Domino Effect not just in the Power Grid

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
I have never said that music is like communication. Music is communication. And communication does not merely express good or evil; it is good or evil. This must be the bazillionth time I've said that.

In order for communication to take place, one must first have intent or desire, secondly one must want to express that intent or desire. With respect to one playing an evil beat, what exactly is the intent or desire being communicated and how do you know?

Originally posted by Aaron:
For the quotes to be relevant, they must deal with the significance of the beat, not with what the artist thinks is his mission. So, knock yourself out. Let's hear a few of them. Michael Ventura certainly believes the Voodoo and the music that evolved from it is a medium to encourage, uplift, enlighten or explore the human experience, but then he believes that can only happen through sensuality. Remember, he rejects the Christian distincition between mind and body.

So, knock yourself out. Quote away O literate one, but if the quotes don't deal directly with the significance of the beat, it would indeed be a stupid response.

Your quotes all referred the genre of rock n' roll as a whole, not to the beat, so I suppose that renders them all irrelevant doesn't it? Do you wish to rephrase the requirement to match what you felt was relevant enough to submit as proof, or do you concede a loss right now?

Originally posted by Aaron:
The dancing that the beat invariably inspires is sexual and enticing to the lusts of the flesh. This can't be disputed. Not intelligently, anyway. That is why it is compatible with pagan religion. Pagans glory in the flesh, and this music really pumps it up.

Why is it that I am not inspired to dance in a sexual or enticing manner when listening to rock music? If a beat truly can be evil in and of itself, should I not feel at least some compulsion to thrust my hips or strip to my birthday suit? How is it that there are so many people who are exactly the same way? On one hand you make a universal moral claim about the nature of music and rhythm based on what you can observe in the listener, yet on the other hand there are leagues of people who prove you demonstrably wrong every moment of every day. How do you account for this?

To break it down kindergarten style, how can you tell someone is sinning if there is no evidence of it? Do you claim to know the hearts of men?

Here's another one for you: At what point does a rhythm make the transition from good to evil? 10 beats per minute? 20? 120? I heard a wood pecker outside my window this morning, and I thought 'if only that sensual creature knew just how much his pecking matched the beat of German industrial techno'. Do you think God should make wood peckers slow it down a bit to a less sensual rhythm? Because I swear, if that little bird had gone on much longer, I would have spent the day fornicating all over my neighborhood.

 

[Travelsong]

What the hay. 10 minutes on Google will demonstrate the sheer idiocy of quote mining.


"I've always felt rock and roll was very, very wholesome music." -Aretha Franklin

There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you do something we'd all love one another. - Frank Zappa (contradicting your quote)

" I feel a great responsibility to deliver for our audience ... I am like their servant, but there's only one honest way to lift people up, which is to feel genuinely elevated yourself. And the way to do that is follow your heart. That's all we try to do." - Trey Anastasio (leader of the rock n' roll jam band Phish)


"It's unfashionable to admit, but playing music makes us happy and makes us smile." -Hoobastank's Chris Hesse. (some mug in a rock n' roll band I've never heard of)

"... everyone was using tiny brushes and doing watercolors, while Jimi Hendrix was painting galactic scenes in Cinemascope. We are working in a field of mystical resonance, sound and vibration... that's what makes people cry, laugh and feel their hair stand up ... " - Carlos Santana

"I think music in itself is healing. It's an explosive expression of humanity. It's something we are all touched by. No matter what culture we're from, everyone loves music." -Billy Joel

I'm sure you feel empowered by that keyboard and access to search engines, but assure you, I am just as capable of mining quotes to support my position as you are.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
Because I swear, if that little bird had gone on much longer, I would have spent the day fornicating all over my neighborhood. [/QB]

Funniest thing I've read all week. Really!

 

[Aaron]

Scott:
Because I talk to them. Because of their testimonies. Because of my own testimony. Because the worship is done in spirit and in truth. You can take any one of those reasons.

In otherwords it is true worship because you think it's true. What is the criteria you use for true worship? What is it based on?

Scott:
You can't find Biblical support as to why Handel's Messiah is good, even though the song "And He Shall Purify" is a fun little ditty that makes me want to tap my feet and sway from side to side. Your inferences are incorrect, and you cannot prove them, except in your own little mind.

After all, that's what we see everytime this chorus is performed, folks swaying from side to side in response and tapping their feet in rhythm. It should have been obvious to me.

Actually, I have attended numerous performances of Handel's Messiah. If indeed your tendency is to sway from side to side and tap your feet when listening to "He Shall Purify" then your experience is unique.

In 1992 I attended Young Messiah in Kansas City. The responses to the music were much like you described. It was because the segments were performed to a rock beat. I can't remember if "He Shall Purify" was part of that performance or not, but the contrast in response to the traditional performances was absolute.

And so, it is not merely MY response to the music, it is the human response. Just look around. What is the character of the audience response to a rock concert in contrast to the audience of an orchestra playing Mozart. The evidence is all around.

You see clearly? If I have to assume you're being sincere when you post these fairy tales, then I can't believe you see anything. But if I have to assume you see clearly, then I can't help but think you're being disingenuine.

Scott:
But it CAN be disputed. I don't begin bumping and grinding on the pew when I begin to hear praise and worship music. Instead, I lift my hands and begin praising God. I have a really hard time how you can see a song such as, "Here I Am To Worship" and think that it is somehow sexual. One must wonder what one's psychological state is if he or she would think that this music is sexual.

Sensuality encompasses more than sexual energy. I think I said this before. (Ah, yes. I did in my response to Eric.) And sexual energy can be released in ways much more softly and subtly than "bumping and grinding," even without touching.

Hopefully your using hyperbole to mock an idea you find ridiculous. If that's the case than I'll warn you to act more in character of a youth minister and set a better example for holiness than to glibbly toss about profanity. If it's not the case, than it's not my character you should questioning.

Scott:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Aaron:
I have never said that music is like communication. Music is communication. And communication does not merely express good or evil; it is good or evil. This must be the bazillionth time I've said that.

And for a billionth time we've asked for Biblical support for that...</font>[/QUOTE]First show me biblical support that language is communication. Then I will show you the biblical support that language is communication. (I've shown you once before. You have a bad memory.)

[Edit: I meant to say I will show you biblical support that music is communication.]

[ September 08, 2003, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[Aaron]

Travelsong:
In order for communication to take place, one must first have intent or desire,

No. In order to communicate through music one must have intent or desire...

A living soul cannot not communicate. To cease from communication is to die. By simply sitting in another room with a stranger you are communication a million things by the way you dress, your posture, your body position, and a million other messages you cannot help but send. The person in your presence cannot help but receive them.

Travelsong:
...secondly one must want to express that intent or desire.

That's false as well, as I stated above. Many people unconsciously communicate a million things about themselves. A fellow that has grown up listening to rock music may use the rhythms he is used to without even thinking about the communication he is sending with that beat.

Travelsong:
Your quotes all referred the genre of rock n' roll as a whole, not to the beat...

Really? Let's go back and look at them.

"In a sense all rock is revolutionary. By its very beat and sound it has always implicitly rejected restrainst and celebrated freedom and sexuality."—Time Magazine

"To deny rock music...was to deny sexuality. The big beat matches the great rhythms of the human body."—Frank Zappa. (Life)

"The music is a kind of sexual expression. The beat has genuine sexual implications."—Payne-Whitney Psychiatric Clinic. (The New York Times Magazine)

Only two quotes did not mention the beat specifically, but the meaning was clear. What is it that defines rock music?

Now your quotes did just what I said they would do to render them stupid. You merely quoted statements that reflected the artists missions, not the nature of the music.

Travelsong:
Why is it that I am not inspired to dance in a sexual or enticing manner when listening to rock music? If a beat truly can be evil in and of itself, should I not feel at least some compulsion to thrust my hips or strip to my birthday suit?

See my response to Scott. But let's look at this a different way. Let's say you're assigned to choregraph a dance to the rock beat? Or perhaps your coaching a dancer to move to rock music. What would the characteristic actions be?

[ September 08, 2003, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Aaron ]

 

[yod]

Only two quotes did not mention the beat specifically, but the meaning was clear. What is it that defines rock music?

Generally speaking, different types of music do have specific characteristics which, btw, are not inherently evil.

Rock music has a 4/4 beat and uses a pentatonic modal scale.

which also describes Gospel, Southern Gospel, Blues, R&B, C&W, and bluegrass. In fact, every kind of American music except jazz fits this description.

The only difference is the cultural presentation.

 

[Aaron]

Rock music has a 4/4 beat and uses a pentatonic modal scale.

And the stress is placed on the upbeat. In hymns and marches and other non-rock styles using a 4/4 metre the stress is placed on the downbeat.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:
In otherwords it is true worship because you think it's true. What is the criteria you use for true worship? What is it based on?

The same criteria you use. Does it glorify God? It is true worship because I experience it as true. As a child of the living God who speaks to His children and the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin, it is clear to me that what I do is true worship. I have never been convicted of using praise and worship music to glorify God, so long as my heart was truly focused upon Him. It has never happened, and I've gone through the gamut of musical styles. That's the problem that you have. Unless you believe that the Spirit will not convict man of sin, you are arguing against a pretty large population of Christian brethren who have found true worship using the same music you wish to demonize. The Spirit has not convicted them, nor has He convicted me.

After all, that's what we see everytime this chorus is performed, folks swaying from side to side in response and tapping their feet in rhythm. It should have been obvious to me.

Hey, it's what I do to it. It's a peppy little number, and, yes, I've actually sung the original version with the Birmingham Symphony, so I have a pretty good knowledge of the music.

Actually, I have attended numerous performances of Handel's Messiah. If indeed your tendency is to sway from side to side and tap your feet when listening to "He Shall Purify" then your experience is unique.

I wasn't the only one in the choir who enjoyed swaying to that tune.

In 1992 I attended Young Messiah in Kansas City. The responses to the music were much like you described. It was because the segments were performed to a rock beat. I can't remember if "He Shall Purify" was part of that performance or not, but the contrast in response to the traditional performances was absolute.

It wasn't. That's one of the reasons I mentioned "And He Shall Purify." I know of no other version of that song than the original version. Now, because I move to the music, is the music universally sinful? Or is it sinful just for me?

And so, it is not merely MY response to the music, it is the human response. Just look around. What is the character of the audience response to a rock concert in contrast to the audience of an orchestra playing Mozart. The evidence is all around.

What's the character of the audience response when praise and worship music is being congregationally sung? Hearts pointed to God, a spattering of hands being raised, most people standing, perhaps some who are sitting, praying to God, joyful singing. Yep, the evidence is all around! Glory to God!

You see clearly? If I have to assume you're being sincere when you post these fairy tales, then I can't believe you see anything. But if I have to assume you see clearly, then I can't help but think you're being disingenuine.

And why do you call them fairy tales? If we cannot rely upon our experiential understanding of worship, then worship is merely theory, and lacking in spirit and truth. Everything I have said is completely true. I'm both genuine and clear-sighted.

Sensuality encompasses more than sexual energy. I think I said this before. (Ah, yes. I did in my response to Eric.) And sexual energy can be released in ways much more softly and subtly than "bumping and grinding," even without touching.

Hopefully your using hyperbole to mock an idea you find ridiculous. If that's the case than I'll warn you to act more in character of a youth minister and set a better example for holiness than to glibbly toss about profanity. If it's not the case, than it's not my character you should questioning.

I'm just taking your words to its logical conclusion, and you're right - your statements are ridiculous. It's a standard practice in debate. I'm not sure what the profanity was that you believe was used. As to having the character of the youth minister, you can ask anyone at my church what kind of character I have.

Scott:
First show me biblical support that language is communication. Then I will show you the biblical support that language is communication. (I've shown you once before. You have a bad memory.)[/QB]

If you wish to show that music is communication, then it makes sense that the burden of proof is on you to find both of these passages.

 

[ScottEmerson]

By the way, Aaron's quotes come from:

http://www.av1611.org/crock/crocknob.html

And speaking of quotes, do you have anything that is from 1975 or later? Surely if you are right, we have plenty of research that also supports your claim.

In fact, looking at the quotes, we note that there are no control studies, no experiments. Just random quotes from people who may or not be right. Why not have some honest, empirically-based research done on this to show how praise and worship music is as bad as you say it is? Has it been done? Where can we find it?

 

[ScottEmerson]

Oh, and my favorite part of that article is the intimation that rock music will turn the young people into Communists. I loved that part. "most Christian young people know nothing of the Communist conspiracy...Unfortunately, many Christians are aiding the pro-revolutionary subversion of our culture." Who knew that by singing, "Forever" by Chris Tomlin, we were becoming Communists. Marx and Engels would be pround.

 

[Travelsong]

Originally posted by Aaron:
In order to communicate through music one must have intent or desire...

A living soul cannot not communicate. To cease from communication is to die. By simply sitting in another room with a stranger you are communication a million things by the way you dress, your posture, your body position, and a million other messages you cannot help but send. The person in your presence cannot help but receive them.

You are describing modes of communication which are unconscious. You have previously said that music does not exist outside of the "intents and purposes" of man and that it is communication like speaking. It is obvious that you do not consider music to be a mode of communication that I "cannot help but send" such as body language.

Travelsong:
...secondly one must want to express that intent or desire.

Originally posted by Aaron:
That's false as well, as I stated above. Many people unconsciously communicate a million things about themselves.

Those modes of communication are not like speaking. So which is it? Is music unconscious communication like body language, or is it only within the "intents and purposes" of man like speaking? You are getting progressively worse at playing this shell game.

Travelsong:
Your quotes all referred the genre of rock n' roll as a whole, not to the beat...

Originally posted by Aaron:
Only two quotes did not mention the beat specifically, but the meaning was clear.

The music cannot be separated from the beat, otherwise these people wouldn't even mention rock n' roll. If there weren't music then it wouldn't be rock n' roll, and none of these quotes would exist.These quotes are addressing the genre of rock as a whole.

Originally posted by Aaron:
What is it that defines rock music?

The propulsive beat you are eternally fixated on is but one component. Other things include amplified electric instruments, poetry, a sense of liberation or introspection, innovation in sound, and many, many more. I'm sure if you had actually read that there "moaning snake" book of yours it would have told you at least that much.

Originally posted by Aaron:
Now your quotes did just what I said they would do to render them stupid. You merely quoted statements that reflected the artists missions, not the nature of the music.

My quotes were all subjective observations about the nature of music the same as yours.Not one of these people is saying or implying anything about their "mission" or what they try to accomplish with music. I even have Frank Zappa contradicting himself when checked against your quote. Wake up, quote mining is stupid and doesn't accomplish anything.

Travelsong:
Why is it that I am not inspired to dance in a sexual or enticing manner when listening to rock music? If a beat truly can be evil in and of itself, should I not feel at least some compulsion to thrust my hips or strip to my birthday suit?

Originally posted by Aaron:
See my response to Scott. But let's look at this a different way. Let's say you're assigned to choregraph a dance to the rock beat? Or perhaps your coaching a dancer to move to rock music. What would the characteristic actions be?

I don't know, but it wouldn't be lewd or sinful.

Two of the worlds biggest bands (Radiohead and Sigur Ros) are collaborating to produce music for the renowned Merce Cunningham Dance Company.Their work will be premiered at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.Here's the kicker. The whole dance routine will be completely spontaneous, as the dancers will have never heard any of the music before.Now would you like to make a small wager with me? I promise that if any of those dancers makes a rude, lewd, crude, or otherwise obviously sinful gesture while dancing, I will never listen to rock n' roll again. Conversely, if none of the dancers does make a sinful gesture, you must promise to never ever troll here ever again, ever. There are no tricks here, this is an event that will really, actually happen, and both bands involved are in fact rock bands.

Apparently the site for the Brooklyn Academy of Music is down, so HERE is some information about the show, HERE is one of the million home pages for Sigur Ros, and HERE is the official Radiohead site. It seems like an event that was tailor made for this debate, so what do you say? Are you ready to put your convictions on the line?

Now I've seen both of these bands live, and I have never witnessed any of the behaviour you so desperately want everyone to believe is universal to rock music. The reason for that of course is that I don't listen to music, or go to shows of artists who revel in debauchery. Oh yes, I also think it's fair to mention that 5 or 6 years ago I attended a local theatre group's dance routine performed to Radiohead's "Ok Computer" and there also was no lewd or crude dancing involved.


Now one last question, what is an evil beat literally communicating? In other words, strip down to the essence of the message that you believe an evil beat communicates for me.

 

[Travelsong]

How time flies. I almost forgot that I am going to the Theatre of Living Arts in Philly to see one of my favorite instrumental bands tonite (Mogwai). So tell me Aaron, what how can I have discernemet to understand the evil communication of the wicked, heathen 4/4 rhythm with a back beat? Do you have any kind of a Scripture reference to show me, or at least anything by which I can draw an inference from, that will help me to decode the evil percussive message?

*Just wanted to say because I didn't get a chance to edit, I realise that one of my quotes (the one by Trey Anastasio) was not a subjective observation about the nature of music, but all of the rest were, and they were all as credibe as Aaron's)*

 

[Eric B]

First, you must understand that sensuality encompasses more than sexuality. There is the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. When Jesus was tempted with the lust of the flesh, He was tempted to turn stones into bread, not babes. Though I agree that sexual surrogates are off limits, you can't limit criteria to just those things that are overtly sexual.

I am well aware of that. In fact, it is your side that places all the emphasis on sexuality as defining the works of "the flesh". On that token, much of classical and traditional can be associated with the pride of life (such as "look how much more 'civilized' we are than those wildly moving barbarians"). But to be fair, this too is in the heart of the listener. If not, then as I say, we could not listen to ANY music, because the sinfulness of man will come up in or through or around it somewhere.

Remember, he rejects the Christian distinction between mind and body.

See, the problem in thinking shows itself. The Christian distinction was between "spirit" and "FLESH", which as you have just noted, is not just sexual, and therefore, not just speaking of the literal physical BODY. Yet, now you have said "mind and body" (oh, but I just realized you did say it earlier: "Christianity has a dualistic view of soul and body, and...actually St. Paul established it"), and there is no such distinction in the scripture between our mental and physical constituents. Both are to be subject to Christ and used to glorify God. The flesh and body are NOT the same thing. One is to be "crucified" altogether. The other used to glorify God. This is the bad type of [pagan] dualism I have been talking about, and it is throuroghly engrained in this music teaching.

[ September 08, 2003, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[Eric B]

Oh, and my favorite part of that article is the intimation that rock music will turn the young people into Communists. I loved that part. "most Christian young people know nothing of the Communist conspiracy...Unfortunately, many Christians are aiding the pro-revolutionary subversion of our culture." Who knew that by singing, "Forever" by Chris Tomlin, we were becoming Communists. Marx and Engels would be pround.

Funny, the Communists claimed rock music was a Western/American conspiracy against them.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
By the way, Aaron's quotes come from:

http://www.av1611.org/crock/crocknob.html

And speaking of quotes, do you have anything that is from 1975 or later? Surely if you are right, we have plenty of research that also supports your claim.

In fact, looking at the quotes, we note that there are no control studies, no experiments. Just random quotes from people who may or not be right. Why not have some honest, empirically-based research done on this to show how praise and worship music is as bad as you say it is? Has it been done? Where can we find it?

One of the great things about this brilliant piece of journalism is that it relies quite a bit on the writings of Bob Larson.

For those who don't know, Bob Larson is a false teacher who has taught, among other things, that the Devil has created an exact copy of him to run around the country saying and doing crazy things to discredit him.

When I was in my anti-rock stage, I had his "Larson's Book of Rock". I thought it was a serious journalistic expose of the evils of rock music. Now I recognize him as just a nut.

For more on Bob Larson, Cornerstone magazine did an article on him a while back. For those who don't know, Cornerstone magazine is the Christian investigative magazine that exposed Mike Warnke's book and claims to have been a Satanist high priest, and Viet Nam combat decorated Marine as a fraud.

Here's the link to the Bob Larson story:

http://www.cornerstonemag.com/features/iss100/larson.htm

My favorite quote from this piece:

Unfortunately, today, Christians are mimicking the rock stars who indeed could pass as high priests of any phallic cult. And although some Christian teens have their eyes open to the evils of the Beatles, Rolling Stones and Jefferson Airplane, they generally have their eyes closed to the Osmonds, Cassidy's and otherr bubblegum rock stars. Only the most naive, however, can believe that these singers are morally acceptable for Christians.

As Bob Larsen writes, although words like "wholesome" are used to describe the Osmonds, "These words are really a shame, for the, whole performance is based on a crescendo of excitement that amounts to an orgiastic climax not known to the audiences of even some of the heavier rock stars. If the mother is naive enough to think that such idol worship is merely child's play, one can only feel pity knowing that slick Hollywood promotional agents have groomed these five soul-bubblegum idols into sex symbols with the adolescent record market."

Referring to David Cassidy of the television series, The Partridge Family, Larsen says...

Way to keep current, guys. I can't tell you how many young girls in our youth group have "Heartbeat, It's a Love Beat" blaring from their radios.

I always knew there was something evil about those Osmonds.

 

[Aaron]

When asked what criteria he uses to judge between true worship and false worship, Scott said:

The Spirit has not convicted them, nor has He convicted me.

...

If we cannot rely upon our experiential understanding of worship, then worship is merely theory, and lacking in spirit and truth.

In other words, he doesn't feel like it's wrong, so it has to be right. After all, he has the Spirit of God, so we can trust his feelings.

Gimme a break! That is not my criteria at all.

Scott:
Hey, it's what I do to it. It's a peppy little number, and, yes, I've actually sung the original version with the Birmingham Symphony, so I have a pretty good knowledge of the music.

...

I wasn't the only one in the choir who enjoyed swaying to that tune.

All right. I'm listening to "He Shall Purify" being performed by the London Philharmonic Choir right now. It sounds very much like every other time I've heard it performed. If I picture in my mind folks swaying to that I see an absurd and contradictory situation.

I don't think you're being straightforward about this. What was the character of this "swaying?" Describe it to me. Is it like the kind at a "Bruce Springstein" concert? That is the context in which swaying has been referred in this thread. Are you talking about another kind of swaying? How many more people were swaying? Or was just you and another fella acting silly during a rehearsal?

Scott:
I know of no other version of that song than the original version. Now, because I move to the music, is the music universally sinful? Or is it sinful just for me?

Who said that moving to the music was sinful? I think the argument, as stated a bazillion times, is the kind of movement, and I've already asked you to clarify your "swaying" description.

I'll answer once I get a better idea of what you're describing.

Scott:
If you wish to show that music is communication, then it makes sense that the burden of proof is on you to find both of these passages.

I think I made my point rather well. You know by nature that language is communication, and you also know by nature that music is communication. But lest you say there is no Scriptural warrant, I will direct you to 1 Cor. 14 where Paul uses the character of music to illustrate a point about tongues. Paul in those allusions appeals to the common knowledge of the Corinthians, and to ours also who have received his letter as well.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by ScottEmerson:
By the way, Aaron's quotes come from:

http://www.av1611.org/crock/crocknob.html

Actually, no. These quotes are in several sources You will not find two that I listed in Watkins' page, and you will find the others in a slightly different form.

Sorry, my research is legit.

 

[Aaron]

Originally posted by Travelsong:
You are describing modes of communication which are unconscious. You have previously said that music does not exist outside of the "intents and purposes" of man and that it is communication like speaking. It is obvious that you do not consider music to be a mode of communication that I "cannot help but send" such as body language.

You are making erroneous statements the nature of communication as a whole, not some mode thereof. Secondly intent and purpose are present in every level of our being. It doesn't matter that some communication occurs at the subconscious levels. There is intent and purpose behind it.

The reason I brought up intent and purpose at all is because you were trying to say that a rock beat is something that could happen in nature accidentally from the impacts of rain drops or falling boulders.

I said no, a man has to put it there.

Then you tried to say music was like a building or other kind of object.

I said no, no one can leave music in a certain spot. It's like speech.

When are you going to accept the fact that music is an action, like speech, and not an object? It would be a serious blow to your case, I know, but be a man. Accept the truth.

Travelsong:
Those modes of communication are not like speaking. So which is it? Is music unconscious communication like body language, or is it only within the "intents and purposes" of man like speaking? You are getting progressively worse at playing this shell game.

No you're just bad at reading. Music is like speech because it is an act, It is also like other forms of non-verbal communication because, like them, they are actions. Communication is an action.

One might say, "I received a communication," meaning a note or something like that, but the real communication occurred in the mind as the sender created the message and the receiver received it.

We also often use the word speech as a noun, but we're talking about an act that occurs. Speech does not exist where no one is speaking. It is an act.

Travelsong:
The music cannot be separated from the beat...

At last, a coherent statement! He can be taught!

Travelsong:
...otherwise these people wouldn't even mention rock n' roll. If there weren't music then it wouldn't be rock n' roll, and none of these quotes would exist.These quotes are addressing the genre of rock as a whole.

Oh man! You blew it. It's like I said before. A person might speak of his mission to "uplift humanity" or other some such lofty goal. Ventura said that Rock music was liberating American culture. A very noble goal.

But...

Ventura said that the key to that liberation was the beat which is a sexual thing.

So, no. Your quotes are not dealing with the beat, they are speaking of the mission of the performet.

Travelsong:
The propulsive beat you are eternally fixated on is but one component.

It's the primary component. Other aspects can enhance the sensuality of the genre, but pale in comparison to the significance of the rock beat.

Travelsong:
I'm sure if you had actually read that there "moaning snake" book of yours it would have told you at least that much.

How can I answer this stunning display of rhetorical prowess? You really got me there.

Ouchie.

I'll respond to the rest of your cavils tomorrow evening. It's late, and I've finally gotten tired enought to go to bed.

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:
Sorry, my research is legit. [/QB]

"Rock is the total celebration of the physical"—Rock star Tedd Nugent. (Pop Goes the Gospel)

"Rock'n'roll is 99% sex."—John Oats. (Circus)

"In a sense all rock is revolutionary. By its very beat and sound it has always implicitly rejected restrainst and celebrated freedom and sexuality."—Time Magazine

"To deny rock music...was to deny sexuality. The big meat matches the great rhythms of the human body."—Frank Zappa. (Life)

"The music is a kind of sexual expression. The beat has genuine sexual implications."—Payne-Whitney Psychiatric Clinic. (The New York Times Magazine)

If you are honest, and this research is your own, can you please provide the documentation for each of these quotes? (Three out of five ARE from the site listed, and the other is from http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/doesjesus.htm)

 

[ScottEmerson]

Originally posted by Aaron:
When asked what criteria he uses to judge between true worship and false worship, Scott said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Spirit has not convicted them, nor has He convicted me.

...

If we cannot rely upon our experiential understanding of worship, then worship is merely theory, and lacking in spirit and truth.

In other words, he doesn't feel like it's wrong, so it has to be right. After all, he has the Spirit of God, so we can trust his feelings.

Gimme a break! That is not my criteria at all.</font>[/QUOTE]I have the Spirit of God - I can trust Him. He is my criteria for true worship. Let me ask you a question: Can you tell when you're worshipping and when you're just singing words? You know, sometimes, when you're just out of it and not really in a worshipful mood? If you can, what is the difference between the two?

And do you believe that God communicates with us directly through the Holy Spirit?

All right. I'm listening to "He Shall Purify" being performed by the London Philharmonic Choir right now. It sounds very much like every other time I've heard it performed. If I picture in my mind folks swaying to that I see an absurd and contradictory situation.

Not so much. Especially during the runs. It's a pretty quick little ditty, and if you try kinda bouncing left and right, it really fits.

I don't think you're being straightforward about this. What was the character of this "swaying?" Describe it to me. Is it like the kind at a "Bruce Springstein" concert? That is the context in which swaying has been referred in this thread. Are you talking about another kind of swaying? How many more people were swaying? Or was just you and another fella acting silly during a rehearsal?

We actually were doing some of this during the performance, and there was nothing "silly" about it. Just a moving left and right to the tempo. Sacrilige, huh?

Scott:
Who said that moving to the music was sinful? I think the argument, as stated a bazillion times, is the kind of movement, and I've already asked you to clarify your "swaying" description.

I'll answer once I get a better idea of what you're describing.

So what kind of movement is okay? What kind of movement is not okay? What is the difference? What is the Biblical proof behind this?

I think I made my point rather well. You know by nature that language is communication, and you also know by nature that music is communication. But lest you say there is no Scriptural warrant, I will direct you to 1 Cor. 14 where Paul uses the character of music to illustrate a point about tongues. Paul in those allusions appeals to the common knowledge of the Corinthians, and to ours also who have received his letter as well.

So then if you have these passages, what do you need mine for? At the same time, we do NOT see in I Corithians a good/bad music or rhythm. You're having to place the Bible into a specific paradigm which you already have. The fact that you are relying upon non-Christian (even anti-Christian) quotes to prove your point instead of relying on the plain teaching of Scriptures is something that should be noted and understood.