What's wrong with Christian music?

[blackwasp]

Hmm, don't remember where I heard that about 12 stones, so if no one else has heard it, discard it; perhaps it was just hearsay. Yeah, I have seen the Elms three times live, I've seen Kutless, Mercy Me, Audio Adrenaline, By the Tree, Ten Shekel Shirt, Tait, Living Sacrifice, Jonah 33, Anberlin, DC Talk, Toby Mac, John Reuben, Reliant K, Delirious, and the list goes on. I'm not speaking off on christian music without having heard it.

And for the record, I regard Keith Green as one of the greatest musicians of all time and Caedmon's Call is one of my favorite groups.

However, I don't think there should be a CCM subculture. I think if you are a band and you want to make it you should compete for a spot on a label against the other bands.

 

[blackwasp]

Btw, those concerts were all bad except for the Elms (they are better each time) and Delirious (although Martin Smith is a Bono wannabe).

 

[brettnolan]

Do you really not like Mercy Me? Is it that style of music or just them?

I have been thinking about bringing up Caedmon's Call as a band that's quite a bit different, but I haven't heard that much from them. Of what I have heard, some is good, some just doesn't suit me, but it does have a different sound. Little too folksy for me.

 

[blackwasp]

No, I don't think Mercy Me is a good band at all. As a matter of fact, I think they are quite bad.

I like Caedmon's Call mainly for their reformed lyrics and melodies, however, when they released 40 Acres in 1999, folk rock was hardly innovative. Then again, Caedmon's music was directed at the church and its purpose was to disciple and present believers with sound doctrine. That is a very different goal than being a christian band that plays for entertainment.

 

[blackwasp]

What makes "Stairway to Heaven" better than "She Hates Me" is the same thing that makes a rock band progressing the musical scene better than a pop-punk band.

 

[blackwasp]

Oh and I'll let that Beatles thing alone, we could argue that in another thread maybe......best group of all time? Please.

Then who? Stones? Zep? Sabbath? GnR? Chains?

 

[nadroj1985]

What makes "Stairway to Heaven" better than "She Hates Me" is the same thing that makes a rock band progressing the musical scene better than a pop-punk band.

Who says that music has to progress the musical scene? Zeppelin is not objectively better than Puddle of Mudd in any way (Oh and for the record, I personally really like Zeppelin and can't stand Puddle of Mudd). The point is, you could say that Zep was more creative, but then I could say "Who says music has to be creative?" We could go on forever about this. In my opinion, there is no objectively good or bad music. You judge music by different standards than others, and so you have different favorites, but your standards are no better than someone else's.

 

[nadroj1985]

Then who? Stones? Zep? Sabbath? GnR? Chains?

Nope, none of those. Obviously I'm not gonna say I think a band is the greatest ever considering our argument. But my favorite band is probably the Velvet Underground. All of the bands you listed were good, but not as creative as VU IMO.

 

[blackwasp]

In my opinion, there is no objectively good or bad music. You judge music by different standards than others, and so you have different favorites, but your standards are no better than someone else's.

Well, that's your opinion. I don't have to judge music...an artist's music speaks for itself. It is not difficult to distinguish bad from good. Your idea that music is completely up to opinion makes no sense.

If you insist that music is only taste, then yeah, I'd have to say that my standards are better than most people's.

 

[blackwasp]

Nope, none of those. Obviously I'm not gonna say I think a band is the greatest ever considering our argument. But my favorite band is probably the Velvet Underground. All of the bands you listed were good, but not as creative as VU IMO.

 

[nadroj1985]

Well, that's your opinion. I don't have to judge music...an artist's music speaks for itself. It is not difficult to distinguish bad from good. Your idea that music is completely up to opinion makes no sense.

If you insist that music is only taste, then yeah, I'd have to say that my standards are better than most people's.

But don't you see that that is arrogant? And it is very difficult to distinguish between bad and good. If it wasn't, then everybody would list the same band as the best of all time. If I had to pick one band as the best of all time, it would be VU, but I recognize that many others might not agree with this. I don't write these others off as having bad taste. They just have different tastes than I do. They value different things in music. Their artists aren't bad or good, neither are mine.

 

[brettnolan]

What makes "Stairway to Heaven" one of the greatest songs of all time is a combination of both the fact that it is a musical juggernaut AND that a LOT of people say so. You can have an artist or song that is critically acclaimed by industry insiders but if the public doesn't like it, it ain't great. Likewise, you can have a song that everybody likes(liked) but musically, it may be just okay...I would say(not being a musician) a lot of Beatles songs fall into this category.

My opinion is, if you're trying to objectively value music, you have to take ALL factors into account, not just your personal taste, your personal knowledge of music, and not just your personal criteria. There are many people on this site who couldn't care less about the lyrics...to me lyrics can make or break a song. Wasp, you have indicated that lyrics are at least somewhat important to you...do you want someone who doesn't care about lyrics "objectively" saying such and such is trash.

I think you are being overly simplistic when you say you can take any given song and put it into a good or bad bin musically and everyone (who knows anything about music) will agree. You might be able to bucket it into simple vs. complex, original vs. derivative, and I'm sure there are other ways you musicians divvy(sp?) stuff up. But you're not going to be able to just say good/bad and get a consensus...there are too many other variables before you even start to think about the layman's opinion.

 

[nadroj1985]

What makes "Stairway to Heaven" one of the greatest songs of all time is a combination of both the fact that it is a musical juggernaut AND that a LOT of people say so. You can have an artist or song that is critically acclaimed by industry insiders but if the public doesn't like it, it ain't great. Likewise, you can have a song that everybody likes(liked) but musically, it may be just okay...I would say(not being a musician) a lot of Beatles songs fall into this category.

My opinion is, if you're trying to objectively value music, you have to take ALL factors into account, not just your personal taste, your personal knowledge of music, and not just your personal criteria. There are many people on this site who couldn't care less about the lyrics...to me lyrics can make or break a song. Wasp, you have indicated that lyrics are at least somewhat important to you...do you want someone who doesn't care about lyrics "objectively" saying such and such is trash.

I think you are being overly simplistic when you say you can take any given song and put it into a good or bad bin musically and everyone (who knows anything about music) will agree. You might be able to bucket it into simple vs. complex, original vs. derivative, and I'm sure there are other ways you musicians divvy(sp?) stuff up. But you're not going to be able to just say good/bad and get a consensus...there are too many other variables before you even start to think about the layman's opinion.

Man, we got way off topic eh?


This is what I was trying to say. You can judge music on some sort of standard (creativity, complexity, etc.) but you cannot say music is objectively bad or good. There are just too many factors that come in to play. I even think calling "Stairway to Heaven" one of the greatest songs of all time is still a bit arrogant. Granted I love the song, and many others do, but if someone told me they didn't think it was particularly great, there's no way I could prove that they were wrong. It's just music, just like everything else.

Oh, and BTW Brett, I agree with your comment on the Beatles. That's what I've always thought about them too.

 

[fortyfourbreaks]

I think you are being overly simplistic when you say you can take any given song and put it into a good or bad bin musically and everyone (who knows anything about music) will agree.

Nice discussions here guys, makes me think more about peoples tastes and opinions on music. I like the above quote especially. I've found that there are so many songs where you can't decide if you like or not. You got to take in repeat listenings to like it. This holds true in music that is complex, avant-garde, difficult to understand ect. BUT, I Seriously Believe this holds true for music that is not complex, seemingly normal, or repetitive. Maybe something like pop music. So, when blackwasp says that 80s pop, modern country, pop-punk, death metal suck, I think you just haven't acquired a taste for it. Sure you have acquired a taste for complex, innovative, different music, BUT you haven't acquired a taste for something like 80's pop or modern country. Let me illustrate, by saying I didn't like mainstream hip-hop/rap. But after borrowing some hip-hop records from a friend for a house party, I acquired a taste to it. Theres certain elements that make it good. Same goes for 80's pop, pop-punk, modern country. SOOO...WHAT MAKES YOUR TASTE BETTER??....your on equal playing grounds..you can't acquire a taste for pop-punk, modern country, 80's pop, and death metal....and other people can't acquire at taste for your music......who's to say....

In response to blackwasp standards.....I don't give a dang what your standards are b/c everyones gonna have em different, and no ones gonna have the pefect standards. Thats why they call em standards. human-made measures based upon ones own opinion. not upon truth


anyways to end,
Just because you don't like a song DOES NOT MEAN its a bad song!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can not like a song, and it could be considered the GREATEST song of all-time. It WON'T mean you have bad taste. blackwasp, just because you don't like some CCM or some 80's pop does not make that music a bad genre/subculture!!!!

 

[nadroj1985]

Nice discussions here guys, makes me think more about peoples tastes and opinions on music. I like the above quote especially. I've found that there are so many songs where you can't decide if you like or not. You got to take in repeat listenings to like it. This holds true in music that is complex, avant-garde, difficult to understand ect. BUT, I Seriously Believe this holds true for music that is not complex, seemingly normal, or repetitive. Maybe something like pop music. So, when blackwasp says that 80s pop, modern country, pop-punk, death metal suck, I think you just haven't acquired a taste for it. Sure you have acquired a taste for complex, innovative, different music, BUT you haven't acquired a taste for something like 80's pop or modern country. Let me illustrate, by saying I didn't like mainstream hip-hop/rap. But after borrowing some hip-hop records from a friend for a house party, I acquired a taste to it. Theres certain elements that make it good. Same goes for 80's pop, pop-punk, modern country. SOOO...WHAT MAKES YOUR TASTE BETTER??....your on equal playing grounds..you can't acquire a taste for pop-punk, modern country, 80's pop, and death metal....and other people can't acquire at taste for your music......who's to say....

In response to blackwasp standards.....I don't give a dang what your standards are b/c everyones gonna have em different, and no ones gonna have the pefect standards. Thats why they call em standards. human-made measures based upon ones own opinion. not upon truth


anyways to end,
Just because you don't like a song DOES NOT MEAN its a bad song!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can not like a song, and it could be considered the GREATEST song of all-time. It WON'T mean you have bad taste. blackwasp, just because you don't like some CCM or some 80's pop does not make that music a bad genre/subculture!!!!

Amen brother

 

[Grover143]

We could argue all day long about what we think "good" music or "bad" music is, and never really get anywhere. I'd have to agree with most of the folks who don't listen to the popular CCM stuff because it's content is pretty generic. At the same time it's really important to recognise the fact that people listen to music for very different reasons. Some want only to be uplifted in their faith from the music they listen to. They don't care that the chord progressions & lyrics are rehashed OVER AND OVER AND OVER. They aren't music afficianados and don't aspire to be. I guess that's fine for them. What concerns me is the fact that all the big label "christian" music (by and large) is so purposely tame that I walk away completely bored & uninspired. If that's what YOU want from the artists you're willing to support, I guess that's your business. Big CCM labels are going to market what sells. If people keep buying this stuff, they'll keep making it. They could care less about pushing envelopes or challenging pre-concieved notions. They want the status quo until the status quo changes. I work in the music business, I'm a sound engineer for a national touring group. We have been labelled "christian" , and in fairness much of the music I'm mixing is decidedly speaking of our faith. We are unsigned, and probably will remain so, because the music doesn't fit into what the big labels would find "marketable". I've met some incredible artists who are christian, who write about their faith and the way they see the world, and get nowhere. Why? Because they're too edgy, or honest about how difficult this christian walk can be. This is just what I seem to be seeing & hearing. I know I'm only one pair of ears, and I expect alot from the artists I listen to. I want to be stimulated, and to hear creativity. I wish others expected more as well, then maybe we'd see a resurgence of creativity and diversity in what I'd call a very stale market. Thoughts? Comments? Questions?

 

[Rockboy]

I believe I read somewhere that 12 Stones denied Christ.

Was it not long ago that Evanescence was "christian"?

Geez. Post a link or something, but don't give people false ideas!

From http://www.12stones.com/faq/index.shtml
What are your religious beliefs?
From Paul McCoy:
"Each of us have a personal, spiritual relationship with God. Our music is positive and deals with surviving challenging experiences in life."

What does the name 12 Stones mean?
The name is a biblical reference. There were 12 Stones in the Hoshen, the breastplate that was first worn by the High Priest Aaron. According to the book of Exodus, the stones were Ruby, Garnet, Citrine, Blue Topaz, Topaz, Sapphire, Peridot, Onyx, Emerald, Diamond, Amethyst and Aquamarine. The Stones represent each of the 12 tribes of Israel. The number 12 also has significance in the New Testament - Jesus has 12 apostles.

©2004 Wind-up Records​

Give me proof that 12 Stones denied Christ.

 

[eutychus]

Though I find the tangents deliciously titillating, to answer the original question of the thread starter:

What's wrong with Christian music?
The whole idea of "Christian" music is heresy. It serves no purpose unless it's done as ministry, and 95% of bands in the Christian market can't even get out of the crappy subculture in which they've found themselves in order to minister because a) they've sold their souls or b) they're not talented enough to break away from the chains.

Some justify the Christian subculture by saying that it aids the Church, but if one looks at that closely, he can see that is justification. That's being "of but not in," not "in but not of." There are the occasional artists who consistently stir up the body of Christ, and kudos to them (Keith Green, Derek Webb). Too bad they're few and far between.
To sum it up, I'll quote my Worldviews professor, "You wouldn't make a guy a preacher if he hadn't studied the Bible. Why would you allow a man to sing about God just because he plays an instrument well?"

I apologize for bringing up many points in this brief paragraph, and not separating any of them. I didn't feel like being organized, and my point of view probably suffered because of it.

 

[blackwasp]

Geez. Post a link or something, but don't give people false ideas!

From http://www.12stones.com/faq/index.shtml
What are your religious beliefs?
From Paul McCoy:
"Each of us have a personal, spiritual relationship with God. Our music is positive and deals with surviving challenging experiences in life."

What does the name 12 Stones mean?
The name is a biblical reference. There were 12 Stones in the Hoshen, the breastplate that was first worn by the High Priest Aaron. According to the book of Exodus, the stones were Ruby, Garnet, Citrine, Blue Topaz, Topaz, Sapphire, Peridot, Onyx, Emerald, Diamond, Amethyst and Aquamarine. The Stones represent each of the 12 tribes of Israel. The number 12 also has significance in the New Testament - Jesus has 12 apostles.

©2004 Wind-up Records​

Give me proof that 12 Stones denied Christ.

Geez, calm down. A few posts later I asked if anyone else had heard that statement, and then called for it to be discarded if it were untrue.

 

[blackwasp]

For the record, the Beatles were extremely talented. To deny that shows an ignorance of music. (I make this claim despite not really liking the Beatles)