# Rock Music - Let's Debate: Evil or Neutral?



## Dieter Schneider

I think that only geologists should listen to rock!


----------



## Coram Deo

I Agree....  


Rock music is evil music, it will never enter into my household... But Geologist should listen to the rocks...... 

Michael



Dieter Schneider said:


> I think that only geologists should listen to rock!


----------



## Dieter Schneider

thunaer said:


> I Agree....
> 
> 
> Rock music is evil music, it will never enter into my household... But Geologist should listen to the rocks......
> 
> Michael



I am encouraged by your stance! Phil.4:8 springs to mind!


----------



## Coram Deo

I agree, Phil 4:8 also rings to mind.....

I am a Staunch believer of biblical holiness in music even outside of the church. In my courtship days with my wife she learned that I listen to such people as Michael W. Smith and other light rockish so-called christian music.. I did not listen to it as much as Classical but I did partake of it... She did not try to debate me, or endless conservations about it or argue about it, she believed it was not her place, but she did hand me a book and asked me to read it and listen to it fairly.. The book was called "The Battle of Christian music" by Tim Fisher. I read it and it convinced me. She was relieved, she told me later she would have had to give second thoughts to our courtship.

Others books I have read and approve of are:

Music in the Balance
Measuring the Music
Holy Spirit, Holy Music
Preface to the Geneva Psalter by Calvin
Reforming Worship/ sections on Tunes and Melodies

Michael



Dieter Schneider said:


> I am encouraged by your stance! Phil.4:8 springs to mind!


----------



## blhowes

thunaer said:


> I Agree....
> 
> 
> Rock music is evil music, it will never enter into my household...


In a nutshell, why is rock music evil? the lyrics? the beat? 

Thoughts about "soft rock"? Where do you draw the line as far as what you'll listen to and what you won't listen to?


----------



## kvanlaan

Is it from God? (I'd have to answer a resounding NO.)

If we say it is not _but_ we can still listen to it under the umbrella of Christian liberty, we must remember that not all things lawful are beneficial.

Why is it evil? It is without God. The inspiration for these songs are not of Him, so from where do they come?

PS - I'm not sure if I'm still taking part in hijacking this thread or not...


----------



## LifeInReturn

I am always surprised to hear people paint a genre of music as 'evil'. God created things; Satan perverts them. There is nothing in the Bible that declares a certain genre as better or holier so why do mere humans do it ?

To be Holy is to be set apart. One of the definitions of HOLY is -- dedicated or *devoted to the service of God*... We are foul humans and we're redeemed and bearing fruit for Him, so music can do the same -- be it Christian rock, praise and worship, rap, etc. But why do we declare that it's evil and not good when there are no Scriptures that support that ?

As I said, it always surprises me. Satan is given more credit than he deserves. I hear it all the time... people saying that Christian rap / Christian rock are wrong... but praise and worship is 'okay'.... :\

At any rate, what kind of resources are you looking for ???


----------



## kvanlaan

Sorry, _secular_ rock music is my real big one. Not entirely sure about all kinds of Christian rock yet... For instance, where would something like Hillsong fit in? Rock, praise? What?


----------



## jolivetti

Scriptures do not speak to style of music; any arguments to prove the holiness or wickedness of a certain style based on Scripture are forced to do some creative exegesis. 

What resources I've ever seen on the issue mostly fall into an alarmist, fundamentalist category. My advice for households: Use your Christian liberty and your Christian wisdom. Look at the content of the music and the quality of the music. 

...as for me and my house, we will listen to SRV and Tom Petty. And psalm singing.


----------



## blhowes

...BTW, I didn't read the thread title close enough, and didn't notice the words "no debate please". I'll bow out of any further discussions (debate) if I'm going against the intent of the thread.

Just FYI, I'm actually not trying to debate but trying to understand where you're coming from and why you take the stand you do (and to see if that stand makes sense to me). I don't have any reason to defend rock music, I don't really listen to that much of it, or any other genre of music for that matter, on more than an occasional basis. When I hear most of the hard rock stuff, with all the screaming guitars and wildness, I appreciate the skill that goes into it, but I don't hear anything that appeals to me - it actually irritates me to listen to it. Not so much because I think its evil, rather because I just don't like the sound of it. Give me a quiet trickling stream to listen to anyday.


----------



## BobVigneault

Usually when the style or beat is attacked it is done so by implying that the artist's demonic association gives him the power to somehow infuse the music with a demonic element. They will say that the music has been 'demonized' by the composer.

This is the usual complaint toward New Age Music, that the composer is a worshipper of demons and knows how to use beats and notes that will lull the consciousness of the listener into a 'neutral state' similar to hypnosis. However, there is no neutral state and this leaves the listener open to demonic oppression or possession. These critics will also tell how subliminal undertones and overtones can be layered into the music that transmit demonic messages.

They will back up this theory by reminding people that music makes you feel good, bad, relaxed, nervous because it links with your unconscious. I've heard theories that the beat should be similar to your heartbeat to relax but that rock musicians under demonic influence will force the rhythm to speed up you heart and this is very bad for your health.

When I was a long haired teen at bible camp they told us that "these long haired hippie rock and rollers have brought these driving beats and rhythms right out of the demonic jungles of Africa". Then they suggested we all go home and burn all our rock and roll albums in a big bonfire in our back yard.

There's tons of pseudo-science that has been used to verify all these claims. I'm not going to bother to look for it, it's embarrassing and makes Christians look like a bunch of pinch-nosed ignorant hayseeds.

Our battle is not against the rock music genre. Good music is good music. But I will respect your convictions, whatever they are, as you honor Christ by what you choose to listen to or not listen to. As I have always said, if you're going to have opinion make sure it's a strong one and be ready to give a defense from scripture.


----------



## Coram Deo

Quote From Reforming Worship:

A narrow biblicist might object that the Bible says nothing about this alleged power of music or about the suitablility of one kind of music over another. Calvin and his tribe might respond that this is a matter of wisdom.

The Bible says nothing about the relative properties of rocks, sand, and buildings, yet Jesus expects us to be wise about the nature of things and build accordingly (Matt 7:24-27). The Bible says nothing about the relative properties of wine and wineskins, yet Jesus expects that we should be shrewd enough observers of the nature of things to know not to put new wine into old wineskins (9:16-17). The essence of biblical wisdom is this understanding of the nature of things: whether one is a farmer (Prov. 10:5-6; 12:11), sheepherder (27:23), orchardist (27:18), a person walking down the street (7:6-23), or an attenddant of the king (23:1-2, 25:6-7), one is to carefully discern the nature of people, things, and circumstances and bring one's life into conformity with the realities uncovered. Consequently the wise person will pay attention to the relative properties of music and human anture ans draw correct conclusions about its power to influence and corrupt. It has not been wise of evangelicals to ignore the issues raised by tunes, words, and tunes and words in combination. Regrettablym those who raise concerns are often branded as elitist, legalist, and narrow-minded fundalmentalists and ignored.

One might summarized the commonly noted properties of music as follows:

1. Music has the power to move and express the emotions. Even David was able to soothe Saul's troubled spirit with his harp (1 Sam. 16:23), so there is music that saddens, gladdens, arouses a martial spirit, entices lust, readies for sleep, and so on. Music may both arouse the whole range of human emotions and provide a vehicle for expressing them when they are already present.
2. Music has the power to stimulate the memory. As anybody who learned the ABC song knows, music is a great aid to the memory.
3. Music has the power to discipline or corrupt the soul. This at least is the argument of the philosophers and theologians. Good music - that which consist of ennobling lyrics and moderate tunes - edifies and disciplines the soul. Bad music - that which consists of unworthy lyrics and tunes - inflames the passions, breaks down restraint, and corrupts the soul.

The key word with regard to tunes is "appropriate." Can this ever be anything other than a subjective judgment, a personal opinion, or preference? Indeed it can be and must be. The Scriptures regularly ask us to make judgments on the basis of what is proper or fitting. This includes such things as hair length (1 Cor. 11:14), speech (Titus 2:1), etc. Most of our decisions in life are wisdom issues:

What to say or not say
What it means to lvoe my neighbor in a given situation
What it means to live with my spouse in an understanding way
What it means to practice wise stewardship
What it means to let my mind dwell on things that are excellent and lovely (Phil 4:8)

In each of these cases wise judgments must be made. Miss the mark, and one falls into sin. Say something unseemly or unkind, fail to love or be understanding, or make the most of my time ore resources (Eph. 5:15-16), or become absorbed with the unlovely, the unworthy, and the mediocre, and I fall short of the will of God.

This leads to the following principles:

1. The tunes should be well crafted (Ps 33:3), blending melody, harmony, and rhythm in balanced proportions.

2. The tunes should be lovely (Phil 4:8), exhibiting true beauty by reflecting the beauty of God (Pss. 27:4, 50:2, 96:6)

For Worship this extends: (I will summarize them, since this is about general music and not worship music per se.

3. Tunes should be universal in their appeal, avoiding narrow generational or cultural classification.

4. Tunes should be emotionally suited to the words.

5. Tunes should be singable. 

End of Quote from Reforming Worship


Music is powerful and can be lustful and sensual in the case of Rock music. Rock music is nothing more then Body Sex renacted. For this purpose alone it should be avoided but there is so much more. The above quote, plus the history of Rock and Roll and the health (True Science) should all steer one away from Rock music.

Take Little Richard, “ My true belief about Rock ‘n’ Roll- and there have been a lot of phrased attributed to me over the years- is this: I believe this kind of music is demonic… A lot of the beats in music today are taken from voodoo, from the voodoo drums. If you study music in rhythms, like I have, you’ll see that is true…” The Life and Times of Little Richard by Charles White, pp 197.

How about quotes from Reason to Rock @ www.reasontorock.com:

The theme of rock music, as I will show, is liberation: release from constraints of every kind. In a way, then, rock is positioned precisely between the blues and jazz. Blues captures the state of oppression, while jazz expresses the opposite state of freedom. Rock does not express a fixed state at all, but captures the transition, the movement from one state to another, the act of throwing off the chains.

Liberation was not just an implicit theme in rock: it was an overt goal and sacred mission of much of the music. Bruce Springsteen talks about this often, as in this 2003 interview with ABC News.


For me the greatest pop music was music of liberation: Bob Marley, Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, James Brown, Public Enemy, the Clash, the Sex Pistols. Those were pop groups that liberated an enormous amount of people to be who they are. (Springsteen 2003) 

Another great quotation often attributed to Springsteen is that “Elvis Presley liberated our bodies, and Bob Dylan liberated our minds.” This expresses the great power of rock music: by combining rhythms and sounds that make you want to move, with lyrics and vocals that make you think and feel, the best rock music liberates its listeners from programmed responses and helps them uncover their deeper, more authentic and more integrated selves.

End of Quote

As for the Health, I will post that into a new post since this one is getting too long.....

Michael


----------



## Coram Deo

*Health Reasons*

Taken from an article last year on MSNBC:

Research studies on effects of music on plants and animals

The "Mozart Effect"

Much of the current research in music therapy focuses on proving that music has measurable physiological and psychological effects. Such effects are not difficult to find or to measure, and are revealed by studies of human, animal, and plant behavior, EEG recordings, hormone assays, and cellular growth patterns. Frequently these results have been misinterpreted and exaggerated by the popular media and by marketing people, which is unfortunate, since the documented effects are remarkable in themselves. The so-called "Mozart Effect" is one such phenomenon that has resulted in much confusion.

The "Mozart Effect" is based on research by Frances Rauscher et al., who determined that listening to 10 minutes of Mozart's "Sonata for Two Pianos in D Major" briefly increased scores 48% (relative to control groups) on the paper-folding task, a component of the Stanford-Binet intelligence test that measures spatio-temporal reasoning abilities. [3a, 3b] Moreover, the effects were transient, lasting only about 10 minutes, and performance on non-spatial reasoning tasks was unaffected. Such results seem to be unique to the music of Mozart, whereas music not as highly structured did not have measureable effects. Other researchers have demonstrated that compositions of other classical composers such as J.S. Bach show similar benefits.

Listening to a few minutes of Mozart does not permanently make one smarter; however, the results of Rauscher's study, modest though they may seem, are profound. If such seemingly benign stimuli affect even momentary intelligence, one might wonder whether people exposed to specific types of music and sounds over extended periods would experience proportionately greater effects, both positive and negative.
Using Baroque music to enhance learning a new language

Bulgarian psychologist George Lozanov found that playing Baroque instrumental music (such as that of Handel and J.S. Bach) in the background while teaching foreign language vocabulary greatly increased student's speed of learning and degree of memory retention. Music with a metre close to 60 beats per minute was found to be most effective; that this rate closely matches that of a relaxed pulse is thought to be significant. (Handel supposedly composed his famous "Water Music" at the request of King George I of England to aid him with his poor memory; whether the music helped or not is undetermined.) [4a, 4b]

Harmful effects of rock music on neuronal branching patterns in mice

Physicist Harvey Bird and neurobiologist Gervasia Schreckenberg subjected different groups of mice to the sound of traditional voodoo drumming, to Strauss waltzes, and to silence, and then tested each group's ability to navigate through a maze to get food. [5a, 5b] All music was played continuously at low volumes to eliminate possible behavioral effects from loud sounds generally. The groups that were subjected to either silence or Strauss waltzes had no problem learning the maze, with the Strauss waltz group having a slight edge in performance. However, the voodoo group performed progressively worse over the period of time they were exposed to the music and eventually became so disoriented that they became unable to complete the maze at all. These mice were also hyperactive and aggressive, often engaging in cannibalistic behavior.

On dissection of the brains of these mice, highly abnormal neuronal growth patterns were found in the hippocampus region, with excessive dendritic branches growing out in all directions yet making few connections to other neurons; the hippocampus region is known to be important in learning and memory formation. Significant increases in messenger RNA, which is involved in memory formation, were also found. This latter effect probably corresponds to the increase in dendritic branching, as if the brains were persistently attempting to make sense out the sound stimulus, but could not.

A number of commentators have interpreted these findings to condemn all forms of rock music; while this does not necessarily follow logically from the Bird and Schreckenberg results, the Retallack experiments (see section 2.5, below) on plants at least suggests that many types of rock music may be harmful to human health. Some researchers and health professionals have suggested that the electronic distortion used by many rock bands might be a factor, in addition to the common use of anapestic rhythms (persistently syncopated, with two short beats, a long beat, then a pause).

Effect of music on cortisol levels in humans

Different types of music may significantly affect blood cortisol levels. Cortisol and adrenaline are two "stress" hormones that are secreted by the adrenal glands in response to ACTH. In one experiment, patients who had just been informed of their need for imminent surgery, were tested for blood cortisol concentrations after listening to a calming piece of music, chosen by each patient in consultation with a music therapist; cortisol levels were reduced by 50% compared with the control group that did not listen to any music. [6] In another experiment, this time with healthy people, similar results were obtained by playing sitar music by Ravi Shankar, whereas a waltz by Johann Strauss and a rhythmically irregular, somewhat discordant piece by contemporary composer W.H. Henze had no effect.

Elevated cortisol levels are normal and desirable in certain circumstances, including high-intensity exercise. Trained runners are able to induce high levels of cortisol quickly without the aid of energizing musical accompaniment, but it was found that such music could aid untrained runners in producing such levels faster. Energizing music with a fast tempo had this effect, but slow, calming music did not, as might be expected. Perhaps sports team managers have always known this, thus the popularity of strident tunes played by brass bands before and during games to whip both players and spectators into a frenzy. One also might wonder whether certain types of agitating music, such as rock or heavy metal may induce excessive cortisol over extended periods of time and become addictive, in a similar manner to the adrenal rush one gets from coffee.

Music and its effects on plant growth

Plants have been shown to significantly increase their rate of growth when stimulated by specific sound frequencies. In the 1950's, Indian botanist T.C. Singh observed under a microscope the protoplasm streaming in an Asian aquatic plant, which normally increases at sunrise, and discovered that such streaming could be induced at other times of the day by activating an electrically driven tuning fork. He then experimented with recorded South Indian violin music played to a wide variety of plants, with frequencies of the fundamental tones in the 100 to 600 Hz range; significantly increased growth rates resulted. [7] About the same time, a Canadian named Eugene Canby began subjecting test plots of wheat to recordings of violin sonatas by J.S. Bach, and found that yields increased by 66%. Other tests in Russia, the U.S., and Canada with ultrasonic frequencies yielded similar increases in the growth rates of other plant species.

Various researchers then determined that the range of frequencies around 5000 Hz were especially potent in stimulating plant growth. During the 1960's, researcher Dorothy Retallack determined that these frequencies were best administered in the form of classical music (compositions of J.S. Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, and other European 18th and 19th century composers; traditional North Indian music performed on sitar and tabla), played intermittently for several hours per day. [8a, 8b] A Minnesota plant breeder named Dan Carlson collaborated with a music teacher named Michael Holtz to create an audio tape with a combination of frequencies centered about the 5000 Hz range, which Holtz immediately recognized as being very similar to the sound of a bird chorus at dawn. Carlson then used this music to induce record-breaking growth rates in Purple Passion vine plants. [7]

Retallack also experimented with various types of rock music to see what effects they would have on plant growth. Plants "listening" to selections from Led Zeppelin, Vanilla Fudge, and Jimi Hendrix became stunted or gangly, with long stems and sparse leaf growth, some bending away from the sound source; after 16 days, most of these plants died.

Retallack also found that the discordant music of 20th century composers Arnold Schönberg and Anton von Webern also caused plants to atrophy, but not to the degree of the rock music. Schönberg is considered to be the father of 12-tone music, characterized by a total "freedom" from harmonic contraints, wherein all 12 tones of the western musical scale are ideally considered to be of equal weight and value. Twelve-tone principles of composition were eagerly embraced by avant garde faculty at music schools during the early 20th century, and over the following decades began to appear in popular music, and in background music for television and radio programs. The 12-tone style is what gives music for horror and suspense films its particular capacity to shock and terrorize.

The key frequency range for inducing the relaxation response

A French ear specialist named Alfred Tomatis confirmed that the same frequencies and musical styles Retallack demonstrated to be beneficial for plants were also beneficial for humans. [2b] Tomatis found that the types of music most likely to promote EEG, or brainwave, patterns correlated with relaxation of muscle tension and calm attentiveness were the same types of Baroque and classical compositions determined by Retallack to be optimal for plants, especially those recordings rich in stringed instruments, such as violin, viola, and cello. Specifically, the frequency range from 5000 to 8000 Hz seemed to promote alpha-band brainwaves the fastest; of all the musical instruments, stringed instruments are richest in these higher frequencies. 

End of Quote


There is more, but I would have to backlog my saved articles cds to find them.. There was one in which some youth died after a rock concert due to their lungs being punctured due to the level of volume and the beat, and one who was in their car when it happened.


----------



## Coram Deo

Plato said "Give me the music of the nation, and I care not who makes it's laws"

Michael


----------



## BobVigneault

I will be the first to teach that if you are going to write music to contain a theological message, make sure the style is right to carry the weight of the message.

Handel's Messiah is, for me, the ultimate representation of Christian music. It gives a clear presentation of the gospel and the music carries the weight of the message perfectly.

So musical style is important but the question of this post is this:

are there resources that demonstrate that the genre/style of rock music is *inherently wrong or evil*?

inherent - existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute


----------



## Coram Deo

Would you say that adultery with lustfulness and even the subcategory p0rnography is evil?

Rock music in my studies as led me to believe that Rock music is sensual erotic sound p0rnography and mimmicks that body movements of sexual encounter that should be left to the bedroom of a husband and wife.

As for resources.. The books I mentioned in the previous thread that was carried over to this thread contains all that and more... I could not quote entires books here (My hands would hurt) and I would leave out to much to leave it short... Those books are the best, in the addition to I can add one more to the list.. As for online resources, I am unsure. 

As for recap of book titles:

Battle for Christian Music by Fisher
Music in the Balance by Garlock
Holy Spirit, Holy Music
Measuring the Music by Mack...(sp)
Preface to Geneva Psalter by Calvin
Reforming Worship by Ryken
Why I left the Contemporary Christian Movement


Michael




BobVigneault said:


> I will be the first to teach that if you are going to write music to contain a theological message, make sure the style is right to carry the weight of the message.
> 
> Handel's Messiah is, for me, the ultimate representation of Christian music. It gives a clear presentation of the gospel and the music carries the weight of the message perfectly.
> 
> So musical style is important but the question of this post is this:
> 
> are there resources that demonstrate that the genre/style of rock music is *inherently wrong or evil*?
> 
> inherent - existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute


----------



## BobVigneault

I agree Michael that rock and rap artists have breathed new life into the p*rn industry. It breaks my heart and angers me to no end. But this has happened because deviants and perverts have used the medium to propagate their lusts and try to validate their abhorrent behavior. It's sick, it's dangerous. There is an ocean of filth within the rock and rap industry.

I do not see where the music itself is inherently wrong. Let's keep looking for some freebie sources for brother Mark. Michael I appreciate your passion and diligence in clearly sharing your convictions on this issue.


----------



## Coram Deo

But I would also have to say that this is inherent in this music itself. Just look at some of the quotes from even the earliest rock stars who made rock and roll a genre... The Synopiated beat that is also inherent in the system drives lustifulness and spurns the mind into wrong thoughts...

Just feel how the music drives you.. Does your heart race, does your foot tap or your hands shake... Do you almost go trance... Does your body want to move. Do you want to shake your hips like presley. Do you just want to dance when you hear the music. If any or just one of these are true then be warned..... Be honest.... I tell you when I use to listen to Michael W. Smith in the car I would be driving pretty fast and pushing my foot harder on the gas... It drove me... I could easily be going 20 or 30 mph beyond the speed limit... I would almost trance out with it...... It is inherent....

How about praise and worship? Well, look at those who sing those songs in church up at the stage... What are they doing... Body motions that seem to me to mimmick erotic movement.. What about their hands and mouths... They seem to almost be having sex with the microphone.. Hands gripped tightly around the microphone and they almost are eating the microphone with their lips. Like they are giving it a passioniate kiss.... To a song with Christian lyrics...  

How about the congregation, what are they doing... I went to my cousin's church once with praise and worship and the row in front of me and my wife was bouncing there rumps in sync doing the wave uncousciously to the beat of the music...

It can not be denied.... The sound is p0rnography in and of itself..... and spurs the passions.... Plus the link to voodoo makes it even more satanic...

I have seen RPW churches go down fast and hard and even one generation when the congragation is allowed in the name of Christian liberty to listen to any genre of music outside of the church. When it is not even taught in the pulpit.. It is gut wrenching.. One church we were in was strong in the RPW but allowed the youth to listen to Christian rock and such outside the church. We thought to ourselves, well it is a great church and this will affect them maybe in 2 or 3 generations and so we stayed... HOW WRONG we were... It was less then 1 generation.. How shocked we were.. It affect the pulpit and the pastors.. They started to even teach the reverse. That church is no longer RPW, and is becoming close Emgerent Post modern and many problems in many areas.

But peace with you brother  ..
Michael




BobVigneault said:


> I agree Michael that rock and rap artists have breathed new life into the p*rn industry. It breaks my heart and angers me to no end. But this has happened because deviants and perverts have used the medium to propagate their lusts and try to validate their abhorrent behavior. It's sick, it's dangerous. There is an ocean of filth within the rock and rap industry.
> 
> I do not see where the music itself is inherently wrong. Let's keep looking for some freebie sources for brother Mark. Michael I appreciate your passion and diligence in clearly sharing your convictions on this issue.


----------



## BobVigneault

Michael, you are speaking of what goes on in worship and I can't agree with you more. I've seen the same things. I've been in music groups, solo entertainer, I've written musicals, I've performed in many churches and venues. Let's step away from worship and the RPW.

It seems like you're saying that rock music is wrong because it makes you want to move. So are you also saying that dancing is a sin?

I had to break up a porch made of thick concrete a few years ago. It would have been a near impossible task but using a 20lb sledge and Megadeth's Rust In Peace I crushed that porch like superman. Yes it pumped my adrenaline and made me move - that was the point.

Oh, oh, I think we might have crossed the point and we are debating. Sorry Mark, hopefully a little debating will stimulate those free resources we are looking for.


----------



## Coram Deo

I have been talking in general about music. But I used an example of Worship of what happens outside the church will in time affect the church and the worship in the church.

The question should be "What kind of Move". Is dancing wrong, Yes and No. Is the dancing erotic in the case of Rock music, moving to stimulated sex or is it other kinds of dancing.. I would put forward to dance with Rock music is wrong and sexual. I am not against all dancing, some in my wife's family would be. But I also would agree that dancing should not between unmarried people.

The problems with Rock music is, it's beginning origin in satanism, it's rebellion, the beat, the passions and lustifulness, the erotic nature, to sum it up it's p0rnography.

And like Plato said, if you write the music and draw people do it, it does not matter about the laws of the lands or who is the president you will have full rebellion.

Michael




BobVigneault said:


> Michael, you are speaking of what goes on in worship and I can't agree with you more. I've seen the same things. I've been in music groups, solo entertainer, I've written musicals, I've performed in many churches and venues. Let's step away from worship and the RPW.
> 
> It seems like you're saying that rock music is wrong because it makes you want to move. So are you also saying that dancing is a sin?
> 
> I had to break up a porch made of thick concrete a few years ago. It would have been a near impossible task but using a 20lb sledge and Megadeth's Rust In Peace I crushed that porch like superman. Yes it pumped my adrenaline and made me move - that was the point.
> 
> Oh, oh, I think we might have crossed the point and we are debating. Sorry Mark, hopefully a little debating will stimulate those free resources we are looking for.


----------



## BobVigneault

Well, Michael I know where you're coming from and God bless you for putting in so much thought to protect your family and church.

I'm only seeing you making a list of assertions without logical support. Rock music has it's origins in Satanism is a _non sequitur_.

Let's lay aside our debate and try and find some supporting resources from brother Mark.


----------



## Coram Deo

I did mention this in a previous post...


Previous quote from Thunaer:

Take Little Richard, “ My true belief about Rock ‘n’ Roll- and there have been a lot of phrased attributed to me over the years- is this: I believe this kind of music is demonic… A lot of the beats in music today are taken from voodoo, from the voodoo drums. If you study music in rhythms, like I have, you’ll see that is true…” The Life and Times of Little Richard by Charles White, pp 197.

End of Quote

Michael


----------



## bradofshaw

Wisdom from the World of Rock Thread

I'd encourage anyone thinking through this topic to be careful not to view rock music as either musically or lyrically monolithic. A cursory listening of the range of musicians making "rock" music over the last 50 years or so will demonstrate that you can't really define rock as a distinct beat, style, or sound. Likewise, if you read through the link above, you will see that lyrically, rock touches on much more than sex, drugs, and rebellion. 

I would argue though, that the significance to rock music is that it is the chosen medium of a generation of artists who have a lot to say about the state of our culture, both for good and bad. There are a lot of significant statements in rock music that we shouldn't just dismiss off hand. It is the literature of our generation (whether it should be or not is another discussion).

The term "Rock" is overly broad and unhelpfully vague, and I would object to such sweeping generalizations as "rock music is audio sex." While some may well be, obviously much is not. I realize this thread is not for debate, so I will try not to start any. I simply thought it might be good to balance some of the opinion in this thread. Obviously, good Christians will disagree on this issue. 

Out of curiosity though, how do those who oppose "rock" feel about Country, Jazz, or Bluegrass?


----------



## Coram Deo

Original Defination of Rock:

Rock and Roll: Lets get down and Rock and Roll Baby... Something to that affect I read.... The name is helpful so I disagree....

Define Country: Old Country, or Modern Country mixed with Rock....

I have no problem with Old style Country, I have every problem with Modern Country that is mixed with Rock music... Or as we call it Country-Rock Music.
Bluegrass aleast the old styles are some of the old style country I mentioned.
As for jazz, there is Classical Jazz without beats and eroticism.

As for your comments about Rock music not being generalized, I suggest reading Rolling Stones Magazine, or the artist's other writings about their own movement... I have quotes around here somewhere if anyone is interested.... They can speak for themselves....

Michael




bradofshaw said:


> The term "Rock" is overly broad and unhelpfully vague, and I would object to such sweeping generalizations as "rock music is audio sex." While some may well be, obviously much is not. I realize this thread is not for debate, so I will try not to start any. I simply thought it might be good to balance some of the opinion in this thread. Obviously, good Christians will disagree on this issue.
> 
> Out of curiosity though, how do those who oppose "rock" feel about Country, Jazz, or Bluegrass?


----------



## Coram Deo

To BobVigneault, and bradofshaw...

 


But I will continue to  for you brothers in Christ on this matter...  

Michael


----------



## BobVigneault

Let's debate rock music here.

*The gloves are off!!!*


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Nothing in creation is in and of itself evil, it has to be perverted and misused by man to turn it into sonic p0rnography or hedonist propaganda.

Music in and of itself is a powerful and moving gift from God even those that don't satisfy personal tastes like hip hop, that is definitely from the devil  .


----------



## LoveReading

Hi Michael,

I've read through this whole discussion and am fascinated. I would ask you this: lots of classical music is very Romantic and sensual in its very nature. Yes, it may not have the Rock 'n Roll beat, but it does stir those passions. Would you be opposed to listening to that kind of music? Even great Christian classics - such as "The Messiah" were written in such a way that it makes your spirit react in a passionate way. I know when I hear the Messiah it takes every ounce of will I have to not move - but to sit there quietly. Music in it's very nature gives voice to those passions which words cannot express. Yes - sometimes it will lead to sensual thoughts, whether the music is rock, rap, classical or anything else. I'm just wondering where we ought to draw the line. If rock music stirs up passions and classical music does as well, where does the line get drawn? I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to clarify my understanding of your position on music in general. Thanks!


----------



## bradofshaw

You probably couldn't pay me to read Rolling Stone. I would suggest instead, for a different view of what is good in rock, reading Paste magazine.  It is thoughtful, and not specifically Christian in any sense. But it is run by Christians who happen to be PCA members, although I don't know much about them.

I'm certainly not arguing that rock music doesn't have a lot of filth, or that some of its originators were not influenced by sex and satanism. But really, there is little or no _necessary_ connection between these origins and what has become the broader body of rock music. I actually despise much of popular rock music. I think so much of it is poorly done, and focuses too much on sex and debauchery. But, believe it or not, there is good rock music that doesn't. And that is mainly my point here. 

I bring up Country, Jazz, and Bluegrass, because so much of rock music is a blending of these. Take Dylan for example. While I'm not a fan of his, his music is much more country or bluegrass than voodoo. I say this because I don't think rock music has one root, but instead incorporates varied styles. 

As for the title "rock and roll," we all know what it originally referred to. But sometimes names just stick. But you can't deny it is a broad category. At this point, it is so diluted by sub-genres that it is not fair to characterize the whole by the originators of the form. I would argue that the term "Rock" has really come more to represent the paradigm shift in popular composition of folk music than it is representative of the actual style and characteristics of the 50s and 60s rock and roll movement. 

We could argue about the particulars (dancing, sensuality, etc.), but I wouldn't make the particulars necessarily representative of the whole. That's all. I'll refrain from further debate now.


----------



## BobVigneault

You can't appeal to the argument that because a rock musician is decadent the musical genre is also decadent. That's like saying:

a. Bishop Spong is a theologian and he teaches heresy;
b. John Murray is a theologian, therefore
c. Theology is evil because heretics use it to teach. We need to pray for John Murray.

As for Little Richard I find his theology a bit 'Tutti Frutti'.


----------



## BobVigneault

bradofshaw said:


> That's all. I'll refrain from further debate now.
> 
> 
> It's ok Brad, I rearranged the threads so we can debate now. Don't hold back. Just keep the punches above the belt.


----------



## matthew11v25

BobVigneault said:


> Let's debate rock music here.
> 
> *The gloves are off!!!*



 Its inevitable


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Anything that encourages rebellion against God's Word is evil. I do believe that the modern day rock/hip hop/ "country" music culture is evil to it's core. I ask you this, name me two songs in rock music that encourage sexual purity.
It is of the flesh in my opinion. It does not glorify God. Can it be made to glorify God by giving it religious lyrics? That is another question altogether.
No offense meant to anyone here. Just my


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Black gosepel music and Southern blue grass are the ancestors to rock, blame it on the South I guess, every other problem in this country usually is. 

I like rock my myself, I roll my eyes at the idolatry of a hall of fame and how serious some folk take each other but I like a toe tapping good time.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Black gosepel music and Southern blue grass are the ancestors to rock, blame it on the South I guess, every other problem in this country usually is.
> 
> I like rock my myself, I roll my eyes at the idolatry of a hall of fame and how serious some folk take each other but I like a toe tapping good time.



Everything in this country? Come now brother.


----------



## panta dokimazete

BobVigneault said:


> bradofshaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's all. I'll refrain from further debate now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's ok Brad, I rearranged the threads so we can debate now. Don't hold back. Just keep the punches above the belt.
Click to expand...


Yes - please, this is fascinating...

I am certainly curious as to the "Satanic" origin of any music - that is the portion that is instrumental.

Lyrics are another thing, entirely. 

Also - please don't quote Little Richard as an musical origins specialist - I would not consider him a credible musicologist.


----------



## bradofshaw

Well, with Bob's permission...  Honestly, I see no reason why this has to get heated. I always attempt to be civil in such discussions anyway. 

As for the question of origins, I think you could use an analogy to pretty much all the other arts, which is one reason I think that historically Christan's have avoided the arts. Let's take literature for example.

The origins of the genre of fiction can be traced back to Greece. Obviously, Homer was a pagan, and he was writing about pagan things. Can fiction than be used to portray a faulty worldview? Yes it can. Is all fiction evil? I know some Christians who will say so, but that is sort of an extreme position. I'm not prepared to throw out the good works of fiction by both Christians and non-Christians. 

I know that theater has been debated here before as well. It has the same pagan origins in classical Greece. The further you trace this line of reasoning, the more Western Culture becomes evil and unusable for the Christian. And let's not get into non-western culture, which is obviously steeped in paganism and satanic ritual.  

One other note, I hate dancing. But I am one heck of an air drummer, and I do have a hard time not drumming along to my favorite songs. *Now listening to Neil Peart's fabulous drum solo from Rush's R30 concert*


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Blueridge reformer said:


> Everything in this country? Come now brother.


I was exaggerating, the northeast likes to behave as if religious zealots, slavery, and hickness are all southern contributions to American society which isn't true of course but the very attitude of Yankee superiority that helped fuel the Civil War remains in place to this day.


----------



## Davidius

Blueridge reformer said:


> Can it be made to glorify God by giving it religious lyrics? That is another question altogether.
> No offense meant to anyone here. Just my



Must it have religious lyrics in order to glorify God?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> Must it have religious lyrics in order to glorify God?


Does not even the heathen who fills his plate with wrath by manifesting his blasphemy with lecherous song in the end glorify God?


----------



## Davidius

No Longer A Libertine said:


> Does not even the heathen who fills his plate with wrath by manifesting his blasphemy with lecherous song in the end glorify God?



I was just trying to say that we don't need to make everything religious in order to feel justified in partaking of it as Christians.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I was just trying to say that we don't need to make everything religious in order to feel justified in partaking of it as Christians.


Truly, you speak of genuine liberty.

Spiritualizing our worthless wrags is of no benefit, it is usually contrived and of ulterior motive as well.

Let our freedoms be what they are, freedom.


----------



## SRoper

thunaer said:


> Rock music in my studies as led me to believe that Rock music is sensual erotic sound p0rnography and mimmicks that body movements of sexual encounter that should be left to the bedroom of a husband and wife.





thunaer said:


> Some researchers and health professionals have suggested that the electronic distortion used by many rock bands might be a factor, in addition to the common use of anapestic rhythms (persistently syncopated, with two short beats, a long beat, then a pause).



Now I'm a virgin, so perhaps I'm in need of correction, but a rhythm of "two short beats, a long beat, then a pause" seems like a strange way to have sex.


----------



## bradofshaw

SRoper said:


> Now I'm a virgin, so perhaps I'm in need of correction, but a rhythm of "two short beats, a long beat, then a pause" seems like a strange way to have sex.



I was wondering the same thing Scott... but I thought it best not to ask...


----------



## Kevin

bradofshaw said:


> Well, with Bob's permission...  Honestly, I see no reason why this has to get heated. I always attempt to be civil in such discussions anyway.
> 
> As for the question of origins, I think you could use an analogy to pretty much all the other arts, which is one reason I think that historically Christan's have avoided the arts. Let's take literature for example.
> 
> The origins of the genre of fiction can be traced back to Greece. Obviously, Homer was a pagan, and he was writing about pagan things. Can fiction than be used to portray a faulty worldview? Yes it can. Is all fiction evil? I know some Christians who will say so, but that is sort of an extreme position. I'm not prepared to throw out the good works of fiction by both Christians and non-Christians.
> 
> I know that theater has been debated here before as well. It has the same pagan origins in classical Greece. The further you trace this line of reasoning, the more Western Culture becomes evil and unusable for the Christian. And let's not get into non-western culture, which is obviously steeped in paganism and satanic ritual.
> 
> One other note, I hate dancing. But I am one heck of an air drummer, and I do have a hard time not drumming along to my favorite songs. *Now listening to Neil Peart's fabulous drum solo from Rush's R30 concert*



 

Well said, Brad. I was going to make the same point but you did it first (and better ).


----------



## Kevin

SRoper said:


> Now I'm a virgin, so perhaps I'm in need of correction, but a rhythm of "two short beats, a long beat, then a pause" seems like a strange way to have sex.



We will let brother. Bob explain it to you. He is older then the rest of us...


----------



## Davidius

I was also wondering whether "neutral" and "evil" are the only choices (see thread topic). The heavens and the earth are not religious entities, but I would hardly consider them neutral. The heavens are telling of the glory of God and the firmament displays His handiwork. Does something have to scream "Jesus" at you in order to be "good"? If music, as someone mentioned earlier, falls into the category of something that can be considered part of creation, then that allows us to call (at least some) secular music good, doesn't it?


----------



## BobVigneault

> We will let brother. Bob explain it to you. He is older then the rest of us...




Uhhhhh, yeah, you see..... I'm looking for a long stick to see if I even want to touch that... uh..., I'll be back in a while, maybe there's some long sticks over there, or a 10 foot cattle prod maybe.


----------



## jolivetti

"Now I'm a virgin, so perhaps I'm in need of correction, but a rhythm of "two short beats, a long beat, then a pause" seems like a strange way to have sex."

Ha! That's great! 

But this from thunaer: "It can not be denied.... The sound is p0rnography in and of itself....." I can and do deny this. I find some of your arguments interesting and your concern for holiness compelling, but unchecked platitudes like this cannot help the discussion. 

As far as resources, let me argue again that we don't need "resources" - we have all we need (2 Pet. 1:3). We have the Spirit of God and the the Scriptures, imparting wisdom to us. Let each man decide what to listen to - surely there are things we can all reject (Marilyn Manson perhaps?), but with the rest, let us each decide according to wisdom, Christian liberty and an honest evaluation of our heart's condition. Please. 

This isn't a call to end the debate, but to keep the debate in its place. Let's not pretend God's Word lays down a clear, discernable law about music styles. Like it or not, we have to exercise wisdom here.


----------



## Kevin

jolivetti said:


> "Now I'm a virgin, so perhaps I'm in need of correction, but a rhythm of "two short beats, a long beat, then a pause" seems like a strange way to have sex."
> 
> Ha! That's great!
> 
> But this from thunaer: "It can not be denied.... The sound is p0rnography in and of itself....." I can and do deny this. I find some of your arguments interesting and your concern for holiness compelling, but unchecked platitudes like this cannot help the discussion.
> 
> As far as resources, let me argue again that we don't need "resources" - we have all we need (2 Pet. 1:3). We have the Spirit of God and the the Scriptures, imparting wisdom to us. Let each man decide what to listen to - surely there are things we can all reject (Marilyn Manson perhaps?), but with the rest, let us each decide according to wisdom, Christian liberty and an honest evaluation of our heart's condition. Please.
> 
> This isn't a call to end the debate, but to keep the debate in its place. Let's not pretend God's Word lays down a clear, discernable law about music styles. Like it or not, we have to exercise wisdom here.



 Good point!

The problem is "exercising wisdom" is hard work. A list of do's & don'ts is much easier to follow. Not that anyone here has advocated that (yet) but in our flesh we desire that kind of black/white solution.


----------



## tdowns

*Old Time Rock and Roll....*

Old time rock & roll

Just take those old records off the shelf
Ill sit and listen to em by myself
Todays music aln t got the same soul
I like that old time rock n roll
Dont try to take me to a disco
Youll never even get me out on the
In ten minutes Ill be late for the door
I like that old time rockn roll

Still like that old time rockn roll
That kind of music just soothes the soul
I reminisce about the days of old
With that old time rock n roll
Wont go to hear them play a tango
Id rather hear some blues or funky old soul
Theres only sure way to get me to go
Start playing old time rock n roll
Call me a relic, call me what you will
Say Im old-fashioned, say Im over the hill
Today music aint got the same soul
I like that old time rock n roll

Still like that old time rockn roll
That kind of music just soothes the soul
I reminisce about the days of old
With that old time rock n roll


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

How about Devil's Food Cake? Should we partake of it? By it's title alone it has obviously been compromised spiritually.


----------



## Davidius

No Longer A Libertine said:


> How about Devil's Food Cake? Should we partake of it? By it's title alone it has obviously been compromised spiritually.



I don't refuse to watch Duke play only because I don't care much for sports!


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I don't refuse to watch Duke play only because I don't care much for sports!


Or hockey because of the New Jersey Devils.

By the way if you are fixing to be a man at 21 you need to start watching football, it was part of the Patriot Act, you could lose your citizenship if you don't take up football.


----------



## Founded on the Rock

Music carries a message. For example, in my Bible classes we listen to secular music occasionally to get a worldly perspective on issues in the music industry.

I am not an expert on Francis Schaffer, but didn't he say something to the effect of philosophy and theology affecting music? In some ways, I listen to secular music to get the worlds perspective on things. The lyrics are not good, but many times the way in which they express their opinions is creative and well thought out.

Becoming a huge supporter of the rock industry is not something that is good, but listening to it is fine in my opinion. I know everyone won't agree with this, but is it not similar in someone to reading a book written by a non-believer? You need to stay clear of the extremely slezzy stuff, but there is nothing wrong with understanding the current culture...

I could be off-base here, but just my thoughts


----------



## bradofshaw

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I was also wondering whether "neutral" and "evil" are the only choices (see thread topic). The heavens and the earth are not religious entities, but I would hardly consider them neutral. The heavens are telling of the glory of God and the firmament displays His handiwork. Does something have to scream "Jesus" at you in order to be "good"? If music, as someone mentioned earlier, falls into the category of something that can be considered part of creation, then that allows us to call (at least some) secular music good, doesn't it?



Yes. I think you are absolutely correct. There are forms in art that are excellent and there are those that are flawed, petty, or poor. I think there are characteristics of God that are reflected in the creation, and even the unbeliever, being made in God's image, is capable of making art that displays those characteristics. Even the pagan knows of virtues such as honor, love, devotion, justice, trust, friendship, etc. His view of them is flawed by his unbelief, but even the Christian does not displays these perfectly. 

When I make a business transaction with an unbeliever, and he carries out his end of the bargain, he may be acting inconsistently with the possible consequences of his sinful nature, but he has still done "well" in this act. When an unbeliever displays beauty in his art, he is reflecting back a characteristic that flows from God's beauty alone. He may be misguided in his intentions, but he has still done something well. Certainly we can say that unbelievers such as Leonardo, Beethoven, Homer, or John Lennon have made works that are reflective of a certain standard of beauty or value. 

What is "good" and "bad" art is a very difficult and slippery discussion. I would say that beauty in rock music is on a different level than beauty in classical music. There is overlap, but the medium and its purposes are different and can't be compared by all the same standards. That said, I'm not sure we're even discussing whether or not rock music is of poor artistic quality (although I would say some of it really is).


----------



## panta dokimazete

SRoper said:


> Now I'm a virgin, so perhaps I'm in need of correction, but a rhythm of "two short beats, a long beat, then a pause" seems like a strange way to have sex.



oh...my...


----------



## bradofshaw

Founded on the Rock said:


> Music carries a message. For example, in my Bible classes we listen to secular music occasionally to get a worldly perspective on issues in the music industry.
> 
> I am not an expert on Francis Schaffer, but didn't he say something to the effect of philosophy and theology affecting music? In some ways, I listen to secular music to get the worlds perspective on things. The lyrics are not good, but many times the way in which they express their opinions is creative and well thought out.
> 
> Becoming a huge supporter of the rock industry is not something that is good, but listening to it is fine in my opinion. I know everyone won't agree with this, but is it not similar in someone to reading a book written by a non-believer? You need to stay clear of the extremely slezzy stuff, but there is nothing wrong with understanding the current culture...
> 
> I could be off-base here, but just my thoughts



 

I think this is a good perspective to take. I think it is much more important to instruct people to be discerning like this than to make a new law (to reference Derek Webb).


----------



## panta dokimazete

> sound is p0rnography



seriously - I am having trouble understanding this from a merely semantic standpoint as it applies to music...I believe there is music "associated" with cinematic p0rnography, but I would have trouble associating the *elements* of musical composition with p0rnography, per se.

What is a "pornographic" musical tone or rhythm? What compositional method would be associated with it? For instance - take a look at the last act of Don Giovanni - it is my understanding that the banquet scene has been interpreted as an orgiastic activity between the guests and the Don. Others have interpreted the same scene with much more "restraint". Does that make Mozart's music "pornographic"? Guilt by association?


----------



## Me Died Blue

jolivetti said:


> Let's not pretend God's Word lays down a clear, discernable law about music styles. Like it or not, we have to exercise wisdom here.



I think this is possibly the best thing that has been pointed out in this thread so far.



Kevin said:


> Good point!
> 
> The problem is "exercising wisdom" is hard work. A list of do's & don'ts is much easier to follow. Not that anyone here has advocated that (yet) but in our flesh we desire that kind of black/white solution.



Indeed. This reminded me a lot of Derek Webb's song "A New Law," (lyrics here) as that is _exactly_ what it talks about. In fact, one of the many examples he gives is, "Don't teach me about truth and beauty, just label my music."


----------



## panta dokimazete

joshua said:


> Is someone able to _biblically_ substantiate that any musical note or group of notes, in and of themselves, inherently, apart from lyrics, sinful nosalgia attached thereunto is sinful?



Well - "tradition" gives us the "Diabolus in Musica"...


----------



## Coram Deo

Hello Rebecca,

I am arguing over passion.. When I sing the Psalms I am lifted to new highs. When I sing Psalm 84 to the tune of llangloffan it brings tears to my eyes and I am filled with passion for my Lord and being in his house on the Sabbath. The question should be What kind of passion. Is it joy, or love, worship for our God, is it enticing lustful, does it have a sexual beat to it. Does it stir sexual passion.. There is Nationalistic Passion music, i.e. Richard Wagner which stirs the racial ethnic (Ethos) passions, and even Romantic nonsexual passion music in some of the Romantic Classical music. 

Rock Music has a primative lustful sexual passion

Michael



LoveReading said:


> Hi Michael,
> 
> I've read through this whole discussion and am fascinated. I would ask you this: lots of classical music is very Romantic and sensual in its very nature. Yes, it may not have the Rock 'n Roll beat, but it does stir those passions. Would you be opposed to listening to that kind of music? Even great Christian classics - such as "The Messiah" were written in such a way that it makes your spirit react in a passionate way. I know when I hear the Messiah it takes every ounce of will I have to not move - but to sit there quietly. Music in it's very nature gives voice to those passions which words cannot express. Yes - sometimes it will lead to sensual thoughts, whether the music is rock, rap, classical or anything else. I'm just wondering where we ought to draw the line. If rock music stirs up passions and classical music does as well, where does the line get drawn? I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm just trying to clarify my understanding of your position on music in general. Thanks!


----------



## Coram Deo

Little Richard is unbias in his view of origins of Rock Music.. It is about himself and his genre of music.. I think this is pulling a strawman but I will sight a some more...

Jeff Godwin (Dancing with Demons) gives some startling evidence on the number of influential rock musicians who studied the ancient beats of satanic worship. These rockers include Brian Jones, John Phillips, Mick Fleetwood, Jimmy Page, and Robert Plant. These men studied with Satanic masters in their attempt to find rhythmic freedom. 

(I would also refer the reade to an excellent study of beats as it relates to primitive cultures in Lenny Siedel's book Face the Music, Chapter 3.)

Michael




jdlongmire said:


> Yes - please, this is fascinating...
> 
> I am certainly curious as to the "Satanic" origin of any music - that is the portion that is instrumental.
> 
> Lyrics are another thing, entirely.
> 
> Also - please don't quote Little Richard as an musical origins specialist - I would not consider him a credible musicologist.


----------



## Coram Deo

Quote from The Battle for Christian Music:

Perhaps some of you are asking yourselves the question, "But how can a musical note be inherently good or bad? Aren't notes just a matter of pitch variation, tonal vibration, compressions, and decompressions of air?" Those are fair questions.

Years ago I heard a tape of a man who defending the neutrality of music in public. He waslked over to the piano and played a C major chord. Then, he asked the audience if it was a good C major chord, or an evil C major chord. After some scattered laugther, he said, "see, there's no such thing as good or evil music."

He made a rather obvious mistake, however, in his reasoning: a C major chord isn't music! It is a building block of music-- and there's a big difference.

Take the English language, for example. If I write the letter

E

is that a good e or a bad e? Neither. As a building block of the english language it is a neutral entity. However, I as a creative writer can put that letter in conjunetion with other letters and communicate something like..

Prais*E* the Lord...

or

I hat*E* God..

In both of the above usages I Have taken neutral letters and put them together to communicate something to you. However, what I have communicated is definitely not neutral, and my intent is clearly conveyed.

One is Holy

One is Unholy and Evil..

Aspiring artist go to school to study netural devices used in the creative process of painting-- devices such as line, color, shade, perspective, texture, contrast, etc. A stroll through any major art gallery in our country will reveal that some artist use these devices to paint beautiful portriats, landscapes, or still images. Othe rartist take these same neutral devices and put them together in such a way as to paint nudity and lewd subject matter that would embarrass any decent person...

Why are we willing to admit these facts when it comes to literature, art, sculpture or any other form of creativity-- but not music?


When you enter a freshman theory class as a music major in any discipline of music, among the first things you would study are the "ingredients" (Neutral elements) of music: melody, rhythm, and harmony. In music theory you will learn what is the correct order of the three.. You will learn that first is a good melody, supported harmony, undergirded with a firm and consistent rhythm.

We speak of the balance between melody, harmony, and rhythmn in good music. Rock music inverts that order.. Rock music elevates rhythmn as the most stressed element, then harmony, melody is last.

It could not be stated more clearly. Rock inverts the elements of music. The melody and lyrics are given less importance than the rhythmn and the harmony. The elements of music have been reversed. They stand "in opposition to authority." They are rebellious.

Though it is clear that rhythm is an aspect of music generally, in the music of rebellion it is the prominent element. Rhythm is the most distinguishing feature of rock music. In Good music the primary beat in a measure is the first beat, while the secondary beat (of a group of four beats) is on the third. This is not only true of balanced music, but also of our own rhythmic pulse, the ticking of a clock, or the waves of the ocean. God's creation shows us regular, recurring accents in rhythm.

Normal

ONE, two, THREE, four

backbeat

one, TWO, three, FOUR

breakbeat

one-AND, two-AND, three-AND, four-AND

End of Quote..


I have somewhere a complete copy of my music theory notes on music which is foundation for understanding music.. I hope I will be able to find them and post them soon...

Michael




joshua said:


> Is someone able to _biblically_ substantiate that any musical note or group of notes, in and of themselves, inherently, apart from lyrics, sinful nosalgia attached thereunto is sinful?


----------



## Dagmire

thunaer said:


> It can not be denied.... The sound is p0rnography in and of itself..... and spurs the passions.... Plus the link to voodoo makes it even more satanic...




I deny it. I don't agree with you at all. In fact, I think your opinion on the matter is bizarre and baseless. It's what comes out of a man that defiles him, not what goes into his ears.

I am a very big fan of Tool. I have had some very good spiritual thinking session while listening to Tool. In fact, their music often leads me to think about God and his ways. They're amazing musicians and I love hearing what they are able to create. They're able to create it because they're made in God's image. They use heavy distortion, odd time signatures and thumping beats, but it doesn't make me think about sex or the devil.

I very strongly disagree with you that any kind of music is inherently evil. I believe that music, like anything, can be perverted, but I do not think you can throw a blanket over an entire genre. There is a lot of lyrical filth that you should not pollute your mind with, but again, I do not think that music drives you to do evil. I think you should examine your own heart and ask God for understanding of why music affects you that way.


I don't mean to speak too harshly against your convictions. Follow them, certainly.

Of course, your reasons for listening to music are a different matter. If you're listening to rock music for sinful reasons, then it's certainly wrong. But I think it's a matter of what drives you to listen to the music, not where the music drives you. It may be that, for some people, music works as a catalyst for sinful desire, but it is the sinful desire that's the problem, not the music. A glutton eats for sinful reasons and food aids him in his sin, but there is not evil food. When he is changed by God, he eats to the glory of Christ. I really believe that you can listen to music to the glory of God, whether it is rock or classical.


----------



## BobVigneault

"Rock Music has a primitive lustful sexual passion"

Again, Michael, this is an assertion. I am very familiar with the assertions of those who believe that rock music is somehow evil in and of itself. I am also familiar with musicians who are pagans.

I keep reading these resources you are posting but I must admit, the logic is dizzying. These are just assertions written to people whose minds are already made up and trying to offer some type of legitimate justification. (is that redundant?)


----------



## bradofshaw

Thunaer,

I think you are making some arbitrary categories when you talk about the different sorts of passion. I think it is more probable that there are different levels and intensities of passion which are applied to different purposes. Certainly, when I listen to Wagner, I am not stirred to Arianism. The music is very stirring though, and has been used in war movies, in sports broadcasts, and in TV commercials. But I don't think anybody has been stirred to any sort of nationalism just by hearing the music. 

As for The Battle for Christian Music, that's fine if he wants to assert that the basic elements of music have to go in a traditional classical order. But its a pretty baseless assertion. It's true, I have a hard time listening to classical music because the rhythmic and tonal properties are so foreign to me. But if you asked me how to write a good song, I would probably start with a good strong beat. So what? I see a lot of assertion in that quotation, but I certainly don't see any Biblical support for those assertions.

As for the example with the letter E, that doesn't demonstrate how just because one rhythm, harmony, or melody was once used to express an "evil" idea, that the replication or modification of that element is necessarily "evil."

A lot of what I have read by Christians on the subject of the evils of rock music is reactionary. It's true, rock music introduced non-traditional elements to western music, including African and eventually eastern elements, and popularized folk forms instead of classical, high art forms. For a musician trained in the western tradition, I can see how offensive the music might seem. But I think that as time goes by, you will see fewer and fewer Christians subscribing to those notions out of mere familiarity. I really can't see how it's any different than how the Catholic Church once outlawed the augmented fifth, but now it doesn't sound evil or unholy in any way.


----------



## Coram Deo

Edited by owner of Post

Reason: Misread a previous post and does not relate to topic.

Michael


----------



## Coram Deo

Hitler was stirred by Richard Wagner, that is a fact.. Hey, I am german, I liked Wagner. I can even feel the nationalist pull when I play it...

As for the elements of music.. That is Music Theory 101... Maybe take the class sometime.... Do not forget to go to the other Music Theory classes either afterwards.... That is 6000 years of Music Theory and Education... Do not let the last 100 years throw out the last 6000 years and as quoted before is based in nature........

Michael




bradofshaw said:


> Thunaer,
> 
> I think you are making some arbitrary categories when you talk about the different sorts of passion. I think it is more probable that there are different levels and intensities of passion which are applied to different purposes. Certainly, when I listen to Wagner, I am not stirred to Arianism. The music is very stirring though, and has been used in war movies, in sports broadcasts, and in TV commercials. But I don't think anybody has been stirred to any sort of nationalism just by hearing the music.
> 
> As for The Battle for Christian Music, that's fine if he wants to assert that the basic elements of music have to go in a traditional classical order. But its a pretty baseless assertion. It's true, I have a hard time listening to classical music because the rhythmic and tonal properties are so foreign to me. But if you asked me how to write a good song, I would probably start with a good strong beat. So what? I see a lot of assertion in that quotation, but I certainly don't see any Biblical support for those assertions.
> 
> As for the example with the letter E, that doesn't demonstrate how just because one rhythm, harmony, or melody was once used to express an "evil" idea, that the replication or modification of that element is necessarily "evil."
> 
> A lot of what I have read by Christians on the subject of the evils of rock music is reactionary. It's true, rock music introduced non-traditional elements to western music, including African and eventually eastern elements, and popularized folk forms instead of classical, high art forms. For a musician trained in the western tradition, I can see how offensive the music might seem. But I think that as time goes by, you will see fewer and fewer Christians subscribing to those notions out of mere familiarity. I really can't see how it's any different than how the Catholic Church once outlawed the augmented fifth, but now it doesn't sound evil or unholy in any way.


----------



## bradofshaw

thunaer said:


> As for the elements of music.. That is Music Theory 101... Maybe take the class sometime.... Do not forget to go to the other Music Theory classes either afterwards.... That is 6000 years of Music Theory and Education... Do not let the last 100 years throw out the last 6000 years and as quoted before is based in nature........
> 
> Michael



Admittedly, I've never taken a music theory class. I did take pop music (including the book you've cited) and music history classes in college with professors (Reformed Christians) who training in theory. They dismissed those claims (that the inverted beat is sinful) as arbitrary as well. I'm certainly not wanting to throw out the history of western music, or disparage it. In fact, I think it is extremely important to study it and listen to it. And I certainly am not arguing that that is not what is taught in music theory.

But what we are talking about with rock music is a different medium of sorts. As I said before, there is overlap. But I wouldn't want to make universal norms out of the classical tradition and say anything not fitting into it is unnatural or aesthetically bad. Rock music is new, and yes it had a very large cultural impact. Who knows if it will be lasting, but for now, it's the way our culture views music. For that reason alone it has importance. 

Part of the reason music theory remained unchanged for so long was just the nature of technology and the cultural climate. More people can make more and different music now than ever before in history. Electronic recording and distribution makes music more accessible to the masses than ever. Multiculturalism and globalization have introduced different sounds and styles from around the world into the western environment. Setting aside the idea of "good" and "bad" styles, you have to admit that everything has changed in the last 100 years. I don't know that we can just look at it through the traditional western paradigm, let alone establish that the traditional western paradigm is the one holy and infallible rule for how we view music.


----------



## Dagmire

n/t


----------



## Coram Deo

With all due respect Mr. Moderator,

That kinda sounds like Bill Clinton who said he did not know that a certain act (unspoken for children) was having sex.

Fact: It makes the body move sensually..
Fact: It has a Lustful appeal
Fact: It is connected with sex and the sex movement.
Fact: The body movement mimmicks stimulated sex.
Fact: Music stirs passions, rightly or wrongly
Fact: It is tied to primitive culture and Pagan/Voodoo Worship.

So, it is not a assertion by all counts, that I even mentioned before..

I see this is not going anywhere, so I believe I am going to bail out. It is getting alittle heated and emotional on all sides...

Personally, I am disappointed in 21st Century Puritanism here.... Of course, the culture war is being lost and won't be won until Christ Returns. Aleast the church will be purged during Tribulation sometime in the future...


Coram Deo (All in the Presence of God),
Michael



BobVigneault said:


> "Rock Music has a primitive lustful sexual passion"
> 
> Again, Michael, this is an assertion. I am very familiar with the assertions of those who believe that rock music is somehow evil in and of itself. I am also familiar with musicians who are pagans.
> 
> I keep reading these resources you are posting but I must admit, the logic is dizzying. These are just assertions written to people whose minds are already made up and trying to offer some type of legitimate justification. (is that redundant?)


----------



## bradofshaw

Since we're quoting Little Richard, here is Neil Peart of Rush talking about a response he wrote to a newspaper article accusing Rush and several other bands of promoting satanism and hiding subliminal messages in their recordings. 

"Outraged, I wrote a letter to the paper's editor stating that I didn't even believe in these 'spirits,' good or evil, and pointing out that I happened to know many of the other bands named, and that they were far more concerned about their chart numbers and ticket sales than about spreading any kind of message. Ironically, that statement, not the accusation of devil worship, annoyed some readers, who didn't like me saying their 'heroes' might be more committed to mass popularity and commerce than to the rock ethos of 'rock 'n' roll all night and party every day,' so of course they reacted by criticizing me." - Neil Peart, Traveling Music

In the full response he vehemently denies any link to satanism. That's not to say there is no satanic influence in rock music, but again, I would hate to say because some is present, all are guilty. 

I'm gone for the weekend. It was a fun discussion though.


----------



## panta dokimazete

thunaer said:


> Little Richard is unbias in his view of origins of Rock Music.. It is about himself and his genre of music.. I think this is pulling a strawman but I will sight a some more...



Little Richard is a flamboyant entertainer that uses controversy to draw attention to himself.



> Jeff Godwin (Dancing with Demons) gives some startling evidence on the number of influential rock musicians who studied the ancient beats of satanic worship. These rockers include Brian Jones, John Phillips, Mick Fleetwood, Jimmy Page, and Robert Plant. These men studied with Satanic masters in their attempt to find rhythmic freedom.



Please quote your sources. Give quotes and references to support your assertions. 

Also - what about the ancient beats of Jehovah worship? Could you discern the difference?


----------



## kvanlaan

From whence does their inspiration come? When Steve Harris wrote "Number of the Beast", _from whence was his inspiration_? Is this a God-moved use of the gift of music? No. Yes, it is hyperbole, but I don't know that we need to go into much beyond inspiration (which in many cases becomes visible in the lyircs of the songs, though not always.)

Again, if the musician and his inspiration is without God, then where does his inspiration come from? The answer to this should tell us whether or not the music is 'evil' or suitable for our ears.


----------



## panta dokimazete

thunaer said:


> Quote from The Battle for Christian Music:
> 
> Perhaps some of you are asking yourselves the question, "But how can a musical note be inherently good or bad? Aren't notes just a matter of pitch variation, tonal vibration, compressions, and decompressions of air?" Those are fair questions.
> 
> Years ago I heard a tape of a man who defending the neutrality of music in public. He waslked over to the piano and played a C major chord. Then, he asked the audience if it was a good C major chord, or an evil C major chord. After some scattered laugther, he said, "see, there's no such thing as good or evil music."
> 
> He made a rather obvious mistake, however, in his reasoning: a C major chord isn't music! It is a building block of music-- and there's a big difference.
> 
> Take the English language, for example. If I write the letter
> 
> E
> 
> is that a good e or a bad e? Neither. As a building block of the english language it is a neutral entity. However, I as a creative writer can put that letter in conjunetion with other letters and communicate something like..
> 
> Prais*E* the Lord...
> 
> or
> 
> I hat*E* God..
> 
> In both of the above usages I Have taken neutral letters and put them together to communicate something to you. However, what I have communicated is definitely not neutral, and my intent is clearly conveyed.
> 
> One is Holy
> 
> One is Unholy and Evil..
> 
> Aspiring artist go to school to study netural devices used in the creative process of painting-- devices such as line, color, shade, perspective, texture, contrast, etc. A stroll through any major art gallery in our country will reveal that some artist use these devices to paint beautiful portriats, landscapes, or still images. Othe rartist take these same neutral devices and put them together in such a way as to paint nudity and lewd subject matter that would embarrass any decent person...
> 
> Why are we willing to admit these facts when it comes to literature, art, sculpture or any other form of creativity-- but not music?
> 
> 
> When you enter a freshman theory class as a music major in any discipline of music, among the first things you would study are the "ingredients" (Neutral elements) of music: melody, rhythm, and harmony. In music theory you will learn what is the correct order of the three.. You will learn that first is a good melody, supported harmony, undergirded with a firm and consistent rhythm.
> 
> We speak of the balance between melody, harmony, and rhythmn in good music. Rock music inverts that order.. Rock music elevates rhythmn as the most stressed element, then harmony, melody is last.
> 
> It could not be stated more clearly. Rock inverts the elements of music. The melody and lyrics are given less importance than the rhythmn and the harmony. The elements of music have been reversed. They stand "in opposition to authority." They are rebellious.
> 
> Though it is clear that rhythm is an aspect of music generally, in the music of rebellion it is the prominent element. Rhythm is the most distinguishing feature of rock music. In Good music the primary beat in a measure is the first beat, while the secondary beat (of a group of four beats) is on the third. This is not only true of balanced music, but also of our own rhythmic pulse, the ticking of a clock, or the waves of the ocean. God's creation shows us regular, recurring accents in rhythm.
> 
> Normal
> 
> ONE, two, THREE, four
> 
> backbeat
> 
> one, TWO, three, FOUR
> 
> breakbeat
> 
> one-AND, two-AND, three-AND, four-AND
> 
> End of Quote..



This is a fallacious argument concatenating true language with the concept of music as language. True language has much greater nuance than music as language. Music could potentially be considered the "language of emotion" but it's capability to be "fine tuned" to the degree this author asserts is simply a strawman. Point in fact - point me to one tune or beat or combination that unmistakably communicates "I love God" or "I hate God" to a culturally diverse group of people.

To utilize your style:

Fact: You can't

Fact: Music is too subjective to categorize in this way.




> I have somewhere a complete copy of my music theory notes on music which is foundation for understanding music.. I hope I will be able to find them and post them soon...
> 
> Michael



If you must - understanding that the BM and 2 MMs after my sig denotes undergrad and graduate degrees in Music from a Presbyterian and a Baptist college, respectively. Not trying to brag, just want you to understand that this is an area of expertise for me - taught from a Christian worldview.


----------



## panta dokimazete

thunaer said:


> I see this is not going anywhere, so I believe I am going to bail out. It is getting alittle heated and emotional on all sides...



oops! Just when it started to get interesting!

Blessings and Peace, Brother!  

-JD


----------



## 5solasmom

Dagmire said:


> It's what comes out of a man that defiles him, not what goes into his ears.



I agree.

I've also heard the argument about the beating/voodoo link and to me, it's unconvincing. Those who practiced voodoo did not "invent" beat (and surely weren't the first to use it) and beating is not inherently evil (scripturally I cannot defend that view).

To say that because pagans practiced drum beating in sinful rituals does not make drum beating now wrong. But then again, I rarely buy the "origins" arguments for reasons not to do something today (such as observe Christmas, etc. etc.).

Most songs (perhaps all but ya gotta leave room for the rare exceptions, right?) have a beat whether it comes from a drum or not.

I agree that this is an area where we need to exercise wisdom. It's just not black and white.


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

5solasmom said:


> I agree.
> 
> I've also heard the argument about the beating/voodoo link and to me, it's unconvincing. Those who practiced voodoo did not "invent" beat (and surely weren't the first to use it) and beating is not inherently evil (scripturally I cannot defend that view).
> 
> To say that because pagans practiced drum beating in sinful rituals does not make drum beating now wrong. But then again, I rarely buy the "origins" arguments for reasons not to do something today (such as observe Christmas, etc. etc.).
> 
> Most songs (perhaps all but ya gotta leave room for the rare exceptions, right?) have a beat whether it comes from a drum or not.
> 
> I agree that this is an area where we need to exercise wisdom. It's just not black and white.


Dance is dependent upon rhythm, even our heart beat is so as you say it would be fallacy to give it over to voodoo.


----------



## 5solasmom

No Longer A Libertine said:


> even our heart beat is so as you say it would be fallacy to give it over to voodoo.



There ya go....God invented beat!


----------



## Me Died Blue

kvanlaan said:


> Again, if the musician and his inspiration is without God, then where does his inspiration come from? The answer to this should tell us whether or not the music is 'evil' or suitable for our ears.



But even the musician's intent in originally making the music (and whether it was done with a desire to glorify God) doesn't in and of itself dictate what _our_ intent (and the resulting outcome) has to be in listening to it. Some analogous examples to clarify why that's the case might include food, or art: If a chef had no intent or desire to glorify God in his creation of a dish, does that mean that we can't eat it with just such an intent and desire? Of course not.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Some analogous examples to clarify why that's the case might include food, or art: If a chef had no intent or desire to glorify God in his creation of a dish, does that mean that we can't eat it with just such an intent and desire? Of course not.



True enough. However, why take something which is unholy and try to make it holy? 

I have a spade which I use to turn pig manure and I _could_ clean it up to the point where I could use it to stir a big pot of pasta with, but why do it? It was made to turn pig manure. I don't know that you could take that analogy much further, but why bother with the filth when you need not?

I guess part of what bothers me with this issue is that why bother with the RPW if we listen to this sort of music? _Where is the disconnect_? All that we do we do unto Him, from the largest to the smallest. If we are a living sacrifice, if we worship with our very lives, are we not heaping false fire upon the altar in partaking of this music? 

I personally am not so worried about the beat. I don't know that we can define how the psalms were sung or how the lyre and timbrels were used in praising the Lord. But when we look to its intent and the purpose in its creation, there we should be more critical.


----------



## Me Died Blue

kvanlaan said:


> However, why take something which is unholy and try to make it holy?
> 
> I have a spade which I use to turn pig manure and I _could_ clean it up to the point where I could use it to stir a big pot of pasta with, but why do it? It was made to turn pig manure. I don't know that you could take that analogy much further, but why bother with the filth when you need not?



But the difficulty is in deciding how far to take that principle, and what things we're going to consider "unholy." For instance, would we really want to make an effort to try to eat food cooked by Christian chefs (and thus more likely made with a God-glorifying intent) as often as possible? Or what about sports? The majority of most players in your average sports game would not be playing with an intent to glorify God by doing so. So what sets the creation of music apart from categories like the food and sports? It seems to me that the similarity they all share is that they are common things that come up all the time in our lives which we are perfectly able to enjoy to the glory of God, yet which would create a virtually impossible and obviously unnecessary and unhelpful standard of living if we started "screening" all such things before enjoying them to first make sure their creators were making them with godly motives as well.



kvanlaan said:


> I guess part of what bothers me with this issue is that why bother with the RPW if we listen to this sort of music? _Where is the disconnect_? All that we do we do unto Him, from the largest to the smallest. If we are a living sacrifice, if we worship with our very lives, are we not heaping false fire upon the altar in partaking of this music?



Because one of the most foundational truths behind the RPW is the _distinction_ between worship (particularly corporate) and the rest of our lives, originally seen in the distinction between worship in the temple and synagogue, and the common parts of our lives. Those "common" parts are indeed to be lived to the glory of God no less than distinguished times of worship - but in a different way. Otherwise, the RPW itself would be meaningless, since if the distinction between worship and other God-glorifying parts of our lives did not exist, we would have to either abandon the RPW altogether, or else limit _all_ of our time to the particular elements of worship commanded and demonstrated in Scripture.


----------



## BobVigneault

Ironically this thread began because I asked the prog rock fans if they had heard the new Neal Morse album about Martin Luther. Mr. Morse is a man who just as he reached the climax of the commercial success he had sought, he came under the conviction that he could write no more secular music. Now he uses the medium of prog rock (and his own God given musical genius) to spread biblical teaching and honor the Father.


Michael, I'm very sorry you bailed out. You were coming up against of formidable amount of disagreement but I didn't notice anyone becoming heated. I thought, given the topic, that this was a great discussion. Let me repeat that I greatly respect your convictions and your taking the lead in protecting your family. I appreciate your boldness to stand up to so much disagreement. Our commonality far outweighs those matters where we would find difference.

God bless you richly brother, it is a privilege to have you on the board.


----------



## kvanlaan

OK Chris, drop the RPW part of the argument. Where then do you draw the line? Is it the lyrics that will finally be a show stopper? The sensual nature of some of the music? What? 

That Scripture is silent on this (due to its non-existance at the time) doesn't quite cut it for me. Why allow such a blatantly godless form of entertainment into your life? 



> Those "common" parts are indeed to be lived to the glory of God no less than distinguished times of worship - but in a different way.



How do we then say that these 'common parts', our lives as living sacrifices, are lived unto Him 100% if we spend our time partaking of these diversions? Are our thoughts not influenced by it? Why do we not limit ourselves to what is good and holy?


----------



## ChristianTrader

joshua said:


> These, again, are assertions and it's incumbent upon you to show that any style of music, in and of itself, divorced from lyrics, sinful nostalgia, etc. is evil, 'sensual in nature', or 'blatantly godless'.



What kind of evidence would you accept as justification of the "music in itself is bad"?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

Me Died Blue said:


> But even the musician's intent in originally making the music (and whether it was done with a desire to glorify God) doesn't in and of itself dictate what _our_ intent (and the resulting outcome) has to be in listening to it. Some analogous examples to clarify why that's the case might include food, or art: If a chef had no intent or desire to glorify God in his creation of a dish, does that mean that we can't eat it with just such an intent and desire? Of course not.



Chris,
Would you make a distinction between origins and intent?

CT


----------



## ChristianTrader

joshua said:


> Personally, I don't really have anything specific in mind...my repetition of this is more to press the other position to back up the assertion that music of any type is inherently evil to all people at all times without exception. I just don't see any biblical substantiation for pressing the idea that rock music is inherently evil, while not applying the same principles to other things (for example, the things Chris mentioned).



Certain kinds of animals and plants are inherently deadly to the touch or if consumed. So why is it prima facia problematic to say that certain music is inherently problematic?

CT


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

ChristianTrader said:


> Certain kinds of animals and plants are inherently deadly to the touch or if consumed. So why is it prima facia problematic to say that certain music is inherently problematic?
> 
> CT


Music is more nuanced than a snake's venom.

Fleetwood Mac does not equal a den of Vipers to the Christian.

Scorpions the band does not equal scorpions in the desert.

If music is a stumbling block then shut it out and refrain from it, everyone is different in their struggles but we should not remove mirrors from public bathrooms because it promotes vanity just as we are not bound to fast from non vulgar media because it isn't "Christian" enough.


----------



## Tom Roach

I first want to thank thunaer for posting that list of books. I'll get to reading them this Summer. OK, now for the post. To begin, nothing can ever be neutral in terms of good and evil. Music--and other things from man's imagination--are either from God's grace through man, or from the Adversary through man. I am going to boldly tell everyone here that every kind of song except the Psalms has at least some tendency toward evil, because it comes from man's heart and man's mind. Even if it's the most Jesus-praise-laiden Christian music, or if it's the purest and most beautiful orchestral piece, it always has _some_ level of impurity and wickedness because hearts and minds are tainted. This is why I find singing the Psalms to be so beautiful and lifting !


Genesis 8:21b states that every man's imagination leans toward evil, and we have no innocence because we are this way out of the womb. 


Jeremiah 17:9-10 says that the heart is wicked and deceitful, and God can only read the heart.

But here's some good news:
Mark 7:18-23 states nothing can corrupt us from outside (if we fully believe in Christ as our salvation), only from within. That is, evil springs forth from our own hearts and minds and that outside sources of evil will pass through us if we are protected by God. But who can protect us from the evil that comes from within? This shows that the source of deceit is our own, and we are our greatest enemies when we forget Christ.

(Romans 3:10-18 says no one is righteous; we are covered in sin. But it goes on to say that we find grace in Christ  

But remember the vanity we tend toward. 
Ecclesiastes 9:3 and onward states that the faithless are hopeless and know they are going to die anyway, so they resort to their own way of destruction. This is pointing out the way of life without grace.

So the big question is, *can things of man's imagination be God's work through man?* Yes, through Christ! Thank you to a fellow PB member for pointing out Ephesians 2:10 to me. This verse shows that we can be instruments of God, only if God wills it.

What about songs with profanity or images of fornication and the like? Can those be from God's grace?
Of course not! However, professing believers of Jesus Christ are to be held more accountable if they invite this into their lives. Foul speech is never the result of God, but since we all lean towards sin in one way or another, some justify using foul speech and listening to it.

So, the issue becomes censorship. It is impossible to censor ourselves (let alone our children) from the world. I know that everyone craves their own secret sins and they justify reasons to hang onto them. But all those reasons are self-centered and self-deceiving. I think that we need to listen to the advice of others when selecting our choices of music, movies, and the many other sources of entertainment. We're here to help one another, no? I say listen to whatever you want as long as you know it's not violating how God wants you to behave. If that means putting away (Ephesians 4:24) the TV and the record collection from your teenage years, so be it--it cannot hurt if it pleases God.

And how can we ourselves be creative and not inclined so much toward evil output? Through prayer and fully trusting and believing in Christ can we bring forth good fruits. Lacking faith means lacking fruits. Evidence of Christ in someone can be seen in their behavior.


----------



## etexas

There are rock bands and...well, there are rock bands. Just like certain movies or books there are certain groups I feel are not spiritually helpful to a Christian. I guess the whole Rock thing is pretty neutral (some old James Taylor might put you to sleep, but I am not sure that is a danger to the soul. Just my


----------



## Tom Roach

The danger in music (and entertainment in general) is when people--mainly teens--idolize the singer (or actor in a movie). So you have a band that has a single on the radio that seems perfectly fine to a set of parents, so they let their daughter get the CD. Then when they hear the CD being played in the house, they realize some songs on the album are essentially wicked. That's one case. Another case may be where all the songs seem perfectly fine but then they see their daughter hanging a poster of the band in her room, and the poster shows obvious perversion in the way they present themselves visually. Then there's yet another possibility where _on the surface_ all seems fine in the music, so the parents let the daughter listen. Then they find out their daughter is copying the ways of this band's lifestyle, which may involved the use of cigarettes, alcohol, etc. You see, underneath good is typically bad. That is, what we hear and see can appear to be something harmless but underneath can be disaster (as in the case with a teenage girl aspiring to be like her favorite band).

Let me tell you, people rub off on each other and I actually consider the source to be very important concerning who the artists are. Since I've been reading the Holy Word, I cannot ever listen to music or watch movies without also considering the lifestyle of who I'm hearing and watching. Case in point: a song I love by a band who is all agnostics and atheists. The song is fine and everyone here would probably agree. But who wrote it? Who's singing it? I do think this matters, because what good is anything if its source is wicked?


----------



## No Longer A Libertine

Tom Roach said:


> I do think this matters, because what good is anything if its source is wicked?


To God be the glory inspite of evil men, Edison, Einstein, Mozart, Thomas Jefferson were not Christians and God still allowed their gifts to benefit all of humanity.

You can be entertained by the heathen without being offended by them, whether you wish to give your money to them is a personal choice.

But going to the movies is not an act of idolatry in and of itself, we must own up to our own sins, if we idolize celebrity may we repent.

Yes our culture worships the cult of personality, we do it with theologians ourselves, ALL things can be corrupted until glory comes.


----------



## Tom Roach

5solasmom said:


> To say that because pagans practiced drum beating in sinful rituals does not make drum beating now wrong. But then again, I rarely buy the "origins" arguments for reasons not to do something today (such as observe Christmas, etc. etc.).



I definitely disagree. For something like Christmas, you are accepting that wicked pagan festivals and praising the birth of Jesus Christ can mesh. I know that the traditions of Christmastime seem innocent and almost holy, but their sources definitely were not holy and had nothing to do with God at all. If you took away the pagan/tradition of Christmas and only praised God for sending Christ to save us, it's still wrong because the very reason it is on December 25th is because of the pagan festivals. That is, it has nothing to do with Christ. I say if you were to honor God on 12/25 or so, it's fine only it's completely random it's that day or week, and you do so throughout the year. I mean, we should be celebrating Christ's birth (and life + resurrection) all year. Why one day?

As for Easter--a slightly less obvious false holy day--we bring in all these pagan elements. It's just really sad that the world consume our faith.

Pardon the tangent


----------



## kvanlaan

> Where then do you draw the line? Is it the lyrics that will finally be a show stopper? The sensual nature of some of the music? Why allow such a blatantly godless form of entertainment into your life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These, again, are assertions and it's incumbent upon you to show that any style of music, in and of itself, divorced from lyrics, sinful nostalgia, etc. is evil, 'sensual in nature', or 'blatantly godless'.
Click to expand...


Josh, though I would much prefer that you would just accept my assertions, and recognize my genius for what it is, I guess you're not going to do that.  

My argument is not so much that the music itself is wicked on the whole (if we're divorcing it from lyrics, etc. and including Christian rock music in there as well) but combine the two (which is the case 99.9% of the time) and you have problems. Rock music and the industry that cavorts about it are, again 99% of the time, without God. Godless. Blatantly. Not sure if the 15 tons of cocaine, etc., that go up these stars' noses and into their arms every fortnight are enough to back up that assertion, but I sort of think so.

Get into the Christian music scene and the number is not so high, but as a genre, secular rock music has little, if any, redeeming value. We would be throwing out a very tiny baby (and it would be a baby harp seal, not an actual human baby) with an ocean of very foul bathwater in getting rid of it.


----------



## Tom Roach

Oh, I agree that man men who were not Christians and were agnostic, atheist, Jewish, Buddhist, whatever, have made great achievements. I also am well aware of the problem you may not see in this. We place too much value on knowledge (among other things) in this society--particularly in the US. Before electricity/the light bulb/the wax cylinder (Edison), mathematical & scientific theories (Einstein), intensely beautiful compositions of music (Mozart), the Declaration of Independence and great architecture (Jefferson), we still had problems with sin and unrepentant hearts, as we do now. I am not defaming these men, but rather am saying that their good works were gifts from God--as you said to benefit all of humanity : )

This is true because God has the power to use all men (unbelievers included) to work out His will. I really do believe that God works through people of all faiths, because He can and does for His own secret purpose. In that, we see great things spring out of people who deny Christ. This is a mystery to me--can anyone shed light on this issue? It's a mystery because I don't understand why God uses wicked people to do good for the greater cause of humanity. Maybe it's His way of showing He can drive wicked people to do truly things--what an amazing concept!

I said the source is imperative to the end result because there is the possibility that ill intentions on good results can have some less obvious bad results. What it boils down to is why we listen to these songs. I know someone who only listens to particular songs by the artists they like. That is, they skip over the tracks that they find offensive. This shows great discernment skills.

MOVIES:
Say there's a drug-addicted fornicating actress in a film which you play on a TV in your living room, yet her role in the film is a good-mannered girl from Texas who does nothing but help people, there is no problem because the character she's playing is a good example and can teach people how to be kind of whatever. But we have to remember it's an act, and not the real person (we see the common bad guy in the movie and think, "Hey, I bet he's like that in real life because he looks like a bad guy").
YES, I AGREE, it will not harm you or whoever watches it 

Again (and I may be repeating myself), the problem with music and literature is that the character of the writer(s) will inevitably come out. A perfect example: my favorite band for years was The Smashing Pumpkins. They even have a generally positive view on Jesus and God in some songs (that is, God is the source of good and beautiful things). However, I learned last year that it's a secular point of view of God (the lead singer stated this) and that secular humanism is garbage even when "Jesus" and "God" are thrown into its mix. So my point? Use your best judgment and base your judgment on that big, thick book that can tell you how to avoid any trouble that may come out of the music.

I heard a song today where the guy was screaming about how awful and hopeless life is, but it did not affect me because I know it's false. I mean, it's all entertainment and generally harmless, but remember Mark 7:18-23 that we can let evil pass through us and be untainted by it, unless of course we accept it while it's passing through us. Use God as your defense when listening to all the entertaining garbage out there : )


----------



## Tom Roach

kvanlaan said:


> My argument is not so much that the music itself is wicked on the whole (if we're divorcing it from lyrics, etc. and including Christian rock music in there as well) but combine the two (which is the case 99.9% of the time) and you have problems. Rock music and the industry that cavorts about it are, again 99% of the time, without God. Godless. Blatantly. Not sure if the 15 tons of cocaine, etc., that go up these stars' noses and into their arms every fortnight are enough to back up that assertion, but I sort of think so.
> 
> Get into the Christian music scene and the number is not so high, but as a genre, secular rock music has little, if any, redeeming value. We would be throwing out a very tiny baby (and it would be a baby harp seal, not an actual human baby) with an ocean of very foul bathwater in getting rid of it.



GREAT POINTS


----------



## bookslover

thunaer said:


> Plato said "Give me the music of the nation, and I care not who makes it's laws"
> 
> Michael



Yeah? Who did he have on _his_ IPod?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hey:

The question was asked by Joshua: "Is someone able to biblically substantiate that any musical note or group of notes, in and of themselves, inherently, apart from lyrics, sinful nosalgia attached thereunto is sinful?"

Art is not neutral - it is the selective reproduction of reality based upon the artist's metaphysical presuppositions. There is, however, a difference between fine art and abusive art.

Is there a difference, for example, between Michelangelo's statue of David, and homosexual p0rnography? Or, heterosexual p0rnography and the Venus de Milo?

If there is a difference between fine art and abusive art, then one can make a case for the idea that Rock 'n Roll is abusive art. I believe that Paul gave us the criteria to judge such things ourselves:



> Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of a good report: if there be any virtue, if there be any praise, think on these things, Phil. 4:8


Rock 'n Roll does not seem to fit into these categories,

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## etexas

If you play the Bangle's "Walk Like an Egyptian" backwards it will say "Throw ham at squirrels" this is scary! I do not recomend listening to that and it will mess up your old LP!


----------



## 5solasmom

Tom Roach said:


> I definitely disagree. For something like Christmas, you are accepting that wicked pagan festivals and praising the birth of Jesus Christ can mesh. I know that the traditions of Christmastime seem innocent and almost holy, but their sources definitely were not holy and had nothing to do with God at all. If you took away the pagan/tradition of Christmas and only praised God for sending Christ to save us, it's still wrong because the very reason it is on December 25th is because of the pagan festivals. That is, it has nothing to do with Christ. I say if you were to honor God on 12/25 or so, it's fine only it's completely random it's that day or week, and you do so throughout the year. I mean, we should be celebrating Christ's birth (and life + resurrection) all year. Why one day?
> 
> As for Easter--a slightly less obvious false holy day--we bring in all these pagan elements. It's just really sad that the world consume our faith.
> 
> Pardon the tangent




I had a feeling someone would pick up on my "origins" comment and disagree.  

I don't have a problem with others having personal convictions against celebrating these days (they fall under christian liberty), but strongly disagree with you that believers who do observe Christmas are letting _the world is consume their faith_.  

Anyhow, that's a whole nother thread and  . I referred to it because I don't believe that pagans should be able to legislate what we can and cannot "taste and touch" when God has not. 

Because pagans used a tree to symbolize something doesn't mean we now cannot enjoy trees or redeem the use of trees for God's glory....and because pagans used a drum beat for voodoo rituals doesn't mean we now cannot enjoy drums or redeem them for God's glory. The evil is not in "the thing" at all, and we cannot call it sin when God has not.


----------



## ChristianTrader

joshua said:


> Because those animals have been known to be deadly to the touch or if consumed universally...that's not been 'proven' with any type of music, in and of itself.



So something is proven when everyone accepts a conclusion?

CT


----------



## CalvinandHodges

joshua said:


> I hope I haven't said that art is neutral. The fact is, it is yet to be proven that all type of any particular style of music is universally evil without exception. I think that's an unprovable assertion. There has to be an underlying presupposition that all rock music (divorced from yada yada yada) is evil without exception...and that's what is yet to be proven, In my humble opinion.
> 
> Umm...yes, Sir. But I wouldn't call p0rnography art at all.
> 
> Before citing the Philippians passage as a prooftext, one has to show that all rock music, detached from lyrics, sinul nostalgia attached thereunto, etc. is universally impure, unlovely, unpraiseworthy and harmful to all people of all types in all places without exception. Until that is done (and I don't think it can be), I think it's a matter of one being faithful to prodding of the Holy Spirit on his conscience.



Hey:

I think, Joshua, that you are arguing that Rock music is neutral in nature. That is, you seem to think it appropriate if we remove the ugly lyrics, and replace those lyrics with paraphrases from the Psalms.

or,

That removing the ugly lyrics altogether and just have the tune would eliminate any "pollution" found in the music. The music, I belive, fits the lyrics.

Let us consider the opposite: What if we took Handel's "Halleujah" Chorus from The Messiah and attach VanHalen's lyrics to "Panama." Would the music fit the message? The song would be a disaster.

Awhile ago I read a study done by Yale students. They hooked up 2 plants to 2 polygraph machines. One plant was bombarded with Rock music, and the other with Classical. The polygraph machine went off the board with the plant listening to Rock. The plants were then bombarded with their respective music for 24 hrs a day for a whole month. The Rock n Roll plant slightly withered while the Classical music plant flowered.

Similar studies were done with people. Students listening to Classical music while taking a test scored higher than their counterparts listening to Rock music. Here is an interesting article on the psychological nature of music and Rock in particular:

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=164902201

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Ravens

For my part, I fail to understand how someone could make a blanket condemnation of "rock music."

First of all, the term as it is being used in this thread encompasses so many genres, styles, etc., as to become almost useless. Its being used to cover a wide variety of bands, e.g., Peter, Paul, and Mary, Amorphis, Jefferson Airplane, Pearl Jam, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Megadeth, Aerosmith, etc. I mean at least according to its usage in this thread, we could throw Django in there as well.

You simply can't deal with this wide spectrum as a monolithic entity, unless you're trying to make the case that all creativity must *explicitly* glorify God in very objective ways. As in, I think harmonies and what not glorify God (in the same sense as all creation does); but some people seem as if a song would have to have Christian lyrics in order to do so. If you apply the same standard to artistic pieces, then all classical art should pretty much just be done away with and forbidden unless it has a picture of Moses, Abraham, Peter, a Bible, etc. A landscape doesn't explicitly point to Christ, but the beauty of a good nature-scene implicitly leads one to glory in God.

Not to be trite, and its a reductio ad absurdum, but do we have to carve Bible verses into trees in order to appreciate them?

Musical arts started in the line of Cain, but from all appearances so did most of the trades, as well as cities. So if you live in an urban area, you're partaking in the fruit fo Cain's line. Are cities in and of themselves bad?

Also, for my part, I find the "aggression" or "heart-rate" argument to be weak. As someone mentioned, various classical pieces have that same effect. I get "pumped" listening to the Ride of the Valkyries, O Fortuna, and In the Hall of the Mountain King. So a consistent position would throw out those as well. 

I don't find music that leads one to be... and I don't know how to phrase this... awake, alert, aggressive, pumped up, to be bad in the least, as long as it isn't fostered into sinful aggression. But there are ways to be masculine and full of energy without going there. I mean, do any of you go to the gym? Like, not for ellipticals, but to actually work out? You're telling me when you get out you don't feel pumped up and masculine, in a good way? And that's bad?

*Christian* men are also Christian *men*, and for my part, I'll still continue to listen to O Fortuna and various metal to pump myself up when I'm in the mood to be pumped up. 

Also, if you're arguing for explicitly Christian lyrics:

According to the most common view of the RPW on this board, people shouldn't be writing their own worship songs anyway. So every "Christian song" outside of church would probably have to refrain from praising God (if the RPW applies to private worship as well). So maybe you could have songs "about" Abraham or something, but I think that's a bit of a stretch.

To use the same bolding trick as earlier, a *redeemed *creation is still a redeemed *creation.*


----------



## Theoretical

So where does Jazz music fit in this spectrum?  (especially for those on the "against" side in this thread).


----------



## Founded on the Rock

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> Let us consider the opposite: What if we took Handel's "Halleujah" Chorus from The Messiah and attach VanHalen's lyrics to "Panama." Would the music fit the message? The song would be a disaster.
> -CH



That is one example. But are you to say that there is not one example out there where it is not possible that it could happen? Just because one example does not fit the criteria does not mean that any will not.

As I mentioned earlier, music is much like writting. Ideas are being expressed in a creative way. For example, it is not good to read filth that talks explicitly about sex. Reading a fictional book written by a non-Christian, with non-Christian ideas behind it, can and should be read(under the discretion of the person reading). One may even enjoy the writting of the author, but not share in some of the conclusions. The same can be said with SOME rock music. It is expressing ideas, in an artistic way. The people playing the rock music do not make the music itself evil.

I am not arguing that ALL rock music fits this mold but that some does. The point I am making is that THEORITICALLY, not all rock music is evil. This is why there needs to be discernment used when listening to it. But banning it completely does not seem necessary.


----------



## ChristianTrader

joshua said:


> No. You'll have to forgive my ineptitude at formal logic...it _ain't_ a strong point of mine. On things which aren't so clear cut (and I'd certainly throw in musical style) I think it's impossible to prove something universal about it (i.e. _all_ rock music is beneficial or _all _rock music is evil for all people without exeption).



So what you were asking before was for someone to do what you think is impossible? If that is so then why were you asking for someone to back up the assertion that there is such a thing as inherently problematic music genres/styles.

CT


----------



## turmeric

I'm going to create a Rock Music poll.


----------



## etexas

Only one song is truly EVIL.........."Muskrat Love"!!!!!!!


----------



## Magma2

Abraham Kuyper has a great discussion on Calvinism and art in his lectures on Calvinism and argues that it had a liberating effect on the arts. He writes: "That which is ecclesiastical must bear the stamp of faith, therefore genuine Christian art can only go out from believers. Calvinism, on the contrary, has taught us that all liberal arts are gifts which God imparts promiscuously to believers and to unbelievers, yea, that, as history shows, these gifts have flourished even in a larger measure outside the holy circle. "These radiations of Divine Light" he wrote, "shone more brilliantly among unbelieving people than among God's saints." 

For what it's worth I've heard very little "Christian Rock" over the years that is any good and most is just, well, wimpy. My complaint with rock in general is that it is boring and predicable.


----------



## Tom Roach

I have a great example of a song that sounds up-beat and optimistic, and on the surface the lyrics appear that way, but the meaning of the song (as from the intent of the writer) was a mixture of extreme sadness and hope for optimism. May I post the lyrics? There are no offensive words (no profanity). It will prove that the source of the song is evil but the outcome is good. Both the general appearance (and upbeat sound) had a positive affect on most people who heard it. It was a hugely-popular song in 1993 and 1994. It was an alternative rock song.
So, should I post the lyrics or link to them?


----------



## turmeric

Maybe a link would be good.


----------



## Tom Roach

turmeric said:


> Maybe a link would be good.



lyrics for
The Smashing Pumpkins: today


----------



## kvanlaan

Um, is this the same guy who dedicated a song to Satan during one of his concerts? I had a friend in college that went to see that Smashing Pumpkins concert and, party guy though he was, said that he thought it "wasn't cool". Joke or no, I find the origins of this music disturbing.


----------

