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

[Grizzly20]

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

But they may know “voodoo music” and use elements of this music to create new style.

 

[LilyM]

But they may know “voodoo music” and use elements of this music to create new style.

So might the creators of loads of other genres - dixieland, blues, jazz. Heck - even French classical composers back in the pre-Romantic days could’ve kept Haitian slaves and learned it from them - maybe it influenced French Romantic music!

 

[The_Bucket]

Love Gregorian chant, love traditional Catholic hymns and I’m a big fan of the symphony. Played violin as a kid and wish I had stuck with it. I also wish I had been better at it when I WAS sticking with it!

That said, I’m also quite partial to Motley Crue, Skid Row and Whitesnake. Now, I’m off to Kickstart My Heart.

 

[rapunzel77]

Love Gregorian chant, love traditional Catholic hymns and I’m a big fan of the symphony. Played violin as a kid and wish I had stuck with it. I also wish I had been better at it when I WAS sticking with it!

That said, I’m also quite partial to Motley Crue, Skid Row and Whitesnake. Now, I’m off to Kickstart My Heart.

Exactly. I don’t know why some people insist that it must be one or the other. I enjoy listening to most forms of music. I appreciate them and there is good in every genre just as there is bad in every genre. One must be discerning of course but we have the freedom to love different types of music, art, etc. We should just leave it at that.

 

[EphelDuath]

But they may know “voodoo music” and use elements of this music to create new style.

No, because the indigenous peoples that practiced voodoo were not the same ones that worked on plantations in British America.

 

[The_Bucket]

Exactly. I don’t know why some people insist that it must be one or the other. I enjoy listening to most forms of music. I appreciate them and there is good in every genre just as there is bad in every genre. One must be discerning of course but we have the freedom to love different types of music, art, etc. We should just leave it at that.

I think most movies today and modern art are trash. But that’s my personal taste, not an empirical judgment and certainly not a judgment on morality.

Plus, in my opinion there’s a difference between hair metal talked a bit about “girls, girls, girls” and how they were “hot for teacher” back when they were teens and say, modern rap music that drops profanity every three words, talks about flat out abusing women and murdering people. Same can be said for some segments of modern rock that do the same and tend to also have a really dark and suicidal edge.

 

[rapunzel77]

I agree. In fact, I tried to point out that fact about folk music and sadly I got some strange answers. I love listening to music from around the world. There is a lot of depth to it. Just because it isn’t “European” doesn’t mean that its bad or “inferior”. Also, just because the music has been used for “pagan” purposes doesn’t mean it is bad either. There are many traditions, etc that we have that can be traced back to ancient pagan times. Just because it was pagan doesn’t mean its bad. That has NEVER been the Catholic teaching that everything pagan is bad. We always have taken what is good in everything.

 

[rapunzel77]

I pointed out on another thread that all of these styles of folk music, including traditional folk music of Native Americans, etc have some similarities. They are all connected in some form. In fact, it is some of the oldest music around and there is nothing wrong with it. Rock music grew out of some old folk styles. That is basically what the blues is and jazz to a degree. It is through these forms of music that a whole plethora of human emotions and situations is explored. We need that outlet as humans. You can’t explore ever facet of human emotion,etc strictly through Gregorian Chant. You can to a degree in classical music but even then, there are limitations.

 

[NewsTheMan]

Rock music?

Um. The greatest moral danger to our society is Pop Music and Pop Culture. Lady Gaga anyone? Name any pop artist and I, as an outside observer who merely hears about that kind of world since I hate pop music/celeb culture, can probably tell you at least 3 things about them that are anti-Christian, anti-God, anti-Moral, etc. Nevermind that the music itself is mostly drivel, senseless, and appeals (unfortunately) to a crowd that soaks it all up and creates an identity based upon a song that says “I want to take a ride on your disco stick”.

Rock music, rocks. Manchester Orchestra are a fav band of mine, and they are pretty Christian without being in your face bout it. Go look for the lyrics of their song “Now that your home” and tell me what the first line of that song is and tell me rock is evil after that!

 

[rapunzel77]

Exactly :clapping:! There is many complexities to the music and I agree with Hendrix. Most of life is like the blues. It is sorrowful and painful. Poetry and music can express that. Especially folk/rock/blues music. The common themes that one hears is loss, pain, fear, hope, and love. Its all there. We are not robots. We must find a good outlet for our emotions/passions. What better way to do that than through music? Sure there are other forms as well ie. fine art, literature, etc but music speaks directly to the soul. It can help to soothe broken hearts or it can be cathartic or it can be a way to get all the angry feelings out. I’d rather do that than damage property or hurt someone, etc.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

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

Much more learned? The only thing you need to “learn” about music is that you can enjoy it with a good ear. Everything else is just personal taste and opinions.

I did no such thing. Believe what you must.

LOL! Gimme a break. You thought calling you Euro-centric was playing a “race card”.

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

Only when pompous classicists put theirs above everyone else’.

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

Don’t make me laugh. I’m not bound to heed the commands of a fatheaded knight, lord, or anybody who claims a superstitious “divine right” to tell me what to do.

Secondly, last time I heard, infidelity was also just as rampant then as it is now because of arranged marriages. And slavery was abolished? ROFL!!! Tell that to your every day African American.

As for the Crusades, apparently you don’t like the picture historians paint of the Third One.

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

Oh I’m sorry? You assume I defend this equally depraved century? I don’t. I’m just shining the light on your precious medieval period which was also equally depraved. When we move morally in one direction, we go backwards in another. That’s the sad fate of any human civilization.

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

Last time I checked, the Church was universal. It’s not limited to the oh so precious continent squeezed between the greater continents of Africa and Asia.

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

Back to arbitrary standards now are we? “Abomination”, hah! I wonder how many disfigured people in the medieval times suffered from that label.

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

Unlike the Pope and his opinions on music, historians base what they say on fact. Prove yourself that you know more about my country than its own historians, then you can talk.

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

Because its you guys putting yours on a pedestal. Nuff said.

 

[The_Bucket]

LW, don’t worry about folks who are stuck in the Middle Ages around here. You’re absolutely right to say

When we move morally in one direction, we go backwards in another. That’s the sad fate of any human civilization.

The Middle Ages had a slew of its own problems. Jews were marginalized from Christian society and frequently slaughtered during any time of trouble as fanatics believed that God was punishing them for keeping “those who killed Christ” within their cities. The Church owned huge swathes of land, was involved in politics, Rome itself during into a den of iniquity and both financial and sexual corruption under the leadership of many popes during that era.

And the Crusades, save for the first, were certainly not “noble expeditions.” If the violence of the era was so noble, why was the Peace & Truce of God created?

I find the Middle Ages to be extremely interesting and powerful for a number of reasons. But I certainly don’t idealize it into something it’s not. It had its virtues and vices just like any other era of humanity. Those who have seriously studied it in academia and aren’t just “buffs” through frequent Wikipedia searches would know that.

 

[rapunzel77]

The Middle Ages had a slew of its own problems. Jews were marginalized from Christian society and frequently slaughtered during any time of trouble as fanatics believed that God was punishing them for keeping “those who killed Christ” within their cities. The Church owned huge swathes of land, was involved in politics, Rome itself during into a den of iniquity and both financial and sexual corruption under the leadership of many popes during that era.

Exactly. Actually, I have a degree in history and the Middle Ages is what I enjoyed studying the most. Its true that Medieval society was definitely far from perfect. There was a lot of corruption and a ton of problems. However, there were good things in that time too just as there is today.

And the Crusades, save for the first, were certainly not “noble expeditions.” If the violence of the era was so noble, why was the Peace & Truce of God created?

True. Actually the Crusades were very complex. Were the subsequent crusades necessary? Probably not but once they started it just became the thing to do. They were originally thought of as armed pilgrimages but it became something else and then it came to the point that they were just sending guys out there to protect Acre. It eventually fell too.

I find the Middle Ages to be extremely interesting and powerful for a number of reasons. But I certainly don’t idealize it into something it’s not. It had its virtues and vices just like any other era of humanity. Those who have seriously studied it in academia and aren’t just “buffs” through frequent Wikipedia searches would know that.

True. It was just like any other time in history. Just because there was a predominately Catholic culture didn’t mean that it was all flowers and unicorns. Many terrible atrocities took place not only during the Middle Ages but later on in the name of God. This cannot be denied and nor is it Marxist like a previous post indicated to say that Western civilization, when confronted with other people and cultures didn’t treat them with respect nor dignity. Sadly, we have a lot to answer for .

 

[Lycorth]

Much more learned? The only thing you need to “learn” about music is that you can enjoy it with a good ear. Everything else is just personal taste and opinions.

You know more than a sainted pontiff. That’s rich

LOL! Gimme a break. You thought calling you Euro-centric was playing a “race card”.

It was, though “Eurocentric” is a label I don’t mind wearing

Only when pompous classicists put theirs above everyone else’.

I suppose; after all, tolerance is a one-way street and modernists preach big but practice little. Not that I am surprised, mind you.

Don’t make me laugh. I’m not bound to heed the commands of a fatheaded knight, lord, or anybody who claims a superstitious “divine right” to tell me what to do.

Because God, of course, gave you a divine right to do what you please, yes?

Your understanding of Medieval authority is pathetic.

Secondly, last time I heard, infidelity was also just as rampant then as it is now because of arranged marriages. And slavery was abolished? ROFL!!! Tell that to your every day African American.

I thought we were discussing Medieval Europe, not the American South.

Besides, I’d tell it to a black person easily. Slavery, at least in America, is a done deal.

Infidelity is a sin of lust, which we’ll always have with us. But in an era of much more widespread prostitution and the internet, infidelity is even easier.

As for the Crusades, apparently you don’t like the picture historians paint of the Third One.

The Third Crusade was a failure, like all that followed the First. Secular lords and power squabbles took away from a genuinely noble mission, the relief of persecuted Christians. If that is barbarism in your eyes, just call me Conan

Oh I’m sorry? You assume I defend this equally depraved century? I don’t. I’m just shining the light on your precious medieval period which was also equally depraved. When we move morally in one direction, we go backwards in another. That’s the sad fate of any human civilization.

I know the Medieval era was often depraved. Turn of the millenium Europe was a real gem. But, the “Age of Faith” was not named so for no reason, and the High Middle Ages paint a picture of Catholic civilization that would make any modernist hold his head in shame. Again, I refer you to Pernoud, Carroll, and Belloc.

And I have studied this on the academic level as well, not that it is any of your concern.

Last time I checked, the Church was universal. It’s not limited to the oh so precious continent squeezed between the greater continents of Africa and Asia.

Who said it wasn’t? Again with the assumptions about us “crackers”. I bet you think you know everything about White folks.

Back to arbitrary standards now are we? “Abomination”, hah! I wonder how many disfigured people in the medieval times suffered from that label.

Those who did were labeled by secular jerks, not the religious, who cared for lepers and the poor. Much like secularists today, we can thank them for the worst.

Unlike the Pope and his opinions on music, historians base what they say on fact. Prove yourself that you know more about my country than its own historians, then you can talk.

Very naive to trust historians so blindly. Besides, I was talking about the pope’s learned opinions on music, not your country.

I might as well require you to prove you know more about the Middle Ages than actual scholars in the field (not cultural Marxists in a university and not someone who happened to take a few classes that in all likelihood were taught by such), but you already think you do, so there’s no point discussing this with you any further.

Because its you guys putting yours on a pedestal. Nuff said.

So, it’s ego, then. Interesting. Unsurprising, but interesting.

Well, go feed your ego somewhere else. I’m done with our argument.

 

[LilyM]

You know more than a sainted pontiff. That’s rich

About rock music? Why not. I’m sure he didn’t claim to be any expert on it, or even to know more than the average music student.

I’d imagine he didn’t claim to be an expert on football, quantum theory or the lesser-known works of Charlotte Bronte either.

Elevation to the Papcy doesn’t make one omniscient.

 

[Returning_Home]

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

I like the history of music and the way one genre cross-pollenates with another, but I don’t think jazz and the deviation you spoke of (I assume you meant ‘jizz’) have anything to do with one another. And no, of course no type of music is inherently ‘satanic’ by nature.

Even Anton LeVey said that Satan’s favorite type of music probably wasn’t rock and roll.

 

[Lycorth]

About rock music? Why not. I’m sure he didn’t claim to be any expert on it, or even to know more than the average music student.

I’d imagine he didn’t claim to be an expert on football, quantum theory or the lesser-known works of Charlotte Bronte either.

Elevation to the Papcy doesn’t make one omniscient.

I know that; I wasn’t confirmed yesterday. But it does mean that God has a mission for him to fulfill and if something was written, it’s probably worth studying.

Neither Pius XII nor Pius X before him claimed to be music experts, but they did claim to know what was fit for the liturgy and what was more inherently edifying by dint of the encyclicals they wrote on the subject.

I like the history of music and the way one genre cross-pollenates with another, but I don’t think jazz and the deviation you spoke of (I assume you meant ‘jizz’) have anything to do with one another. And no, of course no type of music is inherently ‘satanic’ by nature.

Even Anton LeVey said that Satan’s favorite type of music probably wasn’t rock and roll.

Ironically, even Anton LaVey knew better about the inherent natures of music then some people. For all the perversions in his head, his opinions about classical music versus modern forms were much closer to the popes whose religion he despised. Truly the height of irony, or else a sad commentary on just how far modern civilization has fallen…

 

[LilyM]

I know that; I wasn’t confirmed yesterday. But it does mean that God has a mission for him to fulfill and if something was written, it’s probably worth studying.

Neither Pius XII nor Pius X before him claimed to be music experts, but they did claim to know what was fit for the liturgy and what was more inherently edifying by dint of the encyclicals they wrote on the subject.

To KNOW? If they KNEW with any degree of certitude, they would’ve made their knowledge a rule of action, in the form of disicpline or dogma banning everything that isn’t Gregorian Chant from Mass, or in general (which it should’ve been if he was so convinced of its inferiority) for example.

Pius XII KNEW that Mary was assumed into heaven - and so proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption. He knew that the midnight communion fast was undesirable for various reasons, and so changed the discipline to a three-hour fast. I don’t think he ‘knew’ or claimed to know that rock music was inherently inferior.

Ironically, even Anton LaVey knew better about the inherent natures of music then some people. For all the perversions in his head, his opinions about classical music versus modern forms were much closer to the popes whose religion he despised. Truly the height of irony, or else a sad commentary on just how far modern civilization has fallen…

Umm, LaVey’s opinion was that rock music was probably NOT inherently Satanic. Am I missing something here? How is that agreeing with the Popes, who’d probably say the contrary? Did LaVey at any stage claim that Gregorian Chant was the devil’s least favourite form of music or something?

 

[Lycorth]

To KNOW? If they KNEW with any degree of certitude, they would’ve made their knowledge a rule of action, in the form of disicpline or dogma banning everything that isn’t Gregorian Chant from Mass, or in general (which it should’ve been if he was so convinced of its inferiority) for example.

Pius XII KNEW that Mary was assumed into heaven - and so proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption. He knew that the midnight communion fast was undesirable for various reasons, and so changed the discipline to a three-hour fast. I don’t think he ‘knew’ or claimed to know that rock music was inherently inferior.

Have you read Tra le Sollecitudini (Instruction on Sacred Music) by Pius X? Here’s an excerpt:

Hence, in order that no one for the future may be able to plead in excuse that he did not clearly understand his duty and that all vagueness may be eliminated from the interpretation of matters which have already been commanded, We have deemed it expedient to point out briefly the principles regulating sacred music in the functions of public worship, and to gather together in a general survey the principal prescriptions of the Church against the more common abuses in this subject. We do therefore publish, motu proprio and with certain knowledge, Our present Instruction to which, as to a juridical code of sacred music (quasi a codice giuridice della musica sacra), We will with the fullness of Our Apostolic Authority that the force of law be given, and We do by Our present handwriting impose its scrupulous observance on all.

Seems like a rule of discipline to me.

And from Pius XII’s *Musicae Sacrae (On Sacred Music):
*
3. We hope, therefore, that what St. Pius X rightly decreed in the document which he accurately called the “legal code of sacred music” may be confirmed and inculcated anew, shown in a new light and strengthened by new proofs. We hope that the noble art of sacred music—adapted to contemporary conditions and in some way enriched—may ever more perfectly accomplish its mission.

Musical standards, both for liturgical use as well as how we are to view music in general, most certainly were made into matters of discipline.

Umm, LaVey’s opinion was that rock music was probably NOT inherently Satanic. Am I missing something here? How is that agreeing with the Popes, who’d probably say the contrary? Did LaVey at any stage claim that Gregorian Chant was the devil’s least favourite form of music or something?

When did I deny that LaVey was not a big fan of rock music? He didn’t much care for rock music of any kind and thought that classical music was more evocative and ennobling. This is closer to the opinions of Pius X and Pius XII and their praise of sacred music than it is to praise of secular musical forms, which I find amusingly ironic as well as, in terms of how much Western civilization has degraded its culture, just plain sad…

 

[LilyM]

Have you read Tra le Sollecitudini (Instruction on Sacred Music) by Pius X? Here’s an excerpt:

Hence, in order that no one for the future may be able to plead in excuse that he did not clearly understand his duty and that all vagueness may be eliminated from the interpretation of matters which have already been commanded, We have deemed it expedient to point out briefly the principles regulating sacred music in the functions of public worship, and to gather together in a general survey the principal prescriptions of the Church against the more common abuses in this subject. We do therefore publish, motu proprio and with certain knowledge, Our present Instruction to which, as to a juridical code of sacred music (quasi a codice giuridice della musica sacra), We will with the fullness of Our Apostolic Authority that the force of law be given, and We do by Our present handwriting impose its scrupulous observance on all.

Seems like a rule of discipline to me.

And from Pius XII’s Musicae Sacrae (On Sacred Music):
*
3. We hope, therefore, that what St. Pius X rightly decreed in the document which he accurately called the “legal code of sacred music” may be confirmed and inculcated anew*, shown in a new light and strengthened by new proofs. We hope that the noble art of sacred music—adapted to contemporary conditions and in some way enriched—may ever more perfectly accomplish its mission.

Musical standards, both for liturgical use as well as how we are to view music in general, most certainly were made into matters of discipline.

OK, so if it’s truly a discipline then those priests who allow anything other than Gregorian Chant are guilty of liturgical abuse by introducing ‘inferior’ music.

So what then? I presume you’ve gotten on the case and reported these abusive priests to the bishop and thence to Rome? Just as you would if they used glass vessels or allowed laypeople to preach the homily? And received the like response as well?

When did I deny that LaVey was not a big fan of rock music? He didn’t much care for rock music of any kind and thought that classical music was ***more evocative and ennobling. ***This is closer to the opinions of Pius X and Pius XII and their praise of sacred music than it is to praise of secular musical forms, which I find amusingly ironic as well as, in terms of how much Western civilization has degraded its culture, just plain sad…

I’m sure he had vastly different ideas of the concepts of ‘evocative’ and ‘ennobling’ than you or the Popes, m’dear. He would hardly have praised in any fashion music which he considered by its very nature lifted hearts and minds to the Christian God, after all.