The Problem With Christian Radio

[Matisyahu8898]

I love modern Christian music. I want that to be clear. I have literally hundreds of awesome Christian song, new and old alike downloaded into my phone. But Christian radio stations seem to only play the worst garbage available. My local Christian music radio station is called Joy FM, and it seems all they play is tobymac, and Mandisa. The same goes for the nationwide XM station, "The Message." I wondered for awhile why they never played better songs. The deep tracks of Tenth Avenue North, Passion, Chris Tomlin, Hillsong, and Phil Wickham are way better written than the best songs by Jordan Feliz, tobymac, Mandisa, Tauren Wells, and Lauren Daigle. The first bands mentioned have better written music; better, more God glorifying lyrics; and are not produced only in a way to make money. And that's not just my opinion, I can show you examples if you want. It's been bothering me for awhile that these stations are settling for less, when there are plenty of songs out there that would be much better. And I think I figured out the heart of the issue recently...

The radio stations don't pick songs to play because they are good, they pick songs to play because they are offered to them. Excuse me if I'm wrong because I don't have a lot of evidence to back me up on this, but I've come to the conclusion that when a band writes a song, they have to record it, and publish it under a record label before getting on the radio. But then it's the record label that then reaches out to the radio stations, and asks the stations to play their songs. Shouldn't it be the other way around? This system might work for secular stations, because bands are like brand names. They make a name for themselves, and a song sung by Ed Sheeran would not be as loved if it was the exact same track, but with a different name on it. But Christian music isn't like that. Whereas we all have our favorite bands, it's the song that we worship God through, not the band. So these stations should be picking good songs, not good bands. If the band is good, then their songs will keep popping up. But bands like Passion, don't record their songs through Capitol Music, they do it through Six Step Records. Because of that, they are not well known at all. I've even met people who say they like a song, and I have to correct them that the song they like is a cover of a Passion song. Bands realize how awesome they are at writing, so they cover them, but Passion doesn't get much recognition.

So stations don't play songs because they are good, they play them because record labels ask them to. If it were the other way around, we should see smaller bands being featured on the radio. It's sad that these bands are writing good songs, and radios never play them.

I'd say bands that should get more time on the radio would be:
Rend Collective
Passion
Sanctus Real
Third Day
I AM THEY
Hannah Kerr
Phil Wickham (Yeah, This is Amazing Grace is overplayed, but he's got more songs that need to shine)
Shane & Shane

Bands that get played on the radio for no apparent reason would be:
tobymac
Mandisa
Jordan Feliz
MercyMe (I like a lot of their songs, but they are way overplayed)
Tauren Wells

Let me know what you think about this. It's not much of a debate, I'm just talking, and I want to see how you all feel about what I'm saying.

Follow-up question...what's up with radio songs having to be shorter than the regular recordings? I don't understand that. Is there something about being in a car that makes your attention span less than three minutes? I mean what's wrong with the radio playing a six minute song?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I use Life FM as my alarm to get up in the morning, and while the DJs are interesting to listen to, I find the music is "samey", with the instrumental overruling the lyrics, and I get the feeling that once I have heard one song, I heard them all. Boring!

 

[Jesusismyking87!!]

After learning the true meaning of hillsong I am starting to give up on the new Christian trend music and deciding to basically go back towards just listening to classical or hymes.

I agree with the earlier statement they all are beginning to sound just alike and when they hit mainstream they forget who brought them there.

 

[WolfGate]

OK, one irony in your post is that I saw Passion just this past week. In their set of songs, they covered Hillsong Worship, All Sons and Daughters, Bethel, Upperroom, Elevation , Matt Redmon. Perhaps a few others, but those are the ones I remember now. My impression was half of their set or so was cover songs.

Which doesn't actually negate your point, because they were picking good songs to sing, regardless of who did them.

Personally, if I generalize a bit and break the music into two categories, Contemporary Christian and Praise&Worship, my personal opinion is Contemporary Christian is in a down cycle right now while Praise&Worship is hitting a high period. CCM, at least what I hear on the large nationwide radio networks, sounds very much the same, with little creativity. P&W pretty much the opposite right now.

Some of it is preference. I think tobymac is a good and different artist - he does suffer from every song he releases getting overplayed to death (perhaps because he is somewhat different). Third Day doesn't really do it for me, but they do have a unique sound.

Having worked in radio as a college job back in the 80s, there is some truth to what you say. Record labels did market specific songs and try to get those played. Stations that are doing a popular format would comply, because that is how it worked. There were a few "deep tracks" stations as you put it, but most didn't make it because most people want nice, familiar background music.

 

[justme6272]

I don't listen to contemporary Christian music cause most of it is so lame. I know other musicians who feel the same way. My standards are the great secular artists from 1960 forward. If a Christian band could emulate their quality, they'd dominate the airwaves all they wanted and stations would seek out their latest records cause they want to sell advertising and good music is how you do that. Christian musicians stay active only because the buying public wants to support Christian artists, so they grab the best CDs they can find of the artists whose personalities they like. Only when the buying public stops supporting them by buying their product and going to their concerts will there be any hope of improvement. The standards are so much lower for Christian music, it's ridiculous. Good writers, arrangers and producers can make so much more money in secular music. As for your two lists, I'd lump them altogether. My tastes require something better than all of them or I won't listen to it.

If there's any topic that strikes a raw nerve in me as much or more than this one, it's the songs selected by worship leaders for their congregations when they have no taste. Then they can't figure out why there's no congregational singing and blame the people as unresponsive when it's their own fault. There are plenty of praise and worship songs that congregations will sing for the worship leader who knows the better songs when they hear them. If they are unwilling to do songs more than 3 years old in their services, that's the problem. You have to go back further than that and put together a library of good songs across multiple decades, and maybe even repeat them sometime during the year. The math is easy enough...four good songs per Sunday, times 52 weeks per year, with each song repeated once, and that's only 100 or so songs. Anyone who can't find 100 good songs refuses to do the work of putting them together, or they have no taste. It's always the latter. They do take the time to plan and put together songs in order to have a church service, they just won't pick good ones. The worst situations I've seen are when the worship leaders is also the songwriter, except that they can't write worth beans. So the congregation just stands there staring at the overhead screen, unable to grasp onto any melody cause there isn't one. No one has the guts to tell the worship leader they can't write, or that they need to do other people's songs who can.

 

[Matisyahu8898]

OK, one irony in your post is that I saw Passion just this past week. In their set of songs, they covered Hillsong Worship, All Sons and Daughters, Bethel, Upperroom, Elevation , Matt Redmon. Perhaps a few others, but those are the ones I remember now. My impression was half of their set or so was cover songs.

Which doesn't actually negate your point, because they were picking good songs to sing, regardless of who did them.

Personally, if I generalize a bit and break the music into two categories, Contemporary Christian and Praise&Worship, my personal opinion is Contemporary Christian is in a down cycle right now while Praise&Worship is hitting a high period. CCM, at least what I hear on the large nationwide radio networks, sounds very much the same, with little creativity. P&W pretty much the opposite right now.

Some of it is preference. I think tobymac is a good and different artist - he does suffer from every song he releases getting overplayed to death (perhaps because he is somewhat different). Third Day doesn't really do it for me, but they do have a unique sound.

Having worked in radio as a college job back in the 80s, there is some truth to what you say. Record labels did market specific songs and try to get those played. Stations that are doing a popular format would comply, because that is how it worked. There were a few "deep tracks" stations as you put it, but most didn't make it because most people want nice, familiar background music.

I really like what you say about there being two categories, CCM and P&W. I completely agree with that, and have actually been saying that lately. And of course, I understand that it comes down to preference a lot, but there is a reason that CCM is on the decline like you say.

How is it ironic that Passion covered a lot of the songs? Isn't that kind of in agreement of what I'm saying? I'm essentially saying that it should be about the songs, and not the artist, nor the method they use to market their songs. Passion didn't make those songs, but played them because they were good, and used them to glorify God.

P.S. I'm glad you saw Passion. I saw them on tour as well, and they were awesome! And given your profile picture, I assume you've been to their conferences?

 

[Matisyahu8898]

I don't listen to contemporary Christian music cause most of it is so lame. I know other musicians who feel the same way. My standards are the great secular artists from 1960 forward. If a Christian band could emulate their quality, they'd dominate the airwaves all they wanted and stations would seek out their latest records cause they want to sell advertising and good music is how you do that. Christian musicians stay active only because the buying public wants to support Christian artists, so they grab the best CDs they can find of the artists whose personalities they like. Only when the buying public stops supporting them by buying their product and going to their concerts will there be any hope of improvement. The standards are so much lower for Christian music, it's ridiculous. Good writers, arrangers and producers can make so much more money in secular music. As for your two lists, I'd lump them altogether. My tastes require something better than all of them or I won't listen to it.

If there's any topic that strikes a raw nerve in me as much or more than this one, it's the songs selected by worship leaders for their congregations when they have no taste. Then they can't figure out why there's no congregational singing and blame the people as unresponsive when it's their own fault. There are plenty of praise and worship songs that congregations will sing for the worship leader who knows the better songs when they hear them. If they are unwilling to do songs more than 3 years old in their services, that's the problem. You have to go back further than that and put together a library of good songs across multiple decades, and maybe even repeat them sometime during the year. The math is easy enough...four good songs per Sunday, times 52 weeks per year, with each song repeated once, and that's only 100 or so songs. Anyone who can't find 100 good songs refuses to do the work of putting them together, or they have no taste. It's always the latter. They do take the time to plan and put together songs in order to have a church service, they just won't pick good ones. The worst situations I've seen are when the worship leaders is also the songwriter, except that they can't write worth beans. So the congregation just stands there staring at the overhead screen, unable to grasp onto any melody cause there isn't one. No one has the guts to tell the worship leader they can't write, or that they need to do other people's songs who can.

I like what you have to say. I don't have respect for a lot of church music leaders for that reason. Can I ask...about how much Christian music do you know? Because whereas I like a lot of the mainstream stuff, I listen to plenty of songs (maybe like 70 songs), that are hardly known, and most of it is in the middle. Like I said, I like the old and the new, and I believe that there is no shortage of Christian music. Also, it seems that you have a very high standard in your taste of music, and I can understand that, but aren't there plenty of secular songs that are horrible, and poorly written that you don't listen to? You don't have any obligation to listen to Christian music, nor are you obligated to search and find good ones. But are you maybe throwing the baby out with the bath water?

 

[justme6272]

Because whereas I like a lot of the mainstream stuff, I listen to plenty of songs (maybe like 70 songs), that are hardly known, and most of it is in the middle.

but aren't there plenty of secular songs that are horrible, and poorly written that you don't listen to?

A few days ago I went to youtube and listened to Larry Norman's recording of "I Wish We'd All Been Ready." Then I found a website where I could read more about Larry. I felt like I had more in common with him than anyone I see in church on Sunday today, and he was quoted as feeling the same way with church folk back in the 60s, and you know he had it harder when it comes to pacifying the religious establishment. Fewer places to play back then. He sort of paved the way for alternative Christian music.

Yes, there's plenty of secular junk I won't listen to. But I respect the fact that it's commercial enough to make it to the Billboard charts and make it to mainstream pop and adult contemporary stations. 99% of CCM doesn't make it to the chart because it's any good, but because there's no competition. There are going to be radio stations playing it and Billboard covering it cause there's enough interest from the Christian community that feels it has no place else to go. That community might listen to ONLY Christian music because it does something for their spirits that Taylor Swift and Justin Beiber do not. To me, good music is good music, and that's what does something for my spirit, not just Christian lyrics that may be good but were put to bad music by lyric writers who really need to let go on the music side and find a collaborator. It's difficult when a good songwriter can make so much more money writing for secular pop artists who can fill up entire arenas with ticket buyers. Some Christian groups can fill up areas with teenagers, but it's more cult-like than anything having to do with good music. Or they may have one or two decent songs which become popular enough for teenagers to buy a ticket just to see them perform. I'll stop short of mentioning any specific groups, (think California) but I've seen entire pastor conferences held to discuss the state of these cult-like so-called worship experiences and their phoniness. You can find videos of such conferences on youtube, or I can send you a link if you're interested.