|
|
Post by cts1 on Nov 18, 2024 21:39:19 GMT
How about Wagner, who flip-flopped between operas with heavily pagan themes (Ring Cycle) and some of the most magnificently haywire Christian-themed music ever (Tannhauser)? Not really my cup of tea, but sometimes enjoyable. The ride of the Valkyries is enjoyable, as is the song of the Steuermann from the Flying Dutchman. The overture to Tannhauser is the background for the "Return, My Love" part of "What's Opera, Doc?" |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 18, 2024 21:44:53 GMT
So true. I noticed Based Chad has not tried to defend the music of Stacie Orrico or Sixpence Non The Richer against the music of Rimsky-Korsakow or Shostakovich. I wonder why... not. The quality of music usually hasn't much to do with the religious affiliation. Another thing: The Beatles are as significant to pop music as Mozart is to classical music. And anybody who claims point blank that classical music is better than pop music isn't anyone whose opinion on music I have to take seriously. Rimsky-Korsakov was Russian Orthodox. You can even see it in his work like in his Russian Easter Festival Overture, which incorporates elements of Orthodox liturgical chants. Rimsky-Korsakov was an atheist. But this did not prevent him from writing Christian-themed music. Just like J.K.Rowling is not a witch. And Shostakovich was in Communist Russia where it was illegal to profess to be anything but atheist. And there certainly is some evidence to the contrary of him being atheist. There is no evidence of him being a Christian; and in Bach's or Mozart's time and place it was also unhealthy to profess to be anything but a Christian. But anyways, if I want to listen to great Christian music inspired by Christianity, there is no shortage of classical music to choose from. It's phenomenal how many people work on a performance and the degree of talent. That is correct. Meanwhile, the Beatles were four dudes high on LSD for some of their songs. Hardly inspires the same gusto which is why we hear Mozart far more often than the Beatles being played today. Not so sure about that. I guess it depends on the radio station you listen to. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 18, 2024 21:46:29 GMT
Not really my cup of tea, but sometimes enjoyable. The ride of the Valkyries is enjoyable, as is the song of the Steuermann from the Flying Dutchman. The overture to Tannhauser is the background for the "Return, My Love" part of "What's Opera, Doc?" And the wedding march from Lohengrin is played often at weddings. And the Ride of the Valkyries appears in plenty of movies, like Apocalypse Now. |
|
|
|
Post by Based Chad on Nov 18, 2024 21:50:44 GMT
Rimsky-Korsakov was Russian Orthodox. You can even see it in his work like in his Russian Easter Festival Overture, which incorporates elements of Orthodox liturgical chants. Rimsky-Korsakov was an atheist. But this did not prevent him from writing Christian-themed music. Just like J.K.Rowling is not a witch. And Shostakovich was in Communist Russia where it was illegal to profess to be anything but atheist. And there certainly is some evidence to the contrary of him being atheist. There is no evidence of him being a Christian; and in Bach's or Mozart's time and place it was also unhealthy to profess to be anything but a Christian. But anyways, if I want to listen to great Christian music inspired by Christianity, there is no shortage of classical music to choose from. It's phenomenal how many people work on a performance and the degree of talent. That is correct. Meanwhile, the Beatles were four dudes high on LSD for some of their songs. Hardly inspires the same gusto which is why we hear Mozart far more often than the Beatles being played today. Not so sure about that. I guess it depends on the radio station you listen to. Rimsky-Korsakov became an atheist in later life, yes, but he wasn't always. Music is played more than just on radio stations. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 18, 2024 22:04:00 GMT
Rimsky-Korsakov was an atheist. But this did not prevent him from writing Christian-themed music. Just like J.K.Rowling is not a witch. There is no evidence of him being a Christian; and in Bach's or Mozart's time and place it was also unhealthy to profess to be anything but a Christian. That is correct. Not so sure about that. I guess it depends on the radio station you listen to. Rimsky-Korsakov became an atheist in later life, yes, but he wasn't always. Music is played more than just on radio stations. Correct. It is also played in concert halls, in get-together of musicians (like choirs), or in private homes. And I don't know if right now, there is more Mozart being played in the world than Beatles songs. I sang in various choirs in my life. In one, which was a serious chamber choir, we sang a bit of Mozart (mass in C minor, Requiem, Ave Verum Corpus, various cannons); in another, besides some classical works, like the Magnificat by Vivaldi, also two arrangements by Beatles songs. But no Mozart. When I play the piano I play both Mozart and the Beatles, sometimes. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 18, 2024 22:16:17 GMT
Of course there is. But that doesn't make it right. And by the miraculous grace of God, the branches closer to home happen to be closer to understanding the rules correctly. Most (intelligent) people do not have to belong to an organized religion to have religion. Religion and religious organizations are two different things. Religion can make you a good person if used properly. Religious organizations are just groups of people. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 18, 2024 22:18:40 GMT
And by the miraculous grace of God, the branches closer to home happen to be closer to understanding the rules correctly. Most (intelligent) people do not have to belong to an organized religion to have religion. Religion and religious organizations are two different things. Religion can make you a good person if used properly. Religious organizations are just groups of people. Actually, what makes you a "good" person is Ethics. Ethics can be religious, but they don't have to. Of course, various religions and ethical systems may disagree on what makes a person "good". |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 18, 2024 22:18:54 GMT
I disagree. Religion is required for a better life. (At least a proper interpretation and usage of religion.) Well, that's just stupid. If religion was required for a better life, there wouldn't be all the countless masses of people with great lives who have never given a rat's ass about religion. You seem to be ignoring all the countless masses of people with great lives, who credit religion for giving them a great life. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 18, 2024 22:20:00 GMT
Most (intelligent) people do not have to belong to an organized religion to have religion. Religion and religious organizations are two different things. Religion can make you a good person if used properly. Religious organizations are just groups of people. Actually, what makes you a "good" person is Ethics. Ethics can be religious, but they don't have to. Of course, various religions and ethical systems may disagree on what makes a person "good". I disagree. Morals and ethics. Not just ethics. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 18, 2024 22:25:07 GMT
Actually, what makes you a "good" person is Ethics. Ethics can be religious, but they don't have to. Of course, various religions and ethical systems may disagree on what makes a person "good". I disagree. Morals and ethics. Not just ethics. Morals are the subject of ethics. To quote Wikipedia: Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. |
|
|
|
Post by Dracula on Nov 18, 2024 22:38:37 GMT
Well, that's just stupid. If religion was required for a better life, there wouldn't be all the countless masses of people with great lives who have never given a rat's ass about religion. You seem to be ignoring all the countless masses of people with great lives, who credit religion for giving them a great life. No, you just don't understand that has nothing to do with religion required to improve a person's life any more than anything else a person credits for improving their life would have to do with that being a requirement to improve anyone's life. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 18, 2024 23:23:20 GMT
I disagree. Morals and ethics. Not just ethics. Morals are the subject of ethics. To quote Wikipedia: Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. That sounds like semantical nonsense. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 18, 2024 23:26:02 GMT
You seem to be ignoring all the countless masses of people with great lives, who credit religion for giving them a great life. No, you just don't understand that has nothing to do with religion required to improve a person's life any more than anything else a person credits for improving their life would have to do with that being a requirement to improve anyone's life. No I do understand. I grew up in the Catholic Church. I went to Catholic schools. I was an Agnostic, an Atheist and a believer. So I obviously understand better than you do. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Nov 18, 2024 23:27:07 GMT
Morals are the subject of ethics. To quote Wikipedia: Ethics is the philosophical study of moral phenomena. That sounds like semantical nonsense. Well then, take it up with the Wikipedia editors, if you want. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Nov 18, 2024 23:31:00 GMT
That sounds like semantical nonsense. Well then, take it up with the Wikipedia editors, if you want. I do not want. I have better things to do. Like show everyone who is objective and intelligent, religion haters like Dracula don't know what they are talking about. |
|
