It seems the Vatican newspaper is bias in its music taste. I’m not sure what age group expresses its musical opinion in the Vatican newspaper, but I’m guessing it is people who were young in the sixties.
In particular the Vatican seems to be pushing the Beatles, the newspaper saying the musical compositions of the Beatles are far more creative than the “standardized and stereotyped” pop music of today.
Apparently 40 years later the Beatles album is “30 songs you can go through and listen to at will, certain of finding some pearls that even today remain unparalleled,”. The newspaper goes on to say the modern pop music industry is too willing to sacrifice originality and fantasy in order to satisfy the consumer models it has adopted and promoted, it said.
I’m not sure if you beg to differ or not… One thing I would say is the words of songs that were once thought shocking or provocative now seem tame to our desensitized ears. You have to be careful what you listen to, because even subconsciously lyrics sink in, and can be quite shocking.
Speaking of music, I went to see the movie “Young at heart” this week. If you want to go to see something that will make you think twice about moaning that you’re getting old, there is nothing better than watching elderly people in their eighties and nineties perform modern rock songs to sell-out crowds.
A documentary film, it is truly uplifting and humorous. It forces the viewer to face the reality that life inevitably brings pain and struggles, and we have the choice to embrace that with grace and optimism or otherwise.
That made me think about attitude to life in general. There is pain and suffering that is hard to understand sometimes. But though it there is growth, a test of faith, and a witness to hope.
Or perhaps if you are struggling with something today listening to old Beatles albums will make you feel better?
hello! great post ew.
i suppose the way that i read it is that the beatles music was kind of creative, in the sense that it was a new genre, a new style. but i don’t know whether we can say that it was very good as music, objectively speaking, when compared to the true qualitative heights of music reached by bach, beethoven, haydn, handel, mozart, vivaldi…etc…
but compared with the absolute trash that is put out today, the beatles do look quite reasonable.
don’t forget that there is an objective quality in art – it isn’t all subjective appreciation. to use an exmaple, consider a mason, or a brick layer; they can easily discern if some brick work has been done well, or badly, due to their experience, knowledge, and expertise of their craft; and that is beyond measuring it with a rule or straight edge. it is at a qualitative level (the proper sensibles as aristotles calls them)
it is the same in music.
the beatles were kind of creative, but they were fairly average composers and players. they were good at appealing to the masses of the age and understanding how to write for the conditioned sensibilities of the times, and then further poisoned what had already been distorted.
good point ew about pain and suffering. it is very true isn’t it. we grow if we live our trials and suffering in an truly human way; and especially if we live it united to Mary and Jesus. if we do the later it becomes fruitful for us and for the kingdom.
but i’d say, if a person was going to listen to secular music to lift the spirits, choose something more qualitative than the beatles.
the beatles are quite depressing in my view
Hi Dave
are you one of those nerds ha ha.
Millions of people would disagree with you including many at the Vatican.
I heard the Pope was a great fan of “Love love Me Do” and may well be introducing it to the liturgy
Dave,
I don’t think you’re a nerd!
You’re perfectly entitled to your own opinions about music – it’s not as though there’s an infallible teaching that everyone must love the Beatles 
I’m quite glad there’s not an infallible teaching on it because I just don’t like the music written by them. I think there’s one song I like called “In my life” (I think) but that’s pretty much it. It’s not because I’m a snob or a nerd – I hope – it’s just that I’ve never ever enjoyed listening to their music.
Thanks for the interesting post EW!
Helens Bay,
Heh heh! Good one.
Did you all see that the Vatican newspaper has “forgiven” John Lennon for saying the Beatles were “more popular than Jesus”? Time heals all things it seems.
Dave Morgan:
“the beatles are quite depressing in my view”
Except “Here Comes the Sun!”
jj
Interesting post eW
Davo,
What do you think about making a distinction between music as ‘high art’ and music as entertainment/ social commentary?
Saying that, I don’t think the majority of music distributed nowdays entertains or offers any real profound sort of commentary or critique. You can find the occassional gem if you dig a little deeper though.
There is what’s called a ‘Plaxial’ view of music which says that music depends on its usage; they’re all equally good – just not in the same way.
I don’t agree with that, but I think there is some truth in it. Since there are some activities that are intrinsically more noble than others (prayer, for example, over play), it figures that some forms of music are also intrinsically more noble than others (Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony, over folk sing-alongs). This doesn’t necessarily mean that the less noble types of music are bad – they’re just at the lower degree of goodness.
So it seems to me that the Plaxial view of music is true in so far as it respects this degree of being instead of taking an uniform perspective of their ontological status. That also means that there is an intrinsic suitability and unsuitability of some forms of music to particular activities. Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony are perfectly suited to Mass, Christian folk music (the sort often used today) less so, and secular pop’ music not suited at all. For a social function, the order of suitability may well be reversed.
Of course, one has to be careful also to distinguish between any music that is at the lower degree of goodness and those that have elements of intrinsic depravity to various degrees.
By the way, I quite like some of the Beatles songs (if not all of them). :mrgreen:
howdy!
interesting little blog about that Lennon stuff. media twisted it as usual
http://d-rium.blogspot.com/2008/11/what-juxtaposition.html
filia, i don’t have alot of time to reply to your question but i would draw an analogy with eating. while it is ok to eat a burger every now again, and enjoy that particular taste, it is not healthy to eat them all the time, and make them one’s favorite choice in food. in the end there will be consequences: one is one’s health, but another is one’s palette. what i means is that one’s taste of quality will eventually be malformed until one can’t really appreciate or discern quality tastes anymore. it’s like drinking coke all the time, when one could enjoy a good wine. it conditions one’s sensitivty to something very low. by continually giving one’s common sensibles (the senses) a certain type of taste, this effects the qualitative appreciation in one’s proper sensibles (proper senses), and eventually they will need to be purified.
so, it’s the same for music.
…
hope that helps.
as for musci and social commentary, i will have to think about that one…