Why does Christian Pop Music Suck?

[SpoofyChop]

A discussion about Christian pop music accidentally started up over in the games forum in a thread about educational games with this post


It's the same reason that Christian pop culture is usually so bad, they have an ulterior motive to push. It's a "base alloy" that usually gets in the way of gameplay.

Then I said this:


I guess I see what you're saying, but I think the comparison to Christian pop culture (by which I'll assume you're including music) is not very apt.

Your criteria for "bad" is obviously subjective. An opinion always is. The things some people would find lacking in Christian music are probably the exact same things that other people are eager to avoid. For instance, sex, drugs, crazy stuff, other wild goings on, various shenannigans, etc.

The precise things that most people would feel makes Christian pop stink is the exact thing other people find most appealing.

I don't think this is true of games. You don't have that clash of opposites. The education factor in edutainment titles is not there in order to combat the fun. I mean, educational titles aren't produced expressely so that they aren't fun.

Unless you're saying that the actual music, composition, lyrics, or production values of Christian pop is simply inferior from a technical point of view. If that's what you're saying then I still claim that a lot of people would disagree with that point as well.

Then, Jason said this:


Spoof, I think anytime you use art to shove a message down someone's throat, instead of letting it grow naturally as a part of it, the results are going to suck.

[SpoofyChop]

I think that Christian Pop generally sucks. A lot of people out there obviously disagree with that of course.

But I really don't think that the reason that Christian Pop sucks is becase of an ulterior motive of evangelism or something.

I think you're misunderestimating the Christian Pop star. I believe that these people are Christians and they are musicians, and they just put the two together and it's all very organic, just like your non-Christian rock musicians.

If this "ulterior motive" reasoning was correct, then why do so many people consider political music, folk music, protest music, and other types of speechy music so good?

It would have to be a priori bad since it has an "ulterior motive."

My guess is that you guys don't like evangelizing and missionaries and so you immediately hit on that as the reason that Christian Pop is bad.

Come on...fess up.

[Matthew Gallant]

Oh, that's simple.

Christian Band X (named for a secular-enough-sounding bible passage reference of course) writing all their songs about God is just like if Elvis Costello were to write all of his songs about Allison.

[Guido Jones]

Jars of Clay didn't suck to much - or at least they had a semi hit single with Flood.

Don't get me wrong, I worship Satan like the rest of you guys, but Jars of Clay isn't to terrible. All other Christian music I've ever heard has sucked though.

[SpoofyChop]

My reasons for thinking Christian Pop sucks are the following:

In music, style = substance to some extent.

Rock/pop music was created so that its style would match its substance, sex, drugs, going crazy, being a teenager, having angst, and generally being pissed off or whacked out.

Christian music is supposed to be about either worshipping God, expositing about God, or talking about being a Christian. The substance of this music does not match well with the style of rock and pop.

That's why most people in church still sing hymns.

Disclaimer:

I have no idea what music buffs think and I have no idea what the heck people are talking about when they write about music (I read an article about Beethoven's 9th today on Slate and I can't tell you even a single idea from the article...it was all gibberish to me) but I can tell you that I believe that style=substance to some extent in music.

So don't bother using a bunch of music speak to befuddle me. It won't work because I won't have a frigging clue what you're saying.

Use English please.

[Doug Erickson]

I've liked a few tunes with Christian messages. But by and large, most Christian *pop* musicians get into the business as evangelists first (sometimes groomed by their respective churches) and musicians second. Kinda like how pop twits like Avril Lavigne enter the industry as marketable tarts with a prefab attitude first and musical ability second.

However, in the case of most prefab pop acts, they're backed by big music's best and brightest hook manufacturers, the same of which cannot be said for most Christian music acts.

On the other hand, while I don't usually like most gospel, there's no denying that many of those cats have some serious musical ability. In that case, yes, I do find the message a bit irritating, but it seems honest enough and backed by enough musical talent that I occasionally find myself enjoying it. I've never been able to really say the same for Christian pop, rap, or nu-metal.

[Erik]

On the other hand, most people don't think gospel music sucks. Or at least they're not usually willing to blithely dismiss it as categorically insipid. Maybe you're just not listening to the right christian pop music. If you relied on nothing but what gets played on top 40 radio, regular pop music would probably seem irredeemably awful too. In case you think this is leading up to a suggestion of some good christian pop, it's not.

[Erik]

I wrote my message at the exact same time that Erickson wrote his.

[freeman]

Pedro the Lion (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=MISS70306300256&sql=B41q67ur080jk) is pretty good. As is Low (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=MISS70306300256&sql=B40dsa93gb230), but they are Mormons.

[Erik]

And Low is from Duluth! YEAH!

[Jason McCullough]

Doug's explanation is much better than mine.

[Doug Erickson]

Um, Jason, gospel has the same "ulterior" message as Christian pop - find the Lord, get saved, et al.

As for popular music, there's another ulterior motive: getting you to buy large numbers of albums featuring some barely-clad Lolita or a moon-faced sequence of femmie lads.

If you're going to argue a hatred for Christian pop on the grounds that it suffers from all of the evils pop music in general suffers from, that's fine. But singling out Christian music for simply having an "ulterior" motive seems a bit disingenuous: might as well just agree with Spoofy and say that the specific motive - the Christian message in conjunction with pop's lowbrow musical appeal - is what irritates you.

[Jim Hoffman]

I think part of the reason Christian music "sucks" is that it has a smaller talent pool to draw from. So the publishers have to dig down a little deeper, closer to the bottom of the barrel.

[JeffL]

Well, you have to be careful what you think of as the full set of Christian music. The only CCM I'd heard was pretty "top 40" oriented, and while there are some folks I liked (Jars of Clay is decent, Phil Keagy is an incredible guitar player, etc.) I didn't like most CCM any more than I like most secular top 40.

But my son has started listening to a vaiety of CCM that is in the punk/alternative, etc. area and there are some surprising sounds there. A good amount of it is aimed at teens, and thus it has a lot of the same "feel" of rebellion, frustration, peer problems, etc. that traditional rock does - the proposed solutions are different, but it doesn't have the "happy happy" feel.

[Jim Hoffman]

Personally I've enjoyed some Christian music quite a bit.. Petra, Whiteheart and DC Talk to name a few. I was in a Christian band myself about 15 years ago. Made an album too. But, of course, it sucked! :)

And there are those 'mainstream' christian acts, that hit Billboards top 10: Amy Grant, Stryper, Jars of Clay and, uh, well I guess that's it.

I think Sixpence None the Richer may be a Christian band too. And they're not too bad.

[XPav]

POD.

Well they say they're Christian.

Then again, this guy (http://www.av1611.org/crock/pod.html) doesn't think they are, but he doesn't think an CCM is, so therefore, he includes POD in that category of music that thinks its christian but because of <insert chapter:verse> its not.

[Jim Hoffman]

Some of Creed's lyrics are supposedly of an Xian bent as well.
IMO Xian music has improved since I was a kid. Back then, it was hard to find any to begin with. Or at least, there wasn't as much selection, especially Xian rock. There was plenty of gospel.

Seems a lot easier to find nowadays. More distribution channels, more potential sales, better profits, more money, attracting better bands. And also more publishers looking for talent, giving us a better selection.

[SpoofyChop]

Personally I've enjoyed some Christian music quite a bit.. Petra, Whiteheart and DC Talk to name a few. I was in a Christian band myself about 15 years ago. Made an album too. But, of course, it sucked! :)

And there are those 'mainstream' christian acts, that hit Billboards top 10: Amy Grant, Stryper, Jars of Clay and, uh, well I guess that's it.

I think Sixpence None the Richer may be a Christian band too. And they're not too bad.

Sixpence is a wierd case. They had a good amount of crossover success and now they're apparently trying to totally convert to normal secular pop.

As the lead singer puts it though, everybody stigmatizes them as a Christian band and it really makes them mad. I read this on ChristianityToday.com somewhere.

Anyway, I'm sure they'll end up in the same circle of heck as all the other crossover people with Amy Grant et al. :wink:

[Tyjenks]

Michael W. Smith, Russ Taff, and Mylon LeFever and Brokenheart were concerts I attended and listened to on occasion because of the group I ran with. I was a kinder, gentler (and more gullible) soul then and was much more forgiving. Today, I have never heard a Christian artist that sings about the issues I am concerned about and so I have no interest in them. This is probably related to what others have mentioned regarding the topics they limit themselves to.

[SpoofyChop]

I should admit that I'm sure there's got to be a few examples of people who are manufactured into Christian pop stars specifically to serve an evangelism purpose. I just don't think this is the normal scenario.

I think Jason and others are saying that this is the rule rather than the exception which I just don't buy.

Also, as Cathcart says, "Most of everything sucks."

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Michael W. Smith, Russ Taff, and Mylon LeFever and Brokenheart were concerts I attended and listened to on occasion because of the group I ran with. I was a kinder, gentler (and more gullible) soul then and was much more forgiving. Today, I have never heard a Christian artist that sings about the issues I am concerned about and so I have no interest in them. This is probably related to what others have mentioned regarding the topics they limit themselves to.

I'm not sure there are many artists that sing about the issues I am concerned about. The Rolling Stones and Radiohead aren't exactly inundating the air waves with their odes to unemployment, lawn care and the challenge of finding a good American beer.

Sure, they limit themselves to the theme of salvation, but don't most bands limit themselves to one or two topics? Love? Heartache? Isolation? Partying? It's the rare band that tries to put a message beyond "You're so sweet" to music.

It could be the union of medium and message. Just as a heavy metal song about paving paradise would likely result in a severe case of cognitive dissonance, it could be that rock/pop music - with it's emphasis on pseudo-sexual rhythms and beats - has come to be so associated with humanist longing and rebellion that a band has to work really hard to be taken seriously as an evangelising rock/pop band.

On that note, I also dislike a huge majority of modern hymns. To someone raised on A Mighty Fortress and We Have an Anchor, newer hymns with more erratic and eccentric melodies (if they have melodies at all) just don't fit. Evangelical Protestant churches, of course, are full of these songs, and they reject the organ based hymns of the past, for the most part. And I think they sound awful.

Troy

[DennyA]

Cathcart? And here I thought it was Sturgeon.

Good Christian Rock? U2.

Huh, you ask? They're not a Christian rock band.

Sure they are. They're all Christians. And some of their music promotes Christian ideals. But it doesn't slap you in the face or have "glory be to Jesus" lyrics.

"Christian rock" doesn't have to sing about Christ to work.

[SpoofyChop]

To someone raised on A Mighty Fortress and We Have an Anchor, newer hymns with more erratic and eccentric melodies (if they have melodies at all) just don't fit.

Agreed.

Also...are/were you a Lutheran? Although Mighty Fortress shows up in a few hymnals, non-Lutherans generally don't seem to mention it.

You don't find too many Lutherans that like Christian Pop. Most of the Lutheran church bodies in the world are still pretty solidly liturgical for the most part.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

To someone raised on A Mighty Fortress and We Have an Anchor, newer hymns with more erratic and eccentric melodies (if they have melodies at all) just don't fit.

Agreed.

Also...are/were you a Lutheran? Although Mighty Fortress shows up in a few hymnals, non-Lutherans generally don't seem to mention it.

You don't find too many Lutherans that like Christian Pop. Most of the Lutheran church bodies in the world are still pretty solidly liturgical for the most part.

United Church of Canada, actually. An early twentieth century amalgam of Methodists, Congregationalists and half the Presbyterians. I go to a Methodist church now.

A Mighty Fortress is from my early childhood, when the church would sing pretty much any great hymn from the past. We got new hymnals in my teen years and it disappeared. The latest UCoC hymnal reform meant a lot of rewriting of hymns and deletion of some old favorites.

Troy

[Mike Cathcart]

I love the ulterior motive accusation. Like Motley Crue was just recording albums for the sake of music. Everyone's got an ulterior motive. Unfortunately not many bands are good at getting their message across in the form of music that doesn't suck.


Cathcart? And here I thought it was Sturgeon.
No, see, I put in the part about stuff sucking. Before me it was just crap.

[SpoofyChop]

United Church of Canada, actually. An early twentieth century amalgam of Methodists, Congregationalists and half the Presbyterians.

That's like mixing oil, water, and ketchup! How did that combo not explode!

:shock:

Anyway, sorry you're not Lutheran. :wink:

[wumpus]

Here's the problem in a nutshell: christian rock is about the Lawd first, and the music second. The music will always suffer as a result. It should be the other way around.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

United Church of Canada, actually. An early twentieth century amalgam of Methodists, Congregationalists and half the Presbyterians.

That's like mixing oil, water, and ketchup! How did that combo not explode!

:shock:

Anyway, sorry you're not Lutheran. :wink:

I think the idea was to have a significant Protestant church that could work against the Catholic (i.e., French) and Anglican (i.e., Upper Class Ontario) influence on social and moral policy. The union was more political than religious in motivation, and the UCoC remains one the more outspoken churches in Canada. True to its roots, it's also a leader in the Ecumenical movement. My brother is a United Church minister, actually, though being a conservative, he finds a lot of the politics and machinery of the church a little peculiar.

The church has almost exploded a couple of times. In my teen years, the church announced it would accept gay ministers and lots of congregations left. Our local minister would fulminate against this decision every week, and he eventually left, I think. More recently, the Moderator of the church announced that the resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical and belief in his divinity not necessary for Christianity.

Methodism remains the dominant strain in the church.

Troy

[Jason McCullough]

I love the ulterior motive accusation. Like Motley Crue was just recording albums for the sake of music. Everyone's got an ulterior motive.

I may be going out on a limb here, but Motley Crue's #1 reason for recording albums was to MAKE MONEY. What's the best way to make money? BE ENTERTAINING.

I don't think "be entertaining" is as strong of a goal for christian bands, vegan bands, whatever, and the music suffers for it.

[Jim Hoffman]

More recently, the Moderator of the church announced that the resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical and belief in his divinity not necessary for Christianity.


Wow, quite a liberal church you have there!

[Troy S Goodfellow]

More recently, the Moderator of the church announced that the resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical and belief in his divinity not necessary for Christianity.


Wow, quite a liberal church you have there!

I didn't say it was a popular announcement. There was a push to have to guy fired for heresy.

Troy

[Jim Hoffman]

Was he fired?

[Troy S Goodfellow]

No. He was near the end of his term, I think, so he shut up and focused on making sure the church didn't go broke. It was facing a ton of lawsuits over abuse at Church run native schools.

A heresy trial at a church that decides doctrine by majority vote would have been interesting.

Troy

[SpoofyChop]

More recently, the Moderator of the church announced that the resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical and belief in his divinity not necessary for Christianity.


Wow, quite a liberal church you have there!

Yeah...you might even make the unitarians blush!

:wink:

[Mike Cathcart]

I may be going out on a limb here, but Motley Crue's #1 reason for recording albums was to MAKE MONEY. What's the best way to make money? BE ENTERTAINING.

I don't think "be entertaining" is as strong of a goal for christian bands, vegan bands, whatever, and the music suffers for it.

So you're telling us that these Christian bands, who according to you are only interested in pushing a message, are out to spread The Word by being boring? What's the point of starting a band to evangelize if you're not going to be entertaining enough to get people to listen to you? They have just as much motivation to BE ENTERTAINING.

[JeffL]

I don't think "be entertaining" is as strong of a goal for christian bands, vegan bands, whatever, and the music suffers for it.

Nah, maybe in the past, but now this has become such a big industry that the competition is tough and their are more people trying to make it than make it - and if you're not entertaining you're likely dogmeat. There are a lot of VERY entertaining CCM bands, with really great spectacles of shows. The best have the "hooks" in the music, etc.

CCM has come a long way since Sandi Patti. Even the music videos can be very funny and cool ( I still love the old Newsboys "Shine" video, with the old fat guy with a cigar in a tutu, etc.) And the music can be very challenging - take a listen to Ballydowse and their mix of Celtic, some punk, etc. Heh, my 17 year old was watching a video last week and the guys on stage were all mohawked and green hair and pierced everywhere and tatooed and making an incredible racket and I asked him what in heck is this crap - turns out to be a very popular CCM band. I still hated it. LOL

An interesting phenomanum (sp) in CCM is the rise of punk style and more metal CCM. There's a station here in Michigan that features that style.

(I know all this through a 17 year old son who likes this stuff, but doesn't care much for mainstream CCM, precisely because the new edgier CCM appeals to the issues that a 17 year old struggles with, while mainstream CCM is a lot like country and appeals to older, more "settled" adults.)

[Anders Hallin]

More recently, the Moderator of the church announced that the resurrection of Jesus was metaphorical and belief in his divinity not necessary for Christianity.


Wow, quite a liberal church you have there!
The Arch Bishop (highest leader) KG Hammar of the Swedish Church, which about 80% of the population are still members of, has repeatedly stated, among other things, that it isn't really relevant if the virgin birth was a biological fact or not, and that he didn't believe Jesus actually walked on water.
Also, that "Judgment Day" is symbolic, more than anything, and that the Bible is a rather insecure source of information regarding Jesus, God and faith in general.
Of course, the Swedish Church also have at least 50 homosexual priests, men and women.

I rather like KG Hammar :)

[Jason McCullough]

Well, if you say so on the entertaining thing. All I remember about christian bands in the 1990s was the pap (Amy Grant/whatever) and the thrash metal (horrible by even metal standards).

And I still say the link between entertaining and converting is no where near as strong as the one between entertaining and money.

[wumpus]

So you're telling us that these Christian bands, who according to you are only interested in pushing a message, are out to spread The Word by being boring? What's the point of starting a band to evangelize if you're not going to be entertaining enough to get people to listen to you? They have just as much motivation to BE ENTERTAINING.
Nah, Jason is correct. Their priorities are wrong, which greatly reduces the chance the music will appeal to an audience. You have to be a band first and christian second; by definition "christian rock" or whatever fails this test.

Anyway, who cares what religion you are? Make interesting music, and if it happens to contain "praise the lawd" type messages, then so be it. I don't even see the point of this genre, frankly. Music is music.

[Mike Cathcart]

Nah, Jason is correct. Their priorities are wrong, which greatly reduces the chance the music will appeal to an audience. You have to be a band first and christian second; by definition "christian rock" or whatever fails this test.
I wasn't aware that you had taken a poll of every Christian rock band to determine that their first priority was evangelizing.

While we're at it, all prog rock bands suck because they're trying too hard to be prog and not hard enough to rock. Same thing with indie rock (too much attention to the label they're on), britpop (we all know they just want us to be British), and harmonica blues (how can you make good music if you're always focusing on the harmonica? The priority should be the music, man).

[Jason McCullough]

Nah, Jason is correct. Their priorities are wrong, which greatly reduces the chance the music will appeal to an audience. You have to be a band first and christian second; by definition "christian rock" or whatever fails this test.
I wasn't aware that you had taken a poll of every Christian rock band to determine that their first priority was evangelizing.

While we're at it, all prog rock bands suck because they're trying too hard to be prog and not hard enough to rock. Same thing with indie rock (too much attention to the label they're on), britpop (we all know they just want us to be British), and harmonica blues (how can you make good music if you're always focusing on the harmonica? The priority should be the music, man).

Is this a parody criticism? None of those genres are defined by the "message." Now, say, communist bands.....

[wumpus]

how can you make good music if you're always focusing on the harmonica?
Er, I don't know if you noticed, but the purpose of a harmonica is to make music. Religion, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the process of making music. It's something that is almost always tacked on.


I wasn't aware that you had taken a poll of every Christian rock band to determine that their first priority was evangelizing.
Well, to be fair, I guess it is possible that a band would just happen to accidentally make "christian" rock without overtly trying to. Given bands like Jars of Clay whose very name contain religious references.. I think that's unlikely. But whatever.

[Mike Cathcart]

OK, I started writing this big-ass reply and then I asked myself "why do I even care about Christian music?" Jesus Christ, I'm an atheist.

Anyway, you guys are assuming that these bands all decided "Hey, let's be a Christian rock band!", when it's entirely possible some devout Christians who play music decided to start a band. It's not my fault that someone labeled them something different instead of just calling them rock like they should have. I mean shit, do we call Nirvana Angst Rock? Because lots of bands have "a message". Apparently that makes their music worthless.

And why has nobody mentioned King's X?


Now, say, communist bands.....

http://www.youneverlisten.com/bands/rage/rage.jpg

[Jim Hoffman]

And why has nobody mentioned King's X?


Good one! I liked their first and second albums alot.

Why do you even know about King's X, being atheist and all?

[Met_K]

King's X blow in concert. :(

[Anders Hallin]

Now, say, communist bands.....
Like Knutna Nävar?
Let me real quick translate "The Song of Stalin" for you:

We're singing a song
that is spread throughout the world
to free republic and the oppressors's state
It cries a name that holds us together
it sings of Stalin, our friend and comrade

It sings of the struggle that leads to victory
for class struggle and rebellion it speaks
it speaks to the working class
and greets oppressed peoples and nations

It fears not God or bans or guns
it conquers the oppressors' decrepit bastion
and tells everybody
on the world that's exploited
join us as a soldier in a revolution

It's spat on and taunted
but can not be stopped
it reaches every nation
despite the hate of the bourgeouis

We bring a cheer
to the memory of Stalin
the steel-hard warrior
our friend and comrade

[Jason McCullough]

Hey, I'm consistent; I can't stand Rage Against the Machine either. :D

[Jeremy Johnsen]

Pedro the Lion (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=MISS70306300256&sql=B41q67ur080jk) is pretty good. As is Low (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&uid=MISS70306300256&sql=B40dsa93gb230), but they are Mormons.

Really? Normally as a group we would have latched on to a band full of Mormons, but I had never heard they were. Any links?

[Aeroplane]

King's X blow in concert. :(

So they're, what, Catholic Rock?

[freeman]

Really? Normally as a group we would have latched on to a band full of Mormons, but I had never heard they were. Any links?

http://www.chairkickers.com/low/articles/990908_citypaper.html

[Because They Are Hirsute]

Do you really mean pop? Because there are few better sugary dance pop acts, secular or otherwise, than Jump-Mothereffing-5. (http://www.jump5.com)

For that matter, what about the gospel projects of popular icons like Emmylou Harris and Johnny Cash? Is there some distinction between that and "Christian Pop?"

[Robert Sharp]

And why has nobody mentioned King's X?


Good one! I liked their first and second albums alot.

Why do you even know about King's X, being atheist and all?

Hah. that made me laugh, Jim :). We should ask all atheists how they have heard of the Bible too, just for kicks. I'll start:

"Ummm...wasn't it an Oprah Book-of-the-Month? I don't read that Oprah crap, but you can't help but hear about it."

Mike, how do YOU know about the Bible, being an Atheist and all?

[Mike Cathcart]

Why do you even know about King's X, being atheist and all?

Mike, how do YOU know about the Bible, being an Atheist and all?

I was raised Catholic. Anyway, I don't dislike music (or movies, or any kind of art) because I don't share the same political or religious views as the singer. If I did I'd probably only be able to listen to three bands that suck. If they make good music, I'm there.

[Jim Hoffman]

[quote="Mike CathcartI was raised Catholic. Anyway, I don't dislike music (or movies, or any kind of art) because I don't share the same political or religious views as the singer. If I did I'd probably only be able to listen to three bands that suck. If they make good music, I'm there.[/quote]

Touche. Actually, now that I -think- about it, I picked up my first King's X from Tower records, and i was intrigued solely by the title of the album, 'Out of the Silent Planet', which is also the title of a book by CS Lewis. Turns out I really liked the album. What're the odds?

[Jeremy Johnsen]

Really? Normally as a group we would have latched on to a band full of Mormons, but I had never heard they were. Any links?

http://www.chairkickers.com/low/articles/990908_citypaper.html

Thanks for the link freeman.

[Dirt]

Ulterior motive? Didn't stop Bach.

[Met_K]

Bach didn't have lyrics.


And the funny thing is, music was completely, solitarily, constructed and borne out of religion.

[wumpus]

Related link? Or shall we go on the standard "'cuz I said so beeyotch" we typically get from you?

[Jim Hoffman]

Ulterior motive? Didn't stop Bach.

Or Mozart. And he DID have lyrics.

[Aeroplane]

Bach didn't have lyrics.

Bach's Mass In B Minor and St. John's Passion would like to have some words with you.

Komm Susser Tod is a little upset, too.

[Mike Cathcart]

'Have some words'. Get it? Words. Ha ha.

[Jim Hoffman]

'Have some words'. Get it? Words. Ha ha.
Are you being facetious? I thought it was rather clever.

[Mike Cathcart]

Are you being facetious? I thought it was rather clever.
Nope, just a dork. I thought it was funny, too.

[Robert Sharp]

Bach didn't have lyrics.


And the funny thing is, music was completely, solitarily, constructed and borne out of religion.

You mean music in Bach's time right? I hope you don't mean to be suggesting that music was only invented for religious purposes. That MIGHT be true, but would be impossible to prove.

[Chris Nahr]

Actually it's demonstrably false. There were always musicians playing for the townsfolk, and there was plenty of music written for the entertainment of aristocrats since the middle ages. J.S. Bach himself has written lots of that, including the famous Brandenburg concertos. And of course quite a few of his religious works did have lyrics, as was already pointed out.

[Robert Sharp]

Actually it's demonstrably false. There were always musicians playing for the townsfolk, and there was plenty of music written for the entertainment of aristocrats since the middle ages. J.S. Bach himself has written lots of that, including the famous Brandenburg concertos. And of course quite a few of his religious works did have lyrics, as was already pointed out.

Sorry, I meant the origin of music as an invention (way back when) when I said it MIGHT have come from religious purposes or might not. But you still make a good point.

[Murph]

I don't dislike Christian pop any more than I dislike mainstream pop. I do, however, prefer most of the Christian rock -- there are a lot of Christian rock/punk/what-have-you bands out there that are every bit as talented as their mainstream counterparts -- to mainstream rock. And yes, it is all about the message with me. 98% of "mainstream" music seems so pointless to me. I love Aerosmith, but "Pink" is about the stupidest song ever written. Like the song, just hate the lyrics. (Just an example.) It's hard to look at lyrics by a band like Jars of Clay (whom I love) and call them trite. Well, seriously, anyway. Whether or not you agree with the message, there's a definite point to the song.

I think I'd answer the topic's question with "Because it's pop." Not "Because it's Christian." Sadly, the better bands in the Christian industry aren't well-known, because most Christian stations play the Christian equivalent of Britney, rather than music worth listening to.

I'd kill for a good Christian rock station. (Irony intentional.)

[Jim Hoffman]

So Murph, what's your fav. Xian rock band right now? What are the good ones? The last album I bought was a DCTalk album, the one with, uh, "Just Between You and Me", (or whatever the title is)

[hido]

As someone that lives at ground zero for CCM (Franklin, TN) I'll tell you why Christian pop sucks (and it ain't just the god-awful music): it's all about the $$$. What was once a close-knit group of people struggling to get by and sincerely spreading the word has turned into a mutil-national greed farm where the players are raking in Catholic Church-type money. Very un-Christian things like mass-layoffs to drive bottom lines, label politics, back-room deals, and the old who-cares-if-she-sucks-because-she's-hot-and-I-can-make-her-a-star, etc. are the norm while the "we're all in this together, let's spread the gospel" credo went out the window quicker than you can say "SONY/TIME WARNER/UNIVERSAL".

What's even funnier is that a large part of the losers who used to drag their kids to Nashville to become country stars now drag their kids fifteen miles south to Franklin to become Christian stars. Why? Because right now you have a better shot at stardom in CCM and there is more money in it.

Several people I know in the CCM biz have made no bones about the fact that the current formula is to simply look at what is on the pop charts, change the lyrics and duplicate the sound. That's the formula and it has worked. Trust me. You should see the number of Escalades around here driven by those "spreading the word".

rant mode off

[Jason McCullough]

So it used to suck because its Christian, but now it sucks because its not Christian.

:D

[hido]

Exactly! :D

[Murph]

Jim, I haven't heard a dcTalk album I haven't liked in awhile. Other favorites: Jars of Clay, pfr, and Third Day. Newsboys are alright, but they've got some really sucky songs, too.

Sadly, I'm not very "up" on new bands from the last year-and-a-half or so, as we no longer have a Christian station that I can stand listening to.

[Skies]

I feel we have to look at the musician’s inspiration for the tune they compose. Some get the inspiration from a new love or a love lost; from feeling disenfranchised from society or against the current war de jour, from feeling connected to whatever deity they worship or the simple ridiculousness of life. When that person expresses a feeling, mood, tone, whatever, that strikes a chord in another individual or group of individuals, that artist has accomplished their goal.

Maybe that is why some of us don’t get the category of “Christian music” because we can’t relate to it. Now me, I like a good upbeat gospel song , like “Operator”, as much as I like “Nessu Dorma”, “Dark Side of the Moon” ,“Lighting Strikes” or "I Wanna F*** You like an Animal”. Each piece says something to me about people, life, myself and the Creator that maybe doesn’t speak the same way to other listeners.

That’s all.

Oh, BTW, I’m not taking into account music that is written for the industry created acts that clutter the airwaves today. That’s a different animal … sort of….

[wumpus]

What is it with the asterisks? We're adults here. Fuck. Fuckity fucking fuck fuck. Don't make me do a Q23 screening of Scarface.

[Skies]

Thanks for the update. I never read the rules of conduct.

[jeep]

Really? Normally as a group we would have latched on to a band full of Mormons, but I had never heard they were. Any links?

http://www.chairkickers.com/low/articles/990908_citypaper.html

Thanks for the link freeman.

For the record: I have not been posting as freeman.

I'm an atheist myself, but I was exposed to all kinds of music as a kid, including blues and other genres where Christian themes pop up a lot, so religious slant just doesn't register with me one way or another. Low is great, maybe my favorite band, but definitely an acquired taste. They're pretty polarizing, you either like them or you don't, but they're well known among indie rock fans as being probably the best example of "slo-core," their early work especially. Their records are essentially two minute punk songs each stretched out to 8 or 9 minutes. The best examples of are their first album "I Could Live in Hope" and their third, "The Curtain Hits The Cast".

Maybe that first record title should have tipped me off, but I read this interview with their original bassist who said they were in a diner in Hope, NJ on their way to their first meeting with Vernon Yard (Caroline Records) in New York and the bassist looked out the window at the town and said "I could live in Hope" and singer/guitarist Alan wrote it down and it became the title of the record, so I thought nothing of it.

In making records, they're about music first and religion second if at all, in fact their first few records don't even mention religion one way or another, and I had no idea even after their fourth or fifth record and seeing them at the Middle East like 5 times. I didn't hear about it until they turned down a request to have their music used in a commercial for whiskey in Japan and mentioned that they didn't want their work connected to alcohol because they were Mormons. They had no problems having their songs used in Gap commercials.

Pedro the Lion is a different case, if you're listening you can spot the Christian references, but the individual songs themselves don't scream "repent sinners!" If you take his last album, Control, as a concept record (it is, though it's not immediately obvious), you can tell he's basically telling a story about all the sins and mishaps that can accompany adultery, so he's a little more up front than Low, but it's still pretty good. The problem is the production quality's not that great, and you get the sense that he's self-recording, or that no one is there to say "that doesn't sound great" because about half of his songs are really interesting with either good hooks or smart lyrics and the other half just don't work at all. Control's best are probably "Magazine" and "Priests and Paramedics."

/jeep/
edit:sp

[Skies]

Fuck!

(oh it feels so good on the lips)

[wumpus]

Take it easy, Tony Montana.