What About U2?

I have a question perhaps best answered by the younger readers, though perhaps not. Trying to keep up (sort of) with pop culture, I occasionally check out rock albums from the library. At this moment I'm listening to a blues or bluesy album by Eric Clapton and J. J. Cale, which is, so far, quite enjoyable.

I have three times taken out one of U2's greatest hits collection and have each time made it halfway through before becoming so bored with the music that I hit the eject button. I must admit that I couldn't understand the lyrics, which may have made some difference, though the lyrics I've seen quoted didn't strike as really, um, striking, but the music itself struck me as standard and uninteresting rock

So today's question is: Am I missing something? Is there more in their music than meets my ear? Is there a good reason they're so popular?

Comments

[Mairnéalach]

David, I remember being somewhat enthralled by "Joshua Tree" in the late 1980's and then, working backward from that, discovering some of their earlier music. However, nothing after "Joshua" really rang my bell. By the mid 1990's, the hype surrounding the band seemed entirely overblown.

In short, I think they're a good rock band, but they suffered the fate of being taken too seriously--which is, after all, the death knell for something called by the silly name of "rock music".

[Kate B.]

I thought "Achtung, Baby" was a good post-"Joshua Tree" album, although I agree that "Joshua Tree" is best.

And yes, U2 is pretty much just standard rock. Which is accessible to many in a way that indie rock is not.

[coco]

For an example of Bono's lyrics (late 90s/2000, I think), consider:

"Have you come here to play Jesus / to the lepers in your head?"

Confusedly mixing religious metaphor from his upbringing probably adds a little frisson of originality to the otherwise excruciatingly boring and adolescent navel-gazing that passes for lyrics nowadays.

[Rob Grano]

I was a huge U2 fan in their early days, but I lost interest with 'The Joshua Tree,' which I felt had lost the musical edginess that they had on the first few records. IMO, the first two, "Boy" and "October", are the best, and are really the only two I still listen to regularly.

[Kamilla]

I'm not exactly one of the younger readers, being an age-contemporary of the band members, but I'll answer anyway.

The music presents the comfort of the familiar. The guitar work of Edge and Adam Clayton's base lines are immediately recognizable, "I can name that band in three beats". But I admit to finding some of Bono's lyrics intriguing and sometimes more (dare I say) pregnant with meaning than what passes for "worship" in some churches today. After all the dreck, morally and musically, that has been presented by CCM in recent years, some probably find their raw honesty refreshing.

Oh, and don't you know, "there's little bit of Ireland in all of us"?

Kamilla

[JS Bangs]

I'm right in the age group that you're targeting. And I think that age and the time when you were first exposed to something, has a lot to do with this sort of music is perceived. If I may speak heresy, I've always had the same feelings--but about the Beatles.

Nobody ever said that U2 was especially innovative. But they're very tuneful. I recommend their early albums, as others have, especially War, whose first song ("Sunday Bloody Sunday") is a true classic.

[Zach Nielsen]

To each is own. They do have a bit of a "sound" that you will either like or not like. But if you don't like them then you probably won't like any Christian music that is popular because if you turn on any CCM radio station you will hear the influence in the guitar playing on at least 50% of the songs.

[Zach Nielsen]

Certainly, buy "The Joshua Tree" - get that over the greatest hits stuff. One of the top 5 best records of the 80's.

[Gintas]

Whatever music you drummed into your own head in your teen years is what will stick with you the rest of your life. Then, when you're older and have maximum spending money, they'll play those songs in restaurants and stores and you'll spend that money there. That is American pop culture.

[luthien]

I can't stand U2, and don't think you're missing anything. In general I find it boring in the extreme and Bono just plain pretentious. To be fair, it might just be a style-thing, as I tend to dislike any band which sounds much like U2. My friends, moreover, who are far cooler than I'll ever be do like U2 very much and regard my taste in popular music as mostly horrendous.

[Michael]

I side with Kamilla on this issue, and I certainly qualify as one of the "younger readers."

U2, when placed next to modern radio giants, are technically stronger in their vocation, but the music is too often given to simple repetition. This is seen in Edge's guitar work more than anything.

In the early 80's, when U2 was starting, everyone--and I say this having heard their early work and having read reviews, not because I was there--was excited that this group of late teenagers could go far. Unfortunately, that was over twenty years and the band members seemed to have flopped in the vein of musical growth, hitting a plateau with "The Joshua Tree" and, if we're being generous, "Achtung, Baby!"

But this does not relegate them to "standard" rock. Repetition aside (and if this were classical music, we might be more apt to call it "motif"), they are lyrically deeper and more meaningfuly than a band that sings about their latest ex-girlfriend or drinking binge. Consider:

I was born a child of grace
Nothing else about the place
Everything was ugly but your beautiful face
And it left me no illusion...
..You heard in me my tune
When I just heard confusion
All because because of you...
...I'm not broke but you can see the cracks
You can make me perfect again
All because of you...
I am.
--All Because of You, 2005

I believe in Kingdom Come
When all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But, yes, I'm still running
You broke the bonds, and loosed the chains
Carried the cross of my shame
Of my shame
You know I believe it.
--I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, 1987

Take these shoes
Click clacking down some dead end street
Take these shoes
And make them fit...
Take this soul
Stranded in some skin and bones
Take this soul
And make it sing
Yahweh, Yahweh
Always pain before a child is born
Yahweh, Yahweh
Still I'm waiting for the dawn
--Yahweh, 2005

You say you'll give me
Eyes in a moon of blindness
A river in a time of dryness
A harbor in the tempest...
When all I want is you
--All I Want is You, 1988

And it's true we are immune
When fact is fiction and TV reality
And today the millions cry
We eat and drink while tomorrow they die
The real battle just begun
To claim the victory Jesus won
--Sunday Bloody Sunday, 1983

[Mairnéalach]

Hmm, Luthien reminds me--I should have prefaced my own opinion on U2 by admitting I'm completely unqualified to assess U2 as a pop phenomenon, since somewhere around 1996 I stopped listening to top 40 radio completely. MTV suddenly became "empty V". For reasons too bizarre to explain, my taste in music devolved into the hopelessly anachronistic almost overnight, and I've been a happy premature fuddy duddy ever since. Since then, as David would say, I only "sort of" try to keep up with popular culture.

[GB]

Two comments:
1. When I saw U2 in 1992 in Washington, DC most of the audience was about my age or slightly older (18-25). When I saw them again in Chicago in 2004, most of the audience was about my age or slightly older (30-37). They were not getting a lot of new fans. Similarly, when I saw Simon & Garfunkel in Chicago in 2004, most of the audience were boomers around my parents age. My point: certain rock music appeals to the generation that came-of-age when it first appeared. And, David, you're just too old.

2. Another thing about U2 is their amazing live shows, especially from the late 80s to late 90s. The live shows add a whole dimension to their music. See "Rattle and Hum" for a taste.

[Rob Grano]

"In the early 80's, when U2 was starting, everyone--and I say this having heard their early work and having read reviews, not because I was there--was excited that this group of late teenagers could go far."

As one who WAS there, I can say that this is true, and also that among 'hip' Christians, it was exciting that 3 of the 4 bandmembers made no bones about their Christianity, even though for a lot of folks in the CCM scene U2 was too 'out there' musically and a bit too reticent about their faith lyrically.

The most innovative thing about them was The Edge's guitar sound, which he actually got from Simple Minds' Charlie Burchill and brought to the masses, so to speak. They also managed to be both high-energy and melodic, which combination was somewhat of a rarity in those days.

[Sarah]

I love All That You Can't Leave Behind (album) particularly Grace (song), but I do have to be in a particular mood to really want to listen to it over and over again. I'm far from a musical expert, but I love many of their lyrics. They feel like an articulated echo of some of the yearnings of my heart.

[Kamilla]

Sarah, I agree. That is my favorite album. "Stuck in a Moment" is one of my favorites from the album.

But then there is the closing line from "Vertigo" on the latest album - "Your love is teaching me how to kneel".

Kamilla
(hope I have that line right as I can't find the liner notes right now)

[Josh S.]

Maybe it is like listening to The Beatles -- they were very good at the time, but less remarkable 40 years later. I've tried listening to them but they always strike me as blah. Though for some reason I'm strangely attracted to "With a Little Help from My Friends."

Gintas said: "Whatever music you drummed into your own head in your teen years is what will stick with you the rest of your life."

That's probably true for many people who don't care to further their musical interest, though certainly not all! In my teen years I listened to alternative, punk, ska, etc. and now while I still enjoy some of those artists (though I am very picky), I enjoy 50's swing, bluegrass, 80's (Billy Joel), 70's (Queen), jazz, and classical. So I think if people are willing, musical taste can slowly branch out. I suppose it's like reading in that respect.

[Judy Warner]

I stopped listening to popular music in 1968, so I'm writing about my 21-year-old daughter's taste instead. She seems to like very little current music; she loves the Beatles and some other 60s groups, and also Ella Fitzgerald, June Christie, Frank Sinatra, the Andrews Sisters and other singers of that era. Lately she discovered my folk records I kept from the 1960s and was playing Steeleye Span, the Pentangle, Fairport Convention and Joan Baez with great enjoyment when she was last home. (Do you young ones know what I'm talking about at all?) Luthien, you might like these too.

[Ethan Cordray]

As a 23-year-old, I guess I'm at once dead center in the target demographic and 15 years too young to remember the "good old days" of U2. Those of my generation that are fans, and I knew many in college up at Wheaton, are decidedly in a "second wave" of fandom, though the more musically-oriented among them also professed to prefer the early albums.

I think a lot of their apeal nowadays, especially among young Evangelicals, is a combination of their popularity, their trendy type of Chrisitianity, and their quite pleasing musical style.

Coming out of the insularity of the Evangelical subculture, U2 may be a student's first experience with good-quality mainstream popular rock. Also, the putative "edginess" of Bono's personality and politics makes him a hero among the college set who are impressed with such things (as I was somewhat, for a while). Everyone wants to feel like there's someone who believes as they do who is extremely popular, and Bono fits that bill.

Speaking for myself, I had the misfortune (if you want to call it that) to discover Radiohead before I heard U2. Afterward, U2 sounded terrifically unoriginal. Not bad, certainly not bad, it's just that they sounded so...standard.

[Gene Godbold]

I've been listening to U2 since 1982 with the exception of a lull between 1993 and 2001 when I was too poor to buy any of their albums. (I've since acquired and listened to the ones from those "lost years" :-)

I think they're pretty interesting lyrically--Miracle Drug off the latest album is my favorite and says, very compactly, a lot of very good things about the relationship of science and reason to Jesus (without explicitly mentioning the latter). Jesus haunts most of their songs, even when He doesn't make a concrete appearance--it's usually just an allusion (often a Biblical one or a permutation thereof).

Vertigo (off the latest album) has a nifty bit that invokes the Devil tempting Jesus:

All of this,all of this can be yours
All of this, all of this can be yours,
All of this, all of this can be yours,
Just give me what I want, and nobody gets hurt.

Musically, I'm no expert, but it all works for me. I find their early stuff pretty repetitive. I actually think that they've gotten better with age. I think The Joshua Tree was their best up to that point, but that they really diversified their sound with Achtung Baby. (I like Clayton's bass work a lot.) I've been doing the laundry the last week (yeah, that's one of my jobs) listening to (and enjoying) Pop (1997).

I've grown out of a lot of music. I can hardly listen to REM anymore and during the late 1980s and early 90s they were one of my favorites. A lot of pop music gets stale and doesn't age well. A lot of pop musicians seem to get stuck in a rut and keep doing what they've always been doing. U2 seems (to me) to keep trying to improve themselves and not get in a musical rut. They do have some "signatures" (the bell-like guitar tones of the Edge) but they use those pretty judiciously nowadays.

[Mairnéalach]

Rob- your comment reminds me of an amusing quip by a fellow teen Christian around 1988 (or whenever Joshua Tree was released). I'd actually purchased the cassette at the bookstore of a large evangelical retreat, having spent a fun and revivalistic week there with my youth group. The video for "With or Without You" was in play at the time. I flouted my new album to a buddy from the group, who proclaimed, with astonishment, "I can't believe they sold that at their bookstore--U2 has a naked woman in their video!"

I'd like to think that my appreciation for Christianity, music, and naked women has increased a little bit since then.

[JackONeill]

Your taste in popular music, I think, goes back to what you learned to dance to or sing, when you were a kid. My wife is ten years younger than me and our musical tastes are very different. As for recent popular music, I am profoundly ignorant, but I will agree with Kamilla that anything that I have heard purporting to be Christian Contemporary Music sounds like dreck to me, offensive both musically and theologically.

[Rob Grano]

"I've been doing the laundry the last week (yeah, that's one of my jobs) listening to (and enjoying) Pop (1997)"

The best U2 album not recorded by U2 is the album 'Millionaires,' by the UK group James. It's everything 'Pop' should have been. (BTW, the James 'best of' disc is outstanding too).

"I can hardly listen to REM anymore and during the late 1980s and early 90s they were one of my favorites."

I still listen to the first three REM discs fairly often; IMO, they went downhill after that, even with the occasional bright spot, 'Automatic for the People' being one of them.

"I had the misfortune (if you want to call it that) to discover Radiohead before I heard U2..."

Ethan, if you like Radiohead you definitely ought to check out Talk Talk's "Spirit of Eden" (1987) and "Laughing Stock." (1990). Nothing like them up to then, nothing like them since. Brilliant stuff (and not at all like their earlier synth-pop.)

[James A. Altena]

"Your taste in popular music, I think, goes back to what you learned to dance to or sing, when you were a kid."

Generally true -- though in my case, I listen to *no* popular music of any sort. I discovered classical music by accident at age 11 and never looked back after that.

[Georg]

Joshua Tree, and All That You Can't Leave Behind (which was book-ended by not so good albums) seem worth listening to to me.

[Ethan Cordray]

The band I'll nominate for my generation's U2 (assuming U2 isn't my generation's U2) is Coldplay, whom I greatly enjoy. Their lyrics aren't overtly Christian, but they do offer a much more comlex hopefulness than most of what's out there now. And they sound a lot like a combination of U2, early Radiohead, and the Beatles, with a good combination of piano melodies and guitar riffs. And they're super popular, though not quite U2 at levels yet.

[Michael]

Ethan--

Would you consider our four-year difference to put us in the same "generation"--whatever a generation is? If so, I would second your vote for Coldplay, but I don't think they hold a candle--and if they do, it's not a particularly bright one--to U2.

[Nick]

I am now just over the age-of-we-can't-trust-you. U2 rocks. Calling them bland is a special breed of heresy for which you will be punished. Now, that being said, they have their fair share of bad songs. "Lemon" of Zooropa springs instantly to mind. Also, do pay attention to the lyrics. They don't mumble much compared to most singers so I'm not sure why you're having a problem with that.

I don't know if Coldplay counts as the current generations Beatles. I really don't think they're nearly popular enough or talented enough. I'd actually, if they were more popular and depending on how their future albums work out, give that title to The Killers or a Franz Ferdinand (after all Coldplay is already starting to show their age in the fast world of music).

[Todd F]

I am 44 years old and have seen U2 live four times, the last being the Joshua tree tour. The first time I saw them live was the War tour, one night only, not sold out, with The Alarm opening at L.A. Sports arena. I also saw the aforementioned Simple Minds.
U2 was a band that a young Christian could relate to because of their cultural relevance. They were cool and Christian. Their passion and message was not unlike Dylan. In the post-punk era it was refreshing to hear their obtuse, passionate messages of hope and spiritual struggle. The music was atmospheric to me.
I personally don't resonate with Clapton's take on the blues, and besides, the blues have repetitive riffs as well.
Most artists are not properly defined by greatist hits albums. U2's Joshua Tree, Unforgettable Fire, and October are best understood in their entirety.

[MarkAA]

Like Mairnéalach, I effectively stopped listening to pop music around 1997 / 1998, too. It was around then that I started listening to opera and much more recently, chant and polyphony. I started to realize how badly most pop music is under the tyranny of the now, and how much of its content is downright blasphemous or meant to incite rebellion or at least is filled with advocation for sinful things. (Hard to take to heart this scriptural mandate when foul pop words are being sung at you: 'Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable, if anything is excellent or praiseworthy think about such things.')

So ...

... unlike most folks here it seems, though, I *do* like several CCM songs. The theology isn't very deep, and some of it gets downright questionable. But at least most of it isn't intentionally sinful, carnal, sex- and drugs-laced in content. A lot of it is derivative in its sound, well, OK: I enjoy the sound of Aerosmith, but can't stomach the lyrics, as a Christian ... if a CCM band sounds like Aerosmith but sings about Jesus, then it's a win-win for me. Call me lame.

Meanwhile, I was 16 when U2's "War" came out, so I've basically grown up with them. I've thought most of their albums (up to the mid-90s, when I dropped out of popular music) were fantastic when each new one hit the streets. Over time, Achtung Baby, Unforgettable Fire and October have stuck with me best. I think I'll go listen to Achtung Baby right now, in fact.

[Darel]

U2 has a tremendous musical depth and the lyrics -- considering the limitations of the rock genre -- are often profound. Consider in particular the lyrics on _Pop_. _Zooropa_, one of their less popular albums, is an incredible journey. _Joshua Tree_ and _Achtung Baby_ are rightly considered two of the greatest rock albums of all time. The song "Bullet the Blue Sky" truly sounds like war. If "Miracle Drug" doesn't choke you up, you are a hard, hard soul.

What other band, by the way, has generated a similar volume of intelligent *Christian* commentary as well as pop commentary? What other rock act attracting millions of fans in concerts around the world can get secularists and atheists to sing the psalms? What other popular act quotes the Bible unashamedly? What other rock group wrestles so honestly and creatively with themes of faith, grace, fame, love and evil?

I am a professor at Williams College, and thus only slightly younger than the band members. However, in January 2006 I taught a winter study course titled "The Gospel According to U2". It had the largest enrollment of any course that term, going some way toward answering your question about the popularity of the band among the teens/twenties demographic.

David, maybe you just don't like rock music?

Darel

[Michael]

>>... unlike most folks here it seems, though, I *do* like several CCM songs. The theology isn't very deep, and some of it gets downright questionable. But at least most of it isn't intentionally sinful, carnal, sex- and drugs-laced in content. A lot of it is derivative in its sound, well, OK: I enjoy the sound of Aerosmith, but can't stomach the lyrics, as a Christian ... if a CCM band sounds like Aerosmith but sings about Jesus, then it's a win-win for me. Call me lame.<<

Markaa, that depends on who you are referring to with "CCM." I would never encourage anyone to listen to the absolutely banal Stephen Curtis Chapman, and only slightly more would I recommend Michael W. Smith (but only the pre-Worship albums; Healing Rain and The Stand are terrible), but I think everyone should listen to the Newsboys--like Smith, though, they should do this pre-worship era, so anything before and up to Adoration.

I would also say everyone should listen to Jars of Clay with no reservations. Every single one of their albums are gold. Jennifer Knapp (whatever happened to her) had raw lyrical beauty like no one else in the CM industry. Mark Schultz's music, while sometimes trite, has the beauty of storytelling that seems to be lost in the modern era. His albums Song Cinema and Stories and Songs are hallmarks of quality songwriting.

CCWM (Contemporary Christian Worship Music) is just plain bland with the exception of David Crowder. It is strange, but the great Christian bands, even those associated directly with the CCM industry, are those that aren't so transparently Christian, that wrap their faith in metaphors and depth. Consider Jars of Clay:

I feel a sadness like Gepetto,
watching the life that he created run away,
seeing the puppeteer's intrusion
and holding the remains
of puppets that had rotted away

OR

Have you ever been haunted
the way I've been by you?
And have you ever felt
the measure of the days that I've spent waiting
Pining for you?

The latter lyrics, from "The Edge of Water" on The Eleventh Hour, are pretty straightforward, but how many Christian artists ask God how He can possibly relate to us? God is infinite and loving and yet here we wait for Him, wondering when He will return, pining--literally "wasting away with longing"--for Him to come back again. That is painful, honest lyrics, and certainly better than Chapman:

Imagine this:
I get a phone call from Regis
He asks "Do you wanna be a millionaire?"
They put me on the show
And I win with two lifelines to spare.

OR from Smith:

All I have in this world
Is fire from above
All I have in this
world is Yours.
All the journeys
I have walked
I know you've walked
them too
All I want is to be faithful
All I want is You.

Gag me, please!

[Jill C.]

Um, DecembeRadio won best rock album last night at the GMA's Dove Awards? Anyone besides me know who they are? ;)

[Michael]

>>Um, DecembeRadio won best rock album last night at the GMA's Dove Awards? Anyone besides me know who they are? ;)<<

Yep. Slanted Records puts out pretty good artists. And DecembeRadio reminds me a lot of U2 with their finger-picked guitar intros and chest-driven (as compared to diaphragm or throat) vocals. They definitely have a ninties-rock sound without so much ridiculous overinstrumentation you see in the modern days. I'm still irritated that Sanctus Real is considered "rock/contemporary"--because The Face of Love deserved rock album of the year, and it never stood a chance up against Jars of Clay's Good Monsters.

[Ethan Cordray]

Second on Jars, Michael (and we are in the same generation, by the way). Especially early Jars. "Much Afraid" was the soundtrack to my high school melancholy.

I disagree about Coldplay aging. I think they've still got it.

Let me most vociferously add Phil Keaggy to the list of highly worthwhile "CCM" artists. With about 87 albums, I'm sure you can find something you like! (Tip: My favorites are "Phil Keaggy" [self titled, 1998], and "Blue" [1994]. But nothing, nothing holds a candle to the C.S. Lewis-inspired instrumental album "Beyond Nature")

[Michael]

>>Second on Jars, Michael (and we are in the same generation, by the way). Especially early Jars. "Much Afraid" was the soundtrack to my high school melancholy.<<

Early Jars? Not that I dislike Much Afraid ("Tea and Sympathy" is still on my favorites play list), but how can you recommend that over the gospel-inspired Who We Are Instead or (considering the general Mere Comments populace's aversion to modern music) the all-hymns Redemption Songs?

[Michael Martin]

I remember sitting in my car as it was parked in my buddy's driveway one evening. It must have been about 1983 or so. The radio was on and the DJ spun U2's "New Year's Day," a song at turns about Lech Walesa and Jesus. When the song finished, we sat there dumbfounded. It was the most sincere proclamation of Christian truth I'd ever encountered--especially in a secular medium. I had already been listening to October, but this one just blew me away. It still does.

I had a similar experience a couple of years ago when I first heard "Vertigo." I almost never listen to rock any more (even though I worked for a long time as a rock musician), save for the peridodic paroxysms of Derek and the Dominos and Kate Bush. Anyway, my eldest son and I were driving somewhere and the song came on the radio. The lyrics took me by surprise. I said to my son, "Do you know this song's about Jesus?" He gave me one of those uncertain nods as he realized I was right. As Gene mentioned above, the "devil" section is dead on. I played the song for my Eastern Christian Formation class the following Sunday, and we had an interesting discussion about how Jesus is everywhere seeking us out. Like the old legend of St Hubert the Huntsman--we think we're hunting our worldly prey, when it is really Jesus who is hunting us.

I also appreciate U2's being Christian *in the world*. The Lord sent the apostles into the world, not into the desert. As a Jesuit professor of mine once said, "God loves the world *as it is*.

And let me add that my fourteen-year-old son completely digs U2. He could give a symposium!

Thanks for asking, David. I bet a posting about Stiper wouldn't be nearly as interesting!

[Michael Martin]

Sorry, I meant "Striper" or however it's spelled!

[Michael]

>>Thanks for asking, David. I bet a posting about Stiper wouldn't be nearly as interesting!<<

Haha! Stryper! They came out with a new album in 2005. Ah, the strange stories shared by older friends and pastors...

[Ethan Cordray]

Sorry, Michael, but early Jars is the only Jars I've really heard. I didn't like their third album, and I moved on at that point.

[Michael]

>>I didn't like their third album, and I moved on at that point.<<

If I Left the Zoo took on a modern rock approach relative to their prior efforts with more post-production wonders and less of their folk roots, and The Eleventh Hour took it a step further, but returned to the beautiful lyrics which Zoo lacked (with the exception of "River Constantine," a beautiful song). Check out Who We Are Instead. It basically gutted the rock that influenced the previous two albums and inserted southern gospel and spirituals in its place, adding mandolins and violin work to keep that classic folksy feel. The best song on that album is, without question, "Jealous Kind":

Try to jump away from rock that keeps on spreading
For solace in the shift of the sinking sand
I'd rather feel the pain all too familiar
Than be broken by a lover I don't understand
'Cause I don't understand

You know I've been unfaithful,
Lovers in lines
While you're turning over tables
With a rage of a jealous kind
I chose the gallows to the aisle
I thought that love would never find
But hanging ropes will never keep you
And your love of a jealous kind

One hundred other altars,
More one hundred other loves
If I should slow my self
And finally subject me to grace
And love that shames the wise
Betrays the heart's deceit and lies
And breaks the back of foolish pride

[Jill C.]

Yes, Ethan, I agree with you about Phil Keaggy. Between my husband's early Keaggy stuff (including two Glass Harp LPs) and my collection of his newer music, we have a lot of Keaggy, but probably only half of what the prolific artist has released. He is in a genre of his own -- and so very versatile. (Let's see, Keaggy on electric with all the cool pedals and gadgets, or Keaggy unplugged? Hmm . . . hard choice!)

Never really got onboard the U2 wagon although I do appreciate some of their music, especially from the Joshua Tree era. And I am of the generation that would've first been listening to and buying their music back in the early 80s. (I'm a 48 yr. old grandmother.) In the 1980s I was rearing children and listening mostly to "safe" CCM. (I confess I did like Stryper, Servant, and Rez Band too!)

In the early 90s I was introduced to what remains my favorite band: Iona. I was planning a trip to Scotland and caught the Celtic music bug. Here was a band that professed Christianity, with a modern Celtic/Jazz/Art Rock sound. I have all their CDs and even bought CDs to replace the cassettes I bought originally. Saw them at Cornerstone one of only two times when they toured the US.

[Kirk]

Another thing to admire about U2: Bono uses his celebrity constructively, and tries to make a difference in the world.

[Michael]

>>In the early 90s I was introduced to what remains my favorite band: Iona. I was planning a trip to Scotland and caught the Celtic music bug. Here was a band that professed Christianity, with a modern Celtic/Jazz/Art Rock sound. I have all their CDs and even bought CDs to replace the cassettes I bought originally. Saw them at Cornerstone one of only two times when they toured the US.<<

I have a love for celtic music (pretty much the only lasting Michael W. Smith album is his orchestral Freedom, which displays heavy celtic influences, with one track even entitled "Hibernia") and motif jazz. Coltrane is one of my favorite artists to listen to. So, question: does Iona use "freeform" jazz or melodic jazz, and how are their lyrics? They sound interesting to say the least.

[The Recusant]

I seem to be the same age as Rob Grano & Todd F & certainly share their taste in music. I never go to live shows anymore, but I'm second row for Morrissey in three weeks. Can't wait.

[Kamilla]

Anyone for Casting Crowns?

As for Celtic, I favor Moira Brennan, the voice of Clannad and Enya's sister.

Kamilla

[Jill C.]

Michael, I have followed Smitty's career for some time and I agree with you about Freedom. (It's a soundtrack for a movie not yet scripted!) Even my mom and dad enjoyed the CD. I have the score of the album for piano and have played a couple pieces in church as a prelude or offertory. However, piano alone cannot do Hibernia justice!

Check out Iona's website at http://www.iona.uk.com/ They now have sound clips you can listen to and judge for yourself. Like many bands their sound has changed some over the years. Their Kells project, for instance, had more jazz elements. Later they tended more toward rock. Joanne Hogg, their lead singer, has a beautiful voice. She, Margaret Becker, and Moire Brennan (Enya's sister) recorded a few years back a wonderful project that helped to popularize the modern hymn "In Christ Alone."

[Barry]

I wonder how many folks who have made comments are musicians? U2's music is incredible, although like all artists they have some average material.

Certainly their earlier stuff is probably better, but they are not to be dismissed as musicians.

[Christopher Hathaway]

When U2 came out I had already left the pop scene for CCM. I have always been diverse in my music, listening to Shostakovich and Aerosmith as a teenager, so I gravitated to the better CCM. I concur with Keagy and Jars of Caly and would add Charlie Peacock, Steve Taylor and Caedmon's Call. My favorite, Daniel Amos, I have been listening to since I became a Christian. They have grown in style more than any other band I know. Their music is complex, sometimes difficult, but their lyrics are theologically deep and not pap evangelism. They are often satiric, cryptic and pointed, usually at the church.

He will always trust his own vision
Could be a dangerous man
He's guided by no one
Attracted to the sound
Of the interior voices
He will not listen hard enough
To any other man

Chorus:
He gets a big warm sweet interior glowing
He gets a grand elitist superior knowing
This convinces us he's infallible - yeah

By sheer force of will
He leaves a deep impression
Self-confidence persuades us that he is a saint
Then we watch him tear apart another city
Turns it to dust and ash
A mighty nation's falling

(Chorus)

He downs another coffee
And the feeling grows
He's building monuments so high
In his expanding mind
He eats a six course dinner
And hears the voice of the spirit
This voice says
"Well done my very good and faithful servant" ("Kalhoun", 1991)

It's also amusing to read the church fathers and think "Didn't I hear that on one of Daniel Amos' songs?"

Where there are no things, there is no time
I see space existing only where there are things

But we find ourselves here, It's the right time for love
In this divine instant we are time standing still ("Darn Earth, Big Bite", 1989)

Had nothing past there would be no past time
Had nothing existed there would be no future

Bonus points to anyone who recognizes the Patristic source for that.

[Christopher Hathaway]

oops. the penultimate paragraph was part of the song from "Darn Earth"

[Michael]

>>I wonder how many folks who have made comments are musicians? U2's music is incredible, although like all artists they have some average material.<<

I'm not a musician by vocation, nor do I plan to be, but I do play the guitar and piano. I also work with the worship and arts department in a paid position in my church, mastering and preparing worship sets for contemporary services. I don't play in any of the bands--I just don't like playing in front of a bunch of people--but I do mix on the soundboard 3 out of 4 Sundays a month, and appreciate the gravity that goes into making an album.

>>Bonus points to anyone who recognizes the Patristic source for that.<<

Augustine, whom Thomas noted in the Summa Theologica regarding his differing views with Basil and Ambrose regarding the measurement and existence of time.

Caedmon's Call...I loved them in the late 90's. They were incredible. Keaggy is certainly an amazing guitarrist, but I've generally overlooked him for the equally talented guitarist Lincoln Brewster, whose worship concerts--not a concert, unlike Tomlin and Redman and their ilk, he actually leads a worship--demonstrate his amazing solo prowess. Peacock and Taylor are great song writers, but as far as recording artists go...other artists do their own lyrics better justice.

>>Anyone for Casting Crowns?

As for Celtic, I favor Moira Brennan, the voice of Clannad and Enya's sister.<<

I like some Casting Crowns songs ("American Dream," "Here I Go Again"), but I cannot in good conscience recommend them in total. Their albums have highlights, but they have little replay value. They're sort of the Christian Nickel Creek. As for Moira Brennan...Clannad is amazing, but I had no idea she was Enya's sister! Enya's talented, too, if not my particular cup of tea.

[Stuart Koehl]

>>>As for Moira Brennan...Clannad is amazing, but I had no idea she was Enya's sister! Enya's talented, too, if not my particular cup of tea.<<<

Enya was in fact part of Clannad before striking out on her own.

[Daniel Propson]

It's all The Joshua Tree, David. The rest is faint echoes, often (as you say) boring.

But listen to "With or Without You," for an example of some real meaning. Apply these words to Jesus:

See the stone set in your eyes,
See the thorn twist in your side,
I wait for you.

Slight of hand and twist of fate,
On a bed of nails she makes me wait,
And I wait without you.

With or without you,
I can't live with or without you.

There is plenty of depth there -- the struggle of how to give Christ a place in my life, when I am unwilling to root out sin.

Or listen to my very favorite: "Running to Stand Still," a song about addiction. It will never appear on a greatest hits CD, but it is very, very good.

Popular U2 -- "Standing in the Sun," "Beautiful Day," etc. -- is rather vacuous, and occasionally rather offensive.

[Rob Grano]

"I seem to be the same age as Rob Grano & Todd F & certainly share their taste in music. I never go to live shows anymore, but I'm second row for Morrissey in three weeks. Can't wait."

Recusant, I just turned 46, and listen mostly to classical music nowadays. The last 'pop' records I bought were Kate Bush's 'Aerial' and Matisyahu's 'Youth.' The only newer bands that have really excited me are The Frames, and Doves. I still listen to a fair amount of 80s music, my faves being Cocteau Twins and the above-mentioned Talk Talk discs. My 'guilty-pleasure' band is New Order!

[Marc V]

U2 was a little past my time, and I never really warmed to what they offered. As far as pop music goes, it seems to have died with Kurt Cobain and the last gasps of grunge. Rap devolved to thugs and bling. Now we get manufactured "stars" from American Idol recycling songs.

For the +40 crowd, and those who enjoy late 60's, 70's and 80's music, wolfgangsvault.com has a plethora of concerts to choose from, all streamed free once you register. Lateley I've been enjoying an early 70's Allman Bros. show, a late 70's ELP concert, and an America concert from the early 80's. The latter one actually rocks, believe it or not.

[Kacy]

I fall into the early 20s age catagory, and I've noticed that U2 fans tend to be very intense and passionate in their love for U2. Others of us, simply do not understand this.

I dated a U2 fan two years ago, and when I asked him why he liked U2 so much, he told me that it was because they have been in a constant state of transformation. In other words each CD sounds different from the one before. I noticed this when I listened to his U2 CDs, but I also thought that each song sounded pretty much the same on a singular CD.

I think U2 is also popular due to their elaborate shows and their involvement in political movements. These two things helped them build a solid fan base.

I've also noticed the popularity of U2 among the "emergent" crowd. I blame this on Steve Stockman's book Walk On:

http://www.amazon.com/Walk-Spiritual-Journey-Steve-Stockman/dp/0976035758/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-5040743-5100728?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177680664&sr=8-1

I know at least two churches in my college town have read this book in a Sunday School/Bible Study setting (one Baptist and the other, Methodist).

[Mairnéalach]

I listen to very little contemporary Christian music--more by accident than design. However, I did get the Becker/Brennan/Hogg album, and enjoyed it greatly. A soloist in our early liturgy recently glorified God with the centerpiece song very ably. After the service I thanked her. She admitted she was surprised to enjoy a contemporary tune so much; she was even more surprised when I told her of the "celtic" source material. I think the version currently circulating on Christian radio is a cover by folks other than Becker/Brennan/Hogg.

If any Celtic fans are willing to venture away from the modern synth incarnation of the music backwards into the more traditional, investigate "The Crossing", a great combo from the Jesus People USA movement. (Imagine the Bothy Band or Planxty writing explicitly Christian material).

As for folksy CCM, I recently caught Derek Webb (ex Caedmon's Call) for the first time, and got a copy of his "She Must and Shall Go Free". I was stunned by the work and found myself weeping openly by mid-album. Based on this, I obviously need to explore contemporary material in greater depth.

[Michael R]

To Michael Martin: Derek and the Dominos and Kate Bush. Yes! Tell me, what do you think of "Aerial"?

[ralphg]

U2 is the one group everyone in our five-member family can agree on -- from the 16-year-old to the 50-year-old.

[Ethan Cordray]

My family all agrees on U2 as well. It's just that we agree that they're a okay rock band that none of us particularly cares about. :-)

We also agree, however, that the greatest Celtic band playing now (also the greatest Celtic band of the '90's, the '80's...) is the Tannahill Weavers.

[Todd F]

Daniel Amos, have not heard that one in a while. They used to play at CC Costa Mesa quite a bit in the early 80's.

New Year's Day is a great song. Running to Stand Still is great, Rejoice, Gloria, 40, Bad.

When I decided to follow Christ as a teen in the OC, U2 was instrumental in keeping me inspired. Local acts like Lifesavers, Undercover, The Choir, etc. were also good. There were plenty of alternatives right down the freeway like Social D, Black Flag, Circle Jerks with a much different influence.

The Celtic connection is interesting. The Celtic / Folk connection seemed to influence rock music from one angle while the delta blues influenced from another angle.

That said, another interesting thing about U2 was that their perspective was not, and still is not, American. Nor, was it necessarily anti-American. It was always interesting to get a Christian perspective from U2 through lyrics and interviews knowing their first-hand witness of the tensions between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. Their experiences at L'Abri Bible study are interesting.

As I grew and matured, U2's Pop phase with the Mephisto character turned me off. In post-911 their All That You Can't Leave Behind was perfect and drew me right back to why I started listening to the Boy album in the first place.

[Mairnéalach]

Bravo, Ethan. Scots music is not my main squeeze, but the Tannahill Weavers are probably the most skilled, sensitive, and exuberant musicians I've ever heard, in ANY genre.

[Jill C.]

Mairnéalach, I am familiar with the Crossing. Have several of their albums and saw them at Cornerstone also in the late 90s. I enjoy their folk sound as well and appreciate the full spectrum of "Celtic music" except for the really weird pagan goddess stuff and the bawdy drinking songs. (The latter are often heard at Scottish and Irish festivals by local bands.)

I am a musician, but not at present a paid professional, so I do appreciate U2s musicianship and realize the way the band has affected contemporary music and culture. We could do a lot worse and I thank God for them but they're just not my cup of tea.

Todd F., the Daniel Amos of the early 80s is not the Daniel Amos of today. Talk about changing stylistically! Wow!

[Todd F]

I didn't realize that DA was still around in different forms. A quick check on their web site reveals that I just missed a concert series at CC Costa Mesa. Ha!

[Rob Grano]

I played in a Celtic folk band for eight years and consequently listened to a ton of that stuff. I like the Weavers a lot but my fave Scottish band is Old Blind Dogs (at least the first 3 or 4 albums -- haven't liked the more recent CDs as much.)

[Mairnéalach]

In end analysis, I'd have to say U2 is truly worthy of acclaim. Yet, for some reason, you're probably more likely to find me listening to the Pogues rather than Bono. Not as spiritual, I know. I just seem to have some demon in me that likes the diddly-diddly just a wee bit more than the reverbed telecaster.

[RMC]

I've never been a fan of U2, despite many attempts to listen to their music.

Phil Keaggy, definitely, and Daniel Amos. My current favorite band is The Lost Dogs (led by Terry Scott Taylor of DA).

[Rob Grano]

Mairnéalach, I was wondering if anyone was going to bring up the Pogues (or as my ex-wife used to call them, the 'Vulgar Hillbillies'.) They're a great band if you can get past the profanity and Shane McGowan's growling, drunken voice. He's a marvellous songwriter though, and they have a ton of energy in their diddly-diddly!

[Michael Martin]

>>>To Michael Martin: Derek and the Dominos and Kate Bush. Yes! Tell me, what do you think of "Aerial"?<<<

Michael, I am embarrassed to say that I have only heard one tune off of Aerial, but I keep telling myself I'll buy the disc next payday. How do you like it? A friend of mine tells me he likes it as much as he likes Hounds of Love.

[Mairnéalach]

Rob, I like to make little Christmas CDs for friends every year, using John Rutter, Boys of the Lough, the Chieftains, Wolcum Yule, Paul Hillier, and the like. I have to consciously restrain myself from including "Fairytale of New York" in the mix.. it would just be too jarring for them. When I'm alone in the living room, however, I sometimes find it the merriest Christmas song ever. Something about those cornerboys strikes a chord with me. They're a grand example of the often close proximity of the sacred and profane. Sort of like.... well.... ME, actually.

[Gina Mosko]

Some theories I'll echo as to U2's popularity: They're Irish and they've always had edgy politics (back in the day it was anti-apartheid and Ireland, now it's poverty), the guitars, and Bono's charisma on stage. Like others, I dropped out of U2dom after Rattle and Hum with all the Zooropa pop stuff, and have come back somewhat with the more recent music. I like the rock + blues sound.

Funny to find other Kate Bush fans- I like her stuff a lot but haven't encountered other fans in the US. I will put in a word for Loreena McKennitt for the pop Celtic genre, lately taking a Middle Eastern turn. "Incantation" on her new album is influenced by Orthodox chant, and in past albums she has had Gregorian and Russian Orthodox motifs.

[luthien (the adverb addict)]

Judy, thanks for the recommendations, although you'd most likely find my taste in popular music pretty deplorable:) It tends towards bands like Evanescence, Green Day, Fall Out Boy, Nickelback, The Killers, Avril Lavigne, and lately The La's. *ducks for cover*

>>I wonder how many folks who have made comments are musicians? U2's music is incredible, although like all artists they have some average material.<<
I play the harp and sing, though not professionally. Neither has influenced my opinion of U2;great musicians or not, I just don't like 'em.

[Michael]

>>thanks for the recommendations, although you'd most likely find my taste in popular music pretty deplorable:) It tends towards bands like Evanescence, Green Day, Fall Out Boy, Nickelback, The Killers, Avril Lavigne, and lately The La's.<<

Evanescence is, like U2, one of those pop Christian bands for which there is no real explanation. I generally dislike their arrangements, being stiflingly simple, but Amy Lee has a beautiful voice, and I definitely favor their lyrics.

Green Day I detest as a rule, even though they are given to quality lyrics on rare occasions. Same with Fall Out Boy.

Nickelback I enjoy, especially some of their more recent stuff. "Far Away" was a great song, and "If Everyone Cared" is as well. When Nickelback stopped being angry, they improved drastically. Alanis Morisette did the exact opposite.

The Killers--reference Nick's commentary on how they may be this generations U2 rather than Coldplay. I love The Killers.

Avril Lavigne is without question one of the most underrated pop/rock acts in recent memory. If only her radio singles hadn't been taken as "Sk8er Boi" and "Complicated..." "Naked" was a quality song off her debut album, and "I'm With You" was as well. Under My Skin was a far stronger release. Plus, speaking as a nineteen-year-old male, she's cute. Her new single "Girlfriend" has nice drum beat and more pop sensibilities than her post-grunge rock singles, and it's sort of has that bubblegum good feeling of late 90's Britney Spears before she grew up and became, well, slutty. Not that I think Britney was quality music, just fun.

[Jill C.]

Gina, I bet you'd really appreciate (if you don't know about him already) Jeff Johnson. Check out http://www.arkmusic.com/

[Mairnéalach]

I think Amy Lee took some pains to disassociate Evanescence with "Christian music", although I found their work to be quite compelling. Good schtuff altogether, and I'm not even a Goth or a metalhead. Great for putting on the stereo when working out.

[Rob Grano]

Mairnealach, I think "Fairytale..." is one of the best pop Christmas tunes ever -- it's a very moving song and suits the season quite well, IMO. But I understand about your hesitation in including it on sampler gifts. If it wasn't for that one verse...

Kate Bush's 2-CD "Aerial" album is marvellous, especially the 2nd disc. It's a bit softer and not quite as edgy as her earlier stuff, but the voice is still the voice, and she remains as creative as all get out.

Matisyahu's 'Youth' is an odd but very endearing album; he's an Hasidic Jew but the style is reggae, and very well done at that. The lyrics feature a lot of quotations from the Psalms and other O.T. references, and include one song that is a paean to a faith-based marriage. Really amazing for a record that did quite well chart-wise.

[Mairnéalach]

Thanks, Rob. It certainly beats the ever-loving stuffing out of Lennon's "Merry Christmas/War is Over" YECCHHH which unfortunately seems to be in vogue for getting covered by every half-talent out there, and even ends up on department store muzak speakers at Christmastime. For which, I think, there ought to be some sort of capital penalty imposed.

[Michael]

>>I think Amy Lee took some pains to disassociate Evanescence with "Christian music", although I found their work to be quite compelling. Good schtuff altogether, and I'm not even a Goth or a metalhead. Great for putting on the stereo when working out.<<

You can take all the pains you want to move away from the "Christian" label in the industry, but it doesn't stop your music from being what it is.

[smh]

To discuss the relative qualities of various rock musicians and their music is to compare varieties of barbarism.

My temptation is to say that why anyone, Christians especially, should have any interest in it, is beyond my understanding. But I won't do that, because I think I do understand rock music, and think it bad. There is a place in every soul for it, including mine, but I doubt whether what we hear in heaven will remind us in any way of this thing spawned in mockery and rebellion. Grow up, children. Abandon it for something better. The great world is full of musical beauties; rock is a piggery.

I remember in this regard someone else who was bold, or stupid, enough, to make value judgments of this sort upon a musical genre:

________

"'Perhaps,' said Gus, 'someone else will give us a song.'

'I will,' cried thirty voices all together: but one cried much louder than the others and its owner had stepped into the middle of the room before anyone could do anything about it. He was one of the bearded men and wore nothing but a red shirt and a cod-piece made of the skins of crocodiles: and suddenly he began to beat on an African tom-tom and to croon with his voice, swaying his lean, half-clad body to and fro and staring at them all, out of eyes which were like burning coals. This time John saw no picture of an Island at all. He seemed to be in a dark green place full of tangled roots and hairy vegetable tubes: and all at once he saw in it shapes moving and writhing that were not vegetable but human. And the dark green grew darker, and a fiery heat came out of it: and suddenly all the shapes that were moving in the darkness came together to make a single obscene image which dominated the whole room. And the song was over.

'Priceless,' said the Clevers. 'Too stark! Too virile.'"

_________

Now, one may say that rock music was not what Lewis had in mind here, and that would be true, but it would be hard to deny, first, that he was criticizing an entire genre of modern music, born in rebellion and mockery, and second, that genre's essential similarities to rock.

[Mairnéalach]

Actually, Mr. Hutchens-- some of what rock rebels against is quite worth rebelling against. It's simply that rock seldom offers a better alternative. That's when it is mockery.

The very best of rock is not mockery, but satire. Satire is what happens when a musician wises up and realizes that, in a market economy, rebellion is just another commodity to be bought and sold. So, they turn in their anger for true cynicism, grow up a bit, and become more prophet than punk. As a satirist yourself, you ought to appreciate that!

[smh]

The problem is indeed the inability to "offer a better alternative." How much you said in that! This is fundamental to rock music, what I refer to in terms of barbarism--that is, the deliberately and calculatedly retrograde--mockery--the cynical rejection of good, true, and beautiful along with the corruptions of these that are rightly recognized as hypocrisy-- and rebellion, that is, belligerent assertion of the autonomous self in the face not simply of the abuse of power and the abusers' pretenses to goodness, but the beautiful, the noble, and the superior, before which men are called to bow.

It is all one, whether one is part of the darkness or, being unable to offer anything better, merely curses it. Rock is a subterranean thing, a saprophyte that grows on decay. Because it has no light, no "better alternative," it has no reference to anything beautiful--to love, sorrow, nobility, hope, or the cleaner sorts of joy, laughter, or fun. It has no ditties, no gambols, no yodels, no hymns, no laments, but (Whitman's true child!) amplifies its barbaric yawps mightily over the roofs of the world, singing intently, and with great seriousness, of its dark and bloody self. It is a bondage from which men are delivered by exposure to light.

[Michael]

>>Rock is a subterranean thing, a saprophyte that grows on decay. Because it has no light, no "better alternative," it has no reference to anything beautiful--to love, sorrow, nobility, hope, or the cleaner sorts of joy, laughter, or fun. It has no ditties, no gambols, no yodels, no hymns, no laments, but (Whitman's true child!) amplifies its barbaric yawps mightily over the roofs of the world, singing intently, and with great seriousness, of its dark and bloody self. It is a bondage from which men are delivered by exposure to light.<<

Mr. Hutchens, permit me to play the accuser for a moment. It seems to me that you say this with authority, when it has been shown through quotation of lyrics and ongoing discussion by the commenters that certain acts offer something better. You criticize a genre offhand, but no type of music offers in and of itself something majestic and altogether better than the offerings of the world, something innately holy. I am not cursing Brahms nor Mozart nor Chopin; nor Puccini nor Monteverdi nor Traetta. But to say that their genre of music--orchestral composition for the former, operatic composition for the latter--is somehow offering something better in and of itself is patent nonsense. What if Bach's "SDG" had stood for "Soli Diabolo Gloria" at the end of his masterful works instead of "Soli Deo Gloria," would that make his work something better? Should we admire something that is dedicated to the Accuser? I should think not. We admire Bach's music because it is beautiful, and it's dedication makes it the more meaningful, but that is the composer and the Lord, not the genre itself.

You cannot expect a genre to offer anything. A genre is a style, and though its roots may have emerged from some deep-seeded rebellion, the style itself lives beyond its formations. To say Sanctus Real, which is a rock band does not offer something better, something higher when they acknowledge that "I'm not all right / I'm broken inside / And all I go through / It leads me to [God]" is just nonsensical.

To have no reference to anything beautiful, you say? The Goo Goo Dolls, a band thoroughly recognized as of the secular industry, sings thus: "My head lies to my heart / My heart it still believes / Oh, it seems the ones who love us / Are the ones that we deceive / But you're changing everything / You're changing everything in me." If singing about an individual love's power to change is not something higher than the mere filth of the culture we live in, I submit, Mr. Hutchens, that you perhaps do not have a clue as to what is beautiful and better.

But of course you do have a clue; you have a clue that there is something better. Unfortunately, you come off as merely clueless about rock artists and merely make rash generalizations of the rock genre.

It may well be one to be part of the darkness or to merely curse it, for in cursing there is no separation, for there is nothing to be a part of but the darkness. However, it is plain silly to say that rock merely curses the darkness. Everyone has the law written on their heart, and everyone knows there is something greater. Some actually take the time to sing about it as well, whether they acknowledge its source or not.

[Mairnéalach]

"it has no ditties, no gambols, no yodels, no hymns, no laments"

Brother Steve-- with all due respect; in some sort of wierd, complex chemical reaction, your usually welcome curmudgeounliness has somehow curdled your usually astute powers of observation.

The next time you're in a used record store, ask the clerk for a cassette of "They Might Be Giants". Then take a red pill and call me in the morning.

[Rob Grano]

As a person who was very much a rock fan up until two or three years ago, and who now listens to classical music 90% of the time, Steve Hutchens does have a valid point. I believe, with Richard Weaver and E. Michael Jones, that the majority of rock music (and jazz as well) appeals to a lower, less noble aspect of human nature than do the classical and traditional ethnic/folk genres. And I don't just mean the lyrics, but the style as well. I remember a quote from Charismatic leader Jamie Buckingham from the late 70's, when Christian rock was first becoming popular: "Any music that leads with the beat has an odor of the pit about it." It took me 30 years to realize it, but he had a point.

Having said that, however, I'd be loathe to condemn ALL contemporary music, as I find some of it quite lovely and quite honorable. It's not all barbaric and ugly. I believe that one learns by listening -- I have a pretty good idea of when a piece of modern music is affecting me negatively, and I've learned to avoid such.

To those rock listeners out there, I would echo (with slight qualifications) what Steve said: "Grow up, children. Abandon it for something better. The great world is full of musical beauties." If you begin listening to classical music regularly, you'll no doubt find your tastes changing for the better; it does definitely affect one's "ear." This in turn will heighten your experience with other types of music; you'll almost automatically become more discriminating and more selective in what you listen to.

[luthien (the adverb addict)]

Rob, as one of those rock listeners, I find your last comment rather condescending; how do you presume that those of us who do enjoy rock don't appreciate classical music? I do-I was raised on it and still love it- and yet listen to rock. The two are not mutually exclusive. As to Mr. Hutchen's assertions about the dreadfulness of rock, I must second what Michael and Maileneach said, as they already said what I think better than I could have.

Mairleanach, I don't think you have to be a Goth to like Evanescence. If you do, I'll have to quit listening to them, because I'm a pathetic failure at being one:)

Michael, to get back to discussing that saprophytic garbage which smells like the pit, which of Green Day and Fall Out Boy's lyrics do you like, and why do you dislike them?
>>>Plus, speaking as a nineteen-year-old male, she's cute.<<<
Or rather would be if she'd wipe of a little of her eyeliner. Speaking as a 18 year-old girl, I must pick on these things :-P Seriously, though, I've had Girlfriend -more specifically, the French version, which I highly recommend looking up on YouTube-stuck in my head for the past three or four days; at what point does a catchy song cross the line into contagiousness? The moral message of the song really isn't the best (because 1- it has the girl pursuing the guy, which is backwards and 2- stealing another girl's boyfriend is just beyond the pale), but it's still very fun:)

On to Evanescence-do you think Call Me When You're Sober is a Christian song? It certainly has some rather decent advice on relationships (if he wouldn't call you while sober, then no, he doesn't love you-a very basic message which an awful lot of people need to hear!) but I can't find anything overtly, or even covertly, Christian about it. Oh shoot, I'm late for work...

[James A. Altena]

I agree with Dr. Hutchens 100,000,000% -- and he has said what is needed, and far more eloquently than anything to which I could aspire. He had the courage to speak where I kept silence until now, thinking that I would only provoke a needless argument and be utterly alone in holding my position. But his example has now given me the courage to speak out.

Perhaps the chief problem in evaluating so-called "Christian rock", or even the relation of so-called "rock music" of any sort to Christianity, is that discussions tend to focus on the lyrics, rather than on the music itself as an organized pattern of related sounds. Michael's attempted but unsound rebuttal to SMH is a typical example of this fallacious approach. (It also fails in that even if Bach has intended "SDG" to be "Soli Diabolo Gloria", it would only discredit Bach as an exemplar but not classical music as an entire genre, whereas the thesis under debate is whether an entire genre of some art can be and is irreducibly antithetical to Christianity.)

However, if we are to consider the merits (or lack thereof) of "rock music" (or any other type of music) per se, then it must be done solely in terms of what is termed "absolute music" -- music as an art that creates organized, systematic sets of pitched tones, chords, rhythms, and timbres into coherent patterns. Otherwise, what is really being argued about is the merits of a certain genre of poetry and prose that happens to be accompanied by music. In short, the analysis of music in relation to Christian theology must proceed on the basis of principles analogous to those for evaluating the relation to Christian theology of prose, poetry, film, painting, sculpture, architecture, and other visual arts.

This is difficult because music as sound is in general unreflectively considered to be far less tangible or concrete than visual and tactile arts (especially since something like 85-90% of all sensory stimuli a physically unimpaired person receives are visual). Once the question is raised, the falseness of such an idea should be readily apparent. Sound is as tangible to the ears as colors and shapes are to the eyes and textures to the fingers. And we retain aural images in our memories just as much as visual images or tactile sensations.

Because of its (falsely perceived) more intangible and ephemeral nature, music is considered by many people to be a sensory phenomenon which provides pleasure that is in and of itself morally neutral -- like, say, eating an apple -- with virtue or sin being only in the right use of abuse of the act. It is also classified as mere "entertainment", lacking the specific cognitive content, and hence substantive capacity, necessary for something to have inherent moral content.

Such a view of music is dangerously shallow, however. Felix Mendelssohn paradoxically but astutely said that "music speaks of things *too specific* for words". If anything, music has a more powerful ability than any other art form to shape our souls, and we disregard this and fail to consider this with grave earnestness to our great spiritual peril. As a philosopher Kant had his failings, but he displayed keen insight in stating that the only two avenues by which man can move from the phenomenal to the noumenal are religion and music.

Similarly, there is now a widespread tendency to consider aesthetics to be a matter of defining how and why various things appeal to purely subjective tastes and preferences. But, considered from a Christian perspective, it is actually a dimension of ethics. In a Christian frame of reference "good" and "bad" in art are value terms that refer not only to formal and materials principles of constructive composition, but also to moral worth, since all created things reflect the nature of God to a greater or lesser degree. [This is inherent in the classical aesthetic criteria of orderr, clarity, and harmony.] For the Christian, a "good" piece of art must necessarily be one which is not merely well executed technically, but whose form and content are such as to have an intrinsic and objective capacity to aid in effecting his redemption by drawing him closer to God.

Touchstone has published several pieces on church architecture (Catesby Leigh, "The Stones of Babel", May/June 1999 [article], and "Church Ugly", December 2002 [book review]; Dwight Longenecker, "Sacred Teepees", November 2002 [article] -- all in the on-line archives). In these, the authors pointed out how basic abstract elements and principles of architecture -- relation of horizontal to vertical line, shape of interior and exterior space, use of specific materials in construction -- are inherently conducive or contrary to facilitating acts of devotion and the disposition of mind necessary to perform the same. In short, there is a recognition that various combinatorial relations of such basic abstract visual elements of the created order, the *cosmos* -- line, shape, spatial dimension, color, etc. -- are concordant or discordant to the nature of God Himself, and that our exposure to these can draw us closer to or drive us further from Him. It is high time that we realize that the same holds true for combinatorial relations of the basic abstract aural elements of the cosmos -- pitch, harmony, rhythm, timbre.

We also recognize how powerfully specific visual images can shapes our imaginations, and the need to exercise "custody of the eyes" as a Christian discipline, especially in our fallen state. E.g., pornographic images, once viewed, retain a disquietingly powerful hold on our minds. The same is true for obscene phrases or insults that can lodge themselves in our minds with a fierce stubbornness that defies all our attempts to purge them. We thus realize that such sensory effects upon our spiritual natures go more deeply than just such explicit examples. We must thus also exercise "custody of the ears" and our other sensory organs. Not only images, but sounds and even tastes, touches, and smells tap into the intuitive aspects of our nature with a power as great -- perhaps even greater -- than specific objects and words do into our cognitive ones.

About 20 years ago I happen to see a TV commercial for Pepsi. In it, a close-up shot of a woman chugging a soda bottle back and forth in her mouth was immediately followed by a close-up shot of the torso of a svelte woman in a swimsuit emerging from a swimming pool. Without using a single element lewd or obscene in and of itself, the commercial positively screamed its subliminal message -- "Men, drink Pepsi, and this hot babe will give you oral sex".

Similarly, we must realize that aural "images" can be and are created that are equally lewd and obscene in subliminal content and effect. There are patterns of musical sounds, as much as of visual images, that are geared toward excitation of lust. There are entire genres of literature (bodice rippers), photography and film (porn magazines and movies), sculpture (phalluses and female fertility statues), etc., that are inherently obscene. But (as the commercial I mentioned illustrates) these have their power precisely from their ability to draw upon combinations of more basic elements -- line, size, shape, color, etc. -- to create and trigger subliminal associations.

The pieces that Touchstone has published on church architecture argued that there are principles of architecture conducive to or discordant with the capacity and practice of Christian devotion. It is a short but very logical step from this to deduce that there can be not merely examples, but entire genres (which are not just "styles"), of "good" and "bad" architecture in this sense. I.e., entire specific genres of architecture take as fundamental specific relational combinations of principles and constitutive elements that are irreducibly compatible or incompatible with Christianity in their patterns, content, and effects upon human souls.

If this be true of architecture, there is no reason not to suppose that it is equally true of music. Just as there are entire genres of literature, film and photography, sculpture, etc., that are inherently and irreducibly anti-Christian, there are likewise genres of architecture and music that are equally so. I unhesitatingly submit that "rock music" is such a genre of music; to borrow a neologism from a music critic of some decades ago, it is "pornophony" -- essentially obscene combinatorial patterns of sound.

My contention (which I hope to develop into a publishable article in a few years, as I continue to digest the chief academic literature on musical aesthetics) is that as absolute music -- as a pattern of tones, harmonies, rhythms, and timbres apart from *any* words -- "rock music" as a genre (and not just individual examples of it) constitutes a fundamental perversion and disordering of divinely ordered aural elements of the Creation. Just as there are fundamental visual principles and patterns in painting, sculpture, architecture, etc. that ennoble or degrade us spiritually, there are likewise comparable principles and patterns of sound that exercise comparable influences -- and "rock music" is essentially and irreducibly degrading to our spiritual nature, appealing to its fallen rather than its redeemed or redeemable side. However innocently and unintentionally, those who imbibe it are poisoning their souls with evil aural filth. There is not, cannot be, any such thing as "Christian rock music", or any rock music compatible with a sound Christian faith, any more than there can be such a thing as a "Christian" porno film.

As to how and why that is so, I am still working out the full details. For now, I would briefly point to two elements --

a) The so-called "beat" of rock music, the pounding repetition of a single or very few basic percussion patterns at extremely high volume. (I have yet to meet or hear of any rock music devotee who did not insist that playing his music at ear-splitting volume was absolutely necessary to its enjoyment.) This functions at two levels. First, its effect is, literally, mesmerizing. This functions in two different ways. It is highly stimulative, due to both extremely high volume and rhythmic force. At the same time, however, the monotonous repetiton of the same pattern (or very few and similar patterns), over and over, combined with the excessive volume, forcibly exclude all other stimuli. Drawing every sensory focus upon itself, it effectively blocks out any significant capacity for complex cognitive processes. Put bluntly, listening to it actually makes people more stupid, because it is literally stupefying. Second, the rhythms of much rock music are closely (and deliberately) related to the bodily motions of sexual intercourse. It is thus also "music" that inherently conditions people to be susceptible to lust.

b) The reliance upon electrical instruments and amplification. Unlike in other musical genres, where electronic amplification is only used to carry sound from one place to another so that listeners at a remote location can hear it, in rock music electricity is used to create and produce the very sounds themselves. While all musical instruments are synthetic in the sense of being artefacts of human manufacture, those of most other genres are "natural" in the sense of producing sound by acoustical means -- being blown, struck, plucked, etc. -- and the resulting sounds being closely imitative of and related to sounds produced by birds or by the blowing, striking, etc. of natural objects (conch shells, rams' horns, hollow logs, etc.) The basic instruments of rock music, however -- electrical guitars and keyboards -- produce sounds that are entirely synthetic and have no natural counterparts. Furthermore, these sounds can be and are electrically amplified to levels that no acoustical instruments can reach. In a word, they are literally unnatural. (I read a few years ago that audiologists over the last 30-40 years have reported a 400% increase in the occurrence of significant hearing loss among people in their 20s and 30s, with almost all of it attributable to listening to rock music at the typical high volumes, particularly through earphones.)

The rock music devotee invariably, even necessarily, falls back upon an appeal to what I term "aesthetic relativism." He insists that his music is "just as good as" that of the classical music devotte, because he supposedly enjoys it just as much. In truth, the idea that any -- any -- piece of rock music can in all seriousness be even remotely compared to, e.g. Bach's St. Matthew Passion ought to move any sane man with a modicum of musical knowledge and sense to vomit in outraged disgust. This aesthetic relativism, which holds all preferences in art to be purely subjective, and one man's tastes equal to another, or one genre equal to another, first arose during the Romantic era. Because of the intimate association of aesthetics to ethics, and of "good" and "bad" as evaluative terms in both, I believe it was the spawning ground for moral relativism.

As C. S. Lewis also wrote in his Essay "Notes on the Way" (1946):

"The patrons of sentimental poetry, bad novels, bad pictures, and merely catchy tunes are usually enjoying precisely what is there. And their enjoyment . . . is not in any way comparable to the enjoyment that other people derive from good art. It is tepid, trivial, marginal, habitual. It does not *trouble* them, nor haunt them. To call it, and a man's rapture in great tragedy or exquisite music, by the same name, enjoyment, is little more than a pun. I still maintain that what enraptures and transports is always good. . . .The experiences offered by bad art are not of the same sort."

Precisely. In particular, rock music as a genre is incapable of offering or inducing that which is most essential to Christian prayer -- contemplative quiet. No piece of rock music can provide what if given in a late medieval polyphonic mass by Obrecht or des Prez, the motets of Schuetz or Bach, or even secular works such as the mature piano pieces of Mozart or Brahms.

And so, Dr. Hutchens is absolutely right in writing that:

"To discuss the relative qualities of various rock musicians and their music is to compare varieties of barbarism."

and

"Rock is a subterranean thing, a saprophyte that grows on decay. Because it has no light, no "better alternative," it has no reference to anything beautiful--to love, sorrow, nobility, hope, or the cleaner sorts of joy, laughter, or fun. It has no ditties, no gambols, no yodels, no hymns, no laments, but (Whitman's true child!) amplifies its barbaric yawps mightily over the roofs of the world, singing intently, and with great seriousness, of its dark and bloody self. It is a bondage from which men are delivered by exposure to light."

and

"Grow up, children. Abandon it for something better. The great world is full of musical beauties."

It is indeed time for those Christians who listen to rock music to grow up into the full stature of Christ in this area of their lives, as well as in all others.

[Michael]

James--

I respect your reply far more than I respect Mr. Hutchens' initial statement because it in the very least offers coherent reasons to reach the conclusion that the two of you share. That said, I think your reasoning is pretty easily refuted.

Regarding contention (a), if it is that you have never met a person who has not listened to rock music at invariably loud levels, let me assure you, it is perhaps because you have not met me. It is thoroughly irritating to me that anyone would think I have to listen to their music when him are next to me at a traffic light or across the hall from him in a dormitory, so why would I submit him to the same? More importantly, I find it exceedingly apparent in your diatribe that you have not listened to a wide variety of artists. Respected bands Rush and Tool are well-known for pinnacle drum performances, and this is not merely a beat. More importantly, the purpose of a percussion section, even in orchestral compositions, is to provide the remainder of the musicians a down beat, a tangible rhythm so that one does not increase or decrease the tempo as they play. So it would seem perfectly reasonable that a single drum line is repeated throughout the course of a song so long as the tempo provided is what is being used. Yet it is not merely beats that the drum provides, but combinations of snare, toms, high hats, bass drums, etc. to effect that beat in a certain harmony with the rest of the music being played.

I will grant you that, for the most part, the rhythm is repetitive, but this is not inherently bad. Did not Chesterton write in Orthodoxy of how God rejoices in the "monotonous" repetition of everyday--that the sun should rise and set everyday, that every daisy looks quite the same, that we have sinned and grown old, and our Father is younger than we? If you are calling on music to point us to God in and of itself, perhaps one would do well to recall how very repetitive God is in all His ways, for He is without age and does not bore Himself with trivialities. Indeed, the trivial is what He excels at.

Having noat at this point in time experienced sex, I will not even speak to whether the rhythms are intentionally related to those of intercourse. In any case, it may well be that this a chicken-or-egg issue. Sex obviously came first, but did the rhythms of sex as you now perceive them precede rock music? You may well be conditioned by rock and rock not conditioned by sex.

Regarding your second contention,there are things you can do with an electrical guitar that is not possible with an acoustic guitar. Now this is not to say it is "better," but the truth is that one cannot "bend" a note by virtue of high action strings and a sensitive pick-ups on an acoustic guitar, which is generally of lower action stringing and does not have modulated amplification. You cannot induce feedback--a sound I generally find irritating, but can be used effectively--with an acoustic guitar. You cannot filter sounds to closely mimic natural sounds with acoustic instruments. I realize you detest rock music, but please download "Secret Place," a "worship" song by Lincoln Brewster, to see what I mean. He uses the electric guitar and a filter to approximate the sort of swooshing sound we associate with the wind. It is not a conch shell, but no horn could do the same thing, and it is a wind instrument. It is intentionally distorted, but you cannot achieve the same without the guitar and pedal.

Do not think for a moment that I think rock music is tantamount to the classical composers. I would not expect Paul Hewson to be able to sit down at the Leipzing organ in the 1734 and be mistaken for Johannn Sebastian Bach. But it seems foolhardy to dismiss them offhand as no musicians at all. You may call them musicians of quality or musicians of limitation, but they are musicians all the same. And it is music all the same, perhaps all the more worse for wear, but everything has elements to point us to the Creator.

Finally, I would like to briefly touch on your idea to assess rock music apart from the lyrics. This is silly. Rock music as a genre is recognized as something which produces songs, not mere musical pieces, and a song by definition has a vocal component. (Actually, a song by definition is a musical piece meant to be vocally performed.) It would be like saying "Come, let us look at La Boheme for meaning, but we shall ignore Mimi and Radolpho." Of course La Boheme without Mimi and Radolpho is not La Boheme! A song without its lyrics is not a song, it is merely accompaniment--poor accompaniment, if it so pleases you to call it that, but it is not the entirety of the musical composition. So it is important when assessing rock music to assess the message of the lyrics.

All this is not to say that rock music is of equal value to classical music. I would never in a million years tell someone to watch Jesus Christ Superstar rather than Handel's Messiah. (Not that the message of the two are comparable, but I am speaking on pure merit of music.) It is merely to say that rock music has more value than you and Mr. Hutchens' are willing to ascribe to it.

[Michael]

>>Michael, to get back to discussing that saprophytic garbage which smells like the pit, which of Green Day and Fall Out Boy's lyrics do you like, and why do you dislike them?

[...]

Or rather would be if she'd wipe of a little of her eyeliner. Speaking as a 18 year-old girl, I must pick on these things :-P Seriously, though, I've had Girlfriend -more specifically, the French version, which I highly recommend looking up on YouTube-stuck in my head for the past three or four days; at what point does a catchy song cross the line into contagiousness? The moral message of the song really isn't the best (because 1- it has the girl pursuing the guy, which is backwards and 2- stealing another girl's boyfriend is just beyond the pale), but it's still very fun:)

On to Evanescence-do you think Call Me When You're Sober is a Christian song? It certainly has some rather decent advice on relationships (if he wouldn't call you while sober, then no, he doesn't love you-a very basic message which an awful lot of people need to hear!) but I can't find anything overtly, or even covertly, Christian about it. Oh shoot, I'm late for work...<<

I suppose Green Day and Fall Out Boy I detest because, on the whole, they are that saprophytic garbage that smells like the pit. Green Day as a habit bemoans their own lives, but they never seek out something greater, nor do they offer something better to their fans. "Wake Me Up When September Ends" and "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" are prime examples--if "[your] shadow is the only thing that walks beside [you]," and "[your] shallow heart is the only that's beating," then why are you singing to me? Am I not walking beside you, am I not alive? I have yet to hear one convincing a guitar solo, and their drums are precisely what James talks about--pounding, repetitive rhythm that squelches anything I might call worthwhile music from them. Perhaps it is that they are poorly arranged, but on the whole, I'd say that's their fault. Regarding what lyrics of Green Day I like, I wouldn't say it's so much individual songs as individual lines within songs. It's like for one brief moment it's like Armstrong stopped trying to be pretentions and meaningful and was suddenly poetical.

Fall Out Boy is the extreme at the other end of the spectrum--it is merely that there are things to rejoice, and pretty much nothing incredibly dark to bemoan. This music comes across as shallow. If I wanted "feel-good" music, I would have kept listening to late-90's bubblegum pop.

As for Avril, as I tell pretty much every girl I've ever met: she's beautiful despite her make up, not because of it. I am saying she is cute, not that she is good at choosing a "look." If she would take off eyeliner, she would still be "cute;" she just wouldn't be wearing make-up. Cute is an inherent physical trait. I am not a female, and I do not equivocate on how that word may mean "small," or "adorable," or "awkward-but-endearing." I am speaking of pure physicality.

I am not inclined to think "Call Me When You're Sober" is a "Christain" song (whatever that means). For that matter, I am not inclined to think that Jars of Clay's "Famous Last Words" (lyrics

[Michael]

Ah, I broke the html. It is meant to say that you can receive the lyrics to "Famous Last Words" here, and that I was viewing Evanescence through their body of work, not through the lens of an individual song.

[Rob Grano]

"Rob, as one of those rock listeners, I find your last comment rather condescending; how do you presume that those of us who do enjoy rock don't appreciate classical music? I do-I was raised on it and still love it- and yet listen to rock. The two are not mutually exclusive."

Luthien, I don't think they're mutually exclusive. My point was that if one listens to a regular diet of classical music (and I mean regular, not occasional) one's taste will adjust accordingly. I speak from my own experience and from the experience of friends to whom a similar thing has occurred. It's not unlike having your palate adjust to good wine: the more you drink the good stuff, the less inclined you'll be to drink Riunite. This is not to say that Riunite is rubbish and there's no place for it, of course, but I hope you get my point.

James, your thesis is interesting -- I'm going to reread it and try to respond later. One of the things that I find interesting is that in dance clubs, the predominant tempo of the pulse in the music is 120 beats per minute. By experimentation it's been shown that this particular tempo gets the most response from the clubbers, and 'gets them going'; it is significant, I think (although I'm not quite sure how), that this particular pulse is exactly double the pulse of the average human heartbeat. My point is that it seems that this pulse has an actual physiological effect which in turn creates a psychological state of something like euphoria. I've experienced it myself so I can vouch for the truth of it.

[fdr]

The problem is indeed the inability to "offer a better alternative." How much you said in that!

Which, to bring us back to where we started, is why so manyu of us love U2. I'll quote from the song "40": "I waited patiently for the Lord, He inclined and heard my cry. Het lifted me up out of the pit, out of the miry clay.....I will sing a new song..."

Oh wait......thats that earlier blues musician, David or someone.....

[Judy Warner]

I came across this article on physiological effects of different kinds of music on plants, animals, and people. I have no information on the quality of the research reported on, but every experiment showed rock music and similar rhythms as harmful, and I have read similar reports over the years. Excerpts:

1) Retallack also studied groups of petunias exposed to two radio stations. One station was a semi-classical station and one was a rock station. At the end of the second week, the petunias exposed to the rock music were leaning away from the speaker and growing erratically while the petunias listening to the classical station were all leaning toward the speaker. All the plants exposed to the rock station died within a month.

2) ...the effects of music on laboratory mice. They subjected one group of mice to incessant voodoo drum beats, one group to Strauss waltzes and one group was kept in silence. The experiment used music played at low volume so that volume was not a cause for any behavioral changes observed. Over the period of the experiment, they tested the different groups to see how well they could run through a maze to get to their food. This was a measure of their cognitive ability - their ability to remember the maze over time.

Bird and Schreckenberg found that the group that listened to the voodoo music had a very difficult time with the maze that increased over time to the point where they were totally disoriented and unable to complete the maze. The other groups had no problem learning the maze, with an edge given to the mice listening to the waltz music.

3) Rats were allowed to freely move between two boxes that were connected by a passageway. In each of the boxes a speaker was playing one kind of music. Johann Sebastion Bach's music was played into one box and rock music into the other. Even though the boxes were identical in all respects except for the type of music played through the speakers, the rats spent all of their time in the "Bach box".

James Altena wrote:
My contention is that as absolute music -- as a pattern of tones, harmonies, rhythms, and timbres apart from *any* words -- "rock music" as a genre (and not just individual examples of it) constitutes a fundamental perversion and disordering of divinely ordered aural elements of the Creation. Just as there are fundamental visual principles and patterns in painting, sculpture, architecture, etc. that ennoble or degrade us spiritually, there are likewise comparable principles and patterns of sound that exercise comparable influences....

The question is whether music is judgeable by absolute, divinely ordered standards, or whether it just something that is a matter of taste. The fact that there are physiological reactions to various types of music -- in organisms that have not had any cultural conditioning -- is a strong indication that there are such standards. And as in every other area of life, conforming to how God created us and created the world ennobles us, and rebelling against it degrades us.

[Gene Godbold]

I think Audio Adrenaline has a song about some of those experiments that Judy mentions...

Like Michael, I don't like my music to kill off cells in my ear by exposing them to loud volumes, whether this is Wagner or U2 (and I like both).

[smh]

I believe, insistently, that God has "standards" for all things (the Standard is Christ, in whom reside all the riches of his glory), and that they can be sought out and honored--or rejected, and, in accordance with the rejection, perverted. This applies to music and all other human enterprises. While it is a mistake, a silly, juvenile, mistake, to confuse one's natural tastes with the Standard, it is an equally great a mistake to believe that it cannot be fruitfully sought and honored.

Some of my interlocutors regard my generalizations about the genre as unfair. I reply that this raises the question about whether there are any righteous men in Sodom. No doubt there are, and no doubt in God's own manner he will spare them. But that gives us no reason to pretend that various Sodoms, including musical ones, do not exist, that they do not conform to God's "personal taste"--a personal taste shared by some people and eschewed by others--and that they will not therefore be utterly destroyed. (There is no "heavenly Sodom.")

Of course, I am not alone in my observations. The same have been made many times before by ("condescending" or "dogmatic," depending on their tone) Christian authorities. Among Protestants, those who make such noises are generally "fundamentalists," among Catholics, priests or nuns of the "old school," not properly inspired by the spirit of Vatican II. Even if many of these were hindered in their analysis by insufficient awareness of their own aesthetic predispositions, it does not mean their main point was wrong.

[Gene Godbold]

I wonder if James or SMH would consider "Gloria" or "40" songs in the genre of "rock music". If one say that all "rock music" is bad, then I think one could still argue that many songs by groups that occasionally or even usually perform "rock music" *aren't* rock. How does one discern such? Lack of syncopated rhythm? Some other criterion?

[Ethan Cordray]

I was wondering that as well, Gene. Just what rhythm, exactly, counts as rock? Carlos Santana plays a lot of cha cha, but he is famous as an electric guitarist. For that matter, what about traditional Celtic music, a lot of which "leads with the beat"? What about Japanese taiko drumming? Or really any kind of dance music at all, including waltz?

And to what degree are electric instruments required? Lost and Found (if anyone else here has ever heard of them) definitely rock, despite their accousticism and lack of drums. And there are a lot of "New Age"/ambient composers that use synthesized sounds in an entirely non-rock manner (though not, it must be said, without other possible moral dangers). Fine examples are Mike Oldfield's "Tubular Bells II" and Vangelis' "Chariots of Fire" soundtrack.

And what, exactly, makes electronic instruments more "unnatural" than accoustic ones? Is there really such a bright line between manipulating sound on a wave-form level and, say, bending a guitar string?

I don't wish to dispute the idea that different kinds of music have different spiritual effects, and can therefore be more or less morally beneficial or detrimental. But I do think James and Dr. Hutchens are painting with far too broad a brush.

[Rob Grano]

'If one say that all "rock music" is bad, then I think one could still argue that many songs by groups that occasionally or even usually perform "rock music" *aren't* rock. How does one discern such? Lack of syncopated rhythm? Some other criterion?'

The term "rock music" is so vague and takes so much variety under its umbrella that it seems almost useless as a descriptive term. It seems more like a functional handle for any non-jazz, non-folk contemporary music. People who don't listen to it don't know that there's a huge difference between Innocence Mission and Nine Inch Nails anymore than people who don't listen to classical know the difference between Bach and Bruckner. There is a good deal of contemporary music that loosely falls under the "rock" category and is not ugly, rebellious, or pornographic; folks who don't listen to it usually don't know this. Therefore, although I'd disagree with James and Steve in saying that it's all bad, I'd have to admit that it's a pretty small percentage of it that's decent. Same goes for Christian rock, which I haven't listened to for many years. For example, do we really want or need Christian 'speed metal' or 'death metal' bands? I don't think so. Those are ugly, rebellious styles of music and Christians should have no truck with them.

[Gene Godbold]

Rob Grano writes: "do we really want or need Christian 'speed metal' or 'death metal' bands? I don't think so. Those are ugly, rebellious styles of music and Christians should have no truck with them."

My answer: No; and I also see very little use in hip-hop even when the, uh, song is about Jesus. That said, I (very occasionally) listen to my old Run-DMC albums because they amuse me and I have fond associations with them. Unfortunately, those associations were also...er...associated with underage binge drinking. (And that is why I only listen to them very occasionally :-)

[Gene Godbold]

Note to all minors on this site: Underage drinking is a bad thing and underage binge drinking is very bad. And driving with underage binge drinkers is exceedingly dangerous and something only an ignorant moron would do. So there.

[Ethan Cordray]

Thanks for the advice, Gene. Luthien, Michael, listen to him! And eat your vegetables, too! :-)