  |
|
|
|
Don't Bash Rock!
This archived discussion is "read only".
» slinky7925 - god, jesus, etc. I mean no offence to anyone who believes in this religious stuff, but that doesn't mean you should bash Alice Cooper! I doubt that Ozzy Osbourne, The Rolling Stones and The Beatles were possessed (I'm sorry, that's the wrong word, but I don't know how to put it) by god to write a religious song. I am not even going to ask how god "talks" to people. Do not call "satanic" for I am not, I just can't (its not that I don't want believe, it would be nice to have something to believe in) believe god or jesus or satan. -- posted by slinky7925 » dancooper - Re: god, jesus, etc. In response to god, jesus, etc. posted by slinky7925:Hi slinky, Actually, there are some fairly good reasons for bashing Alice Cooper. But none of them have much to do with his music, which was largely pretty good rock. Usually nothing spectacular, but at least pretty good rock. The main reason to bash him stems from his simply stated thesis (many years ago, now) that his audience was made up of fools who would buy anything he put out. Yeah, he actually is quoted with something very much like that. For that reason, a lot of people decided to “get it someplace else,” and abandoned Alice Cooper’s music for that of other, less insulting performers. Religionists may want to bash him for other reasons, which may or may not be legitimate. I have no idea what their beef may be, but I am also largely disinterested in what that criticism is, since I am familiar with some other religionist arguments against art/music/culture and find those generally unconvincing. By the way: What prompted your post? There was no indication of a reference article, or other post to which you were replying. Actually, if you post as a reply [click on the “reply” link instead of the "post" link] the source is referenced. You did not do that, so your post was unrelated to the source. Where did you get the notion of a religionist-type protest against Alice Cooper? I find only a passing reference to him in the latest article posted in this Topic. “…it would be nice to have something to believe in.” Yes, it certainly would. I am working toward that, myself. It is apparently a very long road. Don’t blame the religionists for everything, though, since they think they have found what you and I are still actively looking for. Since they think they have found it, we are actually better off than they are. At least we are still looking. And they are bogged down in their complacent belief that little more seeking is necessary. They appear to believe they already know pretty much all they need to know. Don’t be too concerned with their criticisms of things which lie largely outside their sphere of influence. Like art, and literature, and music. They can put their own spin on it if they like, but they can only interpret it for you if you let them do so. Dan Cooper -- posted by dancooper » hawknut - Re: Re: god, jesus, etc. In response to Re: god, jesus, etc. posted by dancooper:What prompted your post? There was no indication of a reference article, or other post to which you were replying. Dan, read "My Testimony" by religious recluse Paul Landkamer in the Christian Rock topic's 'Articles'. -- posted by hawknut » Ognyen - Re: Re: Re: god, jesus, etc. In response to Re: Re: god, jesus, etc. posted by hawknut:I hardly know where to start here. Thanks, hawknut! I doubt the others read the articles, or if they did, they certainly didn't get what I was trying to say. Hawknut, I'm curious. Why did you refer to me as a "religious recluse"? If you others want more articles to not-read, then knowingly comment on, check out www.faithwriters.com and www.myspace.com/ognyen Christian rock is great, but Jesus is THE Rock! Paul<>< -- posted by Ognyen » dancooper - god, jesus, etc. commentary In response to Re: Re: Re: god, jesus, etc. posted by Ognyen:I apologize if there was some confusion about what I said, but I was not commenting on your articles. I was simply replying to slinky7925, who also seemed to be confusing an apparent protest against rock music (admittedly, a possibly misconstrued protest) with an admonition to toss all rock music out the window. You are right that I had not analyzed your point of view adequately before making those remarks. But I defend them still, on the grounds that I was speaking to an apparently confused young adult in search of meaning in his/her life, rather than speaking directly to points made in your articles (which were not referenced). After reading the reference article Hawknut kindly pointed me toward (thank you, Hawk), I remain pretty comfortable with what I said earlier. And because my comments were in no way directed toward anything you had specifically said, I resent (in some small way) the comment that appeared to be directed at me, with the following: “If you others want more articles to not-read, then knowingly comment on…” I have made no comments on your articles, your viewpoints, your comments, or your specific philosophy of life. I was simply reacting to a post in a subject area that interested me: rock music. I later learned that your denigration of rock as too secular for your tastes, was tempered by your knowledge that rock can deliver a valuable lesson or two, despite its secular nature. I can respect that opinion, but it changes nothing about what I said earlier. Sorry if you viewed my commentary as an intrusion. Dan Cooper -- posted by dancooper » Ognyen - Re: god, jesus, etc. commentary In response to god, jesus, etc. commentary posted by dancooper:I tried to come across as a rock defender and not a rock basher. Too many people still call rock music devil music. I truly feel called to tell the world otherwise. I still wonder where I denigrated "rock as too secular for my tastes." If that's what I said, I need to clarify something. I love rock music. I listen to it daily, and often loudly and for very long periods. It's just the adolescent shock-language and message of violence, immorality and other hedonism of so much (not all) mainstream rock that makes me seek Christian rock. I will continue to listen to rock music as long as I can still hear. -- posted by Ognyen » dancooper - Re: Re: god, jesus, etc. commentary In response to Re: god, jesus, etc. commentary posted by Ognyen:Your claim of being a “rock defender and not a rock basher,” doesn’t square with your subject, repeated in several articles, outlining exactly why and how you “broke away” from secular music in favor of something else. The repetition of this theme constitutes a pattern that seems to speak against rock music, rather than in its favor. You very clearly said that secular rock music is something you have “forsaken.” “I still wonder where I denigrated ‘rock as too secular for my tastes.’” You appear to have done that repeatedly. Concerning secular rock music you said the following things, which together led me to conclude you had clearly taken a position denigrating secular music. “I started actually hearing the message. What I heard, I frequently disliked.” “For the most part, secular rock music has followed society in its moral decay.” [from your second article] “I made that conscious break with the worldliness.” “I switched to Christian music, forsaking secular.” [from your first article] “Listening to Christian rock and pop keeps me from listening to other messages.” To denigrate: To speak ill of, to disparage or belittle. Like referring to something as following or exemplifying “moral decay,” as something which you “frequently disliked,” and “made a conscious break with” by “forsaking” it and switching to something else. -- posted by dancooper » Ognyen - Re: Re: Re: god, jesus, etc. commentary In response to Re: Re: god, jesus, etc. commentary posted by dancooper:"Rock" is neither secular, nor Christian. It's simply a neutral thing. Secular rock, yes, too often (not always) reflects worldliness, fleshly pursuits, violence, hedonism, disrespect for others. I got tired of wading through the trash to find those few tiny gems --which do exist even in secular rock. I never did "denigrate" rock music. I denigrated the bulk of secular/worldly/mainstream rock. "The bulk of --not ALL, and "secular", not ALL rock. There's a BIG difference. By the way, I recently bought Black Sabbath's Master of Reality on CD. Other than Sweetleaf, which praises marijuana (illegal, therefore against Romans 13 and Titus 3), and the two typical girlfriend-trouble songs, check out the message of the rest of that album --specially "After Forever". No, I clearly do not denigrate ALL secular rock. Yes, I did quit listening to secular radio (and watching broadcast/cable/satellite TV), and to most of my old music. "Rock" is not too secular for my taste. If you read the articles, that comes across quite clearly. Marilyn Manson's got a good sound, but I can't get past the image. Slipknot's got beautiful heavy instrumentals, but the language is totally unnecessary. Eminem might be a good rapper, but his message condones violence. Those are just a few examples. I don't need mainstream rock. -- posted by Ognyen
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion. |
|
|
|
