Did Aaron Invent Rock Music 3400 or So Years Ago Before Elvis?

[Mr. Lunt]

Okay, name me a rock song from, say, the '70s that is not 4/4. (So with this knowledge, you're a musician, right? What do you play? I'm a guitarist.)

This is an interesting challenge, please let me chime in even though it was addressed to JonC because music production and theory is something I find interest in.
Nearly in the 1970s is "America" by Simon & Garfunkel (1968) in 3/4 time.
"We Are the Champions" by Queen (1977) in 6/8.
"Four Sticks" by Led Zeppelin jumps around multiple time signatures, primarily 5/8 and 6/8. That's also in the 70s.

There's more. I think it is precise to say that most rock songs are in 4/4 time, but it's not a rule that I am aware of.

 

[Mr. Lunt]

However, Frank Garlock points out that, unlike in classical music, there is no letup in rock. In other words, it keeps building the tension with no release. That, to him, explains the immorality so often associated with rock. The emotional and physical release has to happen somewhere.

This is another claim that I would respectfully challenge. Some rock songs have tension with no release, but I would venture that most rock songs have both. Some do it very well, actually. "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey is a clear example. The intro, verses, and pre-chorus all build the tension and then the chorus comes very last in the song and releases it. It is done exceptionally well, that's why it was such a hit.

 

[Mr. Lunt]

Did Aaron invent rock music 3400 or so years ago before Elvis?

Exodus 32:17–18: "When Joshua heard the noise of the people shouting, he said to Moses, “There is the sound of war in the camp.” Moses replied: “It is not the sound of victory, it is not the sound of defeat; it is the sound of singing that I hear.”

We see music, dancing, and a lot of chaos going on in this passage, and the Israelites are directing their worship to the golden calf. But it is a massive non-sequitur to say that we know what the style of music was. Why not rap? Why not yodeling? Bluegrass? I never understood how people could make this claim.

Also, exegetically the music is not the point of the passage. Moses does not rebuke them for the style of music that they were doing, whatever it was. He rebukes them for abandoning Jehovah God for the golden calf. Is there anybody that actually thinks that this is true?

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Exodus 32:17–18: "When Joshua heard the noise of the people shouting, he said to Moses, “There is the sound of war in the camp.” Moses replied: “It is not the sound of victory, it is not the sound of defeat; it is the sound of singing that I hear.”

We see music, dancing, and a lot of chaos going on in this passage, and the Israelites are directing their worship to the golden calf. But it is a massive non-sequitur to say that we know what the style of music was. Why not rap? Why not yodeling? Bluegrass? I never understood how people could make this claim.

Also, exegetically the music is not the point of the passage. Moses does not rebuke them for the style of music that they were doing, whatever it was. He rebukes them for abandoning Jehovah God for the golden calf. Is there anybody that actually thinks that this is true?

My post was not based on my knowing of someone who has made the claim that Aaron invented rock music, etc. Rather, a recent proponent of CCM has made what I consider a mocking remark in which he said something close to that as part of his criticism of what musically conservative believers hold about the importance of the Golden Calf Incident.

Your claim about what the exegesis of the passage shows is lacking. The text says that Moses anger exploded when he saw the idol and the dancing. It was not just their making the idol and worshiping it that incited Moses' response. In addition, the passage says that Moses saw that Aaron had made the people naked to their shame among their enemies.

 

[John of Japan]

In about 1

This is an interesting challenge, please let me chime in even though it was addressed to JonC because music production and theory is something I find interest in.
Nearly in the 1970s is "America" by Simon & Garfunkel (1968) in 3/4 time.

In my playbook, Simon and Garfunkel were folk artists, though they did some rock songs (Cecelia, etc.). I don't remember how "America" goes, so not sure how I would classify it.

"We Are the Champions" by Queen (1977) in 6/8.
"Four Sticks" by Led Zeppelin jumps around multiple time signatures, primarily 5/8 and 6/8. That's also in the 70s.

Granted.

There's more. I think it is precise to say that most rock songs are in 4/4 time, but it's not a rule that I am aware of.

I never thought of it as a rule, but just a more opportune time to be able to hit the backbeat.

 

[John of Japan]

This is another claim that I would respectfully challenge. Some rock songs have tension with no release, but I would venture that most rock songs have both. Some do it very well, actually. "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey is a clear example. The intro, verses, and pre-chorus all build the tension and then the chorus comes very last in the song and releases it. It is done exceptionally well, that's why it was such a hit.

I don't believe that all rock songs have unrelenting pressure, but that most do. I grant your exceptions, but as exceptions not a norm. Having said that, Frank Garlock (a music prof, by the way) wrote his book in 1971, so I grant that the genre has changed. Most 1960's rock groups had that unrelenting 4/4 time: Beach Boys, for example.

 

[Aaron]

Did Aaron invent rock music 3400 or so years ago before Elvis?

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 1:9 KJV

 

[JonC]

Okay, name me a rock song from, say, the '70s that is not 4/4.

Just off hand -

Money
Estimated Prophet
Time is on my Side
Living in the Past
All You Need is Love
Playing in the Band
Whipping Post
The Ocean
Manic Depression
The Times They Are A-changin'
Norwegian Wood
Terrapin Station
Tuesday's Gone
Take it to the Limit

I'm sure there are many more, but those are the 70's bands I can think of at the moment.

What do you play? I'm a guitarist.)

Piano, but now well (I have not played in years). My son plays the french horn and drums, my wife the piano.

I retain an ear, and a knowledge of music theory. But the skill is gone (and my hands do not work like they did years ago).

However, experts do quantify rock. For example:
“Rock and roll combined the unrelenting beat of rhythm and blues with the milder guitar background of country music and drew on numerous elements in both traditions, from rhythm to timber. The instrumentation consisted of amplified or electric guitars for both rhythm and melody, backed by electric bass and drums, and sometimes augmented by other instruments.”
J. Peter Burkholder, Donald Jay Grout, Claude V. Palisca, A History of Western Music, 8th ed., p. 912.

Music evolves. That book was written in the early 70's. Consider a more contemporary book (like Gracyk's) which incorporates changes in music that had occurred within the past 50 years.

Rock from the start has mostly been about amorous relationships, mostly immoral ones. “The words, most often concerned with love or sex, were often delivered in a raucous, sometimes wailing voice, although there were also gentle romantic ballads sung in a deliberately subdued mode” Ibid, 912.

Yes. Rock, country, and even a segment of folk music, have that in common. The delivery is different. But that is lyrics, not the music.

To me it depends mostly on the lyrics as to whether a rock song is immoral or not. However, Frank Garlock points out that, unlike in classical music, there is no letup in rock. In other words, it keeps building the tension with no release. That, to him, explains the immorality so often associated with rock. The emotional and physical release has to happen somewhere.

I agree that the lyrics dictate the message.

Garlock is right, with some rock music. But not all. If we stereotype older rock music then we do get a driving beat (which is why so many like it for working out).

But he is wrong thst an emotional and physical release has to happen somewhere. If you listen to rock music (the heavier driving beat) then you would quickly realize that the emotional drive ends with the song (there is no need for an emotional and physical release...it is not like overcharging a battery).


It would be nice, however, if Christian rock music did what Garlock suggests (drives people to action, sets them to evangelize rather than quietly contemplate theology).

I'm not sure I understand what you mean with this.

What I mean is old country (40's and 50's) and a lot of older folk music had the same raunchy message (drinking, sex) as rock music. I listed Hank Sr.

I agree new country is just pop music. Some is rock. By yesterday's definition, anyway.

 

[JonC]

. Having said that, Frank Garlock (a music prof, by the way) wrote his book in 1971, so I grant that the genre has changed. Most 1960's rock groups had that unrelenting 4/4 time: Beach Boys, for example.

This is a key fact.

I will be 58 years old this year. Your posts do not ring true to me because of the music I grew up with (I was 2 years old in 1971).

That is what I found puzzling. The "norm" of Rock music is not this unrelenting and driving beat - at least not in much of the rock I grew up with.

I do not actually consider the Beach Boys to be rock. I would place that squarely on the pop genre - not even pop-rock (blend of pop and ro k music). But I do not know that "pop" existed as a stand alone genre in 1971.

Those bands I listed were from the 1970's (I think the earliest is 1967).

 

[John of Japan]

Just off hand -

Money
Estimated Prophet
Time is on my Side
Living in the Past
All You Need is Love
Playing in the Band
Whipping Post
The Ocean
Manic Depression
The Times They Are A-changin'
Norwegian Wood
Terrapin Station
Tuesday's Gone
Take it to the Limit

I'm sure there are many more, but those are the 70's bands I can think of at the moment.

Well, I' m not that up on 70's rock, but at least one of those look like 4/4 to me: "All You Need is Love." And Bob Dylan was a folk artist, not rock.

Piano, but now well (I have not played in years). My son plays the french horn and drums, my wife the piano.

I retain an ear, and a knowledge of music theory. But the skill is gone (and my hands do not work like they did years ago).

My sympathies!

Music evolves. That book was written in the early 70's. Consider a more contemporary book (like Gracyk's) which incorporates changes in music that had occurred within the past 50 years.

Actually, I was quoting from the 8th ed. from 2010, if you'll look at my post.

Yes. Rock, country, and even a segment of folk music, have that in common. The delivery is different. But that is lyrics, not the music.

I agree that the lyrics dictate the message.

Garlock is right, with some rock music. But not all. If we stereotype older rock music then we do get a driving beat (which is why so many like it for working out).

But he is wrong thst an emotional and physical release has to happen somewhere. If you listen to rock music (the heavier driving beat) then you would quickly realize that the emotional drive ends with the song (there is no need for an emotional and physical release...it is not like overcharging a battery).

Agreed to disagree.

It would be nice, however, if Christian rock music did what Garlock suggests (drives people to action, sets them to evangelize rather than quietly contemplate theology).

Is that happening? If so, great. But I'm not aware of it.

What I mean is old country (40's and 50's) and a lot of older folk music had the same raunchy message (drinking, sex) as rock music. I listed Hank Sr.

I agree new country is just pop music. Some is rock. By yesterday's definition, anyway.

Both statements very true.

 

[John of Japan]

This is a key fact.

I will be 58 years old this year. Your posts do not ring true to me because of the music I grew up with (I was 2 years old in 1971).

That is what I found puzzling. The "norm" of Rock music is not this unrelenting and driving beat - at least not in much of the rock I grew up with.

I do not actually consider the Beach Boys to be rock. I would place that squarely on the pop genre - not even pop-rock (blend of pop and ro k music). But I do not know that "pop" existed as a stand alone genre in 1971.

Those bands I listed were from the 1970's (I think the earliest is 1967).

I think it all comes down to how rock is defined (or pop, or whatever). Do you have some definitions we could discuss?

 

[JonC]

I think it all comes down to how rock is defined (or pop, or whatever). Do you have some definitions we could discuss?

Which type?

When I was younger I liked Metal (still like a few songs), but one of my favorite types is prog. rock (like Pink Floyd).

Progressive Rock emerged in the 60's. It was more art based (rather than focused on a beat, sex, and drugs it focused on philosoph, literature, etc.). It blends rock influences with classical music, jazz, and folk music and often does not follow a verse chorus structure. Prog rock is typically not in a 4/4 structure (it uses non-standard time signatures).

Another is Jam Rock (Jam Bands). My favorite band is the Grateful Dead. They blend rock, folk, bluegrass, blues, and jazz (Garcia was a banjo teacher who favored bluegrass). You do not, or rarely, get a driving beat. This is a jam band ... like Phish, Pigeons Playing Ping-pong (Pigeons have a funk element as well), Umphrey's Mcgee, the String Cheese Incident, and Moe.. The Grateful Dead uses various time signatures and layers.

 

[JonC]

Well, I' m not that up on 70's rock, but at least one of those look like 4/4 to me: "All You Need is Love." And Bob Dylan was a folk artist, not rock.

Pretty sure All You Need is Love is 7/4 and 8/4 with a 4/4 chorus. But I am not much of a Beatles guy so I will take your word for it.

Dylan is rock and folk, but yea....that one is folk.

Actually, I was quoting from the 8th ed. from 2010, if you'll look at my post.

Still too old (I wonder if corrections were made when the newer ones came out.

Agreed to disagree.

Well...you might be right if you listened to 4/4 music. It may make you have to seek an emotional and physical release afterwards. But you cannot apply that to every person. It does not, for example, have that effect on me. A driving beat was energizing (to me) when I ran (I'd listen to Pink Floyd because it was calming and then play something with a driving beat towards the end of my run for motivation). But afterwards? No. Nothing.

We will just have to chalk that up to subjective experiences.

That said, even if this driving beat energized one to the point they sought emotional and physical release afterwards this is not a bad thing. Clean the house. Wash the car. Mow the lawn. It would simply be the opposite of soothing music (afterwards you take a nap, sit in the recliner, watch TV).

Is that happening? If so, great. But I'm not aware of it.

Because of the music? I serious doubt that such music makes one have to seek an emotional and physical release. So I would say no.

I will say that I have witnessed God using such music genres within the youth who are going out to evangelize. I personally do not like a lot of the music (the genre) like Christian hip hop and Christian Rap. But I would be a fool to say God is not using it in the lives of a younger generation of Christians. I just do not get that type of music.


On a side note -

My son wanted to have a few friends over yesterday afternoon for his birthday (he is now 23). There were 46 people in my house.

I spent awhile talking to one about witnessing, another about a church internship, and another about how Christians can be united in Christ despite differences.

I have known many of these guys since they were in high school and have watched as some were saved, grew in Christ, became leaders.

One thing that is obvious is this generation does not get stuck on personal preferences, or pseudo-science when it comes to the worship of other people.


I sometimes feel a little like an outsider (kinda in a supporting role) watching God working through these...I'd say "kids". But it is a blessing to see God's work. I am amazed at how much the church is growing. It seems like it skipped a generation or two, but is now set to surpass the faithfulness of my father's generation.

 

[JonC]

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. - Ecclesiastes 1:9 KJV

What about aeroplanes?

 

[JonC]

I prefer worship music in a 4/4 time signature because it is easier to play (it invites more youth to learn the instruments and participate in that aspect of worship....which is the reason contemporary worship is typically in 4/4 time). I enjoy worship songs that can be played and sung at a home service.



But I kinda agree with @John of Japan , in a way, about not preferring 4/4 secular music. My reason is not some driving beat but more that I think the time is too simplistic (uninteresting).

I do like a lot of rock songs with that signature, but I think some of this is nostalgia. I like interesting - same with vocals. I typically pick interesting vocals over beautiful vocals (Bob Dylan over Frank Sinatra).

 

[Mr. Lunt]

My post was not based on my knowing of someone who has made the claim that Aaron invented rock music, etc. Rather, a recent proponent of CCM has made what I consider a mocking remark in which he said something close to that as part of his criticism of what musically conservative believers hold about the importance of the Golden Calf Incident.

Your claim about what the exegesis of the passage shows is lacking. The text says that Moses anger exploded when he saw the idol and the dancing. It was not just their making the idol and worshiping it that incited Moses' response. In addition, the passage says that Moses saw that Aaron had made the people naked to their shame among their enemies.

I think you’re missing the point of what I was saying. While Moses is upset about any number of things, music is not mentioned as one of them. Nor is there much for clues as to the style of music. That’s where the interpretation of the passage is making a leap.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

I think you’re missing the point of what I was saying. While Moses is upset about any number of things, music is not mentioned as one of them. Nor is there much for clues as to the style of music. That’s where the interpretation of the passage is making a leap.

I disagree. The Spirit explicitly points our attention to the composite sound emanating from the camp that was an indistinct, uncertain, warlike sound of sinful people shouting in their singing while they are wildly dancing in a way that brought them into shame with their enemies. Godly Israelite music never sounded like that, and godly Israelite worship was never wild in any manner like that.

As for the style of music, we can say with certainty that it was an ungodly style of music in spite of our not being able to know much at all about the musicological specifics of the style of music.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Exodus 32:17 And when Joshua heard the noise of the people as they shouted, he said unto Moses, There is a noise of war in the camp. 18 And he said, It is not the voice of them that shout for mastery, neither is it the voice of them that cry for being overcome: but the noise of them that sing do I hear.

The Spirit inspired these verses for our profit. They are inerrant, infallible divine revelation.

They are not just filler information to make the passage of a certain length, etc. God wanted us to know this specific information.

These verses specifically speak of composite musical sound emanating from the camp that was sound that was heard from a distance, The composite musical sound was warlike sound, but it was not the distinctive sound of either victory or defeat that were both recognizable from a distance.

Why did the Spirit inspire these verses to be in Scripture? How are we supposed to profit fully from them?

 

[JonC]

I disagree. The Spirit explicitly points our attention to the composite sound emanating from the camp that was an indistinct, uncertain, warlike sound of sinful people shouting in their singing while they are wildly dancing in a way that brought them into shame with their enemies. Godly Israelite music never sounded like that, and godly Israelite worship was never wild in any manner like that.

As for the style of music, we can say with certainty that it was an ungodly style of music in spite of our not being able to know much at all about the musicological specifics of the style of music.

You are making assumptions here.

David danced before the Lord with all his might, the people shouted joyfully, blowing the rams horn. Michal saw David leaping and dancing criticized him for acting in an undignified way.

Many on this board would have joined Michal in her criticism of David's worship.

 

[JonC]

And... I was wrong. I listened to spme of that 70's and 80's rock with a driving beat again. I do like it. Just not all the time.


@John of Japan

I should also include a predisposition I have based on my experience.

I grew up in conservative Baptist churches. The generation before me (now in their mid 60's and older) fed us propaganda when I was a teen in order to persuade us against listening to rock music.

It turned out that a lot of what they told us was blatantly false. It was pseudo-science and "old wives tales" taught to us for supposedly good reasons.

But once a lot of what we were told were proven to be lies, it had the opposite effect as it eroded trust in church elders and leaders.

Frank Garlock was involved in this propaganda. That is one reason I cannot respect his conclusions (regardless of his experience in music, he is not qualified to give an unbiased report). It would be like asking a Calvinist whether Calvinism is correct.


I will give you some examples.

Early on the rock beat was associated with African paganism designed to create a sexual ritualistic mood. This was ultimately a racist claim designed to protect White culture.

This was changed to a dangerous beat (driving drums, 4/4 time) which left people wanting to have sex or commit violence. Ultimately this called into question exactly what ideas those "godly" mem were concealing in their own lives. Why would they associate energetic with sex? Our conclusion was that they had perverted hearts.

There were false claims about specific rock bands. The spaceman on Journey's album was a demon, Hotel California was about a cult (which was pictured on that album with that model on the balcony...that woman...really being the cult leader), there was a Queen song that if played backwards...if you listen very carefully with a little imagination...promotes marijuana, the anti-drinking song Suicide Solution promoted suicide, the anti-war song War Pigs promoted Satanism, ..... I could go on but why? I doubt anybody makes those claims today.

My point is once a segment is caught lying it is very difficult to take them seriously on the same topic.


I understand the intention was to keep the youth from mixing with other races, or to keep them from entertaining dangerous media. But the method was less than honest and the Church as a whole suffered because of that sin.

Many my age left the faith, dismissed Christianity as hypocritical myth, a method of control men use for their designs because they realized the Church was lying to them.


So I approach this topic with the opinion that a significant segment of the generation of Chriatians now in their late 60's and older were the instrument Satan used against Christians which resulted in a few unChurched generations.

Those Christians had good intentions, but not a good ethic or integrity. It showed me just how careful we need to be with what is true.