Rap Music

[the lumberjack]

hahaha...THAT would be something.

[curtins]

Ill just say this

I love my punk rock

my mom doesnt really like punk neither does my dad

but i love it

i dont think cuz sum extremist says its bad i should stop listenin to it

i love it

[amarkich]

The fact of the matter is that the article is correct. Anyone who is well versed in music in general understands the two-fold effect that music has on the listener. On the one hand, the music itself influences and affects the listener, and on the other, the lyrics imprint a certain message on him. The fact of the matter is that music can either be edifying or dis-edifying in one of these to realms. Lyrics which are immoral are obviously shunned by all with a well-formed conscience, but the other aspect of musical compilations are misunderstood or ignored by most. There is an effect which is produced by any type of music, whether it is rock 'n' roll, hip-hop, rap, country (in this I mean genuine country, not mainstream rock 'n' roll country), classical, or otherwise. My contention (and that of most who understand music as a concept, better than I might I add) is that there is such a thing as music which is inherently dis-edifying in and of itself.


This type of music incites such feelings which are not efficacious as regards our spiritual livelihood and our actions either toward others or toward God. It is hard to believe that someone would disagree with the statement that there is such a thing as bad music, but that is apparently the stance of most here at phatmass. The issue then becomes one of musical understanding. If one understands the three facets of musical compilation, namely, melody, harmony, and rhythm, it is evident to him that there can be such a thing as bad music if these three facets of music are not properly developed. If the music is not arranged in such a way as to produce an edifying or efficacious effect, then that music can assuredly be deemed ‘bad music’. It is clear that if there is such a thing as objective truth in reality (which I am sure almost all, if not all, of the listeners of “Catholic” rap music believe), then it is clear that there is such a thing as objective truth in music, which is an extension of external truths of nature which are harnessed in such a way as to produce some effect for the listener. With this being said, it is clear that there is such a thing as bad music, as even the most liberal components of ‘free thinking’ in the musical realm would surely assert as regards such “music” as the new concept of trash can-smashing, garbage-beating “music” in which the “musicians” beat instruments found at a junk yard to make a noise which they call “music”. If anyone has seen this sort of “music” (I do not know how it would properly be cited, for I am unaware of any named genre), he would certainly assert that it is dis-edifying, not efficacious, and, essentially, ‘bad music’.


With this being said, the issue then is to decide which kinds of music are not edifying and can be deemed ‘bad music’. If one understands the musical structure of rap (if there really is any), he is bound to see that the three facets of musical compilation (completely apart for lyrical worth) are not to be found in a unified or positive fashion in rap music and even most rock ‘n’ roll music (N.B., for my purposes, rap, hip-hop, and the various other forms of music in “street (or, ‘black’) culture” will be grouped together under the title ‘rap music’). As regards rap music, it is clear that, if there is any musical quality in this ‘music’, it ceases to be noticed amidst the banging of the bass which overpowers any reasonable listener. Even in that music which has true musical characteristics (I have never heard any), it is certainly plain to see that this sort of musical compilation is dis-edifying as there is no harmony (if it can be called such) between the loud beating out of the rhythm and the normally disastrous “melody”. If these facets of music can be noticed in rap music, they are certainly not arranged in such a way as to turn the soul toward God and to an edifying ultimate effect. At best, this kind of music may be “uplifting” insofar as it is pleasing to the flesh or the emotions and as such can arouse strong emotional feelings, but this is certainly not desirable. The goal of all endeavors in this life should be geared toward the fashioning of ourselves to the understanding and to the interaction with the Divine. This can only be accomplished through the edification of the soul, not the emotions. This effect is certainly the case in other forms of music, specifically in classical music and, of course, in Gregorian Chant, the music of the Church. If anyone would wish to delve into this debate more fully from a musical standpoint, I would be glad to do so, but I am not as well-versed in musical concepts as several of my mentors, especially my Pastor and the Schola Director at our Parish, so I will be glad to consult them on more in-depth concepts. God bless.

[amarkich]

Is there a response to this forthcoming?

Adam

[Aloysius]

i disagree, but i can't "respond"

except by calling that a bunch of gibberish that is unproven when clearly hip hop music does not always tear ppl down and was used in Senegal (or some Frankophone Country i can't remember which one) to build up society. music simply has different styles.

not very convincing, i guess, but it's clearly visible to me that hip hop music isn't detrimental to the soul just because of it's beats or whatever. i find that to be simply complete nonsense.

pAx

[amarkich]

Well, I was looking for a response (in which I meant to imply: a logical, unemotional argument to refute my claims which would otherwise have to be accepted as accurate). In any event, I thank you for your opinion and feel that it will in actuality support my cause in the mind of the objective reader. God bless.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I'd actually be interested to hear what some of the resident hip-hop composers think of your analysis....

I don't actually agree with alot of it, I'm more seeing eye-to-eye with Al.

Back in the day Classical music wasn't so classic, eh?

[quote]The goal of all endeavors in this life should be geared toward the fashioning of ourselves to the understanding and to the interaction with the Divine.[/quote]

This I agree with, but who is to say that listening to Catholic hip-hop/rap doesn't bring some of us closer to the Divine? Some may be more interested in picking up their Bible or Catechism, or reading up on the Church Fathers after listening, or perhaps they'll be moved to go pray a Rosary. To assume that it cannot bring us closer to the Divine is pretty silly and presumptuous, I think. (And before anyone makes any assumptions as to what I listen to lets just say it covers a broad spectrum, including a[n almost] daily dose of Gregorian Chant.)

I am not a composer nor music major/student so I can't argue the finer points of composition (sorry to dissapoint), this is clearly just my opinion.

God Bless.

[amarkich]

[quote]Back in the day Classical music wasn't so classic, eh?[/quote]

I agree completely, but the issue is not with the age of the music but rather with the compilation and effect that it causes; I also recognize that this statement was not really intended to be an argument, so I will not dwell on it.

[quote]This I agree with, but who is to say that listening to Catholic hip-hop/rap doesn't bring some of us closer to the Divine? Some may be more interested in picking up their Bible or Catechism, or reading up on the Church Fathers after listening, or perhaps they'll be moved to go pray a Rosary. To assume that it cannot bring us closer to the Divine is pretty silly and presumptuous, I think. [/quote]

I am not saying that the music as a whole necessarily does not incite religious or even Catholic feelings; my point is that the music itself does not lift the soul to the Divine even if its effect my sometimes be to research the Faith or to study more fervently. My comments were concerned with the music as a concept in itself, the subject to which I feel the original question referred. The more important point concerning the theological effect that the music might produce (as a result of its lyrics, not of its compilation) is that music which combines edifying lyrics and edifying musical value should be supported, not music which contains only edifying lyrics masked in a poor quality and dis-edifying musical structure. God bless.

[IcePrincessKRS]

I see what you're saying amarkich, but I honestly believe that the music in question DOES have that effect on some people. Not all or even most, but certainly some and that has to count for something. I also have to disagree with your label of "poor quality"--yeah, I am sure that there is plenty of poor quality stuff out there but to label all of this particular genre as such I think is unfair.

[dUSt]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jun 27 2004, 11:49 PM'] ... not music which contains only edifying lyrics masked in a poor quality and dis-edifying musical structure. God bless. [/quote]
This argument completely falls apart due to the fact that 1) "poor quality" in regards to music is left up to the tastes of the listener, and 2) if "poor" quality compositions are only edifying, then anything less than the "best" quality would not be suitable, based on your argument.

So, if the "best" Gregorian Chants are heard side by side with a "lesser quality" or "poorer" quality Gregorian Chants, then listening to the "poorer" Gregorian Chants would not be acceptable, based on the absurdness of the above argument.

And since musical structure is not a science, but rather, an art, it's edifying qualities are left strictly up to the listener. Comparing musical structure is like comparing DaVinci's Last Supper to Michaelangelo's Pieta. Which one is better?

Your argument would be perfectly valid if "taste" was as mechanical as science, but unfortunately, this is not the case--so the argument, in it's current form, is rendered absurd.

[IcePrincessKRS]

And there you have what one of our resident hip-hop composers has to say... Thanks dUSt.

[amarkich]

I would appreciate a reply also to my entire musical argument against rap music rather than just regarding the one sentence conclusion that I made in a follow-up post. In any event, I was asserting that rap music (I use this in the same general sense as before) in itself contains poor quality musical structure and compilation. This was a poor choice of words. In any event, rather than discussing the semantics of the issue, I will simply retract my choice of "poor quality" and ask that a response be made to the argument in its entirety, most importantly as regards the fact that there is such a thing as a objective truth and that this truth extends to musical expressions which are in themselves an expression of various truths in reality. Further, your entire argument hinges on the idea that music (and art, as you seem to later imply) is completely subjective and that it is a matter of "taste", opinion, or personal feelings rather than objective truth. If this were the case, there would be no need for critics of music, for it is completely subjective. In any event, it is quite clear that music is not simply a matter of taste, as I feel the example of "junk music" (i.e., a process which involves the smashing of junkyard instruments together to produce a noise which is called "music"). I ask that a counter argument to my musically oriented post be made rather than one to my follow-up. Thank you. Also, it is important to note that Gregorian Chant, while it can certainly be sung in a poor manner by the schola, cannot (at least as far as the learned mind is concerned) constitute as something which would be considered dis-edifying music, for the music itself has the fullest certitude of being not only edifying to ourselves but, more importantly, efficacious in bringing honor to God insofar as it is the music of the Church. God bless.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jun 28 2004, 02:21 AM'] Further, your entire argument hinges on the idea that music (and art, as you seem to later imply) is completely subjective and that it is a matter of "taste", opinion, or personal feelings rather than objective truth. If this were the case, there would be no need for critics of music, for it is completely subjective. In any event, it is quite clear that music is not simply a matter of taste, as I feel the example of "junk music" (i.e., a process which involves the smashing of junkyard instruments together to produce a noise which is called "music"). [/quote]
But couldn't you use this same argument against art critics, or food critics, or movie critics? Music/art/food/movies one person may abhore another person may genuinely enjoy, etc. While it may be "clear" to you I'm still not convinced...

[amarkich]

I agree that there are differing opinions on various issues in the realms of different arts (music, of course, included), but the contention is that these differing opinions could only be considered valid within the spectrum of music which is considered edifying. For example, a person could have an opinion that he prefers Bach to Berlioz who was known for his extremely explosive composing because he feels that Berlioz is too bombastic for his own taste. This person is fine in his opinion and can maintain such an opinion justly. The opposite, however, is not true. One cannot say that music which is dis-edifying is somehow acceptable. In other words, his spectrum can become more limited, more exclusive, but not less limited or overly inclusive. An example of this can be seen with the "artistic" display in New York some years ago. There was a sculptor who wanted to make a monument to Our Lady. In doing such, he decided to sculpt a sort of statue resembling her countenance. The sculptor, however, chose cow dung to be his instrument by which to sculpt the image of Our Lady. Not only was this act heralded as being a horrible work of art by many, it was even removed by the mandate of the local government because it was truly dis-edifying, not to mention horribly blasphemous art. If this is true for art, it is surely true also for music. If sculpting a statue of Our Lady is a holy thing but is also a holy thing that can be corrupted by an improper means to this end, certainly the same can be said of music. In other words, it can be said that music can have a good message and can promote such things as the Church, the Eucharist, faithfulness to God's law, and other pious activities but that this music must be deemed dis-edifying and impious according to the means by which the end is achieved, as is seen in the case of the blasphemous sculpture of Our Lady in regard to art. If this is not true, a defense for the use of dung or other irreverent materials by which to "honor" the Saints or God Himself would be necessary. God bless.

[popestpiusx]

There is another interesting article on this subject (besides the one by Fr. Basil Nortz that I have posted on here before). It was written by Jacob Michael. I'll post a few key paragraphs. I apologize for the length of this post:


It gets rather tricky to come up with one strict definition of "rock music." Some say it's the syncopated rhythm; but some of the best classical and modern orchestral music is heavily syncopated. It's what makes the music interesting! Some say it's the predominant drum beat; yet, I could point to several examples of music in the mainstream today (Britney Spears' latest song, Everytime, is a good example) which are utterly devoid of any drum beat, let alone a predominant drum beat. Would I still consider Britney Spears' music as "rock?" You bet. Would I condemn some of the modern symphony composers as "rock?" Not at all.

I really think what makes rock 'n' roll is a combination of one or more of these elements: the rhythm, the predominant drum beat, the syncopation, the artist involved, the lyrics, and most importantly, what I can only describe as a "rock culture" that pervades this style of music. It's tough to put your finger on, but there is definitely a spirit of rebellion, or of unbridled liberty, or even of despair that inhabits this style.

Allow me, then, to go down a bit of a rabbit trail here and introduce you to some basic musical training. Music is extremely ordered; any good student of music will tell you that it is heavily based on mathematics (believe it or not!), which is itself a very structured system. There are rules to be followed in the process of creating music, and yet, as with all structured systems, there is flexibility. Some of the rules can be bent. Some can be broken, if only momentarily. These occasional deviations add flavor to the composition, but if the exceptions become the rule, you end up with something that is – to borrow some post-conciliar terminology – not "authentic" and "fully" proper to the "inherent dignity" of music.

The "major" scale is made up of eight notes, and the distance from one note to another is referred to as an "interval." The order of intervals in a scale is fixed; it is the same no matter what key you are in. So, for example, the C major scale is made up of the notes C, D, E, F, G, A, B, and back to C again. The nearest note in relation to any note you are on is a "half step" away; if you were to play a C, the next nearest note (or "half step") would be a C-sharp. Thus, moving from C to D involves two "half steps" (C-to-C-sharp, C-sharp-to-D), also known as a "whole step." As I said, every major scale is based on the same pattern: whole-step, whole-step, half-step, whole-step, whole-step, whole-step, half-step. I bring this to your attention only to demonstrate that music can be a very technical thing, and the more you investigate the theory of music, the more you see just how well-ordered and structured it really is.



As a composer writes music, he begins by choosing a scale, or a "key" that tells him what notes he can use, and which notes he cannot use. If he were using the C scale I outlined above, the composer would naturally use those notes which I listed above in crafting a melody. Of course, he can occasionally make use of a note or two which does not belong in that scale (such as a G-sharp or a B-flat) to make the melody more interesting. These notes which are foreign to the scale are called "accidentals." To give an example, The Star-Spangled Banner uses only notes which are proper to its scale. When you sing Happy Birthday, you are using only notes proper to that scale; but when your obnoxious Uncle Bob leans in at the end and adds, "and many moooore," this would be an example of adding an "accidental" to the scale.

Likewise, rhythm is a very well-ordered and precise thing. Every song has what is called a "meter," the pulses that keep the flow of the melody moving. The most common meters are those which are divisble into sections of two, three, four, and six. Again, let me help make this more concrete by giving an example or two: The Star-Spangled Banner is split into rhythmic sections of threes, like so:



(3) 1 2 3 1 2 3 - 1 2 3 1 2 ... etc.

O | say, can you | see, by the | dawn's ear-ly | light



Waltzes and polkas are usually written in this meter (think of The Blue Danube and you'll know what I mean immediately). Another example of this meter would be the hymn O God, Almighty Father, or Come, Holy Ghost. Other songs are split into meters of four beat, such as:



(4) 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Hail | Ho - ly Queen en - | throned a- bove ...



Other examples of this meter would be the children's song Are You Sleeping, Brother John, and the hymns Tantum Ergo (not the chant version) and O, Sanctissima. Most rock and roll songs are written in this meter.

Now, in a meter like this (which is called 4/4, by the way), there are natural accents. You may not think of them consciously, but you subconsciously follow these accents, which naturally fall on the first and third beat. If you were to stop reading for a moment and sing the opening lines to Hail, Holy Queen, you would probably feel those accents: Hail ho-ly queen en-throned a-bove, O Ma-ri-a.

What rock and roll music does to this meter, however, is an inversion of order. Most rock songs place the heavy drum beat, not on the first and third beats, but on the second and fourth beats. This inversion creates a continual and unnatural tension in the music, a tension that lasts through the entire song. Almost everyone knows the rock-anthem by Queen entitled We Will Rock You, even if they've never heard of Queen; the rhythm gets pounded out at some point at nearly every baseball, football, basketball, or hockey game. You remember it? Boom-boom-CLAP! Boom-boom-CLAP! This is a perfect example of placing the accent on the unnatural beat: one-and TWO, three-and FOUR.

Already, then, rock and roll is founded upon an inversion of natural order; and as I've said before, a good Catholic ought to be very keen about preserving right order in all things. Inversion is, it must be said, the calling card of Lucifer. Everything is inverted in his upside-down world.

Rock and roll also presents us with another inversion of order. In order to have something that can be properly called "music," you absolutely must have a melody, and in order for that melody to keep moving, you must have rhythm as the undercurrent of the melody. It is quite literally impossible to have a melody without also having rhythm. This is the proper order within music: rhythm is the servant of melody. Rock and roll, however, places heavy emphasis on the rhythm instead of the melody, so much so that in some cases melody can be sacrificed entirely and still be sold on the market as a "song." There is currently a song on the top 40 by a group called D12, which features verses that are entirely spoken over a constant beat, with no melody whatsoever. Not only is this being called "music," it is wildly popular music (it's in the number two slot on Billboard this week)! So here again, we have an entirely inverted system of order that serves as the foundation for this style of music.

Alright, so what's wrong with that? I am a firm believer (as every Catholic should be) that body and soul are very much interrelated. When the body is suffering, perhaps from some kind of illness or the like, the soul suffers with it. I don't know about you, but I find it very hard to be "spiritual," to pray, to worship, etc., when I've got the flu. Grace builds upon nature, and if nature is not functioning properly, the flow of grace will be hindered. I learned this lesson in a most powerful way when I went to my spiritual director, complaining of a "hit-and-miss" devotional life, and his firm advice was to set myself a daily routine and stick to it. I had no order in my day-to-day life at the time, and as a result, my spiritual life followed suit; just as I rarely went to bed at night or got up in the morning at consistent times during the week, so also did I rarely pray consistently during the week. Once I put my physical life back in order, the spiritual life naturally followed suit.

This being the case, let's return to the question: what will be the effect on your spiritual life if your daily routine involves three-to-four hours of listening to music that is, on the whole and in more ways than one, built upon an inversion of order? The negative effects may be slow in coming, and they may be barely imperceptible, but I am convinced that they are there. These effects are only intensified when this wrongly-ordered music is coupled with lyrics that subtly provide you with a thorough catechesis in worldly thinking. I will talk more about this side of rock and roll in the next installment.

I would like to discuss one more aspect of rock and roll that I touched upon last issue: the quality of the music itself. Music is a function of our creativity, and it has been scientifically linked to the development of our intellect. Companies like Baby Einstein are making money hand-over-fist by getting parents to purchase classical music for their infants and toddlers, all based upon these scientific studies that show how listening to classical music helps to develop the brains of young children (shameless plug: I’ve used the Baby Bach video with my own daughter, and it does work). There are similar enterprises that focus on selling this same concept to adults. Certain types of classical music are recommended based on the results you want to experience: this Mozart sonata is recommended if you need better concentration, that thundering Wagner overture is recommended if you need more energy. DeBussy is good for relaxation, and Bach is good for creativity. As a computer programmer, I found myself benefiting from classical music years before I made the decision to “de-rock” my life. If I was faced with a particularly challenging piece of code-writing, I would slap my headphones on and listen to Bach’s Brandenburg Concerto #2 while I worked. Conversely, I found that if I listened to rock and roll when faced with these same coding challenges, it was nearly impossible to focus, and I would eventually have to shut the music off until I’d solved the problem.

I think there's a good reason for this. Have you ever listened to a stirring aria from an opera? Listen to one sometime, and take note of what the orchestra is doing. The music is all over the map! The strings are zig-zagging in one direction, the woodwinds are meandering in another direction, and the brass is popping in and out with occasional musical exclamation marks. Subconsciously, your brain is following all of that well-ordered motion, which means your brain is in high-gear. You're getting an intellectual workout, and you don't even realize it! Add to this the fact that the emotion of the composer is transmitted to you through the music, which usually means you will, to some extent, absorb that emotion and make it your own. This is why, if you need energy, you should crank up a rousing Sousa march; alternatively, if you need to wind down and relax, you should put in a reflective Bach air. Sousa's energy becomes your energy; Bach's contemplation becomes your own contemplation.

Now apply these principles to rock and roll. Where the opera aria features a constantly-moving accompaniment that functions independently of the vocalist, rock music usually features (on a good day) four or five chords, each one sustained for long periods of time before moving to the next chord in the progression. The bass guitar tends to just drone the same note over and over. In short, the music is unchallenging and boring. So why do people listen to it? The beat, of course. The music itself is usually secondary. Just as the brain is constantly active while listening to a symphony, so also the brain is much less active while listening to a pop rock song.

What of the emotions that are conveyed? Rock and roll seems capable of conveying a very limited range of emotion, the two most prominent emotions being either unbridled carelessness, or deep angst. I realize that's a generalization that doesn't hold true for all songs, but on the whole I believe it is accurate. To sum it up: classical music stirs creativity and intelligence, and rock makes you either want to "lose control" or retreat into a gloomy cloud of self-consideration.