I can be a bit of a music nerd, and I haven't posted much about music here before, so excuse me for getting a bit nerdy.
I was listening to a couple of podcasts about Christian musicians who managed to change the landscape of Christian music in recent history. (since the 60's) I thought I'd throw out my list and see if it got any traction. I'm not even attempting to rank them.
Larry Norman
Keith Green
Amy Grant
Petra
Toby Mac
Steve Taylor
Stryper
Michael W Smith
And a few that I'm not sure quite make the list
Phil Keaggy
David Crowder
Bill Gaither
Glen Kaiser/Rez Band
Rich Mullins
156 comments:
You're missing Randy stonehill. Rich Mullins should be in the 1st list. And perhaps Steve Camp in the 1st or 2nd list.
Brown Bannister and David Meece perhaps?
That is, if we're talking about music that was promoted/seen as Contemporary Christian Music.
If You'd like to expand it to include Christian music that was not considered CCM, we might talk about Norman Greenbaum and Barry Maguire. Bruce Cockburn, later on.
Here is a topic we might have many interesting and non-combative discussions on.
Andre Crouch and the Winans, of course.
DC Talk
Who's Toby Mac and how'd he (they?) influence CCM?
One might also ask Who's influenced CCM and how? In a positive manner (Keith Green, DC Talk, Amy Grant...)? In a negative manner ( Gaithers, I'd argue...(?
Influence how?
Sorry for so many comments, but it's one of deep interest to me. Getting into the topic more systematically, I'd say we might begin with modern influences on Christian music by looking at Sam Cooke and Edward Hawkins who were deeply spiritual performers who had mighty crossover appeal.
Change is Gonna Come (1963)
and
O Happy Day (1967)
...were among the early clearly Christian-influenced songs that were part of the culture in a huge way. One might say they paved the way for the notion that pop music could be religious or spiritual in nature.
The same may be said for Dominique (1963). Maybe. That might be considered more of a kitsch song, though.
And of course, it must be noted that "contemporary music" - rock and pop - themselves got their starts from traditional spirituals and church music, in large part. So, church music influenced popular music and then, in roughly the 1960s, popular music influenced church music.
Other early influencers on popular Christian music would have to include Barry Maguire's "Eve of Destruction" and Normal Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky," which was written to mimic country Christian music. As seen on Wikipedia...
"Greenbaum told a reporter he was inspired to write the song after watching Porter Wagoner singing a gospel song on TV. Greenbaum said: "I thought, 'Yeah, I could do that,' knowing nothing about gospel music, so I sat down and wrote my own gospel song. It came easy. I wrote the words in 15 minutes.""
Would it be fair to say that these paved the way for Larry Norman (who started his Christian music ministry ~1968), Randy Stonehill (~1971) and Keith Green (much later in ~1975)?
While I'm not arguing that my list is either exhaustive or correct, I will give you the reasons why I left some worthy people off the list.
I'd suggest that Randy Stonehill came from the Larry Norman orbit, and was incrimental, rather than major step forward.
I'd suggest that Mullins was pretty much Keith Green 2.0, and while he was significant, he was simply moving forward on ground that Green already plowed.
Bannister, perhaps, as a producer. I'm not seeing Meece.
For this post, I'm choosing to limit the conversation to the CCM world.
Again, while Crouch and Winans are great, I'd argue that they weren't breaking any new ground. I'd be more inclined towards Tharpe, and Jackson in terms of Gospel. I'd be more willing to consider Crouch than Winans, personally.
Since DC Talk was really the vision and drive of Toby, I felt like it's more accurate to list him than the group. Having said that, I would argue that Larry Norman and DC Talk are the two artists who broke the most ground.
Toby is the person who really had the vision for DC Talk, and has had a prolific and lengthy solo career since DC Talk took their intermission back in the 90"s. He's also been an active record label head and producer for decades as well. Really nice guy as well.
There are a bunch of questions that could be asked, I've chosen to focus on this one. Obviously "influence" goes different ways, and I'd argue that (while I'm not a fan of the Gaither tribe) they've been significantly influential for quite a while. Certainly through songwriting. I also might be biased because they helped a friend of my family start and maintain her career for quite a while.
I think that part of the conversation is separating artists that I like, from artists that were influential or who significantly changed the landscape of "CCM".
You could certainly make the argument that all of those people "paved the way" for what would become CCM, and I wouldn't disagree with you. I've chosen to limit this to people who's intent and goal was to make explicitly "Christian" music, because otherwise it would get too sprawling.
If we move to artists who are "spiritual but not Christian", then the most obvious addition would be U2, you could make a case for Elvis and Johnny Cash as well. Creed/Evanescence/21 Pilots/Owl City etc would be potentially in the conversation as well.
For now, I'm trying to focus on those artists who generated a "holy buckets" moment in the "CCM" world, or who (in hindsight) have been realized as being significantly influential.
When I started this conversation, yesterday, I realized that there really hasn't been anyone since 2000 who's had the sort of impact on the industry as a whole as anyone that either of us has mentioned.
I apologize if my previous conversations preempted some of your suggestions (again my list is not exclusive or authoritative), but a friend and I already batted those around.
But, feel free to go to town.
One last thought regarding Greenbaum. Had he not been somewhat of a one hit wonder, and had the "CCM" world been filled with multiple other people wielding Telecasters with built in fuzz, there might be a better case to be made.
After a little thought, I'd consider adding PFR to at least the secondary tier.
All very fair comments.
Here's my case for moving Rich Mullins to tier 1...
By the time Mullins came along, I'd say that the CCM World was a bit too self-pleased and over-produced and maybe insular. Mullins brought a deeply felt humility and sincerity and a connection to the real world that was a fresh breeze. But maybe that was just to me. And maybe his aw shucks sincerity was part of his act. But it felt real to me.
I caught him live a few months before he died and I'd still say that it was one of the best, most real concerts I've ever attended. And I say that as someone who doesn't even like most of CCM anymore.
Johnny Cash is one of my favorite?, most Real Christian artists of my lifetime. Especially late life Johnny. What gravitas!
I really disengaged from CCM about 1985. Let me ask you if you know... has there been decent reporting in the years since about whether or not Larry Norman and Keith Green (either or both) struggled with mental illness?
I've never been able to get into CCM. I've tried, but nothing I've heard thus far grabs me like the music to which I normally listen. Indeed, most of the "Christiany" music I've loved were by rock bands, but it does begin with Greenbaum, who wasn't really looking to preach Christ with "Spirit in the Sky". Barry McGuire is one I hadn't realized was still doing anything, as "Eve of Destruction" is all I know about the guy (loved that tune back in the day).
When I was still rockin' not so long ago, I was keen on developing a set, or at least a subset, of rockers with Christian themes. We were already doing ZZ Top's "Jesus Just Left Chicago" in tandem with "Waitin' For The Bus". "Easy Livin'" by Uriah Heap (a double bonus for me personally, given the Christian theme by a band named after a Dickens character). I had a list of about four others, though I can't recall them at the moment.
But again, straight CCM always seemed forced and as such unappealing. I know most artists work to fill out albums, but the best are those which were an assemblage of songs already composed. One can almost tell immediately which songs are filler, and most CCM I've heard have that tone. But I'll admit I haven't made any great effort to sample a wide variety. Most music which has grabbed me did so on the strength of their music, and the manner in which it is performed. The lyrics come last, though even after learning and singing them, because I really liked the tune and sound, so singing along is a reflexive, I sometimes have problems with what they're saying. I've refused to sing certain songs because I understand and object to the message. That wouldn't be the case with most CCM, I would imagine, but if I can't get behind the music, I'm not likely to care. This is the same with traditional hymns. My favorites are those which I like musically.
I mentioned Meece because, at least early on, he brought a bit of stand up comedy to his work... but that was something Stonehill had done before him. And better.
Craig... "I've chosen to limit this to people who's intent and goal was to make explicitly "Christian" music"
Would that not be true of Sam Cooke or Aretha Franklin? Do you think Cooke separated his social justice songs from his faith?
I was wondering about "change the landscape of Christian music" as well. You specified here "goes different ways" and I think that's fair. Some on your list went one way and others went another. When Amy Grant in her heyday told the world "I'm a musician first and a Christian second," that said something.
What about newer ones like Casting Crowns or Mercy Me? Some of them seem to be influencers. I think Lauren Daigle qualifies there. I was surprised to learn how much of her explicitly Christian music has been embraced in secular markets. (And I'm not a particularly big fan.)
For some of them I've been disappointed in more recent years to hear about their personal lives in contrast to their musical messages. That's difficult to hear.
Craig... "I think that part of the conversation is separating artists that I like, from artists that were influential or who significantly changed the landscape of "CCM"."
Agreed.
Re moving Mullins to the first tier. I don't disagree with anything you said, although I'd argue that Steve Taylor was doing a lot of the same things and more around the same time. Again, on my personal list, I just can't see it.
I think that the production values in "CCM" were a big part of the problem. To the extent that Brown Bannister was part of that, it might be a bit much to list him.
As I said, earlier. Rich Mullins was pretty much Keith Green 2.0, which is one reason why I'm reluctant to move him up. It also could be because I've never been a big fan of his music.
I too enjoy Cash. Although he definitely was public about his faith journey, and recorded a lot of gospel songs, I'm not sure I (or he) would put him in the Christian music category.
I have no idea to what degree Cooke or Franklin's faith (or lack of) informed their music. While Franklin grew up in the Church, and recorded a fantastic gospel album later in life, I'm not sure she (like Cash) would have considered herself a "Christian" artist in the sense I'm talking about here. This is not to denigrate either, but I hear very few people in the "CCM" world, talking about Cooke or Franklin as influences (beyond their vocals).
When I listen to Cooke or Franklin's catalog (with some exceptions), I don't hear much explicitly Christian lyrical/topical content. That's not good or bad, and they clearly influenced popular music as a whole, I just don't see the direct connection that I do with some others.
"I really disengaged from CCM about 1985. Let me ask you if you know... has there been decent reporting in the years since about whether or not Larry Norman and Keith Green (either or both) struggled with mental illness?"
I can't speak to Keith Green, and his situation.
As far as Norman, he was pretty much the definition of a troubled genius. Whether or not it was mental illness, I couldn't say for sure. But, despite his passion for God, musical talent, and drive for excellence in music, he was deeply flawed and troubled.
I daresay, for better or worse, that the Christian music landscape would have been much different without him.
"I've never been able to get into CCM. I've tried, but nothing I've heard thus far grabs me like the music to which I normally listen"
That's disappointing. To write off an entire genre based on a small sample size seems shortsighted. Having said that, there has been a lot of crap that's sold a lot of records simply because they slapped the "CCM" label on it. There has also been a lot of bad theology, but that's certainly not limited to "CCM".
"Indeed, most of the "Christiany" music I've loved were by rock bands, but it does begin with Greenbaum, who wasn't really looking to preach Christ with "Spirit in the Sky". Barry McGuire is one I hadn't realized was still doing anything, as "Eve of Destruction" is all I know about the guy (loved that tune back in the day). When I was still rockin' not so long ago, I was keen on developing a set, or at least a subset, of rockers with Christian themes. We were already doing ZZ Top's "Jesus Just Left Chicago" in tandem with "Waitin' For The Bus". "Easy Livin'" by Uriah Heap (a double bonus for me personally, given the Christian theme by a band named after a Dickens character). I had a list of about four others, though I can't recall them at the moment."
I'd argue (although it's headed off topic) that "christiany" music by secular bands is probably the worst of all worlds. Simply mentioning Jesus in a song or setting questionable theology to a catchy tune doesn't seem to advance the gospel particularly well. Be that as it may, and it's a worthy topic for discussion, it's not what's being talked about here.
Craig... "It also could be because I've never been a big fan of his music."
Shut your mouth!
"But again, straight CCM always seemed forced and as such unappealing."
Given your admittedly small sample size, it's hard to get any sense of what you're talking about. Certainly this criticism could be applied to all genres. I'm not trying to defend those "CCM" artists that put out dreck because they know christians will buy it, but I wouldn't write off an entire genre because of those folks either.
"I know most artists work to fill out albums, but the best are those which were an assemblage of songs already composed. One can almost tell immediately which songs are filler, and most CCM I've heard have that tone. But I'll admit I haven't made any great effort to sample a wide variety."
If by "most" you actually mean "most" regardless of genre, I'd agree, but to apply this standard to dismiss "CCM" exclusively deems strange. I'd suggest sampling a wider variety, before passing judgement.
"Most music which has grabbed me did so on the strength of their music, and the manner in which it is performed."
That's interesting. I've always been much more about the lyrics myself.
"The lyrics come last, though even after learning and singing them, because I really liked the tune and sound, so singing along is a reflexive, I sometimes have problems with what they're saying. I've refused to sing certain songs because I understand and object to the message."
I'd suggest that in the case of "CCM" that the lyrics are the most important (not that instrumental music can't glorify God). I'd certainly agree that listening to the lyrics with discernment is a good idea. "Days of Elijah" is an excellent example of horrendous theology set to a catchy tune. But that certainly doesn't discount the entire genre. I also think that there is a distinction between "CCM" and music that is intended for corporate worship, and that the bar for music intended for worship is higher (theologically) than something intended to be played on the radio. I'm not excusing bad theology in Christian music, just suggesting that more creative freedom can be accepted in "CCM".
"That wouldn't be the case with most CCM, I would imagine, but if I can't get behind the music, I'm not likely to care. This is the same with traditional hymns. My favorites are those which I like musically."
Again, I think that the problem is that you've formed an opinion based on a limited sample size.
"Shut your mouth!"
Sorry, but Awesome God ruined his music for me. Although Canticle of the Plains, was a really good record.
Craig... "I'd argue (although it's headed off topic) that "christiany" music by secular bands is probably the worst of all worlds."
Here might be where we part ways and where I parted way with CCM. Eventually I decided that a separate category of music, CCM, was harmful to the Christian message. It was too often the worst of all worlds. I've heard others point out and tend to agree that anytime you are writing music or being creative with the intent of passing on a message, you run the risk of doing it poorly. It's too easy to become ham fisted or self righteous or just annoying or just lacking in artistic integrity, which is my problem with a lot of Christian music. It can be done, but often isn't.
The notion of three perfectly fine and then "but Christ is gonna come..." just undermines the creativity and potential power of a song.
I'm a huge Larry Norman fan, but can hardly abide singing many of his songs all the way through because of his final verses!
"I was wondering about "change the landscape of Christian music" as well. You specified here "goes different ways" and I think that's fair."
I know it's a pretty broad term, and intentionally so. My personal tendency is to look at quality of production and impact on the genre in this sort of conversation. Larry Norman had some unusual theology, but the level of musical quality, and production along with his in your face Christianity makes it hard to argue that he wasn't influential.
I'll grant that the "unusual theology" thing can be a problem, until we acknowledge that virtually every significant theologian has some areas of their theology that are unusual and that we don't throw the works of Lewis out because he wasn't 100% correct on every theological point.
Certainly influence can go both ways. But even if the influence is "negative", there is usually a reaction to that influence that corrects or responds to it.
"Some on your list went one way and others went another. When Amy Grant in her heyday told the world "I'm a musician first and a Christian second," that said something."
Amy Grant is interesting, because early in her career, I'd argue that she was a positive influence and certainly exposed people to the gospel in ways they wouldn't have been otherwise. At the same time, I think that she was caught up in the trap of secular fame and chose poorly. Yet both of those phases of her career/life did say something and in both cases those messages were influential.
"What about newer ones like Casting Crowns or Mercy Me?"
While I like some music by both of these artists (and haven't heard much that I have serious theological problems with), I would suggest that they are both pretty derivative and aren't breaking any new ground. Again, i don't have any problems with them, but wouldn't say that they've changed the genre is any significant way.
"Some of them seem to be influencers. I think Lauren Daigle qualifies there. I was surprised to learn how much of her explicitly Christian music has been embraced in secular markets. (And I'm not a particularly big fan.)"
I'd agree that some younger artists are trying to be influencers in the social media sense (which is not really where I'm going with this post and which is another worthy topic to discuss), but I think that it's possible to do so while honoring and glorifying God in the process. Difficult, but not impossible.
Daigle is interesting, because she's definitely gotten some traction with reasonably explicitly Christian songs in the general culture. I guess most times that God is presented in a way that gets people's attention who wouldn't normally be inclined to be open to Him, that it's a good thing. Ultimately the jury is still out because Daigle has the opportunity to stand firm and be a great example of a believer, or she has the opportunity to water down her message, and seek fame.
Which brings up another question. Is a believer who posses artistic talent "required" to use that talent to produce explicitly "Christian" art? If (for example) Daigle chose to maintain her faith, but focus on music that wasn't explicitly "Christian", does that choice somehow "invalidate" her faith?
Re: Awesome God...
Certainly not the best of his work. Maybe near the bottom.
But Creed? Here in America? Ready for the Storm? Screen Door on a Submarine... just for fun?! He has so many classic, complex and compelling songs... you're just wrong on this...
"For some of them I've been disappointed in more recent years to hear about their personal lives in contrast to their musical messages. That's difficult to hear."
I completely agree that it's disappointing to hear when any Christian falls. But as we've seen recently, this phenomenon isn't limited to just Christian artists, but to pastors and authors as well.
I think that in general, that when fame and success becomes a part of the equation for any believer, that it takes a very strong faith, intentional practices, and an active support system to not allow fame and success to eclipse one's faith.
"But Creed? Here in America? Ready for the Storm? Screen Door on a Submarine... just for fun?! He has so many classic, complex and compelling songs... you're just wrong on this..."
Strange, I though that opinions on matters of personal preference were never wrong. As I said, I really liked Canticle of the Plains, and there are other songs of his that I do like. But, like many artists I respect, I'm just not a huge fan.
"Here might be where we part ways and where I parted way with CCM."
I'm shocked that you've found a way to "part ways", yet I also don't care that much. You are entitled to your opinions and while I might disagree, I'm not invested in trying to persuade. I would suggest that for someone who checked out of "CCM" in "1985" that it's possible that you have based your conclusion on a small sample size and that it's possible that you've misjudged. I'd also suggest that you're really talking about theological disagreements, rather than musical.
"Eventually I decided that a separate category of music, CCM, was harmful to the Christian message. It was too often the worst of all worlds."
I'd agree that in any Christian artistic endeavor that there will always be a range of quality, and that throwing out all of that endeavor based on the worst examples is probably a bit extreme. I suspect that the bigger problem that you have is how you define the "Christian message", and that many "CCM" artists don't agree with your conclusion about the "Christian message". The potential issue with this is that it's possible that you could be wrong, and others could be right. But your differences aren't musical, they're theological.
"I've heard others point out and tend to agree that anytime you are writing music or being creative with the intent of passing on a message, you run the risk of doing it poorly."
1. Any time one engages in any artistic endeavor, no matter what the intent, they run the risk of "doing it poorly".
2. Risk avoidance is not conducive to the creation of art, certainly not great art.
3. I suspect that Handel, Bach, Luther, Keaggy, Mullins, and many other artists who intended to "pass on a message", would disagree with you.
4. If "passing on a message" is antithetical to good art, then wouldn't that same standard apply to songs in other genres? Aren't songs like Ohio, For What It's Worth, We Shall Overcome, and Alice's Resteraunt all intended to pass on "a message"?
"It's too easy to become ham fisted or self righteous or just annoying or just lacking in artistic integrity, which is my problem with a lot of Christian music."
Yes it is. Unfortunately, that problem isn't limited to Christian music. Certainly I'd argue that All Things Must Pass is a bit ham handed in it's attempt at proselytizing for Hinduism. I agree that all of your concerns are valid, but that they don't exclusively apply to Christian music. I will admit that Christians have spent a lot of money buying bad art just because if was "Christian", but that doesn't mean that it's a problem exclusive to Christian art. Schaeffer argued pretty convincingly that if a Christian is going to produce art, and do so to bring glory to God, then anything less than excellence (or at least their best effort) fails to glorify God.
"It can be done, but often isn't."
A lot has changed since 1985, I suspect it's not as bad as your presume.
"The notion of three perfectly fine and then "but Christ is gonna come..." just undermines the creativity and potential power of a song. I'm a huge Larry Norman fan, but can hardly abide singing many of his songs all the way through because of his final verses!"
But that's more because you clearly don't agree with the theology. For example, I'm not sure that I totally buy the theology of I Wish We'd All Been Ready, but I can certainly appreciate the artistry and skill that went into writing and recording it. Further, I'd suggest that his expressing of an eschatological view that falls squarely within the realm of orthodox theological positions, doesn't disqualify that position from being presented musically.
It seems like you have a theological problem more than a musical problem, and are placing more emphasis on what you like than what's good.
NOTE
I don't like the term CCM, and that's why I've been using parenthesis around it. From here on out, I'll simply use CCM even though I don't like the term.
Second, I don't like the term fan in this context, but will use it for lack of an alternative.
Craig... " I would suggest that for someone who checked out of "CCM" in "1985" that it's possible that you have based your conclusion on a small sample size and that it's possible that you've misjudged. I'd also suggest that you're really talking about..."
I misspoke/typoed. I was heavily invested in CCM from about 1972 until 1995... including being in a small time CCM band from 1981 - 1992. It's a very independent and firsthand knowledge of CCM for 20 years. It is very true that I don't know much about CCM since 1995, typed.
But not a small sample size. Hell, I still have boxes of albums of Evie, A,B&C, DeGarmo and Key, Petra, Second Chapter of Acts, etc, etc in my basement. My apologies for the typo.
Craig... " I suspect that the bigger problem that you have is how you define the "Christian message", and that many "CCM" artists don't agree with your conclusion about the "Christian message"
Perhaps that's true now. But when I moved away from CCM, I was still quite conservative. For what it's worth.
Craig... "Aren't songs like Ohio, For What It's Worth, We Shall Overcome, and Alice's Resteraunt all intended to pass on "a message"?"
They all do it well. I didn't say it's impossible to do, just that very often It goes poorly. And I think that's true for a lot of CCM.
It's also true of the very liberal movie, Hoot, which was a message movie directed by liberal Jimmy Buffett and was ham-fisted and unartistic.
Yes because I'm enjoying this nostalgia, here's a brief trip down my CCM nerd-dom history...
First introduced to Christian folk rock by attending a Jonah and Whale musical on Panama City Beach in 1968. We bought the record from the musical and I listened to that for years.
In the early 1970s I was introduced to contemporary contemporary Christian cantadas At my church. Also, I saw the musical godspell and loved that.
Sometime in the early to mid seventies I was introduced to the band Truth and started looking for opportunities to go to Christian concerts as a young teenager Exploring the growing CCM Wave.
I attended BJ Thomas, Evie, Sandi Patty, Petra, Randy stonehill, Larry Norman, Dallas Holm, Amy Grant, Imperial's, Russ Taff, Steve Camp, David Meece... And many other concerts and festivals.. I listened exclusively to the CCM radio station from the age of 16 until about 30. I had tickets to go to a Keith Green concert that was canceled when he died. And, as noted already, I saw rich Mullins before he passed away.
I was greatly influenced by a lot of these great artists. Especially Larry Norman, Randy stonehill, Keith Green, Steve Camp and Rich Mullins. I am who I am today in part because of these fellas.
Thanks for the stroll down memory lane.
Craig... "that's more because you clearly don't agree with the theology."
I don't think so. That plays a part, I just think his 3rd verses were often less artistic even when I agreed with the sentiment.
Look at the wonderfully complex lyrics of lyrics of great American novel which which tells about these volleys layered in complex concerns of modern humanity but then ends with...
"Don't ask me for the answer, I've only got one:
That a man leaves his darkness when he follows the Son"
And it strikes me as a rather simplistic, "let's wrap it up" ending that doesn't live up to the artistry of the rest of the song.
The same might be said for the wonderfully fun and clever, "Watch what you're Doing..."
"They all do it well. I didn't say it's impossible to do, just that very often It goes poorly. And I think that's true for a lot of CCM. It's also true of the very liberal movie, Hoot, which was a message movie directed by liberal Jimmy Buffett and was ham-fisted and unartistic."
I think that had you not made your comment directed specifically at pre 1995 CCM, your comment would have come across as a much more reasonable position.
As I pointed out, your are right that some attempts at communicating a message are done poorly. Unfortunately, the reality is that most are probably done in a way that is average, some are done well, and some are done with excellence. Unfortunately when you make sweeping generalized criticisms of an entire specified genre of music, it eliminates any chance of nuance and ignores the spectrum.
"And it strikes me as a rather simplistic, "let's wrap it up" ending that doesn't live up to the artistry of the rest of the song."
That's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I personally don't agree that it's the formulaic, tie it up an a bow, tripe that you do. I see it as him giving a simple direct answer by pointing unambiguously to Jesus. But, that's my opinion.
"The same might be said for the wonderfully fun and clever, "Watch what you're Doing..."
I agree.
It seems to me like you're expecting an unrealistically high level of almost perfection for some reason.
Clearly he was a deeply flawed and imperfect person with a singular conviction. Just because he wasn't perfect, doesn't mean that he wasn't one of the most groundbreaking, seminal artists in CCM history.
And again, just to be clear, I'm a huge Larry Norman fan. His struggles just make him real, as we all have struggles. And his artistry is more often than not wonderful.
That's great to know. The issue is your blanket comments about an entire genre of music.
"To write off an entire genre based on a small sample size seems shortsighted."
Except that small sample size is all I have to go on. Yet, I've not written off the entire genre, but am simply commenting on that small sampling. If that small sampling is representative, I'm most definitely not interested. But that's not where I'm at. I'm quite open to all music not yet familiar to me. I've just never been one to seek out artists in hopes I'll like what they're doing.
I have an old friend who would often hit the local record shop with no particular artist in mind. He'd go through the racks, and bargain-basement racks specifically, choosing purchases based on the album covers. Amazingly, he had really good luck finding real gems. Two that come to mind is an album by a band called "Madura"...a 3 pc jazz rock group who did an incredible cover of "Johnny B. Goode". The other was one called "Babe Ruth", who featured a chick singer, and also had a very cool tune, the name of which escapes me at present. In my case, I've bought albums because I was already familiar with various tunes from the artist in question, and in a few cases, simply because of a single song which really grabbed me (the best argument for 45 RPM records). In one or two cases, I've never really listened to the whole album. In other cases, I've come to enjoy most of the whole album because of that single song.
With CCM, I've had a few tapes lent to me to check out and failed to find any song which I thought were worth the time. That's just how it's played out thus far. It doesn't preclude my doing so again should one recommend something. But in the very limited attempts to turn me on to an artist or two in that genre, nothing lights my fire.
I have to say, I've tried to listen to radio stations which focus on the genre. One long-time classic rock station in my area switched to "Christian music", and I've not been able to maintain. These days, most of my music listening is in the car and I have to remind myself to try listening to CCM stations, which I more than not fail to do in favor of listening to classic rock for the short drive to wherever.
These days, it's easier to check out new artists on YouTube. So, if you believe there is some "Stairway to Heaven" (no pun intended) level Christian song by whomever, I'd be more than interested in checking it out. Give me one or two of your most favorite of the genre.
"Except that small sample size is all I have to go on. Yet, I've not written off the entire genre, but am simply commenting on that small sampling. If that small sampling is representative, I'm most definitely not interested."
I guess I'd suggest that the fact that you are looking at a small sample size is a choice that you've made,
"But that's not where I'm at. I'm quite open to all music not yet familiar to me. I've just never been one to seek out artists in hopes I'll like what they're doing. I have an old friend who would often hit the local record shop with no particular artist in mind. He'd go through the racks, and bargain-basement racks specifically, choosing purchases based on the album covers. Amazingly, he had really good luck finding real gems. Two that come to mind is an album by a band called "Madura"...a 3 pc jazz rock group who did an incredible cover of "Johnny B. Goode". The other was one called "Babe Ruth", who featured a chick singer, and also had a very cool tune, the name of which escapes me at present."
Your first two thoughts "I'm open to", "I don't seek out" seem somewhat contradictory to me. But again, to ascribe this to anything but your choices seems somehow wrong.
"In my case, I've bought albums because I was already familiar with various tunes from the artist in question, and in a few cases, simply because of a single song which really grabbed me (the best argument for 45 RPM records). In one or two cases, I've never really listened to the whole album. In other cases, I've come to enjoy most of the whole album because of that single song."
"With CCM, I've had a few tapes lent to me to check out and failed to find any song which I thought were worth the time. That's just how it's played out thus far. It doesn't preclude my doing so again should one recommend something. But in the very limited attempts to turn me on to an artist or two in that genre, nothing lights my fire. I have to say, I've tried to listen to radio stations which focus on the genre. One long-time classic rock station in my area switched to "Christian music", and I've not been able to maintain. These days, most of my music listening is in the car and I have to remind myself to try listening to CCM stations, which I more than not fail to do in favor of listening to classic rock for the short drive to wherever. These days, it's easier to check out new artists on YouTube. So, if you believe there is some "Stairway to Heaven" (no pun intended) level Christian song by whomever, I'd be more than interested in checking it out. Give me one or two of your most favorite of the genre."
Perhaps you missed the above list, where I talk about some of the most influential CCM artists.
I'd stay away from Amy Grant, MW Smith, Gaither, and Mullins, as they probably won't be your stylistic cup of tea.
"Your first two thoughts "I'm open to", "I don't seek out" seem somewhat contradictory to me."
Not at all. They're not mutually exclusive. While I don't seek out Contemporary Christian Music, I'm quite open to hearing what anyone might recommend, which is really a lot easier these days with YouTube.
"Perhaps you missed the above list, where I talk about some of the most influential CCM artists."
I read every word. I you think there's an artist who you find particularly...excuse the term..."kick ass"...particularly a specific song or two...send them my way and I'll look them up. Though my favorite music is among the "classic rock" category, I really do enjoy a variety. I'm big on blue grass, for example, and I have a classical station programmed on the car radio. (Hip Hop is the only truly disgusting "music" form I have every desire to never hear of again.) Thus, regardless of the style, a good song is a good song. With regard to religious music, I hope to work up a set of songs such as "How Deep The Father's Love For us", "How Great Thou Art" and similar hymns because of how much I love the songs musically. (And yes, I do think about the message being Biblical) So, if you got two or three which knock your socks off musically as well as Bibically, let me know.
Craig... " Unfortunately, the reality is that most are probably done in a way that is average, some are done well, and some are done with excellence. "
Certainly, this is true. Unfortunately, I'd say in the world at large, CCM is viewed as largely unartistic and bland and often vapid. Do you think that's a fair assessment? And they're basing that on the 15 second stopovers on Christian radio sometimes and sometimes based upon the CCM they heard in their churches.
Clearly, folks like Phil Keaggy are artistic and respected in the extreme in the music world, even beyond Christian folk. But by and large, CCM is often viewed as a silly, sad joke and oftentimes, I think in my opinion, it's well-earned.
Thoughts?
If you agree with that notion or understand where it's coming from, then perhaps you could understand why folks like me might think that it is especially important for those who'd go the CCM route to put out their best and avoid the worse... IF they're concerned about their witness and impact beyond Christian circles. IF they're playing just for the "home crowd" who will love them regardless, it's not as important, but if you're thinking big stage, they might want to up their game.
And that may not be fair... that "worldly" musicians and bands can put out average and below average art and it not be judged as an indictment of their "group," like CCM is, but it's something to consider if they're thinking big picture.
Speaking as someone from the field with a love for the field, even if somewhat jaded love at this point.
Art,
"somewhat contradictory" and "mutually exclusive" aren't really even close to being the same.
I'd suggest that part of the problem is that there really isn't much CCM that qualifies as Classic Rock, Rez Band/Glen Kaizer is probably going to get you close. I suspect that Keaggy would have been spoken of in similar terms as Clapton/Beck/Page had he not abandoned the secular music genre entirely after an album or two from Glass Harp (which are available). He certainly been deeply influenced by the Beatles (as have PFR). The aforementioned Larry Norman has quite the varied discography, and probably actually counts as Classic Rock from an age standpoint.
My point is simply that if you're making judgements about the genre based on a small sample size, then that's a result of your choice not to expand the sample size, not an indication of what's out there.
"Certainly, this is true. Unfortunately, I'd say in the world at large, CCM is viewed as largely unartistic and bland and often vapid. Do you think that's a fair assessment?"
I think that it's a fair assessment of how "the world" views CCM, and that it was much more accurate back in the 70's and 80's than since the mid 90's. Obviously the availability of digital production tools has allowed for increased quality on smaller budgets. The problem is that when I listen to a lot of current pop, or even 70's and 8-'s pop, a lot of that is bland, vapid, and frankly crap. What I choose not to do is to judge all pop music based on the bland, vapid, crap. The reality is that all artistic endeavors produce their fair share of crap, it sometimes takes more effort to sift through the crap. Not to mention the reality that "the world" is already predisposed to dislike CCM based on it's content.
"And they're basing that on the 15 second stopovers on Christian radio sometimes and sometimes based upon the CCM they heard in their churches. Clearly, folks like Phil Keaggy are artistic and respected in the extreme in the music world, even beyond Christian folk. But by and large, CCM is often viewed as a silly, sad joke and oftentimes, I think in my opinion, it's well-earned. Thoughts?"
A recommendation doesn't have to qualify as anything...classic rock or otherwise. It just has to be good in your opinion and from that I can check it out and see if it strikes my fancy. Again, classic rock is more or less a default for when I'm up for music in general, but I listen to much more than that. What I'd be interested in here is your top two or three artists/favorite songs which would fall under the general category of CCM as the term is being used in this discussion.
On somewhat of a side note, I'm fascinated in hearing how artists do their thing. I recall Paul Simon, in speaking of lyrics, saying he keys on some common expression or manner of speech and builds around it. I don't remember what example he may have offered. Others speak of hearing a melody or stumbling upon a riff and running with it. My first band composed a song in that manner (nice jam...lyrics questionable). With Christian music, I'm sure it's much the same with the exception that I expect there's specific intent with regard messaging. I'd love to hear a really good writer of Christian songs speak on that.
Dan,
The same for you: if you hoped to provoke interest in Christian music, what are the two or three top suggestions, artist and song-wise you'd offer?
Craig... "I'd suggest that part of the problem is that there really isn't much CCM that qualifies as Classic Rock..."
I'd suggest these sound like classic rock (depending on what era "classic rock" you're talking about)...
Petra (rather Boston-y sounding, I think, at least their earlier works)
Sweet Comfort Band - on the jazz side of rock)
Phil Keaggy (very Paul McCartney sounding and his album "Sunday's Child" sounds dead up like the Beatles, start to finish - truly a great rock album)
Silverwind (for better or worse, an Abba knock-off)
DeGarmo and Key, straight up classic rock sound
Allies?
And with a nod to serious blues players, you should check out Glenn Kaiser's blues albums, they are great material. Especially, I think, the Kaiser/Mansfield albums "Trimmed and Burning" and "Slow Burn."
Off the top of my head.
Some albums that I think fit the Classic Rock genre and I still enjoy (if only nostalgically...)
Randy Stonehill, Wild Frontier
Randy Stonehill, Love Beyond Reason
Phil Keaggy, Sunday's Child
Rez Band, Rainbows End (Afrikaans STILL rocks... except the last verse)
DeGarmo & Key, Street Light
DeGarmo & Key, This Time Through (the better album of these two, a bit more Eagle-ish here)
Larry Norman, In Another Land
Steve Taylor, Meltdown at Madame Tussauds (So much to love! Check out Hero)
Petra, Never Say Die
Randy Matthews, Eyes to Heaven (much more obscure, more of an early 70s sound... rawer production, but classic - maybe too soft for classic rock, but again, depends on how that's defined)
Leon Patillo, I'll Never Stop Loving You (Classic Soul Rock)
Andrus, Blackwood and Company, Grand Opening (may be too close to Soft Rock to be Classic Rock)
and just for fun...
Crumbacher, Tame the Volcano (more like poppy 80s synth pablum, but good memories - Reckless Boys and Bad Bad Girls! Ha!)
Craig... "When I listen to Cooke or Franklin's catalog (with some exceptions), I don't hear much explicitly Christian lyrical/topical content."
This is where I parted ways with CCM as a genre, I think.
When the Grand Funk Railroad sang "Some Kind of Wonderful," they were, to me, singing an explicitly Christian song, as love between lovers is explicitly Christian.
When Aretha Franklin sang, "RESPECT," she was singing a very explicitly Christian song, because women deserve respect, and this is especially notable in cultures where women have been oppressed, as was true in Jesus' day and was true when Ms Franklin sang that song first and is still true, albeit to a lesser degree.
When Tracy Chapman sings, "Talking 'bout a Revolution," she is singing explicitly Christian song. Heck, she's singing nothing less than a modern day version of Mary's Magnificat! Which itself was explicitly Christian.
U2 singing "Still Haven't Found..."
Marley singing "Redemption Song" or "One Love..."
Avett Brothers singing "Ain't No Man..."
...and on I can go.
And when Sam Cooke sang, "Change Gonna Come," he was singing an explicitly Christian song and one that was amongst the best ever, in the opinion of many including myself. And far better/more "Christian" than the entirety of the Gaither catalog.
All of that to say, I no longer feel the need or think it wise to categorize music as secular or sacred, depending on the intent of the author or singers. Either a song and its message are advocating Christian ideals or not. And if it is, then it is a Christian song. "Secular" or not.
Of course, not everyone agrees with me, but on this point, maybe Marshal does. Maybe not, maybe I'm misreading him. I just no longer need a third verse that says, "and then Jesus comes to take us away, Hallelujah, Christ is Risen!..." to consider something Christian.
"If you agree with that notion or understand where it's coming from, then perhaps you could understand why folks like me might think that it is especially important for those who'd go the CCM route to put out their best and avoid the worse..."
Since I've already expressed this notion, and agreed with you, it seems strange that you'd phrase this as a question.
"IF they're concerned about their witness and impact beyond Christian circles."
I'd argue that Christian artists should put out the very best that they are capable of regardless. Anything done to honor God, should always be done to the best of our abilities.
"IF they're playing just for the "home crowd" who will love them regardless, it's not as important, but if you're thinking big stage, they might want to up their game."
Any artist who put out substandard crap simply because the "home crowd" will buy it is starting from the wrong place regardless. It seems as though you are assuming that seeking the "big stage" is a good and healthy goal for a CCM artist.
"And that may not be fair... that "worldly" musicians and bands can put out average and below average art and it not be judged as an indictment of their "group," like CCM is, but it's something to consider if they're thinking big picture."
Interesting to you admit to not being "fair" in your assessment of an entire genre based on your pre-'95 experiences.
"Speaking as someone from the field with a love for the field, even if somewhat jaded love at this point."
Interesting way to express that love.
Are you suggesting that the artistic quality of cease of CCM has improved since '95?
"And they're basing that on the 15 second stopovers on Christian radio sometimes..."
It seems entirely unreasonable to judge an entire genre (no matter what genre) based on 15 seconds of random radio listening. Maybe we shouldn't put a lot of stock in the opinions of people who make these sort of shallow or uninformed judgements.
"...and sometimes based upon the CCM they heard in their churches."
1. I'd argue that if they're hearing Christian music in "their churches", that the following caveats might be appropriate.
2. It seems strange to judge an entire genre (of music made by professionals) based on how a group of volunteer musicians perform on a random Sunday morning.
3. It seems strange to judge an entire genre based on the selections made by one person at one church.
4. I'd argue that music written and intended to be used in worship, has a different intent than general CCM.
None of this is to downplay the reality that a lot of the music being sung in churches is problematic on multiple levels and that those writing music for worship should be striving for excellence.
"Clearly, folks like Phil Keaggy are artistic and respected in the extreme in the music world, even beyond Christian folk."
Clearly there are some Christian musicians whose talents transcend the genre they choose, and can't be ignored by "the world". Basing one's view on an entire genre based on limited exposure to either extreme of quality, doesn't seem like a particularly good way to evaluate anything.
"But by and large, CCM is often viewed as a silly, sad joke and oftentimes, I think in my opinion, it's well-earned. Thoughts?"
1. I'm not sure that judging any artistic venture based on limited exposure to the worst that the genre has to offer is wise.
2. I suspect that a lot of this attitude is based on the reality that "the world", is never going to be drawn to the things of God, and couching that is terms of criticizing the quality of some music seems like a good thing to hide behind.
3. I suspect that a lot of this attitude is based on music from the past and less so from the present.
4. I think that it's completely reasonable to acknowledge the fact that there is CCM that is really bad, while not presuming that the worst examples define the entire genre.
5. I'd suggest that maybe (as Christians who appreciate good art) that it's more helpful to celebrate those who produce good/great art, while encouraging those who don't in a loving/supportive manner.
"Are you suggesting that the artistic quality of cease of CCM has improved since '95?"
I'm acknowledging the reality that the leaps in production technology that are widely available make high production quality available at all levels of the music industry. I'm suggesting that making a judgement about the quality of an entire genre of music in 2021 based on music from the early 90's is pointless. I'm suggesting that as CCM became more financially viable, that artists/labels etc had more money to spend increasing production quality and improving the finished product.
"This is where I parted ways with CCM as a genre, I think."
What does this even mean? That you parted ways with CCM as a genre before it even existed as a genre? Or that you parted ways with CCM because it's a relatively defined genre and doesn't include all of the random music that you somehow find to be spiritual?
I'm not going to parse the rest of your comment, because it seems clear that you would prefer to define CCM to include any music that you personally find has any theme that you believe is somehow tangentially "christian" is some way.
As I said earlier, this doesn't seem like a problem with CCM, as much as a problem with theology.
Dan,
I want to be really clear on this point. I am not saying that it is impossible to find "christian/spiritual" themes in any genre of music. I'm saying that just because something can superficially resemble or be selectively interpreted as being somewhat "christian", isn't the same as saying that it was written and performed to explicitly and intentionally convey a Christian message.
This doesn't mean that these aren't good songs, or that they shouldn't be listened to and enjoyed, just that they aren't intentionally and explicitly trying to communicate a Christian message.
Virtually every song you mention could be listened to by an adherent of ANY religion and be considered to be endorsing the religion of the listeners choice.
Look, I understand where you are going with this and how it's consistent with your worldview. I just think that maybe trying to apply your personal opinions beyond yourself isn't particularly productive. Nor is, I believe, trying to apply opinions formed 25 tears ago to the present. Nor is, I believe, judging an entire genre of ary based on the worst examples of the genre.
Look, I'm not a fan of the Gaithers, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize what they've accomplished. I also don't necessarily agree with every bit of their theology, but that doesn't mean that I'm prepared to write them off as "less Christian" than someone who's life was spent opposing Christianity.
Feel free to continue to comment, but I'm not sure there's much else of value to be added.
Craig... "What does this even mean?"
I'm speaking about the arbitrary separation of secular and sacred. As if a great song about Justice is somehow not spiritual, Godly or Christian.
"That you parted ways with CCM as a genre before it even existed as a genre?"
No. CCM existed in the 70s and 80s and the first half of the 90s.
"Or that you parted ways with CCM because it's a relatively defined genre and doesn't include all of the random music that you somehow find to be spiritual?"
I don't see how considering a song that is meaningfully speaking of Justice or Love as Christian is random. Is that what you think? Do you think that "A Change is Gonna Come" is NOT Christian?
Since Dan seem to be arguing that he heard enough CCM prior to 1996 to confidently speak for CCM since 1996, and since Art is looking for CCM music worth listening to, I'll offer this list. Based on a list from website that has been reviewing music and other media for over 20 years.
Take Me To Your Leader- Newsboys
Sixpence None the Richer- Sixpence None The Richer
Slowly Going the Way of the Buffalo- MxPx
Next- Audio Adrenalin
Drawing Black Lines- Project 86
Blindside- Silence
The Beautiful Letdown- Switchfoot
Relient K- MMHMM
The Everglow- Mae
Define the Great Line- Underoath
Cities- Anberlin
The End is Not the End- House of Heros
The Long Fall Back to Earth- Jars of Clay
Rehab- Lecrae
Vice Verses- Switchfoot
Give Us a Rest- David Crowder Band
The Glorious Unfolding- Steven Curtis Chapman
Rivers in the Wasteland- Needtobreath
Falling Up- Falling Up
Air For Free- Relient
Crooked- Propoganda
I Am- John Van Deusen
Zeal- Kings Kaleidescope
Rotation and Frequency- Slick Shoes
Where the Light Shines Through- Switchfoot
Conspiracy Number 5- Thrid Day
Accessed- Delerious?
A Collision- David Crowder Band
Business Up Front, Party in the Back- Family Force 5
Albertine- Brooke Fraser
Church Music- David Crowder Band
The Long Surrender- Over The Rhine
Beatitudes- Stu Garrard
Keeper of Days- Jon Guerra
This list is not exhaustive, not is it definitive. What it does is suggest that there is CCM that has merit produced since 1996.
Craig... " want to be really clear on this point. I am not saying that it is impossible to find "christian/spiritual" themes in any genre of music. I'm saying that just because something can superficially resemble or be selectively interpreted as being somewhat "christian",..."
I would say this is part of the problem of CCM. "Change Gonna Come" DOES speak to fundamentally Christian ideas... sounding very much like the teachings of the Christ. It's not a matter of "superficially" being vaguely similar teachings. It gets to the heart of Jesus' teachings. Of the Psalmists' poetry, of the prophets' teachings. Having a sacred/secular or CCM mindset makes us distance ourselves from the profound and glorious way too easily.
Seems to me.
Craig... "isn't the same as saying that it was written and performed to explicitly and intentionally convey a Christian message."
In the case of Cooke's song, I'd guess he would have said it was intentionally conveying a Christian message. But of course that's not always going to be the case and I'm not arguing that Grand Funk thought of their song as a Christian love ballad. I'm saying that if the message aligns with Jesus' teachings, then it IS a song that aligns with Christian teaching.
That's all.
'I'm speaking about the arbitrary separation of secular and sacred."
1. Of course, that's your opinion. The literal definition of the word sacred would suggest something other that what you are suggesting.
2. I was pretty clear in the original post, that I was drawing lines around CCM for the purposes of this post. I guess you somehow feel the need to challenge my prerogative to set boundaries on the topics at my blog.
3. A quick web search lists over 47 genres of music. If there's any separation going on, it goes beyond this blog post.
4. How many of the artists you mentioned are or were actively seeking radio play on Christian stations, and that their songs show up on the CCM charts?
"As if a great song about Justice is somehow not spiritual, Godly or Christian."
1. Are you really suggesting that a song about "Justice" from a band like Slayer, automatically becomes a "christian" song regardless of the views of it's composer/performers?
2. Are you really equating "spiritual, Godly, and Christian"?
3. Are you suggesting that George Harrison's My Sweet Lord is "Godly, or Christian"? It's obviously spiritual.
4. Are you suggesting that any discussion of "Justice" in any artistic context, is automatically "spiritual, Godly, or Christian"?
"Or that you parted ways with CCM because it's a relatively defined genre and doesn't include all of the random music that you somehow find to be spiritual?" I don't see how considering a song that is meaningfully speaking of Justice or Love as Christian is random."
The key words in that sentence are "I don't". The problem is that you can't get past assuming that "I see" applies beyond you, you just assume some broader application.
"Is that what you think?"
Is what "what I think"? That A Change is Gonna Come is an explicitly Christian song, no. As I look at the lyrics, I see absolutely nothing that indicates that this "change" has anything to do with God or Christianity. It's actually pretty vague.
"Do you think that "A Change is Gonna Come" is NOT Christian?"
Given it's lack of references to Christ in any way shape or form, I can't see how it would be considered Christian in any explicit, significant, meaningful sense.
was born by the river, in a little tent
Oh, and just like the river
I've been running ever since
It's been a long
A long time coming
But I know a change gonna come
Oh, yes it will
It's been too hard living
But I'm afraid to die
'Cause I don't know what's up there
Beyond the sky
It's been a long
A long time coming
But I know a change gonna come
Oh, yes it will
I go to the movie
And I go downtown
Somebody keep telling me
Don't hang around
It's been a long
A long time coming
But I know, a change gonna come
Oh, yes it will
Then I go to my brother
And I say, brother, help me please
But he winds up, knockin' me
Back down on my knees
Oh, there been times that I thought
I couldn't last for long
But now I think I'm able, to carry on
It's been a long
A long time coming
But I know a change gonna come
Oh, yes it will
"I would say this is part of the problem of CCM. "Change Gonna Come" DOES speak to fundamentally Christian ideas... sounding very much like the teachings of the Christ."
Really, I see nothing that is specifically sounding "very much like the teachings of the Christ", perhaps you could be specific.
"It's not a matter of "superficially" being vaguely similar teachings. It gets to the heart of Jesus' teachings. Of the Psalmists' poetry, of the prophets' teachings."
Again, your lack of specificity isn't helping your case. When Jesus talked about change (repentance is the word most associated with change), are you suggesting He exclusively meant this sort of vague and undefined change? Given the vagueness about what the "change" that is coming looks like, isn't it possible that he was subtly advocating for a radical, possibly violent, "change"? Is it likely that folks like the Black Panthers might have taken it to mean violent "change"?
"Having a sacred/secular or CCM mindset makes us distance ourselves from the profound and glorious way too easily. Seems to me."
Again, you're stuck at "seems to me" as if that carries some intrinsic value or gravitas. It seems to me that one can differentiate between the sacred and the secular while still appreciating the "profound" and the "glorious" in both. Or, the banal and the bland in both. You seem to think that acknowledging the differences on focus and motivation somehow robs one of the ability to appreciate great art. But it doesn't.
"In the case of Cooke's song, I'd guess he would have said it was intentionally conveying a Christian message."
Shocking that you'd come to that conclusion. Of course, your guess without actual evidence to back it up is worth bopkess.
"But of course that's not always going to be the case and I'm not arguing that Grand Funk thought of their song as a Christian love ballad. I'm saying that if the message aligns with Jesus' teachings, then it IS a song that aligns with Christian teaching. That's all."
Well, that's not what you said earlier.
You said that Grand Funk was "singing an explicitly Christian song, as love between lovers is explicitly Christian.", and that Cooke was "he was singing an explicitly Christian song and one that was amongst the best ever, in the opinion of many including myself. And far better/more "Christian" than the entirety of the Gaither catalog.".
I guess you'll need to pick one or the other. That claim that one Cooke song is "better/more Christian" than the "entire Gaither catalog" is quite bold. I'm quite sure you'll be offering proof posthaste.
I don't need a whole lots of money
I don't need a big fine car
I got everything that a man could want
I got more than I could ask for
And I don't have to run around
I don't have to stay out all night
'Cause I got me a sweet, a sweet loving woman
And she know just how to treat me right
Oh, my baby, she's alright
Oh, my baby's clean out of sight
Don't you know that she's?
She's some kind of wonderful
She's some kind of wonderful
Yes, she is, she is
She's some kind of wonderful
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
When I hold her in my arms
You know she sets my soul on fire
Oh, when my baby kisses me
My heart becomes filled with desire
When she wraps her loving arms around me
It 'bout drives me out of my mind
Yeah, when my baby kisses me
Chills run up and down my spine
Oh, my baby, she's alright
Oh, my baby's clean out of sight
Don't you know that she is?
She's some kind of wonderful
She's some kind of wonderful
Yes, she is
She's some kind of wonderful
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Now is there anybody
Got a sweet little woman like mine?
There's got to be somebody
Got a, got a sweet little woman like mine
Yeah, now can I get a witness?
Can I get a witness?
Oh, can I get a witness?
Can I get a witness?
Can I get a witness?
Can I get a witness?
Of course, this song explicitly mirrors Jesus teachings.
"His relationship with the woman who inspired the song didn't last; when he told the story in 2018, his wife asked if he remembered that girl. He wisely replied that he didn't, and reminded her that the song paid for their house."
The above is from a conversation with John Ellison, the writer of the song. I was unaware that Jesus taught about the value of sleeping with, then forgetting some random woman, then memorializing it in a song that provided material wealth for the writer.
FYI, you do realize that in the 60's-70's the word "love" was frequently used as a synonym for sex, don't you.
Craig...
The words of the song...
"I was born by the river, in a little tent
Oh, and just like the river
I've been running ever since
It's been a long
A long time coming
But I know a change gonna come..."
And on it goes.
This song could be dropped into the Psalms and fit perfectly.
Beyond that, this song's a plea for Justice. A plea for the poor and oppressed to no longer be oppressed.
When Jesus began his ministry he was talking to Sam Cooke here. For he had come to preach good news to the poor, healing for the sick, release for the captive... The good news of the realm of God. A new Way of being in a nurturing, accepting, beloved community. That IS the Good news that Jesus preached. Sam Cooke here is longing for it and placing his hope in this good news.
I guess if you don't believe that this is the gospel that Jesus preached, maybe you wouldn't see it as explicitly Christian. But it's quite literally the words of Jesus that's that Sam Cooke is praying for.
Don't see it?
Craig... "Shocking that you'd come to that conclusion. Of course, your guess without actual evidence to back it up is worth bopkess..."
I would have assumed that you were familiar enough with Sam Cooke or at least the black church experience to recognize to recognize a gospel plea for what it was. Here you go...
"Like Cooke, who struggled in his early days as a musician between honoring his religious calling and pursuing the commercial possibilities of secular music, “A Change Is Gonna Come” presented an intersection of the two paths. His gospel prayer hinges on the Christian faith that was forced upon Black slaves by their white masters and that, for many of them, provided the means to survive enslavement on a spiritual level."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/variety.com/2021/music/opinion/sam-cooke-a-change-is-gonna-come-civil-rights-black-history-month-1234900231/amp/
First, WOW! That's some good research there, Craig! Put's a whole different aura around "Some Kind Of Wonderful"! (We won't be singing that in church anymore!)
Of course, one needn't have that in mind when singing or hearing the song, and it doesn't mean much to how one feels when listening, as so many inject their own meaning and are even invited by most song-writers to do so...and Dan takes it to the extreme in a most pretentious manner. (On a side note, I wonder how many writers who say, "it can mean whatever you want it to mean", simply say so in order to avoid losing fans of the song, and ultimately buyers.)
Secondly, your initial response to Dan's referencing songs like the above as Christian was far better than mine.
Thirdly, both of you guys produced a massive list of songs after a request for "two or three". I'm no better off with such large lists as I must wade through them to see if any are worth my fandom. I know it's hard to pick a "top 3" in anything...songs, bands, movies, athletes...but I'm not getting any younger, have recently been forced into more days and hours at work, and am preparing for a move out of state. Some songs grab you. Other songs require several listens to grow on you. Being introduced to a new song is a crap-shoot.
And again, it needn't be akin to classic rock. I thought I was clear about that. My favorite hymns aren't thrash metal and I can listen to them any time.
Craig... "Of course, this song explicitly mirrors Jesus teachings."
Mmm... of course, this song explicitly mirrors the Song of Solomon.
I'd have thought you would be familiar with that biblical book of erotic poetry. Actually, this song is the PG version of Song of Solomon!
"Mmm... of course, this song explicitly mirrors the Song of Solomon. I'd have thought you would be familiar with that biblical book of erotic poetry. Actually, this song is the PG version of Song of Solomon!"
Really, the Song of Solomon is all about sleeping with a woman, dumping her, forgetting her name, them making big bucks off of the experience. I'll have to read more about that.
Before you said it was about "love", but do dudes often forget the names of women they "love" then exploit the forgotten woman for money, when they "love" them?
"I would have assumed that you were familiar enough with Sam Cooke or at least the black church experience to recognize to recognize a gospel plea for what it was."
1. The piece you referenced was an opinion, not a fact from what I can see.
2. You were very specific that Cooke's song sounded "very much like the teachings of Christ". Yet, you offer nothing but an opinion piece that seems to contradict you and itself.
3. The only way (based on the opinion piece) that you can support your "very much like the teachings of Jesus" claim, is to demonstrate that Jesus taught that "What is (life on earth) is all there is". Yet, Jesus clearly didn't teach that life on earth is "all there is".
Usually is someone is going to claim that something is "very much like the teachings of Jesus", that claim would be demonstrated by comparing that something to the actual "teachings of Jesus", not to an opinion piece in Variety magazine.
I could be wrong, but is the Song of Solomon really a "teaching of Jesus"?
Marshal... Sunday's Child by Phil Keaggy. Easily some of the most acoustically accessible music in CCM... at least if you like the Beatles.
"But it's quite literally the words of Jesus that's that Sam Cooke is praying for. Don't see it?"
Nope. But it's interesting that you offer the Psalms as "the teachings of Jesus", without offering (other than your stock Jesus teaching) any actual teachings of Jesus.
But really, excellent job of driving this post off topic so that you can try to impose your opinions on the rest of us.
This notion that it's the CCM world that is the only music genre that is exclusionary is also ridiculous.
Steve Walsh forced Kerry Livgren out of Kansas (or so the story goes) because Livgren was bringing his Christian faith into his lyrics.
U2 got all sorts of crap for bringing Bono's Christain faith into their lyrics, and they got crap because Bono and Edge were in a Christian group that the secular world called a cult.
Both Creed and Evanescence took flak for bringing their Christian faith to the party,.
The reality is that it's highly unlikely that any of the folks you've mentioned would have sought, or embraced showing up on the CCM charts (although they would have cashed the royalty checks). But you keep living in your own world.
Craig... "Nope. But it's interesting that you offer the Psalms as "the teachings of Jesus", without offering (other than your stock Jesus teaching) any actual teachings of Jesus."
1. I don't know how to put a deal away. These are literally infitting with the literal teachings of Jesus.
2. Yes, I cited just one passage from Jesus but surely by now you are familiar with the bulk of Jesus' teaching that deal with the realm of God and poverty and wealth. I don't know off hand but I'm guessing this is probably literally 50 or 60% (or more?) of Jesus' teaching that is dealing in some way with the realm of God where the poor and marginalized are welcome.. The place that Sam Cooke is literally longing for in his song.
It's all there for those who have eyes to see.
Craig... "The reality is that it's highly unlikely that any of the folks you've mentioned would have sought, or embraced showing up on the CCM charts..."
No And perhaps for the same reason that I don't care for CCM as a category. Why would they want to be part of a genre that's artificially set aside as sacred? That's associated with clumsy art?
Craig... "This notion that it's the CCM world that is the only music genre that is exclusionary is also ridiculous."
Not sure of your meaning..? That musicians self select out of CCM? Then see my previous comment. Of course they are.
"1. I don't know how to put a deal away. These are literally infitting with the literal teachings of Jesus."
Yet you cant offer specific examples.
"2. Yes, I cited just one passage from Jesus but surely by now you are familiar with the bulk of Jesus' teaching that deal with the realm of God and poverty and wealth."
I don't know off hand but I'm guessing this is probably literally 50 or 60% (or more?) of Jesus' teaching that is dealing in some way with the realm of God where the poor and marginalized are welcome."
I love that you admit that you "don't know" what you are talking about, but go right ahead and act as if your hunch is True. I suspect that you'll likely use your own set of hermanutical principles to suggest things that align with your personal views about scripture to the point that rational conversation will be unproductive.
"The place that Sam Cooke is literally longing for in his song. It's all there for those who have eyes to see."
Actually, as your variety opinion piece points out, Cooke was literally pointing to a world where what we see is what we get. That there is no "Kingdom of God" or anything beyond what we can make on our own.
I do admire your tenacity in forcing the conversation away from the topic of the post and onto your personal soapbox. In a sense, it's admirable. In another sense, it's kind of disturbing.
Craig... "Yet you cant offer specific examples."
I literally did. Here. I'll do it again:
JESUS: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to set the oppressed free,
to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.”
Luke 4
What is Cooke LITERALLY asking/praying for IF NOT this? Justice. Freedom from oppression. LITERALLY what Jesus began his ministry by saying he'd come for.
How is that NOT the same thing?
Or Matthew 19 and the Sheep and the Goats...
"Come, you who are blessed by my Father,
inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.
For I was hungry and you gave me food,
I was thirsty and you gave me drink,
I was a stranger and you welcomed me,
I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me,
I was in prison and you came to me."
Is that NOT what Cooke is longing for in his prayer? A World and Way like that?
And you know I can go on and on with Jesus' very clear teachings about a realm that is free from oppression... where he castigates those who would do the oppressing... where he appeals to the prophets who said the same thing. Or Mary, whose Magnificat is very much similar to Cooke's prayer/lament.
That you don't recognize the words of the black church and of Jesus in Cooke's case is on you, not him and not the song.
Craig... "I love that you admit that you "don't know" what you are talking about, but go right ahead and act as if your hunch is True. "
I know relatively speaking because I've researched, read and, well, it's just obvious. Seriously, are you not aware that even conservative evangelicals will say that Jesus speaks about the Kingdom of God more than anything else and about money matters second most?
But here, from my own blog in my post "Red Letters/Jesus' Teachings..." I point out...
"You will see an AWFUL lot of green in these texts. I'll need to "weigh" how much green versus red versus other eventually. RIGHT NOW, as I have them divided, it's interesting: Of the Green Words of Jesus where I have counted him as talking about wealth and poverty, simple living, justice for the poor and oppressed, etc... I have a "green word count" of 4964.
Of the Red Words where Jesus is talking about ALL OTHER topics, I have a "red word count" of 4936.
Green Word Count: 4964
Red Word Count: 4936
Hm. By my current factoring, Jesus talked FULLY for HALF of his words about justice and grace for the poor and marginalized."
I'd forgotten I'd done that study. But there. Fully half his words talk about this Way of Grace and Welcome for the poor and marginalized in the context of the realm of God.
https://throughthesewoods.blogspot.com/2019/09/red-letterjesus-teachings.html
Craig... "Actually, as your variety opinion piece points out, Cooke was literally pointing to a world where what we see is what we get. That there is no "Kingdom of God" or anything beyond what we can make on our own."
And this is the problem I'm talking about with CCM. In the CCM world, lyrics must generally be explicit. One must say God to know that the song's about God. One must say "Kingdom of God" to know that it's speaking of the Kingdom of God.
It's a less artful, graceful or whole way of doing art and that's been my problem with decades' worth of CCM as a category. And as I point out, there are exceptions. But they're notable because they are exceptions and not generally the rule.
And yes, to be clear, when we're talking about matters of what is and isn't artful, we're talking about opinions.
But in my world, those who love a style of art are open to criticism, especially from those who love the art, flawed though it may be. Shutting down respectful criticism is also part of the problem, it seems to me.
Craig... "Cooke was literally pointing to a world where what we see is what we get. That there is no 'Kingdom of God' or anything beyond what we can make on our own..."
? That's literally not in his lyrics.
"I was born by the river, in a little tent
Oh, and just like the river I've been running ever since
It's been a long A long time coming
But I know a change gonna come
Oh, yes it will
It's been too hard living But I'm afraid to die
'Cause I don't know what's up there Beyond the sky
It's been a long A long time coming
But I know a change gonna come
Oh, yes it will
I go to the movie And I go downtown
Somebody keep telling me Don't hang around
It's been a long A long time coming
But I know, a change gonna come
Oh, yes it will
Then I go to my brother And I say, brother, help me please
But he winds up, knockin' me Back down on my knees
Oh, there been times that I thought I couldn't last for long
But now I think I'm able, to carry on
It's been a long A long time coming
But I know a change gonna come
Oh, yes it will"
The closest I can find to your interpretation is him honestly admitting - along with what certainly most of the world's oppressed people have no doubt felt, including the Psalmists and others in the Bible - that he doesn't know that there is a pie in the sky... and that's beyond the point. The point is living INTO what King called The Beloved Community, here and now. Like Jesus taught in his prayer, "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done ON EARTH as it is in heaven."
We, none of us know, what is and isn't there "in Heaven," but we who follow Jesus know that we can work towards the realm in the here and now. And again, this is what Cooke's plea/prayer is. A very Gospel prayer.
Amen and amen, thank you brother Cooke!
Craig... "I do admire your tenacity in forcing the conversation away from the topic of the post and onto your personal soapbox."
And just to offer some insight/clarification: As someone who loves Christian music (here, I'm speaking of the broader pantheon of music that includes a Christian message, which might even be instrumental as far as I'm concerned), as someone who has loved CCM in the past and has a great love for the people who inspired and molded me, pointing me in the direction I've come, as someone who was immersed in that world for ~three decades and part of it for one... as someone who still sings and plays Christian music... my words here about CCM specifically should not be construed as an attack on CCM. Just a loving critique from a one-time insider in that world.
"No And perhaps for the same reason that I don't care for CCM as a category. Why would they want to be part of a genre that's artificially set aside as sacred?"
What an absurd argument. Gospel (as a genre) predates CCM, and I don't see Change is Gonna Come making a big dent in the Gospel charts, or Cooke seeking out Gospel success. That's one of the most common theses of everything written about Cooke is his desire to expand beyond his Gospel background. Of course, I understand that you need for the "exclusion" to be 100% the responsibility of "CCM" for your construct to work. It makes sense that you'd be fighting this hard for something you can't prove.
"That's associated with clumsy art?"
This makes no sense.
"Not sure of your meaning..? That musicians self select out of CCM? Then see my previous comment. Of course they are."
What a bizarre circular argument. You argue that CCM (as an entire genre) sucks so badly the secular artists "self select" out of the genre, then blame "CCM" for excluding other artists. Again I understand your need for the "CCM Sucks" trope to be true, unfortunately, (as you've pointed out) there are CCM artists who are acknowledged as not sucking, which raises questions as to why you determine that the artists that don't meet your standards are the ones who you choose to represent CCM, instead of the ones who are good.
"What is Cooke LITERALLY asking/praying for IF NOT this? Justice. Freedom from oppression. LITERALLY what Jesus began his ministry by saying he'd come for. How is that NOT the same thing? Or Matthew 19 and the Sheep and the Goats... "Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me." Is that NOT what Cooke is longing for in his prayer? A World and Way like that? And you know I can go on and on with Jesus' very clear teachings about a realm that is free from oppression... where he castigates those who would do the oppressing... where he appeals to the prophets who said the same thing. Or Mary, whose Magnificat is very much similar to Cooke's prayer/lament. That you don't recognize the words of the black church and of Jesus in Cooke's case is on you, not him and not the song."
Have y'all ever heard the expression, "When all you have is a hammer, then every problem becomes a nail"?
Well, when your entire theology is built on one passage, then every other theological question MUST fit into that little framework. The problem with Dan's eisegesis is that no where in Cooke's lyrics does he ever once indicate that this "change" is something that is caused by God. In fact the closest he comes to mentioning God is to essentially deny His existence, or at least deny that we can know anything about Him or what's next. The problem is that, based on the words to the song, it's impossible to say with certainty that he was "longing for" Jesus or anything Jesus might have offered. It's literally not there, and the only way to get it there is to read more into the lyrics than the lyrics actually say.
I asked this earlier, and got no answer.
Do you really think that the Black Panther types were thinking that this vague undefined "change" wasn't really a violent revolution? What in the lyrics categorically precludes any sort of violent/forceful overthrow of the existing power structures?
"I know relatively speaking because I've researched, read and, well, it's just obvious."
If the above was True, then why would you have said that you "don't know"? It seems either absurd to say that you do"don't know" when you really do, or simply false modesty (which is just pride).
As I noted earlier, when your entire theology is defined by one passage, It raises questions regarding one's ability to accurately assess Jesus' words. As such, I don't consider Dan vouching for himself, as any sort of proof of anything.
"That's literally not in his lyrics"
Then your argument is with the Variety piece you offered as "proof" of your claims about Cooke, not with me. I'm simply quoting your authoritative source.
"And this is the problem I'm talking about with CCM."
What, that your Variety piece you offered as authoritative, contradicted you?
"In the CCM world, lyrics must generally be explicit".
What, are you kidding? In a genre dedicated to music about a specific topic/subject (God?Jesus?Christianity) it's simply absurd that people would write lyrics about that topic/subject. What an absurd conclusion. Of course, It's also false because there is much CCM that takes a broad view of this "requirement".
"One must say God to know that the song's about God. One must say "Kingdom of God" to know that it's speaking of the Kingdom of God."
Where does one find this rule? Isn't it possible that people who believe in God might want to create art that focuses on God?
"It's a less artful, graceful or whole way of doing art and that's been my problem with decades' worth of CCM as a category."
The Messiah by Handel, what an artless, graceless piece of trash. What the hell was the J.S. Bach idiot doing, what artless graceless trash. Of course, you haven't listened to "decades" of the CCM you throw under the bus.
"And as I point out, there are exceptions. But they're notable because they are exceptions and not generally the rule. And yes, to be clear, when we're talking about matters of what is and isn't artful, we're talking about opinions. But in my world, those who love a style of art are open to criticism, especially from those who love the art, flawed though it may be. Shutting down respectful criticism is also part of the problem, it seems to me."
Self righteous much? You're the one who's chosen to apply your limited knowledge of CCM from pre 1995 to the entire genre? How is it "respectful" to write off something as "artless, and graceless", when you've been out of the loop since '95?
"And just to offer some insight/clarification: As someone who loves Christian music (here, I'm speaking of the broader pantheon of music that includes a Christian message,"
Excellent job. Your first order of business is to redefine the topic of the post to what you decide it should be. Not so much insight as hubris.
"which might even be instrumental as far as I'm concerned),"
Of course, the simple existence of large amounts of instrumentalist CCM seems to undercut your earlier insistence that CCM "must" contain certain elements.
"as someone who has loved CCM in the past"
The key being "in the past", as in "I checked out in '95, but still feel comfortable in passing judgement on everything since then.
"and has a great love for the people who inspired and molded me, pointing me in the direction I've come, as someone who was immersed in that world for ~three decades and part of it for one... as someone who still sings and plays Christian music... my words here about CCM specifically should not be construed as an attack on CCM."
This is all great, self serving/self aggrandizing, and focused on you, but it's still not on topic for this post. It's an excellent example of my point, you unilaterally decided that this post should be about you, your opinions, your experiences, your lack of awareness of what's happened since '96, you're willingness to broad brush an entire genre based on your predilections, and your subjective conclusions about what's "artless". If you want to post about you and what you think, then write that post at your blog where I'm banned, and you and your butt boy can talk as much shit about me as you like. But don't pretend like this is on topic.
"Just a loving critique from a one-time insider in that world."
1. I seriously doubt that you were an "insider" in any real sense.
2. I'm not sure that being a regional band in a niche genre, decades ago really gives you some sort of special insight.
3. You're assumption that I'm not aware of things inside the CCM world might not be a good one. The difference is that I'm not going to drop names, and brag about my insider status.
4. As usual with you, your definition of "loving" doesn't resemble any concept of loving that I'm aware of.
5. The fact that you choose to focus on the "bad" stuff from decades ago doesn't really help your credibility.
While I'm not above judging some music or music genres negatively ("that sucks"), I do recognize how subjective such things are and one man's "suck" is another man's treasure. With that in mind, I would simply reiterate my position on the genre of CCM, in that I've not yet found anything which appeals to me artistically. Last night I listened to Dan's Keaghy offering and found it interesting and possibly something that might grow on me if I allowed it to do so (not that I intend to prevent that from happening). It did indeed have a Beatle-like feel. I scanned a couple other vids with him and the dude's an excellent musician, no doubt. As I make my way through the many offerings between the two of you, I'm sure I'll find other examples of possibilities.
I guess to get to the crux of it, my tastes run according to what compels interest somewhat organically, rather than forcing myself to like something by any other means. As I indicated earlier, I've bought entire albums on the strength of one single song which grabbed my attention on the radio. In some cases, I've never really listened to the entire album to this day, and I'm sure there are gems I've ignored as a result. In other cases, while busy with something else while the album is playing, I've come to find those other gems and even come to enjoy everything on the album. It's just the way it works with me. At this stage of my life, I simply haven't been as interested in sitting through anything with which I'm not already fond, even while being open to new possibilities. Not really the contradiction it appears to be, but there it is.
I have no problem with categorizing music, and as I said earlier, some songs are hard to pigeon-hole. That doesn't mitigate the worthiness of categorizing. It's quite handy in fact. For example, if someone speaks of a new song and they tell me it's hip-hop, I immediately know it's crap because hip-hop isn't music. You can't hum it. It's poetry (of a sort) laid against a beat or a sampled bit of music, but it ain't music and I don't want to hear it. And that's knowing there are a few Christian rappers seeking to spread the Word through that form. I'll always take a pass and know I've lost nothing.
All other forms hold potential (maybe not some forms from specific cultures. I never got into any of George Harrison's Indian offerings, nor did I ever warm to any Ravi Shankar stuff, even though I can appreciate the technical skills involved). I don't gravitate toward Country, but a good song is a good song. As I said, I really like Blue Grass, but still don't have any in my meager collection. I have a classical music station queued up on the car radio. I like Tom Jones, Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett. I don't need a CCM song or artist to be in any particular genre, just an offering of a personal favorite of the one making the recommendation. I'll work with what's been posted thus far, but anything that fits that "personal favorite" would be appreciated.
Everything need to be a fight for you, Craig?
Marshal, am I right? Keaggy's phenomenal. You might look up Keaggy and Stonehill covering actual Beatles songs, too. Like this Let it Be cover...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvmi4POIzjY
I'm not usually a fan of just three guitars, but these guys are great, to my tastes.
Craig... "your experiences, your lack of awareness of what's happened since '96, you're willingness to broad brush an entire genre based on your predilections, and your subjective conclusions about what's "artless"."
Are you suggesting that there's been significantly more artful, good CCM since 1995 than before?
If so, I'd be curious what you consider an artfully-crafted, well-done CCM song. Thoughts? Examples of lyrics?
Also, I'd be curious to know if you'd consider "Change is Gonna Come" a good Christian or CCM song if it were done by a CCM artist or an artist (since Cooke was a Christian) who was saying, "This is my Christian song..."?
Do you have an example of something you consider a good Christian song that has no mentions of God or Jesus in it and, if so, what is it?
By way of example about what I consider an artful, poetic song, here are the lyrics to Keaggy's Everything Is All Right...
"Just when I can see light
At the end of my pipe dreams
Somethings not the way it seems
It can pull me under overnight
And all the dreamers in this town
Wake up to lay their sweet dreams down
Everything is alright
That's the way it goes babe
Everything is alright
We'll cope and keep close babe
Everything is alright
Just when I could touch clouds
There is rain on my fingertips
A personal apocalypse
In a land where such is not allowed
Do all the riders in these ruts
Break down and give the good things up
Everything is alright
What will be will be babe
Everything is alright
When it's only you and me babe
Imagination and the name of the game
Everything is changing but the sound of your name
And all the dreamers in this town
Wake up to lay their sweet dreams down
Everything is alright
That's the way it goes babe
Everything is alright
We'll cope and keep close babe
Everything is alright
What will be will be babe
Everything is alright
When it's only you and me babe"
If I had to guess (and acknowledging that it's all mostly opinion), I'd guess that there was as much or more good quality artful CCM prior to 1995 than after. At least in terms of what gets played on the radio. I've just seen nothing to suggest otherwise but admittedly, I'm no longer in that genre much.
As a small sample, I just googled best CCM Song 2008 and MercyMe's "You Reign" popped up. Let me see if I can show why I'm not as impressed by the arfulness of such a song.
"Even before there was a drop in the ocean Even before there was a star in the sky
Even before the world was put in motion You were on Your throne
You were on Your throne
You reign Glory in the highest
You reign Let creation testify by Your name
Every knee will bow and every tongue proclaim
That Jesus reigns"
One sign of artful poetry is that it is fresh, not trite or using over-used imagery. These are not fresh words. There have been used SO many times before. That chorus could be from nearly 1000 songs, I'd bet... especially that "every knee will bow" line. It's a perfectly fine line when Paul wrote it to the Philippians. And it was probably fine in the first 50 songs that used that line. But it's just overdone to use it especially in this manner in such a song.
Again, not a criticism of the line or even the song in isolation. But taken with the pantheon of "praise songs," it's just trite.
A second problem - stemming from the first problem - is that WHEN you use trite, over-used language in waxing poetic about BIG and IMPORTANT themes, it becomes even more obvious how trite it is. God and God's reign are big themes. Be fresh with your words, the creative writer in me would counsel (based on the many teachers and books I've read about poetry).
Contrast that with Keaggy's lyrics...
"rain on my fingertips
A personal apocalypse
In a land where such is not allowed"
Those lines have not appeared together like that anywhere else, I'd venture. It's deep, it's meaningful, it's not trite or overused.
Again, I'm not attacking. I'm critiquing from a place of respect for great artists. And us average (or less) artists can withstand that sort of critique. CCM artists, I'm confident, can withstand that sort of critique.
So, that's me grabbing a #1 CCM song at random. But I'd love for you (seriously) to cite for me the most artful CCM song you can find. I would love to be wowed by a CCM artist.
Wow me.
Here's an interesting article by someone who appears to be conservative or at least a somewhat traditional Catholic, citing a Christian performer in CCM critiquing CCM.
Gungor’s take on the matter is interesting since his band is technically part of the industry. He writes,
“I don’t hate all Christian music. There are a few artists that I know in the Christian industry that are really trying to transcend the inherent limitations and zombying effect of the industry. But the industry as a whole is broken, friends. We call it Christian, but it’s certainly not based in Christianity. It is based on marketing…
The point is that the industry that labels things as Christian and sells them to you has far more to do with marketing than Christianity. They are marketing to the mixed bag of values that has created the Evangelical Christian subculture. It’s a mix of some historically Christian values, some American values, and a whole lot of cultural boundary markers that set ‘us’ apart from ‘them.’”
https://www.carrotsformichaelmas.com/2013/12/09/what-happened-to-christian-art-why-is-ccm-so-awful/
...and actually, as I look into Christian duo Gungor (whom I've never heard of before), they don't sound like someone conservative Christians might embrace. But I DO like at least one of their songs, featured here (You Make Beautiful Things) (although it is a bit redundant in that "praise song" kind of way)...
https://www.christianpost.com/news/dove-award-winning-gungor-rattles-christian-world-with-revelation-that-they-dont-believe-the-bible-literally.html
I like TobyMac's lyrics here (Love Broke Thru...)
"Yeah, it was late in the summer when the northeast breeze
Sang like a song thru the oak trees
Pennsylvania
She kind of caught my soul
Which had me a little more open than closed
Walls I built
Opinions I learned
Covered in the ashes of bridges I burned
Blind to the arrow that headed to my heart
But You hit the mark"
Good writing, I'd say. I don't care for the song - too "poppy" for me - but that's more of a personal taste kind of thing, not an artistic thing.
Same for Speak Life.
Craig... " Is it likely that folks like the Black Panthers might have taken it to mean violent "change"?"
No. Not likely at all.
What do you think you "know" about the Black Panthers? But this is off topic so no need to go down this path, but I did want to just give the answer to that question, since you asked and since it appears to be so wrong-headed.
Multiple comments, none on topic.
There’s one that is somewhat on topic. That I’ll respond to when I have time.
I’ll point out that I specifically said “like” the Black Panthers, and that there’s no logical way you can speak for black militants in the 60’s so confidently.
Yet, you frequently seem to be speaking for black people.
If the question you were asking is, "Is it likely that the tiny TINY percentage of black or white citizens (0.0001%... maybe?) who would like to see violent revolution in the US, that THOSE people might take Cooke to mean violent change?"
I would still answer, no, I don't think it's likely. I think clearly most reasonable people would not view Cooke's words to a be a call to armed revolution... EVEN IF they themselves would like to see armed revolution.
Are you asking because you think "folks like the Black Panthers" WOULD view Cooke's words as a call to arms? If so, I'd say you were way off.
Craig... "you frequently seem to be speaking for black people."
You've said this many times. As if it were a factual. It's not.
You see, there's a difference between looking at what the majority of black people are telling us and saying "Hey, here's what the majority of black people are telling us... I think we should listen to them..." There's a difference between that and actually speaking for black people. One is actually listening to what they are saying - especially where it comes from a majority - and taking it seriously and the other is wrong.
I strive pretty hard to do the former.. I'm just repeating what so many are saying and getting that out to a white audience that may not be listening to black people... That's not speaking FOR them. That's passing on what they've said.
See the difference?
Off topic, but you keep bringing it up so I'm clarifying.
Dan,
I'm not the one making things a fight. I'm merely trying to stay on target. I'm also not the one talking shot about you (and allowing others to talk shit as well) at another blog.
"Are you suggesting that there's been significantly more artful, good CCM since 1995 than before?"
Yes.
"If so, I'd be curious what you consider an artfully-crafted, well-done CCM song. Thoughts? Examples of lyrics?"
I posted a list of about 30 albums released since '96. maybe you jut missed those. I'd hope that'd be enough for you.
"Also, I'd be curious to know if you'd consider "Change is Gonna Come" a good Christian or CCM song if it were done by a CCM artist or an artist (since Cooke was a Christian) who was saying, "This is my Christian song..."?"
Nope, I'd consider it a good protest song performed by a Christian artist. As far as Cooke, all I've seen specifically is that he was raised in The Church, I wasn't aware that Christianity was inherited.
"Do you have an example of something you consider a good Christian song that has no mentions of God or Jesus in it and, if so what is it?"
I'd suggest that Kiss Me by Sixpence None the Richer is an good song, with a message entirely consistent with a Christian worldview that specifically mention God.
I'd suggest that there are plenty of Switchfoot songs (The Sound comes to mind) that fit your criteria.
As does The survivor by Keaggy.
RE Gungor comment.
1. It's not on topic for this post.
2. Gungor's problems with the CCM industry are really problems with Christianity. His faith journey is well documented, especially is atheism and his rejection of much of Christianity.
3. Gungor was primarily P&W not CCM.
4. Since it's not on topic, I see no reason to expand.
RE Violent revolution.
1. You act as if the % in the 60's is the same as the % today.
2. I'm asking because Cooke's lyrics are incredibly vague about the specifics of the "change" he was talking about.
3. I realized that it's literally impossible to have gotten an answer to this not filtered through your biases.
Thanks for justifying your decision to speak for black people. It's off topic, but staying on topic has never been a strength of yours.
Craig... " Is it likely that folks like the Black Panthers might have taken it to mean violent "change"?"
Also Craig... "I’ll point out that I specifically said “like” the Black Panthers..."
People LIKE the Black Panthers were not advocating for violent overthrow. Perhaps that's where you're getting it wrong. The BPP mission...
"The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (BPP) was founded in October 1966 in Oakland, California by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale, who met at Merritt College in Oakland. It was a revolutionary organization with an ideology of Black nationalism, socialism, and armed self-defense, particularly against police brutality."
So then, why is Kiss Me by sixpence by sixpence a good Christian song and Change is Gonna Come not?
Craig.. "You act as if the % in the 60's is the same as the % today."
Are you suggesting that in the sixties there was a large percentage percentage of black Americans who wanted to see violent overthrow of society? If so, based on what?
Also, you are familiar with the term dogwhistle, are you not?
"Here's an interesting article by someone who appears to be conservative or at least a somewhat traditional Catholic, citing a Christian performer in CCM critiquing CCM."
His critiques seem to align with mine regarding your insistence on seeing Christian themes in non-Christian music. That is to say, he's saying they're not Christian songs simply because of some superficial similarity to some Christian teachings. But more importantly, in a post about CCM, there's simply no reason to speak of such songs as if they're on topic.
"So then, why is Kiss Me by sixpence by sixpence a good Christian song and Change is Gonna Come not?"
1. I didn't say that it was, perhaps you should read more closely.
2. Sixpence is a band that was intentionally and explicitly making music intended primarily for a Christian audience, containing a Christian message, made be professing Christians.
"Are you suggesting that in the sixties there was a large percentage percentage of black Americans who wanted to see violent overthrow of society? If so, based on what?"
No.
"Also, you are familiar with the term dogwhistle, are you not?"
Yes.
Again, multiple comments. None on topic.
Example. (I realize this is feeding Dan's off topic comments)
Hillary Scott is one third of the popular country group Lady Antebellum. As such she has recorded and sung multiple songs about excessive alcohol consumption, casual sex, and various other subjects that seem antithetical to a someone who claims to be a Christian. Yet she's also released music that is explicitly Christian and that has gained popularity in the CCM world.
Is it really that difficult to differentiate between,
"Another shot of whiskey
Can't stop looking at the door
Wishing you'd come sweeping
In the way you did before...I'm a little drunk and I need you now" (referring to an ex who's she's calling for a quick hook up) and
"I know you see me
I know you hear me, Lord
Your plans are for me
Goodness you have in store
I know you hear me
I know you see me, Lord
Your plans are for me
Good news you have in store"
Really?
Dan,
It appears that you are taking some of your content that is off topic at this post and airing it at your blog. I would certainly encourage you to keep your comments here on topic, and address the off topic issues at your blog. I realize that you've banned me from your blog, and that you're pretty open to all sorts of bullshit about me as well. If that's what you need to provide a home for your off topic comments, feel free.
I find it amazing that y'all on the left (whether it's on blogs, social media, or whatever) seem to focus on those you disagree with (Trump, Art, Stan, Me, etc) rather than to focus on all the wonderful things that folks on your side are accomplishing.
Oh, jeez! Now you've done it! Dan's going to go off on all the wonderful things he thinks people like him are accomplishing while providing no data that proves anything actually has been!
Apologies if this provokes more off topic crap, but I've been trying to find info on the incident which provoked the creation of the BPP by Newton and Seale. All I know at this point is some kind getting shot by cops was the reason. Where have I heard this before? In any case, anyone who wants to pretend the BPP was nothing more than a black Salvation Army is white-guilted sheep.
Craig... "I find it amazing that y'all on the left (whether it's on blogs, social media, or whatever) seem to focus on those you disagree with (Trump, Art, Stan, Me, etc) rather than to focus on all the wonderful things that folks on your side are accomplishing."
What we're accomplishing is speaking up for Truth and Facts and data-driven analysis. When people on your side continually attack these and we stand up for them, then Trump, Art, Stan, etc may be on the wrong side of our comments. But the point is, we're not talking about "disagreeing with Trump and you all..." We're standing up for truth and against disinformation. THAT is an accomplishment and something to praise.
On my blog, you can see that I've talked lately about
1. Dr King and Direct Action (something we stand up for and what we're accomplishing)...
2. What folks with disabilities are saying about how to best support them (something we're accomplishing)
3. Fighting against racism by considering the views of CRT (and when your side keep misrepresenting what they've actually said, then you all are mentioned, but the point is the work of anti-racism and CRT values - which is something we're accomplishing)
4. The accomplishments and advancement brought about by protesters (something we're accomplishing and have been promoting for centuries)
5. Honoring the Jubilee celebration - celebrating what progressive minded people helped bring about and continue to bring about
6. A post in praise of honest conservatives who have integrity
7. Some poetry about nature and good work
8. Disagreements when Stan and others have misrepresented facts and truth... but the point is speaking up for Truth, facts and data-driven decisions, which is something we strive to promote as progressives.
So, really not much talking about Trump, Stan, etc... and when I HAVE talked about them... it's in an effort to oppose misinformation and disinformation.
If Trump has his ilk wouldn't promote so much corruption and false claims, then we wouldn't be talking about them so much, would we?
Also (regarding "amazing that we focus on those we disagree with...") you realize, I suppose, that between the two of us, you probably do this more than I do? Especially if you count your vague little quotes and questions that often are ultimately a way to disagree with those you disagree with in a milquetoast and obscure manner.
Just curious if you were self-aware of that.
Art,
No he's not. He's simply going to continue to do what he's always done. Which is to try to direct the conversation here, while spewing and allowing all sorts of bullshit over at his blog where he's banned me.
"What we're accomplishing is speaking up for Truth and Facts and data-driven analysis."
So, are you asserting that there actually is an objective "Truth" to stand up for?
"When people on your side continually attack these and we stand up for them, then Trump, Art, Stan, etc may be on the wrong side of our comments. But the point is, we're not talking about "disagreeing with Trump and you all..." We're standing up for truth and against disinformation. THAT is an accomplishment and something to praise."
And once again Dan is seeking "praise".
"On my blog, you can see that I've talked lately about"
I rarely go to your blog because it's pointless to go somewhere where I've been effectively banned, and where my comments will be deleted at your whim. I further don't spend significant amounts of time at your blog, because of the attacks you allow against those who you disagree with.
"1. Dr King and Direct Action (something we stand up for and what we're accomplishing)... 2. What folks with disabilities are saying about how to best support them (something we're accomplishing) 3. Fighting against racism by considering the views of CRT "(and when your side keep misrepresenting what they've actually said, then you all are mentioned, but the point is the work of anti-racism and CRT values - which is something we're accomplishing) 4. The accomplishments and advancement brought about by protesters (something we're accomplishing and have been promoting for centuries) 5. Honoring the Jubilee celebration - celebrating what progressive minded people helped bring about and continue to bring about 6. A post in praise of honest conservatives who have integrity 7. Some poetry about nature and good work 8. Disagreements when Stan and others have misrepresented facts and truth... but the point is speaking up for Truth, facts and data-driven decisions, which is something we strive to promote as progressives. So, really not much talking about Trump, Stan, etc... and when I HAVE talked about them... it's in an effort to oppose misinformation and disinformation. If Trump has his ilk wouldn't promote so much corruption and false claims, then we wouldn't be talking about them so much, would we?"
That's all quite self serving, and honestly quite pompous. This whole "we have the Truth, Facts, and Data so everyone else is wrong" is quite the position to take.
""(and when your side keep misrepresenting what they've actually said, then you all are mentioned, but the point is the work of anti-racism and CRT values - which is something we're accomplishing)"
You mean when I posted actual quotes of actual CRT advocates, that kind of thing?
Craig... "So, are you asserting that there actually is an objective "Truth" to stand up for?"
I'm asserting that there is Truth to stand up for, Truth that reasonable people can recognize even if neither you nor I can prove it objectively.
Do you disagree?
I'm asserting that facts are objectively facts. There WAS no stolen election. The media is NOT the enemy of the people. Vaccinations and wearing masks helps prevent the spread of Covid. Trump boasted about sexually harassing and assaulting women. These are objective facts and people who deny them are denying facts and Truth.
Do you disagree?
Craig... "I rarely go to your blog because it's pointless to go somewhere where I've been effectively banned, and where my comments will be deleted at your whim."
I've told you and Marshal that, because you both routinely make unsupported fact claims and pass on non-factual data, that such malfeasance won't be allowed on my blog and I will delete them.
I've asked you to answer basic reasonable questions, directly and without obfuscation and you routinely pass.
No one is banned from engaging in respectful dialog on my blog. But that means answering questions directly. That means not passing on fact claims without support or admitting you can't support it when asked.
As to any references to Feodor making comments on my blog in relation to you... I've done that because YOU don't allow him to make comments here to defend his positions. So, a bit ironic that you're complaining about what I do when you do the same thing.
The difference is, I still give you a chance, just as long as you operate by some reasonable rules.
Craig... "This whole "we have the Truth, Facts, and Data so everyone else is wrong" is quite the position to take."
Except that I NEVER MADE that claim. It's yet another example of yet another stupidly false claim you Trump types pass on. It's like you all have reached the Post Truth stage of immoral development.
Craig... "And once again Dan is seeking "praise". "
Of course, this is not what I'm doing. I'm responding to YOUR suggestion that those on the Left ONLY talk about how wrong the other guys are. I'm point to my blog and your blog as examples of you not living up to your own complaint and I do talk about our progress we work for as progressives.
I prove you wrong based just on your and my blog and you respond by suggesting I'm seeking praise. Yet another stupidly false claim from the Post Truth Trumpians.
"We're standing up for truth and against disinformation. THAT is an accomplishment and something to praise."
Presuming that you consider yourself part of the "We're" in your sentence, then it seems inevitable to conclude that you're seeking "praise".
"Except that I NEVER MADE that claim. It's yet another example of yet another stupidly false claim you Trump types pass on. It's like you all have reached the Post Truth stage of immoral development."
It's fascinating how frequently you paraphrase others (To be generous, poorly. To be ungenerous, falsely.), yet bitch when you are paraphrased relatively accurately. If you and your ilk are to be "praised" for "standing up for truth and against disinformation", then any reasonable person is forced to conclude that you are claiming to know the "Truth" and to have the accurate (True) information. We're further forced to conclude that those you're "defending" against, have neither the "Truth" or the (True) information.
But your continued invoking of Trump doesn't really help your case.
Craig... "Presuming that you consider yourself part of the "We're" in your sentence, then it seems inevitable to conclude that you're seeking "praise"."
sigh. The comment is literally and clearly about Progressives as a group. I'm pointing to the work we progressives are doing, and I am the least of these. The point is quite literally NOT about me, but about what progressives are doing. And contrary to YOUR Trumpian style false claim.
Now instead of going down a ridiculously stupid street, why not either admit that yes, Progressive types ARE doing important work or point out WHY it's wrong for us to take stands against disinformation and dishonesty or why the Trump types are NOT passing on blindingly stupidly false claims with their "He won the election," and "covid is no threat - don't listen to the CDC and experts" line of stupidity.
And if you don't want to hear about Trump and his ilk (and like it or not, with your repeated stupidly false claims, you are in that bag precisely because of your aversion to dealing with facts and reality and your willingness to pass on stupidly false claims AND the fact that you fail to denounce the Trump types for their embrace of this dangerous method of hyper-partisanship attacks), then step out of his shadow and stop using his methods and start condemning them unequivocally.
Other conservatives have done so. Join the right side of history and morality.
Craig... "We're further forced to conclude that those you're "defending" against, have neither the "Truth" or the (True) information."
Just to take one point... Trump and his minions have repeatedly and dangerously said that the election was GOING to be stolen and then claimed that it WAS stolen.
This is a stupidly factually false claim. That is the reality of it. There is no reasonable case to say otherwise. Those who claim that the election was stolen are passing on stupidly false claims. Those who point that out are standing on the facts and truth. That is the reality.
The question is, do you recognize that reality?
If so, then don't you recognize how very important it is for progressive and reasonable types to take a moral and righteous stand against the passing on of such stupidly and dangerously false claims?
Craig... "We're further forced to conclude that those you're "defending" against, have neither the "Truth" or the (True) information."
And just to finish my point from the last comment, those who pass on the big lie about about the election being stolen from Trump, they actually have neither the truth nor the true information. As a point of reality.
Do you recognize that fact?
Craig... "It's fascinating how frequently you paraphrase others (To be generous, poorly. To be ungenerous, falsely..."
And yet another example of a false and unsupported claim from you. It's as if facts and reality just don't matter to you all.
It truly is laughable to hear Dan's claims about defending truth when he so routinely says things which aren't true and worse, continues to repeat them after they've been proven untrue.
"I've told you and Marshal that, because you both routinely make unsupported fact claims and pass on non-factual data, that such malfeasance won't be allowed on my blog and I will delete them. I've asked you to answer basic reasonable questions, directly and without obfuscation and you routinely pass. No one is banned from engaging in respectful dialog on my blog. But that means answering questions directly. That means not passing on fact claims without support or admitting you can't support it when asked. As to any references to Feodor making comments on my blog in relation to you... I've done that because YOU don't allow him to make comments here to defend his positions. So, a bit ironic that you're complaining about what I do when you do the same thing. The difference is, I still give you a chance, just as long as you operate by some reasonable rules."
The irony here is incredible. The most ironic is the claim that I "do the same thing" as Dan does at his blog. I rarely delete comments, and when I do I even more rarely refer to those deleted comments. I never make false claims, or paraphrase comments I've deleted, and on the rare occasions when I delete a comment intentionally, I always explain specifically what caused the deletion. When I accidentally delete a comment, I always apologize and ask for the comment to be recreated.
The excuse for allowing all sorts of lies to be told by others is simply laughable. For someone who prates on about fighting for "Truth" to allow the sorts of bullshit and ad hom attacks is simply not worth wasting time on.
"I'm asserting that there is Truth to stand up for, Truth that reasonable people can recognize even if neither you nor I can prove it objectively."
Which is functionally no different from having no "Truth" at all.
"Do you disagree?"
"I'm asserting that facts are objectively facts. There WAS no stolen election. The media is NOT the enemy of the people. Vaccinations and wearing masks helps prevent the spread of Covid. Trump boasted about sexually harassing and assaulting women. These are objective facts and people who deny them are denying facts and Truth. Do you disagree?"
Facts=Facts vs Truth is all a distinction without a difference.
Craig... "Which is functionally no different from having no Truth at all..."
Wow. You are entirely unable to objectively prove your beliefs about what God thinks about various matters. And yet, you say that this reality (YOUR inability to objectively prove anything about God) means that, TO YOU, you have no Truth at all.
What a bleak world you live in.
For the rest of us, having a reasoned, rational understanding of Truth is NOT the same as having no Truth at all.
It's the difference between saying, "I think clearly enslaving people is wrong, even if I can't objectively prove that's what God says..." and "We can't objectively prove slavery is wrong, so what difference does it make?"
Now, I am certain that you THINK IN YOUR HEAD that you can objectively prove your traditions and hunches. But you won't objectively prove it and believing that you have "objective proof" and yet not offering it truly IS the same as having no truth at all.
Bleak, useless, defeated and, ultimately, depraved.
Craig... "Facts=Facts vs Truth is all a distinction without a difference."
I have no idea what you think you mean by this. It IS a fact that there is no serious, credible, non-insane evidence that this election was stolen. Those who make such a stupidly false and dangerous claim are just objectively wrong.
DO YOU DISAGREE with reality on this point?
"And yet another example of a false and unsupported claim from you. It's as if facts and reality just don't matter to you all."
And yet, I've specifically pointed this type of thing out at the time it happens, and you've ignored it.
It's amusing to say that "facts and truth" don't matter, when I'm the one of us who actually argues that objective Truth is a thing.
"Wow. You are entirely unable to objectively prove your beliefs about what God thinks about various matters. And yet, you say that this reality (YOUR inability to objectively prove anything about God) means that, TO YOU, you have no Truth at all. What a bleak world you live in."
Wow, speaking of poorly/falsely paraphrasing me, then you drop this gem. I'll simply point out that I've never actually expressed that as my position, and that you've invented this and attributed it to me out of whole cloth.
Good lord, that's like 400 comments about the damn 2020 election. The fact that there was not enough fraud to "steal" the election doesn't mean the fraud is nonexistent, or acceptable. Ultimately, this comes down to your objecting to the word "steal".
Now, let's see you hold Biden and his supporters to the same standard.
But well done, you've managed to completely drag this thread into an area that bears absolutely zero resemblance to the original post.
Craig... "Wow, speaking of poorly/falsely paraphrasing me, then you drop this gem. I'll simply point out that I've never actually expressed that as my position..."
I KNOW. You keep HINTING like you think you have this secret arcane knowledge, PROVING these unprovable things... AND YET, you won't prove it or even clarify if you think you HAVE the proof. Just vague hints that I'm wrong for admitting I can't objectively prove some tenets of morality... AS IF you can, but then never proving it.
That's just cowardice, my man. A lack of public integrity. IF you can prove something objectively - especially something as serious as heaven or hell or how salvation works - then by all means, prove it.
Your complete abdication of even trying to prove it just shows that you don't have the confidence in such a claim yourself.
Hell, if I could prove or disprove hell objectively, you know I would!
Craig... "and that you've invented this and attributed it to me out of whole cloth."
I'm not saying you said it. I'm saying that YOU HAVE NOT TRIED to prove objectively any of your claims that you seem to hint at maybe you possibly can... perhaps, IF someone is willing to concede some unproven points or give you the benefit of the doubt on something you can't prove or... or something!
And so, GIVEN your inability to even TRY to prove your points as objective facts, we can see that you can't and have no reason to believe that you can. If you can, you would.
Given that, then, your declaration that being unable to objectively prove something means (according to you) that is the same as having "no truth at all." YOUR words, not mine. YOUR apparent belief, not mine.
Understand?
It is true that we've gone way off topic. But I believe if you look at what happened, you'll see that you kept bringing up off topic charges and claims and I addressed them. I believe this fall squarely on you..
It appears to me that we got mostly off topic when you brought up black panthers with the false claim or suggestion that people like them would have found Justification for violent uprising uprising in Sam Cooke's wonderful Christian song.
YOU Brought up the black panthers and violence Alex and ask me a question. I've responded to your question period from there we've gone off the topic of music, but it was you who did that, not me.
Even when we have some common ground on a topic, you find a way to twist it and push division, it seems.
Note that throughout the "stolen election" debate, Dan's responded with nothing more than "that's a stupidly false claim"...except for assurances from the very people who are suspected as enabling the theft. That's not an example of attacking falsehoods or presenting truths. That's just another "nyuh uh" in the face of justified suspicions which, if honestly investigated, might just result in the reelection of a man Dan hates like a grace-embracing "Christian". He's equally dishonest about the proven low character of the leftist media.
"It appears to me that we got mostly off topic when you brought up black panthers with the false claim or suggestion that people like them would have found Justification for violent uprising uprising in Sam Cooke's wonderful Christian song."
But it's NOT a "Christian" song. That's just what you call it due to incredibly superficial similarities to that which is "sorta" Christian, but not directly so simply because of the similarity. Craig's mention of the Panthers wasn't to open up a discussion of that lamely lauded group, but to illustrate how the "Christian message" you insist upon pretending exists might be used by such a group. He could have used anyone. But no. YOU had to go off on the tangent like you always do, rather than focus on the point, because lefties and points are anathema to each other.
Art,
You're right, of course. My asking of a simple question based on Dan's obsessive desire to include The Cooke song (and the one about some dude's long forgotten shack job) as CCM, is obviously the root of the bizarre trek off topic. Dan's obsessive attempts to broaden the category of CCM to include anything he can interpret to be somewhat "christiany", clearly had nothing to do with the change of subject.
My problem was that I probably should have said "black militants", rather than "Black Panthers". Had I done so it would have potentially prevented one more of his semantic digressions. I suspect he would have found some reason to criticize the term "black militants", because that's kind of how he rolls.
My other problem is that, unlike Dan, I don't (except in incredibly rare instances) delete, edit, or censor his comments. This leads me to responding to things that are slightly off, or arguably on, topic which encourages him to go wherever the hell he wants. Unfortunately, this regularly leads to attacks against those he labels as "Trump" supporters, and to discussions of homosexuality. Fortunately, we haven't seen the second of those here.
But, the self justification and unwillingness to accept responsibility for one's actions is pretty damn funny.
Craig... "My asking of a simple question based on Dan's obsessive desire to include The Cooke song (and the one about some dude's long forgotten shack job) as CCM..."
That hasn't happened. You're missing the point entirely. I'm saying that the Cooke song is clearly a Christian song. And it is a contemporary song in that it's real relatively modern.
But part of the CCM category is it doesn't make room for Cooke's tremendous anthem in the vein of Mary's magnificent in CCM. That is the point.
"That is the point."
Yes, your obsessive desire to insist that Cooke's song (that doesn't specifically mention God or anything specifically "christian", nor was it apparently intended to), fits into a genre that didn't even exist when the song was released, is exactly the point. Clearly I forced you to continue to beat this dead horse, and your diversion from the topic is all my fault.
Except, the topic isn't (and never was) "What secular songs should be forced into the CCM genre".
So yes, the entirety of the Cooke diversion was off topic, and somehow you bear no responsibility for that off topic distraction.
Really. Cooke should never even have been brought up in a post specifically about CCM. It would fit in a post entitled, "Secular Songs Which Promote Christian Principles", but not jammed into a post on CCM in order to once again promote one's self as "Christian".
1. Your post was about, and I quote, "Christian musicians" and "Christian music."
2. You CITED specifically CCM artists and I talked about them, mainly. But I also mentioned OTHER "Christian musicians" like Sam Cooke and his "Christian music," like his anthem, "Change is Gonna Come."
I didn't know that other Christian musicians were off the table if they weren't part of what radio and record industry people referred to as CCM. How could I?
3. I believe that you agreed that songs don't need to mention God or Jesus to be Christian music. Right?
4. I'm not saying that Cooke's song should be included in the category CCM. I'm saying that part of problem of the CCM category is that it exists to the exclusion of great and powerful songs like Change.
I'm saying "CHRISTIAN MUSIC" as a category would be healthier and better off if there wasn't a category called CCM that excluded songs like Change. I'm saying that any wonderful music that includes what might reasonably be considered Christian themes (and certainly breaking the chains of oppression would be CENTRAL to Christian themes! Good Lord, have mercy!) should of course be considered under the umbrella of Christian music.
That you think that Cooke's powerful anthem should not be brought up in a discussion that you later decided to limit to "CCM" is part of the problem.
"1. Your post was about, and I quote, "Christian musicians" and "Christian music.""
It's always amusing when you edit what I actually said, in order to try to put words in my mouth that I didn't actually say.
I actually said that the post (titled "Influential") was about my list of people who "Christian musicians who managed to change the landscape of Christian music in recent history. (since the 60's)"
1. Cooke was not specifically a "Christian" artist, performing "Christian" music, in the "Christian music" industry.
2. Cooke may have been a Chirstian, performing songs that had some vaguely Christian themes, in the secular music industry, like several other artists I've mentioned.
3. If #2 is true, that's not saying anything negative about Cooke, or the one song you mentioned. It's simply pointing out that Cooke doesn't fit within that parameters of this post.
"2. You CITED specifically CCM artists and I talked about them, mainly."
Yes, because the topic of the post was Christian artists who had a significant impact on the Christian music industry. Given that reality, it only makes sense that I would stick to my own topic.
"But I also mentioned OTHER "Christian musicians" like Sam Cooke and his "Christian music," like his anthem, "Change is Gonna Come." I didn't know that other Christian musicians were off the table if they weren't part of what radio and record industry people referred to as CCM. How could I?"
1. Because the actual topic of the post was (or should have been) pretty clear.
2. Because you chose to assume, rather than ask for clarification.
3. Because I can see no circumstances where the topic of "Christian" music would involve redefining "CCM" to include virtually anything. Certainly not a paean to some woman that some musician was banging back in the day, who he didn't think highly enough of to remember her name.
"3. I believe that you agreed that songs don't need to mention God or Jesus to be Christian music. Right?"
This is an oversimplification of what I actually said, and I fail to see how what I actually said is germane.
" 4. I'm not saying that Cooke's song should be included in the category CCM. I'm saying that part of problem of the CCM category is that it exists to the exclusion of great and powerful songs like Change. I'm saying "CHRISTIAN MUSIC" as a category would be healthier and better off if there wasn't a category called CCM that excluded songs like Change. I'm saying that any wonderful music that includes what might reasonably be considered Christian themes (and certainly breaking the chains of oppression would be CENTRAL to Christian themes! Good Lord, have mercy!) should of course be considered under the umbrella of Christian music. That you think that Cooke's powerful anthem should not be brought up in a discussion that you later decided to limit to "CCM" is part of the problem."
Yes, you've been very clear about the above. The problem is that this topic is NOT about the lack of exclusivity in the CCM industry. It's not even if the exclusion comes from the CCM world or from the secular music industry not supporting CCM artists. It's not about deconstructing the reality that music is segregated into genres and those boundaries are simply a fact of life. It's not about your fantasies about how things in the music industry should be.
While those are all interesting and worthy topics for discussion, they are off the topic of this particular post.
My premise is that I am accepting the reality that the CCM industry is it's own genre (because it's the reality), and limiting this discussion to things that fit the reality as it exists.
If you want to have those other discussions, please do so. I'll facilitate those topics if you'd like.
But those topics are for another post, not this one.
Finally, this is my blog. I decide what topics I want to write about, and how I structure those discussions. The fact that you would like to go beyond
One more thought. I specifically limited this discussion to "since the 60's", which on the face of it would mean that Cooke would not be included (nor are a multitude of gospel artists as well as bluegrass artists who are part of what became CCM) in this specific discussion.
Most people agree that what became the CCM industry/genre was defined by Larry Norman's "Upon This Rock" ("the first full blown Christian rock album), which was released by Capitol Records (a secular company) in late 1969. That seems to put anything before "Upon This Rock", into another category than anything that came after.
What's interesting is that Capitol considered the record a failure which led to Norman leaving Capitol and re released it on a "Christian" label. If one looks at the reviews of "Upon This Rock" in secular music press, it's quite clear that Norman was pushed from the broader music industry and essentially forced to seek friendlier waters.
Perhaps, the notion that the CCM industry is the one doing the excluding is an erroneous construct from the beginning. Strangely enough, virtually every CCM artist who was able to achieve any mainstream success only did it through songs that were vague, ambiguous, or otherwise not written with a straightforward Christian message. I'm not suggesting that Christian artists shouldn't or can't write about other topics from a Christian perspective, I'm pointing out the reality that the broader music market only wants songs by CCM artists if they tone down the Christian content.
Craig... "One more thought. I specifically limited this discussion to "since the 60's", which on the face of it would mean that Cooke would not be included"
Um, Cooke was a singer in the 60s. A Christian man singing songs, which makes him a Christian singer, literally. And, in the case of "Change," singing a song strongly connected to Christian teachings.
Just fyi.
Good lord, the lengths you'll go to with bullshit semantic arguments, is quite absurd.
"Um, Cooke was a singer in the 60s. A Christian man singing songs, which makes him a Christian singer, literally. And, in the case of "Change," singing a song strongly connected to Christian teachings. Just fyi."
The fact that you think that simply repeating yourself will somehow make your argument True, relevant, or worthwhile would be impressive, if it wasn't so foolish.
The fact that you suspect that the song bears some superficial resemblance to some Christian teachings, is you imposing your prejudices and biases on the song. Now, if you had any indication that Cooke was a practicing Christian when he wrote the song, and that he intended the song to be a specific communication of explicitly Christian "teachings", or that he explicitly intended to song to express a specifically Christian worldview about current events, you might have the beginnings of an argument.
But, as long as it's just your hunch. And as long as it's my blog, my topic, and my comments thread, I get to decide if it's on topic or not.
Unfortunately for your, this is not on the topic of this post.
Craig... The fact that you suspect that the song bears some superficial resemblance to some Christian teachings, is you imposing your prejudices and biases on the song. Now, if you had any indication that Cooke was a practicing Christian when he wrote the song
God have mercy on your partisan-blind, racism-defending soul.
“Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”
“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath,’ You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?"
"You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."
~Jesus
Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”
Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
Your guilt remains. May your eyes be opened.
Dan thinks quoting (and misapplying) Scripture makes his nonsensical argument about Cooke's rendition valid. He projects his own corruption on those who disagree with him.
Post a Comment