Three months ago today I began a post I had intended to be based on the conflict between sacred and secular music. Well, it kinda got left behind. I blame society.
I couldn't help, however, turning my thoughts again to the topic, but with a slightly different focus. I tend to question the definitions of good and bad music. To some people, Nickelback is "good" - or even great. Personal taste aside, I think we can all admit that they're not beginning any music revolutions. What really intrigues me, though, is the difference between
morally good or bad music.
The Beatles are (were) musical giants and their mostly mellow song is parent-friendly. But how do we reconcile the fact that half of their songs were written directly about experiences with drugs? Is this okay? I'm not sure myself. I like the Beatles, though I don't love them, but that's not the point. We often have this idea in our heads that one kind of music is okay and another kind is not, based entirely upon the kind and volume of the instruments and rarely on the lyrics or intent.
Classical music is holy, rap is evil. Acoustic is uplifting, electric is just noise. Songs about love warm the heart, songs about lonliness make kids depressed. Is this really the case? Obviously I don't think so or I wouldn't have written it in such a club-footed attempt at wit.
Still, there must be some answers. Is it all just personal preference? I hope not.
As always, feel free to leave opinions. Anyone with bands/artists/groups they know of which may enlighten the topic, please do let me know.
P.S. Nickelback sucks!
P.P.S. Any views expressed in this post are not necessarily those of the Canadian government, the VanDooren family or Ontario Sod Growers and all its subsidiaries.
