Author Topic: Rock and Roll: A deadly Revolution (Read 14946 times)

Vladimir · « **Reply #30 on:** December 11, 2010, 06:44:06 PM »

Beatles music, even if it isn't anti-Catholic, is mediocre. I'll admit, they have a few good songs - from a musical standpoint that is, but the rest is just.... :rolleyes:

In general, I don't listen to modern music in English much, but most of what I have heard is just meaningless noise. Nothing poetic or beautiful about the lyrics or music. Why can't more American musicians write music like Smoke gets in your eyes (i.e., something that has a nice melody and nice lyrics?)?

I for one, don't support listening to Classical (or Baroque, etc) music ALL the time, and don't find anything wrong with modern music just because its modern.

Song from 1942, greatest piece of modern music in my opinion:

http://mp3.zing.vn/mp3/nghe-bai-hat/Giot-mua-thu-Ngoc-Ha.IW6C6UBZ.html

Title is "Autumn Rain"

roscoe · « **Reply #31 on:** December 11, 2010, 07:25:17 PM »

I of course would not use the term mediocre to describe early Beatles. Maybe after 1965 but then I wouldn't even use that term as they put out loads of what is more properly crap-- not even mediocre. There is somehow a revival in the last yr of Beatles-- 1969. They are now on itunes btw.

I get a kick out of SS trashing the Beatles( even early Beatles no less) and at the same time he seems to be defending a Blatant Satanic Band by doubting what the name KISS means. :confused1:

But I guess when the anti-pope Benedict gives us the baphomet he is somehow the pope of Catholic Church.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #32 on:** December 12, 2010, 08:20:58 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

I of course would not use the term mediocre to describe early Beatles. Maybe after 1965 but then I wouldn't even use that term as they put out loads of what is more properly crap-- not even mediocre. There is somehow a revival in the last yr of Beatles-- 1969. They are now on itunes btw.

I get a kick out of SS trashing the Beatles( even early Beatles no less) and at the same time he seems to be defending a Blatant Satanic Band by doubting what the name KISS means. :confused1:

But I guess when the anti-pope Benedict gives us the baphomet he is somehow the pope of Catholic Church.

I did not defend KISS, I simply had not heard that KISS stood for that, though it does not surprise me one bit. what I get a kick out of is seeing you acknowledge that artists such as The Eagles and Michael Jackson should be avoided, but when it comes to a band who claims their music is "bigger than Jesus", you act as if anyone who thinks their music should be avoided is a heretic. The Beatles even had a video one time that called Jesus a bad name. Why would you want anything to do with the Beatles? And personally, even before I found out everything about Lennon's scary beliefs, I kind of thought something about the music from both The Beatles and music Lennon sung when he was by himself was creepy.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #33 on:** December 12, 2010, 08:35:34 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: roscoe
I of course would not use the term mediocre to describe early Beatles. Maybe after 1965 but then I wouldn't even use that term as they put out loads of what is more properly crap-- not even mediocre. There is somehow a revival in the last yr of Beatles-- 1969. They are now on itunes btw.

I get a kick out of SS trashing the Beatles( even early Beatles no less) and at the same time he seems to be defending a Blatant Satanic Band by doubting what the name KISS means. :confused1:

But I guess when the anti-pope Benedict gives us the baphomet he is somehow the pope of Catholic Church.

I did not defend KISS, I simply had not heard that KISS stood for that, though it does not surprise me one bit. what I get a kick out of is seeing you acknowledge that artists such as The Eagles and Michael Jackson should be avoided, but when it comes to a band who claims their music is "bigger than Jesus", you act as if anyone who thinks their music should be avoided is a heretic. The Beatles even had a video one time that called Jesus a bad name. Why would you want anything to do with the Beatles? And personally, even before I found out everything about Lennon's scary beliefs, I kind of thought something about the music from both The Beatles and music Lennon sung when he was by himself was creepy.

:smoke-pot:-head is hopeless at making distinctions. You ask a question so he thinks you are defending a rock group.

It's ok, the reasonable people here do not expect anyone to know everything.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #34 on:** December 12, 2010, 08:37:33 PM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: roscoe
I of course would not use the term mediocre to describe early Beatles. Maybe after 1965 but then I wouldn't even use that term as they put out loads of what is more properly crap-- not even mediocre. There is somehow a revival in the last yr of Beatles-- 1969. They are now on itunes btw.

I get a kick out of SS trashing the Beatles( even early Beatles no less) and at the same time he seems to be defending a Blatant Satanic Band by doubting what the name KISS means. :confused1:

But I guess when the anti-pope Benedict gives us the baphomet he is somehow the pope of Catholic Church.

I did not defend KISS, I simply had not heard that KISS stood for that, though it does not surprise me one bit. what I get a kick out of is seeing you acknowledge that artists such as The Eagles and Michael Jackson should be avoided, but when it comes to a band who claims their music is "bigger than Jesus", you act as if anyone who thinks their music should be avoided is a heretic. The Beatles even had a video one time that called Jesus a bad name. Why would you want anything to do with the Beatles? And personally, even before I found out everything about Lennon's scary beliefs, I kind of thought something about the music from both The Beatles and music Lennon sung when he was by himself was creepy.

:smoke-pot:-head is hopeless at making distinctions. You ask a question so he thinks you are defending a rock group.

It's ok, the reasonable people here do not expect anyone to know everything.

True! Thank you, Roman Catholic. May you have a Blessed Sunday.

God Bless.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #35 on:** December 12, 2010, 08:39:41 PM »

BTW, have a look at this thread that roscoe started a while ago.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=7530&f=11&min=0&num=20

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #36 on:** December 12, 2010, 08:54:30 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
Quote from: roscoe
I of course would not use the term mediocre to describe early Beatles. Maybe after 1965 but then I wouldn't even use that term as they put out loads of what is more properly crap-- not even mediocre. There is somehow a revival in the last yr of Beatles-- 1969. They are now on itunes btw.

I get a kick out of SS trashing the Beatles( even early Beatles no less) and at the same time he seems to be defending a Blatant Satanic Band by doubting what the name KISS means. :confused1:

But I guess when the anti-pope Benedict gives us the baphomet he is somehow the pope of Catholic Church.

I did not defend KISS, I simply had not heard that KISS stood for that, though it does not surprise me one bit. what I get a kick out of is seeing you acknowledge that artists such as The Eagles and Michael Jackson should be avoided, but when it comes to a band who claims their music is "bigger than Jesus", you act as if anyone who thinks their music should be avoided is a heretic. The Beatles even had a video one time that called Jesus a bad name. Why would you want anything to do with the Beatles? And personally, even before I found out everything about Lennon's scary beliefs, I kind of thought something about the music from both The Beatles and music Lennon sung when he was by himself was creepy.

:smoke-pot:-head is hopeless at making distinctions. You ask a question so he thinks you are defending a rock group.

It's ok, the reasonable people here do not expect anyone to know everything.

True! Thank you, Roman Catholic. May you have a Blessed Sunday.

God Bless.

Thank you.

May you have a Blessed Sunday. Gaudete!

It is already Monday here! -- ( But I do not expect
everybody to know that :wink: )

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #37 on:** December 12, 2010, 08:58:41 PM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

BTW, have a look at this thread that roscoe started a while ago.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=7530&f=11&min=0&num=20

Thanks, but no. I put:smoke-pot:-head on hide, because I think he is just a distraction. The only reason I saw what he wrote this time is because the text of his post was in your reply to him.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #38 on:** December 13, 2010, 09:17:58 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus
BTW, have a look at this thread that roscoe started a while ago.

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=7530&f=11&min=0&num=20

Thanks, but no. I put:smoke-pot:-head on hide, because I think he is just a distraction. The only reason I saw what he wrote this time is because the text of his post was in your reply to him.

Ok. I just posted the thread because I find it sad that roscoe thinks the Beatles music brings art to Catholicism, or however it was he put it.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #39 on:** December 13, 2010, 09:25:46 AM »

It is sad that Rosco thinks a lot of things he does. But he is intransigent, and he posts a lot of garbage. -- Personally I prefer not to even read it.

roscoe · « **Reply #40 on:** December 13, 2010, 09:52:03 PM »

I would like to remind all that I am not the one on record as endorsing the post 1965 Beatles. This is done by the anti-church of the anti-pope Benedict. Any true Beatles fan knows that this is the opposite of the truth.

The Beatles must necessarily tune their instruments to the musical system of the Catholic Church. In the sense therefore of harmony and melody, they can be considered as ambassadors of Western Civilisation: that is until 1966 when somehow they become ambassadors of Oriental Civilisation. :smoke-pot:

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #41 on:** December 14, 2010, 09:51:04 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

I would like to remind all that I am not the one on record as endorsing the post 1965 Beatles. This is done by the anti-church of the anti-pope Benedict. Any true Beatles fan knows that this is the opposite of the truth.

The Beatles must necessarily tune their instruments to the musical system of the Catholic Church. In the sense therefore of harmony and melody, they can be considered as ambassadors of Western Civilisation: that is until 1966 when somehow they become ambassadors of Oriental Civilisation. :smoke-pot:

Roscoe, the Beatles music has NOTHING to do with the Catholic Church, if anything their music is a slap in the face to the Catholic Church. The Beatles were into lots of satanic garbage. They even admitted they had spirit guides. If you think their music has a place in the Church, then you have just excluded yourself from the true Catholic Church.

Belloc · « **Reply #42 on:** December 14, 2010, 11:29:34 AM »

like the "what if there was no Heaven..." of John Lennon

roscoe · « **Reply #43 on:** December 14, 2010, 12:04:51 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

I would like to remind all that I am not the one on record as endorsing the post 1965 Beatles. This is done by the anti-church of the anti-pope Benedict. Any true Beatles fan knows that this is the opposite of the truth.

The Beatles must necessarily tune their instruments to the musical system of the Catholic Church. In the sense therefore of harmony and melody, they can be considered as ambassadors of Western Civilisation: that is until 1966 when somehow they become ambassadors of Oriental Civilisation. :smoke-pot:

Belloc · « **Reply #44 on:** December 14, 2010, 12:33:14 PM »

still gotcha on hid, Bob M. :smoke-pot: