Members John81 Posted January 7, 2008 Members Share Posted January 7, 2008 Actually, it's from the worlds definition of music that I got these things. I was heavy into music years ago and used to listen to lots of it and read magazines and listen to the radio a lot. This is where I got these definitions. Even during the time I listened to some Christian rock on the radio, a couple of the stations I listened to would divide their programming days betwen different genres of rock, which included everything from soft rock and pop to rap and hard rock. Rock and roll, or more commonly just "rock", isn't considered to be just one style of music, it's a broad label encompassing a wide variety of "rock" music. Now, on a personal level, I've often heard songs that were placed into one category or another and couldn't (still can't) understand why they were classified as such. Just like today, if you happen upon a "classic rock" channel on the radio, much of what they play on some of those stations I wouldn't call "classic rock" at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dwayner79 Posted January 7, 2008 Members Share Posted January 7, 2008 I am willing to say that Rock is a genre that encompasses various forms of Rock (hard rock, soft rock, heavy metal, etc.) but to lump pop, contemporary, etc. into "rock", I simply can't agree to without some type of citation. I too was pretty heavy into music in the 90's. There was always a clear distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members war_eagle Posted January 7, 2008 Members Share Posted January 7, 2008 "Adult contemporary" is a genre of the broad 'rock music' category just as is pop' date=' rap, heavy metal, hard rock, soft rock, urban, etc.[/quote'] Adult contemporary isn't rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted January 7, 2008 Members Share Posted January 7, 2008 When the term "pop" was first used, at least when I first remember hearing it, it was called "pop rock". Of course, having two words together is just too cumbersome, so it was eventually shortened to just "pop". All of these styles of music stem from the roots of rock and roll formed mostly during the 50s and 60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dwayner79 Posted January 7, 2008 Members Share Posted January 7, 2008 I'm bailing out... I disagree, but not really worth getting up and arms over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted January 7, 2008 Members Share Posted January 7, 2008 I'm bailing out... I disagree' date=' but not really worth getting up and arms over it.[/quote'] I agree, it's not a major issue, but it does explain why so many people call so many different varieties of music "rock". It's because of the overly broad use of "rock" as a generic name that encompasses all these. It's the same way so many different varieties of 'Christian' music is lumped into the CCM category. Look at the wide variety of music styles that are lumped into the 'Country' category today. They range from traditional bluegrass to Southern Rock! I don't personally agree with this lumping because I see a vast difference between some of the styles of music, but as you know, the world loves to have neat little boxes for everything to fit into. It's easier for them to take most of the music out there today and place it into either the "rock" or "country" box. I still remember some friends arguing over whether the Sammy Hagar version of Van Halen was really rock like the David Lee Roth version of Van Halen was. :Green Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members war_eagle Posted January 7, 2008 Members Share Posted January 7, 2008 When the term "pop" was first used, at least when I first remember hearing it, it was called "pop rock". Of course, having two words together is just too cumbersome, so it was eventually shortened to just "pop". All of these styles of music stem from the roots of rock and roll formed mostly during the 50s and 60s. I agree with Dwayner. I really don't care about this enough to argue about it. But before I go, I'm big into old time radio shows and the jazz, big band, and swing of the late thirties/early forties. Just so you know, "pop" is used frequently in those shows, at least ten years before 1954, the commonly accepted beginning of rock and roll. Pop has nothing to do with rock. It is short for "popular music" and the music that was pop was popular long before rock. But, let's move into the rock era to see who the pop stars are. Perry Como, Dinah Shore, Teresa Brewer, the Four Freshmen, Nat King Cole, Patti Page, etc (and, yes, I know I'm going to Hell for listening to these fine artists) were all considered "pop". None of them were rock and roll. So there is a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted January 7, 2008 Members Share Posted January 7, 2008 Today, Britney Spears and Hannah Montana (among many others) are considered to be "pop artists". I've already stated that I don't agree with the lumping of various music styles into just a few overly broad categories, but that's the way of the world. That's why, other than music afficianodoes (sp?), to the world at large, Britney Spears, The Beatles, Bob Segar, AC/DC, J-Lo, Madonna, etc., are all considered to be "rock". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SamoX19 Posted January 17, 2008 Members Share Posted January 17, 2008 It's been a while since i've been here and views seem to have changed a bit... Relient K, Thousand Foot Krutch, Kutless, Pillar, Demon Hunter, P.O.D, Switchfoot; All of these bands are considered Christian Rock (well some METAL), would you agree? Their lyrics are fine, they as people are fine, and they make great music, and they love God. So...is it glorifying to God? I would say yes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry Posted January 17, 2008 Members Share Posted January 17, 2008 What is fine? Is that the same thing as Biblical? As pleasing to God? As teaching the truth about the Bible and Christianity? As teaching how to be saved? Perhaps they are not fine - perhaps you just like "Christian" Rock. How many times is the actual name Jesus or Jesus Christ used in the songs? If His name is not used at all or very little, how can that album even be called Christian? P.S. Since when is heavy metal pleasing to the Lord? Did Jesus thrash and bang His head? I don't think so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bzmomo7 Posted January 17, 2008 Members Share Posted January 17, 2008 It's been a while since i've been here and views seem to have changed a bit... :umno: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted January 17, 2008 Members Share Posted January 17, 2008 P.S. Since when is heavy metal pleasing to the Lord? Did Jesus thrash and bang His head? I don't think so... Too funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SamoX19 Posted January 20, 2008 Members Share Posted January 20, 2008 P.S. Since when is heavy metal pleasing to the Lord? Did Jesus thrash and bang His head? I don't think so... How do you know? Just because it's not in the bible doesn't mean he didn't do it. Computers aren't in the bible, but here we are using them. How many times is the actual name Jesus or Jesus Christ used in the songs? If His name is not used at all or very little, how can that album even be called Christian? So Christian people writing uplifting lyrics and using God's name sometimes doesn't count? Wow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Kenny5682 Posted March 1, 2008 Members Share Posted March 1, 2008 Samo, The deception of Christian Rock is that it makes Jesus an "accessory." Instead of completely and totally changing for the Lord, people do not shed off the former self and just add Jesus to their false characters. There was a "Christian" rock concert at the Church I recently left, and kids were yelling, mosh pitting, throwing things, and even swearing in the sanctuary. The whole idea was to "get kids into the Church." All it really did is make Christians look just like the rest of the world. The idea that we can be just like the world is a result of preachers who feel pleasing people is more important than pleasing God. The result is that instead of kids wanting to completely and totally be disciples for Jesus, they become "freaks for Jesus." Instead of professing "Jesus is Lord!" they profess "Jesus is my Home Boy." Jesus is not your home boy, and He doesn't call us to be His "freaks." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted March 1, 2008 Members Share Posted March 1, 2008 Samo, The deception of Christian Rock is that it makes Jesus an "accessory." Instead of completely and totally changing for the Lord, people do not shed off the former self and just add Jesus to their false characters. There was a "Christian" rock concert at the Church I recently left, and kids were yelling, mosh pitting, throwing things, and even swearing in the sanctuary. The whole idea was to "get kids into the Church." All it really did is make Christians look just like the rest of the world. The idea that we can be just like the world is a result of preachers who feel pleasing people is more important than pleasing God. The result is that instead of kids wanting to completely and totally be disciples for Jesus, they become "freaks for Jesus." Instead of professing "Jesus is Lord!" they profess "Jesus is my Home Boy." Jesus is not your home boy, and He doesn't call us to be His "freaks." You bring up some good points about other problems associated with this, and that's the trivializing of Christ and God. Does it really honor God to call Him "Big G"? Is it good to call Jesus Christ "JC"? Doesn't the New Testament teach that Christians are to draw the lost out of the world? How does it help the cause of Christ to bring the world into the church and then to invite worldly people into that church to have worldly pleasure? The New Testament is filled with examples of how to reach the lost for Christ yet far too many professing Christians, including pastors and youth pastors, believe they must become like the world in order to reach the world; which is a totally unscriptural concept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts