AHHHH! RSJ's album is pushed back AGAIN!!!

[PaulDA]

I just read this on her site:

PLEASE PRAY FOR REBECCA!
Over the next few weeks and months, Rebecca is seeking God for creative ideas on the writing of songs for her much anticipated new album, to be released next year.

IIt was supposed to come out in August 2005....then it was changed to October 2005.
Now it's NEXT YEAR!!!
What is going on here???  

[PaulDA]

Oh, I just read this post in the RSJ forum:

Don't worry. That "Pray for Rebecca" notice has been up for a while. It was first put up late last year, which would explain its wording. The schedule still says her album will debut in October. I, too, am on pins and needles waiting for it.

Hopefully it is still coming out in October.
 

[murlough23]

I think I'm probably the only other person here who cares. And you know what, I can wait. I'd rather that she put some work into it and get it right and make something that's more of a personal statement of worship rather than just rehashing popular worship songs again.

NP: "Can't Exist", Joseph Arthur

[bloop]

Where's Fin when we need him?

Just kidding.

[PaulDA]

I think I'm probably the only other person here who cares. And you know what, I can wait. I'd rather that she put some work into it and get it right and make something that's more of a personal statement of worship rather than just rehashing popular worship songs again.
 

I think for her career, you are correct, unless she actually wants to be known as a worship leader.
I was actually half teasing in the first post. I can wait also.
As you stated, she should take her time and get it right.
I'm just so looking forward to this CD, because she has grown so much as a woman, starring in a popular stage play, writing a few critically acclaimed and popular books and so on.
I think she may test the waters and put out a couple of songs with ptential to reach a wider audience.
I still say, if it was handled corectly, that 'Wait For Me' could have done very well in a secular environment. there are many unsaved teens out there who are very confused and are just thirsting for something other than that 'hey baby, you look good' songs that are all over the place.
.....Murlough, what do you think of her doing one or two covers.
Not of current or popular 'worship' songs, but of more established songs, alla her 'Pray' album,  like 'Lord You're Beautiful' or 'Hold Me Jesus'? I would like to see that.

[murlough23]

I think for her career, you are correct, unless she actually wants to be known as a worship leader.

I think there are three kinds of worship leaders in CCM:

1. Those who strive to provide fresh new worship songs for the church and for personal worship (e.g. Matt Redman, Delirious?, Israel Houghton, etc.)
2. Those who mainly popularize existing songs and help them to catch on with a wider audience (SonicFlood would be a good example.)
3. Those who mainly sing karaoke.

Obviously I have the most respect for #1, because they're actually contributing a unique gift of worship to God, and often other people can use this to help with their own expression of worship. That's a great thing, when done with some real thought and reverence instead of just throwing buzzphrases and popular styles together. (It can be done in popular styles, but the style needs to fit the song and the words shouldn't be written on auto-pilot.)

I can see the merits of #2 as well. Sometimes you stumble across a really good song and you figure it's a shame that more people in the church haven't heard it. That's valid. To keep selling album after album of it and contributing little to nothing new gets a bit tedious, though.

I saw Rebecca as Type 1 up until worshipGOD, which for the most part was Type 2 and 3. Knowing that she's capable of putting out excellent worship albums (esp. Pray) comprised mainly of her own material, I don't want to see her thinking that she has to settle for less for an album to truly be a worship album. At times on her other albums, she's had more topical songs like "Wait for Me" that aren't worship songs in the congregational sense. But that's uplifting a Godly virtue and I think that's a part of putting worship into practice. Plus that sort of stuff tells us more about who she is and what God's doing in her life. It's testimony, in a way, and I think that's a crucial component of worship.

I still say, if it was handled corectly, that 'Wait For Me' could have done very well in a secular environment. there are many unsaved teens out there who are very confused and are just thirsting for something other than that 'hey baby, you look good' songs that are all over the place.

I think if she's going to really reach that demographic, she'll need to express it more artfully. "Wait for Me" was an admirable song, but it was definitely for those who already understand the Christian morals regarding sexuality. Someone on the outside who is tired of all the blatantly sexual songs may not necessarily be against sex outside of marriage; they might just be tired of the subject matter like some of us tire of perfectly innocent love songs (in other words, we don't think it's wrong; it's just redundant). So they're going to need more of the whys behind the whats, and none of this vague "I know you may have made mistakes, but there's forgiveness and a second chance" stuff. What mistakes? How is there a second chance if she wants so badly to have a guy who is pure? What does that even mean? Should he have never kissed or held hands with a woman? I mean, I know all that from context, but only because I'm also a Christian.

.....Murlough, what do you think of her doing one or two covers.

One or two is fine. If they help the theme of the album, all the better. On Pray, she actually took a song that I thought was extremely boring ("Oh Lord, You're Beautiful", probably not Keith Green's fault that it's boring, I've just heard it sung way too slowly too many times) and made it really beautiful. "Hold Me Jesus" was dubious because of how liberally she hacked and slashed the original, but I learned to enjoy it. That one definitely seemed more like it was done because of the timing (Rich Mullins' death the year before), though it did fit the album's theme. And "Be Thou My Vision" was splendid.

Shoot, Jars of Clay just did an entire album of songs they didn't like. Why do I like it? Is it because I'm a fanboy? No. They recognized the lyrical importance of hymns and sought to communicate that to a modern audience using a musical style that they loved. One could argue that RSJ did the same with worshipGOD, but that felt more like a mixed bag of worship songs thrown together that had no central theme other than just "worship". Too broad. Anyone can do that.

You can't compromise the artistry, and too many CCM artists feel, for some strange reason, that "worship" requires dumbing down the creativity. I hold that the exact opposite is true. If you want to worship God, use the gifts God gave you and don't sell yourself short. It's your canvas to paint. Go for broke instead of working on another color-by-numbers kit.

Aside from all that, I'm a person who sees little value in repetition of the same stuff again and again, and unfortunately repetition is what sells in CCM. If something's popular, great, let's make ten hundred versions of it! And if anyone deviates from the expected pattern, they get slammed for it. It's time for a wake-up call. We may be worshiping God some of the time, but what we're really worshiping is our comfort zones.

[PaulDA]

I saw Rebecca as Type 1 up until worshipGOD, which for the most part was Type 2 and 3. Knowing that she's capable of putting out excellent worship albums (esp. Pray) comprised mainly of her own material, I don't want to see her thinking that she has to settle for less for an album to truly be a worship album.

Maybe you aren't giving her enough credit?
She did have 4 original songs on Worship God and she did change some of the songs quite a bit.
It Is Well was excellent I thought, done in a fast paced modern style.
Let My Words Be Few had an extra rock riff to it that was new and refreshing and made it different from any other version.
There was a little guitar thingy (dododo....dododo....dododo....dododo) in there that is not on any other version.
Is it that you didn't like the original songs much?
 

[murlough23]

Maybe you aren't giving her enough credit?
She did have 4 original songs on Worship God and she did change some of the songs quite a bit.

I know. Most of the original songs did nothing for me because she was trying to fit them into the template of radio-ready modern worship sogns... not that her past stuff was so radically different... but I didn't feel like every new song we got from her was forced into such a mold. She constrained herself creatively (albeit less than some bands like Kutless do) in order to put out an album that fit with a trend. I'm not saying she did it to be trendy; more that she saw what had been done, said "I want to do that too!" and did exactly that, more or less by the numbers.

Sure, some of the covers changed up the music a bit, but with the exception of "Let My Words Be Few", I didn't really care for the artistic decisions she made with those songs. Songs like "Above All", "Better Is One Day", and "It Is Well" (a.k.a. the song no CCM artist will ever get right) in particular sounded like she wasn't trying to express them creatively, she was trying to make them sound hip and cool. That generally doesn't work very well. It was fun in the days of SonicFlood, but I'm so over it now.

Come to think of it, while I enjoyed the arrangement on an aesthetic level, "Let My Words Be Few" doesn't really have an appropriate setting either. The bouncy guitars are fun and all, but it's meant to be a much more delicate and reverent song than that. If you ever heard Matt Redman do it live, you'd know what I mean.

And I didn't think it was a horrible album - I gave it an average rating when I reviewed it. But to hold it up as a landmark RSJ recording is silly. It took very little work on her part to make that record, and it was the first record that didn't accomplish anything new in terms of her artistic development. Making poppy arrangements of established worship songs and throwing in an EP's worth of your own material just smacks of either laziness or a need to follow the crowd. (When the crowd wasn't doing that, this might have been another story - e.g. SonicFlood.)

[PaulDA]

I guess we disgaree on Worship God because while I can understand and even agree with you on an artistic level, all that really doesn't matter to me. I listen to an album and I either like it or I don't. Creative analysis doesn't enter into my thinking although I can fully comprehend what you are saying.
Worship God is my 2nd favorite album from her.
My first is the 'live' worship album.
I know you will never agree with that  but my favorite recordings are 'live' records, so if someone I like does a 'live' album it will most likely become my favorite album from tha artists.
The same with Nicole C. Mullins' 'live' album. That is my favorite of her records.

[murlough23]

Creativity mattering to a person comes with spiritual maturity. You'll come to see why it's important sooner or later. I've explained it enough already. If it doesn't matter to you, go listen to sermons. Who needs music?

As for whether worshipGOD is creative (and I'll note that you're actually using that as a defense of the album even though you say it doesn't matter), that's something that we can debate.

My dislike toward live albums is a matter of aesthetics, not so much a matter of creativity. I think it's harder to make a live album sound good, because I tend to like a lot of the things that can be achieved in the studio when the players aren't as limited. You have your reasons for feeling otherwise, and I have no qualms with those. One of my favorite bands, Iona, might possibly have live albums that sound better than their studio albums. I debate about that from time to time. I understand and expect that a live album would usually contain songs from an artist's albums that are mostly played the same way that they are on the album, which is fine - for you, the crowd noise, different acoustics, higher energy level, variations on some songs on a live setting, etc., may contribute to your enjoyment and I totally understand that. I don't expect live albums to be vastly different than what I've already heard from an artist (though it can sometimes be interesting to hear electronic songs done with organic instruments, or rock songs done acoustically, or whatever).

I criticized RSJ's live album because (a) it wasn't even a ful album, which is just lazy - if you perform full concerts, you should release a full live album, and (b) it only contained tracks from what I considered to be one of her weaker albums, rather than being a career retrospective, which I think a good live album would do to some extent.

[PaulDA]

Creativity mattering to a person comes with spiritual maturity. You'll come to see why it's important sooner or later.
 

I'm almost 50 years old now!
This is the way I have been all my life when it comes to music, movies, books, etc.
Believe me, I am not going to change in that regard.
I will never like something for it's artistic merit in and of itself, although it is quite possible that something I like is artistically acclaimed.
For instance, I can enjoy an Abbott and Costello movie or the 1950s 'House On Haunted Hill' and I can also enjoy 'Gone With The Wind' or 'Citizen Cain'.
Or I can enjoy 'American Idol' and also enjoy a wonderful PBS broadcast.
But I don't look for art. I look for what I enjoy.
For instance, I abhor Shaespeare. I tried to read it a few times and I just don't like it.
Whetehr or not it is artsistic is meaningless to me if I don't enjoy it.

[murlough23]

I'm almost 50 years old now!

Spiritual maturity, Paul. Not physical maturity. There's a difference.

(And no, I'm not implying that I am a more spiritually mature person than you, but I have discovered truth in this one area where you have not discovered it yet. We mature in different areas at different rates.)

This is the way I have been all my life when it comes to music, movies, books, etc.
Believe me, I am not going to change in that regard.

How old were you when you became a Christian? You've mentioned several times that you have not been a Christian for your entire life, and it seems to me that you became one in your 30's or 40's. I don't see how being close to 50 makes you much less likely to change, and this isn't as big of a change.

And aside from the numbers, God's already shown an ability to change you, so this isn't a very good excuse.

But I don't look for art. I look for what I enjoy.

Now you're sounding like me debating with bloop. You know what? I look for enjoyment too. I like to have my horizons broadened when it comes to music, and in doing so I find more things that I enjoy, and I also find that there are things I used to enjoy which were superficial or otherwise not terribly healthy for me. In some ways I'm probably still a comfort junkie, and I need to get over that. Not that all comfort and familiarity is bad, but you're going down a dangerous road when you place it as a high priority. And I do think that our taste in music, books, movies, etc. does reflect our overall attitude about life, to some extent.

There's no harm in enjoying something. You just have to ask yourself what you enjoy about it, and whether that's a healthy enjoyment.

[Josh]

There's no harm in enjoying something. You just have to ask yourself what you enjoy about it, and whether that's a healthy enjoyment.

Yeah... isn't that basically what the concept of "discernment" is all about?

(I might also mention the Scripture in which Paul exhorts us to "test all things" and cling to that which is good).

[PaulDA]

How old were you when you became a Christian? You've mentioned several times that you have not been a Christian for your entire life, and it seems to me that you became one in your 30's or 40's. I don't see how being close to 50 makes you much less likely to change, and this isn't as big of a change.

I became a Christian on July 2, 2000, at the age of 44 and 1/2.
I fail to comprehhend how starting to like artistic things is a sign of spiritual maturity. 8-)  

[ThePurplePerson]

while we're on CCM, david, have you heard the new Plumb single?

[murlough23]

I became a Christian on July 2, 2000, at the age of 44 and 1/2.
I fail to comprehhend how starting to like artistic things is a sign of spiritual maturity. 8-)

Well, what happens in the absence of artistry?

[danny316]

I became a Christian on July 2, 2000, at the age of 44 and 1/2.
I fail to comprehhend how starting to like artistic things is a sign of spiritual maturity. 8-)

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the connection is either. I like art and all, but I don't see what it has to do with spiritual maturity.

I bought God for 50 cents and never bothered to listen. Does this make me a terrible person?  

[Josh]

I bought God for 50 cents and never bothered to listen.

The first part of that sentence would sound really funny out of context.

[enemy anemone]

(everyone should have a Danny quote in his or her sig.)

[PaulDA]

Anyway, back on track a bit , I will probably like the RSJ album no matter what she does, because once i like aa singer, I basically like everything they put out, even if I might not like the same sing if someone else recorded it.
I think the only way I would dislike the new RSJ album
is if she rapped or sang heavy metal.  :brickwall:  :bonk:  :bosh:

[Aaron]

Just because I have a favorite band doesn't mean I'll buy everything they do.  If they put out a crappy record, I'm not going to buy it.  Why waste my money on something of low-quality?  Buying it just because they are my favorite artist is just like being a dumb blind sheep, IMO

[MJanke]

Creativity mattering to a person comes with spiritual maturity. You'll come to see why it's important sooner or later.

Ooh... I'm not so sure I agree with that. Some of the most spiritually mature people that I know - truly Godly people who are wiser than I'll ever hope to be - honestly couldn't care about creativity in the manner of which you are speaking.

These people to which I refer would much rather sit and listen to an old hymn or sing another round of "Majesty" (the Jack Hayford song, not Delirious) than listen to anything that anyone here would classify as creative or artistically advanced. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, nor are they suddenly any less spirtually mature after one has realized that about them. It's simply the way that God wired them. Some people's tastes will never be towards the artistic and creative side of music.

I think we have to be careful about saying stuff like this. It's one thing to push for excellence and creativity and all of that, and to encourage it from artists - the people who are doing the creating. It's quite another to sit here and say that Christians who do not share that same appreciation are not as spiritually mature as those who do. Dare I say, it is even pretentious.

We do not all listen to music for the same reasons. Some will just never care the way you do or I do because it's not that important to them - they have better things to worry about or other areas of life where their intense interests lie. Some people have no interests in the arts, period. I wouldn't want to be that person, but there's no way we can sit here and judge their spiritual maturity based upon that point.

[murlough23]

Then they lack maturity in that area and are only sticking to comfort zones. Sorry, but I'm not backing down on this one. Christians have no right to confine God in a box when it comes to their worship. Not liking certain forms of creativity is fine. Categorically stating that creativity is not important is theologically incorrect.

[MJanke]

Then they lack maturity in that area and are only sticking to comfort zones. Sorry, but I'm not backing down on this one. Christians have no right to confine God in a box when it comes to their worship. Not liking certain forms of creativity is fine. Categorically stating that creativity is not important is theologically incorrect.

That's not what you originally said. "Creativity mattering to a person comes with spiritual maturity" sounded much different than what you just posted above.

If we're just speaking about personal tastes and what one enjoys - which is what I think Paul was talking about (what he enjoys, and likes), then creativity is NOT important. Mature Christians are not required to enjoy or prefer more creative music. That's simply musical snobbery.

However, I can agree that if we're simply talking about not putting God in a box and realizing that even if one doesn't like something it still has value and that, personal preference aside, creativity in worship is important. That I can agree with.

[murlough23]

That's not what you originally said. "Creativity mattering to a person comes with spiritual maturity" sounded much different than what you just posted above.

A differently worded sentence based on the same central point. Whatever.

If we're just speaking about personal tastes and what one enjoys - which is what I think Paul was talking about (what he enjoys, and likes), then creativity is NOT important. Mature Christians are not required to enjoy or prefer more creative music. That's simply musical snobbery.

I'm talking about seeing value in creativity, not necessarily enjoying it (though it would follow that if you saw value in the practice, you'd come to enjoy it in at least some cases, which I think Paul does, and you'd come to seek it out rather than saying you don't care about it).

Many of us still like some things that are not terribly creative. We all have our basic, silly, just-for-fun things and I'm not going to criticze that unless the superficial stuff becomes so prominent that it seems to be someone's priority. In the case of the CCM market and several consumers, it unfortunately has. In the case of folks here - well, I'd give us a little more credit than that, including Paul, who may say he doesn't care about creativity, but if that were really true I think his musical tastes would be a lot different.

However, I can agree that if we're simply talking about not putting God in a box and realizing that even if one doesn't like something it still has value and that, personal preference aside, creativity in worship is important. That I can agree with.

Right, and when you see value in that, how can you go back to the non-creative and pretend it's just as valid? You can't. That doesn't mean all that is simplistic or traditional is non-creative. Plenty can be done with simple and traditional forms. But when one stays confined and does not want to go outside of a certain small box (however much they may enjoy that box, and however much creativity may in fact be present within that box), I'm gonna call foul.

God created us with the ability to create and to be in awe of creativity. It'll show in very different ways for each one of us, but just shrugging it off and saying it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things is like saying that God wasted His time with nature when things could have been made so much more clean and efficient.

[PaulDA]

Then they lack maturity in that area and are only sticking to comfort zones. Sorry, but I'm not backing down on this one. Christians have no right to confine God in a box when it comes to their worship. Not liking certain forms of creativity is fine. Categorically stating that creativity is not important is theologically incorrect.

Then I shall be forever 'theologically incorrect'. =)  
I listen to music for two reasons:
1. Because I like it
2. (and if it's Christian music) because I want to hear songs about God.

It's like artwork. I don't give a hoot if critics like or don't like artists I like.
I love Norman Rockwell. Most art critics have  never, until recently, said he was creative.
He was panned as a matter of fact by most of these critics.
Do I care?
no.
I like his art more than any so-called 'master' artists like Van Go or Da Vinci.
I think most Christians fall into my category.
They like what they like, no matter if it is accepted as great art or not.

[PaulDA]

Just because I have a favorite band doesn't mean I'll buy everything they do.  If they put out a crappy record, I'm not going to buy it.  Why waste my money on something of low-quality?  Buying it just because they are my favorite artist is just like being a dumb blind sheep, IMO

That's where we differ.
If I like an artist, nothing is crappy to me.
So, not only am I 'theologically incorrect', but now I am also 'a dumb blind sheep'.
'PaulDA The Theologically Incorrect Dumb Blind Sheep'.
I like that!
It has panache! 8-)  =D
I have almost every record James Brown has ever put out, over 80 albums and over 120 singles, plus almost 1/4 as many by his band, and other artists he has produced.
I like some more than others, but I like all of them.
That's the way I am with RSJ too.
I like everything she has put out, some much less than others, but once I like a singer I am loyal for life and nothing can change that.  

[bloop]

That's where we differ.
If I like an artist, nothing is crappy to me.
So, not only am I 'theologically incorrect', but now I am also 'a dumb blind sheep'.
'PaulDA The Theologically Incorrect Dumb Blind Sheep'.
I like that!
It has panache! 8-)  =D
I have almost every record James Brown has ever put out, over 80 albums and over 120 singles, plus almost 1/4 as many by his band, and other srtists he has produced.
I like some more than others, but I like all of them.
That's the way I am with RSJ too.
I like everything she has put out, some much less than others, but once I like a singer I am loyal for life and nothing can change that.  

I was with you up to a point, Paul (not to the point of saying that creativity is unimportant, but to the point of saying that it isn't very important to you.  That much is kind of unarguable anyway, and I'm not even going to argue that you should grant it the same importance that I do).  However, this doesn't make much sense to me, and I personally don't think it's even true.  If Norman Rockwell suddenly started to adopt Jackson Pollack's art style, I doubt you'd keep getting his Saturday Evening Post covers.  It just doesn't make sense to esteem any artist (who is still making art, obviously) so highly that they can do no wrong.

[MJanke]

Right, and when you see value in that, how can you go back to the non-creative and pretend it's just as valid? You can't. That doesn't mean all that is simplistic or traditional is non-creative. Plenty can be done with simple and traditional forms. But when one stays confined and does not want to go outside of a certain small box (however much they may enjoy that box, and however much creativity may in fact be present within that box), I'm gonna call foul.

And I'm going to have to disagree. I think you're trying to view the world through the lense of someone who values and appreciates art at a certain degree. Not everyone has that lense or even wants that lense. You can call a foul but, in essence, I think to do so is to play God there and it really is his call as to whether the person has or lacks spiritual maturity. You say "how can you go back to the non-creative and pretend it's just as valid?" Well, for that person it might be - because a non-musically inclined person may not have or want any sort of interaction with what you view as creative music. For them, music is not important and if they hear any it is only to fit and fill certain needs - they get whatever "it" is that you are getting from music through other means and sources.

In essence it seems to me that you are elevating appreciation for creativity to a level that it does not deserve. Our walk with God - the health and vitality of it - is not based upon such things. The fruit of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Nowhere on that list will you find what you are talking about here. Many people appreciate art the way that you are describing - and that it fantastic. I wish the world had more of them. But many of those people also want nothing to do with the Lord. That appreciation does not equate to spiritual maturity. Likewise, and contrary to what you are now claiming, I must say that many spiritually mature people lack this artistic appreciation.  It is a non-essential value. Refer back to the fruits of the Spirit for your true spiritual maturity evidence.

[bloop]

I kind of have to tend toward Janke on this one, but I'm not hard on that side.  I don't require everyone to care about art, music in particular, the way I do in order to call them spiritually mature.  It doesn't seem to be a prerequisite to even care about the arts at all.  Maybe a person's tastes are well-developed if they do have that appreciation, or something of that nature, but that doesn't imply spiritually maturity, even given that the person is a Christian.  

However, for those that care about music, I think there may be a link between that kind of maturity and appreciation for creativity, but that may very well just come with overall maturity (which, I believe, feeds into spiritual maturity if one is a Christian) and maybe, dare I say it, intelligence or the propensity to "get" such things.

[PaulDA]

[PaulDA]

And I'm going to have to disagree. I think you're trying to view the world through the lense of someone who values and appreciates art at a certain degree. Not everyone has that lense or even wants that lense. You can call a foul but, in essence, I think to do so is to play God there and it really is his call as to whether the person has or lacks spiritual maturity. You say "how can you go back to the non-creative and pretend it's just as valid?" Well, for that person it might be - because a non-musically inclined person may not have or want any sort of interaction with what you view as creative music. For them, music is not important and if they hear any it is only to fit and fill certain needs - they get whatever "it" is that you are getting from music through other means and sources.

In essence it seems to me that you are elevating appreciation for creativity to a level that it does not deserve. Our walk with God - the health and vitality of it - is not based upon such things. The fruit of the spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Nowhere on that list will you find what you are talking about here. Many people appreciate art the way that you are describing - and that it fantastic. I wish the world had more of them. But many of those people also want nothing to do with the Lord. That appreciation does not equate to spiritual maturity. Likewise, and contrary to what you are now claiming, I must say that many spiritually mature people lack this artistic appreciation.  It is a non-essential value. Refer back to the fruits of the Spirit for your true spiritual maturity evidence.

I basically agree with Janke here.
And let me ad, I have NOTHING against people who look for artistic merit as the criteria for liking something.
Everyone is different and that's what makes the world go round.
(Well, that, and God. )

[bloop]

So, you didn't like any soul artist before you knew James Brown (well, ok, why would you?)?  Any comedian since A&C?  Any female pop singer before RSJ?  

If you ever did like anyone before you knew these, then you would have had, in the past, a favorite other than the one you have today, rendering this statement false (not a lie, really, but not true).

[murlough23]

bloop, you're actually getting at the reason why this matters to me so much. There is a link between appreciation for creativity and maturity. Shunning something which is different, or saying that it has no value, only strike me as an immature thing to do. You're not required to like it, but a blatant refusal to broaden one's horizons is foolhardy. You may say it only applies to music, but I think that mentality can easily spill over into other areas of our lives. It's dangerous, and the consumer-driven takeover we've seen in CCM is a great example of why it's dangerous.

Is creativity a fruit of the spirit? Well, I didn't say that you had to be creative in order to achieve maturity in this area. I'm talking about our views on things, not necessarily what we produce ourselves. So I don't really see where the whole fruit of the spirit thing relates to the discussion on the first place.

To me, it's simple. Learn to seek out that which is creative (it doesn't mean that you can't continue to appreciate the things that you currently appreciate) and challenge yourself with those different methods of worship, or remain in a box and stagnate. Obviously it's not required of us to like or listen to music at all, so I'm not about to say that seeking out creativity in music is essential for salvation or something silly like that. (Same with movies, books, whatever.) But if you do seek out an art form as a source of entertainment, encouragement, whatever, I think you should be responsible to not encourage triteness and rote repetition on the part of the artists, because for them to continue to do so is damaging to people for whom music is a part of their spiritual development (which is obviously a lot of us, and I don't think it's a bad thing that art/media are used as tools to help us mature, so long as they're actually doing that).

You may say, "I like it and it meets a need for me, so what else matters?" To that I ask, would it meet a spiritual need even if you didn't like it on an aesthetic level? (Which brings me back to the question of why we need music in the first place if creativity shouldn't matter to us - we could just skip the art and let the message stand on its own as simple words) And is it really meeting a need, or just meeting the perceived need of making you feel all warm and fuzzy and "blessed"?

If God's purpose for music, books, movies, and other forms of media is simply a utilitarian one - to get souls saved and teach them stuff - then I honestly don't know why we should bother with popular styles of music, or fictional stories in books or movies. We might as well just have a dude standing up there and talking. No need for music, or for any sort of a story. Just a person speaking the truth. Certainly that is just as valuable and 10 times more efficient because there's no beating around the bush. That's where the logic the creativity doesn't matter will eventually lead you. Oh, I guess we can use the musical styles and the storytelling to hook people emotionally and give them a high so that they'll want to do what we say. We win tons of converts that way, don't we? Wouldn't want to put our ability to do that in jeopardy. Never mind that converting for purely emotional reasons will likely lead them to a very shallow experience of who God is. Hey, who cares, as long as we can say we got the most numbers saved in the fastest way possible?

So go ahead. Make excuses for mediocrity. Give musicians the license to not think and not cause other people to think. But don't blame me in 10 years when the church is overrun with baby Christians who refuse to grow up and the CCM industry shuns anyone who wants to sell them something other than baby food.

[PaulDA]

So, you didn't like any soul artist before you knew James Brown (well, ok, why would you?)?  Any comedian since A&C?  Any female pop singer before RSJ?  

If you ever did like anyone before you knew these, then you would have had, in the past, a favorite other than the one you have today, rendering this statement false (not a lie, really, but not true).

Ok, let me exlain further.
I don't know when it happens with me, but i can go for years without having a real favorite, but when it does happen, that clicks with me.
For instance, I heard many CCM artists before I heard RSJ, and I liked many of them, but that 'favorite' thing didn't click in with me until I heard her, and not immediately either. It took a few months, but once it was established, that was it.
................Actually, before I heard James Brown in school when someone brough in a 45 of 'Licking Stick, Licking Stick in 1968 I had never really heard many soul artsist. I liked the Beatles, the Dave Clark Five and some other rock acts. But I had gravitated to the r&b sounding cuts like 'Money' and 'Twist and Shout' where the Beatles really let go and screamed. As soon as I heard James Brown that day in school, i KNEW instinctively, this was the REAL deal and not a copy. By the way, I like other soul acts to from Wilson Pickett to the Temptations.
..............As for Abbott and Costello, of course I like other comedians who came after them, but none will take their place with me.
Hey, all of you know I'm weird.    :bosh:  :inno:  

[PaulDA]

bloop, you're actually getting at the reason why this matters to me so much. .

Please don't confuse my rationale for why I like what i like, with my respect for what you are saying.
I like that you are thatw ay Murlough. I learn from your musings, (as i do with Bloop, Janke and other 'thinkers').
For instance, i enjoy Jars Of Ckay more now, but not because they are more artistically acclaimed thatn RSJ.  I like them because I enjoy their music.

[PaulDA]

Here is an example of how I think:
I can comprehend that opera or ballet are very high artistsic endeaveors when done correctly.....but I cannot stand either one!!  

[murlough23]

Please don't confuse my rationale for why I like what i like, with my respect for what you are saying.
I like that you are thatw ay Murlough. I learn from your musings, (as i do with Bloop, Janke and other 'thinkers').
For instance, i enjoy Jars Of Ckay more now, but not because they are more artistically acclaimed thatn RSJ.  I like them because I enjoy their music.

You're the one who is confusing your own rationale. One minute you say creativity doesn't matter and you just like what you like. Fine. Then why do you keep citing the ability to come up with different arrangements of their own songs (in the case of James Brown) or someone else's songs (in the case of RSJ) as a reason for liking them? That's creativity. It may not be my favorite thing in the world, but it does take creativity to do that instead of playing it straight the "traditional" way every time. But why does this matter to you? Your statement that creativity does not figure into why you like these artists is, quite frankly, bogus.

I'm not talking about liking something else because it's critically acclaimed. This is not a mob mentality. I'm not saying people should like stuff because all the critical bigwigs think it's the most creative thing ever. I have just as much contempt for people who say I should do that as you do. But it is nice to have people who can listen and hear different creative things in music and point them out to others. That inspires those people much more than it would have if the artist just did the same old thing, and for good reason. Maybe you see creativity in different places than we do. Great; describe it to us as we described it to you with an act like Jars of Clay, or as someone else described it to you with soul acts like JB. We can debate about it, I guess, but the important thing is that we're looking for it and not settling for less than that.

Creativity is an act of worshipping God (when done by a Christian seeking to glorify God, anyway) with our minds. We are supposed to worship with all of our hearts (emotion), minds (thought/intelligence/creativity), and strength (actual ability), correct? I don't see how doing the same old rote thing accomplishes this. It's status quo. We know it can be done, we've seen it done a hundred times before, and we don't have to really think about it. Phoning it in is not worship.

I would hope that you don't like Jars of Clay just because I or someone else likes them. That'd be the blind sheep mentality. I want people to really investigate stuff and find something they can like, relate to, really feel the power behind. Without creativity, it'd all be the same stuff and it'd be very surface level, because no one would bother to think, put stuff in their own words, apply the head knowledge they've got from the Bible to the specifics of their own life and come up with a way to express the unique testimony God has given them. If creativity doesn't matter, why did God make us unique instead of carbon-copied robots? Why do humans have this ability to create? (Maybe not everyone has that ability when it comes to music, but certainly when it comes to something, they do.)

Now I'm with you on liking something because you like it - what would the point be of creating and selling music if absolutely no one wanted to listen to it? But I say that with the caveat that not everything we like is actually good for us. Sometimes it's bad because it seduces us very easily by tickling our ears, and then it implants very superficial ideas within us about who God is. Sometimes it's just neutral, harmless fun, and in those cases I wouldn't be especially hard on someone for listening to it unless that was the majority of what they were seeking out. Sometimes what we like is very good for us, because God likd it first and made us to like it. And not everyone will like the same good things, and that's OK. But let's make sure we don't like bad things.

[PaulDA]

All quotes are from Murlough23:

You're the one who is confusing your own rationale. One minute you say creativity doesn't matter and you just like what you like. Fine. Then why do you keep citing the ability to come up with different arrangements of their own songs (in the case of James Brown) or someone else's songs (in the case of RSJ) as a reason for liking them? That's creativity. It may not be my favorite thing in the world, but it does take creativity to do that instead of playing it straight the "traditional" way every time. But why does this matter to you? Your statement that creativity does not figure into why you like these artists is, quite frankly, bogus.

This is one reason  i like you. You aren't afraid to challenge someone even when they butter you up. =D

I'm not talking about liking something else because it's critically acclaimed. This is not a mob mentality. I'm not saying people should like stuff because all the critical bigwigs think it's the most creative thing ever. I have just as much contempt for people who say I should do that as you do. But it is nice to have people who can listen and hear different creative things in music and point them out to others. That inspires those people much more than it would have if the artist just did the same old thing, and for good reason. Maybe you see creativity in different places than we do. Great; describe it to us as we described it to you with an act like Jars of Clay, or as someone else described it to you with soul acts like JB. We can debate about it, I guess, but the important thing is that we're looking for it and not settling for less than that.

When you put it that way, I guess I do look at certain aspects of creativity, but I do not, as you said, simply like something just because the critics hail it as creative.

Creativity is an act of worshipping God (when done by a Christian seeking to glorify God, anyway) with our minds.

I see you put that last part in ( ) to do damage conrol with Janke.  

We are supposed to worship with all of our hearts (emotion), minds (thought/intelligence/creativity), and strength (actual ability), correct? I don't see how doing the same old rote thing accomplishes this. It's status quo. We know it can be done, we've seen it done a hundred times before, and we don't have to really think about it. Phoning it in is not worship.

I still don't see your point that Christians have to look for creativity in everything and why they can't just like something because they simply like it.

I would hope that you don't like Jars of Clay just because I or someone else likes them. That'd be the blind sheep mentality. I want people to really investigate stuff and find something they can like, relate to, really feel the power behind. Without creativity, it'd all be the same stuff and it'd be very surface level, because no one would bother to think, put stuff in their own words, apply the head knowledge they've got from the Bible to the specifics of their own life and come up with a way to express the unique testimony God has given them. If creativity doesn't matter, why did God make us unique instead of carbon-copied robots? Why do humans have this ability to create? (Maybe not everyone has that ability when it comes to music, but certainly when it comes to something, they do.)

It's not that i like Jars of Clay because you like them. It's because I took some of what you said (and others) into consideration and listened more closely to them.

Now I'm with you on liking something because you like it - what would the point be of creating and selling music if absolutely no one wanted to listen to it? But I say that with the caveat that not everything we like is actually good for us. Sometimes it's bad because it seduces us very easily by tickling our ears, and then it implants very superficial ideas within us about who God is. Sometimes it's just neutral, harmless fun, and in those cases I wouldn't be especially hard on someone for listening to it unless that was the majority of what they were seeking out. Sometimes what we like is very good for us, because God likd it first and made us to like it. And not everyone will like the same good things, and that's OK. But let's make sure we don't like bad things.

When you say 'bad', to me that would mean sinful. If I watch a mindless show like American Idol and look forward to it every week, to me that is not 'bad' just because the show is really a media gimmick.

[bloop]

When you put it that way, I guess I do look at certain aspects of creativity, but I do not, as you said, simply like something just because the critics hail it as creative.

Paul, nobody does if they're being honest with themselves.  I like things because I like them, too.  The critical concensus seems to validate the things I like most of the time, but that doesn't mean that I just like the things they do.  I would say that I generally look very carefully at those albums, especially in the past, that are regarded as "classics", but that's the extent of it.