N
nickybr38
Guest
If you think it’s wrong, why would you put yourself in a position where you seem to support and/or encourage it in anyway?
I’m no expert, that’s the only thought I have on that.
- Status
I’m no expert, that’s the only thought I have on that.
J
joemidlife
Guest
Well for one thing, I don’t think I’d be ready to tell my bandmates that I’m quitting because of a couple of lyrics. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve been playing and listening to this type of music for much of my life, and it has become very ingrained in me. I certainly don’t live a rock n roll lifestyle; I simply enjoy listening to and making the music. As for the negative lyrics, I can honestly say that they do not tempt me nor are they appealing to me. In fact, sometimes I don’t even notice immoral lyrics because they are slurred or not otherwise sung clearly. I guess my question is whether I should let a few lyrics spoil an otherwise enjoyable musical experience for me, and if I should be worried about playing with a vocalist that is singing them.
C
Christopher68
Guest
An excellent post.A couple pages back, somebody tried to make the argument about Iron Maiden being satanic.
I really have a bone to pick with this – the only thing this is based on is their song “the Number of the Beast.” If you listen to the lyrics, it’s about a dream the narrator (Steve Harris) has where he sees the Devil. The song is a warning that the narrator is giving, having witnessed the power of the Devil within his dreams.
How is this Satanic? Is the Book of Revelation Satanic, because the Devil is a character within it?
Iron Maiden’s one step away from being a Christian band, if anything. Though they focus moreso on British military history though.
Heavy metal is misunderstood by many people, particularly those who don’t enjoy that genre of music.
The Maiden song referenced above is often misunderstood. Another example is Ozzy Osbourne’s song ‘Suicide Solution’. Someone who doesn’t appreciate heavy metal is going to see that song title and think 'Ozzy is telling people to kill themselves!" In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The word ‘solution’ has several meanings. In this song it is not used to reference ‘a method or process for solving a problem’ but rather ‘a homogenous mixture of two or more substances’. Alcohol is the liquid ‘solution’ in the song title. The song was written about a fellow musician who died as a result of massively abusing alcohol, and the song is a cautionary tale. So instead of being a clarion call to take your own life, this song is more of a public service announcement.
R
rapunzel77
Guest
This is very true which is why I listen to the song first before I make a judgment about it.
LOL, the thought of Ozzy Osbourne being a public service announcement is funny though
. I guess its because Ozzy has had his own problems and it shows every time he is on stage or jut in an interview .I think one of the problems, and this is true for many musicians, artists, etc is the drug and sex addled lifestyle that it often produces. Which is sad because there is talent out there and if some of them live, most eventually figure out that being sober is probably a better idea not just for their health but also for the creativity. I was watching VH-1 classic last night that had a Behind the Music special on one of the most silly of “poser” metal bands: Motley Crue. In spite of Tommy Lee’s continued antics, most of the members have learned to sober up due to some harrowing circumstances. Sadly, one of the members, Mick Mars is suffering from a bone disease.
The sad part is that they didn’t have to get into all the drugs and alcohol yet the lifestyle of a musician or artist draws them to it. It might be because it attracts types of people who have a “I don’t care” attitude toward life. Some of them come from very broken homes or they are in depression themselves and it shows in their music. In the Crue’s case, well…it was very, very excessive
.
M
Major_Minor
Guest
The Beach Boys? Satanic? ummmmmm Longtime fan here and I have to question this choice… based on what? (I am reacting to one of the first posts… I see now it’s 24 pages long so this might seem like a non-sequitor…but
Slayer? Marilyn Manson? Skinny Puppy?
Obviously
…but the Beach Boys?
Did anyone see that list of 10 albums the Vatican newspaper released as examples of “good music”? Pink Floyd was one of them…Pink Floyd? The same group that clearly and obviously disrepected Mary and the Catholic Church in the album “Animals”? It also includes a horrible rewording of The Lords Prayer that makes my skin crawl just thinking about it…yes that newspaper named “Dark Side Of The Moon” not Animals… but look, if Pink Floyd is “OK” then how on earth is The Beach Boys satanic?
There is not one negative mention of religion in their music, there’s no disrespect, there’s no hatred, no anger, no malice… I am thoroughly familiar with their music and it is life-positive if it’s anything. At worst some of it might be a bit shallow in the lyric dept. about girls and cars… but…
There are Catholic Punk bands, Catholic metal bands and that sound is harsh, aggressive, angry…(Not to my taste and just for the record I’m not “against” it per se, but am baffled by the listing of melodic pop as “Satanic” compared to >genuinely< Satanic bands… go listen to some Slayer videos on youtube if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)
To say ALL rock music is Satanic is absurd… but then again there’s no denying some of it is.
Slayer? Marilyn Manson? Skinny Puppy?
Obviously
…but the Beach Boys?
Did anyone see that list of 10 albums the Vatican newspaper released as examples of “good music”? Pink Floyd was one of them…Pink Floyd? The same group that clearly and obviously disrepected Mary and the Catholic Church in the album “Animals”? It also includes a horrible rewording of The Lords Prayer that makes my skin crawl just thinking about it…yes that newspaper named “Dark Side Of The Moon” not Animals… but look, if Pink Floyd is “OK” then how on earth is The Beach Boys satanic?
There is not one negative mention of religion in their music, there’s no disrespect, there’s no hatred, no anger, no malice… I am thoroughly familiar with their music and it is life-positive if it’s anything. At worst some of it might be a bit shallow in the lyric dept. about girls and cars… but…
There are Catholic Punk bands, Catholic metal bands and that sound is harsh, aggressive, angry…(Not to my taste and just for the record I’m not “against” it per se, but am baffled by the listing of melodic pop as “Satanic” compared to >genuinely< Satanic bands… go listen to some Slayer videos on youtube if you don’t know what I’m talking about.)
To say ALL rock music is Satanic is absurd… but then again there’s no denying some of it is.
H
havana1
Guest
There are also heavy metal bands from post-Saddam Iraq, most notably Acrassicauda, who was recently granted asylum in the U.S. (They just played a gig in L.A. last week.)
D
distracted
Guest
i liked Pink Floyd… until now…The Beach Boys? Satanic? ummmmmm Longtime fan here and I have to question this choice… based on what? (I am reacting to one of the first posts… I see now it’s 24 pages long so this might seem like a non-sequitor…but
Slayer? Marilyn Manson? Skinny Puppy?
Obviously
…but the Beach Boys?
Did anyone see that list of 10 albums the Vatican newspaper released as examples of “good music”? Pink Floyd was one of them…Pink Floyd? The same group that clearly and obviously disrepected Mary and the Catholic Church in the album “Animals”? It also includes a horrible rewording of The Lords Prayer that makes my skin crawl just thinking about it…yes that newspaper named “Dark Side Of The Moon” not Animals… but look, if Pink Floyd is “OK” then how on earth is The Beach Boys satanic?
There is not one negative mention of religion in their music, there’s no disrespect, there’s no hatred, no anger, no malice… I am thoroughly familiar with their music and it is life-positive if it’s anything. At worst some of it might be a bit shallow in the lyric dept. about girls and cars… but…
To say ALL rock music is Satanic is absurd… but then again there’s no denying some of it is.
how did they disrepsect the Church??
i dont know what’s happening to the Church these days…
John Paul II kissing the Koran… saying all religions are great… 
(all religions have some truth in them… but GREAT?? Jesus said that HE is the way, the truth and the life and no one gets to the Father except through HIM) Benedict implying that being in the Real Presence is not the same as having a conversation w/ God… so i am hardly surrpised that the Vatican newspaper would pick an anti-Catholic group’s music…
the devil is trying to destroy our Church…& from what i can tell he’s doing a good job… but then, he’s more intelligent than us humans so what do we expect??
I
iluvburpees
Guest
I don’t deny this, although it really depends on what one means by “satanic.” If by satanic, one is referring to something that blatantly praises Satan, or talks about sacrificing to Satan, or anything else directly related to Satan, then no, not all rock music is satanic. But if by satanic, one means “immoral,” then one can reasonably put rock music in this category.
I’ve seen people saying how rock music is simply another tool that can be used for good or bad, as if it were a knife, which is neither good nor bad in itself, and whose goodness or badness is dependent on its use. This, however, is false. In the case of a knife, the knife has nothing bad about it in itself. It is only bad when used incorrectly. This is the way it is with music in general. When music is created in the ordered fashion it is meant to be created, it is a great thing. When it is disordered, it becomes bad. So music is a tool that cam be used for good or bad. But rock music, by its nature, is the bad side of music. So it is irrelevant whether it is “used for good,” because it is of its very nature not good. Saying that we can use rock music for good is like saying that we can use murder for good. If it not good in its very essence, it can never be used for good.
Why is rock music not good (purely from the view of the music itself, not the lyrics, which could be either good or bad)? It all boils down to the three components of music and how they are related, which are melody, harmony, and rhythm. Melody is targeted at the intellect, harmony to the emotions, and rhythm to the passions. All music, even Gregorian chant, has these three components of music. Because the intellect is the highest component of man’s nature (it is what makes him “like God”), and because the passions are the lowest thing in man’s nature (the only thing that makes him like the lower animals), it is clear that the melody is the highest part of music, and the rhythm is the lowest part of music (by “highest” and “lowest,” I mean “most noble” and “least noble”). Now, as long as these three things are in proper order, the music is good for the body and soul. It elevates the mind to the beautiful; it controls one’s passions; it creates a healthy mind (as demonstrated by the well-known experiments with plants and animals); it creates a healthy body, because what is good for the soul/mind is necessarily good for the body. However, when these things are disordered, it becomes an absolutely disastrous means of destroying souls. I firmly believe that if Satan had a choice between everyone on earth listening to the worst music possibly devised, and the worst film possibly devised, he would choose the music. Why? Because music enters and influences the soul like nothing else. The worst pornographic film will obviously result in some of the worst mortal sins possible, by seeing it, by later thinking about it, and by trying to do what is done in the film; however, if one listens to the most demonic, sensual, and blasphemous song that could possibly be made, it will absolutely de-humanize the person more than even the most demonic, sensual, and blasphemous movie could. This is because music, as Plato taught: “Music and rhythm find their way into the secret places of the soul.” Socrates said: “Musical training is a more potent instrument than any other, because rhythm and harmony find their way into the inward places of the soul, on which they mightily fasten, imparting grace, and making the soul of him who is rightly educated graceful, or of him who is ill-educated ungraceful.” And Aristotle, who can hardly be ignored, said, among other things, that “music has a power of forming the character, and should therefore be introduced into the education of the young.” Since music enters into the very soul and has the power of literally controlling the soul (as can be visually seen at heavy metal rock concerts), I think it can be even more dangerous than films.
But is rock music, by its very nature, music to be avoided, regardless of what the lyrics are? Every Catholic of deep faith need not even delve into the question, because it is so obvious. To imagine the Holy Family listening to rock music is, well, unimaginable. However, if one wishes to get philosophical and technical about it, he may. So, why is rock music wrong in its essence? It goes back to the components of music: melody, harmony, and rhythm. Melody should be at the top, since it corresponds to the intellect, which is the highest faculty in man. However, this does not make emotions or even the passions bad. These are a part of man, and are good when used properly. Our Lord himself expressed emotions (e.g. when Lazarus died, when he wept over the city before his death), and the passions, though they must be ordered, are good when ordered. Thus, as long as nothing crazy happens and these three components are ordered properly to be fitting for man, then the music is good.
I
iluvburpees
Guest
cont…
Rock music does not follow this. Instead of being controlled and limited to simply keeping everything in order, rhythm is now the driving force of the music. There is some harmony, but it is extremely simple and consists of short sections constantly repeated. There is a melody, but it not the most prominent part of the music, or even near the most prominent. The rhythm is the most prominent. So let’s compare this with those things that the three components correspond to. When the passions are the leaders in man, is this a good or bad thing? Every true Catholic will say “bad.” Yet this is the way it is in rock music. If it is in bad in man, wouldn’t you logically conclude that it is bad in music? And since music so powerfully enters the soul and influences it for good or bad, it is extremely important that the music be ordered correctly. One should remember that Gregorian Chant, the highest form of music and the only one allowed in the Liturgy in the good ol’ days of Catholicism (until, of course, great polyphony was introduced, which I absolutely love), is pure melody. There is harmony, but it is simply implied. There is rhythm, but the music is so free that one need not follow absolutely precise beats. If this is the highest, then the lowest must be the opposite. Rock music, though not the direct opposite (I would say rap probably fits that better), is pretty darn close.
In case anyone’s interested, here’s a rather disturbing article on rock and suicide:
av1611.org/rockm.html
I know it talks more about the lyrics being the cause of the suicides, but it is not hard to see that the pounding rhythm is highly responsible for pounding the lyrics into these kids’ minds. I doubt there would be a lot of suicides if suicide lyrics were fitted to a Mozart string quartet.
To conclude, I’d like to mention an interesting fact. My music teacher this past year at college gave us the definition of “rock & roll” from the Webster’s Dictionary of 1990 (I think it was that year). I don’t have it down by heart, and I can’t find it online. But from what I remember, it is something like this: “A style of popular music of Afro-American origin, characterized by an incessant, heavily-accented beat and short, repetitive sections to incite group frenzy, especially when played very loud.”
Something to think about.
Holy Mary, clean our filthy culture and help us return to what is beautiful.
Rock music does not follow this. Instead of being controlled and limited to simply keeping everything in order, rhythm is now the driving force of the music. There is some harmony, but it is extremely simple and consists of short sections constantly repeated. There is a melody, but it not the most prominent part of the music, or even near the most prominent. The rhythm is the most prominent. So let’s compare this with those things that the three components correspond to. When the passions are the leaders in man, is this a good or bad thing? Every true Catholic will say “bad.” Yet this is the way it is in rock music. If it is in bad in man, wouldn’t you logically conclude that it is bad in music? And since music so powerfully enters the soul and influences it for good or bad, it is extremely important that the music be ordered correctly. One should remember that Gregorian Chant, the highest form of music and the only one allowed in the Liturgy in the good ol’ days of Catholicism (until, of course, great polyphony was introduced, which I absolutely love), is pure melody. There is harmony, but it is simply implied. There is rhythm, but the music is so free that one need not follow absolutely precise beats. If this is the highest, then the lowest must be the opposite. Rock music, though not the direct opposite (I would say rap probably fits that better), is pretty darn close.
In case anyone’s interested, here’s a rather disturbing article on rock and suicide:
av1611.org/rockm.html
I know it talks more about the lyrics being the cause of the suicides, but it is not hard to see that the pounding rhythm is highly responsible for pounding the lyrics into these kids’ minds. I doubt there would be a lot of suicides if suicide lyrics were fitted to a Mozart string quartet.
To conclude, I’d like to mention an interesting fact. My music teacher this past year at college gave us the definition of “rock & roll” from the Webster’s Dictionary of 1990 (I think it was that year). I don’t have it down by heart, and I can’t find it online. But from what I remember, it is something like this: “A style of popular music of Afro-American origin, characterized by an incessant, heavily-accented beat and short, repetitive sections to incite group frenzy, especially when played very loud.”
Something to think about.
Holy Mary, clean our filthy culture and help us return to what is beautiful.
M
Major_Minor
Guest
Here’s a section of lyrics from “Sheep” in the Pink Floyd album Animals which is a caustic satire of Christianity:
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by.
With bright knives He releaseth my soul.
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
Master the art of karate,
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we’ll make the bugger’s eyes water.
And there was a section that was pointedly disrespecting Mary, though I don’t have the album now and couldn’t find the words online.
Think about Pink Floyd for a minute: Did they ever once notice or bring out anything positive? The sound of their music is entirely bleak, angry and/or sad. The words are exclusively existentialist or nihilist: The world is terrible, then you die.
Not one word of hope, only pain. Now don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that music should always be happy-skippy that would be a distortion, too. Music should reflect the whole of human experience like any art form… but isn’t there something odd in the fact that they >only acknowledge< the dark? There is no light in the music. Much of the heavier rock is like this: Only acknowledging the dark and I think that’s something to consider. Again, I’m not talking about ignoring the dark, but balance should factor in there somewhere, shouldn’t it?
The Lord is my shepherd, I shall not want
He makes me down to lie
Through pastures green He leadeth me the silent waters by.
With bright knives He releaseth my soul.
He maketh me to hang on hooks in high places.
He converteth me to lamb cutlets,
For lo, He hath great power, and great hunger.
When cometh the day we lowly ones,
Through quiet reflection, and great dedication
Master the art of karate,
Lo, we shall rise up,
And then we’ll make the bugger’s eyes water.
And there was a section that was pointedly disrespecting Mary, though I don’t have the album now and couldn’t find the words online.
Think about Pink Floyd for a minute: Did they ever once notice or bring out anything positive? The sound of their music is entirely bleak, angry and/or sad. The words are exclusively existentialist or nihilist: The world is terrible, then you die.
Not one word of hope, only pain. Now don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that music should always be happy-skippy that would be a distortion, too. Music should reflect the whole of human experience like any art form… but isn’t there something odd in the fact that they >only acknowledge< the dark? There is no light in the music. Much of the heavier rock is like this: Only acknowledging the dark and I think that’s something to consider. Again, I’m not talking about ignoring the dark, but balance should factor in there somewhere, shouldn’t it?
M
Major_Minor
Guest
Then we come to the “Define rock music” area How wide is that? Some would even put Simon and Garfunkel in that area…Probably more from the era they were in than the sound, but you see what I mean? They were certainly not spending a whole lot of time promoting what is “Immoral” most of their work is incredible insightful and intelligent… and then another question is: Is Mozart’s music “Immoral” because he led a less than ideal life?
Mozart was a Freemason and comitted adultry etc. etc. so should Catholics listen to it based on these kinds of judgements?
No easy answers, but in my book there is a certain amount of separation between artist and their art…
M
Major_Minor
Guest
Soooooo rock music = simple harmonies = bad
Gregorian Chant = simple harmonies = good?
I’m afraid I find your logic to be fairly specious.
In the time of Old testament up to Christ, rhythm was a main component of the music of the Middle east. Harmony wasn’t really around until much, much later. By your logic music in the ancient days would be “Satanic” for this “imbalance”. Was David dancing around to “implied rhythms”…“music is so free that it is not following precise beats”?
I doubt it.
M
Major_Minor
Guest
Actually what is disturbing is a self-proclaimed SSPX member is directing us to a Protestant site, go to the bottom of the page and see what they recommend to be “saved”
Ultra-Catholic? Nope SSPX is Protestant. You know better than the Magisterium?
That makes you Protestant…
I
iluvburpees
Guest
Truth be told, I was unaware that it was a Protestant site. Howeever, except for the “saved” part, it is somewhat irrelevent that it is written by a Protestant. The content was good, so I linked it for you guys. If you neglect the good material in this article, you are committing the fallacy of the accident; in other words, you confuse what is necessary and what is accidental. What is necessary is what he wrote; what is accidental is his religious affiliation. While religious affiliation is obviously important, the most important, it is incorrect to assert that nothing a non-Catholic writes can be good. If that were the case, then we would have to reject the masterpieces of almost every (if not every) great composer: Bach was a Protestant, Mozart was a Freemason, Debussy committed adultery for years, etc.
For fear of getting off-topic, I’m not going to get into a big debate with this. But these ignorant comments must be quickly addressed.
“SSPX is Protestant.” Prove to me that the SSPX is Protestant. What doctrine(s) of the Faith do they deny? If you can name even one, I will leave the SSPX as a heretical new church.
We are Protestant because we “know better than the Magisterium.” I’m sorry, but we are simply holding to the unalterable Catholic Faith since the time of the Apostles. No modernists (which St. Pius X prophesied not long ago) will fool us into denying the Church for the sake of novelty. Ever hear of the phrase, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”? The Faith was never broke, so why attempt to introduce novelties?
I suggest you read “An Open Letter to Confused Catholics,” and in your case, especially chapter 18 (sspxasia.com/Documents/Archbishop-Lefebvre/OpenLetterToConfusedCatholics/Chapter-18.htm). Perhaps it will open your eyes to the reality we are in.
God Bless
I
iluvburpees
Guest
Rock consists of short, constantly repeated measures. This is not a characteristic of the music that came before it. It is a characteristic that incites the passions. Simplicity in itself is not bad, but the constantly repeated short sections, along with the driving beat, is not good news.
You appear to not have read what I wrote. I wrote that rhythm is not bad in itself. Even if it is prominent, it doest not necessarily make it bad. That’s why certain dance music (for decent dancing, such as square dancing) is ok in its proper place (dancing). To listen to it while dancing is appropriate for that activity. To listen to it as your main course, that’s bad news.
I like the comparison my teacher gave us. Classical/opera/Baroque/etc. music is like the main course of a meal. Stuff like Irish folk music can be likened to potato chips. Is it bad? No. If you want a few potato chips, take a few potato chips. But if you dress up the potato chips on a nice dish and make it the main meal, that’s a problem. Don’t make it something other than it is. A few potato chips won’t kill you, but a lot might.
R
rapunzel77
Guest
I suppose this would also be true of Blues and Jazz and Reggae? In fact, wouldn’t this be true of most non-western music?
What about non-western music? In many parts of Africa, drums are used as the main instrument. Then there are other forms of chant that uses a lot of rhythm. Are you in fact saying that since there is a lot of rhythm then it must be wrong?
I strongly disagree with this. Music inspires us in various ways, regardless of the sort of music that it is but I don’t believe that classical/opera, etc is necessarily superior to folk music. Don’t you think that that is a bit euro-centric? In fact, most arguments of this sort always boil down to this: Classical/baroque music good, Jazz/Blues/Rock bad. I recall during the 50’s that there was a tinge of racist attitudes that permeated the objections to Rock music.
I enjoy all types and can appreciate all of it. I certainly do not consider Irish music “junk” food nor any other type of music. When it comes to liturgical music, that is a different story.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
iluvburpees,
I encourage you to broaden your horizons and explore the various sub-genres of rock music.
Else you run the risk of relying too heavily on the use of generalities.
For example, look at Progressive rock/metal. I think the best representation from this genre is the band Dream Theater. There songs generally run over 10 minutes long. No “short, constantly repeated measures” here. My favorite song of theirs is the 23 minute long A Change of Seasons. Beautiful stuff.
Another great 23 minute song is the Christian Symphonic Power Metal band Theocracy’s song “Mirror of Souls.” (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3)
There are gobs of symphonic metal bands that are just as likely to cite Bach or Beethoven as a musical influence as they are Metallica. Rhapsody of Fire is one such band. Try listening to their song The Wizard’s Last Rhymes. If you’re familiar with Classical music, you may even recognize a portion of the song.
I could post scores of other examples, but you get the picture.
Even if we conceded that rock music was nothing but “short, constantly repeated measures”, I do not find this fact a very compelling reason to dismissing it carte blanche. “Short, constantly repeated measures” is just another name for “rhythm”. What is music without rhythm? Rhythm is what pulls a musical piece together into a cohesive whole.
Anyway, you’re certainly welcome to your opinions, but I would encourage you to be familiar with what’s out there before painting with such a broad brush.
I encourage you to broaden your horizons and explore the various sub-genres of rock music.
Else you run the risk of relying too heavily on the use of generalities.For example, look at Progressive rock/metal. I think the best representation from this genre is the band Dream Theater. There songs generally run over 10 minutes long. No “short, constantly repeated measures” here. My favorite song of theirs is the 23 minute long A Change of Seasons. Beautiful stuff.
Another great 23 minute song is the Christian Symphonic Power Metal band Theocracy’s song “Mirror of Souls.” (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3)
There are gobs of symphonic metal bands that are just as likely to cite Bach or Beethoven as a musical influence as they are Metallica. Rhapsody of Fire is one such band. Try listening to their song The Wizard’s Last Rhymes. If you’re familiar with Classical music, you may even recognize a portion of the song.
I could post scores of other examples, but you get the picture.
Even if we conceded that rock music was nothing but “short, constantly repeated measures”, I do not find this fact a very compelling reason to dismissing it carte blanche. “Short, constantly repeated measures” is just another name for “rhythm”. What is music without rhythm? Rhythm is what pulls a musical piece together into a cohesive whole.
Anyway, you’re certainly welcome to your opinions, but I would encourage you to be familiar with what’s out there before painting with such a broad brush.
D
dontknow
Guest
I wasn’t going to post on this thread but I can’t resist.
Some of the greatest Jazz music ever created was based on simple riffs played over and over with soloists improvising.
I’d take Louis Armstrong over ANY Classical/opera/Baroque music ANY day. And that’s only MY opinion which to everyone who would rather have a root canal than listen to Louis Armstrong, I’d say good for them! Have at what they like and get on with it!
Most music in it’s core is generally made up of patterns. 4 bar, 8 bar, 12bar, 16 bar, 32 bar phrases repeated over and over.
Some of the greatest Jazz music ever created was based on simple riffs played over and over with soloists improvising.
Huh??? That’s an opinion statement. I prefer not to listen to square dancing music (though I love bluegrass) but for those that like - let them LOVE it!
That opinion statement is self-indulgent B.S. and merely opinion.
I’d take Louis Armstrong over ANY Classical/opera/Baroque music ANY day. And that’s only MY opinion which to everyone who would rather have a root canal than listen to Louis Armstrong, I’d say good for them! Have at what they like and get on with it!
R
rapunzel77
Guest
Exactly
Thank you for pointing this out. I have heard these sorts of arguments before and I find them to be BS as well since it is based on opinion. Those who make these kinds of arguments believe that euro-centric music is the most superior and that anything that is “below” it is very inferior, including folk music. I find this opinion offensive since I listen to many different forms of music, including rock as well as a lot of world music. It seems that those who have the views of the poster above think that anything that is non-western is bad because it has a lot of use of rhythm and might incite the “passions” and that the only appropriate music is either Church music (which is fine for liturgy. I sing some Gregorian Chant) or classical. I like both of them but I also find the sounds of East Asian and Native American music to be beautiful. I love Celtic and Indian/Middle Eastern music as well as some African music as well. They all have connection and a chief part of the music is rhythm. It is probably the most primeval of music…the sound of drums, flute, and harp.
Exactly
M
Major_Minor
Guest
I was, in fact, arguing this same point: That you have to separate the artist from the art.
(For the record I am a huge fan of classical music.)
- Status