Flower Power

[DHK]

Eric your entire post rests upon an illogical fallacy. It has been determined that people with rock fame and rock life-styles die young. Your illogical fallacy is attributing a cause and effect theory to this relationship, when in fact it has nothing to do with it. That is just a red herring. For example, I have a blue Ford 92 Aerostar which doesn't use any oil still get fairly good gas mileaage on the highway. My friend purchased a red Ford 92 Aerostar almost identical to mine around the same time. His uses oil and does not get good gas mileage. Your conclusion is: The color red cause vehicles to get low gas mileage and use oil. The color blue cause vehicles get good gas mileage and not to use oil. This cause and effect theory of yours is just a red herring and has nothing to do with the argument whatsoever.

The fact is that rock music leads to a certain life style (in general). The statistics prove it. The average age of rock stars among western nations die at the age of 42 and of Europeans, it is even lower at 35. The statistics don't lie. Along with rock, and its related music genres comes an ungodly unwanted lifestyle that is of the world, and God hates it (James 4:4).

Yesterday, Pavarotti died at the age of 71. He was not saved. But his style of music was much different. One could say that instead of being generally characterized by cacophony, syncopation, and even anger; his music was rather soothing and gentle to the ears. Although he had his vices (for he was unsaved), they were not nearly as bad as the lifestyle that went with the rockers who were involved in drugs and immorality.
The consequences are obvious

The aricle points out the obvious: rock singers dead at 42 and 35
Pavarotti died at 71
George Beverley Shea still going at 96.

It is not cause and effect. I never suggested such. It is the type of music that is associated with a particular lifestyle. Rock was born out of a rebellious culture. What is the first commandment with promise?

 

[Eric B]

What?
You're denying "cause and effect", and calling it MY "red herring", but then you go on to say "The fact is that rock music leads to a certain life style (in general).", to prove it? That is NOT cause and effect? Then, "Along with rock, and its related music genres comes an ungodly unwanted lifestyle". A reverse "cause and effect" (Which causes which? I guess they both cause each other!) And then the statistics and the deaths being the ultimate proof of some "connection".
Talk about double talk!

Both "leads to" and "along with, comes" are indirect expressions of cause and effect. (even if one did not create the other's existence). If it wasn't for THIS, you woudn't have THAT, for THAT comes with THIS, and THIS "leads to" that. Why deny it, if these statistics prove your point? It's your side's whole argument, and precisely what I am the one denying (at least as far as a music style is concerned)! What a turnabout!

Yesterday, Pavarotti died at the age of 71. He was not saved. But his style of music was much different. One could say that instead of being generally characterized by cacophony, syncopation, and even anger; his music was rather soothing and gentle to the ears. Although he had his vices (for he was unsaved), they were not nearly as bad as the lifestyle that went with the rockers who were involved in drugs and immorality.
The consequences are obvious
The aricle points out the obvious: rock singers dead at 42 and 35
Pavarotti died at 71
George Beverley Shea still going at 96.

Rock was born out of a rebellious culture. What is the first commandment with promise?

And before God, "not nearly as bad" will never fly! That is the language of self-righteousness, and the Pharisee in one of Christ's parables! So while you acknowledge that classical performers were not saved, you still cannot claim their styles were "sacred" and ONLY the rock stars "worldly". That ties "world vs. sacred" to human culture rather than one's relationship to Christ! And in citing the 5th commandment, you ignore the other part of it, that parents were not to provoke their children to wrath. Parents were not God, but many took their "authority" and acted like they were. This led to rebellion, as Paul points out in Rom.7 regarding man's fallen nature. They forgot that, and thought they could keep the kids good through strict rules alone.

And the music of Pavarotti and other classical forms (including Church hymn style) at one time centuries before, was rejected by he Church as "rebellious" or "wild insanity" as one called it, and thus associated by those generations with sinful lifestyles (barroom, etc). Yet it still was eventually accepted.
So if you must shun everything "associated with rebellion", then we would have to shun ALL human music.

And what about all of the other performers whose musical genre is considered "rock", but do not live like that, and did not die young like that? And the real issue is the Christians using the music or various elements of it. They are not living like that and dying for those reasons either!

As for "cacophohy", that would be tied with the "hard styles" I mentioned yesterday. Again, I am not defending loud, discordant thrash, or whatever, and not angry stuff either. But it's when you get into "syncopation", that you begin ruling out a whole bunch of other stuff that is nowhere near the hard stuff. Now, if you deny "cause and effect", then you cannot tie one single element like "syncopation", or "backbeats", or whatever to the deaths of rock stars. So the "statistics" do not prove the "line" your side tries to draw, of "rock vs. classical". That is my only point.

 

[David Lamb]

The aricle points out the obvious: rock singers dead at 42 and 35
Pavarotti died at 71
George Beverley Shea still going at 96.

Although I agree with your postion, DHK, is there not a need to be careful with these sort of statistics? There are plenty of "non-rock" musicians who have died young too. Mozart (35), Schubert (31), Chopin (39), Mendelssohn (39).

On the other hand, Messiaen died at 83, and Stavinsky at 89. Neither could be described as rock composers, but their music was none the less rebellious.

 

[DHK]

Although I agree with your postion, DHK, is there not a need to be careful with these sort of statistics? There are plenty of "non-rock" musicians who have died young too. Mozart (35), Schubert (31), Chopin (39), Mendelssohn (39).

On the other hand, Messiaen died at 83, and Stavinsky at 89. Neither could be described as rock composers, but their music was none the less rebellious.

It would be interesting to do research on those musicians specific to their genre, and see what one comes up with.

I was only referring to a study that was already done. It gave the statistics here:

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/Entertainment/EntertainmentNewsArticle.htm?src=e090445A.xml

It's title was:
Study affirms that rock stars more likely to die young than regular folk

I am debating from a study already done and researched by secular unsaved people who happen to come to the same conclusion that I had reached long ago. Eric still argues against this inspite of the research done.

 

[Eric B]

That is not true. I have never argued against the research. I have argued against the conclusions you have drawn, and claim the research proves, and that is that it proves the music is bad. Nowhere did it make any such statement about the music at all.
It would be good to do a study regarding the other genres and musicians who have died young, but until that is done, and we get clear proof that rock is the factor that leads to young death, then there has been no evidence given for it.