Rock Music

[cenpress]

So we can bring this down to a question of trust. In the definition of art, who do we trust?

Should we bring back the Index of Forbidden Books?

Let us not forget the Church at one time (and for a very LONG time) stood by the Index of Forbidden Books. Works of literature and philosophy and such whose content was strictly prohibited by the Church for being contrary to her teaching. I say, thank heavens the Church no longer stands by the Index, not that she deems those books now worthy of our attention. But I’m glad she no longer forbids them.

The Church always means well in the stances she takes on art. But she is not always right.

Also, I agree with Guldenat who said that it is not up to the Church to decide what is and what is not, in fact, art. It is not her place to do so. To be sure, the Truth does rest with Jesus, as you have said, cue. But neither Jesus nor tradition has set a clear definition of what is to be considered art for a reason. Art, frankly, is irrelevant when we speak in terms of faith and salvation.

And it is the Vatican itself that houses one of the greatest museums of art in the world. I know that fact doesn’t speak to either of our arguments, but I state it simply as evidence that the Church strongly supports the arts. But I do not think she wishes to alter its definition.

 

[cue]

I would like, cenpress, to thank you as well. As I mentioned earlier, I am addressing the issue for myself and have been given the benefit of working it out out-loud, so to speak.

I’m sorry, brother, but that is not a reasonable argument. It’s reasonable that such experience and people have led you to your own conclusion on the matter, but when discussing truth, I’m afraid that becomes irrelevant. Because it simply is not grounded in logic. It’s like saying, “Yeah? Well … my dad could beat up your dad.” There are plenty of people I could cite as bearers of my opinion as well, but that doesn’t make my argument any more solid or profound.

What makes your opinion logical?

Granted, I do not have much of an argument, I’ll admit. But based on the rather consistent resulting behaviors of those who experience rock and what it encourages in myself and others, I have to believe it is more than just coincidence and that there is something disordered in the genre itself that provokes this disordered behavior.

However, then we have two possibilities: what provokes the behavior is either in the genre itself or in the lyrics. Here it is more sketchy but it seems that these observable disordered behaviors are provoked even when the lyrics are good (‘ordered’).

This is not a proof, but I am just showing that my opinion is not completely unfounded.

Also, the genre question. The style that I assert is disordered is the style that happens to characterize rock as a genre. So I am not saying songs the happen to fall into this category (rock) are disordered just because they are in the genre. No, what makes them disordered (the style) is the very thing which makes them rock. Does that make sense? So it is only accidentally that rock as a genre is disordered. Thus you are right that the genre is not important necessarily, but here it happens that what is disordered is also the criterion that makes it rock.

For example, let’s say that the use of the electric guitar is the element in the style ‘rock’ that ‘disorders’ the music. Since rock characteristically uses an electric guitar, it applies to most rock songs. Now the electric guitar is not the criterion, but until I have access to the research done on the subject, I cannot speak on that criteria.

Definition: evil, disordered, etc.
When I say that rock as a genre is disordered, or evil, I mean that there is something in the music itself that provokes evil in people. I call disordered that thing that is in the music itself. Another way to speak is to say that it is an occasion of sin. Sin will not necessarily result from it, but usually does. When I say it is disordered I am highlighting the fact that it is an occasion of sin. I do not believe that rock is a totally evil genre and every single rock song is totally evil straight from Satan. I believe it is an occasion of sin which should be avoided.

Guldenat, our discussion on the definition of art is rather off-topic for this thread.

 

[cenpress]

Just for the record, what disordered behaviors are you talking about?

And is it not possible, cue, that perhaps Rock music (in general) is not to blame for these so-called “disordered behaviors” in you and your friends, but the specific songs themselves? I find it awfully difficult to believe that your listening preferences were so diverse that you can rightly claim ALL of Rock music as a whole is to blame for such behaviors.

 

[cue]

Just for the record, what disordered behaviors are you talking about?

In general, not serving God. Extremely, violence to oneself and others, substance abuse, impurity, rebellion. I confess that I do not have personal experience of most of these behaviors and have only learned of them second-hand. But whether it is at a concert, party, etc. it consistently appears as a factor in situations where the scale is tipped into sin.

And is it not possible, cue, that perhaps Rock music (in general) is not to blame for these so-called “disordered behaviors” in you and your friends, but the specific songs themselves? I find it awfully difficult to believe that your listening preferences were so diverse that you can rightly claim ALL of Rock music as a whole is to blame for such behaviors.

Firstly, rock is not blame for these disordered behaviors in anyone. It is merely an occasion of sin which encourages but never forces these behaviors.
Secondly, yes, it could be the specific songs and not the genre, however, rock in general seems more likely to me based on my understanding of the history of rock.

Again,

What makes your opinion logical?

 

[goofyjim]

I love rock music as much as jazz and pop and a host of other types. I find none of it sinful.

 

[cue]

What makes your opinion logical?

The reason I ask is that it seems to me that my position might be easily dismissed because of the wide-spread popularity and prevalence of rock. My challenge is to not simply take things as they are, as they happen to be, and think critically about it. Our culture has gotten wrong what will make us truly happy. Maybe they are also wrong to say that what we listen to will not really affect us.

 

[BobP123]

Music… should have no other end and aim than the glory of God and the recreation of the soul; where this is not kept in mind there is no true music, but only an infernal clamor and ranting.

Johann Sebastian Bach

quoted in The Writer’s Almanac writersalmanac.org

 

[cenpress]

Firstly, rock is not blame for these disordered behaviors in anyone. It is merely an occasion of sin which encourages but never forces these behaviors.

Quick question in regard to this … then by definition, couldn’t most everything be an occasion of sin? If I find the nudes hanging on the wall in the Vatican museum risqué, for example, and they move me to impure thoughts, are those pieces of art then to be considered “occasions of sin”? Further, are they no longer to be considered pieces of art?

I guess I don’t see how Rock music in general, as you say, provokes evil in the listener, or is disordered/evil in and of itself … but every other genre/medium gets a pass.

And as for “How is your argument logical?” … believe me, I will reply … just need a bit of time to do so (right now I only have time for a quick one cuz I’m prepping for the CYE course I teach on Wednesday nights). But you’ll get it. You’ll get it.

I have a lot of discussion in me yet.

 

[cue]

Quick question in regard to this … then by definition, couldn’t most everything be an occasion of sin? If I find the nudes hanging on the wall in the Vatican museum risqué, for example, and they move me to impure thoughts, are those pieces of art then to be considered “occasions of sin”?

Objectively, only those things that of themselves are disordered are occasions of sin. Thus, the Vatican example is not. Playboy is. One of the differences in this case is how human sexuality is treated or ordered.

Subjectively, yes, the nudes could be an occasion of sin for an individual, but the work in itself is fine.

 

[Guldenat]

Objectively, only those things that of themselves are disordered are occasions of sin. Thus, the Vatican example is not. Playboy is. One of the differences in this case is how human sexuality is treated or ordered.

Subjectively, yes, the nudes could be an occasion of sin for an individual, but the work in itself is fine.

I have never once, while listening to any type of rock music, felt that because of the music I was in a ‘near occasion of sin’. It is your belief that it is ‘disordered’, and that’s fine. However, your one source, the reverend who wrote for Homiletics and Pastoral review, is not an expert on the subject. I know a priest personally who wrote for the same magazine, and he does not hold rock to be disordered or sinful. You lack credible information and verifiable sources. The burden of proof is on you to show that rock music is inherently disordered. At this point in time you’ve made the claim, and have not offered logical arguments to support your conclusion, the best you’ve had is one priest and your own anecdotal evidence, which in the fields of theology, philosophy, and medicine is evidence of the worst kind.

 

[Holly3278]

No, listening to rock music is not a sin. Its not even a venial sin.

 

[cue]

I have never once, while listening to any type of rock music, felt that because of the music I was in a ‘near occasion of sin’.

Good. However, this does not necessarily mean that it is in itself, apart from your experience, not an occasion of sin, just as my experience of it as an occasion of sin does not make it in and of itself an occasion of sin.

The burden of proof is on you to show that rock music is inherently disordered.

Why do you say that?

At this point in time you’ve made the claim, and have not offered logical arguments to support your conclusion, the best you’ve had is one priest and your own anecdotal evidence, which in the fields of theology, philosophy, and medicine is evidence of the worst kind.

I think this point was made before.

It is far from perfect, but as I mentioned earlier, I am getting more information and hope to offer more proof.

This is not a proof, but I am just showing that my opinion is not completely unfounded.

My opinion of rock as a genre is supported by my experience. Perhaps I am universalizing my personal experience, but I do not think that is the case. I have ordered a series by Rev. Nortz. I have no doubt he has an argument a thousand times better. I’ll let you know what he has to say.

You lack credible information and verifiable sources.

I am very aware of that and I apologize that I cannot offer more, but I would ask those with differing views to present argument for them, as cenpress plans to.

 

[BobP123]

Subjectively, yes, the nudes could be an occasion of sin for an individual, but the work in itself is fine.

What if it’s used to arouse or stir up passions, not necessarily of a sexual nature?

 

[cue]

I did a quick search and found some research on the physiological effects of music.

Grunge rock music produced significant increases in hostility, fatigue, sadness and tension and led to significant reductions in caring, relaxation, mental clarity and vigor.

Effects of Music on Mood, Tension, and Mental clarity

This is only one source, but notice the increase in hostility the grunge rock brings about. It is this increase in hostility that is the occasion of sin. There is more than hostility at work here, but this study confirms, not only that music affects people and is not neutral or ineffectual, but that (grunge) rock has negative effects. I’m not making this stuff up guys.

Now, the study used grunge rock. I say rock. I am only concerned with grouping music by its effects, not by genre. I am not intent on condemning all rock. I believe similar effects are evident in other sub-genres of rock, but if I have to revised my category, that is fine.

 

[FrankLawrence]

Back in my “casual,” or “cafeteria” Catholic days, I was a big fan of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, among other groups that I would not listen to now. You may ask, what is wrong with them? Not to individually pick on them, but since another poster brought them up, let’s examine the issue… While, “Breaking The Girl,” may sound musically brilliant, it is glamorizing taking a girl’s virginity(no indication of marriage whatsoever.) What about, “I could have lied?” Regretting telling the truth??? “Sir Psycho Sexy” - quite a few profanities and degrading to women. “Mellowship Slinky in B Major” - uses God’s name quite a few times, not giving Him glory. “Suck My Kiss,” uses profanity and assigns a creation to some woman’s mouth that is NOT why God made her. “Give it Away,” can be interpreted suggestively. The aforementioned songs are all on the “Blood Sugar Sex Magic” CD, and that is just scratching the surface. I haven’t seen it, but I heard that their “Funky Monks,” video is very obscene.
Now, on the issue of lovers’ lament songs. Many men can relate to the lyrics, “Why she had to go, I don’t know. She wouldn’t say. I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday” Many men can relate to, “Was it something I said or something I did…did the words not come out right.” Also, many men can relate to, “Just one more fight about your leadership, and I will straight up leave your…” I’m sure that many women can also relate to the lyrics, “Every time you speak her name did she know that you told me you’d hold me until you die…and you’re still alive!” However, do any of those lyrics(Beatles, Poison, Limp Bizkit, Alannis Morisette) bring POSITIVE emotions out of people who got a raw deal in a past relationship? The moods can range from depressed to furious, and yes, as another poster mentioned, different people will react differently, but clearly a positive uplifting message is not what is intended here. It’s more of a wallow in misery with me, or join me in my venomous rage kind of message. It is more likely to contribute to disdain towards the opposite sex, than the love and charity that God calls us to show. Someone who has just been through a bad relationship needs a message of hope, and the aforementioned songs don’t provide that. Thus, it isn’t good for the soul. Songs like “Second Chance” by 38 Special, or “Take Good Care of My Baby,” by Bobby Vee are also bad, because they are an attempt to generate sympathy for men who cheat. Not that Jesus didn’t die for that sin, too, but there are too many decent men out there for cheaters to be portrayed as “romantic.” Then, you get songs like “Never Say Goodbye,” by Bon Jovi, or “Getcha Back,” by the Beach Boys that look back to the fact that they were sexually immoral with ex-lovers as a positive thing, and want her back. “What it Takes” by Aerosmith is another depressing wallow in misery song, as is “Settle For A Slowdown,” by Dierks Bentley, a song showing sadness that an ex is moving on with her life, full speed ahead. The underlying theme behind all these songs is that, “She was everything. Now that she’s gone, my future holds nothing, unless I can have her again.” In essence, it denies the hope we have in Jesus Christ, and encourages people to bring the baggage of their past relationships into any new relationship they may enter, (“If I Fell” by the Beatles), which would hurt the new relationship and perpetuate the cycle of misery. That’s not to say that from a strictly musical perspective, the aforementioned songs aren’t good, but we can’t allow ourselves to be seduced by music in that manner. Bad attitudes can develope subtly without us even knowing it is happening to us. Now, there are some break-up songs that take a more positive emotional spin to a break-up. Songs like “Already Gone,” by the Eagles, “Another Girl,” by the Beatles, and of course FREEBIRD!!! Still, though, being MORE positive is not positive enough, especially in “Another Girl,” which seems like he is using the new girl to claim victory over the ex. As I said, songs about the deceased can be an exception, like “Last Kiss,” although even with that song, it would be nice to mention more than merely being good to get to Heaven. There are some songs about break-ups that send positive messages of hope. “Love Song,” by Tesla, or “Broken Heart” by White Lion would be examples. Those are the types of messages that people who have been through a bad relationship should hear. Those are songs that could really lift someone up. They create an attitude of looking forward to the future, rather than dwelling on the misery of the past. Even so, the lyric about taking the new girl home in “Broken Heart,” has some negative implications.

 

[thechrismyster]

Back in my “casual,” or “cafeteria” Catholic days, I was a big fan of the Red Hot Chili Peppers, among other groups that I would not listen to now. You may ask, what is wrong with them? Not to individually pick on them, but since another poster brought them up, let’s examine the issue… While, “Breaking The Girl,” may sound musically brilliant, it is glamorizing taking a girl’s virginity(no indication of marriage whatsoever.) What about, “I could have lied?” Regretting telling the truth??? “Sir Psycho Sexy” - quite a few profanities and degrading to women. “Mellowship Slinky in B Major” - uses God’s name quite a few times, not giving Him glory. “Suck My Kiss,” uses profanity and assigns a creation to some woman’s mouth that is NOT why God made her. “Give it Away,” can be interpreted suggestively. The aforementioned songs are all on the “Blood Sugar Sex Magic” CD, and that is just scratching the surface. I haven’t seen it, but I heard that their “Funky Monks,” video is very obscene.
Now, on the issue of lovers’ lament songs. Many men can relate to the lyrics, “Why she had to go, I don’t know. She wouldn’t say. I said something wrong, now I long for yesterday” Many men can relate to, “Was it something I said or something I did…did the words not come out right.” Also, many men can relate to, “Just one more fight about your leadership, and I will straight up leave your…” I’m sure that many women can also relate to the lyrics, “Every time you speak her name did she know that you told me you’d hold me until you die…and you’re still alive!” However, do any of those lyrics(Beatles, Poison, Limp Bizkit, Alannis Morisette) bring POSITIVE emotions out of people who got a raw deal in a past relationship? The moods can range from depressed to furious, and yes, as another poster mentioned, different people will react differently, but clearly a positive uplifting message is not what is intended here. It’s more of a wallow in misery with me, or join me in my venomous rage kind of message. It is more likely to contribute to disdain towards the opposite sex, than the love and charity that God calls us to show. Someone who has just been through a bad relationship needs a message of hope, and the aforementioned songs don’t provide that. Thus, it isn’t good for the soul. Songs like “Second Chance” by 38 Special, or “Take Good Care of My Baby,” by Bobby Vee are also bad, because they are an attempt to generate sympathy for men who cheat. Not that Jesus didn’t die for that sin, too, but there are too many decent men out there for cheaters to be portrayed as “romantic.” Then, you get songs like “Never Say Goodbye,” by Bon Jovi, or “Getcha Back,” by the Beach Boys that look back to the fact that they were sexually immoral with ex-lovers as a positive thing, and want her back. “What it Takes” by Aerosmith is another depressing wallow in misery song, as is “Settle For A Slowdown,” by Dierks Bentley, a song showing sadness that an ex is moving on with her life, full speed ahead. The underlying theme behind all these songs is that, “She was everything. Now that she’s gone, my future holds nothing, unless I can have her again.” In essence, it denies the hope we have in Jesus Christ, and encourages people to bring the baggage of their past relationships into any new relationship they may enter, (“If I Fell” by the Beatles), which would hurt the new relationship and perpetuate the cycle of misery. That’s not to say that from a strictly musical perspective, the aforementioned songs aren’t good, but we can’t allow ourselves to be seduced by music in that manner. Bad attitudes can develope subtly without us even knowing it is happening to us. Now, there are some break-up songs that take a more positive emotional spin to a break-up. Songs like “Already Gone,” by the Eagles, “Another Girl,” by the Beatles, and of course FREEBIRD!!! Still, though, being MORE positive is not positive enough, especially in “Another Girl,” which seems like he is using the new girl to claim victory over the ex. As I said, songs about the deceased can be an exception, like “Last Kiss,” although even with that song, it would be nice to mention more than merely being good to get to Heaven. There are some songs about break-ups that send positive messages of hope. “Love Song,” by Tesla, or “Broken Heart” by White Lion would be examples. Those are the types of messages that people who have been through a bad relationship should hear. Those are songs that could really lift someone up. They create an attitude of looking forward to the future, rather than dwelling on the misery of the past. Even so, the lyric about taking the new girl home in “Broken Heart,” has some negative implications.

That was the longest paragraph ever.

 

[Linkowski]

Can you make a case that you are listening to it to the glory of God??

1 Corinthians 10:31 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

I guess you would need to be honest with yourself. I have found that listening to hymns and other Christian music draws me closer to the Lord…other music does not lead me to glorifying the Lord.

In Christ.

 

[thechrismyster]

hmmm…a near occasion of sin. a temptation to sin…

what about when my niece left a pop music mix CD in my car a few years ago, and i listened to it while driving home, and got so angry, even rage filled, at the lack of talent in todays recording artists. My anger caused by listening to talentless hacks try to create something resembling music… thats an occasion of sin. it caused me to get angry.

We need more Dean Martins and fewer bubblegum bands.

 

[FrankLawrence]

1. This is not a universal truth – that is, music that makes you angry may not make me angry.
2. That you think it’s wrong does not make it sinful.

So pagans, occultists, Wiccans, and devil worshippers are incapable of writing objectively good music?

Sting is, as I understand, a devotee of Tantric yoga and such, but it is completely absent from his music. Am I to assume that, if I listen to Ten Summoner’s Tales, that I might be exposing myself to subliminal messages that will lead me away from the Church?

Or is George Harrison going to turn me into a neo-Hindu?

Your logic here is inherently flawed. B does not follow from A.

The problem here is that – forgive me, P and W fans – so much of the music that glorifies God is objectively bad music.

Creativity is one way in which we demonstrate the fact that we are created in God’s image; why not let that demonstration in itself give glory to God when we create wonderful art – be it music, sculpture, literature, paintings, etc.?

Peace,
Dante

 Not sure how to break quotes up point by point, so I'll respond to them this way.

   Dante, note that me saying that something "should be avoided," or that "in my opinion it is sinful," does not constitute me declaring something to be sinful with authority.

 As for your question about Sting leading you away from the Church.   The lyrics, "You could say I lost my belief in the holy Church," are in one of his more popular songs.  That isn't even subtle.  

 As for George Harrison, if you want to sing a praise song to a hindu "god," that is a violation of the First Commandment, unless you leave out that part, which some radio stations do.    

 Now, can an occasional positive message come from someone who claims to be evil?  Well, "Maybe, it's not to late, to learn how to love and forget how to hate."   Get rid of the "maybe," and those Ozzy Osbourne lyrics are good.  Overall, though, his music (and lifestyle) send a very negative message.

 B does equal A.  If someone sings a song for an ex, they are likely singing a "love" song TO someone else's current girlfriend or wife.  "Take Good Care of My Baby" by Bobby Vee is perhaps the most blatant about that, and is an absolutely despicable song.  While a VERY naive woman may find it romantic, any man who has ever been involved with a woman who still has an ex in her life that is still romantically after her knows just how evil something like that is, and knows not to make the same mistake of ever getting involved with a woman who has not made a CLEAN break from ALL her exes again, but that is another issue for another thread.

  Still, the best music out there(in my opinion) is music that praises God, and yes, that CAN include rock music, such as Katholicus.   I'm not sure what praise and worship music you are considering to be bad(perhaps the "gospel" genre?) or some Protestant songs that contain false theology(although I must say that by and large, Christian music by Protestants tends to stick with lyrics that Catholics would agree with.  There are some exceptions, however, to be avoided.)

 

[FrankLawrence]

That was the longest paragraph ever.

Oh yeah. Sorry about that everyone. I meant to stop doing that.