Music's influence

[sledheavy]

This one's common sense. I just want to get a taste for most of your views on music.

I've found music of all qualities and genres to be as equally inspiring as they are ignorant in word choice.

I've even been told by pastors that 'god loves music' I guess because when we get into symphony and such we find tones defining a more humanlike characteristic.

At what point is music's influence considered wrong? Should there be limitations? If the music that people support affects major record labels more than the artist is it necessarily good or bad? And last, at what point should people just know better (totally generally speaking)?

[twobitsmedia]

This one's common sense. I just want to get a taste for most of your views on music.

I've found music of all qualities and genres to be as equally inspiring as they are ignorant in word choice.

I've even been told by pastors that 'god loves music' I guess because when we get into symphony and such we find tones defining a more humanlike characteristic.

At what point is music's influence considered wrong? Should there be limitations? If the music that people support affects major record labels more than the artist is it necessarily good or bad? And last, at what point should people just know better (totally generally speaking)?

I guess I am not sure I can call music an influence as much as I can call it a relationship. We "relate" to the beat or the words. I suppose in some respects it can give influence in the sense of "power." I remember listening to a song called "Hold Your Head Up" by Argent back in the 70s, which was kind of empowering to me. But I think it spoke to a place that I was in my life at the time. John Lennon's "Imagine," in my opinion, is a rather hopeless song lyrically. But it spoke to a generation. And put it with the haunting melody and it worked and is remembered today. I don't think it influenced as much as it was just a song that a generation could relate to. The current debate on the news media is lyrics in rap music. I don't like rap music to begin with, but I am not for censorship in music. I don't think the issue is the music itself as much as it is the demographic that buys it. Music is a great way for artists to express themselves and I am all for that. Granted, there is a lot of commercial junk, but there's a lot of good stuff, too. I find that in any venue of music and I listen to most all of it, except rap and opera (as they are just not my taste).

[sledheavy]

This one's common sense. I just want to get a taste for most of your views on music.

I've found music of all qualities and genres to be as equally inspiring as they are ignorant in word choice.

I've even been told by pastors that 'god loves music' I guess because when we get into symphony and such we find tones defining a more humanlike characteristic.

At what point is music's influence considered wrong? Should there be limitations? If the music that people support affects major record labels more than the artist is it necessarily good or bad? And last, at what point should people just know better (totally generally speaking)?

I guess I am not sure I can call music an influence as much as I can call it a relationship. We "relate" to the beat or the words. I suppose in some respects it can give influence in the sense of "power." I remember listening to a song called "Hold Your Head Up" by Argent back in the 70s, which was kind of empowering to me. But I think it spoke to a place that I was in my life at the time. John Lennon's "Imagine," in my opinion, is a rather hopeless song lyrically. But it spoke to a generation. And put it with the haunting melody and it worked and is remembered today. I don't think it influenced as much as it was just a song that a generation could relate to. The current debate on the news media is lyrics in rap music. I don't like rap music to begin with, but I am not for censorship in music. I don't think the issue is the music itself as much as it is the demographic that buys it. Music is a great way for artists to express themselves and I am all for that. Granted, there is a lot of commercial junk, but there's a lot of good stuff, too. I find that in any venue of music and I listen to most all of it, except rap and opera (as they are just not my taste).

Well yeah, not power related in anyway but maybe power in influence over the majority of the people that buy the cds. Is most of the music today influential in a positive and negative light? What music? To what degree? That's the question I'm asking in relation to the questions above.

Your remark on john lennon fits the bill in my book.

But it's like you said, some of it's commercial junk. What makes it commercial junk?

[twobitsmedia]

This one's common sense. I just want to get a taste for most of your views on music.

I've found music of all qualities and genres to be as equally inspiring as they are ignorant in word choice.

I've even been told by pastors that 'god loves music' I guess because when we get into symphony and such we find tones defining a more humanlike characteristic.

At what point is music's influence considered wrong? Should there be limitations? If the music that people support affects major record labels more than the artist is it necessarily good or bad? And last, at what point should people just know better (totally generally speaking)?

I guess I am not sure I can call music an influence as much as I can call it a relationship. We "relate" to the beat or the words. I suppose in some respects it can give influence in the sense of "power." I remember listening to a song called "Hold Your Head Up" by Argent back in the 70s, which was kind of empowering to me. But I think it spoke to a place that I was in my life at the time. John Lennon's "Imagine," in my opinion, is a rather hopeless song lyrically. But it spoke to a generation. And put it with the haunting melody and it worked and is remembered today. I don't think it influenced as much as it was just a song that a generation could relate to. The current debate on the news media is lyrics in rap music. I don't like rap music to begin with, but I am not for censorship in music. I don't think the issue is the music itself as much as it is the demographic that buys it. Music is a great way for artists to express themselves and I am all for that. Granted, there is a lot of commercial junk, but there's a lot of good stuff, too. I find that in any venue of music and I listen to most all of it, except rap and opera (as they are just not my taste).

Well yeah, not power related in anyway but maybe power in influence over the majority of the people that buy the cds. Is most of the music today influential in a positive and negative light? What music? To what degree? That's the question I'm asking in relation to the questions above.

I have a business that deals in media collectibles and a large portion of it is music memoribilia. I went into it originally because I wanted a demographic that kind of went across the board and I thought music was one of those. Most everybody listens to music of some kind. Most of the stuff I deal in is older stuff (pre-2000 on back to the early part of the last century). Some performers, Like the Beatles, Elvis and the Stones seem to maintian their collectibility even to other generations. I got young teens that look for Beatles memoribilia. But they had an artistic influence on the music world. As did the Stones. I can't explain Elvis, though he did have a good voice. People will put out money for the stuff and on a regular basis it seems. I guess as I try and elaborate on the question more, it is the word "influential" that stops me. It's like the question I hear about hollywood: does Hollywood influence people or do people influence Hollywood? I can see a little of both. The same with music.

But it's like you said, some of it's commercial junk. What makes it commercial junk?

Sometimes it is a blur. When Led Zeppelin did the "Led Zepplen IV" (which goes by another name also) LP it, in my opinion, was artistic heavy metal. They pushed the limits with sound and the guitar. Pink Floyd did the same with "Dark Side of the Moon." However, the record labels had to sell, so they commercially pushed "Money" by Pink Floyd and "Rock and Roll" by Zeppelin. It helped music lovers that might not have found them otherwise enjoy the value of "Dark Side of the Moon" and people discovered "Stairway to Heaven" which is one of the greatest tracks of all rock history as far as I am concerned. So, there was a mix. Then there was the commercial push of a group like "New Kids on the Block" who are now a "what was I thinkin when I listened to this" memory. Pure commercial. People bought their stuff at the time and the record labels made some money. Now I can't give their stuff away.

[ST88]

I've found music of all qualities and genres to be as equally inspiring as they are ignorant in word choice.

I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by this.

I've even been told by pastors that 'god loves music' I guess because when we get into symphony and such we find tones defining a more humanlike characteristic.

I think that's more of a reflection of the music that the pastor loves. I'm sure "God loves music" means what it does when "music" is a general term. Maybe he just doesn't love all lyrics?

At what point is music's influence considered wrong? Should there be limitations? If the music that people support affects major record labels more than the artist is it necessarily good or bad? And last, at what point should people just know better (totally generally speaking)?

In my opinion, music should be allowed to say anything it wants because art is never wrong. It reveals. If kids purchase music in mass quantity that has explicit lyrics, we should be addressing the allure, not the artist. We give our kids certain taboos, and then we are surprised when they are enthralled at the people who break them. "Childhood" is a recent invention as is adolescence, when we thought we could control the information that goes into our homes so we wouldn't have to deal with unpleasant, inconvenient subjects. All because we have this made-up idea about childhood that makes us more comfortable about the world we think we live in. We just keep trying to make ourselves more comfortable at the expense of our sanity.

[sledheavy]

in saying "I've found music of all qualities to be as inspiring as they are in word choice" could mean simply that though music such as....50 cent for example appeals to a generation, his word choice in lyrics is COMPLETELY ignorant.

I like queens of the stone age, down, or even monster magnet. Mark Lanegan, Phil Anselmo and Dave Wyndorf are all incredible drug users and that is equally demonstrated in word choice. But I'm influenced by their music for many other reasons.

The only point I guess I could prove by this statement would be ignorance is bliss. And maybe that's more musically inclined.

[Wyvern]

This one's common sense. I just want to get a taste for most of your views on music.

I've found music of all qualities and genres to be as equally inspiring as they are ignorant in word choice.

I've even been told by pastors that 'god loves music' I guess because when we get into symphony and such we find tones defining a more humanlike characteristic.

At what point is music's influence considered wrong? Should there be limitations? If the music that people support affects major record labels more than the artist is it necessarily good or bad? And last, at what point should people just know better (totally generally speaking)?

All music is good, you might not like it but that's just a matter of personal taste and normally music of a certain time speaks particualrly to the people of the prime demographic of the time(generally late teens to mid twenties), only the truly greats musicians live past their times(Beethoven,Bach, Mozart, Hendrix, Morrison, et.al.). I don't think musics influence is considered wrong by anyone except those that don't like that particular performer or genre(like me for example, I'm only 5 years younger than twobits but I have never liked Led Zep but I can't ignore the fact that they are great musicians and showmen or for that matter I consider Pink Floyds high points artistically to be Animals/Wish you were here, again it's a matter of personal taste). As far as knowing better I have always hoped that anything labeled pop would give everyone the hint that it is crap but obviously that hasn't worked. Another thing that should be noted is how as people age their musical tastes ossify or at the very least become more set in stone as real life takes precedence and music listening becomes less important. Sorry about the rantishness of this post, hope it makes some sense.

[sledheavy]

This one's common sense. I just want to get a taste for most of your views on music.

I've found music of all qualities and genres to be as equally inspiring as they are ignorant in word choice.

I've even been told by pastors that 'god loves music' I guess because when we get into symphony and such we find tones defining a more humanlike characteristic.

At what point is music's influence considered wrong? Should there be limitations? If the music that people support affects major record labels more than the artist is it necessarily good or bad? And last, at what point should people just know better (totally generally speaking)?

All music is good, you might not like it but that's just a matter of personal taste and normally music of a certain time speaks particualrly to the people of the prime demographic of the time(generally late teens to mid twenties), only the truly greats musicians live past their times(Beethoven,Bach, Mozart, Hendrix, Morrison, et.al.). I don't think musics influence is considered wrong by anyone except those that don't like that particular performer or genre(like me for example, I'm only 5 years younger than twobits but I have never liked Led Zep but I can't ignore the fact that they are great musicians and showmen or for that matter I consider Pink Floyds high points artistically to be Animals/Wish you were here, again it's a matter of personal taste). As far as knowing better I have always hoped that anything labeled pop would give everyone the hint that it is crap but obviously that hasn't worked. Another thing that should be noted is how as people age their musical tastes ossify or at the very least become more set in stone as real life takes precedence and music listening becomes less important. Sorry about the rantishness of this post, hope it makes some sense.

I agree. But then there's the classic argument of when music goes to far. Someone commits suicide and claims they got the idea from ozzy. Or pantera or slipknot influences violence amongst young people. No matter what the intent, one might have to consider that no matter what a person would be doing before a crime, they're basing that crime on ideologies brought upon by their common influences..

[agnosis]

I think there's a certain limit to the extent to which people are influenced by ideas that music presents. The vast majority of people seem to be capable of listening to rap music without going on shooting sprees or slapping their biatches up, whatever that's supposed to mean. As with any form of artistic expression, you're bound to get a tiny minority who take appreciation of it to the extreme, but I wouldn't say any particular kind of music is worse than another. I think a lot of perception of music centres around that which is ground-breaking - people used to think that Elvis was an example of how music could be seen as sinful, but now he is just recognised as a prominent musician of the last century.

I don't often agree with Martin Luther, but I do like this.....

"I have no use for cranks who despise music, because it is a gift of God. Music drives away the Devil and makes people gay; they forget thereby all wrath, unchastity, arrogance, and the like. Next after theology, I give to music the highest place and the greatest honour."

[sledheavy]

I think there's a certain limit to the extent to which people are influenced by ideas that music presents. The vast majority of people seem to be capable of listening to rap music without going on shooting sprees or slapping their biatches up, whatever that's supposed to mean. As with any form of artistic expression, you're bound to get a tiny minority who take appreciation of it to the extreme, but I wouldn't say any particular kind of music is worse than another. I think a lot of perception of music centres around that which is ground-breaking - people used to think that Elvis was an example of how music could be seen as sinful, but now he is just recognised as a prominent musician of the last century.

I don't often agree with Martin Luther, but I do like this.....

"I have no use for cranks who despise music, because it is a gift of God. Music drives away the Devil and makes people gay; they forget thereby all wrath, unchastity, arrogance, and the like. Next after theology, I give to music the highest place and the greatest honour."

my standards must just be to high then. There is a level of ignorance which comes from certain music. If you don't believe it, go to a concert, and you'll think differently. Those that are intelligent enough to decifer and appreciate it, I give my utmost respect to, the people that think their music is a defination and a relation to them personally, those I could care less for.