Rock Music

[Julianna]

IMHO the best music recorded was between 1968-1974. After disco it kind of went downhill.

I am ardent Led Zeppelin fan…DH is a Doors and CCR fan. We listen to Pink Floyd, Aerosmith, The Who, Moody Blues, Eagles, Chicago, Fleetwood Mac, classic stuff.

As for todays music…I like Nickelback, Howie Day and am crazy about Snow Patrol.

DS likes Coldplay, DD likes Hinder and Plain White T’s.

Country…like Rascal Flatts, Brooks and Dunn, Trisha Yearwood…great!

I am really surprised to see this question asked here. I used to teach CCD in the late 80’s early 90’s…U2’s music was implemented in my lesson plans.

 

[RenaissanceMare]

<<<< 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. >>>>

Personally, it does feel good to sing along to something like “You Oughta Know” when I’m down over an ex. (Which happens sometimes, especially considering I had an engagement to break up. I’m afraid the only cure will be marriage, which I’m working on.) Though I can understand how in that song Alanis comes off as a shrieking feminist. Which is why I much prefer Everclear’s “Now That It’s Over” which is basically about someone realizing he can’t be friends with his ex and telling her off a final time.

Including this very positive line:" I am a lot better now than just okay. Maybe I am just wakin’ up in my own way"

shrug My two pennies, your mileage may vary.

 

[cenpress]

Another poster said that the burden of proof falls on you, cue. That was actually a point I was going to make in my reply. Here’s why: Your sweeping statement that the whole of Rock music (as a genre) is disordered and evil, making every song an occasion of sin is so grandiose and all-encompassing that your logic must lead to an objective conclusion that supports such an expansive premise. I, on the other hand, have stated that Rock music (as a genre) is neither inherently evil nor intrinsically good. That it is, rather, neutral and ought not be considered an occasion of sin (as a whole). Which therefore leads to a much simpler proof for my theorem: Simply show me ONE Rock song that is an example of how Rock music is NOT evil or disordered … ONE Rock song that will puncture your inflated argument and send it wheezing through blue sky until it falls limp at your toes …

Because, you see, your argument needs to hold true to EVERY … SINGLE … Rock song ever recorded throughout history! I need only ONE SONG to show the opposite is true.

But furthermore:

Music is a gift from God. There is no questioning that. Where once the popular form of music was Classical, we have seen a number of developments in popular taste over the years (centuries). We’ve seen different forms of Classical music, different movements that mirrored the people of the day. We’ve seen Classical morph into different “phrases” through different genres as people experimented with instruments and sound. In our country alone, we’ve seen this … Americana, Bluegrass, Zydeco, the Blues, Jazz (Big Band Jazz, Small Band Jazz, improvisational, smooth) … Folk music … Gospel music … and during these movements, instruments utilized changed and morphed. A band called The Dominoes experiments (like tens of thousands of musicians before them) … Gene Vincent invents a new style of song … Elvis Presley records an album with Sam Phillips … and the birth of Rock ‘n’ Roll is here.

Rock ‘n’ Roll is nothing but the natural progression of sound, my friend … a morphing of two or more styles of music played up-tempo. When you consider it on the timeline of Music, it is an obvious response to that which came before. Inherently, HOW can something like that be evil?

Because it’s different?

Rock, remember, didn’t start with Nirvana or the Chili Peppers, or Slayer, or Sabbath, or Megadeath (which isn’t even Rock, but Metal). And because some people have glamorized what’s become known (semantically) as “the Rock ‘n’ Roll lifestyle” (booze & sex & drugs), that doesn’t logically mean the music itself is disordered. What you’re saying is that even before it was invented, this disordered form of music was just lying in wait … ready to be invented … licking its chops … and once it was invented (or discovered), it was a Pandora’s Box that could never be closed. That, frankly, is nonsense.

Rock ‘n’ Roll, like all other movements in music, is a natural response to the movement that existed prior. It stems from our own inherent need to explore our creative parameters. To take that next step … ALL art works that way. The Renaissance led to Neoclassicalism, which led to Romanticism, which led to Modern Art … and so on … and so it WILL go on. To say Rock ‘n’ Roll is inherently disordered is akin to saying Post-Impressionism is inherently disordered.

And if you are going to go so far as to say that of Rock ‘n’ Roll, why stop there? Weren’t any other musical movements prior to Rock inherently evil? How about Jazz? How about the Blues? How about Americana or Appalachian Folk? And if not … WHY not?

But why stop there? What about black and white photography? Isn’t it against the natural order to remove God’s splendorous color spectrum from our two-dimensional pieces of “art”? The pictures we make?

Taking it further … Cubism … Picasso and Braque … is it not wrong and disordered to depict the beauty of human form in such a rudimentary way … all those right angles.

You CAN’T reduce an entire genre or movement in art (no matter the medium) to “disordered and evil.” Because that is opening up a Pandora’s Box of your own, my friend. Once you do so with Rock … what’s to stop you doing the same anywhere else?

 

[cue]

I, on the other hand, have stated that Rock music (as a genre) is neither inherently evil nor intrinsically good. That it is, rather, neutral and ought not be considered an occasion of sin (as a whole).

This is what I would like to you to provide a proof for.

Your proof that a rock song may not be an occasion of sin in itself is very accurate but irrelevant when applied to my position. As I said before:

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.

My point is that music with a style, beat, etc. that stimulates disordered passion is sinful. Rock typically has such a style, beat, etc. Nonetheless, there are many rock songs that would be exceptions. However, as a genre, rock is characterized by the style, beat, etc. that I object to.

I do not just object to rock but to all music that is in and of itself is an occasion of sin. In general, rock songs are, and since this thread is about rock, I use that category.

I am not asking you to prove me wrong directly, but to prove yourself right.

My reference to the research in my previous post supports my claim that there is something different about rock music, and not only different, but harmful (increased hostility).

Based on your post, it is clear that you are, at least in terms of art, a relativist. My position requires a belief that there are real differences between different kinds of music.

 

[dylanschrader]

A definition of art might be “an authentic human expression in a sensible medium.”

This means that art comes from human nature and human experience. Therefore, art is directed in some way to the Truth and the Good. These correspond to man’s spiritual faculties of intellect and will.

Now, what makes art to be art rather than a purely intellectual exercise is the sensible expression. This is also why art is human: the visible is in harmony with the invisible. We are material bodies informed by spiritual souls.

To say that some art is ‘better’ than other art is to say that it accomplishes its end more effectively, namely, it expresses more profoundly human nature and human experience. Even art that is not explicitly Christian, to the degree that it expresses Truth or Beauty, references Christ in an implicit way. This is not only because Christ is the Truth and is Beauty in his divine nature but because Christ is fully human without sin. Therefore, in his Person humanity and divinity are united perfectly, and Christ himself is the authentic expression of what it means to be human.

Now, if a piece or genre of art by its nature is misleading about human nature or about the human end (Truth, Good), then it could also be an occasion of sin because it could wound the human nature of those who experience it.

Sometimes, however, art presents a conflict. It could present a division in man between the visible and the invisible or between man’s end and where he actually finds himself. This does not make art less an authentic expression of human nature because it is expressing the truth of where man finds himself due to original sin. This very conflict makes us desire the resolution for the conflict–Christ–even more and, therefore, helps man to achieve his end.

We have to avoid, therefore, even aesthetic relativism. There is no Beauty without Truth, and there is no Good apart from these. This is simply because God himself is the Truth, the Good, and Beauty.

 

[Kitty_Chan]

Im not as well spoken about this topic but find the thread interesting. I agree that music is netural, its how one uses it makes it evil or good. Certainly some musicians practice that. But didnt Christ say we would know them by their fruit. So those producing bad or good its fairly easy. Both sinners and saints see the rain and sun.

However, occasionaly those who you think are of a “bad” catagory will produce a “good” song, which is only because Truth is out there for anyone to find. It doenst need to be the believers only that state it.

And just a thought regarding the old deal about rock music from the devil re the beat etc. I figure that has orgins in racism, although few will want to admit it.

ps Dylan I like what you said about conflict

 

[cenpress]

You said, “… music with a style, beat, etc. that stimulates disordered passion is sinful.”

I do not argue with this. I agree with this. What I disagree with is your characterizing the genre according to your personal experience. And if you are relying solely upon those experiences and the position of others whom you’ve referenced, then by your very argument, I can prove you wrong by simply applying my own personal experiences (and perhaps those of a few others whom I respect) to affirm my position … that Rock music (or its category of style) is not inherently disordered.

If it’s that simple for you, cue, then it must be that simple for me.

The Rock music I listen to (Indie Rock primarily, or College Rock) has never moved me toward a disordered passion, but toward a soulful rejoicing, a lifting of the spirit … which is inherently good. The more my spirit lifts, the more I rejoice in life, the more I become aware of the blessings I’ve been bestowed by God.

You want proof … there it is. And don’t tell me it won’t suffice. Because that is all you’ve given me. And to further my point … if such is the case, that you can use your own experiences and those of some others as proof to your argument … and I can do the same … then that is PROOF that we are dealing with a NEUTRAL issue. That it is not inherently evil, nor intrinsically good. But neutral, based on the relative (yes RELATIVE) experiences of all its varied listeners.

The defense rests.

(and to think … I almost started an equation in logic to prove my point … premise 1, premise 2, premise 3, conclusion … HA!)

 

[cue]

You said, “… music with a style, beat, etc. that stimulates disordered passion is sinful.”

I do not argue with this. I agree with this. What I disagree with is your characterizing the genre according to your personal experience. And if you are relying solely upon those experiences and the position of others whom you’ve referenced, then by your very argument, I can prove you wrong by simply applying my own personal experiences (and perhaps those of a few others whom I respect) to affirm my position … that Rock music (or its category of style) is not inherently disordered.

If it’s that simple for you, cue, then it must be that simple for me.

I do not quite follow you here. So you believe that there is music which is an occasion of sin, but rock is not such music. Is that right?

You want proof … there it is. And don’t tell me it won’t suffice. Because that is all you’ve given me. And to further my point … if such is the case, that you can use your own experiences and those of some others as proof to your argument … and I can do the same … then that is PROOF that we are dealing with a NEUTRAL issue. That it is not inherently evil, nor intrinsically good. But neutral, based on the relative (yes RELATIVE) experiences of all its varied listeners.

The research done in this field that I’ve found (it’s not much, but better then personal experience) does not support this.

heartmath.org/research/science-of-the-heart/soh_32.html

Understand that when I say something (music in this case) stimulates disordered passions, I do not mean that it provokes necessarily an overt action of sin. So an individual may not be aware of the disorder at work. I think we could describe it in this way. Person A listens to music. The music affects him in B way. Then the person does action C. Action C is what you described above which in your case is “rejoicing, a lifting of the spirit,” etc. What we need to examine, though, is B, not C, because it could be that B has a negative effect but through the grace of God and the circumstances he has placed in your life, C is a good action. That is why we must appeal to experiments and research done in this area, because individuals can be easily confused about what is affecting them and in what way.

 

[cenpress]

I do not quite follow you here. So you believe that there is music which is an occasion of sin, but rock is not such music. Is that right?.

I believe that it is possible for a song to be disordered … to become an occasion of sin. Not a genre as a whole. Not inherently. And of course, regarding these songs, not all the time purposely, but sometimes (in the case of bare immorality … or music that is used specifically to incite a certain type of hatred), then yes, in certain cases I do believe songs can become occasions of sin. But so can any work of art … a film or a painting. Sure.

The link you provide (
heartmath.org/research/sc…rt/soh_32.html
) is a dead link. There is nothing there.

“Person A listens to music. The music affects him in B way. Then the person does action C. Action C is what you described above which in your case is “rejoicing, a lifting of the spirit,” etc.”

WRONG. The rejoicing, lifting of the spirit is B … the affect it has on one … not the action C it provokes. And secondly, A + B doesn’t always necessarily even have to provoke C, or inspire it (perhaps the better way of putting it). One listens to music and one is affected. Period.

But even then, cue. It is possible to listen to an inherently good piece of music and take it wrongly … B becoming something disordered and evil (but that has more to do with what is inherent in YOU, the listener, than it does the song). I’m thinking specifically of Carmina Burana.

You also said this: “… because individuals can be easily confused about what is affecting them and in what way.” Absolutely! It may not even be the song (music, lyrics, tone, etc.). But another external or internal factor all together. That is why I believe the research you speak of is bunk.

Art, all art, is too subjective to dub it (or certain genres therein) evil or disordered. It’s really that simple. You cannot tell me that Pope John Paul II, who was a fan of Rock music and is on his way to sainthood, had it so wrong and you have it so right.

 

[cenpress]

Here is a great article I found:

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/09/all_you_need_is_love.html

Honestly, I just feel like your argument, cue, is a little old-fashioned. I know of no research that has objectively proven that a certain style of music is inherently disordered/evil. I don’t doubt that certain music can possess the ability to induce a disordered reaction in a listener. But even if it does so nine times out of ten, that isn’t reason enough to conclude that the music itself is disordered. There are just too many factors to consider.

I kind of wish you would reply also to what I wrote concerning the arts in general … the history of music … the history of movements in art … etc. I feel those examples strongly suggest Rock (an all other genres) is just a response to what came before it. And it is likewise only a stepping stone for what comes next … grunge, pop, electronica, techno, house, hip hop, etc. (not named in any order, btw).

 

[cue]

The link you provide (
heartmath.org/research/sc…rt/soh_32.html
) is a dead link. There is nothing there.

That’s funny. It works for me and proves my point beyond any measure of doubt.

Just kidding. I’m sorry about that.
Here:
heartmath.org/research/
science-of-the-heart/soh_32.html

The research will not make much sense, though, if you deny B the way I use it. B is what the music does to the person A, C is what A does. Person A (you) listens to music, experiences B (though may not be aware of it) and does C (rejoices, lifts spirit). So you are right, action C has more to do with “what is inherent in YOU,” which is why speaking about C is not helpful; we are speaking about the subject and not the music.

 

[John89]

I listen to system of a down, theyre my favorite band… but i also like metallica because their guitarist is my favorite…i listen to heavy metal bands but ive never heard any of their lyrics to be considered bad… i also love 80s music and 70s rock

 

[mpb74]

Statement by cue,

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.

Cue, no offense but perhaps the disorder is within you and your friends. Just as things that stir me towards sin are usually a disorder within me.

Sorry, I’ve not yet learned to copy quotes correctly, will do better. Dan

 

[fcbv]

It depends on the song. Neither all the rock songs are bad. There are many good lyrics! Avoid only the songs whose lyrics you know that are morally bad.

 

[cue]

Statement by cue,

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.

Cue, no offense but perhaps the disorder is within you and your friends. Just as things that stir me towards sin are usually a disorder within me.

Sorry, I’ve not yet learned to copy quotes correctly, will do better. Dan

Dan, there undoubtedly is disorder in me and my friends. But the fact that I am moved to sin is not what convinces me here. In fact, much of the time I listened to rock I was moved to do good things. Here is my claim:

1. Some music is different from other music and I mean real differences. Therefore, what is said about one form of music may not be true for another form of music. The opposite view is that music is neutral, that it is not different and ineffectual in itself. The Church clearly acknowledges, though, that different music is different and affects us in different ways.
2. Because some music is different from other music, we will be affected differently by different types of music.
3. Some music, like rock, negatively affects people. I refer you here to the website I quoted in my previous post.
4. These negative effects, like hostility, make it easier for a person to sin and thus producing these effects (listening to the music) is an occasion of sin which should be avoided.

Please understand the Church’s view of an occasion of sin. While man normally has a duty to avoid occasions of sin, there are many instances where not avoiding these occasions (listening to this music) is not venially sinful (cases of necessity, etc.).

The actions (sinful or good) of myself, my friends, cenpress, or Mark from Newsweek are neither here nor there. I am concerned with the direct affects of music on a person which he neither controls nor may be aware of.

 

[mpb74]

From Cue

1. Some music is different from other music and I mean real differences. Therefore, what is said about one form of music may not be true for another form of music. The opposite view is that music is neutral, that it is not different and ineffectual in itself. The Church clearly acknowledges, though, that different music is different and affects us in different ways.

Cue, I don’t agree with the way you frame the argument. There are often real differences ( Some are very small differences) in types of music. Believing a particular type of music, in this case Rock, is in itself neutral in regards to Godliness or evil, is not the opposite view that there are real differences in types of music.

 

[cynic]

What a boring life if the only valid emotional state we should be in is one of peace and sombre reflection.

 

[BobP123]

What a boring life if the only valid emotional state we should be in is one of peace and sombre reflection.

Let me guess. You want to drive with the windows open and pollute the air with rap.

 

[Matas]

 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.

LOL. Yeah…Ozzy… How about this twisted bit:

*You’re searching for your mind don’t know where to start
can’t find the key to fit the lock on your heart
you think you know but you are never quite sure
your soul is ill but you will not find a cure.

Your world was made for you by someone above
but you chose evil ways instead of love.
You made me master of the world where you exist
the soul I took from you was not even missed.*

Here’s a real Black Sabbath favorite:

*Have you ever thought about your soul - can it be saved?
Or perhaps you think that when you’re dead you just stay in your grave
Is God just a thought within your head or is he a part of you?
Is Christ just a name that you read in a book when you were in school?

When you think about death do you lose your breath or do you keep your cool?
Would you like to see the Pope on the end of a rope - do you think he’s a fool?
Well I have seen the truth, yes I’ve seen the light and I’ve changed my ways
And I’ll be prepared when you’re lonely and scared at the end of our days

Could it be you’re afraid of what your friends might say
If they knew you believe in God above?
They should realize before they criticize
that God is the only way to love

Is your mind so small that you have to fall
In with the pack wherever they run
Will you still sneer when death is near
And say they may as well worship the sun?

I think it was true it was people like you that crucified Christ
I think it is sad the opinion you had was the only one voiced
Will you be so sure when your day is near, say you don’t believe?
You had the chance but you turned it down, now you can’t retrieve

Perhaps you’ll think before you say that God is dead and gone
Open your eyes, just realize that he’s the one
The only one who can save you now from all this sin and hate
Or will you still jeer at all you hear? Yes! I think it’s too late.*

Ah…yes…If only Tony Iommi played in a Christian Rock band. That would be cool. Ozzy could have made a Christian Rock band, but evil market forces turned him into a fat monster. Nah…I have too much baggage associated with the old rock and roller days. Thinking about those days is a near occasion of sin. I pretty much have set the whole rap down and am forgetting about it.

 

[FrankLawrence]

This is an indeed a fascinating discussion. Cue brings up a very important point that music can often impact us in ways that we are not personally aware of. We may think, “This isn’t impacting me at all,” when in reality, the devil is using it to launch an all-out attack on our souls.

    Would we all agree that some music lyrics just don't fit with the music behind them?  If we can agree on that single point, then we need to delve deeper into the argument that Cue is making, rather than just dismissing it.   Why?  Simply, if we agree on that point, we are acknowledging that music, itself(without the lyrics) has the ability to create emotions.  If the music itself can create emotions, then those emotions can be  negative ones, in opposition to God.

     To use the secular artist Billy Joel, for example, he has a song called "The Downeaster Alexa," which is about his fishing boat, and the struggles faced by the commercial fishing industry(as of 1989, when the song was released.)  The music itself, creates a peaceful mood of being on a fishing boat, moving back and forth with the (tranquil) waves.  The lyrics FIT the music.      Also, some of the lyrics, ("I know there's fish out there, but where God only knows") if twisted as I like to do, concur with Luke 5:4-7.  

   On the other hand, Billy Joel has a song called "Pressure," where the music and lyrics which also fit together quite well, send a very different message.  The music creates a mood of panic, and the lyrics attack the ability of faith to overcome pressure in life.  Thus, it is a song best avoided by Christians.

   Grunge came up in one of Cue's posts.  This was a genre primarily defined by the early 1990s Seattle scene.  I heard that Seattle gets less sunlight than anywhere else in continental America. (Or was it more rainfall?)  Anyway, I can say that some of the songs in this genre DEFINITELY had lyrics that fit the music.  "Them Bones," "Angry Chair," "Black," "Dumb," etc.  What mood do such songs create, however?  The glamourization of depression and despair.  Lead singers Andrew Wood(Mother Love Bone, which evolved into Pearl Jam after his death), Kurt Cobain(Nirvana), and Layne Staley(Alice In Chains), who were all highly influential in this genre all met early deaths.  I was once heavily into this genre(at a time when I was weak in my faith.)  I had no idea what pessimistic attitudes(towards life in general) I was developing, at the time.  We must ask, is this music that is relating to our feelings; or is this music that is creating our feelings?  I suspect the latter.
 
  When we look at the disturbingly high popularity of secular rap music and the surrounding culture, among middle-upper class WHITE youth, we need to face the reality that while it is true that some music relates to our feelings, other music can CREATE our feelings, moods, culture, and even our defining personality traits.

  Now, what about songs that have lyrics that DON'T fit the music.  Take the song, "I Fought The Law," by the Bobby Fuller 4(later covered by the Clash.)  It sounds just a little too joyful for someone who was defeated by the law, as does the "Authority Song," by John Cougar Mellencamp.  Meanwhile, "My Girl," by the Temptations totally lacks any emotion or joy that should accompany the lyrics(although those lyrics border on idolatry.)

   Sometimes, the music intentionally does not match the lyrics, to create a sarcastic juxtaposition.  "The feel like I'm-a-fixin to die rag" by Country Joe McDonald & the Fish has lyrics that make a strong political statement, placed over childlike sing-a-long music.   "Christmas at Ground Zero" by Weird Al Yankovic talks about nuclear devestation, placed over happy secular Christmas sounding music.

  So, what is my point?  I'm trying to show that music itself DOES in fact contribute to certain moods, even if the listener is unaware that it has taken place.  That being said, we CAN potentially claim that an entire genre of music is opposed to God, if and only if, that genre is defined by the mood created by the music ITSELF, irrelevant to the lyrics.  Does such a genre exist?

That is the question.