Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Music Ministry' started by Aaron, Dec 24, 2005.
Please don't feed the trolls.
Now Playing: Jerry Jeff Walker - "Jerry Jeff Jazz"
BTW, Michael Ventura is not a Christian, and thinks that rock music is a necessary antidote to Christianity in American culture.
So you had an uptight "Christian' civilization that thought that sex was evil, and produced cold, stiff marching rhythms, often used for ungodly armies plundering and pillaging. (this is why people like Ventura think there should be such an 'antidote' for Christianity). So instead of spreading the true Gospel to the world, they just went around "conquering and to conquer" (Rev.6:2), exalting themselves and enslaving people, and to the African slaves, as most unevangelized people from warmer climates, sex was itself like a religion, so this was mixed into the music. The "Christians" were no less sexually perverse; only they covered it up more.
Now who should have known better? The slavemasters may have banned the rhythms and taught them good ol' traditional style melodies, but this did not erase sin; only further disguised it. And that is what this obsession with traditional Western culture is all about. Disguising sin, like a whited sepulchre; just like Israel of NT times. We just don't learn!
This is no substitute for the proof demanded of your arguments. In the other threads, you keep talking about a "line" being drawn, and you won't prove the line over there, but if this is supposed to be the proof, you are failing miserably. It is still the same old broken cycle of "associations", which then jumps to "natural effects", and then finally to "God just doesn't like it". None of this is any proof; just conjecture.
You Call It Madness: The Sensuous Song of the Croon (Lenny Kaye, 2004) describes the manners and techniques of legendary crooners centering on the life and career of Russ Columbo. The crooner needed the microphone...
Rudy Vallee was The Man with the Megaphone....
Sorry, but piling more on still does nothing to prove your point. Yes, people are sinners, and some find music techniques that they can tweak up to use for their sin. This was especially easy coming out of a culture that, once again, was overly uptight and thought physical "flesh" was evil; this pushed people to burst out in liberation. Read what Paul says in Rom.7 about simply trying to control the flesh with laws without the Spirit. Most of us today can listen to the same stuff and not be so influenced by it. So others go the opposite direction and try to be stiff and rigid, but end up as no less sinful. Actually, the "loose" people always wind up being more likely to see their sin and come to repentance, as we see right in the Bible.
So the solution is not to go back to the previous culture, upholding it as the standard. Thus, you have come none closer to proving your "line".
I know alot of banjo pickin drunks, maybe that is why I hate to hear banjo's in my gospel music.
If we are basing our theology on opinions instead of God's Word then ...
Banjos are from Satan!!
(Please note the "If" in the previous sentence)
I read the OP, the term began in Cleveland.
It doesn't matter the style of music as long as it glorifies God. And no where in the Bible does God give a recipe for "godly" music.
Music is from the heart. If God resides there, it should be good no matter what it sounds like.
Let's not forget fiddles and violins.
In the excellent documentary, "High Lonesome", we're told that the fiddle was once called the "Devil's Box" because it was believed to drive women into a sexual frenzy and encouraged men to lay about and drink.
In that film, Bill Monroe tells how he and his two brothers were thrown out of their church for playing the fiddle.
Now Playing: Jim Lauderdale - "Whisper"
I'm not attempting to answer anything in my posts thus far. My second is simply a continuation, not a rebuttal.
[ December 26, 2005, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Aaron ]
Actually, as Ventura stated, the term was long in use before Alan Freed used it to describe the "rock" of early fifties.
Ventura's essay is required reading in many university music history courses. It's an authoritative source.
Authoritative to whom?
Don Walser - "Down at the Skyview Drive In"
I didn;t really think it was, but still, none of that stuff is proving anything.
Speaking of the "fiddle", the violin was once called "the devil's fiddle" as well. (and the organ "the devil's bagpipe". Perhaps I should have responded by pointing these things out-- as if they haven't been pointed out repeatedly before).
Probably BJU and the KJVO's. Perhaps some radical right wing secular universities as well.
Do you know how to use Google?
Do you know how to use Google? </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I do. Now answer the question.
Now Playing:Paul Brewster - "Everybody's Talkin"
I guess we'll never know. Usually, when someone makes such a grand claim and then asks if you "know how to use Google", it means that he's just throwing anything available against the wall in a desperate hope that something, no matter how trivial, will stick.
Now Playing: Little Feat - "Waiting For Columbus"
If you do a Google search you'll find it in the syllabi of several university and college ethno-music and music history courses.
See for yourself.
Since you were the one who made the claim, it's your responsibility to back it up.
Or is this like "razzmatazz"?
David Lindley – “Twango Bango III”
The Webmaster says, "I've noticed the growing habit of posting whole articles on various forums.
Please do not post copyrighted or trademarked material without first obtaining the express permission to do so by the copyright or trademark holder.
Post only a summary (or key paragraph) and a link to the article instead. It is acceptable to quote other people's work so long as you credit them by name, include the title of the work, and do not repost the entire article.
If you think the blurbs I've cut and pasted are anything close to the "whole article" (Kaye's quotes are from a book actually) then you're welcome to report the posts. But you'd look like illiterate knucklehead in front of all the moderators.
Just wondering, do you (or does anyone) have a substantive rebuttal?
Music is music. Classical music can be, and has been, used for evil purposes,[See: Hitler, Wagner, "Playing for Time."] as has jazz, rock, Country, Blugrass, and Japanese music. The tune to "The Star Spangled Banner" was originally a bawdy drinking ballad. Most Hymns were written in the popular music parlance of their day. The cut-time 2/2 of celtic music is just as pagan in origin as African rhythms or South American salsa. As for Hebrew music forms, what do you think they were playing and singing in "the groves" of the Kingdom period? I don't think they had access to "In da Hood," or albums by "Queen!"
If you are seeking to tell us that different forms of music had a pagan origin or use, and that people have used them for nefarious purposes, my answer is, "well, DUH!" Proving that music has been used for evil purposes is like proving there is air.
The question is: "So what?" Should we limit church music to chanting the psalms--oops, can't do that, monkish monkery and popish popery is in that! Should we use baroque instrumentation and structure? Do you seriously think there is no possible evil intent in any standard musical form?