« Site Updates | Main | "Evil" Music, Part II »

The Myth of "Evil" Music, Part I

I’ll be discussing the topic of music in general today, and then more specifically (including what incident caused me to write about this in the first place) in Part 2 tomorrow.

First, let me make a bold statement: There is no such thing as evil music.

Now, you can have music with evil lyrics, of course—but saying there is such a thing as ‘evil music’ implies that there’s some combination of notes, chord progressions or assorted sounds that inherently drives people to do evil things. This, I submit, is patently false (and not a little absurd, too).

Not all forms of music are palatable for every person, of course—however not liking a particular kind of music isn’t justification for condemning it as ‘bad’ or ‘evil’. I personally can’t stand bagpipe music, for example—in fact, I’d rather beat my head against the wall over and over and over and over rather than listen to a bagpipe CD for any length of time. Does my intense dislike for bagpipe music make it ‘evil’, though? What about people who really like bagpipe music, and find it soothing and relaxing?

Traditional Asian music (pentatonic scale stuff) is also an acquired taste. I doubt many Western listeners will be able to stomach a traditional Chinese opera, but again ‘dislike’ does not equal ‘evil’.

I personally happen to like--love, actually--the sound of the electric guitar, although of course there are many who do not. The electric guitar is capable of as wide a range of sounds as any other instrument out there; from lovely, pure tones to horrific and abrasive sounding ‘screeches’. (Guitarist Gary Holt of the Bay Area band Exodus has a particular guitar sound he calls “cat strangling”…and having heard it, that’s a fairly accurate description.) Still, many people like even the more dissonant electric guitar sounds, and many do not, but there’s no justification for calling the sound that an electric guitar produces ‘evil’.

Still leaving lyrical content aside for the moment, many people, while admitting instruments themselves are not inherently evil, might still condemn the more uptempo and aggressive rock and metal genres as being musically ‘unspiritual’—not the kinds of music you’d allow in sacrament meeting, for example. True, the LDS Church does not and likely never will feature rock songs in sacrament meetings (although other churches do…), but what about when we’re not in church? Is there a contextual difference between the music you might choose to listen to when you’re preparing a Sunday School lesson, or driving to the temple, and when you’re exercising, or working on a computer? In other words, does the fact that music X isn’t ‘allowed in' or 'appropriate for' a sacrament meeting mean it’s not appropriate any other time? I don’t buy this theory…but I know it happens to be accepted by many Latter-Day Saints.

Of course, you can’t divorce lyrical content from musical judgment entirely, because most forms of music have lyrics—and you can’t simply block out the lyrics in your mind while listening to the music. Many rock and metal songs have lyrical content that could not be considered ‘Church standard’ (though, of course, not all…)—but the question is, do members judge a particular song to be ‘bad’ simply because of the lyrics, or does the type of music play a part? If you took the words to “I Am A Child Of God” or any other hymn, for example, and made a rock arrangement for it, with guitars and drums, would that be ‘wrong’? (In other words, is there something inherently wrong with ‘rock music’ that would make such an arrangement inappropriate even though it is lyrically ‘pure’) I say no, but I would suspect many would say yes. (Some people, in fact, have already created rock arrangements of Church hymns, and I don’t think that’s gone over well with a certain subset of the LDS population)

To summarize: music is music—it’s not ‘good’ or ‘bad’, it’s just ‘different’. Judgments of musical quality from a ‘righteousness’ standpoint should be about the lyrics only, since ‘sound’ by definition is not ‘good’ or ‘evil’.

Continued in Part 2 tomorrow…

June 29, 2004 in Religion | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/18231/875961

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Myth of "Evil" Music, Part I:

Comments

Nice post Baron. It's fun to read another music appreciator who loves the sound of guitar.

Interesting idea that there is no such thing as "evil music." I could probably try and argue for or against that but honestly I just like the idea as it stands.

When I tried to think of evil music or an evil sound, the one memory that came to me was of the scene in LOTR III, where Frodo, Samwise and Gollum are about to climb up those stairs near the gate of the Witch King's castle. When that Witch King comes out on his dragon-steed, the sounds that are made are so shrill, screechy and scary-sounding to me. But it was still interesting to listen to and very appropriate to the scene.

Hey Baron, come visit me at the Wump Blog. I don't get enough comments. :)

Posted by: danithew | Jun 29, 2004 2:07:46 PM

I'm not sure you could argue successful for 'evil' music but you're welcome to try. Some music is dissonant to certain ears (minor chords, abrasive sounds, inconsistent rhythm, etc...) but certainly not to everyone.

Danithew mentions an important issue; it's easy to associate certain music with 'evil' things because that's how it's predominantly used in movies, TV and the like. By using 'evil sounding' music whenever a bad guy appears (or is about to appear in, say, a horror movie) certain kinds of 'eerie' and 'scary' tones and sounds are used. Afterwards, you might get an 'evil' feeling when you hear those same sounds afterwards, but that's only because of the psychological association, not because the sounds are INHERENTLY evil by nature.

And, hey, I visit the Wump Blog almost every day--but often there isn't anything special for me to say in a comment... Nothing personal :)

Posted by: The Baron | Jun 29, 2004 4:00:06 PM

Hey! I like bagpipes... (sniff) Why don't you go pick on freeform jazz or something? :)

I'm not entirely clear about what you mean by evil music, but this topic brushes up against that of whether music influences behaviour.

Do you mean that evil music is that which influences a person to do something bad? If so, I agree with you that there is no evil music in an absolute sense, but for a different reason. I think it is clear that musical sound can influence a person's mood, and likewise that ideas expressed in lyrics can influence a person's thoughts. But something that isn't often realized is that violent music doesn't necessarily make the listener more violent. When we are concious of the influences around us we have the ability to choose which ones affect us and how they do so. The tough part is that conciousness thing.

Posted by: Noah Langenwalter | Jun 29, 2004 9:52:07 PM

Freeform jazz...another acquired taste.

I should have made it more clear in the post, but while most people consider the word 'music' to include both the instrumental part and the vocal part, I'm using 'music' and 'lyrics' separately where 'music' is just the instrumental part (which also includes the vocal melody line, just not the actual words that are spoken)

As far as music influencing 'mood', that depends on your personal likes and dislikes. Bagpipe music happens to put me in a bad mood, whereas a good rock song doesn't...yet someone else might be the opposite.

Part of the problem is that the word 'evil' is used too often and too casually by a lot of people. For something to be 'evil' it must (a) encourage or condone breaking the commandments of God and/or (b) discourage or condemn following the commandments. No combination of notes, chords, or sounds meets any of these criteria. Far too often, people (especially Church members) will use 'evil' to mean 'something I don't like' or 'something I'm not familiar with or used to' which is (a) wrong and (b) weakens the definition in regards to truly evil things.

Posted by: The Baron | Jun 30, 2004 9:30:41 AM

Some religious cultures such as orthodox Judaism and stricter forms of Islam find the sound of a woman's voice to be a sexually alluring sound and thus ban their adherents from listening to it.

Also, when I lived in a Palestinian village I attended a few weddings. At one there was loud music that was clearly influenced by American pop and rock music as well as traditional Arab music. But at another Palestinian (Muslim) wedding I went to there was a "music group" that consisted of only men with drums, who chanted Islamic sayings to the beat. I was told that musical stringed instruments and the like were considered (in this household) to be "haram" or forbidden by the Prophet Muhammad.

Posted by: danithew | Jun 30, 2004 11:07:11 AM

There is definitely such a thing as evil music, and it's proven to be 15.5 times as prevelant in "Popular Music" as in "Classical Music."

You can, in fact, prove this for yourself. Go to Amazon.com. A search for evil music in the "Popular Music" category will bring up 31 results, while in "Classical Music" it will bring up only two.

Interestingly enough, a search for good music will bring up only 196 in the "Popular Music" category, while in "Classical Music" it will bring up 216.

(For those not familiar with my sense of humor, I should explain that while the results I have cites are accurate, I am kidding when I say that such results prove that there is evil music.)

Posted by: Eric James Stone | Jun 30, 2004 1:28:56 PM

while some musik may _not_ be evil: musik that promotes breaking the laws, whether of man or God, "is" de facto evil.

Also...some musik is good, depending on the status of the listener. i.e. if you are married, 'tis fab to listen to songs that glorify sex. If you are single though..._not_ a good thing.

Posted by: lyle | Jul 1, 2004 8:09:06 AM

So now that I'm married I can listen to Prince. :) I'm so relieved.

"All I want is your extra time and your ...."

Posted by: danithew | Jul 1, 2004 3:52:54 PM

Lyle:

I think you're missing the Baron's point here. Music used in the intrinsic sense that the Baron is using it is incapable of promoting the breaking of laws -- it only takes on those contexts when paired with lyrics and/or other cultural trappings and references. Of course, all music has those trappings. So the question is not is one style [limiting style to note combinations or chord progression] evil or not, but rather what are its cultural trappings and are they appropriate or not?

Posted by: William Morris | Jul 1, 2004 5:51:43 PM

"In our day music itself has been corrupted. Music can, by its tempo, by its beat, by its intensity, dull the spiritual sensitivity of men.

Studies citing physiological effects from some of the extreme music of today neglect the most serious thing concerning it.

Our youth have been brought up on a diet of music that is loud and fast, more intended to agitate than to pacify, more intended to excite than to calm. Even so, there is a breadth of it. some soft enough to be innocent and appealing to our youth, and that which is hard, and that is where the problem is.

One of the signs of apostasy in the Christian churches today is the willingness of their ministers to compromise and introduce into what had been, theretofore, the most sacred religious meetings the music of the drug and the hard rock culture. Such music has little virtue and it is repellent to the Spirit of God."
Elder Packer October 1973 General Conference

This talk has been made into a fireside which was on slideshow and now video. It seems as though it is on a regular schedule to be shown here in my singles ward- seems once every 18 months or so

Posted by: Mike | Jul 7, 2004 10:41:54 AM

I like playing my PRS guitar - and I think it is notthe music itself, but the lyrics that go with it that can cause some mucia to be labelled 'evil" - say for example, stuff that is put out by White power, or other racist, anti-semitic, nihilistic type of bands. Now all that music does is promote hatred and a particular Nazi-inspired ideology. Now, that, i thi k is pure evil music.
BTW, what kind of guitars do y'all play? iplay PRS Custom-22 through a fender Blues Jr amp, no effects - am looking to buy a Fender Std Strat sometime soon

Posted by: TR | Jul 7, 2004 11:55:04 AM

Elder Packer: "music that is loud and fast, more intended to agitate than to pacify, more intended to excite than to calm...One of the signs of apostasy in the Christian churches today is the willingness of their ministers to compromise and introduce into what had been, theretofore, the most sacred religious meetings the music of the drug and the hard rock culture."

I have no problem with the Church's restrictions on music in sacrament meeting. Although I don't believe you CAN'T feel the Spirit while listening to uptempo music, I wouldn't want sacrament meetings to be filled with rock songs either. Sacrament meetings are for peace, tranquility and feeling spiritual.

But, does Elder Packer imply that the ONLY purpose for music is to 'pacify' and 'calm'? As I mentioned in the original post, is there a contextual difference between a church fireside (where you're looking for peace and calm) and when you're jogging, riding your bike, working, playing sports, on a road trip, or other times where you specifically want something that 'excites' or 'agitates' you? Why should sacrament meeting standards apply ALL the time?

Posted by: The Baron | Jul 7, 2004 1:19:50 PM

TR,

I just mess around on acoustic guitar that my wife brought into the marriage. I dream about someday having a Gibson or a Les Paul electric guitar. I wrote some songs and thought they were great until I tried recording one. Hearing my voice on recording made me realize I'll never be Lennon and McCartney. Sigh.

However, if I ever find someone who has a great voice, I'd love to try having them sing a song or two that I've written, while I play the guitar. I'd like to see if it could work at all.

Posted by: danithew | Jul 7, 2004 2:43:58 PM

Being a music therapist, I always like to see music discussed intelligently and interestingly as it has been here.

I agree that music itself cannot be evil. There was a time in the history of the Catholic church in which a tritone (augmented 4th) was considered to be the devil's chord and should not be played. They seemed to think that a specific combination of notes could, in fact, be inherently evil. Then they came out of the dark ages. Anyway . . .

As for Elder Packer's talk, it is a well-documented phenomenon that people of one generation often tend to dislike the music of the next generation, and then fall into the trap of calling it bad (maybe even evil) music. He is an apostle, but is also human and as such may be prone to the same trap.

Posted by: Amy | Jul 7, 2004 5:41:29 PM

Funny to see you hate bagpipe music so much. I love it - well, I play the pipes so it's just as well, and right now as I talk I'm listening to a pipeband CD. I've got heaps of them! Each to his (or her) own, eh?

Posted by: croila | Jul 8, 2004 10:21:05 AM

A few thoughts:

One, I seem to remember in the back of my mind hearing that the bagpipe was invented to be played on the battlefield in an attempt to rattle and scare off the horses of the enemy's cavalry... :-)

Two, the Elders of the church have always been cautioning us against various forms of music. In fact, at one point there was a popular dance that was so lurid and so evil that it was banned by name. That was "the waltz" just after the turn of the century. And a generation later, the Brethren were trying to get people to stop jitterbugging and telling them to do the much more moral waltz. (my source, "Mormonism and Music" by Michael Hicks)

Three, I obviously feel the same way you do about music being inherently evil or not. I've blogged about that from time to time, and I've also made a lot of LDS oriented rock music too, myself (check it out at http://markhansenmusic.com - if you'll pardon the shameless plug).

Anyway, Amen to all that!

MRKH

Posted by: Mark Hansen | Sep 23, 2004 7:43:08 AM

This is an interesting post. I enjoy listening to music that people generally consider "dark, negative, evil" etc. just because of the way it sounds. While I seriously doubt that a certain combination of notes can be considered "evil", I know that melodies produce certain emotions, and those emotions are either positive or negative. You could play a series of notes on a piano that sound sad, and people consider sorrow to be a negative emotion, or a series of notes that produce a happy emotion, and it would be considered positive. There are even certain types of music that produce no emotion whatsoever (noise music). Some people do not consider noise music to be music at all, and some say that the emptiness of it causes a wide variety of negative emotions, but I find it doesn't produce any emotion. If music makes you sad or angry all the time, and those emotions lead to negativity, increased aggression, bitterness, etc., can you consider the music evil? It's a subjective thing; certain music has different effects on different people, but I doubt it's possible to decidedly say certain music is "evil".

Posted by: Dave | Jan 12, 2007 7:08:51 PM

Very interesting perspective, it's in, thanks!

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
music is EVIL...
.

Posted by: USpace | Feb 9, 2007 2:10:36 PM

I can appreciate Death Metal aesthetically, but the themes and motivations still disturb me. Much the same as I suppose hip-hop does for some people. I suppose much of it is a measure of the listener's cultural reactivity, although what is considered "dark" music can be just as intriguing to listen to as "light" music. I find that IDM is a terrifically under-appreciated style of music that will usher us into the post-ear era of technology to come. It pulls from all previous sources of sound & melody, and creates something new, thanks to our unprecedented modern capabilities. Dark drum and bass and noise music can be the devil, or art, depending on your context and background. People hear things differently.

Posted by: Darth Brooks | Jan 6, 2008 10:50:59 PM

Post a comment