Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

heartstrings

CCM?

Recommended Posts



That is a good point. Same thing is happening to the term "Rock Music".


That is sooo true. I was playing the first song in front of an 18 year old, myself, and my husband. While we were listening and reading the comments, we were reading that some people thought it was rock music. To us that is a funny thought because when we think rock music, we think of bands like Black Sabbath, Queen, etc. Basically we think of the rock from the 70s, 80s, 90s and 2000s. The first song is like a little peep compared to the music from that era. While some people may find the first song worldly, I do not. If any of my non-Christian friends were listening to just the music from that song, I would think they had fallen ill or something. It honestly is not something most people would want to listen to today. Here is an example of this: When I was in highschool, I road the bus when playing basketball. They would usually listen to some secular station. Well, this time Klove or some other station was on. They were playing some song, and everyone on the bus was complaining and asking for the driver to change the station. They were wondering what in the world he was listening to. This song had a little back beat, but they still knew that it was not their worldly music. Definitions of rock music are different. I think it has a lot to do with upbringing and generation gaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Nope. Neither is, "thou shalt not smoke."


Usually I agree with most of your posts, but I think this one is a bit of a stretch. There is a far greater arguement against smoking from a Biblical stand point than there is rock music. We know that smoking kills and is very unhealthy. When we smoke we are defiling our bodies, and defiling our body. To make the arguement that 1/3 beat is the only good beat, you must prove that all other beats are defiling our bodies and hindering our relationship with Christ. If you can prove that rock music is harmful to the body, you must then find out what type of rock music it was. Is it hard rock, soft rock, pop...etc. There is a large variety of rock music. I will agree that there is a line. Apparently even part of the world knows this. When I was at the mall passing Hot Topic one day, I saw a shirt that read keep music evil. The question is where is this line? I think the only way to prove where the line is is to prove that some music is harmful and not honoring to God. Also, at some "Christian" concerts there are mosh pits. Is music that makes one want to push one another God honoring? Words are important to. Is Jesus Christ mentioned or is it some shallow song that is human centered instead of Christ centered? What emotions does the music cause? Music is a touchy subject, and it is very hard to prove what kind of music is wrong and what kind isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right, music is subjective. But when there is a back beat, the music causes the body to respond in a way that is not proper. Even in that first song. I understand that when you think of rock music, you think of certain groups. Most people do. But the thing is, even the world knows that rock covers more of a gamut than Queen and Black Sabbath (both groups that are definitely not what one could call soft rock). If we were to apply your reasoning as to the first song, then we'd have to say that the Beatles didn't perform rock music, because most of their songs (at least at the beginning of their popularity) didn't sound like rock music. In fact, many of them sound very nice...

The rock music of my parents' generation is a bit different from that of mine....that is true. But having been immersed in the rock culture, I can testify that it is harmful. Very. I will not go into further detail, and I don't need to prove it - anyone who's been there knows what I am talking about. My point about smoking wasn't to justify it. I agree that the Bible teaches enough principles that show us smoking is wrong. However, the Bible also teaches principles that should guide our music. As Annie very aptly pointed out in the quote you used. But...

We have to be careful not to use her questions to justify that which is not God honoring. No, the lost might not care for the song you listened to...it wasn't written for the lost. It was written for the saved. And it was written in a way that pulled a worldly beat into it. You may not feel that it was wrong, and that is your choice. But my whole point is that it is a beginning. A beginning of accepting a sound that can lead to a harder beat. I know, I know - that's silly. Well, it's not, though. It is true. I've seen it happen over and over to young people who listen to a song and it sounds nice. The words are good and the music isn't too bad - after all, it isn't "rock" because it isn't Queen, Kiss or Santana....or even the Eagles (which group was actually more soft rock, and thereby might be acceptable to some, because, hey, they might not think it's actually rock...).

As to mosh pits in "Christian" concerts...I think you answered your own question, when you put Christian into quotes. The so-called Christian concerts are not. They are simply rock concerts with some God thrown in. And just because a song has scriptural words doesn't mean it's Christian, nor does it mean it's God honoring.

Let's put some biblical words to "We Will Rock You." The refrain is "we will, we will rock you," twice. Let's just put "He will, he will save you." Keep the music from the original song...and voila! We've got us a Christian song, right? Wrong. What we've got is words that might have a biblical basis put into music that even the world recognizes as rock. And it would be rock: nothing Christian about it.

Just like taking a glass of water - good stuff. Add a little bit of arsenic. It's still water, right? Let's drink it then...no, it's no longer pure, is it? It's been polluted by the arsenic, and is harmful to the body.

Rock music harms the spirit before it harms the body. And soft rock, even if good words are added and "generational gaps" don't recognize it as soft rock, begin to harm the spirit.

The Bible is full of instruction and principle that teaches that worldly music is to be avoided. That doesn't just mean rock. That means songs that have philosophy that isn't God honoring - whether it's via the words or the music/beat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The second song does not accentuate a "backbeat" until later in the song when the snaredrum kicks in.. Both songs I posted, I believe, are in 4/4 time and can be played with or without the drum....... By the same token, "Brethren We Have Met to Worship" is also in 4/4 time and could easily be rendered with drums and a backbeat without changing the rhythm of the song at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think it's safe to stick with my Bluegrass Gospel. As many times as we've been onstage, I've seen plenty clapping and foot stomping, but haven't observed any of the audience "gettin' down" yet. :icon_mrgreen:

Yet many a fundamentalist would call such "worldly" and proclaim that clapping and foot stomping are fleshly and evidence the music is fleshly and sensual. I've heard preachers proclaim that if a song causes your foot to tap it's a sensual, fleshly, worldly song.

Most music I hear has a "back beat", even if it's not prominent or not carried by drums. There are several hymns that at times I might move to while at the same time when I hear rock music that so many proclaim "causes" ones body to move, it doesn't stir me at all.

I've noticed these days that beat and even style of music don't always effect the way the world dances. I've seen bands playing at festivals and such that will change the music drastically and the people use the same dance moves whether the music is rock, hip hop, polka or even forms of classical.

At the same time, I've been in churches where they will play a bluegrass version of I'll Fly Away and folks just sit there while in other churches the folks are clapping, singing along and sometimes even tapping their toes! :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



No - the song I mentioned is one the rock group Queen did years ago.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, yeah, I remember that song, I was in high school! Isn't that the song that was coupled with "We Are the Champions"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Ohhhhhhhhhhhh, yeah, I remember that song, I was in high school! Isn't that the song that was coupled with "We Are the Champions"?


Their name "Queen" is slang for "effeminate" or a Sodomite............Their lead singer died of AIDS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do imagine most fundamentalists would be shocked, even outraged, if they saw Christians today dancing before the Lord as did David or other saints from biblical times (whether OT or NT).

I've heard the sort of bluegrass music played in the video declared as sensual. Of course, I've heard some proclaim that anything beyond a piano or organ music is sensual and worldly (ironically, earlier Christians once said the same thing about both the organ and the piano when they first started being introduced in some churches).

While I agree that some music is clearly wrong, oftentimes it's more a matter of personal taste. I know some folks listen to music that would make me feel ill yet they are blessed by it. I don't understand it, but I've experienced it and seen it time and again over the years.

I recall there was a lot of talk about Queen being a homosexual group. I'm not sure when it became open but I do recall the lead singer died of aids some years later. I didn't realize until about that time just how many of their songs I had heard when I was younger and didn't even know it was them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Both of those songs were by Queen and were actually probably their most famous.

There were very few radio stations available back then and most in high school listend to the same pop/rock station and I heard those songs from many different radios back then.

On a side note; until about 1974 I didn't even realize there were other kinds of music besides country!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The time signature argument is ridiculous. I've played rock music with almost every popular time signature there is.. 4/4 3/4 7/8 5/4 Can we please see a Bible verse that says "thou shalt not play a 4/4 beat with an emphasis on 2 and 4"? There are no scriptural arguments in this thread against a 4/4 beat with the back beat emphasized. None. It's just even more ridiculous to say that a bad song can have a back beat without it being even heard. The audible back beat IS what defines rock music. Period. I'm not even sure what you guys are trying to prove anymore. Just say you don't like the original poster's songs or have an unjustified fear of sinning if you listen to it. That would be more honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I already mentioned this, but I'll say it again in case I only thought I did:

When I put 1/3, I wasn't intending time signature. I was referencing the idea that good music emphasizes the first and third notes rather than the second or fourth. And your comment proved my point:

The audible back beat IS what defines rock music
Regardless of the pretty sound or not, a back beat is rock music. Even if there is a "generation gap" or not, even if it's a calm song (in the manner of bubble gum rock from the 70's).

anime, I actually gave you scripture earlier on into which music fits. While the Bible does not say "thou shalt not listen to..." principles are clearly there.

An unjustified fear of sinning? That's a little presumptuous of you. There are people around who prefer to stay away from questionable stuff - and it's not unjustified. There's a little verse you may know: "let him that standeth take heed lest he fall." By accepting songs with a soft back beat (and, truly, people can hear back beats, whether they realize that's what they are hearing or not) and a lovely sound, it opens the door for going into other music that is worse.

I don't think anyone's trying to "prove" anything. It's a discussion - with strong feelings on all sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I already mentioned this, but I'll say it again in case I only thought I did:

When I put 1/3, I wasn't intending time signature. I was referencing the idea that good music emphasizes the first and third notes rather than the second or fourth. And your comment proved my point:

Regardless of the pretty sound or not, a back beat is rock music. Even if there is a "generation gap" or not, even if it's a calm song (in the manner of bubble gum rock from the 70's).

anime, I actually gave you scripture earlier on into which music fits. While the Bible does not say "thou shalt not listen to..." principles are clearly there.

An unjustified fear of sinning? That's a little presumptuous of you. There are people around who prefer to stay away from questionable stuff - and it's not unjustified. There's a little verse you may know: "let him that standeth take heed lest he fall." By accepting songs with a soft back beat (and, truly, people can hear back beats, whether they realize that's what they are hearing or not) and a lovely sound, it opens the door for going into other music that is worse.

I don't think anyone's trying to "prove" anything. It's a discussion - with strong feelings on all sides.


I agree.

Here's another song off the same album the two above songs came from. Notice also the "dumbing down" of the lyrics. It repeats the same pharse over and over. It''s definitely rock and definitely has the backbeat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I already mentioned this, but I'll say it again in case I only thought I did:

When I put 1/3, I wasn't intending time signature. I was referencing the idea that good music emphasizes the first and third notes rather than the second or fourth. And your comment proved my point:

Regardless of the pretty sound or not, a back beat is rock music. Even if there is a "generation gap" or not, even if it's a calm song (in the manner of bubble gum rock from the 70's).

anime, I actually gave you scripture earlier on into which music fits. While the Bible does not say "thou shalt not listen to..." principles are clearly there.

An unjustified fear of sinning? That's a little presumptuous of you. There are people around who prefer to stay away from questionable stuff - and it's not unjustified. There's a little verse you may know: "let him that standeth take heed lest he fall." By accepting songs with a soft back beat (and, truly, people can hear back beats, whether they realize that's what they are hearing or not) and a lovely sound, it opens the door for going into other music that is worse.

I don't think anyone's trying to "prove" anything. It's a discussion - with strong feelings on all sides.


I see what you're saying and I finally got what you meant by 1/3 and 2/4. You are meaning the beats which are emphasized in a measure, assuming a 4/4 time signature. The problem is that you wrote it in a format that looks like a time signature, which led to all the confusion on that part. The problem with that once again though is that a lot of rock and non-rock music has many different time signatures, 4/4 being the most common. With a 3/4 time signature, in classical music without any syncopation, if any beat is emphasized, it's the 1. In rock music with a 3/4 times signature, it's actually the same, except that you would have a downbeat on the 1 in the first measure, and a "back beat" on the 1 in the next measure, where in classical music you would usually have another downbeat. Most 3/4 rock, because it has a sort of "fake" back beat, sounds a lot more chill than a 4/4 rock song.

I just responded the way I did because I found this statement totally ridiculous:


A backbeat is still a backbeat, whether it's strong or muted. :twocents:


How do you have a back beat if you can't hear it? All music has the same beats (assuming you are comparing songs with the same time signature), but if the back beat isn't emphasized, it just isn't rock.

A fear of sinning is justified, I just meant that the fear that all rock music is sinful to listen to seems unjustified to me. Hope that's a bit clearer. I am not in any way promoting sin. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 52 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...