Rap Music

[Guest JeffCR07]

I agree with the points made by Dust, and Pope Saint Pius V, I want to apologize if I seem both whiny and impatient. It was not intended to come off as childish as (after re-reading) it sounds. I merely don't want my points to get lost in the nebulous "pages 1-4" and never get addressed later on.

That having been said, I should have been less of a baby about it

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[Pope Saint Pius V]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Jul 6 2004, 12:11 PM'] The reason Gregorian Chant is higher is because of many reasons, but two are 1) it is a powerful form of prayer and 2) the Church specifically speaks of Gregorian Chant having a special place in the Church. It is [b]not[/b] higher because of the arrangements of it's notes or chords.


[/quote]
Someone we all know but who will remain nameless sends his regards and the following statement:
Gregorian Chant is not higher because the Church chose it. The Church chose it because there is something intrinsic to it that makes it higher and more fitting. You are right though, it is a powerful form of prayer.

[dUSt]

[quote name='Pope Saint Pius V' date='Jul 6 2004, 01:48 PM'] Gregorian Chant is not higher because the Church chose it.  The Church chose it because there is something intrinsic to it that makes it higher and more fitting. [/quote]
Well obviously, the Church holds Gregorian Chant in high esteem for reasons--I'm sure it's not based on nothing. Still, this doesn't address any of the points I made (or Jeff's points either). I'll give you more time. I have plenty of patience.

[Pope Saint Pius V]

On second thought, I think I would like to make the claim that rap music is intrinsically evil. I am not, however, claiming that it is evil due to lyrics since as P.O.D., Fr. Pontifex, Fr. Fortuna and others have shown us, rap and hardcore music can have lyrics with very positive messages. The question is not the lyrics, but the music itself. There are three parts of music (bear with me, I haven't had to make this argument in a while), melody, harmony, and rythm. Melody corresponds to man's intellect, while harmony corresponds to his emotions and rythm to his lower passions. All of these things are fine, as each is part of our nature as God gave us. The problem in our lives arises when the intellect no longer governs the emotions and the passions, but is ruled by one or both. The ultimate problem with rap music is that it doesn't correspond in an ordered manner to man's nature. There is an overwhelming emphasis on rythm and subesequently the passions. While this next sentence doesn't pertain to the above argument, I'd like to offer a proof. The natural way that people dance when they listen to rap music is to either "bump and grind" or to jump around screaming like a bunch of monkeys. There is no order in that kind of dance, there is no beauty there. This is the dance that rap music naturally brings with it. By its fruits you shall know, says Our Lord. Well the fruits of rap music are clear in its dances. Now, we all know from our classical philosophy classes (we did all take those right?), that when a thing is disordered it is evil. It can be either extrinsically evil (accidental, not essential to the thing) or intrinsically evil (essential and not merely an accident). Given that the disorder found in rap music and hardcore, most rock and roll, etc. pertain to the very essence of that style of music we would say it is intrinsically disordered, ergo intrinsically evil.

[dUSt]

[quote]While this next sentence doesn't pertain to the above argument, I'd like to offer a proof.  The natural way that people dance when they listen to rap music is to either "bump and grind" or to jump around screaming like a bunch of monkeys.  There is no order in that kind of dance, there is no beauty there.[/quote]
This is your proof? You define the music based upon how people dance to it? So, if it is shown that by listening to Fr Stan's song about the Eucharist, one doesn't feel the urge to "bump and grind" or "scream like a monkey", then your "proof" is voided?

[quote]By its fruits you shall know, says Our Lord.  Well the fruits of rap music are clear in its dances.[/quote]
So if the fruit of the phatmass hip-hop is that it brings the listener to a deeper understanding of their faith, a deeper devotion to the Eucharist, and a new appreciation for the Sacredness and Reverence of the mass, then by your logic, it is good, right?

[quote]that when a thing is disordered it is evil.  It can be either extrinsically evil (accidental, not essential to the thing) or intrinsically evil (essential and not merely an accident).  Given that the disorder found in rap music and hardcore, most rock and roll, etc. pertain to the very essence of that style of music we would say it is intrinsically disordered, ergo intrinsically evil.[/quote]
You have failed to prove how Catholic rap music is disordered.

[amarkich]

I have only a few minutes before I return to my work, but I would simply like to commend Pope Saint Pius V for his scholarly analysis. To make a short response to dUst, Pope Saint Pius V was stating that rap music is inherently disordered and evil (as is the topic of the thread). The fact that "Catholic" rap music, through its lyrical content, can eradicate [i]some[/i] of the negative effects of rap music does not somehow make it acceptable. The reason that people dance sinfully to rap music is [i]not [/i]that it talks about "shooting the club up", etc, it is that its musical value (which is "rare if not practically non-existent") causes sinful behavior and as such is disordered and evil. If we were to mix the words of the Tantum Ergo with the "music" of a rap song, we would not be justified in defending this by saying "it is Catholic rap and is therefore not disordered" because we see that one of the two components of the musical work is disordered. This is at least a contradiction, and, is, as Pope Saint Pius V explicated, a disordered (read, evil) form of music. God bless.

[Guest JeffCR07]

I have to disagree with PSPV's conclusions and analysis. In terms of it being "Scholarly" there is little empirical evidence that is used to support it. I agree with the assessment that, in general, melody can be related to the mind, harmony with the emotions, and that rhythm connects with more basic instincts or "passions." However, beyond this, there is little that is done in a scholarly manner. The "proof" used falls apart because the mode of dance has evolved as a result of culture, not of the dance itself. The earliest rap artists did not dance at all. In fact, the first rappers used rap as a form of contest, almost a "duel" between the two. It was an alternative mode of conflict resolution than resorting to violence. Perhaps this would reflect the "passionate" nature of rap and hip-hop. Moreover, when I listen to rap, and when many of my friends do, we in no way shape or form feel the need or tug (whether we are in a two-sex group setting or not) to dance inappropriately. The desire I have is to bob my head in time with the drum beat or bassline. The reason for this is that the dancing is the result, not of the musicality of rap or hiphop itself, but rather, of the society in which it is most prevalent.

However, as I have illustrated in my previous post, there is much that goes into music and the creation of the harmony, melody, and the rhythm, particularly the mode (instrument(s)) through which they are achieved.

Thus I would like to hear a response to my analysis of the role of instrumentation in rap music.

Moreover, as I illustrated with the example of classical music, even "disordered" or disonant note combinations and chords are not necessarily evil, as they can be used for the accentuation of the "ordered" notes and chords.

I am very glad that the conversation is becoming more scholarly and so, I would, once again, ask that someone provide as scholarly response to the following:

[quote]Amarkich, I would like to respond if I may:

Your basic premise is that there are two relevant aspects to consider when judging the worth of a particular musical piece. The first is "lyrics" while the second is "musicality." "Lyrics" refers to the verbal message accompanying the music. "Musicality" refers to skill with which the notes of a piece are arranged in order to invoke particular emotions.

You argue that the two can be analyzed seperately and have their individual value appraised aside from the influence that the other has.

I agree.

It is clear that lyrics can either be good or bad, and the determination of this is relatively easy, so you proceed to the more difficult task: addressing the issue of musicality.

Like you, I agree that, because the arrangement of notes in certain ways can evoke certain emotions, sheer musicality, entirely apart from lyrics, can have a positive or negative affect on one's spirituality.

For anyone who disagrees with me, I will use an example from Music Theory: The Laconic Mode. The Laconic Mode is a series of notes in which each successive note is an equal degree of dissonance apart from the note that preceeded it. It was banned from Church music for a long time. Why? - It just sounds evil. Anyone who doubts me, feel free to listen to it, or to any song that is played within it.

However, here is where Amarkich and I part ways, for it is my opinion that even something like the laconic mode can be used tastefully.

If you are listening to a piece of music that has multiple movements (one without lyrics, I might add) the music itself is used to tell a story. If one is trying to tell the story of, say, Christ's temptation in the Desert and his subsequent fidelity to God and rebuke of Satan, it would not only be "ok" to use the laconic mode, but even advisable.

When it starts out, I can imagine the music to be slow & somber - Christ is fasting. Suddenly it speeds up and gets more excited - the devil has appeared.
The music changes for each temptation, getting louded and louder as Lucifer ups the ante.
Then he asks Christ to worship him - cacaphony, chaos, evil: the laconic mode.
Abruptly it stops. Christ has repulsed the Devil and submitted to God
The music becomes light and airy - the angels minister to Christ

Even music that is, in and of itself, "evil" can be used to magnify the positive affect that music can have.

"But Jeff, what about things like Rock and Rap: THEY don't work in movements like classical music!"

Thats right, they don't. But now we get into a question of how to define things like Rock, Rap, Hip-Hop, etc. Rock first, then Rap and Hip-Hop:

Rock: Most of what has been said with regards to Rock so far is incorrect. Not all rock is "electrifying." Not all rock is "loud." etc. There are many types of rock, so let us first define it.

Really what we are talking about is an instrumental arrangement. For rock music, it consists of guitar(s), bass, drum, vocals, and sometimes piano and other instruments, but those first four are the key.

Each of those instruments is capable of playing "good" music (that is, good for spirituality) and "bad" music (that is, bad for spirituality). Being that no instrument is "evil" in and of itself.

So Jeff, can Rock music ever be good? Yes, it can, listen to Eric Clapton's "Tears in Heaven." It is tremendously sad, uses all of the correct instruments, is undeniably "Rock" (if you contest this, then your definition of Rock is not the same as mine, and is probably too narrow, thus denying some forms of rock music).

The song teaches the importance of living up to one's responsibilities, and of the unconditional love for a son that a father has. It is productive and formative for spiritual development. So, for Rock, it is all about how the instruments are used.

Rap/Hip-Hop:

The basic argument for this is much simpler than that of Rock, due to the nature of the music.

Rap and Hip-Hop have their origins in the old Call-and-Response tradition of the American Slaves. It has slowly developed over time, and, true to what people have said, the musicality (heavy bass beat, mellow guitar parts, and even DJ sampling) is entirely focused on the individual rapper/singer.

But for catholics, this deep focus on one thing (the rapper/singer in this case) should not be a new concept. We focus deeply on Relics, Icons, Crucifixes, Statues etc. In the same way, if the individual that hip-hop or rap music causes you to focus on helps to bring your attention to God, then the music itself is good.


Conclusion:

All this having been said, I would just like to summarize though please (especially amarkich) dont just read the summary.

Any given musical intrument can play a series of notes that either bring one closer to, or further from, God, whether directly or indirectly.

In the case of Rock music, it tends to be direct, with the focus on the music itself (typically the guitar(s)), so it all depends on how the instruments are being played and how the music is being arranged. When done well, Rock can produce positive, wonderful songs, like Tears in Heaven by Eric Clapton.

In the case of Rap and some Hip-Hop, it is indirect, with the music trying to focus the listeners attention on the singer/rapper and what he/she is saying. If the message is good, then the music, which draws attention and focus, is also "good" just like an icon helps draw you to God through focus on a holy image.


Just one last note, then I'm done. I would very much like for any responses to try to avoid the "It sounds like noise," "It isn't music - just listen to that crashing and banging," "I can't focus on the lyrics because the music is too loud" type arguments. More than likely, it is an issue of being accustomed to certain things. Music evolves in a very concreate and real way and if it was truly "so loud" that it nullified lyrics, then lyrics would have eventually dropped from that type of music, even over the course of just 5 or 10 years. This is true because music is a type of communicative expression, like poetry, and demands not only to be concise, but to be acurate to what the artist is trying to portray.[/quote]

as well as to:

[quote]As it has been stated already in this post, Rap, as a music style, tends to rely heavily on bass as the driving power behind the music. This is why:

Typically, if guitars are used in a rap song, it is in an arpeggio (finger-picking) style or impliments the use of an "alaska" pick, worn on the thumb (a more specific style of finger-picking). This guitar style tends to be significantly more subtle, and does not draw attention away from the rapper (that is why it is also the dominant force in folk music).

Sampling (DJing) can have a wide range of uses in terms of what it adds or detracts from the music, and typically (in a manner reminiscent of the call-and-response style) if the artist is in the process of rapping, the sampling is light, only to pick up when the vocals drop off. This helps draw attention to the rapper as well.

The Bass: I would like to spend a few moments addressing the role of the bass in rap songs, because it is a.) what you asked about, and b.) very important. If I can speak with authority on any of this, it is with regards to the bass, seeing as that is the instrument I love most and play best. A bass, unless in the hands of a very capable player, does little more than provide the backbone of the music - a very important job, I might add  . It does not tend to be flashy, but rather, helps to accentuate those things that it accompanies, in order to increase their role in the music. In a guitar-bass duo, the bass allows the guitarist to play intricate solos and get a point across without having the listener lose the true feel and flavor of the song. In the case of a rapper, it provides the platform upon which his vocals stand and, as Dust pointed out, when the bass beat cuts out, it adds complete focus on the rapper. The role of the bass is to allow the vocalist (in the case of rapping) a little more lee-way than he would normally have, and to make it easier for him to make transitions. However, very rarely is the listeners attention focused on the bass itself - typically that occurs when someone plays a "slap-bass" style, which is rarely used in rap.

The end result is that the bass beat holds up the other aspects of the music so that the listener can pay more attention to them. In rock this is in the form of the guitar, in rap, the vocalist.[/quote]

I thank you in advance for the response.

- Your Brother in Christ, Jeff

[dUSt]

Again, you have yet to prove to me (and I'm assuming, any of the readers of this thread) how rap beats are disordered. Your claim is that a beat causes sin. The sound of a drum pattern, mixed with a flute, combined with say, a violin, causes one to sin simply by listening to it? Am I the only one that finds this absurd?

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that no documentation from the Church has been provided that backs up the claims that specific forms of instruments are intrinsically evil.

[dUSt]

PSPV, Amarkich - would you consider this sample intrinsically evil?

Real Audio:
[url="http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/30/061705/061705_01_08_30.ram"]http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/3...05_01_08_30.ram[/url]

or .WAV format if you prefer:
[url="http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/30/061705/061705_01_08_30.wav"]http://www.sonymusic.com/clips/selection/3...05_01_08_30.wav[/url]

[cmotherofpirl]

Interesting

[Aloysius]

I'm gonna have a dance with PhatMass music and proove you wrong, there will be a ban on "dirty dancing" and we will be able to dance to it just as well.

PhatMass Rap can be very edifying.

Pax

[dUSt]

This thread is giving me flashbacks of Footloose.

[Good Friday]

dUSt, I have two words for you regarding the opposition argument (and gee, I just hope I'm spelling them right): [i]argumentum absurdum[/i]. I wonder how they like [i]that[/i] Latin?

[RemnantRules]

This debate is like saying "I'm in for just the music and not the lyrics." which is stupid! You and I as humans love to imitate and learn everything we do so when we hear something we want to learn about it and thus how we are able to memorize lyrics.

Yes your probably right you'd be able to have dirty dancin with phatmass music but i bet there would be at least one person there that would listen to the lyrics AND decide not to dance AND, especially if the people there have never heard the songs then they are going to be interested in the words to the song.

God Bless
Jason Greogory

PS Gregorian Chant rules all!!! lol. sorry Gregory the Great is my patron saint so i love the chants.

[BeenaBobba]

Hi PSPV,

Actually, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say that all music is entirely subjective. I said it is [b]largely[/b] subjective, and I'm going to stand by that. And, if you read one of my past replies, you'll see that I also said I wouldn't have much of a problem with someone saying that classical music is better than rap music (without saying that rap music is intrinsically wrong, that is).

PSPX has made the argument that rap music is inherently dis-edifying. I think that this would be largely subjective. Many Catholics here, myself included, find Catholic rap to be edifying. I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again, but would you suggest that we who find it edifying don't know ourselves? If so, what is the objective standard you judge us by?

The argument thus far used by opponents of rap (and rock) music is that the beat is dis-edifying and leads to a spirit of rebellion and other things. But what makes you think that classical music was composed the "right" way? Like I've said, the effect music will have on someone is largely subjective. Someone could listen to Rachmaninoff, for instance, and be moved to tears and great spiritual heights. Others could be lessed moved.

God bless,

Jennifer