To what are you currently listening?

[Arun]

Yelawolf's Love Story album is effin brilliant, real masterpiece imho so i been listening to that a lot lately. this song in particular stands out to me, i like it a lot.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v14mUqxNH8s[/yt]

[Chestertonian]

played faure?s elegie in c minor sunday, trying not to butcher it too much, cellist friend is visiting this week

[Mono no aware]

i dunno man. i've heard an evangelist Christian claim that Corey Taylor having a 5 1/2 octave vocal range is evidence of diabolical preternatural "gifts" but sometimes some of that stuff just ends up coming across as plain stupid or ignorant. maybe some people did "sell their souls for rock n roll" but they wouldn't of all done it like some kind of massive orchestrated diabolical scheme/plot without somebody somewhere whistleblowing on the whole thing. i was born and raised on black sabbath, for example, and a lot of people don't like them but i've found them to be pretty good and positive really. something creeps me out about zeppelin though,a nd while i used to like the doors there is something really dark that just kind of... eminates out from their music. don't know how to describe it any better than that.

but, they're sinners making the music and maybe it influences their sound and message. tchaikovsky was a bender, mozart wasn't exactly a friend to the Faith and so on. music is music, it changes throughout time and history and is in many ways a cultural reflection of the life and times of those... times. um, yeah.

there's good and bad in all genres of music. and the thing i reckon about knee jerk reactions, is there must be some weird crazy body dynamics going on there because knee jerk reactions to whole categories or genres of things tend to end peoples foot right up in their mouth. so i try avoid them myself.

That's fine.  I never said there was a "massive orchestrated diabolical scheme/plot" going on.  As I conceded, I have no proof that any rock n' roller ever made a Faustian bargain with the devil.  What I did say was, "the 60s rock scene is what brought occultism and Eastern religions to the fore of the youth culture."  And I don't think there's any controversy over that argument.  When the buttoned-up writer Aldous Huxley wrote about psychedelics in the 1950s, most teenagers were perfectly ignorant of this, and they were content to rock around the clock at the high school hop.  When the Harvard professor Timothy Leary extolled the use of psychedelics in the early 60s and couched the experience in terms of Eastern mysticism, the Beatniks and the esoterics pricked up their ears, but the music scene was still girl groups, doo wop, teen idols, and Motown.  There was still no cultural sea change.  What popularized the movement, and what really got the youth involved, was rock n' roll.  When George Harrison got out the sitar and John Lennon started playing with tape loops, everything changed.  The floodgates opened.  The whole scene got trippy.  Aesthetically, it was all quite beautiful, but it was certainly counter to the Church's mission of encouraging among young people a sober, responsible, and virtuous way of living.  Instead it was "turn on, tune in, and drop out."  And the whole scene was marked by a lurid fascination with India and the occult.  Maharishis and Crowleyites became ubiquitous.  Whatever was going on, it was not Catholic.  It was a far cry from Tchaikovksy being gay or Mozart being a Freemason.

So the dour-faced bishops who warned in the 50s that rock n' roll appealed to the base passions were actually correct.  Back then, it was only about dancing.  And I'm sure a lot of people complained, "oh, come on.  Don't be so negative.  It's just a little bit of dancing.  Let the kids have some fun."  Maybe they considered that Cardinal Stritch and Bishop McVinney were having "knee-jerk reactions."  But rock n' roll proved to be a potent threat.  In less than a decade, it changed the whole culture.  Allen Ginsberg, the radical poet, liked to taunt conservatives with the line, "we'll get you through your children."  He was right.

All of this is old news, of course.  The 60s happened, and people moved on.  The psychedelic rock scene is a tiny niche now.  Most of the contemporary videos on this thread are just harmless-&-cutesy elevator music.  But what the anti-rock-n'-rollers are trying to say is essentially what St. Thomas Aquinas said: that it is better to choose music that appeals to the higher faculties than music that inflames the base passions.  Then the pro-rock-n'-rollers say, "but rock doesn't inflame my base passions.  I can listen to it without being affected by it.  Don't choose for me; I'll choose for myself."  And with that, we're at a stalemate.  The Church refuses to locute.  So you can listen to Slipknot if you want to.  There's nobody going to excommunicate you for it.  But I'm not sure about those masks, Arun.  Kind of occultish if you ask me.

[Maximilian]

What I did say was, "the 60s rock scene is what brought occultism and Eastern religions to the fore of the youth culture."  And I don't think there's any controversy over that argument. 

I was just reading about this in relation to the German author Herman Hesse. Despite winning a Nobel Prize in Literature, he was virtually unknown in America and publishers didn't even bother putting out editions of his books because he was considered "unreadable." Then the sixties happened, and Hesse' "occultism and Eastern religions" were suddenly the happening thing of the day. Publishers started cranking out new editions of his works as fast as they could.

Some people here aren't going to like to hear this, but a similar phenomenon happened with J.R.R. Tolkien.

[Kaesekopf]

Some people here aren't going to like to hear this, but a similar phenomenon happened with J.R.R. Tolkien.

I don't remember where I heard or read it, but I think I've read/heard that Tolkien was none too pleased with that ... development. 

[Chestertonian]

Whenpeople like something for the wrong reasons does that mean it cannot be enjoyed for the right reasons

[LausTibiChriste]

Whenpeople like something for the wrong reasons does that mean it cannot be enjoyed for the right reasons

I found that in Traditional Catholicism the answer to your question is overwhelmingly: YES.

[Chestertonian]

Whenpeople like something for the wrong reasons does that mean it cannot be enjoyed for the right reasons

I found that in Traditional Catholicism the answer to your question is overwhelmingly: YES.how so

[Kaesekopf]

[Mono no aware]

Whenpeople like something for the wrong reasons does that mean it cannot be enjoyed for the right reasons

Consider it this way, Chester.  It used to be the case that the Catholic Church had an Index of Forbidden Books: books which Rome had determined worthy of being banned by Catholic authorities, and books which the faithful were discouraged from reading.  Is there a "right reason" to like the bondage erotica of the Marquis de Sade, or the anticlerical philosophy of Voltaire?  You could, I suppose, enjoy the style of the writing (James Joyce was on the Index), but the point was that the content was alleged to be toxic.

Now just apply the same principles to music.  St. Thomas Aquinas was of the opinion that the virtuous thing to do when approaching music is to select that music which stimulates your higher faculties, and to try to avoid the music that appeals to your base passions.  Most classical music would probably pass the Aquinas test.  Would rock music?  Well, I'm not a moral theologian.  But as I've pointed out here, Catholic bishops in the 1950s derided rock n' roll for being Dionysian: "a throwback to tribalism," they called it, and "a return to animalism and the jungle."  These bishops were following Aquinas in their thinking: they saw this music as appealing to the base passions.  And this was only in the 50s, when rock was relatively mild.  So now imagine a committee of traditionalist Catholic clergy, say from the SSPX, sitting down and listening to Slipknot to determine if it's acceptable for Catholic ears.  How do you think they would rule?  I doubt even my beloved Beatles would escape their condemnation. 

So basically, even though traditional Catholics like to say they wish Rome would finally rid itself of these modernists who make up the hierarchy, you almost have to be careful what you wish for.  Sbyvl once did an "AMA" on Te Deum, and I asked him if he would ban rock music if he was ever elected Pope Sbyvlius.  He told me he would.  I'll bet Bishop Williamson would, too.  Right now we're in a prolonged holding pattern, and without a magisterial pronouncement on rock music, we the laity are free to decide for themselves what  to listen to.  We're coasting nicely on this ecclesiastical impasse.  Not unlike Protestants, we're kind of like each our own pope in many respects—and certainly with regards to music.  But woe to many a rock-n'-roller, I think, if the papacy is ever restored to tradition.

[Arun]

Slipknot itself is a kind of specific case as well but i think we've covered that ebfore on the forums somewhere. their music and lyrics deal with some of the more painful and negative experiences in life, and they've said quite a few times that the reason for the masks is it allows them all to deal with painful issues which can be difficult to confront. i used to listen to them a lot, but now not so much. some of their songs even i will admit probably aren't the best to listen to, other songs have helped me a lot through some pretty hard times in life. the last album sucked though, i kind of think they've carried on past their prime.

people moving towards a contemplative life, or pursuing monastic theologicle academia should definitely not be listening to any music other than which stimulates their higher passions, but as for me i am not and never had the capibility of being an intellectual. music is kind of considered like a kind of an art so i guess in that every man is going to have to figure out for himself based not on the artists but on the individual piece of artwork itself. we can and should use the things of this world when they can be useful or helpful to us.

the entire (manmade) world and everything in it is anti-Catholic except for the parts of it which are Catholic. and ezxcept when its not.

[Mono no aware]

Slipknot itself is a kind of specific case as well but i think we've covered that ebfore on the forums somewhere. their music and lyrics deal with some of the more painful and negative experiences in life, and they've said quite a few times that the reason for the masks is it allows them all to deal with painful issues which can be difficult to confront. i used to listen to them a lot, but now not so much. some of their songs even i will admit probably aren't the best to listen to, other songs have helped me a lot through some pretty hard times in life. the last album sucked though, i kind of think they've carried on past their prime.

people moving towards a contemplative life, or pursuing monastic theologicle academia should definitely not be listening to any music other than which stimulates their higher passions, but as for me i am not and never had the capibility of being an intellectual. music is kind of considered like a kind of an art so i guess in that every man is going to have to figure out for himself based not on the artists but on the individual piece of artwork itself. we can and should use the things of this world when they can be useful or helpful to us.

the entire (manmade) world and everything in it is anti-Catholic except for the parts of it which are Catholic. and ezxcept when its not.

I think the anti-rock-n'-rollers, Arun, would take exception to what you've written here, because St. Thomas Aquinas was not just writing for monastics or intellectuals.  Even us regular laypeople are not exempt from the First Commandment.  We, too, are obligated to orient ourselves toward God, and to try not to indulge our base passions.  I believe St. Francis de Sales discouraged his Philothea from wanton frivolities, and back then there wasn't even rock n' roll.  It was more like waltzes in manor houses.  He determined that these aristocratic dances were "permissible, but dangerous"—even for a laywoman such as Philothea.  He was following Aquinas in this matter.

Now, granted, we don't all have to follow Aquinas.  You can, if you want, set yourself up against him and have your own opinion.  But keep in mind, you're just Arun.  If the Church ever returns to tradition and rules on the matter of rock music, I'm going to guess they'll go with the Angelic Doctor instead of you.  The traditionalist view should (probably) be anti-rock-n'-roll.  But in the absence of a magisterial pronouncement, it's everyone being their own pope on this issue.  As the saying goes: "when the cat's away, the mice will play."  I'm not saying I don't take advantage of this situation myself.  I do like rock n' roll.  But I don't try to justify it, either.  Trying to justify it just looks desperate.  It's doubtful that any of the great moral theologians of the Church would ever have approved of rock n' roll.  Let's at least be honest about that much.

[Chestertonian]

played chopin's allegro moderato.  it's a good day

[Molly Grue]

I was just listening to my David Bowie station on Pandora, so I'm probably guilty of something.

[Chestertonian]

I was just listening to my David Bowie station on Pandora, so I'm probably guilty of something.

you rebel rebel