Why is modern music as dangerous as narcotics?

Answer 1

Opinions from WikiAnswers contributors

• It isn't. Music can't hurt anybody.
• I disagree - music can be used to purvey ideas which may harm.
• How can listening to a piece of music be as dangerous as using opium? Furthermore, how can that music can be used to purvey dangerous and radical ideas? What about the printing press? Isn't that just as dangerous?, and shouldn't I be on the FBI's most wanted list then with my rather large collections of modern music and books?
• I fail to see how the free exchange of ideas can be construed as "harmful" in any way.
• Many people are not aware of the content of some modern "music," and the reason it is labeled for mature listeners.
• As for why it may be a "narcotic": In addition to the documented detrimental effects on hearing ability, there may be an additional metabolic effect, possibly explaining the attraction of Heavy Metal and other very high-volume or bass-heavy music. It is known that sound of a very loud nature causes pain. The body reacts to this pain by producing endorphins, natural pain-killing chemicals that (as with opioid narcotics) causes various bodily changes that can include euphoria. As with any physical stimulation, this can lead to psychological addiction. The extent to which this physical effect may overlap the actual emotional or intellectual apprecition probably cannot be established empirically.
• You cannot be "addicted" to music. Nobody listens to music so loud it's painful. If the music was hurting your ears, you'd turn it down. Not everyone who listens to rap or heavy metal feels the need to turn the volume way up.

  Furthermore, any type of music can be played at a very high volume. You could play Bach loud enough to make your ears bleed, if you wanted. You could also play Metallica at a very low volume, if you wanted. The theory stated above is about the volume of music, not the kind of music. The volume is totally irrelevant when it comes to assessing whether or not "modern music" can cause harm.

  Music does not cause anti-social behavior. This myth has been debunked thousands of times... thoroughly. What you are doing is mistaking a CORRELATION for a CAUSE-AND-EFFECT.

  It's true that violent people usually listen to violent music, play violent video games, and watch violent movies. But...what kind of music do you expect a violent thug to like? Diana Ross and Britney Spears? Isn't it possible that a person would choose to listen to violent music because they are violent, and NOT the other way around?

  Same thing with suicides. About twenty or so years ago, Black Sabbath got sued because a teenage boy killed himself while listening to their song "Suicide Solution." The lawsuit was dismissed. Again, what kind of music do you expect a suicidal person to listen to? ABBA? Alvin and the Chipmunks? Do you really think that simply listening to a song about suicide made him suicidal? Isn't it more likely that the boy was listening to music about suicide because he was suicidal?

  This is the exact same myth that people have been espousing about horror movies. People say, "Well, did you know that a lot of serial killers watch violent horror movies all of their lives?" Well, again, what kind of movies do you expect a serial killer to watch? Bambi? The Brave Little Toaster?

  Some say that this music can reinforce violent or anti-social tendencies... in rare but notable cases. The key word here is reinforce instead of cause. Also significant is the phrase "rare but notable cases." In other words, for every one million people who listen to violent music or watch violent movies, or or two of them end up committing violence. That proves NOTHING.

  I mean, statistically speaking, for every million people who eat salads regularly, there must be at least one or two who is a murderer. Does that mean that, in "rare but notable cases," eating salads can lead to murder? No.

  The fact that millions and millions of people listen to violent music, or watch violent movies, but only a few end up murdering people, is proof that violent music/movies do NOT cause violence. Clearly, if over 99% of listeners/viewers do not end up committing violence, then these things do not cause violence.

  Okay, let's say that 0.1% of the population is a violent criminal (please note that the figure "0.1%" is NOT a real statistic, but just something I made up for the sake of argument). That means that 1000 people out of every 1 million are violent criminals. So, say you gather data on 1 million rap music listeners, and you find that 1000 of them are violent criminals. You might say, "Look, out of every 1 million rap listeners, 1000 of them are violent!" Yeah, but, 1000 out of every 1 million people who don't listen to rap are violent, too. It doesn't prove anything.

  I mean, I LOVE violent movies. Horror movies are my favorite kind of movie, and I've seen every decent one that's ever been made. Yet I've never so much as thrown a punch at someone. The idea that simply watching an act of violence on TV could make you violent flies in the face of everything we know and believe about "free will."

  People commit violence because they choose to commit violence. If music or movies can make you violent, it means you have no choice in the matter. The movies/music forcedyou to do it. Which means that anyone who has committed murder and watched horror movies or listened to rap does not belong in jail! They are innocent! They didn't commit murder, it was the movies/music that did it!

  And if modern music can be "dangerous" to "impressionable young listeners" then what about poetry? A song is basically just a poem set to music. So if modern music is dangerous to children, then poetry must be, too. Better keep those Langston Hughes books away from our kids! God knows what they could do to their minds! Yeah. Right.

See related questions below.