Posted on 02/24/2011 11:29:08 AM PST by DJ MacWoW
The Christian rock band, Petra, has come together again with the original members: Bob Hartman, Greg X Volz, John Lawry, Louie Weaver and Mark Kelly. They have a new CD called Back to the Rock. I have it and it IS classic Petra. There are two new songs, Back to the Rock and Too Big to Fail. The others are redone and STILL GREAT.
They will be on tour but unfortunately, so far it's only a few places in the US.
Thursday June 30 Cornerstone, Chicago, Ill
Sunday July 31 Kingdom Bound, Darien Center, New York
Thursday August 4th Soulfest, Billford, New Hampshire
Boy am I out of things! I take it that this thread is NOT about the capital of ancient Nabataea?
I honestly don't care.
So to you Kiss is the same music style as Rachmaninoff?
More dishonesty and twisting on your part.
You dont have to listen to every christian rock band to understand what they are playing is secular music,
That's also ridiculous. You asked for links. I posted them then you dishonestly refuse to use them. And not everything that's brown is chocolate.
Nope. But there is some cool music posted. :-)
Personally I prefer Mozart and Verdi. Different strokes for different folks.
I went out and saw some of the videos you’re talking about. Particularly some of their live versions of songs. Their concerts appear to be totally secular. They dress like other secular bands do, they walk around pumping fists in the air, imitating what I’ve seen secular performers do. Smoke machines, kids in the front rows of the audience shirtless - would you take off your shirt in church to worship?
I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I like Rachmaninoff and Chopin. But then I’m partial to piano concertos.
OMG!!!! They wear NORMAL clothes?! Not in SUITS?!
I've been to early Petra concerts. Nobody "fist pumped". But they did raise their hands to the Lord, palms open.
Obviously you DIDN'T listen to ANYTHING that I posted but the later stuff. This thread is about EARLY Petra and that they are back together. I couldn't care less about what they did when Greg Volz was gone.
Love Tchaikovsky, but I am a sentimentalist.
I love ballets so Tchaikovsky is loved. :-)
PS. I was the only kid in music class in 7th grade that could spell TCHAIKOVSKY. LOL
I was the only kid in music class in 7th grade that was NAMED TCHAIKOVSKY. LOL
Howdy, couldn't help it!
Truly,
Papa Alinsky
I used google to check. Love the 1812 Overture when done with howitzers. After the Soviets fell it was performed in front of the capitol on the fourth of July, with the Air Force Glee Club singing the Russian Imperial Anthem at the end of the Overture. Great Stuff.
I have to go to bed and you put a grin on my face.
Have a lovely evening!
When my boys were in the military they had an orchestra play the 1812 at a local park and my boys fired the howitzers. Hubby got a night pic of the “flames” coming out of the howitzers. It was awesome!
No they are not. Your obfuscation of the issue is. Again you have failed to answer the questions.
You say "A chord is a chord, not a style of music." That is correct as far as you take it. However, you were asked what chord progressions constitute holy stuff. Chord progressions create style and tension and expression (it's known as MUSIC). A chord by itself does nothing. It is when you put a bunch of them together to create music that you have something. WHAT SEQUENCE OF CHORD PROGRESSIONS IS HOLY? (You have not answered this question, just deflected and redirected the sense.)
You say "Metronome settings are not music". That is a true statement. However you have not answered the question. Maybe you would prefer the usage of the word 'tempo' or 'rhythm'? By inference you seem to think that anything that can be danced to is evil. Please reread the psalms. The point that you have refused to respond to is that you are making an arbitrary statement, and I am trying to get you to provide a concrete definition of your belief. You have not supplied that other than in your own circular logic track with which you seem most comfortable.
You say "An instrument is used to make music, the instrument is not the player of the instrument, who determines what type of music is being played." You state correctly. Now, upon the instrument, what sequence of notes or chord patterns being played by the musician would be considered Holy? Major scales, maybe a minor third only rarely? How about a minor-Major seventh? Soft contemplative structures with a largo tempo? How about energetic march tempo stuff?
Would it be the notes and structure of the music that makes it Holy or some other attribute? Ponder the following, which is the logical outcome of your convoluted argument.
How about if someone would take the musical construct that we commonly recognize as the "Lord's Prayer" (the one written by Albert Malotte) and let, say, Sid Viscous write the lyrics for it, thus rendering the words (which you say don't matter) to be something totally other than the Lord's Prayer. Would it still be a Holy song? After all, the music would be the same, and you say that somehow it is the music, not the lyric content that is Holy (yet you cannot or refuse to define what it is that makes the music Holy in terms that a musician can relate to.) By your logic, wrapping a secular message in Holy music would make it a Holy composition. If, as you state, wrapping a Christian message (even Bible verses I would guess) in whatever it is that you "feel" (but cannot or refuse to define) as "secular" music makes is "secular" then following the logical rules of extension, wrapping a piece of "secular" lyric in your definition of Holy music would make it still Holy.
There... thanks for clearing this up for me.
What do you object to in the live concert songs I am referencing, it appears you do have some problems with something you see and some band members?
I did go to the links you posted, but I also clicked on other side links to their live concert songs. I guess I didn’t know that I was only supposed to look at certain Petra songs and not others.
Don’t forget my buddy, the one and only, Grieg!
G’night.
Is that like "King Jimmy 1611 is the only inspired Word of God because..."?
My point is, which you don’t seem to grasp, is if you simply add a religious component into something secular, it is still secular. It’s secular with religion mixed into it.
If something is worldly, it’s worldly. Trying to pass it off as holy because there’s some religion in it doesn’t take away the fact it’s still worldly.
Poison mixed with honey is still poison. How much honey would you add to the poison before you’d feel safe eating it?
Per your other example, if you started with a pure jar of honey (something holy), how much poison (something worldly) would you add to it before you wouldn’t eat it?
Don’t know about the rest of you, but I hafta gota bed. Collecting a paycheck is a plus in this era of hope and change...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.