To what are you currently listening?

[Rose]

Case in point: Muse. My favourite band, actually, I love their stuff, but I choose not to listen to them now, because some of their songs don't quite feel right. I don't know how to explain it exactly, except that there's something a little unsavory about them.

They do have anti-religious sentiments in a few songs.

I'd forgotten that, Matt Bellamy is an atheist IIRC (hence, "Thoughts of a Dying Atheist").

I guess music, like any other form of self-expression (art, poetry, prose etc) can reflect to a considerable extent the mindset of the person creating it, which is tangible to others even if not overt or even intended by the artist. How could it not come through? We already know that we have to be discerning about what books we read, what movies we watch, what TV shows we see and so on, because the dangerous ones are those which are not so obviously bad, but which promote a secular agenda in a subtle way. Music, to me, seems to be no different, and there is just as much of an opportunity for us to be adversely affected by the wrong sort of music as by anything else in the media. I don't just mean by the lyrics, by the music videos and by the concerts, which are extended to other senses, but also by the very sound and style of the music.

Music can be used to tap into or exacerbate a wide range of feelings or emotions. E.g. dance music playing in the gym to get you motivated when you work out, certain types of rock played through the headphones of soldiers to get them "pumped", tranquil chill-out to help calm someone experiencing anxiety. Likewise, it makes sense that certain types of music also influence the "baser passions", or rather, it would be strange if there wasn't a type of music for that. If the "baser passions" can be influenced, then, where would that music be found? It would seem to me, from the general poor morality celebrated by the rap, rock and pop industries, that it may be found there.

[Arun]

Just adding my (admittedly uneducated as regards the Faith in this area) opinion...

I consider myself to be a fair "middle-grounder", and my ideas about music have changed a lot since I was a teenager (which wasn't that long ago). I was happy to listen to just about anything (including Eminem and his like) when I was in my first, non-trad school, and I decided the vulgar content wasn't really in keeping with a Catholic outlook so stopped listening to the rap side of things. Then when I was at trad school I had a complete break from all the pop, rock and rap music I used to listen to (it wasn't allowed) and going back to it made me see (hear?) it in a different light. I could see where the arguments against "base rhythms" made sense. You can just sense it somehow. I'm not saying that everything remotely "modern" is bad, or that I don't like a great many "popular" groups/artists around today. I just think that there are a great many areas in modern, media-promoted music (as with everything else) that we have to be really careful about as Catholics. It's obvious that many/most MTV/Vevo promoted music "pop" videos rely on the "eye candy" factor and play heavily on impure themes/images. But there's also the more subtle elements which PdR mentioned (and which I completely admit I can't argue from a musician's perspective) which are playing on the senses with the music itself.

Case in point: Muse. My favourite band, actually, I love their stuff, but I choose not to listen to them now, because some of their songs don't quite feel right. I don't know how to explain it exactly, except that there's something a little unsavory about them.

And yes, Chestertonian, I know exactly where you're coming from

no argument against base rhythms, or syncopated beats, makes sense. i say this as somebody, i already mentioned, who has studied music for 24 years.

-cue next person with an agenda coming in with some angle to discredit my understanding of music...

[LausTibiChriste]

You dont know jack about music bud

[Christknight104]

No, of course not.  You could just admit that you've been appealing to your own authority on this thread.  I've cited, so far, a pair of pre-Vatican II bishops (from the 1950s who were specifically addressing rock n' roll), as well as St. Francis de Sales, St. Thomas Aquinas, and several Early Church Fathers.  As far as I can tell, the only serious argument in favor of rock n' roll is simply a negative one: the fact that it hasn't yet been magisterially condemned.

Probably the closest thing to a magisterial condemnation of rock music in this current time is the denunciation of rock music by then Cardinal Ratzinger, who was the Prefect of the Congregation  of the Doctrine of Faith:

Popular and Rock Music

On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. "Rock", on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the experience of being part of a crowd and by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit's sober ine­briation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments. [The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p 148]

Of course, many would point out that Benedict is just a "conservative" modern churchman. Then again, it is not hard to see many Traditionalists agreeing wholeheartedly with his statement on rock music,  one of the rare instances of both parties finding common ground.

[rbjmartin]

Popular and Rock Music

On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. "Rock", on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the experience of being part of a crowd and by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit's sober ine­briation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments. [The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p 148]

As someone who used to attend both punk/hardcore shows and raves, if I'm honest with myself, I can see that this statement has a lot of truth to it. There is a non-drug-induced euphoria that one experiences at these events (sometimes coupled with violent feelings and anger, sometimes coupled with overwhelming energy) that is intoxicating and is based solely in the passions. It feels like a pseudo-religious experience. I look back on those experiences with nostalgia, because I can still feel the energy of those experiences, but I also believe I'm better off without them.

[Gardener]

Popular and Rock Music

On the one hand, there is pop music, which is certainly no longer supported by the people in the ancient sense (populus). It is aimed at the phenomenon of the masses, is industrially produced, and ultimately has to be described as a cult of the banal. "Rock", on the other hand, is the expression of elemental passions, and at rock festivals it assumes a cultic character, a form of worship, in fact, in opposition to Christian worship. People are, so to speak, released from themselves by the experience of being part of a crowd and by the emotional shock of rhythm, noise, and special lighting effects. However, in the ecstasy of having all their defenses torn down, the participants sink, as it were, beneath the elemental force of the universe. The music of the Holy Spirit's sober ine­briation seems to have little chance when self has become a prison, the mind is a shackle, and breaking out from both appears as a true promise of redemption that can be tasted at least for a few moments. [The Spirit of the Liturgy, (SF, CA: Ignatius, 2000), p 148]

As someone who used to attend both punk/hardcore shows and raves, if I'm honest with myself, I can see that this statement has a lot of truth to it. There is a non-drug-induced euphoria that one experiences at these events (sometimes coupled with violent feelings and anger, sometimes coupled with overwhelming energy) that is intoxicating and is based solely in the passions. It feels like a pseudo-religious experience. I look back on those experiences with nostalgia, because I can still feel the energy of those experiences, but I also believe I'm better off without them.

I agree. I was very into punk rock and hardcore from middle school until ~2006. Every once and a while I have looked up bands I used to practically worship. Now, the music just seems hollow and put on.

And honestly, to me, it-back-then doesn't hold a stick to now's well-sung Palestrina or for that matter, just chant which is done competently, or some good old celtic folk music. About a year ago I was driving home late one night from the parish and had it on the classical station. Ludovico Einaudi's "Svanire" came on and I about ran off the road it was so good, at least for that moment.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naiu-of7J80[/yt]

Similarly, Arvo Pärt is lately becoming a favorite. I think it's the complex beauty found in the simplistic compositions. As Chesterton once said, "Art consists of limitation. The most beautiful part of every picture is the frame." Boy howdy does Pärt really eek out the beauty within the small frame in which he has decided to "paint".

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS0FPVOU5e0[/yt]

[Mono no aware]

my point, although i didn't really make it i guess - my kids are sparring right now so i need to keep an eye on them as i type and i wrapped up the post too quick - is that the critical aspect is the internal things not so much the external things. for me, myself personally, my "argument" in favour of the music that i listen to is summed in that we are supposed to use the things of this world inasmuch as they contribute to our salvation. well, funnily enough, the music i listen to actually helps me to keep grounded and keep running in the right direction as opposed to living like i have done in the past. but that's a subjective issue, it may be different for other people. i can't comment on that.

But what is the basis for this idea that we are "supposed to use the things of this world inasmuch as they contribute to our salvation"?  The things of this world are mostly neutral in that respect.  If you're going in the right direction, then you have the grace of God to thank for that, not rock music.  St. Francis de Sales said that even benign worldly amusements are trivial in their nature.  You can participate in them, maybe, as long as you keep it in mind that they're ultimately pointless in terms of your spiritual development.

I suppose an exceptional case could be made for those rare artists who do seem sincerely religious in their thought, and who are able to impart a genuine sense of inspiration, such as Dostoevsky.  But Yelawolf and Slipknot (or any rock act, really) cannot seriously be classed alongside Dostoevsky.  It's also true that the Early Church received the wisdom of pagan philosophers, but again: it's a far cry from Seneca and Plato to rock music.  The Early Church Fathers appear to have been against "immodest songs" and secular entertainments (the rock music of their day).  And even in literature, the Church has seen fit to set boundaries.  The Index of Forbidden Books prohibited the reading of certain authors.  You couldn't say, "well, hey, funnily enough, reading Voltaire and the Marquis de Sade has managed to keep me out of trouble."  That wasn't a justification.

[Arun]

But what is the basis for this idea that we are "supposed to use the things of this world inasmuch as they contribute to our salvation"?

Catholicism

[Arun]

as long as you keep it in mind that they're ultimately pointless in terms of your spiritual development.

yes definitely, same as any other secular entertainment; literature, film, art &c. that's how i see it as well man.

[Mono no aware]

But what is the basis for this idea that we are "supposed to use the things of this world inasmuch as they contribute to our salvation"?

Catholicism

Catholicism says that worldly things contribute to our salvation?  I thought that was grace.  As far as I know, the Church's prescription is that we grow in holiness to the extent that we cooperate with grace and despise the things of this world.  "Love not the world, nor the things thereof.  Friendship with the world is enmity with God," &c.  Admittedly, this is just my understanding as a layperson.  But if the Beatles can contribute to my salvation, then I'll be glad to hear it.  "Take this, brother, may it serve you well."

[Mono no aware]

as long as you keep it in mind that they're ultimately pointless in terms of your spiritual development.

yes definitely, same as any other secular entertainment; literature, film, art &c. that's how i see it as well man.

But St. Francis de Sales was referring to secular amusements which were benign.  He did not advocate entertainments which appealed to the base passions; on the contrary, he reasoned that they should be avoided.  He was in line with the Early Church Fathers in discouraging them.  There is little doubt that his stance would be anti-rock-n'-roll.

[Arun]

You sound too uptight bro, maybe you should take something for your digestion. I'll try remember to post a response later but I got to go hit the mats.

sent from a cheap Asian phone using Crapatalk

[Mono no aware]

You sound too uptight bro, maybe you should take something for your digestion.

Thank you for your concern, Arun, but I am okay.  For my digestion, I drink a coconut water kefir with almond milk in the morning, and I smoke a small amount of marijuana after my evening meal.  I also eat a lot of legumes and ruffage as a matter of course.  So my gastrointestinal tract is humming along smoothly.  On the rare occasion when I go off-kilter, I drink dandelion root tea.

[Arun]

Yep I was making a joking reference to that sticky icky bro. Will respond later cheers.

sent from a cheap Asian phone using Crapatalk

[Heinrich]

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TWdSi0Xw4u0[/yt]