Something that's always confused me:

[282Mikado]

Btw' date=' Mikado... I hate a lot of the music my generation likes too... I don't know what possesses a person to like Rap (that's so nasty!!!!) or Hip Hop or that heavy metal "Screamo" music... it's all sooooo disgusting... (and the lyrics are even worse!!)[/quote']

Didn't say you liked it, just pointing out that every generation has its bad music and it seems to be getting successively worse.

I think LuAnne covered it pretty well in the post after yours.

[war_eagle]

I know this is off-topic... but how in the world did anyone ever like KISS in the first place?? That music is NASTY...Gene Simmons is REALLY NASTY... and the group is UUUGGGLLLYYYYY!!!!

maybe I'm just an ignorant kid born in the 80's....but I don't see how that would even come close to appealing to the flesh... (unless you're drunk or doped-up or something maybe)

You have to have seen them live to understand why people went so crazy over them as they did.

When I was a kid, I thought they were just the greatest thing ever. No kidding. I had all of the posters, went to all of the shows when they came to town, and even dressed like Gene Simmons one year for Halloween. Then, I bounced back and forth between New Wave (ask your parents) and stoner music and I stopped listening to them.

When I was about fifteen, I started playing music and that led to my becoming a professional musician for about twenty years.

So anyway, about two years ago, I heard an old KISS song that I thought was so great when I was a kid (I think it was "Firehouse") and I've got to tell you, it was absolutely the worst piece of musical garbage Id ever heard.

Over the years, I'd heard people who's musical opinions I respected laugh at them and say how bad they were, but when I heard them with twenty-five years worth of perspective under me, I was shocked that they were really this bad. I honestly can't believe I ever listened to them.

But then my sister pointed something out to me. She pointed out that they were the number one rock band in the world until they took their makeup off in 1982and then, all of a sudden, they couldn't get arrested. Then, in 1996, they dug out their old costumes, put their makeup back on and became a hit again.

So that kind of backs up my theory that it was only the live show and the spectacle of it all that attracted people.

[war_eagle]

I don't know who was singing it, other than it was a "Christian group", but when I was looking for a Christian radio station one time the station I stopped on played "Amazing Grace" by whoever this group was and I've never heard that song so butchered in my life!

They put some sort of pop beat to the song and even changed or left out some of the words (I remember they totally left out the word "wretch"). It was awful!

I've heard CCM artists and secular artists do this with a lot of songs. For instance, my favorite hymn, "Alas and Did My Savior Bleed" no longer says "For such a worm as I".

"Silent Night" now says "little child at thy birth".

They say that it's because words change over time and modern audiences wouldn't understand such antiquated language. I think they have a point, to a point. But what I don't think they realize is that, if they're going to dumb the song down for their audience, it's going to lose something in the translation.

[Guest Guest]

The hilarious thing about much of the debate here is that we think our "old" hymns are the only acceptable form of church music. Yet, how do you define "old" or "traditional"? What is the time limit? At some point in time, we have to realize that to somebody at some point in time, our sacred hymns were the detested modern songs or CCM of their day. This is a debate that has been going on throughout the whole of church history, and it is not going to go away.

Just from a historical viewpoint, it seems God's hand has worked through this, in spite of our musical variances and "convictions". For each generation, God has risen up songwriters to minister to His people. Think of all the outstanding church music and hymn writers. Martin Luther, John and Charles Wesley, Philip Bliss, and Fanny Crosby. Fanny Crosby (a devout Methodist, and woman preacher) wrote over 8,000 hymns, and many of her peers decried her writings, calling for the "old-time" songs. Nothing new under the sun, folks. Then it moved up to guys with a completely different style: Eugene Bartlett, Bill and Gloria Gaither, Anthony J. Showalter, and many other more familiar household names. Their songs have just begun making their way into most prominent (even IFB) church hymnals. Songs like, "Just a Little While", "Leaning on the Everlasting Arms", "Victory in Jesus", "the Longer I Serve Him", and "A Sinner Saved by Grace".

Bounce up to today's more prominent writers: Chris Tomlin (who is, most likely, the arranger of "Amazing Grace" discussed earlier in this thread), Twila Paris, Tori Taff, Diane Wilkinson, Steven Curtis Chapman, and Benjamin Gaither. While these songwriters/artists are often the point of criticism, it must be realized that in one or two generations - these will be the next hymnwriters. Whether we like it or not, that is how it has worked from the beginning of the publishing of church hymnals. Musical styles change, lyrics change, but the truth of the love of God stays the same.

What will become of the older hymns? Some will join their peers in annals of history, as so many songs have done. Others will stand the test of time and of a new generation to continue on, at least until the next generational cut. One thing is sure, God's music will continue, just as it has always done. How conceited of us to think that only an older generation or a particular time period was blessed by God to become a songwriting generation.

This, of course, is the humblest opinion from a perpetual student of music.

[John81]

That's kind of funny what you say about KISS. A friend got me listening to KISS, I really loved Double Platinum Live on my 8-track player I listened to them until I discovered AC/DC when they came out with Back In Black.

Anyway, not too many years ago while I was scanning the radio in the car I heard some KISS song and I couldn't believe how weak and lame it sounded I was really thinking, "Did I really used to listen to this stuff?" :puzzled:

[John81]

For myself, I'm not one who thinks a newer Christian song is bad because it's new or because it may have been written or performed by someone who doesn't hold to Scripture as I do.

If a song is Scriptural and the music is acceptable to me then I can listen to it and sing it giving all glory to God and praising God as I do.

I love Bluegrass Gospel but some folks don't care for that. I like some Southern Gospel but there is also much I don't care for. I've heard some songs under the CCM umbrella that I like and a whole lot more that I don't. Some of this is a matter of personal taste, and some of it's a matter of the lyrics not being Scriptural and/or the music not being appropriate.

[Guest Guest]

For myself, I'm not one who thinks a newer Christian song is bad because it's new or because it may have been written or performed by someone who doesn't hold to Scripture as I do.

If a song is Scriptural and the music is acceptable to me then I can listen to it and sing it giving all glory to God and praising God as I do.

I love Bluegrass Gospel but some folks don't care for that. I like some Southern Gospel but there is also much I don't care for. I've heard some songs under the CCM umbrella that I like and a whole lot more that I don't. Some of this is a matter of personal taste, and some of it's a matter of the lyrics not being Scriptural and/or the music not being appropriate.

I can agree 100% with the lyrics being Scriptural, but as you pointed out - age has nothing to do with that principle. Would not a musical style also be a personal taste matter? We've come a long way from the Gregorian chants that used to adorn "Traditional" music services, and I'm pretty sure that those 18th and 19th century pastors would loathe many of the musical styles of the hymns in our churches (yes, the conservative ones).

[282Mikado]

Would not a musical style also be a personal taste matter? We've come a long way from the Gregorian chants that used to adorn "Traditional" music services' date=' and I'm pretty sure that those 18th and 19th century pastors would loathe many of the musical styles of the hymns in our churches (yes, the conservative ones).[/quote']

To me it is what the musical style leads to. Does it feed the flesh. Does it get the flesh moving about, self-gratifying and not God-glorifying. You mentioned the Gaithers earlier and I can not watch them or most other CCM performers anymore. They hug the mike like its their wives, gyrate around and bring the glory upon themselves. I line up with what John said a couple posts ago.

[Guest Guest]

I understand what you are saying, to an extent. My question, however, is still valid: isn't that determination of musical style still a personal taste matter? C.H. Spurgeon believed that a piano, by its associative nature, was sinful. He did not allow one in his church for that reason, and yet today we would easily classify that as one of his matters of personal taste.

[bzmomo7]

As a kid, did you ever have one of your parents get after you for the way you said something? Example: Parent tells the teenager to go clean their room. Teenager responds, "O-kay, fine!" (with attitude) Acknowledgement in the affirmative is not the problem, it is the way it is conveyed by the teenager. We get the whole picture of what someone means by not only the words they use, but by the way it is said, and through body language. A piano isn't a problem in itself or any other instrument........they can all be played in many different ways and the person playing them can display a different range of body language while playing them as well. You add the wrong words to that, and you have an even bigger problem.

[John81]

As a kid, did you ever have one of your parents get after you for the way you said something? Example: Parent tells the teenager to go clean their room. Teenager responds, "O-kay, fine!" (with attitude) Acknowledgement in the affirmative is not the problem, it is the way it is conveyed by the teenager. We get the whole picture of what someone means by not only the words they use, but by the way it is said, and through body language. A piano isn't a problem in itself or any other instrument........they can all be played in many different ways and the person playing them can display a different range of body language while playing them as well. You add the wrong words to that, and you have an even bigger problem.

Excellent analogy!

There is a female singer who plays the piano (I can't think of her name) but a few years ago I caught just a bit of her performing on some program. The way this woman moved around on the piano bench was exceedingly sexual (and disgusting) and so much so that I don't even know how should could play the piano so well while doing that. After the shock wore off I changed channels.

Anyway, the point being that the music she was playing wasn't "rocking" or boisterous, it was rather calm and pleasant, and while I have no idea what the lyrics was she was singing, they were sang in a soft voice. Likely as not (if the lyrics were okay) that song would have been acceptable if she had simply sat at the piano and played rather than doing what she did. Her perversity with the piano bench made it inappropriate to watch regardless of the music or lyrics.

[Mykahh]

The problem with Rock' date=' Metal and other forms of modern music is that it satisfies the flesh. [/quote']

What do you mean by "satisfies the flesh"? I really don't know how music could satisfy one's body in such a way that their relationship with God is damaged. But if their music does damage their relationship with God then wouldn't listening to certain musical styles be akin to "eating meat sacrificed to idols" (1 Corinthians 8:1-13), and a personal matter -- not a matter that's simply black and white?

[John81]

Short answer: no.

Some music styles elicit a sexual response, others a violent response, etc.

One can look at different music styles and easily see the differing types of body movements they bring about; whether it be sexual gyrations or a mosh pit, whereas some styles bring might only bring about toe tapping, clapping or minor movement.

The style of the music is much more than a matter of personal taste in such cases. Some styles bring about wrongful actions.

Now, with regards to the styles which don't bring about perverse movements and such, there is room for personal taste to be a factor.

[Jerry]

Would not a musical style also be a personal taste matter? We've come a long way from the Gregorian chants that used to adorn "Traditional" music services' date=' and I'm pretty sure that those 18th and 19th century pastors would loathe many of the musical styles of the hymns in our churches (yes, the conservative ones).[/quote']

Gregorian chants - by Catholic/Gregorian monks. I don't think saved people during the Dark Ages would have appreciated this music from apostates.

[Mykahh]

Some music styles elicit a sexual response, others a violent response, etc.

One can look at different music styles and easily see the differing types of body movements they bring about; whether it be sexual gyrations or a mosh pit, whereas some styles bring might only bring about toe tapping, clapping or minor movement.

The style of the music is much more than a matter of personal taste in such cases. Some styles bring about wrongful actions.

That's a risky generalization, because what might incite some people to be violent or sexual won't have the same effect on everyone (think hardcore "punk" versus "pop-punk").

Just the same way that hearing the Word will lead some to Christ, while others won't care.

Music doesn't have the power to make you do things... unless you, somehow, give it that power.