pexels-photo-374703

Degrading Music is Everywhere. Let’s Enjoy Something Better

Music is incredibly powerful affecting everything from our mood to our sexual behavior. But while much music today degrades, we can choose something better.

Louis Armstrong himself once said, “Music is life itself.” 

Medical science suggests that in some ways, Armstrong may be right. The work of Audiologist Michele Clements, for example, has shown that different kinds of music produce different heartbeats and kicking patterns in unborn children. And the effects appear to persist outside the womb as well. 

Studies have linked our music choices to everything from illness to how we spend; from cooperation to what we can literally see. It’s perhaps no surprise then that music plays a role in some of humanity’s most spiritually significant rituals. And yet, when it comes to efforts that seek to curb corrosive forms of music, there’s often a reluctance to acknowledge just how potent a force music can be in our lives. 

Such concerns, of course, are not new. In Plato’s Republic, the noted Greek philosopher seems to imply that the properly ordered state would, of necessity, moderate music and poetry for the youth: “Gracelessness and evil rhythm and disharmony are akin to evil speaking and the evil temper.” For the state to lift its citizenry toward virtue, music and art must be oriented toward the good in Plato’s mind. 

Meanwhile, the great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy similarly gave voice to the need to mindfully regulate the music we consume. He wrote in The Kreutzer Sonata: In China music is under the control of the State, and that is the way it ought to be. Is it admissible that the first comer should hypnotize one or more persons, and then do with them as he likes? And especially that the hypnotizer should be the first immoral individual who happens to come along? [Music is] a frightful power in the hands of any one, no matter whom.” 

Few today would say that music should be a matter for the state to control. But while many would be quick to dismiss any concerns about music as finger-wagging (“Oh, they used to complain about my Beatles records, too!”), it’s not just the Beatles we’re talking about anymore. And given the intensity and pervasiveness of music today, it’s worth considering the manner in which individuals, families, and culture can better self-censor and encourage higher, loftier forms of song and composition. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints publishes its For the Strength of Youth guidelines aimed to young people. From as far back as 1965, the booklet has included the instruction to “always review” music. Today, an updated version reads: “Do not attend, view, or participate in anything that is vulgar, immoral, violent, or pornographic in any way. Do not participate in anything that presents immorality or violence as acceptable. Have the courage to walk out of a movie, change your music, or turn off a computer, television, or mobile device if what you see or hear drives away the Spirit.”

Without question, listeners bear the primary responsibility for the music they consume. But, as the music industry and digital media now provide listeners with much of the music available to purchase, download, or stream, it’s not unreasonable to believe they should also bear some responsibility for the songs youth and adults encounter. 

Let’s speak plainly: after decades of growing sexualization generally in our culture, we continue to witness an even greater increase in hyper-sexualized content quickly accessible even to young people. Have these trends had any measurable effects?     

Some 78% of college students today report “hooking up.” And while casual sexual encounters have remained stable or gone down over the last thirty years, those encounters are increasingly with friends and barely-met strangers, and less and less with a spouse. Not only do more than 7 in 10 people regret their hookup, but one cannot help but wonder whether hookups may also be contributing to increasingly severe and widespread mental distress within pockets of the rising generation. 

“Music can be used to exalt and inspire or to carry messages of degradation and destruction.”

If music has set the stage for any of this, can a different kind of music also help change this? If music seems to influence shopping habits, perhaps it can help shape the kind of culture we aspire to curate. A study published in the journal Sexuality & Culture analyzed the songs from the Billboard top 100 for forty-eight years starting in the 1960s. 

The trend over time can be pretty well summed up in the shift from the Beatles’ “I want to hold your hand” to Akon’s “I want to *expletive* you.”  The report points out that over the time frame, male pop performers became especially more sexually explicit, referencing sex in 40% of pop songs in the 2000s. 

Counterintuitively, but perhaps to hammer home the point, songs about romantic relationships dropped during the same period. At the Latter-day Saint Publishing & Media Association (LDSPMA) Conference in 2018, David Archuleta spoke about his experience recording the music video for his single “Something ‘Bout Love” for his follow up album after his American Idol success. While he wanted to cultivate a sweet innocent brand in-line with his first single “Crush,” the music video producers ignored his wishes and provided costumes and a set that Archuleta described as “sexualized.”

When he tried to push back, he was met with high-pressure guilting tactics from the producers. And while he eventually got his way, Archuleta describes it as being a major factor in his breakup with his record label.

As if to invoke Tolstoy, one Latter-day Saint religious leader said, “Music is one of the most forceful instruments for governing the mind and the spirit of man.” And yet another delivered a similar message: “Music can be used to exalt and inspire or to carry messages of degradation and destruction.” 

Unlike Archuleta, many good, well-intentioned music artists nevertheless have accepted the idea that in order to sell their music or to gain popularity, their music has to contain violence, profanity, or pornography. Sadly, this idea has infected even some “Christian” music artists who have often decided to relax their moral standards in the well-worn Faustian bargain for fame or fortune. 

Music is the universal language. During the darkest nights, in times of adversity and distress, music can soothe the aching soul and bring the calmness and peace that a person yearns for. During moments of quietness and reflection, music speaks to our souls, and at times brings to remembrance things of life that may have long since been forgotten. Music expresses our jubilation, praise, and thanksgiving to God from whom all blessings flow. Do we live up to the lofty Latter-day Saint article of faith, which declares, “If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.” 

Knowing the immense power of music, why would we seek for anything less?

About the author

Keith Brown

Keith Brown manages LatterdaySaintMusicians.com. He served as a PO1 and distinguished instructor in the US Navy. He has an MBA from American InterContinental University.
On Key

You Might Also Like

The Room Next Door Review

“The Room Next Door” is the latest example of arthouse social engineering.  The film is about a troubled woman, Martha, who in the midst of cancer treatments decides to commit suicide. If this bothers you, the film implies, it is because there is something wrong with you. This is all the more troubling, because the film, in many ways, is beautiful. It is directed by Pedro Almodóvar, one of the most acclaimed living film directors, in his first full-length film in English. And you can’t help but be taken by the beauty of it all. The film is suffused with the soft colors of the woods. Despite being an entire screenplay full of little except two friends talking, the camera work keeps the film alive and moving. And Julianne Moore and Tilda Swinton who play Ingrid and Martha once again give impeccable, engaging performances, that you can’t help but admire.  But all the beauty in this film is in service of a story that is decidedly ugly—but not self-awarely so. Our two main characters are old friends who met as young writers. Ingrid has published a best seller recently, where she writes about how she can’t accept death. On her publicity tour, she learns that Martha is in the hospital with cancer. She goes to visit her and reignite their friendship. We learn through the conversations that these characters aren’t bad people, necessarily, they just struggle to see a world outside of their own desires and consciousness. They have repeatedly avoided building relationships or having families. Martha does have a daughter. But she chased her father away, then lied to her about who he was her whole life, and then proceeded to be an absent mother so she could chase the romanticism of being a war correspondent.  Now that she is sick and dying, she notices that she has no one in her life. The movie comments on this like an unusual quirk, rather than the inevitable result of a life of bad decisions. We learn early on that cancer treatment can be a roller coaster with euphoric peaks, and miserable nadirs. During one such rut, Martha purchases a suicide pill, and decides she will kill herself. She reaches out to Ingrid and asks her to come on vacation with her, so that she will have someone in the house when she does it.  Ingrid agrees. And although she early on expresses some discomfort, she quickly respects Martha’s wishes to largely pretend nothing is happening. They have a lovely vacation in upstate New York watching old movies and reading books. While they are there, Ingrid reconnects with Damien (John Turturo) an ex-boyfriend of both hers and Martha’s. He is horrified at the state of the world, and seems to only live for sex (or to constantly talk about sex.) Damien is not a sympathetic character, and perhaps the audience is supposed to read that his unpleasant and helpless politics are akin to Martha’s helpless approach to life. If so the audience hardly has time to ponder it under a heavy heaping of affirmations about the power to choose, and the dignity to die.  Eventually, Martha does exactly what she promised to do. There is a brief police investigation where the officer (Alessandro Nivola) expresses concern that Ingrid would have knowingly not gotten help for her friend. A lawyer comes and helpfully tells the audience we can ignore that concern because he is a religious fanatic. This is the kind of movie that alludes to James Joyce not just once but three times. It is so pleased with just how artsy it is. And for a film with a message like “life isn’t worth fighting for,” the best comfort is that it’s so artsy not a lot of people will watch it.  The only people I would recommend watching this film is for those studying how society has devalued human life, and how good tools can be misused to harm people. The film is rated PG-13. It includes several normalized same-sex relationships, and some joking about polyamorous relationships. But obviously the biggest warning is the way it normalizes and glamorizes suicide. If you watch it with older teenagers, I would focus on questions about the choice that Martha made, and how family and relationships could have helped her make better choices. I might ask about how Ingrid could have been a better or more caring friend. One out of five stars. “The Room Next Door” will be released in theaters nationwide January 17, 2025.

What Else Happened January 6th

Many Americans continue to be shocked by alarming portrayals of January 6th. But certain possibilities and realities about the day are simply not being heard.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!