The decline of rock music

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
What was the pre-schism definition ?


I don't think there is an exact one, but I think you'll acknowledge that this is not an excuse for ignoring the issue.

Asking an "exact definition" for everything is stupid/utopian/totalitarian as would be asking for a law for everything. Do you need an "exact definition" of good and bad to know that serial killing is bad ?

But basically : that's only your interpretation of the word.
Anybody can have his own, which makes the whole concept useless.

Come on, don't try that bluff with us. Don't pretend that you don't have your notion of "brother" like anyone else. Judging by some other things you wrote here, your notion of "brother" would include at least your children. Would you deny that you feel some sense of responsibility towards your children and family ?

So the notion is not "useless", it's just been obscured a lot by some very powerful ideological forces. Ilostabet mentioned the Protestant revolution, but even if you don't care for non-contemporary history, with a little effort I think you can identify who those forces are today.

PS : "brother" is obviously a shortcut for "brother of the same Father/God", a specifically Christian notion - in Islam it is blasphemy to attribute fatherhood or sonhood to God, and in Judaism God is the collective God of Israel, not the individual Father to every individual Israelite. Inside Christianity, your understanding of "brother" obviously depends on your understanding of "God". Recently invented expressions like "brothers in faith" do not mean much and obscure the issue.
 
Last edited:

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Ok so we have at least 4 definitions already :
1. brother as in literal brother, from the same mom and dad. The one I like best, I extend it to my immediate family of course.
2. brother as anyone you can help who does not refuse it - except the traitors (who you only discover so after the fact unfortunately). Your definition.
3. what rightist catholics here understand, basically any other catholic ..
4. what leftist catholics here understand, basically anyone and everyone ("we're all children of god").

See how useless it is unless we have a common definition other than just "it's common sense" now ?
 

Zep

Pelican
I'm not surprised the Grateful Dead were sponsered by the CIA, or whatever government agency, they are the very definition of average, they are aggressively average. I'm a musician and have known tons of them, not once, ever, has a respectable musician sited the Dead as a source of inspiration.

It's SO EASY to know what is emotionally right or wrong, get your brain out of the way, and FEEL. Did this 3 months ago, took a toke of pot and drank a couple of beers ( I don't usually do this ), got very high, turned the lights down in my living room, put the headphones on and listened to music for 3 hours straight. I haven't got this into music since being a teenager, I was air-drumming, air-guitaring, I wept while listening to Pink Floyds "Great gig in the Sky" thinking about my moms death from cancer. I listened to all the greats, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Steely Dan, The Rolling Stones, anything where the MUSIC has a strong emotional component. I capitalize music because that is what moves me, really moves my spirit, not the lyrics ( accept for Joni Mitchell, but her music can be insane also ).

I usually listen to jazz to be honest, the abstract stuff, stuff that makes people go "turn that c**p off". So the 3 hour experience above seemed necessary to the primitive brain. I really did feel great afterwards, like a purge of backed-up stuff. No wonder tribal cultures have these ceremonies where people take psychedelics and pound on drums for hours!! This will cleanse you, and the proof that this process is good for you is in the revitalization of the spirit. A person with a good, strong spirit, is not weighed-down by unexpressed residual experience. The city life is horrible for this, just horrible, it is anti-life. We are stuck living in apartments where we can't make noise, we can't get properly loud and angry, or scream in frustration, this is terrible. I was amazed that the psychologists I saw didn't have sound-proof rooms, if I was a shrink I'd be encouraging my clients to get LOUD as much as often.

Anyhow, about rock music being made by the devil. This is just so silly. All the high-school students back in the day were listening to one or two radio stations, all of them. That's a lot of people, I don't know of one who went out and did something crazy because they were listening to a particular band, and if they did, they would have done so without the music anyways. I can't speak to gangsta-rap because I don't live in that environment, maybe gangsta-rap inspired a couple of shootings, but from what I see, those neighborhoods are shooting each other up anyways, the rap could or could not be there, the killings would continue.

About modern music and the spiritual strength of it. There is none, and maybe that's the point. Put the SPIRIT to sleep, depress it.

So we had Public Enemy in the 90's - really funky,spirit-filled stuff - Now? we have Drake .... soft, *chill*, anesthetizing.
We had Led Zeppelin - full of life and spirit - Now? Radiohead - depressed, alienation, chill.

I tried being open-minded and listened to an Arianna Grande cd. Pfffffffft. Absolutely dead, no spirit, no life, it was bizarre, a little creepy to be honest. Too bad, she's a good singer.

So it seems the record companies are being instructed to not release music that stirs deep feeling, the only feeling I see some big names being allowed is happiness... Like Pharells "Happy". Then we have fake rock like Maroon 5 and Nickleback. Hmmmmmm, seems someone is overseeing the vibe that's being put out there.

If the companies are only releasing anesthetizing music I really don't care. There are scores of "Reaction" videos to the great bands by young people and it is heartening. It's great to see a young, black dude seriously getting off on a tune like "Babe I'm gonna leave you" by Led Zeppelin ( 1969), so many boomers are writing in the comments that they love seeing the music being appreciated all over again.

Gavin Harrison has won Modern Drummer magazines best Prog-Rock drummer for 5 years in a row I think. He has it all, precision, excellent drum parts, and his kit just sounds incredible - for the ProgRock lovers, Gavin Harrison - Anesthetize - ....



For older guys. A very raw, emotional version of Dylans "Like a Rolling Stone" by Micheal Hedges.


and to finish. Bootsy Collins, Mr. Funk himself, what a JAM this is, have fun ...

 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Ok so we have at least 4 definitions already :
1. brother as in literal brother, from the same mom and dad. The one I like best, I extend it to my immediate family of course.
2. brother as anyone you can help who does not refuse it - except the traitors (who you only discover so after the fact unfortunately). Your definition.
3. what rightist catholics here understand, basically any other catholic ..
4. what leftist catholics here understand, basically anyone and everyone ("we're all children of god").

See how useless it is unless we have a common definition other than just "it's common sense" now ?

There's not as much diversity of opinion here as you seem to imply.

Disagreements regarding the first three definitions will be of little consequence - there'll be stern looks or disapproving comments, a beggar calling you selfish for not giving him money (and from what you said about your physique, those kind of things will happen much less often to you :) ). Nothing that is not quickly forgotten ...

Now the fourth definition is another matter entirely. In fact, I would argue that it is an extremely powerful ideological weapon has had (and is still having) incalculable social consequences, that it has redefined (and is still redefining) the Nation-State beyond recognition.

Today, we have the bizarre phenomenon of some people getting persecuted only because they are members of the majority of their country ethnically (and so they're in the way of "equality" and your 4th definition). This was completely unknown to humanity (and still is for the most part, outside of the West) before the 4th definition appeared.

What humanity always did before was either persecute the minorities or no subgroup in particular, when the community was sufficiently homogeneous and united (and anyway, the first alternative usually leads quickly to the other if there are no external disturbances, so that the two are mostly equivalent).

Do you deny that what humanity always did before (and what a sizeable part of humanity still does today) is "common sense" ? Do you not see that the leftist 4th definition is a recipe for perpetual war on reality and perpetual chaos.

I presume you think that only losers will suffer the consequences of all that, not strong-willed people like you. Good for you, but I would argue then that you're not very representative statistically (unfortunately ...).
 
Last edited:

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
what rightist catholics here understand ...what leftist catholics here understand ...

Some claim there is a world outside RVF, you know, with its own right-wing and left-wing people :)
But from what I heard, they're not very different from the left-wingers and right-wingers here, you wouldn't feel homesick :)
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
Whatever the full definition may be, obviously included is anyone you have the occasion to help and and is not refusing it (see the parabola of the good Samaritan).

To clarify a very common misunderstanding due to leftists, obviously excluded would be perfidious false friends, as in Jews, Soros-funded migrants coming to lower wages and ruin your country, etc.
As far as I understand (and I could be wrong), everyone on Earth is included. BUT you priotitize some people over others. For example, your own immediate family is the highest priority, followed by your extended family, village, nation, whole of Christendom, and the rest of the world, in that order.

For instance, in your example of the Soros-funded migrants, yes, you are obligated to be kind to them and help them BUT not at the expense of your own country and its inhabitants.

Or, in a war, as a Christian you are obligated to be as kind and humane to the enemy as possible. BUT sometimes "as kind and humane as possible" means killing them, because if you don't kill them you are putting your own people in jeopardy.
 
Last edited:

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
As far as I understand (and I could be wrong), everyone on Earth is included.

There are obvious distinctions to make.
Before the Fall, Adam was perhaps a "son of God" in a sense (that's a matter for specialized theologians, though, and not very important). But since the Fall, the status everyone gets by default is mere "CREATURE" of God, not "SON" of God.
If you wish to become a Son, you must go through the adoption process and get BAPTIZED. The adopted status is also revokable, you must lead a good Christian life.

All this is denied implicitly or explicity, of course, by the current leftist ideology.

We have an obligation of kindness and humanity to basically all living creatures, not just humans.

Non-Christians are "brothers" if you mean brothers from Adam, but not brothers from God (by the way, this is the nuance introduced in the Lord's prayer :"Our Father in Heaven" is God, and "Our Father on Earth" is Adam).

Regarding war : Soldiers are never allowed to intend killing directly, i.e. must never use weapons that are sure to kill (although, as an inevitable self-defense measure, they are allowed to use weapons that might kill if the enemy is too violent). The principle is that you must always use the minimal amount of force to control the enemy or the traitor. When you apply that principle, war becomes a non-barbaric, inspiring, activity not unlike many others.

This is of course inverted, in our age of cowardly soldiers and leaders who use the maximum amount of force, deception and brutal technology because they are afraid and want to get their evil deed done as quickly as possible (it doesn't work anyway, in fact it usually has the opposite effect, but they're blind to that).

One of the worst examples of that is the Hiroshima bombing, where the official motive for the most barbarous radioactive bombing of a defenceless civilian population was "to shorten the war".
 
Last edited:

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Do you deny that what humanity always did before (and what a sizeable part of humanity still does today) is "common sense" ? Do you not see that the leftist 4th definition is a recipe for perpetual war on reality and perpetual chaos.
Sure, I agree. Still, it's the definition accepted by the majority in today's west.
I presume you think that only losers will suffer the consequences of all that, not strong-willed people like you. Good for you, but I would argue then that you're not very representative statistically (unfortunately ...).
I never said that, everyone will suffer the consequences, even billionaires on private islands.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
What are you guys even discussing?

The same God that said 'love your neighbor as yourself' also said 'he that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me' and that he came 'to to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.' And He also said to love our enemies.

Rationalist minds utterly twisted, fingers pointed crying 'contradiction!' like children who get their toy taken away. And no matter how much they cry, they won't get their toy back. At least while they are crying.

Using reason (which is, like animal instinct, of a lower order) to discern what can only be understood through divine intuition will always lead to pointless debate - in fact, debate is itself only a possibility for things of a lower order - which the Divine is obviously not.

This is why moderns cannot understand Christianity (or any religious tradition for that matter), as their only tool is reason, which is not only flawed in itself, but it becomes utterly useless without being subject to the higher order. The only thing reason recognizes in those verses above is contradiction.

And this is why in normal (that is, traditional) societies no one discusses doctrine - it is explained by those who understand it and understood by those who recognize the higher order and that represent it on earth. That is much more difficult in our day for many reasons, probably first among them is that we do not distinguish sacred doctrine from profane application, and end up confusing the two things. Or rather, we don't even believe in the sacred, leaving the profane to explain itself. The profane however is only logical within itself, and can only function within itself - once outside of its very narrow sphere, it is utterly pointless. This is why we can make highly specialized machines, but not know anymore what is a man, a woman, a family, a society. Because machines work within themselves (while they do) without being subject to a higher order. Man, woman, family, society do not exist without the higher order.

At the lower order of things, the profane application of the day to day, and unless you are extremely demonically oppressed, you will always recognize who your brothers/neighbors and enemies are. What will give you trouble, without the higher order, is understanding what Love is.
 
Last edited:

Oberrheiner

Pelican
The profane however is only logical within itself, and can only function within itself - once outside of its very narrow sphere, it is utterly pointless.
This is not a very constructive approach, since the exact same argument can be made about the spiritual.

Divide and conquer is easy, finding a balance (or dare I say a reconciliation ?) is harder.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
To come back to the actual topic of this thread (and continue what I wrote before), an idea that has been advanced quite often for the decline of rock music is that ‘all songs have been written’, that the medium of ‘guitar, bass, drums, vocals’ is exhausted and every new band can only ever be a rehash of an old one, in some way or another.

This same idea manifested itself earlier in Western history, at the end of the 19th century, gaining more ground as it went forth. The idea is not only about music, but about all forms of art, but it was applied, back then, only to ‘serious art’. The folk arts of the West remained untouched at this time – and in fact, the first type of escapism from the ‘serious’ art conception by composers was to return (in a certain way) to traditional musical forms. But their realizations missed the point - the traditional art forms had value because they were part of a larger patchwork of life, and connected ultimately to higher, supernatural meaning. The composers were merely using form, without content.

As I wrote earlier, the idea of ‘serious’ music, as a purely aesthetic experience emanating from a particular personality, is one of the aberrations of the West as it advanced toward modernity, which finds no correspondence in any traditional society – and is only found in other cultures insofar as they reject tradition and embrace modernity.

Traditional societies all had (and have) music, and none of them – including the West – ever ran into the problem of ‘exhaustion’ in music. The same instruments, the same forms, the same integration between higher and lower (sacred and profane music), the same themes as lyrics - for thousands of years. For modern minds this is insane and incomprehensible. But this is a question that does not arise for traditional man. First, it does not arise because the ‘composer’ is much less important than the composition, and the composition is much less important than the whole social nexus in which it is integrated. Both the song celebrating Easter, and the song celebrating the coming of spring, are not purely aesthetic – they have meaning and they serve a non-aesthetic purpose. Therefore, they are not exhausted by aesthetic similarity; they are reinforced in meaning by it, because the higher aspects cannot change. But this is only possible if these external, non-aesthetic principles are still in effect.

Once the composer and the composition are separated from the higher realm and no longer integrated into all aspects of life, taken in themselves they are exhaustible and, eventually, the only value that can possibly be sought is ‘originality’.

This did not happen overnight, of course. At the beginning of the 20th Century, it was possible for ‘serious’ composers to look at the traditional European folk forms which still existed and use them, delaying their inevitable irrelevancy for a few years. As the 20th century progressed, ‘serious’ music became more and more pure experimentation with no direction, the vanguard, or mere nostalgia for when this exhaustion was not yet realized.

The truly momentous turning point, however, was when popular music became commercial music – no longer tied to higher purpose, meaning or real life (in large part because all forms of traditional life had been destroyed in the West). From this point on, its only purpose was consumptive, and it shared the same fate that the ‘serious’ composers did – exhaustion. While it still mimics the participative aspect of traditional music, it is not the real thing, and all forms of it (rock, hip hop, whatever) will always end up in the same place, either nostalgic reenactment or originality for its own sake, but both exhausted and pointless.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Sure, I agree. Still, it's the definition accepted by the majority in today's west.
Like Soviet Communism was "accepted by the majority" of its subjects ?
If it was so generally accepted, there would be no need for such a giant apparatus of propaganda and censorship.
It was hardly ever "proposed" to the people either. Accepted is definitely not the right word here. How about passively endured :) ?
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
reason, is (...) flawed in itself
You're going too fast and throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Like anything created, reason is good in itself and when used in its proper domain. I challenge you to find an authority in a traditional society ever forbidding "reason" (they often don't even have a word for our specific modern sense). The ones blaming "reason" are always heretics, such as Luther calling reason a whore.

The only thing reason recognizes in those verses above is contradiction.
You meant, rationalism. Abusus non tollit usum, and don't insult reason by identifying it with rationalism. By the way, you're also implicitly insulting the holy text, more or less implying that it doesn't make sense as a whole.

Beware of the "idolatry of simplicity" which is so much used in the modern world. "Materialism (or totalitarianism) is hell, but hey, it's simple ! Relax, sheeple. We're relieving you of the burden of thinking!"
And this is why in normal (that is, traditional) societies no one discusses doctrine - it is explained by those who understand it and understood by those who recognize the higher order and that represent it on earth.


Though you probably won't believe me on this, this is exactly how the Catholic system and dogma works - and this was factually demonstrable before the Vatican II revolution. I presume also that you mistakenly view Catholic dogma as some sort of product of theologians "rationalism". It's not, all the decision-by-council-or-Pope is simply a mechanism to get the message more easily to the people at large.

What are you guys even discussing?

Your complaint would make more sense if we were people in a traditional society starting to descend the cliff of rationalism. As things are now, we're at the bottom of the abyss and trying to climb back ...


The profane however is only logical within itself, and can only function within itself - once outside of its very narrow sphere, it is utterly pointless.
It fails at even that. First of all, the profane has no justification for itself in a traditional society, it is only a step towards degeneracy. Second, the "purely profane" world materialists and atheists dream so much about (as perfectly expressed in the French word laïcité) invariably fails to deliver and is full of holes bringing in wind.
God laughs at our childish Babel-like house of cards and amuses Himself by wrecking it with a lift of His finger.
 
Last edited:

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Traditional societies all had (and have) music, and none of them – including the West – ever ran into the problem of ‘exhaustion’ in music.

I do not think that a traditional society would necessarily ban "intellectual music" (it would merely keep it in its proper subordinate place).

What killed "intellectual music" is that in that field as in many others, Westerners let their machines steal their activity from them. The goal of "intellectual" music is to be interiorized, "have music in you" as Shakespeare puts it, to become your intimate posession forever. When you understand this, any "exhaustion/monotony" problem disappears. It doesn't matter that your way of playing music sounds boringly identical to your teacher's or predecessor's to other people (any more that in mathematics or philosophy your understanding of a particular idea is "boringly identical" to understanding by other persons). What matters is that you make some part of music your own, so as to be able to use it for your psychological needs.

The "intellectual" Western theory of music was killed by two things, mechanization and the vanity of exhibition. Western brains were too busy being occupied by machine sounds or by striving to get famous ("that miserable act whose reward is a clapping of hands or agitation in the listeners' bowels" as Guido de Giorgio puts it).

Short of a fully traditional music, a first step in the right direction would be to regulate the buying & selling of records or anything related to music and place it under the control of people who are aware of the real meaning and use of music (even if it be only "intellectual" music).
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
You're going too fast and throwing the baby out with the bathwater here. Like anything created, reason is good in itself and when used in its proper domain. I challenge you to find an authority in a traditional society ever forbidding "reason" (they often don't even have a word for our specific modern sense). The ones blaming "reason" are always heretics, such as Luther calling reason a whore.


You meant, rationalism. Abusus non tollit usum, and don't insult reason by identifying it with rationalism. By the way, you're also implicitly insulting the holy text, more or less implying that it doesn't make sense as a whole.

Beware of the "idolatry of simplicity" which is so much used in the modern world. "Materialism (or totalitarianism) is hell, but hey, it's simple ! Relax, sheeple. We're relieving you of the burden of thinking!"



Though you probably won't believe me on this, this is exactly how the Catholic system and dogma works - and this was factually demonstrable before the Vatican II revolution. I presume also that you mistakenly view Catholic dogma as some sort of product of theologians "rationalism". It's not, all the decision-by-council-or-Pope is simply a mechanism to get the message more easily to the people at large.



Your complaint would make more sense if we were people in a traditional society starting to descend the cliff of rationalism. As things are now, we're at the bottom of the abyss and trying to climb back ...



It fails at even that. First of all, the profane has no justification for itself in a traditional society, it is only a step towards degeneracy. Second, the "purely profane" world materialists and atheists dream so much about (as perfectly expressed in the French word laïcité) invariably fails to deliver and is full of holes bringing in wind.
God laughs at our childish Babel-like house of cards and amuses Himself by wrecking it with a lift of His finger.

I accept the bolded parts as valid criticisms, or rather clarifications on what I said. As for the rest, you have misunderstood what I wrote.

The last part is the worst one, not because you misunderstood me, but because it misunderstands what a traditional society is, and specifically how it is. The mere pages of illuminated manuscripts from the middle ages proves this a falsehood. Both the sacred and the profane are present - this is unavoidable. The difference between the modern mode and the traditional mode is the place that the sacred and the profane are thought to be. In traditional societies, the sacred stands above and at center, whereas the profane is below and on the margin. And in modern civilization it is the exact opposite, an inversion.
 
So I just glanced over this and is it true? The decline and fall of rock music began with the disobedience of Adam and Eve, the fruit destroyed the rock? I guess it makes sense because in the beginning it was stated, "Let There Be Rock!" And after the fall, it all took a dive, travelling the "Highway to Hell."
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
The truly momentous turning point, however, was when popular music became commercial music
This is true for mostly everything though, and it's only going worse with time.
Money didn't only corrupt music - it corrupted science, work, food, love, life itself.

Capitalism is always after new markets, and it will never stop until everything and anything can be bought.
You can already buy babies online, people called me crazy when I said this would be possible at some point.
My next prediction is organs - like you point at some guy, check that he has a good healthy liver or whatever else you need, and you get it transplanted into you.
I have seen some people talking openly and seriously about it already, so it's only a matter of time.

And since apparently everybody abandoned the idea of getting rid of the people pushing this my only hope is that this civilization crumbles before it happens.
But that won't stop it, china is ready to replace us and continue with the program, no worries.
 
Top