Is the rock beat / rock music sinful?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aggressive = energetic, ready to perform well physically. A faster bpm is better for running/cardio, a slower bpm to match the rhythm of lifting the weight so you're expending power/energy with the beat; music with gritty guitar riffs are even better as they mimic grinding out the rep. I can't imagine doing any kind of exercise while listening to a lullaby. God designed our bodies to respond in different ways to different kinds of music. I just utilize the music to improve performance. But, as an example, Tool's "Stinkfist" would be great music for weightlifting, but the lyrics are beyond terrible so I'll never use it and hope I never hear it again.
 
Sometimes that also works in reverse. "I like it, so it can't be bad."
My wife recently had a conversation with someone where she asked the lady why she thought it was a good thing to listen to music that degraded truth and was anti-God.

The woman told her, "There's a deeper meaning to it."

My wife didn't think to ask her at the time, but when we were discussing it later I asked her what the deeper meaning was. Lol
 
Aggressive = energetic, ready to perform well physically. A faster bpm is better for running/cardio, a slower bpm to match the rhythm of lifting the weight so you're expending power/energy with the beat; music with gritty guitar riffs are even better as they mimic grinding out the rep. I can't imagine doing any kind of exercise while listening to a lullaby. God designed our bodies to respond in different ways to different kinds of music. I just utilize the music to improve performance. But, as an example, Tool's "Stinkfist" would be great music for weightlifting, but the lyrics are beyond terrible so I'll never use it and hope I never hear it again.
Why is listening to a lullaby the suggested alternative to heavy metal? And if it was the only alternative, why does that automatically indicate the propriety of listening to heavy metal? I am not trying to pick on you or heavy metal -- there have been other posts in this thread that at least seemed to indicate that the writer's primary determining factor in listening to music, once a genre has been found that appeals to them, is based on lyrical content.

So for any who would fall into that category, I'm curious as to the principles you apply to arrive at that conclusion. I wholeheartedly agree our bodies respond differently to different kinds of music. Surely that has deeper implications beyond matching the type of music to the type of activity we are performing. I could list a host of things that God created our bodies to do which have been abused to the point of sin by fallen humanity.

Also, if it is granted lyrical content should be the main factor, what does that mean? Does that mean only listening to Christian artists in a given genre? Or where is the line drawn? I assume outright blasphemy, sexual content, etc. are easily ruled out. But what about lyrics promoting materialism? Describing despair, or depression, or foolish nonsense, and so on?
 
Why is listening to a lullaby the suggested alternative to heavy metal? And if it was the only alternative, why does that automatically indicate the propriety of listening to heavy metal? I am not trying to pick on you or heavy metal -- there have been other posts in this thread that at least seemed to indicate that the writer's primary determining factor in listening to music, once a genre has been found that appeals to them, is based on lyrical content.

So for any who would fall into that category, I'm curious as to the principles you apply to arrive at that conclusion. I wholeheartedly agree our bodies respond differently to different kinds of music. Surely that has deeper implications beyond matching the type of music to the type of activity we are performing. I could list a host of things that God created our bodies to do which have been abused to the point of sin by fallen humanity.

Also, if it is granted lyrical content should be the main factor, what does that mean? Does that mean only listening to Christian artists in a given genre? Or where is the line drawn? I assume outright blasphemy, sexual content, etc. are easily ruled out. But what about lyrics promoting materialism? Describing despair, or depression, or foolish nonsense, and so on?
Is it wrong to read novels that describe characters and their wrong interpretation of the world?
 
Is there no slight correlation between both where there is a cognitive reception of words, although I grant obviously it’s easier to ignore lyrics in a song.
I'm not sure why we are going off topic with something that has slight correlation with the OP. I also didn't say it was wrong to listen to music with lyrics that have a wrong interpretation of the world. I asked questions about something that some in this thread seem to assume, or take for granted, and I don't think that's helpful for dan30 as he wrestles through this issue.

However, to at least partially respond to your question, I read the Bible, which describes characters and their wrong interpretation of the world. But, here's another question. If as you mention lyrics can be ignored, or if the words are so indistinguishable in certain genres to make it impossible to understand without the help of a lyric sheet, then why bother avoiding those particular songs? Why not just avoid reading the lyrics?
 
Are you equating listening to music with reading a book?

Is there no slight correlation between both where there is a cognitive reception of words, although I grant obviously it’s easier to ignore lyrics in a song.
I have been thinking about this. I frequently hear "how can any one believe or read the Bible? Its so violent and explicit. It describes/glorifies things that aren't right." We all know it describes things that aren't commended yet many don't believe that.
In what way is describing something different from glorifying it, in secular music especially? Maybe they describe things they aren't advocating...and I think particular rap songs are especially guilty of this.
 
I have been thinking about this. I frequently hear "how can any one believe or read the Bible? Its so violent and explicit. It describes/glorifies things that aren't right." We all know it describes things that aren't commended yet many don't believe that.
In what way is describing something different from glorifying it, in secular music especially? Maybe they describe things they aren't advocating...and I think particular rap songs are especially guilty of this.
I think there is more to it than placing it in describing vs. advocating vs. glorifying categories. So what if it is merely describing. Is the thing necessary to describe? Is it edifying? Can we apply Phil. 4:8 to it, as was mentioned earlier in this thread?
 
I think there is more to it than placing it in describing vs. advocating vs. glorifying categories. So what if it is merely describing. Is the thing necessary to describe? Is it edifying? Can we apply Phil. 4:8 to it, as was mentioned earlier in this thread?
Indeed. I don't have an answer. Just throwing the possible parallel out there.
 
Why is listening to a lullaby the suggested alternative to heavy metal? And if it was the only alternative, why does that automatically indicate the propriety of listening to heavy metal? I am not trying to pick on you or heavy metal -- there have been other posts in this thread that at least seemed to indicate that the writer's primary determining factor in listening to music, once a genre has been found that appeals to them, is based on lyrical content.

So for any who would fall into that category, I'm curious as to the principles you apply to arrive at that conclusion. I wholeheartedly agree our bodies respond differently to different kinds of music. Surely that has deeper implications beyond matching the type of music to the type of activity we are performing. I could list a host of things that God created our bodies to do which have been abused to the point of sin by fallen humanity.

Also, if it is granted lyrical content should be the main factor, what does that mean? Does that mean only listening to Christian artists in a given genre? Or where is the line drawn? I assume outright blasphemy, sexual content, etc. are easily ruled out. But what about lyrics promoting materialism? Describing despair, or depression, or foolish nonsense, and so on?
I think it's important to separate the two issues at this point.

(1) The musical style. Paul loves using athletic analogies, and he seems to portray athletic performance in a positive light by the way he makes in an example of our spiritual walks. He does not disparage it as he disparages drunkenness in another analogy. So I think it's fair to take for granted that any musical style that improves athletic performance is good, and the burden of proof is on the one who wants to disparage a particular musical style. Someone else previously commented on some musical styles that do not glorify God because of excessive dissonance and unresolved cacophony, and I would agree with that, but it is not mean that those elements cannot exist within good music, they just need to be temporary and resolved.

(2) Lyrics. For a teenager or someone easily impressionable, I believe the lyrics are much more important. Christian artists are ideal, but at least weed out the negative messages. I still prefer that but also listen to artists like Clutch, whose lyrics make no sense and the vocals serve as more of an instrument than a message. I will also "plunder the Egyptians" by listening to artists like Gojira (environmental extremism) and Rage Against the Machine (Communism)--except for the songs loaded with profanity--shaking my head at their ignorance when I understand the lyrics. Of course, one side benefit of metal is that the guitars are so loud that the lyrics are usually not understandable unless you actually read the liner notes and there's rarely any sexual content.
 
Hi, I've heard that the beat used in rock music (called the rock beat or offbeat) was used by pagans in their demon worship. Since then I've felt uncomfortable listening to anything (rock or not) that has this beat.

I feel like this idea is not biblical though because (1) "everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving" (1 Tim 4:4). Based on this I would say there's nothing inherently sinful about any particular melody or beat or whatever. And (2) if pagans used that beat, how do we know if they didn't use other popular beats or melodies? How can we ever be sure that we aren't doing something that "the pagans did"?

What are your thoughts on the subject? Is the rock beat "learning the way of the heathen"?
De seventh day adventist Vance Ferrell in his book Inside Rock Music makes a compelling case against rock music. He argues it's inherently sinful, I tend to agree.
 
I would not say that the melody of music is sinful. But we do have to be careful of the words that we sing and listen to.

For example, if anyone curses God or takes the Lord's name in vain, do not listen to the music. But if it just an old fashion classic rock song with a nice beat, then there should be no problem with it.
 
I wouldn't say any form of music is inherently sinful, unless the lyrics are. I would say though that categories of music have an effect to some degree on somebody's emotions. And especially in the world, generally people fit a stereotype in lifestyle of the music they listen to. But of course all of this varies from one person to another.

I listen to quite a bit of '90s alternative, selectively, which would definitely be considered rock, because it is nostalgic for me, and reminds me of my childhood when life was much more simple and clear. So for me, this music helps me pursue love more towards people and God, helps me feel life more, and spurs me on to live with purpose and meaning in a deeper way.

But for another person, listening to that same music might keep them in a worldly depression. I think the subject is much more complex than we often make it.
 
...especially in the world, generally people fit a stereotype in lifestyle of the music they listen to.
This is actually a really interesting point that I would love to study further. You are right; people who listen to different kinds of music (lyrics aside) tend (in my experience) to fit a certain stereotype—a look, a language, an outlook, a "vibe." I wonder why that is. Music as music (again, lyrics aside) does have great power. Just read Plato's thoughts on it.
 
This is actually a really interesting point that I would love to study further. You are right; people who listen to different kinds of music (lyrics aside) tend (in my experience) to fit a certain stereotype—a look, a language, an outlook, a "vibe." I wonder why that is. Music as music (again, lyrics aside) does have great power. Just read Plato's thoughts on it.
Do you think it has to do with identity? Maybe music is an easy way for someone to find an identity in?
 
The music for this (not rock) is likely played in some church every Sunday

"Daughter of Elysium,
intoxicated with fire, we enter,
O Heavenly One, your sacred shrine.
Your magic once again unites
all that Fashion had sternly divided.
All men become brothers
where your gentle wings abide."
 
Someone else previously commented on some musical styles that do not glorify God because of excessive dissonance and unresolved cacophony, and I would agree with that, but it is not mean that those elements cannot exist within good music, they just need to be temporary and resolved.
Even that idea is complicated. Dissonance, for example, is relative to what we have become accustomed to. With a good ear, you can hear harmonics in an open string that contain notes that some might call dissonant. But the sound is pleasing with those harmonics.

I was also thinking of some attempts at figuring out ancient middle eastern music. Their notions of tonality, harmony, and rhythm seem different to our ears that are accustomed to 12 step scales. If by some time machine we could go back and listen to temple worship in the time of David, our ears might be surprised.
 
The music for this (not rock) is likely played in some church every Sunday

"Daughter of Elysium,
intoxicated with fire, we enter,
O Heavenly One, your sacred shrine.
Your magic once again unites
all that Fashion had sternly divided.
All men become brothers
where your gentle wings abide."
I am ignorant, what song is set to the same tune?
 
This is actually a really interesting point that I would love to study further. You are right; people who listen to different kinds of music (lyrics aside) tend (in my experience) to fit a certain stereotype—a look, a language, an outlook, a "vibe." I wonder why that is. Music as music (again, lyrics aside) does have great power. Just read Plato's thoughts on it.
I can't recall if there was a previous discussion but, I do remember you said you are a music major. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the alleged inherent sinfulness of a genre of music.
 
I am ignorant, what song is set to the same tune?
This is translated out of the German for the chorale of Beethovan's 9th symphony, which is essentially an anthem for the humanism of his day. It is rewritten as Joyful, joyful we adore thee. In some cases, only the tune is used, but it still makes my skin crawl.
 
I can't recall if there was a previous discussion but, I do remember you said you are a music major. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the alleged inherent sinfulness of a genre of music.
Yes, my undergraduate degree is in music. A lot of what I am about to say will be challenging to understand if you don't have a working knowledge of the basics of music theory (tonality, key, pitch, scales, etc.), as well as a little bit of music history. I say this only because I do not know what you know about these things.

By the end of my undergraduate studies, I had acquired a great love for the music of Arnold Schönberg. He was an Austrian composer of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who developed twelve-tone and serial atonal music. To put it in layman's terms, he developed a system of music theory and composition that was utterly free of tonality—that quality of the vast majority of music where it has a harmonic "home," whereby we know as listeners when a phrase or piece ends, when a musical idea has been completed. Without tonality, music is simply incomprehensible to most ears. Yet Schönberg's music, as well as that of his pupils, has a very, very tight mathematical structure. It is highly organized. For an example of this kind of atonal music, see this.

I say all that to say this. In college, I loved this stuff. The more modern, the better. In hindsight, I was simply a snob. I liked liking what others hated. It made me feel sophisticated and nuanced. What got me off of it was going back to my music theory roots and becoming acquainted once again with the beautiful harmonic makeup with which God has created the world. I firmly believe that tonality is created into nature. Greek philosophers like Pythagoreus understood this. If you're wondering what I am referring to, watch this explanation by Leonard Bernstein on the harmonic/overtone series, which Bernstein himself calls a "built-in, preordained universal." In short, the harmonic/overtone series is a natural and universal phenomenon where vibrating objects vibrate at higher frequencies simultaneously, producing a series of pitches above the "fundamental." The mathematical structure of this series is constant regardless of the fundamental pitch. For example, when you pluck the low E string of a guitar, you are hearing the E primarily (i.e., the "fundamental"), but you are also hearing the E above that, the B above that, the E above that, the G# above that, the D above that, etc. Bernstein explains this in more detail. The point is that the harmonic/overtone series is essentially as much a part of the laws of nature as gravity is. The harmonic/overtone series is precisely what modern composers like Schönberg were attempting to break away from.

I realized at that point that atonal music—which characterized much of the nonsense of the twentieth century—while perhaps not inherently sinful, was undoubtedly rooted in rebellion against God's created order. The sad thing is that I, as an image bearer, had the equipment to discern this: atonal music, for the most part, is positively ugly, a fact I was unwilling to admit in the years of my musical snobbery. There is a reason atonal music is ugly. It is unnatural. Now, there is a place for pushing the boundaries of tonality. Richard Wagner did it to significant effect. His opera Tristan und Isolde is four hours of utter musical suspense, the resolution of which does not arrive until the final minute or two. He pushed the boundaries but did so within the framework of the natural order of things.

I could say so much more, but time does not allow me. Hopefully, this is at least a tiny bit helpful in answering your question from my perspective.
 
A lot of rock music (in terms of instruments) are just root-fifth chords for the most part (rhythm) and pentatonic/Aeolian modes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top