Rap Music

[dUSt]

Okay, so if I produce a rap song with a 4/4 meter melody, it's acceptable? Cool.

What you two fail to realize is that hip-hop music is more than what you may hear playing on MTV. I could actually make a hip-hop composition made entirely out of Bach, Mozart and Gregorian Chants, and make it follow a 4/4 meter melody. Then what would you say?

[dUSt]

Oh, and it would be nice to get some citations from Church teaching on this matter. I'm sure if alternate forms of music are not to be used for His glory--the Church would surely have some teaching that would say so.

[the lumberjack]

different music has different effects on different people.

so while to you, a snappy drum beat in 3/4 or 4/4 with a melody that could move mountains and millions, is not good....to MANY others it is the music in their heart.

the drumbeat stirs their soul and makes their blood run harder.

it brings hard conviction.

fervor.

fire.

emotion.

love.

passion.

God thru the vocals to the heart of the listener.

like I said, a beat is a train...it needs a conductor.

just like the instruments listed in Psalms 150, they could have been used to praise God...or to praise a false god...depends on whose hands they were in...right?

in this way, HipHop...the music, the culture, the lifestyle, in the hands of a Christian, is a lifechanging experience to all those who come in contact.

sometimes, you gotta go to the underground to get up.

hey!...I'm putting that on a tshirt...

God bless.

[dUSt]

And please don't judge hip-hop by what you hear on MTV and the radio. In most cases, I wouldn't even consider that hip-hop at all. In fact, one of the most humorous shows lately was that Puff Daddy "Making the Band", where he puts together a "hip-hop" group. Yeah right. Where was the DJ? Ridiculous.

And don't get me wrong. I agree, today's mainstream hip-hop and rap, as a whole, is pretty much trash. Immoral garbage.

But so is TV...
Should we stop watching EWTN?

But so are movies...
Should we not watch "The Passion"?

You cannot condemn the factions that use certain mediums to glorify His name based on what the majority of other people do in that medium.

We must use everything on this earth to glorify God. It is our obligation.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='amarkich' date='Jun 28 2004, 02:44 AM'] 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. [/quote]
Ok, aside from someone who is tone deaf beating on a trash can lid, or someone trying to make "art" out of inappropriate matter, who is to say what art is "edifying" or not (I don't mean art that is completely, obviously, blasphemous)? Is a modern scuplture or painting somehow less edifying than something made a couple hundred years ago? Isn't this, to an extent, subjective? Comparing the beats/meter, etc. of hip-hip to someone trying to scuplt with animal feces isn't quite fair. The hip-hop musician still uses the instruments of his profession/art, that particular artist chose to move outside the norms and use dung instead of "normal art materials." I agree that the use of dung was irreverent but how do you draw the same conclusion for the hip-hop artist? I still don't understand how you can say that hip-hop as a whole is dis-edifying except for on a subjective level.

[amarkich]

IcePrincess, my entire point in using those two examples was to illustrate that there [i]is[/i] such a thing as art or music which, as a means to an end in itself, is objectively wrong and dis-edifying. This is seen through the blasphemous art and the junkyard "music". With that being said, it is clear that there is such a thing as music. as a means, which is dis-edifying. With this statement I do not think you disagree. The argument that seems to be made is rather that rap music is not in this category. In regard to this statement, I would refer you to my original argument against the music to which I have yet to read a refutation.

[quote] Is a modern scuplture or painting somehow less edifying than something made a couple hundred years ago?[/quote]

As I said earlier, it is not simply a matter of age which makes music (or art) better than another. The art of the Renaissance was greater than that on cave walls even though the cave paintings are older, but I do not think anyone would disagree that the art of the Renaissance is also better than modern art.

[quote]The hip-hop musician still uses the instruments of his profession/art, that particular artist chose to move outside the norms and use dung instead of "normal art materials." [/quote]

The first objection to this statement seems to be that the instruments used by many rap or hiphop "composers" were not considered musical until recent times. Turntables, drums (I speak of modern drums here), bass guitars, and the like would better be termed "noise-makers" rather than instruments. These things were not considered instruments until recently and are still not accepted by many who understand music. The fact of the matter is that dung could very well become an acceptable material to be used in art. What are called "natural arts" are becoming more and more popular in today's world. Many people consider "art" made from nature or other unconventional objects to be completely acceptable. This is seen in various ways, especially in landscaping. Many people believe that such things as a decorative hedge or a waterfall formed by a fountain is equally as artistic as a painting or sculpture. While I would disagree on that level, I still assert that these are acceptable means of decorating. If we have seen a downfall in the exclusiveness of what is deemed "music" (i.e., including turntables, modern drums, bass guitars, and various other loud, hardly musical, 'instruments')m then it is only natural that similar acceptances will be made concerning art. There are (obviously, since it was an actual event) people who assert that dung and other natural arts are an acceptable means of honoring a person or a concept and edifying the viewer. Secondly, if one were to somehow accept these things (turntables, etc) as instruments (all the while not considering certain natural arts to be acceptable instruments for an artist), he could still not circumvent the fact that the combination of these instruments is done in such a way as to be dis-edifying, as the article posted by popesaintpiusx indicates (as does my original argument). God bless.

[dUSt]

[quote]In regard to this statement, I would refer you to my original argument against the music to which I have yet to read a refutation. [/quote]
Can you summarize your original argument into one sentence so that I may properly refute it?

[quote]This is seen through the blasphemous art and the junkyard "music". With that being said, it is clear that there is such a thing as music. as a means, which is dis-edifying. [/quote]
We agree that there is dis-edifying music. And I assume we are both defining "dis-edify" in the same way, which is "discouraging spiritual growth". You have yet to prove to me how banging on a trash can lid discourages spiritual growth. My daughter use to bang on pots and pans--is that de-edifying as well? Sure, it may not be edifying (encouraging spiritual growth), but it cannot exactly be classified as "dis-edifying".

[quote]The argument that seems to be made is rather that rap music is not in this category. [/quote]
Most rap music can be properly placed in the "dis-edifying" category. All rap music cannot.

[quote]but I do not think anyone would disagree that the art of the Renaissance is also better than modern art. [/quote]
Why? I think modern artists such as Andrew Wyeth have a much better grasp on the structure of the body, and use of light and shadows than say, Michaelangelo. What makes Renaissance art better than modern? I mean, if we can break art down mechanically, such as you attempt to do with music, I'd be glad to show you how modern artists are far more advanced than those of the Renaissance.

[quote]These things were not considered instruments until recently and are still not accepted by many who understand music.[/quote]
Steel wasn't used in the construction of Cathedrals until recently either. Should we abandon that? What about using modern plasters to form statues? Are we only allowed to use marble?

[quote]If we have seen a downfall in the exclusiveness of what is deemed "music" then it is only natural that similar acceptances will be made concerning art.[/quote]
So this argument is based on only certain "exclusive" instruments being able to be used as an acceptable form of art? To be consistent, you'll have to apply this to all mediums then. Therefore, modern paints such as acrylic and modern oil based should not be used in paintings. Modern plasters or clay composites cannot be used in creating statues or sculptures--and in fact, modern tools such as sanders should not be used either. This seems to be bordering on the ridiculous, don't you think?

I'm curious. I'd like for you to provide a list of acceptable instruments so that I may do some research on them to see if they ever contributed to a "downfall of exclusiveness".

I look forward to you re-summarizing your original argument, as I'm having a hard time trying to figure out exactly what it is you want me to refute. Thanks.

[the lumberjack]

hello.

I'm chopped liver.

[img]http://jewishbazaar.com/BAZAAR/IMG/AJ27395.JPG[/img]

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jun 28 2004, 04:35 PM']
We agree that there is dis-edifying music. And I assume we are both defining "dis-edify" in the same way, which is "discouraging spiritual growth". You have yet to prove to me how banging on a trash can lid discourages spiritual growth. My daughter use to bang on pots and pans--is that de-edifying as well? Sure, it may not be edifying (encouraging spiritual growth), but it cannot exactly be classified as "dis-edifying".


[/quote]
I would completely consider this "dis-edifying". My sons do the same thing. I can assure you, they do not do it long. It creates chaos. They go from playing with the pans to banging on them an tossing them around. It's quite the natural reaction. While technically I would not say that it is "dis-edifying" for them, as they have not yet reached the age of reason, it sure as hell pushes everyone else to the limit. They refuse to listen at that point, caught up in this chaotic frenzy, and inevitably I (or my poor wife who now has constant "morning" sickness) lose what little patience is left.

This is the same kind of reaction I have seen from people listening to rock, rap and hip-hop, EVEN WHEN THE LYRICS ARE CHRISTIAN. The vast majority of people I know don't even pay attention to the lyrics. The listen to it because they like the beat, etc.

Let me provide another good defence:

[url="http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Faith/2001-04/peters.html"]http://www.catholic.net/Catholic Church/Periodicals/Fa...-04/peters.html[/url]

I'll post the key points if necessary.

[amarkich]

That article is truly insightful. While reading it, I was even more enlighted by the fact that it could be presented to any rationalist, requiring no acceptance of Divine Revelation. Then, upon completion, I realized that the author was a Thomas Aquinas graduate, and I understood completely--sheer brilliance. I apologize that I do not have time to make my counter argument and explanation to Dust. I will do this at my next chance. God bless.

By the way, interestingly enough, my Pastor, who gave a Sermon about this subject, morality in music, also attended Thomas Aquinas. Perhaps he knows the author of that article.

Edited June 29, 2004 by amarkich

[p0lar_bear]

For those who do agree with this article--

Can you provide any Magisterial statements to support your view?

[jmjtina]

Who says what is good and what is "acceptable" when it comes to music? Of couse the music of subject, rap, and hip-hop is never to be played at mass. NO arguement here.

But, Who is to say it is "just noise" ? Who defines this? The "Western Society"? Personally the lyrics and the beats go hand in hand. And as a youth minister, I know for a fact those kids know all the lyrics of the songs they listen too. That is why it is important to know what they listen to and what they like. It is awesome when creativity is encouraged and allowed, (pots and pans....STOMP) rather restricting it to a certain norm, even thier culture present in the music. Morality in music is lacking, and that is what many are trying to change.

I had read the article and found some problems with it. Overall, it is good and I do agree with the overall "whole picture". But what Mr. Peters didn't talk about was the lyrics. He did say that purpose played a major role. But as a grad student as well, I think we can agree that there is a correlation, but no proof of direct cause of action. I would like to see documentation of those two stores. "In the same location, etc?" "Exactly the same?" Obviously the shoppers weren't in the same social economic status or one wouldn't be at risk for jail time for robbery. He doesn't describe nor provide documentation to obviously another's research. If it is his own observations, two music stores is hardly valid or reliable. And what exactly did he observe watching those children? Were they his family? Children at the rock store? What setting? I know it's not a dissertation or something, but it was directed as if it would answer questions when even he states,

[quote]Another possible component of music is the lyrics to a sung song. Since my thesis is primarily dealing with music itself and not words I have decided to leave the topic of whether words can be moral or immoral alone. In passing though, I believe the words of a song play a [b]great part in determining its morality [/b]and in how it affects the listener. For who can deny that words affect us since they convey the concepts and ideas of one person to another.[/quote]


And yet research shows us there is a [i]correlation[/i] to behavior in regards to music, it also points out that many other [b]external factors [/b]contribute to the actions of the ppl who listen to music. To make this paper brilliant would need more than just Plato and Aristotle references and two observations. His documentation needs to be more detailed.

The bottom line for me, what is the intent/purpose of the music? What are the lyrics and the melody and how do they effect it's listeners? How does the lyrics with Catholic/Christian theme differ from that of immoral lyrics that promote promiscuity, drugs, violence and abuse and it's effects on the listeners? Now that would be one heck of a research....... :ph34r:

dang, it's late, I need to finish my research for school. :sleep:

[IcePrincessKRS]

I don't really have time to hit on any of the arguments made since I last posted but I did want to say, about children banging on pots and pans...

It may be "dis-edifying" to you as an adult, but that is a very important developmental stage for small children, HOW can you claim that its "dis-edifying" for them? It may drive me bonkers but at least I know my kid is showing signs that she is developing normally. Yes, for the greater purpose of this thread we mean edifying as "spiritual growth" but the term also includes "intellectual and moral growth/improvement" in its definition. Children recognize certain sounds as music. Adrienne loves music, she dances and bounces when she hears songs she likes. Last night I was sewing and she started to dance to the hum of the machine! Doctors actually recommend that you give children pots and spoons (or some other "drum equivalent") to bang on. While you may find it personally dis-edifying the same label doesn't apply for small children.

Anyhow, thats my little tirade for the moment.

[dUSt]

I say... If songs talking about the Eucharist, confession, Sacredness and neccessity of reverence in the Mass, our Holy Mother Mary, etc are dis-edifying to you, simply because of a bassline, then don't listen to it.

There are many people who find it extremely edifying though. In fact, I often find myself listening to Miko's "The Struggle" on my way to confession, and it helps clear my mind of all the distractions around me--allowing me to focus on my sins and reasons for going to confession.

I also find Gregorian Chant to be an extremely powerful form of prayer and meditation, but it requires silence and calmness. It's hard to listen to it effectively while in a car on a busy downtown street, or fighting traffic. It is in these moments in which alternate forms of edifying music are more effective for me, like Catholic hip-hop--where the nature of the music will "fit" and effectively conquer the chaos of the world around me at that particular time, in that particular environment.

[popestpiusx]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Jun 29 2004, 01:21 PM']
It may be "dis-edifying" to you as an adult, but that is a very important developmental stage for small children, HOW can you claim that its "dis-edifying" for them? It may drive me bonkers but at least I know my kid is showing signs that she is developing normally. Yes, for the greater purpose of this thread we mean edifying as "spiritual growth" but the term also includes "intellectual and moral growth/improvement" in its definition. Children recognize certain sounds as music. Adrienne loves music, she dances and bounces when she hears songs she likes. Last night I was sewing and she started to dance to the hum of the machine! Doctors actually recommend that you give children pots and spoons (or some other "drum equivalent") to bang on. While you may find it personally dis-edifying the same label doesn't apply for small children.

Anyhow, thats my little tirade for the moment. [/quote]
I think you need to relax and re-read my post. I specifically said that it was NOT "dis-edifying" for them, but it does create a general state of chaos with them and everyone else.

You flew off the handle there and totally missed the point of my post. Perhaps your daughter was beating on pots while you were trying to read.