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

[PaulDA]

So are you saying I may be looking at some things in an artistic way but not realize it?

[bloop]

If you examined what you do carefully, you'd probably come to see that artistry does matter to you.

[murlough23]

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

Just 'cause you're nice to me doesn't mean that I shouldn't tell you what I think is the truth. Though I'll probably try a little harder to get you to listen, because you're my friend and I think we can have a rational discussion instead of an argument like I had with so many of the clowns on CMC.

In short, I ain't no politician.

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.

I like that about you. You don't give a rip if people ridicule you for liking something. That's a good thing. It just needs to be tempered by a willingness to be challenged by people who have earned your trust. I don't want you to like stuff because I like it - I just want you to like stuff for good reasons. "It sounds good" is a beginning, but not the sole criteria for what makes music worth listening to.

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

I figured I'd get a comeback from someone saying, "What about secular artists who use creativity to say foul things?" or something like that. And sure, lots of people have God-given talent that isn't being used to glorify God - Eminem, for example. I'd rather listen to something semi-creative that glorifies God than something extremely creative that blasphemes God (though sometimes the blasphemous/offensive stuff can be an interest character study for those who can stomach it). But just because KJ-52 (for example) makes morally better music than Eminem doesn't mean we should let him off the hook for being trite and repetitive and ripping off Eminem (not saying specifically that he does; it's just an example I came up with out of thin air).

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.

My problem is what happens in the absence or near-absence of creativity. The Gospel gets trivialized, even to the point where people get a very superficial view of the Christian life, and this contributes to wrong attitudes within the church. I'm not saying everything has to be 100% innovative and blow away all of our notions of what music is, or whatever. Some pretty creative stuff can be done within the confines of radio-ready pop music. It's more when people who like a certain narrow range shun everything outside of that range, or expect that everyone else will have no interest in it, which is more or less what the CCM industry does. If we don't learn to seek out and appreciate creativity, artists who are trying to use their God-given creativity will fall by the wayside and never find an audience for what they do, because they're not "trendy" or whatever. And the ones who are popular and who we reward year after year will be the ones doing the same old thing. I think that's a big problem, and I think it's the reason why a lot of the outside world's stereotypes about Christian music are warranted (though it's not like mainstream Top 40 is much better).

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 listewdned more closely yo them.

And I'll cite things like this as evidence that you can change even at this age. You've continually shown a willingness (maybe sometimes after an extended argument/debate, but hey, I'm stubborn too) to at least consider the opposing point of view and look closer at what they have to say. You've examined and re-examined music that you may have pre-judged at first as being worthless. And maybe at the end, you still won't find it terribly interesting, or maybe you will, but you've shown a willingness to be open-minded. If you can do that, I think you can eventually make the paradigm shift I'm asking you to make here. I can explain and explain all I want, but it's kind of something that has to be experienced. That's how it was for me, and it was only about 2001-2002 when it really started happening.

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.

American Idol doesn't purport to be honoring God (though there may be Christian singers on there from time to time, but that's a side issue), so while I detest it, I'm not as hard on it from a moral perspective. I don't think it makes much pretense about what it does - it's a star-generating machine. And some of those folks are creative with their voices again, but I question the whole system of someone becoming insanely popular just by singing karaoke. There's not much creativity in that, and it's disgusting to me that real musicians, or even vocalists who write songs or who work with writers to generate songs that are more personal to them, labor in obscurity in the meantime. You'd better believe that if there were a "Christian" version of AI, I'd be loudly denouncing it. Not that I don't want to recognize good singers for their talent, but if they're just using it to spout off superficially religious lyrics and give everyone surface-level warm fuzzies, then yeah, I'd call that sin. It's turning Christianity into a feel-good comfort zone, and that's not what Jesus promised we'd get for following Him.

NP: "Freedom to Feel", John Reuben feat. Adrienne Camp

[PaulDA]

American Idol doesn't purport to be honoring God (though there may be Christian singers on there from time to time, but that's a side issue), so while I detest it, I'm not as hard on it from a moral perspective.

But isn't one of you pet peeves things that are not creative?
So, there are two things you really don't like:
1. Things that are not creative in general, but if they are not immoral, it's not going to ruffle your feathers as much.
2. Immoral entertainment, whether it is artistic or not.

Let me ask: Do you like anything that is really not creative, but you happen to like it for entertainment sake?
And one more point: I would submit that everything has a degree of creativity involved....even an outright copy of something is creative in a sense.

[murlough23]

But isn't one of you pet peeves things that are not creative?

Yes. Did I ever state otherwise?

However, not everything that is a pet peeve of mine is something that I regard as a sin. It depends on the motivation for doing the thing that ticks me off, I guess. I mean, someone could try to be creative and fail miserably, and it wouldn't be a sin, necessarily, but it probably would irritate me quite a bit.

1. Things that are not creative in general, but if they are not immoral, it's not going to ruffle your feathers as much.

If they don't become insanely popular and get touted as one of the best things to happen to (music/film/fill in the blank), then yeah, probably not.

However, I think the stakes are much higher for artists who purport to be representing a Christian worldview, than for mainstream artists. Mainstream artists, as long as they do no harm, I might make fun of 'em for not being very creative but beyond that I'll generally leave 'em alone. Christian artists, while it's fine for them to do harmless fun stuff from time to time (e.g. one of Relient K's silly songs, or heck, even a Jump5 song that is clearly meant to be just for fun), have a much greater responsibility, and they should take that seriously. Not that their mood has to be dead serious all the time (that can actually weigh a group down by making them seem pretentious), but I think they need to be careful about not turning the Gospel into cheap cliches, and not oversimplifying for the sake of a catchy rhyme. If they want to take the more poetic approach and make people work for the meaning a bit, then I can understand if someone misinterprets, but if they're being straightforward and being lauded for doing so, it stands to reason that what they're saying should ring true theologically and also not come off as a hollow love song or whatever.

2. Immoral entertainment, whether it is artistic or not.

Yes. I may appreciate that there is talent there, but it does irritate me to see that talent wasted on an immoral message. I'm not as loud about this with mainstream artists because if they don't follow the same belief system as I do, I can't expect them to follow its rules either, but if they claim to be Christian and are spreading immorality or bad theology, then of course I'm going to call them on that. (And it might be a subject for debate in some cases; I'm not the ultimate decider of what is moral and what is not, but when I smell something funny, I need to say so.)

Let me ask: Do you like anything that is really not creative, but you happen to like it for entertainment sake?

Yeah, there's some lighthearted fun stuff in my collection that isn't terribly creative in the grand scheme of things. "Ear candy", basically. I think that it takes some creativity to come up with a good hook or a good beat, but then you could just be recycling it from someone else, and I don't think it takes a whole lot of thought to do that, but there may be some cases in which I don't even realize that's occurring. If it's not a direct ripoff and it's meant to be inane, harmless fun, I can usually accept it as that and move on. But a greater message deserves greater care, I think, so I don't want someone spouting off vague stuff about how God will save me in the same manner that they'd spout off fluff lyrics about a day in the park with their honey or whatever. It's all about context. Christian music often doesn't take this into account, because it sees the two pieces - the Gospel message and the current hot trends in music - and pairs them off arbitrarily without thinking about how they would fit together appropriately.

And one more point: I would submit that everything has a degree of creativity involved....even an outright copy of something is creative in a sense.

Well, sure, even my posts on this message board require creativity because I've gotta put sentences together in a way that articulates my point of view, but I wouldn't regard it as being more than just a tiny bit creative because I'm mostly using the first words that come to mind, which are commonly and easily understood. I'm not trying to write poetry or prose; I'm just taking the easiest method of getting a point across. That doesn't mean my posts are bad for not being creative, but if someone tried to nominate them for a Pulitzer Prize, I'd say that would be pretty whack.

So while nothing made my man is 100% devoid of creativity, I don't think we should be giving out all these rave reviews and kudos to the stuff that takes so little creativity that anyone can do it. The acclaim is supposed to be for that which is special, isn't it? Aren't special things usually different, maybe pushing the envelope a bit, not satisfied to just redo what's been done before?

[PaulDA]

So while nothing made my man.....

Who is your man?
Does your girl friend know about this??? :zoinks:  

[murlough23]

Nothing made by man. Sorry about that.

[PaulDA]

Nothing made by man. Sorry about that.

I knew what you meant. I was just being a nusance.....as usual.  :!:  

[murlough23]

So are we going to let my typo derail the whole conversation, or do you just have nothing left to say on the matter?

[PaulDA]

So are we going to let my typo derail the whole conversation, or do you just have nothing left to say on the matter?

  The old Murlough sarcasm is wonderful to behold.
Well, getting back a bit to RSJ.....I think that she is going to go for something a bit above the bar this time.
I feel this is her chance to really come back and shine with great arrangements and concepts.
I'll post more later or tomorrow about creativity.
 

[murlough23]

I'm willing to give Rebecca the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[PaulDA]

All quotes are from Murlough23

However, not everything that is a pet peeve of mine is something that I regard as a sin. It depends on the motivation for doing the thing that ticks me off, I guess. I mean, someone could try to be creative and fail miserably, and it wouldn't be a sin, necessarily, but it probably would irritate me quite a bit.

Hmmm, how do you judge someone's motivation? They may sincerely be doing something for God and it may seem to you like it lacks creativity.

If they don't become insanely popular and get touted as one of the best things to happen to (music/film/fill in the blank), then yeah, probably not.

Even if that happens, do you admit that your opinion on creativity may not be everyones? Some people may think something is creative and others may not.

However, I think the stakes are much higher for artists who purport to be representing a Christian worldview, than for mainstream artists. Mainstream artists, as long as they do no harm, I might make fun of 'em for not being very creative but beyond that I'll generally leave 'em alone. Christian artists, while it's fine for them to do harmless fun stuff from time to time (e.g. one of Relient K's silly songs, or heck, even a Jump5 song that is clearly meant to be just for fun), have a much greater responsibility, and they should take that seriously. Not that their mood has to be dead serious all the time (that can actually weigh a group down by making them seem pretentious), but I think they need to be careful about not turning the Gospel into cheap cliches, and not oversimplifying for the sake of a catchy rhyme. If they want to take the more poetic approach and make people work for the meaning a bit, then I can understand if someone misinterprets, but if they're being straightforward and being lauded for doing so, it stands to reason that what they're saying should ring true theologically and also not come off as a hollow love song or whatever.

I'm not so sure about this. The apostle Paul said He became all things to all people so that some would be saved. You don't think it's possible for someone to genuinly love and serve God and sing songs that are not what you would call creative, because they have a certain audience they are trying to reach, whether it's Christians who need building up or the unsaved who would like that type of music?
Do you realize that 'cheap cliches' sometimes actually draw people to Christ? Remember, if the heart is willing, God can use anything to bring people to Him.
I've had the most (what you would call) corny Christian t-shirts on and I've invariably had some folks say, "nice t-shirt" or "I like you shirt." These were probably Christians, but maybe they weren't, and even if it just brightened up their day for a second, I feel it was worth it.

Yes. I may appreciate that there is talent there, but it does irritate me to see that talent wasted on an immoral message. I'm not as loud about this with mainstream artists because if they don't follow the same belief system as I do, I can't expect them to follow its rules either, but if they claim to be Christian and are spreading immorality or bad theology, then of course I'm going to call them on that. (And it might be a subject for debate in some cases; I'm not the ultimate decider of what is moral and what is not, but when I smell something funny, I need to say so.)

I don't see how any Christian could disagree with this.

Yeah, there's some lighthearted fun stuff in my collection that isn't terribly creative in the grand scheme of things. "Ear candy", basically. I think that it takes some creativity to come up with a good hook or a good beat, but then you could just be recycling it from someone else, and I don't think it takes a whole lot of thought to do that, but there may be some cases in which I don't even realize that's occurring. If it's not a direct ripoff and it's meant to be inane, harmless fun, I can usually accept it as that and move on. But a greater message deserves greater care, I think, so I don't want someone spouting off vague stuff about how God will save me in the same manner that they'd spout off fluff lyrics about a day in the park with their honey or whatever. It's all about context. Christian music often doesn't take this into account, because it sees the two pieces - the Gospel message and the current hot trends in music - and pairs them off arbitrarily without thinking about how they would fit together appropriately.

Different people respond to different things. Many paopel love fluff in their entertainment. They don't really want to think. After a hard day's word or tough day in school they just want to relax and enjoy something without having to wrack their brains. I would bet that many unsaved people have come closer to Jesus but what you may call mindless lyrics or riffs that were influenced by others.

Well, sure, even my posts on this message board require creativity because I've gotta put sentences together in a way that articulates my point of view, but I wouldn't regard it as being more than just a tiny bit creative because I'm mostly using the first words that come to mind, which are commonly and easily understood. I'm not trying to write poetry or prose; I'm just taking the easiest method of getting a point across. That doesn't mean my posts are bad for not being creative, but if someone tried to nominate them for a Pulitzer Prize, I'd say that would be pretty whack.

But does the average person get that deep into anything? I don't think so. People love shows like American Idol, The Simple Life, all the mindless reality shows, action movies with no real story, formulamatic novels, etc.

So while nothing made by man is 100% devoid of creativity, I don't think we should be giving out all these rave reviews and kudos to the stuff that takes so little creativity that anyone can do it. The acclaim is supposed to be for that which is special, isn't it? Aren't special things usually different, maybe pushing the envelope a bit, not satisfied to just redo what's been done before?

I can agree there about reviews. However, as long as the reviewer is hinest and states that this has been done before or the lyrics aren't that wonderful or original, he can say it is good within that framework.  

[murlough23]

Hmmm, how do you judge someone's motivation? They may sincerely be doing something for God and it may seem to you like it lacks creativity.

When a motivation hasn't been stated for sure, I generally try to give an artist the benefit of the doubt and assume that they meant well. However, artists are vulnerable to the pressures of the industry, and I think we've heard enough to know that the motivation of the industry is sell, sell, sell. So a perfectly well-meaning artists could be pressured by the industry to do things that are most likely to help their records sell. The logic behind this is that it will reach the most people, but if what's reaching them has been diluted, I don't see how that really helps.

I also think it's possible to do things sincerely, but out of an incorrect understanding of what God wants. I think that the industry often translates exposure to the most people as being the biggest blessing. Since we know that the angels rejoice over even one soul that is saved, I don't think we should necessarily place the highest value on the artists whose music facilitates the most conversions. To me, it's quality, not quantity, and quality isn't nearly as easy to measure. If a bunch of people convert to a superficial and just plain messed up understanding of the Gospel, that could be doing a lot of harm as well - not that those people aren't saved, but if the church is overrun with misconceptions and immaturity, it's going to hurt us a great deal.

And sometimes admirable ideas just aren't executed well. That probably doesn't constitute a sin on the part of the person executing the idea, but still, you're an ambassador for God here. You've got to be careful. God knows your motivations, but other people don't, so I think it's best to err on the side of putting a little more thought into what you're doing. Too many Christians (new ones especially) act on emotion without really thinking things through.

But evangelism also isn't the only purpose of Christian music, and I think the industry forgets that as well. There are a lot of purposes that it serves, and I think we have too narrow of a focus on evangelizing the unsaved and worship sogns that can be sung corporately. Those are very important things, but still only part of the picture.

Even if that happens, do you admit that your opinion on creativity may not be everyones? Some people may think something is creative and others may not.

Sure. All of us here disagree about that at various times. And it's fine to discuss that. But that's kind of a moot point given the current topic. You claimed that creativity is ultimately not important. So, it doesn't matter what you or I think is creative. What we're discussing is whether creativity matters at all in the grand scheme of things. If you think that RSJ's worship albums are creative, they don't belong in this discussion. If you think they're not creative and don't need to make any effort to be creative in order to glorify God, then they are relevant to the discussion. But we don't necessarily have to talk about any artist in particular (if someone was obstinate enough, they could argue that even the most mindless examples of Christian music were creative, I suppose), just the general concept. Imagine something that we can all agree is not creative and makes no effort to be creative. Can it still glorify God? That's the core issue here. And my argument is that it can't, or at least, not a whole heck of a lot.

I'm not so sure about this. The apostle Paul said He became all things to all people so that some would be saved. You don't think it's possible for someone to genuinly love and serve God and sing songs that are not what you would call creative, because they have a certain audience they are trying to reach, whether it's Christians who need building up or the unsaved who would like that type of music?

I think that the Apostle Paul was talking about using the cultural lexicon to reach people. There's nothing wrong with that, in principle. If you want people to understand you, you speak their language and communicate in a way that, to them, is interesting. So we use rock music, or dramatic plays, or thrilling novels, or whatever, to reach people. Ideally, that's a good thing.

But when you're blatantly stealing from the creative work of others just to further your purpose, that's where I have to draw the line. I think that shows a real lack of respect, like we can just hijack someone else's art for our own purposes. That kind of stuff is pretty offensive to the world when they realize we're doing it. Are you getting a good message to people? Sure. But what else are you communicating? That it's OK to copy, to steal, and to not have to think for yourself. That is dangerous, and in opposition to the way God made us. If God wanted mindless minions, that's what God would have made.

Now, being influenced by someone else's art, that's fine - all artists are influenced by other artists. But there's a fine line, and I've seen Christian music step way beyond it, blatantly stating that they don't care if they're stealing as long as souls are getting saved. I'm sorry, but if you really love God that much, you'll want to be more like God, and that includes creatively. Think about God and think about Satan - who creates entirely new things and who only copies and distorts?

Do you realize that 'cheap cliches' sometimes actually draw people to Christ? Remember, if the heart is willing, God can use anything to bring people to Him.
I've had the most (what you would call) corny Christian t-shirts on and I've invariably had some folks say, "nice t-shirt" or "I like you shirt." These were probably Christians, but maybe they weren't, and even if it just brightened up their day for a second, I feel it was worth it.

Yeah, and what about the other people who saw the cheap cliches and were turned off that religious people would resort to such cheap tactics to get a laugh or a smile? What about the people who don't say anything (probably because they don't want to start trouble)? How do our smug little catch phrases, which may contain truths but often state them out of context and make us sound snotty and arrogant, come off to those people?

Different people respond to different things. Many paopel love fluff in their entertainment. They don't really want to think. After a hard day's word or tough day in school they just want to relax and enjoy something without having to wrack their brains. I would bet that many unsaved people have come closer to Jesus but what you may call mindless lyrics or riffs that were influenced by others.

And again, what are we teaching those millions? That it's OK to steal, and that it's OK to not think. Hey, relaxing from time to time is fine. A small homage to another musician is fine. But when this is the bulk of an artist's work, I just don't get how we can praise their efforts as much as we do, when all the while someone else is working very hard to offer up something that is truly their own creation and their own testimony. I'm asking for some fair recognition is here, instead of judging by numbers. That artist whose music facilitated in the saving of millions? No more important in an eternal perspective than the artist whose music facilitated in the saving of one, or even in the maturing of one already saved. Possibly even less if the popular artist is planting bad seeds (i.e. giving people very wrong ideas about who God is) in the meantime. Popularity doesn't determine Kingdom value. It's time we stopped basing our respect for these artists on popularity.

But does the average person get that deep into anything? I don't think so. People love shows like American Idol, The Simple Life, all the mindless reality shows, action movies with no real story, formulamatic novels, etc.

How does one even become a Christian without truly and deeply examining themselves and their need for salvation? Superficial thinking leads to surface-level spirituality. Just because the general public doesn't want to be bothered to think doesn't mean that God wants us to appease their superficial little appetites. Becoming all things to all people doesn't mean dumbing stuff down so that it won't challenge them. It means using their language to present the difficult challenge that is the Gospel. Lose the thoughtfulness and you lose the essence of the message. Getting saved becomes a fluffy, fun, feel-good carnival experience, which is exactly what it is for countless numbers of American Christians. Everything's fine, my life is good, and it's those other bad people who need to change. That's the mantality of the average evangelical Christian in America, and that's the demographic targeted by most Christian music. The system only perpetuates itself.

Is that what you really want to encourage, Paul?

Now like I've said before, relaxing and having some mindless fun is not wrong in and of itself. But if that's what this is really about, there's no need for pretenses of being spiritually important. Rest and recreation can be a form of worship as well - God commanded it and God did it Himself. But let's call it what it is, and let's keeps it in perspective. Man does not exist to have mindless fun 24/7.

However, as long as the reviewer is hinest and states that this has been done before or the lyrics aren't that wonderful or original, he can say it is good within that framework.

Well, creativity isn't the sole thing by which I judge music when I review it. I generally think it takes less creativity to make a catchy pop record than it does to make an experimental genre-hopping album. I don't expect everything to be the most creative thing ever - I'm really not asking that much, when you think about it. Go look up my reviews of RSJ's Transform and Pray - I gave both albums 5 stars (really 4.5 rounded up, but that's still a very high rating). I'd give God a similar rating. RSJ was accused of ripping off a lot of popular styles, actually, and while I can hear echoes of a lot of trendy artists of the mid-to-late 90's, her music during that period was very malleable and didn't match up exactly to any one of those artists (the Alanis Morissette comparison was way overhyped - I sat and listened to Jagged Little Pill and God back to back, and found that RSJ's little squeaks and squawks were only vaguely reminiscent of Alanis's caterwauling). Sure, it took a lot of producer help to come up with RSJ's core sound, but within the confines of the pop/rock genre, she did a lot of unexpected things and managed a lot of creativity, even with lyrics that were generally quite straightforward. A lot of those arrangements are thrilling to me, not just because they're catchy and make me feel warm, fuzzy feelings, but because listening to them, I can tell that a lot of thought was put into them. RSJ has a lot of influences, but on those records, she's still one of a kind. I just can't confuse her with anyone else. And for her to show that she and a team of players and producers and whoever else could work so well together and come up with a solid tapestry of sound, only for her to then regress into a much more ordinary sound while covering other people's songs, was a sheer disappointment. If worshipGOD had been her first record, I likely wouldn't have been as hard on her. But I know that she's capable of better, and I don't know where she got the motion that she had to back off creatively in order to make a "worship" album. That's a disturbing mentality that I keep coming across within CCM (the Newsboys are an even more tragic example), but hey, it sells, and selling tons of records to a populace who doesn't like to think must mean that you've done something highly spiritual, right?

As for "within that framework" - sure, even if pop albums aren't the most creative forms in the world, highly creative pop albums have been made and I generally do recognize that (when I hear such a thing, it generally excites me quite a bit, because it's within a genre where it's usually easy to get away with not being creative). But if I further narrowed it down and said, "Well, for a mid-tempo worship album with lyrics taken directly from other worship songs that we all know and love, and every song played in 4/4 in the key of D or E, this is actually pretty good" (exaggerating, but you get the point), it would be ridiculous after a while. I see how something can be good for what it is, but after a while you'd think people would realize we were reaching a critical mass of the same thing and not feel the need to inundate us with more unless they truly had something new to add.

The Bible does tell us to sing unto the Lord a new song... right?

NP: "Woman Kind", Iron & Wine

[Tom]

i thought i'd intergect a little something here. i used to agree with what Murlough said about pop songs being somehow less creative than "genre-bending" songs. to a point i still think that point has validity. but i now clarify it this way: it truly doesn't take much creativity to write a pop song of poor quality, (i.e. it doesn't work) but it takes a LOT of inspiration to write a good quality pop song. (Murlough basically said this)case & point Sam Phillips - Martinis & Bikinis is a straight up Beatle-esque pop album. but it is also as clever as the day is long.

an example of a pop song that doesn't work because it doesn't sound that inspired or clever is the new single by Gargage - Why Do You Love Me? after hearing it for the first time i thought "now that you mention it, i don't really know."

i've come to the conclusion that if a song gets stuck in your head, no matter how much you may claim to hate it; that song is ultimately clever & well written or it wouldn't stick with you. it may not be of superior QUALITY, but on some level it is clever.

now personally i enjoy songs that throw little things in the mix to distract me. doing this makes the song have a longer life expectancy if you will. it is like an onion with many layers. but sometimes i'm in the mood for a chocolate bar. no layers, just the good stuff.

i don't know. just some random thoughts. i do know from experience that it is VERY hard to intentionally write something catchy.

[PaulDA]

Yeah, and what about the other people who saw the cheap cliches and were turned off that religious people would resort to such cheap tactics to get a laugh or a smile? What about the people who don't say anything (probably because they don't want to start trouble)? How do our smug little catch phrases, which may contain truths but often state them out of context and make us sound snotty and arrogant, come off to those people?
 

I'll answer this first. We, as Christians, can't worry about how most of the world sees us.
Christianity is offensive to much of the world. If we can reach a few people, that is worth others being close minded. Christianity will always offend people.
If I say, "God Bless you" to 100 people and 70 sneer, and 28 walk away, but if 2 people talk to me and seeds are planted, that is fine with me.

[murlough23]

I'll answer this first. We, as Christians, can't worry about how most of the world sees us.
Christianity is offensive to much of the world. If we can reach a few people, that is worth others being close minded. Christianity will always offend people.
If I say, "God Bless you" to 100 people and 70 sneer, and 28 walk away, but if 2 people talk to me and seeds are planted, that is fine with me.

Depends on the seeds you plant as those two people are talking to you, and what else about you those other 98 have observed, whether it lines up with the "God Bless You" and all. And that's kind of a normal courtesy thing, too (or a variant on it), so while it's polite and can be a blessing, it's not something you should be winning awards for.

[murlough23]

i thought i'd intergect a little something here. i used to agree with what Murlough said about pop songs being somehow less creative than "genre-bending" songs. to a point i still think that point has validity. but i now clarify it this way: it truly doesn't take much creativity to write a pop song of poor quality, (i.e. it doesn't work) but it takes a LOT of inspiration to write a good quality pop song. (Murlough basically said this)case & point Sam Phillips - Martinis & Bikinis is a straight up Beatle-esque pop album. but it is also as clever as the day is long.

Yep. There's plenty of creative territory to be mined, even within the confines of radio-readiness. I won't look down on something for being poppy and radio-friendly, but if it looks like those rules are unnecessarily confining an artist who seems to want to do something more, I will be critical of that.

It's a lot harder to do non-radio friendly stuff and do it well, but since so many people do pop music badly, I'm willing to reward the ones who do it intelligently.

i've come to the conclusion that if a song gets stuck in your head, no matter how much you may claim to hate it; that song is ultimately clever & well written or it wouldn't stick with you. it may not be of superior QUALITY, but on some level it is clever.

I don't know about that. They could have just ripped off another hook that got stuck in their heads. Catchiness is important in pop music, because of its immediate likeability, but it's also very easy to steal it from someone else. That's why I look for substance behind the style. Anyone can wear the costume, but can they really play the part? That's why I dog on a lot of Christian bands that do the semi-hard rock style popularized by Creed. It might have a catchy hook sometimes, and certainly a lot of people liked the sound at one time or another, but a lot of these bands seem to do the mid-tempo semi-angsty grunge-pop thing without knowing how the genre works, and you get stuff like screaming or angsty vocals about something that's totally happy, or you get spiritual vagueness because hey, it worked for Creed. I think musicians need to understand a genre, not just know how to ape it.

now personally i enjoy songs that throw little things in the mix to distract me. doing this makes the song have a longer life expectancy if you will. it is like an onion with many layers. but sometimes i'm in the mood for a chocolate bar. no layers, just the good stuff.

Sure. But I want it to be good chocolate, not some second-rate generic brand. We already have Hershey and Nestle and other established brands making the tried and true stuff, and they do it well; why do we need a bunch of others trying to do the same thing? Never mind that there are lots of foreign brands of good ol' chocolate that are worth trying, too.

[Tom]

so so true. foreign chocolate is the best.  

[murlough23]

Come to think of it, do people truly, intentionally seek out plainness in their music? I mean sure, people generally won't seek something off the beaten path, but a lot of what's on the beaten path is still reasonably flashy. Are people that put off by variations in tempo and time signature, or the use of minor key and other non-major chords (before I had any knowledge of music theory, I sure as hell couldn't tell the difference, other than a vague realization that some melodies were super-pretty), or actual displays of instrumental talent? I mean, they might not seek these things out, but if they run across small amounts of them, are they actually bothered by it?

Edited because "think" has an "h" in it.

[PaulDA]

Come to tink of it, do people truly, intentionally seek out plainness in their music?

I don't think most people intentionally seek out anything in their music except that it sounds good them.
I really think most people either just hear a song or like a certain artist and that is the extent of any 'deep thinking' when it comes to music.

[murlough23]

OK, sure, people don't think about it that much, but if you asked them to figure out why they didn't like the things that they didn't like, I wonder what they'd say.

In my opinion, if your reason for not liking something is because it makes you think, then you're an idiot.

Anyway, my point in bringing this up was to say that if you give people more than what they want, would that bother them? In other words, if they want catchy hooks, vocal acrobatics, awesome guitar riffs, whatever, surely artists exist who can provide these things, but can't they also work creativity and intelligence into the songwriting and performing? What's stopping them from doing this? If people are getting what they want plus something extra, why is that a bad thing? Why should an artist not strive to give 110% of themselves to what they are doing?

[PaulDA]

In my opinion, if your reason for not liking something is because it makes you think, then you're an idiot.
 

  :bosh:      :brickwall:  

[Brenden]

And for those who do have a thinking problem and want to stop.

Struggling with Intellectual Masturbation
By Dr James Cobb
President & Founder
Family Fundamentals

Most men struggle at some time in their lives with intellectual thoughts. Contrary to popular perception, even women can become ensnared by intelligent thinking. We all go through that phase where we suddenly discover we have brains and we can think! From there we can be tempted to entertain all kinds of philosophical questions, and some even begin to think seriously about exegetical issues.

First, let me say, it is normal to have a brain and to want to think intellectual thoughts. God gave us a brain. The danger is when we start thinking for ourselves and using that intellectual power to seriously consider big questions about life and God, or (worse) when we start applying that intellect to our study of the Bible. So here's some advice for anyone struggling with this.

1. Don't be on your own in front of the TV. You know what it's like -- you're flicking channels late at night and on Discovery is some documentary or other. You justify it to yourself, saying you're just naturally curious, but pretty soon you are having rational thoughts from which you just can't get away.

2. Try to avoid walking through parts of town where you might have to pass bookstores or libraries. I remember as a teenager the lure of commentaries and concordances. Walking home from work or school, try a route that takes you past a fundamentalist church instead, even if it takes five minutes longer. It's worth it!

3. Have a block on all junk mail in your email account. I have lost track of the number of young men I have counselled who were first drawn into these practices by an innocent-looking e-mail inviting them to subscribe to a theology forum or visit a website containing "reviews" and "articles" by "scholars".

4. Be accountable. If you are feeling a strong desire to think through a given topic (e.g. a doctrine) sensibly and rationally (first thing in the morning and last thing at night are the most common times), talk to someone. Have them recite prooftexts to you. 1 Corinthians 2 is the most helpful.

5. Don't let yourself be exposed to material of a scholarly nature. Don't fool yourself into thinking that just one quick look at a Bible commentary won't hurt, or that a peek at a book by a liberal will be harmless. Often it just becomes a stepping stone onto other, far worse material that may draw on tradition, philosophy and, at times, common sense. It may begin with a seemingly inoccuous trip to a secular bookstore, but it rarely ends there.

You may experience nocturnal "intellectualisms". You may awake in the morning to find you have unwittingly had thoughts of a theological or even philosophical nature during the night. This is a normal occurrence, and ought not to be feared. Alas, we are part of a fallen world where these things happen.

For parents who suspect their children may be involved in intellectual activity, do not panic. It is a normal part of growing up. They may discover at a young age that their intellect can be stimulated through the use of books and the like. They may try to engage friends in mutual debate or conversation. I still remember my natural fatherly concern on finding my six-year-old son playing "Doctors and Professors" with the girl nextdoor -- by the grace of God I interrupted their game just as they were about to examine each other's presuppositions.

Speak lovingly, yet sternly, to your child, and let them know that God loves them no matter what, but that all thinking and intellectual reflection outside of the God-ordained context of a loving Sunday School is wrong, no matter what form it may take. Explain to them compassionately and clearly where such thinking might lead (i.e. eternal punishment). Lastly, if you love your child, spare not the rod. If after your persistent counsel he is still not being wooed by the calm, grace-filled influences of the Holy Spirit, give him a damned good thrashing.

[murlough23]

       

That was awesome.

NP: "Out Is Through", Alanis Morissette

[murlough23]

On the original topic of RSJ, I thought it'd be fun to list my Top 10 RSJ songs.

1. I'll Carry You
2. Go and Sin No More
3. God
4. Abba (Father)
5. Universe
6. Be Thou My Vision
7. Mirror
8. Reborn
9. You're the Voice
10. Pray

I was tempted to put "We Don't Need It" on there, but I decided against it.

[PaulDA]

1. GO AND SIN NO MORE (this is my favorite CCM song from anyone)
2. SPEAK TO ME
3. MY HOPE
4. POWER OF YOUR LOVE
5. BLESSED BE YOUR NAME (live)
6. PEACE
7. LET ME WORDS BE FEW
8. OK
9. STAND
10.QUIET YOU

I see that Murlough and I only have one song in common. 8-)  

[PaulDA]

From Rebecca's web site:
"Due to unfortunate circumstances, my album will be delayed until mid 2006, but I do have some good news...."














"I just saved $200 dolluhs on my cah insurance by switching to Geico!"  
   :iws:

[murlough23]

I see that Murlough and I only have one song in common. 8-)

"Speak to Me" and "Let My Words Be Few" would probably be in my Top 20.

[PaulDA]

On the original topic of RSJ, I thought it'd be fun to list my Top 10 RSJ songs.

4. Abba (Father)
8. Reborn
9. You're the Voice
10. Pray
 

Those would be in my top 20: