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

[dontknow]

Why can’t I just listen for the sake of listening? You don’t expect children to be in a prayerful or spiritual mindset when they play tag do you? .

Yes… This… How about people like me that listen to instrumental jazz 98% of the time? No lyrics - either good or bad…

 

[RedIvan3]

My grandma put it very well. I dont believe in Santa Claus, but that doesnt mean I cant watch Christmas movies.

 

[Portrait]

Dear friends,

If one is not on guard against evil one will be influenced by evil.

Help me to guard my precious soul
By constant active self-control.
Clean up my thought, my speech, my play;
O Lord, keep me pure from day to day.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

If one is not on guard against evil one will be influenced by evil.

Assuming of course the evil to be guarded against is even there in the first place.

 

[BrooklynBoy200]

Assuming of course the evil to be guarded against is even there in the first place.

Exactly. To be perfectly honest, I don’t understand the argument against rock music at all. Most of them are just the results of unsubstantiated rumors, as is the case with the Led Zeppelin controversy. I mean, ok, even if it says hell backwards, it still says heaven forwards.

I’ll say that it is better to see devils everywhere than nowhere, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to go.

 

[Portrait]

Exactly. To be perfectly honest, I don’t understand the argument against rock music at all. Most of them are just the results of unsubstantiated rumors, as is the case with the Led Zeppelin controversy. I mean, ok, even if it says hell backwards, it still says heaven forwards.

I’ll say that it is better to see devils everywhere than nowhere, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only way to go.

Dear BrooklynBoy200,

It is not merely the occultic connection with rock music that is the problem. One of the most peristent allegations levelled against it is that it has very strong sexual connotations - and it is not too difficult to see why. Many of its* leading* performers have made adultery, fornication, lesbianism, homosexuality or some other form of sexual deviation a way of life. Press reports of their degrading sexual activities have now become so common that they scarcely raise eyebrows. True, we must be careful not to let this prejudice our views regarding their music. Undeniably sin of every kind is practised by people of every kind; no doubt their are dishonest refuse collectors, alcholic lawyers, perverted police officers and immoral city traders - but that does not imply that their offences are in any way related to their occupations. One can go a step further and say that many classical compositions have murder, violence, hatred, greed, immorality or other evils as their themes and should be evaluated by the same standards as any other musical genre. However the point at issue is whether one can single out rock music as having specifically sexual connotations - and the best place to begin that investigation is surely with the musicians themselves and their performances. If they are found seriously wanting then not only do we a responsibility as Christians to denounce it in the strongest terms, but we must ask ourselves whether such debasing material is even worthy of those who profess and call themselves Christians.

Now rock’s leading performers have all been found to use explicit sexual connotations in their compositions and the only reason I am not going to cite any of this evidence is because it is just too unsavoury and explicit for for these public Forums. However the evidence is available for those who wish to examine it. What is being peddled in this deplorable music is blatantly un-christian immorality ranging from casual acceptance of pre-marital sex to the unspeakably pornographic. Moreover it is in bitter opposition to everything that is good, wholesome, pure and righteous (cf. Phillipians 4:8). Sadly these are not ‘unsubstantiated rumours’ and it is incontrovertible that rock music comes from an Augean stable of unimaginable filth and degradation, and the onus is on those who think otherwise to verify their claims.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Now rock’s leading performers have all been found to use explicit sexual connotations in their compositions and the only reason I am not going to cite any of this evidence is because it is just too unsavoury and explicit for for these public Forums. However the evidence is available for those who wish to examine it. What is being peddled in this deplorable music is blatantly un-christian immorality ranging from casual acceptance of pre-marital sex to the unspeakably pornographic. Moreover it is in bitter opposition to everything that is good, wholesome, pure and righteous (cf. Phillipians 4:8). Sadly these are not ‘unsubstantiated rumours’ and it is incontrovertible that rock music comes from an Augean stable of unimaginable filth and degradation, and the onus is on those who think otherwise to verify their claims.

Picking and choosing bad examples to broadly paint an entire genre of music is no more logical than judging the same genre by the bad lifestyle choices of its performers. Just because you find some rock songs possessing sexual connotations does not mean all the rest do. In fact, you’re more likely to run into that kind of junk nowadays on rap music. Still, that’s not enough for me to make the same claims as you do about that genre either.

As for evidence, I can come up with a fair selection of music you can’t possibly decry as having sexual connotations. I’d post them here but only if you ask for it specifically. I’m a little tired of the feeling that my responses to your posts are being ignored. (That and I can’t say if the connoisseurs here would appreciate my tastes even though popularity does not make a morally depraved song the yardstick that all rock songs would be measured against).

 

[Joe_5859]

Picking and choosing bad examples to broadly paint an entire genre of music is no more logical than judging the same genre by the bad lifestyle choices of its performers. Just because you find some rock songs possessing sexual connotations does not mean all the rest do. In fact, you’re more likely to run into that kind of junk nowadays on rap music. Still, that’s not enough for me to make the same claims as you do about that genre either.

As for evidence, I can come up with a fair selection of music you can’t possibly decry as having sexual connotations. I’d post them here but only if you ask for it specifically. I’m a little tired of the feeling that my responses to your posts are being ignored. (That and I can’t say if the connoisseurs here would appreciate my tastes even though popularity does not make a morally depraved song the yardstick that all rock songs would be measured against).

I’m interested in your musical tastes, Lost Wanderer. My tastes are quite outside the norm as well. My favorite bands are far more likely to sing about “Lord of the Rings” than anything sexual. As a whole, metal music sings about sex much less often than pretty much any other genre of music (rap, r&b, country, pop, etc.).

 

[Portrait]

Picking and choosing bad examples to broadly paint an entire genre of music is no more logical than judging the same genre by the bad lifestyle choices of its performers. Just because you find some rock songs possessing sexual connotations does not mean all the rest do. In fact, you’re more likely to run into that kind of junk nowadays on rap music. Still, that’s not enough for me to make the same claims as you do about that genre either.

As for evidence, I can come up with a fair selection of music you can’t possibly decry as having sexual connotations. I’d post them here but only if you ask for it specifically. I’m a little tired of the feeling that my responses to your posts are being ignored. (That and I can’t say if the connoisseurs here would appreciate my tastes even though popularity does not make a morally depraved song the yardstick that all rock songs would be measured against).

Dear LostWanderer,

Thankyou for taking the time to respond to my post, your comments are always much appreciated.

Citing bad examples is perfectly permissible provided that they are representative and typical. Now the many quotations which I could submit, but will refrain from doing so owing to their explicit content, are from the mainstream world of rock (by general consent) and could therefore be said to be typical of the genre. One may find this evidence troublesome because it undercuts ones own position but that is entirely a different matter.

If there are indeed good rock musicians, do they go out of their way to denounce the deplorably evil and unsavoury material composed by many of their fellow musicians in the rock media? If they are worth their salt they certainly should be.

Is the “selection of music” that you could submit for our perusal actually rock music or just easy listening type music?

Warmest good wishes

Portrait

 

[CTA1967]

If we’re going to “cite bad examples”, why don’t we just read the previous page?

If you all seriously think that Rock ‘n’ Roll is bad, let’s check out some good ol’ fashioned Classical (or what most people include in their definition of Classical):

Wagner promoted anti-Semitism
Pagnini sold his soul to the devil for his talent
Tartini was visited by the devil one night, who played for him. Tartini then wrote down the song. It’s rather popular, and is entitled, “The Devil’s Trill”
Berlioz wrote about a man named Faust giving in to the devil’s temptations (and it wasn’t a Christian play). The work was called “The Damnation of Faust”.
Brahms hated women. ALL women.
Beethoven was a womanizer.
Operas began as re-tellings of old Greek and Roman myths. In other words, the root of opera is paganism.

Shall I go on? There’s a lot more where that came from, I assure you. I’m a music major, I could go on forever.

The point is that you’ll find excuses to write off anything as inherently evil. If you write off Rock ‘n’ Roll as ALL evil, you miss what good comes from it. You’ll miss out on artists like The Thirsting, Ceili Rain, P.O.D., DC Talk, Plumb, Sixpence None the Richer, and many, many other Christian rockers, all of whom are devout in their faith and are leading many people to God, yet their influences are the same ones you’ve all just rejected as wholly evil.

So if you want to cross Rock off the list, go ahead. You’ll just have to cross off every other genre of music as well. Then you won’t be able to even leave the house anymore. Good luck with that!

Yes, that’s exactly what I would say. Have you ever translated into English some of the words of the famous operas? It’s all about sex. Opera is like pornography for rich people, and La Traviata in Italy is like a brothel. So, yes, I will say that the “worst operas” compare to the “worst rock music.”

“Don Gioavanni” - about a man-whore. Satanic.
“Cosi Fan Tutte” - about wife-swapping and promiscuity. Satanic.
“The Magic Flute” - every New Ager’s favorite opera. Satanic.
“The Marriage of Figaro” - all about decadence. Satanic.
“Madame Butterly” - no comment on that one. **Satanic. **

What was the favorite Satanic music of the Nazis? What did Adolf Hitler listen to? That’s right…opera…Satanic:
fcit.usf.edu/HOLOCAUST/arts/musReich.htm

One of the most famous songs by Frank Sinatra, ol’ blue eyes, is called “Witchcraft.” A song that makes a joke about **Satanism. **

I can’t believe this thread is still going.

 

[CTA1967]

If there are indeed good rock musicians, do they go out of their way to denounce the deplorably evil and unsavoury material composed by many of their fellow musicians in the rock media? If they are worth their salt they certainly should be.

Yes, there are rock muscians like that. Kerry Livgren, who I cited previously, played a major role in Kansas, a rather influential progressive rock band in the 70s and 80s.

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."

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…

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I’m interested in your musical tastes, Lost Wanderer. My tastes are quite outside the norm as well. My favorite bands are far more likely to sing about “Lord of the Rings” than anything sexual. As a whole, metal music sings about sex much less often than pretty much any other genre of music (rap, r&b, country, pop, etc.).

Well while the songs I like definitely have the elements of rock (electric guitars, a certain ‘hard’ rhythm and beat) they’re more famous for rather… shallow reasons… Gah, I’ll just link a couple of them for all of ya…

W-B-X ~Double Boiled Extreme~ by Aya Kamiki feat TAKUYA
Rolling Star by Yui

If you want to know what makes them popular, look at the related videos and you might get an idea. Again, I apologize if I come off as mediocre and shallow to you rock experts and lovers… TwT

Citing bad examples is perfectly permissible provided that they are representative and typical. Now the many quotations which I could submit, but will refrain from doing so owing to their explicit content, are from the mainstream world of rock (by general consent) and could therefore be said to be typical of the genre. One may find this evidence troublesome because it undercuts ones own position but that is entirely a different matter.

I advise you to read my previous post to you again. Just because something is considered popular and mainstream, it does not make it the standard for lesser known songs to be measured against. Rock is defined as a style not by what people make using it. Style and product are as different as message and medium. Surely you’ve seen the logic in that. The only way I would find your “evidence” troublesome is because it is logically fallacious.

Is the “selection of music” that you could submit for our perusal actually rock music or just easy listening type music?

It’s already been stated countless times to you that rock music itself is a very broad and difficult genre to explicitly define. There are just some characteristics (like the use of certain common instruments and a certain flow of rhythm) that are noticeable but these aren’t enough to define a genre and the genre itself has too much a variety of sub-genres to be definable at all.

With that said, I can definitely say the music I just linked falls under Rock. No offense, but I imagine it’s been quite a challenge for you when I ask you on the subject of foreign rock songs. I, of course, define foreign as any piece of rock music sung in a different language and played in nations outside U.S. and Britain. In fact, following that definition, I’m a foreigner myself and listen to a fair good of local Filipino bands. (Yes folks, just cuz I listen to Japanese music doesn’t mean I don’t patronize my own country’s musicians. ) Here are two of my favorites:

First Day High by Kamikazee
Hallelujah by Bambo

 

[Portrait]

Dear CTA1967,

Greetings to you once again.

At least the “Seeds of Change” spokesman whom you quote is frank enough to admit that he “…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…” (emphasis mine). In stating this he is allowing more than some Christian defenders of rock music. This is in accord with what Steve Lawhead (who, as you are aware, is not anti-rock) admits when he says, “there is more blatant immorality being peddled in popular music now than ever before” (Rock Reconsidered). Moreover, it is exactly what I myself have said quite consistently in this thread, namely, that a large percentage of rock music contains in its lyrics blatant un-Christian immorality, ranging from casual acceptance of pre-marital sex to the unspeakably pornographic. Now in the view of most fair-minded people this does not look too good as regards the ‘case for rock music’, on the contrary it would tend to confirm what most impartial observers, not desperate to uphold an indefensible viewpoint, unbeffiting of a Christian, have always suspected - that rock music comes from an Augean stable of unimaginable filth and depravity.

An important question that needs to be answered is: can we listen to rock music without any danger of getting defiled by its undeniable immoral associations?; in the words of Sacred Scripture, “Can a man carry fire in his bosom and his clothes not be burned?” (Proverbs 6: 27). Richard Taylor, author of* A Return to Christian Culture*, is in no doubt about the answer: “We cannot foster an erotic type of music and expect to succeed in avoiding the erosion of standards and ideals. Rock music has a message and it is the message of sexual permissiveness. As music affects your body you instinctively want to put motions to it. So what kind of motions fit rock music? Basicly sensual motions. If the message of rock music produces that sort of response, then it is not good music for a Christian”.

The desire to stay devoted to rock music is part of the much bigger problem of refusing the summons to sanctity and separation from the godless world, a topic, I freely admit an unpopular one, that I have discussing lately elsewhere on CAF. Our Lord said that Christians were to be “the salt of the earth” (St. Matt. 5: 13), in other words they are to be a sort of moral disinfectant in a world where moral standards are deplorably low, constantly changing, or sometimes, alas, even non-existent. Now in order to do this effectively the Christian must not become assimilated to non-Christians and contaminated by the impurities of this fallen world, such as rock music or salacious TV shows and films, otherwise their testimony and influence will be severely diminished. We must present to the world an alternative Christian counter-culture if we are to influence it for good; if the extent of our worldliness is such, so as to make us indistinguishable from non-Christians, then we have rendered ourselves useless in the service of Christ. We are no longer “…a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master…ready for any good work” (2 Tim. 2:21); we might as well be discarded like well, saltless salt.

We all cling to the world far too much, me as much as anybody, but we must strive to let it go and sit loosely to worldly pleasures and amusements or else our souls will be defiled. - “If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me” (St. Matt. 16: 24); “…he who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me” (St. Matt. 10: 38).

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

 

[Portrait]

Well while the songs I like definitely have the elements of rock (electric guitars, a certain ‘hard’ rhythm and beat) they’re more famous for rather… shallow reasons… Gah, I’ll just link a couple of them for all of ya…

W-B-X ~Double Boiled Extreme~ by Aya Kamiki feat TAKUYA
Rolling Star by Yui

If you want to know what makes them popular, look at the related videos and you might get an idea. Again, I apologize if I come off as mediocre and shallow to you rock experts and lovers… TwT

I advise you to read my previous post to you again. Just because something is considered popular and mainstream, it does not make it the standard for lesser known songs to be measured against. Rock is defined as a style not by what people make using it. Style and product are as different as message and medium. Surely you’ve seen the logic in that. The only way I would find your “evidence” troublesome is because it is logically fallacious.

It’s already been stated countless times to you that rock music itself is a very broad and difficult genre to explicitly define. There are just some characteristics (like the use of certain common instruments and a certain flow of rhythm) that are noticeable but these aren’t enough to define a genre and the genre itself has too much a variety of sub-genres to be definable at all.

With that said, I can definitely say the music I just linked falls under Rock. No offense, but I imagine it’s been quite a challenge for you when I ask you on the subject of foreign rock songs. I, of course, define foreign as any piece of rock music sung in a different language and played in nations outside U.S. and Britain. In fact, following that definition, I’m a foreigner myself and listen to a fair good of local Filipino bands. (Yes folks, just cuz I listen to Japanese music doesn’t mean I don’t patronize my own country’s musicians. ) Here are two of my favorites:

First Day High by Kamikazee
Hallelujah by Bambo

Dear LostWanderer,

Thanyou most kindly for your comments upon my post.

Surely most people, unless of course they had some particular theory to uphold, would be in agreement that what was popular and maintream in rock music is for all intents and purposes a good benchmark with which to appraise the genre as a whole. Now the majority, mainstream evidence clearly and unmistakably preponderates in favour of the case against rock, not the case for it. Most fair-minded persons would rightly conclude from this that, in the words of the ‘Seeds of Change’ spokesman, “the* majority* of rock lyrics are ungodly and immoral” and “that there is more blatant immorality being peddled in popular music now more than ever before” (Steve Lawhead in Rock Reconsidered). Far form being “logically fallacious” this overwhelming evidence would be considered quite weighty and cogent in any court of law.

However it is not merely the leading artists and musicians who’s evidence is casually brushed aside as being of no consequence, but even the secular press and media. Again most impartial observers would freely admit that the secular news media could never be accused of undue bias in favour of Christian standards of decency and good taste, nor of being prissy about morality in general. Thus their testimony is of considerable importance if not necessarily conclusive. For example when you have *Time *magazine once observing that “In a sense all rock is revolutionary. By its very beat and sound it has always implicitly rejected restraints and has celebrated freedom and sexuality”, that is testimony that cannot be lightly discarded as worthless.

I would repectfully suggest that the basic point you are failing to grasp is that it is not just some eccentric holy huddle that is denouncing rock music, but, by their own admission, the rock musicians themselves, the secular media and even ‘thoughtful’ and ‘well balanced’ people like Steve Lawhead, who is by no means anti-rock. Now I would contend that this accumalative evidence is both persuasive and impressive and cannot be contemptuously brushed aside as irrelevant. Thus far, no one on this thread has seriously engaged with this evidence, rather they have chosen to dismiss it as worthless opinion. It seems, unless I am mistaken, that they are prepared to listen only to their own opinions, or the opinions like-minded people. Now one could be pardoned for thinking that this is because the evidence is extremely nettlesome and very damning - actually very damning if so much of cannot be cited owing to its distgusting and revolting content.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

PS Thankyou for the musical links. ‘First Day High’ is quite a catchy little number but I do not approve of the young ladies attired in min-skirts - but we won’t go there again.

 

[Alan79]

Hello there. I have to say, I am conflicted by the condemnation of rock music. Permit me to say why: As a child and teenager, I was bullied quite badly for close to 10 years in school and the torment I felt did not manifest it’s self in self hatred as many unfortunate souls in school do, but in contemplation of serious vengance against my tormentors. My problems with anger did carry on way after I left school into my twenties but what did help me pull myself out of this self destruction was to pick up a guitar and learn to pour my emotions into that. Slowly, I did recover. The pain was there until last year when I finally found our lord at the age of 29. From then on, I have never looked back of felt the torment of my childhood.
However, I do feel that some of these more recent “bands” that openly exalt satan and the like feed on many young peoples anger and insecurites and most importantly, endanger the eternal souls of many emotionally lost children.
I am very interested on what people here make of this!
Thank you!

 

[CTA1967]

St. Ignatius used the term “scrupules” to describe obsessions over matters that are not inherently sinful. I seriously think this thread has been an extremely pointless scrupulosity debate. We’re not persuaded by your assertions, which most of us find highly illogical, and you’re not convinced by our honest attempts to explain this to you, instead making baseless statements that our arguments are “undermined” by your arguments which disregard many of our posts that logically refute them. Again, here are some posts from the previous page, in case you missed these too. For example, regarding the first quote, Joe is a American Catholic who is stating that the majority of American Catholics do not believe in the Real Presence. That doesn’t mean that American Catholics are condemning themselves, and therefore are inherently evil. Of course, if you do believe that we all should be condemned, then we have a bigger problem.

Thank you for contributing, Portrait! You crafted a useful “examination of conscience” for listening to music.

In regards to the “large percentage” comment, I usually don’t find those types of arguments very compelling (even if they are true). In the 4th century Roman Empire, we could say that the vast majority of Christians were Arian, but that doesn’t mean that Christianity in inherently Arian. We could post statistics that state the vast majority of Catholics (in the U.S., at least) do not believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, but that doesn’t mean that such a position is inherent to Catholicism.

In logic, they call it the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

Do people seriously still have this discussion?

The following by Jimmy Akin is required reading for anyone who still thinks it’s a sin to listen to ‘Bad Music’

jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/07/bad_music.html

Assuming of course the evil to be guarded against is even there in the first place.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Surely most people, unless of course they had some particular theory to uphold, would be in agreement that what was popular and maintream in rock music is for all intents and purposes a good benchmark with which to appraise the genre as a whole.

Nope. Look just because people consider Picasso’s modern artwork as epic winners doesn’t make da Vinci’s traditional Renaissance artwork any less praiseworthy. However, does that make them benchmarks? If they were, people would just be copying off them. In the world of art though, that would mean the end of originality as we know it.

It’s the same with rock music.

I hate rap for the most part. My reason would be it’s because it’s almost always about sex, guns, drugs, pimps, and money. Still, I do not condemn purely because I’ve heard some rap songs that don’t rhyme about those things and instead deal with more important social issues.

I suggest you start doing the same with regards to rock.

For example when you have *Time *magazine once observing that “In a sense all rock is revolutionary. By its very beat and sound it has always implicitly rejected restraints and has celebrated freedom and sexuality”, that is testimony that cannot be lightly discarded as worthless.

Yes it can. Reason: It’s just an opinion.

Thus far, no one on this thread has seriously engaged with this evidence, rather they have chosen to dismiss it as worthless opinion. It seems, unless I am mistaken, that they are prepared to listen only to their own opinions, or the opinions like-minded people. Now one could be pardoned for thinking that this is because the evidence is extremely nettlesome and very damning - actually very damning if so much of cannot be cited owing to its distgusting and revolting content.

Because, as we all keep telling you before, it is just that: OPINION. You see the difference between your “evidence” that the secular proponents of rock are “admitting” to the charges brought forth by Puritanical fundamentalists and our dismissal of such opinion is that we reject any attempt of putting rock music in a box.

Rock music is an art. Like all art, you can’t constrain it any tighter than a general definition. Both you and the opinion of the secular opposition that you cite are doing nothing but vainly attempting the impossible. That is why we reject both your opinion and theirs. Our definition of rock music is much less constrained than either of yours. You say it’s full of sex and revolting content. We’ve presented many songs that contradict your blatant and biased generalization. If anyone’s avoiding to address the evidence, it’s you.

PS Thankyou for the musical links. ‘First Day High’ is quite a catchy little number but I do not approve of the young ladies attired in min-skirts - but we won’t go there again.

Ignore the music vid. Just listen to the song. It’s a rock song but all it sings about are the stereotypes in Pinoy schools and colleges. “Sosy” (a.k.a. the girls you seem to be referring to) is our way of calling socialites.

Can anyone see any revolting sexual references in them?

 

[havana1]

Why are the board moderators permitting this thread to go on to excessive, cartoonish lengths? It makes Catholics look like fundamentalists.

 

[CTA1967]

Because, as we all keep telling you before, it is just that: OPINION. You see the difference between your “evidence” that the secular proponents of rock are “admitting” to the charges brought forth by Puritanical fundamentalists and our dismissal of such opinion is that we reject any attempt of putting rock music in a box.

Rock music is an art. Like all art, you can’t constrain it any tighter than a general definition. Both you and the opinion of the secular opposition that you cite are doing nothing but vainly attempting the impossible. That is why we reject both your opinion and theirs. Our definition of rock music is much less constrained than either of yours. You say it’s full of sex and revolting content. We’ve presented many songs that contradict your blatant and biased generalization. If anyone’s avoiding to address the evidence, it’s you.

Thank you! Portrait, it is not us who are “prepared to listen only to their own opinions”. Rather, you have demonstrated that by ignoring the bulk of our posts, which address all of your objections, and repeating the same arguments without refuting ours. There’s no point in having this discussion if you’re either going ignore our posts or inject your own assumptions into what we typed.

 

[CTA1967]

Hey guys, I’ve got a great idea! How about we escape the clutter of this 21-page thread and take our discussion to this one?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=395089