Whole Lotta Love’ (widely considered a classic peice of rock)? Quite apart from the erotic elements and simulated orgasm, ‘Whole Lotta Love’ has about as much variety of sound as a…well pneumatic drill.
Now because of this constant repetition rock music is an ideal vehicle for individual or mass hypnosis. This surely should raise warning cones about the suitability of rock music.

Third, a driving beat is an indispensable ingredient of rock; whatever harmonic or melodic or verbal sophistication rock may contain, it simply would not appeal as it does without the undergirding of its simple, repetetive, pounding beat. As with repetion, rhythm plays a valid part in all music, but in rock rhythm is replaced be a relentless driving beat. There is evidence to suggest that when the beat overrides the other elements in a song the communication level is significantly changed to one which is primarily physical and often specifically sexual. This is a red light that ought to spell danger to anyone, but especially the Christian who is, at least one hopes, endeavouring “to control his own body in holiness and honour” (I Thess 4:4).

Finally, I think that you are far too dismissive of statements made by musicians as to the vileness and evil of so much of the rock media. You say they are ‘just words and opinions’. This is quite true, but they are the words and opinions of veteran artists and therefore authoritative sources who, as such, should not go unheard. It is quite proper to cite statements made by these musicians in order to form an impartial understanding of the world of rock. Indeed if I failed to do this I could rightfully be accused of presenting a one-sided argument based on perjudice and supposition, thus you can surely see the necessity of going to the horses mouth so to speak. However I think I can understand why people object to me quoting these musicians, for clearly their statements regarding rock music explode their untenable positions, positions, nonetheless, which they try to defend to the death in the face of adverse cogent evidence.

We may vehemently disagree with our disputant and feel that he is illogical and that his whole rationale is fundamentally flawed, even so , we must allow that this is just our own opinion which likewise could just be illogical and fundamentally flawed.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

PS Hope all is well with you Lost Wanderer.

 

[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.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dear Lost Wanderer,

Greetings to you once again.

Notwithstanding your very passionate apologia for rock music, I do beleive that your arguments are sophistical, incomplete and only superficially plausible. There is much that you have overlooked and neglected to say and to that extent your position is seriously wanting. Thus I submit the following to enlarge your perspective:

First, the fact is Rock is communication without words, irrespective as to what ideology is inserted into the music; the lyrics only inform us what the music is already declaring. In other words the music per se is its own message and as such it can completely alter the message of the words, assuming of course there is any! Thus rock music is not merely a sort of pliable medium that can be bent in any direction. Some art forms express certain philosphies and are so wedded to those philosphies that they convey a certain kind of outlook, now rock music is a prime example of this and is decidedly not a neutral medium. Now this would only be repudiated by those who have a particular theory to uphold, like the pro-Christian rock clan who clutch at every and any straw to legitimize and baptize it, in spite of its occultic and unsavoury connections.

But - condemnation by association is a rather dodgy type of argument; for obvious reasons.​

Second, one of the basic consitituents of rock music is constant repition. Listen to any rock track of your choice and one of its major features will be the constant repetion of chord patterns, beat, a narrow range of notes or a rhythmic figure.

Obviously there is no ‘law’ about the amount of variety that is required before a peice of music becomes ‘legitimate’; the most one can say is that variety is one of the traits of any good good music. In response it may be said that there is considerable repetion in certain classical music, this is undeniably true. However, it is creative, with subtle variations woven into it. Is there honestly any parity between, say, the repetion in a Vivaldi concerto movement and that in Led Zeppelin’s ‘Whole Lotta Love’ (widely considered a classic peice of rock)? Quite apart from the erotic elements and simulated orgasm, ‘Whole Lotta Love’ has about as much variety of sound as a…well pneumatic drill.
Now because of this constant repetition rock music is an ideal vehicle for individual or mass hypnosis. This surely should raise warning cones about the suitability of rock music.

The Rosary can be very soporific for exactly that reason. As can Church music. Some preachers drone on, on, on.​

Third, a driving beat is an indispensable ingredient of rock; whatever harmonic or melodic or verbal sophistication rock may contain, it simply would not appeal as it does without the undergirding of its simple, repetetive, pounding beat. As with repetion, rhythm plays a valid part in all music, but in rock rhythm is replaced be a relentless driving beat. There is evidence to suggest that when the beat overrides the other elements in a song the communication level is significantly changed to one which is primarily physical and often specifically sexual. This is a red light that ought to spell danger to anyone, but especially the Christian who is, at least one hopes, endeavouring “to control his own body in holiness and honour” (I Thess 4:4).

This would condemn a lot of bagpipe music A lot of Scottish song, Gaelic especially, but English as well, is very “bodily” - not purely intellectual; & is the better for it.​

Something is wrong with any aesthetic theory that excludes the “great music” of the pipes, the accordion, drums, and song of Scotland & other Celtic cultures.

Finally, I think that you are far too dismissive of statements made by musicians as to the vileness and evil of so much of the rock media. You say they are ‘just words and opinions’. This is quite true, but they are the words and opinions of veteran artists and therefore authoritative sources who, as such, should not go unheard. It is quite proper to cite statements made by these musicians in order to form an impartial understanding of the world of rock. Indeed if I failed to do this I could rightfully be accused of presenting a one-sided argument based on perjudice and supposition, thus you can surely see the necessity of going to the horses mouth so to speak. However I think I can understand why people object to me quoting these musicians, for clearly their statements regarding rock music explode their untenable positions, positions, nonetheless, which they try to defend to the death in the face of adverse cogent evidence.

We may vehemently disagree with our disputant and feel that he is illogical and that his whole rationale is fundamentally flawed, even so , we must allow that this is just our own opinion which likewise could just be illogical and fundamentally flawed.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

PS Hope all is well with you Lost Wanderer.

 

[Portrait]

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.

Dear CTA1967,

Which classical musician, that you know of, ever uttered words such as these:

“Satan could be God” - Bill Ward (Group member of Black Sabbath).

“Rock has always been the Devil’s music. You can’t convince me otherwise. I believe that rock ‘n’ roll is dangerous” (David Bowie).

It seems that you and many others in this current thread are in denial about the sinister elements associated with rock music. As I have previously stated I am not suggesting that sexual aberration or occultism are parts of the music. However it is incontrovertible that the connection is clear and close and there is no doubt whatsoever that rock music is a powerful communicator of their damaging philosphies. How one can equate this with classical music really beggars belief!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CTA1967]

Dear CTA1967,

Which classical musician, that you know of, ever uttered words such as these:

“Satan could be God” - Bill Ward (Group member of Black Sabbath).

“Rock has always been the Devil’s music. You can’t convince me otherwise. I believe that rock ‘n’ roll is dangerous” (David Bowie).

It seems that you and many others in this current thread are in denial about the sinister elements associated with rock music. As I have previously stated I am not suggesting that sexual aberration or occultism are parts of the music. However it is incontrovertible that the connection is clear and close and there is no doubt whatsoever that rock music is a powerful communicator of their damaging philosphies. How one can equate this with classical music really beggars belief!

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

If you think we’re in denial, you’ve deliberately ignored many of our posts. With all due respect, I think you are obsessing absolutely neurotically, not morally, about this. I’m not going to repeat myself. Here are some of the posts I’ve made in this thread. Could you please answer them specifically?

And this really make me feel like I’m being ignored. Stop trying to label an entire genre of art with quotes from individuals. Different artists can have different opinions of rock, just like how Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II had different opinions.

Yes, there were plenty of famous composers who were “anti-religious, anti-nationalistic and anti-morality.” Broaden your research if you really want to psychoanalyze music.

Oh right, I forgot that you’re probably going to ask me specifically about that last comment, just like how you had to scrutinize why Pope John Paul II invited several rock musicians to perform at the Vatican.

Anti-religious: Haydn left the Church, influenced by Mozart’s freemasonry.
Anti-nationlistic: Shostakovich definitely did not have a happy relationship with the USSR.
Anti-morality: Debussy was known for having affairs and abandoning a wife and several partners.

Just a few examples of many…

And there’s plenty of classical music with blatant connections to freemasonry, which was strongly condemned by the Church. Mozart’s Magic Flute, for example. Are you suggesting good Christians should shun all secular music altogether?

Right, because YouTube is such a valuable wealth of accurate information.

So has anyone answered my point yet about how many classical composers were directly influenced by freemasonry, a spirituality which is harshly condemned by the Church?

May I politely ask that someone specifically answer my point about classical music’s connection to heretical spirituality?

I mean, given that Pope John Paul II liked rock music, and Pope Benedict likes Mozart, who was an open freemason, where does that leave us if they’re both wrong? And if only Pope John Paul II is wrong, isn’t that setting a double standard?

 

[CTA1967]

How one can equate this with classical music really beggars belief!

This statement really ticked me off. You can conjure up all these OCD, illogical “proofs” about how rock music is evil, but you dismiss classical music’s less than holy history in a single unsupported statment. As if you think it’s absolute nonsense and irrelevant. I agree the the artists’ personal lives are irrelevant to the genre as a whole. However, you can’t just apply that to some genres and not others. That is setting a double standard.

If you were more consistent in your standards, I imagine your response would be more like this:

To some extent, sure. The fall of the Middle Ages was done through the arts, because it is Man’s tendencies in his actions and way of living that eventually give way to ideas and then revolutions. All the sentimentality in the arts that did not exist in the Middle Ages eventually became the driving force of a revolution no one realize was happening. Every other one, the Protestant, the French, the Communist revolution had a reaction to it.

The Rennaisance entered with out a single cry.
The Devil and masonry at it’s best.

 

[Portrait]

Dear CTA1967,

It is by adducing evidence from the rock artists themselves that we gain an impartial understanding about the “entire art genre” and from my research and study they all speak with one voice on this issue about occultic connections and sex. If you can present any evidence to the contrary from other rock musicians, then by all means let us here it.

Look If I want to know about the world of politics then I talk to a poitician to get an informed view; if I want to understand how the legal system functions then I talk to Barrister or Attorney-at-Law; if I want to understand the Catholic Church I talk to a priest or an apologist. These are the ‘experts’ and the people in the know. I respect their opinion and words of these professionals because they know more than I do about their respective professions and they are unlikely to misinform me. Similarly the rock artist will be well informed about his art and will have a wide knowledge regarding its connections and what its about, especially if he has been associated with the rock media for many years. Many of the artists that I cite have, and therefore they should know. When they all seem to speak with one voice that surely is very compelling evidence.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[CTA1967]

Dear CTA1967,

It is by adducing evidence from the rock artists themselves that we gain an impartial understanding about the “entire art genre” and from my research and study they all speak with one voice on this issue about occultic connections and sex. If you can present any evidence to the contrary from other rock musicians, then by all means let us here it.

Look If I want to know about the world of politics then I talk to a poitician to get an informed view; if I want to understand how the legal system functions then I talk to Barrister or Attorney-at-Law; if I want to understand the Catholic Church I talk to a priest or an apologist. These are the ‘experts’ and the people in the know. I respect their opinion and words of these professionals because they know more than I do about their respective professions and they are unlikely to misinform me. Similarly the rock artist will be well informed about his art and will have a wide knowledge regarding its connections and what its about, especially if he has been associated with the rock media for many years. Many of the artists that I cite have, and therefore they should know. When they all seem to speak with one voice that surely is very compelling evidence.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Thank you for response, but may I politely ask that you specifially and logically respond to what I asked you to? As for “good” rock and rollers, My best suggestion is to read Seeds of Change by Kerry Livgren, the famous guitarist/pianist/composer for the rock band Kansas in the 1970s and 80s. He is a Christian, and he wrote several chapters about the moral neutrality of rock music in itself. I can type up some excerpts from it when I have time.

There are also various other examples from rockers in secular bands that aren’t necessarily related to religion, but invalidate your arguments. Jon Anderson from Yes has a firm belief in God, listens to Christian radio, and has worked with Christian music artists. Rick Wakeman from the same band is Christian. Trevor Rabin from the same band has been married to the same wife for nearly thirty years, and from what I can tell from his interviews he is against recreational drug use. I cannot recall any songs by Yes involving gratuitous sex, and their more “spiritual” songs are ambiguous enough that their lyrics could be applied to any religion. (Please don’t argue about religious neutrality being evil; I’ve said enough about classical music’s strong connection to freemasonry) Dennis DeYoung from Styx is a Catholic and has been faithfully married to his wife for over thirty years. He has written songs about his faith. There are many more artists like these, and you can research them yourself if you can find so many negative examples. And concerning drug use, even Paul McCartney has stated that the effect of drugs on the Beatles’ music is overestimated. Obviously, you can’t record good music while stoned, unless you really want to do five hundred takes of the same track. Or end up on the roof of the studio like John Lennon when he unintentionally consumed something spiked with LSD.

But all this is beside the point. We can spend the rest of our lives listing saintly musicians or horribly immoral musicians from ANY GENRE, and we’ll get nowhere. People are different!

By the way, you may think this is ridiculous, but your own posts sound a lot like Pro Domina’s, the only difference being that you find evil in rock music but not classical music. I’m not sure how that is a position you can take, given the argument’s you’ve used.

 

[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]

As for specific “good” secular rock songs, here are some:

“Revolution” by the Beatles (against violent rebellion)
“I’m Just a Singer” by the Moody Blues (against “riots by the people”)
“Turn! Turn! Turn” by the Byrds (the words in this song should be familiar to you)
“Cheyenne Anthem” by Kansas (about how nothing is eternal, including civilizations)
“Teach Your Children” by Crosby, Stills and Nash (about caring for your family)
“Homeward Bound” by Simon and Garfunkel (about returning home)
“You’re My Best Friend” by Queen (written by John Deacon to his Catholic wife)
“Conquistador” by Procol Harum (about the failure of a fighter)
“Let It Grow” by Eric Clapton (about loving friends)
“We’re Going Wrong” by Cream (written by Jack Bruce to his wife after an argument)
“Kicks” by Paul Revere and the Raiders (against drug use)
“Where Do We Go from Here?” by Chicago (a call “change your way of life” for good)

Are you happy now? I’ve responded to your pointless arguments with pointless arguments of my own. Can we talk about the history of classical music now, and whether it too is instrinsically evil? You may think it’s ridiculous. Likewise, I think that your belief that rock music is evil is also ridiculous. But if we can psychoanalyze rock music, we can psychoanalyze EVERY genre of music to see if each one is morally sound. So let’s begin with classical music.

 

[CTA1967]

Okay, here is another quote from Seeds of Change which will interest you, emphasis mine.

 "Other criticisms of rock music include immoral lyrics, worldliness and sensuality. I would be the first to acknowledge that the majority of rock lyrics are ungodly and immoral. They portray sex, drugs and rock 'n' as ends in themselves. Several rock groups are actively involved in the occult as well, and this surfaces in their music. Some groups in fact openly and blatantly talk about Satanism. But once again, the musical genre itself is not evil. **Lyrical salaciousness is frequently found in country and western songs and pop songs. Furthermore, the liberetti of many operas exult adulterous and even incestuous relationships. Such misuses are problems, but they do not make these musical forms evil. The fact is that any musical genre can be used to honor or defame the name of God. The history of art and music reveals that styles are constantly changing. These artistic styles are neither godly nor ungodly, just different. The conservative Christian community has a tendency to automatically reject new styles as unsuitable (only later to tolerate, then embrace the same styles and techniques).**
 "**Most people are not aware of the need to evaluate all artistic work on several levels.** When they see a film, go to a play, hear a concert, read a book, or look at a painting, they simply walk away with a vague notion of why they either liked or disliked it. It is important to approach the arts in a more thoughtful and critical way than this."

You did want a voice of dissent to the quotes you gave me. I think Kerry Livgren sums it up quite nicely - and logically - for the “clean” rockers out there…