ahh…i feel like this could be interpreted in another way, considering the line that follows. its not entirely accurate to say that this statement is true, as this is an interpretation, that by many different factions are considered a very generous interpretation.

there are a couple of verses in the bible that are mistaken or assumed to be referencing a satan and/or fallen angel, such as lines in isaiah that reference a morning star (king james version is the only one that calls it lucifer) falling from grace. as far as scholars are concerned, its obvious that the writers are directly addressing an actual historical babylonian king and are mocking them. the verse that inspired the concept of lucifer being the angel of music, ezekiel 28:13 is the same, like the verse in isaiah, these are typically titled referencing a human person. In Isaiah the verse about lucifer is called “the fall of the king of babylon”, in Ezekiel 28 it is titled “prophecy against the king of tyre”.

the bible makes a good amount of premonitions, oracles, and prophecies against or directed at their enemies, or leaders/nations they are critical of or want justice brought to them, and that will come with a lot of allusions to spiritual concepts. but if these books are read through, and not just read an isolated verse or sentence, it makes better sense in context why the consensus is that these are referring to historical people and nations, and not literally satan/lucifer.

so with all that being said, this means there is no verse that clearly literally states that satan is or was the angel of music before falling. They are simply interpretations applied to satan in that verse. the bible never demonstrably confirms this.

Soul could be saying this is preposterous because there’s no evidence for this claim about lucifer, and “so much for gospel” could be a reference to our ignorance about the actual scripture. That is if this is Soul’s position.