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

  • Thread starter Thread starter BintuluChuchGuy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
AFAIK nazis had to listen to Wagner’s music and he was anti-Semite >:/
Wagner was considered the German ideal by the Nazi elite because he was Hitler’s favorite composer. The operas were cited as supporting the eugenic supposition of the superiority of the Gemanic Aryan peoples.

In short, Wagner was used as a piece of propaganda by the Reich.
 
St Francis said to accept Catholicism and throw everything else away?

i tend to agree…

but i fail to see how ALL rock music … is… outside Catholicism…

I am still Catholic after listening to much rock music…

hmmm… :confused:
 
What do you think about Christian rock and metal?
I found this [non-Catholic] website logosresourcepages.org/Music/rock.htm and now I’m not sure, if Christian rock and metal are good…
Is Pope Benedict XVI really against rock and metal?
I have no issue with Christian rock and metal, provided an individual band’s theology is sound and their treatment of all Christian subjects is properly respectful. Many people have been led to the Lord via Christian rock or have had their faith sustained through it; I still enjoy some Christian rock bands today, as well as many secular bands, such as my beloved Iron Maiden 😃

I do however think rock music in and of itself is an inferior musical form to “classical” music and music that is fit for use in church, such as Gregorian chant. Equality is only a legal term for treatment of individual human beings under the law - equality doesn’t exist anywhere else in the world and it doesn’t exist in musical forms. It is beyond my words to even articulate, but some kinds of music simply do not belong in church; rock, rap, country, folk - all these have their place on the outside, as part of the secular and mundane world. Classical and chant are much more objectively transcendent; the former able to aptly capture and express any human emotion and the latter developed solely for liturgical use (as far as I am aware), and as such have a place in the liturgy that no mundane musical form ever can.
 
It is beyond my words to even articulate, but some kinds of music simply do not belong in church; rock, rap, country, folk - all these have their place on the outside, as part of the secular and mundane world. Classical and chant are much more objectively transcendent; the former able to aptly capture and express any human emotion and the latter developed solely for liturgical use (as far as I am aware), and as such have a place in the liturgy that no mundane musical form ever can.
Putting “secular” and “mundane” in the same sentence is rather condescending. Just because something can be played in church does not make it something better. Classical music “aptly captures” human emotion? I beg to differ. Hearing Rossini’s ever so “classic” William Tell Overture makes me think of all the times I had to jump out of bed after waking up late. :rolleyes: Linkin Park’s Faint on the other hand… breathes deep Oh yeah… now that’s the kinda music I wanna hear while fighting… and owning. :cool:
 
Putting “secular” and “mundane” in the same sentence is rather condescending. Just because something can be played in church does not make it something better. Classical music “aptly captures” human emotion? I beg to differ. Hearing Rossini’s ever so “classic” William Tell Overture makes me think of all the times I had to jump out of bed after waking up late. :rolleyes: Linkin Park’s Faintbreathes deep Oh yeah… now that’s the kinda music I wanna hear while fighting… and owning. :cool:
Actually, being fit for the liturgy does make a form of music objectively “better”, because it logically follows that whatever glorifies God the most is best.

“Mundane” and “secular” merely signify that something is “worldly” as opposed to “spiritual” - don’t be so over-sensitive.
 
Actually, being fit for the liturgy does make a form of music objectively “better”, because it logically follows that whatever glorifies God the most is best.
No. It just means its for church. Anything can glorify God and they’re not necessarily limited to anything inside a chapel.
“Mundane” and “secular” merely signify that something is “worldly” as opposed to “spiritual” - don’t be so over-sensitive.
I wouldn’t be if I hadn’t already put up with the “spiritual” types looking down on what’s “worldly” for the umpteenth time. Furthermore, the Bible doesn’t seem to use the word in a flattering manner. The same is with the dictionary for its entry on “mundane”.
–adjective
  1. of or pertaining to this world or earth as contrasted with heaven; worldly; earthly: mundane affairs.
  2. common; ordinary; banal; unimaginative.
  3. of or pertaining to the world, universe, or earth.
 
No. It just means its for church. Anything can glorify God and they’re not necessarily limited to anything inside a chapel.
Have you read Musicae Sacrae by Pius XII? It’s an encyclical on music and art, and not just limited to music and art used in the liturgy.

Some excerpts from the encyclical:*
  1. The progress of this musical art clearly shows how sincerely the Church has desired to render divine worship ever more splendid and more pleasing to the Christian people. It likewise shows why the Church must insist that this art remain within its proper limits and must prevent anything profane and foreign to divine worship from entering into sacred music along with genuine progress, and perverting it.*
  1. First of all the chants and sacred music which are immediately joined with the Church’s liturgical worship should be conducive to the lofty end for which they are intended. This music—as our predecessor Pius X has already wisely warned us—“must possess proper liturgical qualities, primarily holiness and goodness of form; from which its other note, universality, is derived.”*
42. It must be holy. It must not allow within itself anything that savors of the profane nor allow any such thing to slip into the melodies in which it is expressed. The Gregorian chant which has been used in the Church over the course of so many centuries, and which may be called, as it were, its patrimony, is gloriously outstanding for this holiness.
Code:
 *43. This chant, because of the close adaptation of the melody to  the sacred text, is     not only most intimately conformed to the words, but also in a way  interprets their force     and efficacy and brings delight to the minds of the hearers. It does  this by the use of     musical modes that are simple and plain, but which are still  composed with such sublime     and holy art that they move everyone to sincere admiration and  constitute an almost     inexhaustible source from which musicians and composers draw new  melodies.*
54. Although over the course of the centuries genuine polyphonic art gradually declined and profane melodies often crept into it, during recent decades the indefatigable labors of experts have brought about a restoration. The works of the old composers have been carefully studied and proposed as models to be imitated and rivaled by modern composers.

55. So it is that in the basilicas, cathedrals and churches of religious communities these magnificent works of the old masters and the polyphonic compositions of more recent musicians can be performed, contributing greatly to the beauty of the sacred rite. Likewise We know that simpler but genuinely artistic polyphonic compositions are often sung even in smaller churches.

56. The Church favors all these enterprises. As Our predecessor of immortal memory, St. Pius X, says, the Church “unceasingly encourages and favors the progress of the arts, admitting for religious use all the good and the beautiful that the mind of man has discovered over the course of the centuries, but always respecting the liturgical laws.”

Code:
 *57. These laws warn that great prudence and care should be used  in this serious matter     in order to keep out of churches polyphonic music which, because of  its heavy and     bombastic style, might obscure the sacred words of the liturgy by a  kind of exaggeration,     interfere with the conduct of the liturgical service or, finally,  lower the skill and     competence of the singers to the disadvantage of sacred worship.*
According to the Church, there are indeed standards for music that properly glorifies God and is fit for the liturgy. Even though I do make a personal case for Christianized forms of secular music, I do not ascribe them anything near the objective superiority of inherently nobler forms of music.
I wouldn’t be if I hadn’t already put up with the “spiritual” types looking down on what’s “worldly” for the umpteenth time. Furthermore, the Bible doesn’t seem to use the word in a flattering manner. The same is with the dictionary for its entry on “mundane”.
That which is worldly is always described as inferior to that which is spiritual in Scripture and in Church tradition. Furthermore, interpretation of the Scriptures is not the business of the laity but of the Pope and the Magisterium in union with him.

It’s not a matter of denigrating X form of music because it is worldly and unfit for use in the liturgy or not becoming the advancement of civilization, but merely calling a spade a spade and being honest. I’ve learned how to separate my ego and personal tastes from objective facts. Truth is more important than my preferences.
 
OK, you say, that there’s nothing wrong to listen to metal. But, IMHO, some people started to growl and play metal because (maybe) it’s sound… demonic?
I read (on polish Wikipedia), that growl expression was firstly used to name **!!!do NOT listen to this band!!!] It’s anti-Christian]**Venom’s !!!do NOT listen to this band!!!] vocalist’s “singing” style. So, “roots” of growl are no good.
 
OK, you say, that there’s nothing wrong to listen to metal. But, IMHO, some people started to growl and play metal because (maybe) it’s sound… demonic?
I read (on polish Wikipedia), that growl expression was firstly used to name **!!!do NOT listen to this band!!!] It’s anti-Christian]**Venom’s !!!do NOT listen to this band!!!] vocalist’s “singing” style. So, “roots” of growl are no good.
“Growling” as a form of vocals is only used in some sub-genres of metal, and not even that many of them. Let us not rely on the stereotype to condemn a whole genre.
 
Is all rock music bad? No, of course not. There are many examples of rock music being calming, encouraging and down right spiritual. Is any of that rock music appropriate for Church? Nope. Secular music tends to appeal to secular senses ie: Love (eros), Love (agape), patriotism, sports, and other secular items.

Is everything secular bad? Again, no.

While it would be nice to be able to spend our life in the Eucharist or at least in Adoration, we do have to go out into the world.

I love much secular music. It still drives me bananas to hear it in a church service though.
 
OK, you say, that there’s nothing wrong to listen to metal. But, IMHO, some people started to growl and play metal because (maybe) it’s sound… demonic?
I read (on polish Wikipedia), that growl expression was firstly used to name **!!!do NOT listen to this band!!!] It’s anti-Christian]**Venom’s !!!do NOT listen to this band!!!] vocalist’s “singing” style. So, “roots” of growl are no good.
Even assuming what you are saying is true (Wikipedia is not reliable, a point well-made at youtube.com/watch?v=kFBDn5PiL00 :p), when things start from a “bad” place, fortunately Christianity can take it and turn it into a good thing (Christianity has a rich history of doing that). Many Christian bands exists in the metal sub-genres that use growling and they have brought many people to Christ. And most importantly, they are reaching people that would never, ever be reached by “establishment” Christianity.

So, discernment is called for, as it is in all things. When listening to metal, seek out the good. Avoid the bad. Isn’t that how we all must navigate most parts of secular life? I have no problem with people who decide to throw out an entire genre for their own personal protection to avoid the bad elements, but why must others who possess to ability to discern good from bad do so as well?

I don’t think anyone would say there’s nothing wrong with metal. I’m a metal fan and there’s tons wrong with some metal. I don’t listen to that junk 😃 None of it is all bad, and none of it is all good. That’s true of almost all musical genres.
 
Christianity can take it and turn it into a good thing (Christianity has a rich history of doing that). Many Christian bands exists in the metal sub-genres that use growling and they have brought many people to Christ.
Yes, but Christianity turned pagan (and not anti-Christian) things to good things.

If Christian e.g. death metal bands REALLY brought many people to Christ, and these people are TRUE Christians, then…
 
This, however, is satanic and makes no excuses about it; no backwards hidden tracks or messages, just what the band had on its mind:
It is?? I would never be able to tell since I am unable (perhaps thankfully) to understand a single thing that is being said here.

I date myself and is only my opinion but shouting in a distorted voice offers no musical enjoyment to me. The drummer on here is crazy fast though.

:eek:
 
It is?? I would never be able to tell since I am unable (perhaps thankfully) to understand a single thing that is being said here.

I date myself and is only my opinion but shouting in a distorted voice offers no musical enjoyment to me. The drummer on here is crazy fast though.
Well, here are the lyrics; decide for yourself. They weren’t all accurate so I corrected then where I could remember the right ones. Keep in mind that the band defines their name, Deicide, as the death of God and all that is holy, and the lead singer, Glen Benton, branded an upside down cross on his forehead.

The clicking of the drums is the double-bass, making it sound a little faster than it actually is. This was, once upon a time, one of my favorite bands.

"Satanized, crucified, feel the wrath of suicide
Incus fear of the sphere, angel darkness disappears
Covenant, blasphemous, open up unholiness
Father Satan, let me lust unholy sins

[Chorus:]
Suicide sacrifice
Destruction of holy life
Blood of unholy knife
Satan I sacrifice

Behold the crucifix, symbol of sterility
I am crucifix - Satan
Suicide sacrifice, profeasting evil night
Lust into reality - Satan
Angel of the black abyss, Satan lord I hail
Insane blasphemous - Satan
Sacrifical suicide, Ritual to end my life
Benemoth incess my fate - Satan

Dammed to tell, end of my life
Wrath of God - Satan (Warth?)
Sin my soul, blesses with fire
Throne of stone - Satan
I must die, in my wake
Seventh gate - Satan
Suicide, end my life
I must die - Satan

[Lead - Eric]

Suicide sacrifice, thrust of evil deep inside
Lucifer never lies, take away thee mortal life
Demigod, Satan son, commend to body to the ground
Father Satan, I’ll find peace when I am God

[Chorus]

TAKE ME!"

(stolen from lyricsmania.com)

This makes the faux-Satanic silliness of King Diamond, Iron Maiden, and the like look downright tame. These guys are serious.
 
This makes the faux-Satanic silliness of King Diamond, Iron Maiden, and the like look downright tame. These guys are serious.
Hopefully, everyone recognizes these guys aren’t the norm! :eek:

That said, I would say they aren’t entirely serious in the way most people initially think. Looking at some of the quotes from the band on Wikipedia, it seems that they don’t believe in God or Satan and thus they employ the shock of over-the-top blasphemy as their way of revealing the “silliness” of religion.

Not that such a reason is necessarily better nor is it a justifiable reason to employ such language (IMHO), but it would be inaccurate to put them forth as actual believing Satan-worshippers.

I agree it makes bands like Iron Maiden seem tame by comparison. This is the type of metal that I am not at all comfortable listening to. Even if they are simply saying such things for shock value, I just can’t listen to it.
 
Well, here are the lyrics; decide for yourself.
This makes the faux-Satanic silliness of King Diamond, Iron Maiden, and the like look downright tame. These guys are serious.
Yeah, it’s pretty much junk and with so much other incredible music out there to enjoy, not sure why someone would want this childish junk. Just my opinion though.
 
Wagner was considered the German ideal by the Nazi elite because he was Hitler’s favorite composer.
Someone said, that Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries have the same beat like rock music.
AFAIK Hitler has contacts with devil. So, if Wagner was Hitler’s favourite composer…
 
Someone said, that Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries have the same beat like rock music.
AFAIK Hitler has contacts with devil. So, if Wagner was Hitler’s favourite composer…
What strange logic. Wagner was indeed an antisemite and non-Christian, but that doesn’t mean any instrumental music he writes is evil. Perhaps the lyrics, but that’s a different story.
 
According to the Church, there are indeed standards for music that properly glorifies God and is fit for the liturgy. Even though I do make a personal case for Christianized forms of secular music, I do not ascribe them anything near the objective superiority of inherently nobler forms of music.
The only thing I read in the passages you cited are fanciful repeats of Euro-centric assertions already made that have yet to be proven in this thread.
  1. That certain tones have inherent objective qualities.
  2. The Church music “brings delight” to the listeners.
  3. That Church music is superior without thinking of arbitrary standards of what is “superior” music.
I won’t discuss #1 seeing as many of us have already wasted our time posting evidence to the contrary even when those who insist have hardly done so.

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

As for #3…
I’ve learned how to separate my ego and personal tastes from objective facts. Truth is more important than my preferences.
Says the guy whose facts are nothing more than his opinion that Church music is “better” as a piece of music. When it comes to the arts, there are no “objective truths”. Standards for good music (regardless of era) are nothing more than popular opinions put on a pedestal and rationalized. Unlike you though, I’m not putting one over the other.
 
Hopefully, everyone recognizes these guys aren’t the norm! :eek:

That said, I would say they aren’t entirely serious in the way most people initially think. Looking at some of the quotes from the band on Wikipedia, it seems that they don’t believe in God or Satan and thus they employ the shock of over-the-top blasphemy as their way of revealing the “silliness” of religion.

Not that such a reason is necessarily better nor is it a justifiable reason to employ such language (IMHO), but it would be inaccurate to put them forth as actual believing Satan-worshippers.

I agree it makes bands like Iron Maiden seem tame by comparison. This is the type of metal that I am not at all comfortable listening to. Even if they are simply saying such things for shock value, I just can’t listen to it.
I was heavy into death metal in high school and no, Deicide wasn’t really the norm at all; they were on another level. This was the only thing I ever heard that actually scared me. They make Slayer look like Mormon boy scouts.

But that said, there was a lot of semi-Satanic stuff out back then (circa 1991-1994) but I preferred the B horror flick gory stuff to the Satanic. My favorite bands then were Grave, Carcass, Benediction, Cannibal Corpse, and so on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top