For you, Murlough

[Escuchame]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/int...tless-0505.html

We tried to keep the questions incisive.

[Brenden]

I'll give them that I haven't heard any version of Better is One Day that was quite as bad as theirs.

Also, did anyone else feel like they equate being creative with being heavy and/or loud? He seemed to keep saying "we've done something creative, look how heavy these songs are".

[Usadingo]

"But you're known for your original, grunge-type alternative material."

What songs are those?  I haven't been able to find them on any Kutless CD.

Also, did anyone else feel like they equate being creative with being heavy and/or loud? He seemed to keep saying "we've done something creative, look how heavy these songs are".

Oh so true...
I was wondering how many times they'd say "I've never heard this song done this heavy before."  And I was also wondering when they'd say a sentance, and then scream out "And we are, WILD STALLIONS!!" followed by air guitar motions ala Bill & Ted.

[Brenden]

I think that's "original" as in first. That's the only way that makes sense, anyway.

[Usadingo]

I think that's "original" as in first. That's the only way that makes sense, anyway.

First as in "on your first album" right?  Because I think we both know they're far from being the first to record "songs" like the ones they've put out.

[Brenden]

yeah, exactly, obviously.

[Wildcatblue7]

. . .

that was jaw-droppingly dumb.  His responses, I mean.  Wow.  

So just because you've never heard it as "heavy" as your version means it's original?  Good gosh.  If Kutless is heavy, paint me black and call me Latisha.

[amalgamate]

What songs are those?  I haven't been able to find them on any Kutless CD.

Also, did anyone else feel like they equate being creative with being heavy and/or loud? He seemed to keep saying "we've done something creative, look how heavy these songs are".

Oh so true...
I was wondering how many times they'd say "I've never heard this song done this heavy before."  And I was also wondering when they'd say a sentance, and then scream out "And we are, WILD STALLIONS!!" followed by air guitar motions ala Bill & Ted.

haha, you're taking that first quote out of context

by "original" they meant that they were songs written by them and not someone else. I'm not sure you realized that's what the interviewer meant or you were just teasing that even the songs that they write, aren't original.

 =D  

[murlough23]

Well, that pretty much settles that. Jon Micah Sumrall is a complete idiot.

Thanks for the laugh, Andree.

[PaulDA]

This is really sad when people can take the time to criticize a group of people who are doing what they are doing for Jesus. They say they prayed about it and went for it.
I guess the oft repeated mantra: "Don't judge anyone's heart" doesn't apply to Christian artists.
I'll say the same thing I said on CMC many times:
If you don't like an artist, it's ok the review the album constructively.
You don't have to like it, and you obviously have the right to say so, but to spew such venom on them is ridiculous.
Also, if people like an artist's record, they don't have to buy their records and are free to go out and buy what they do like.
What is the purpose of people getting together and trying to top each other in putting fellow Christians down just because they don't fit into your own preconceived "great art" mode?
There are plenty of Christian artists that don't thrill me, but I wouldn't downgrade them just because I don't like what they are putting out.
Tens of thousands of Christians will be uplifted by Kutless's worship record.
Can any of you say the same about anything you are doing?

[MJanke]

Look, it's obvious where this is headed. Again.

What the non-Kutless-fan crowd has to remember is that Kutless has already admitted that, for them, ministry comes first - before the art. So their motivation and idea of how to do things is a lot different than your typical band.

I interviewed them last year (http://www.cmcentral.com/interview/2783.html). They said, among other things:

I think the best way of saying it some people create art for themselves and some people create art for the listener. We are more of one of those bands where we don't create what we want, we try and create what people want. If that makes sense. We try and create something that will be pleasing to their ear and that we will enjoy. Some people classify that as selling out. Now, we definitely place our message, the message that we feel needs to be brought out, that's very close to home and our heart and in what we deal with. But as far as the music goes and the structure of the song and all that we want people to be able to enjoy it and give something that people want to hear and not just something that we think is cool.

While it's fair to disagree w/ the way that they approach their art - and even the way that they, as a result, approach their ministry - I do not think it's fair to call them names. I am not in any way saying their music deserves to be critically praised - even good motives in making that music does not earn it a free pass. But neither do they deserve to continually be personally mocked and insulted (by whoever).

And, as Christians, I would hope we'd have better things to do than keep beating a dead horse. Especially when that horse - like the horse's talents or not - is still your brother in Christ. I keep seeing it and, call me a sap, but it just makes me sad. Same reason I feel bad for Carman. Horrible music aside, no one deserves the kind of treatment that they take (from the church!).

[murlough23]

I'm sorry, but to date I have not heard Jon Micah, or any member sof Kutless, respond to any question in any interview with any degree of intelligence. It's always the pat answer that requires no thought. It's always what the bless-me-hallelujah crowd wants to hear. Every single time.

Seriously, does this guy really think that what he's doing is that different, that we've never heard those songs with semi-sort-of-heavy power chords before, and that doing so is somehow original? Does this guy even have a clue? If creativity doesn't matter to him, why does he even bother defending the band's music from the perspective of it being something creative or different? It clearly isn't. This guy can't even make up his mind.

And art is part of music ministry. You can't put one above the other because they both must be there. Period. Saying it's all about the ministry has become a free pass for every CCM artist who doesn't want to get criticized for making money off of their own laziness. I don't buy it at all, and I'm sick of hearing it, and I'm sick of hearing you guys defend it, and act like I've done something childish by stepping up and calling their laziness out for what it is. I'm sick of the accusation that this is my own personal standard that I made up out of thin air. I have the right to call stupidity stupidity, and I will continue to do so, and I'm sorry if that ruffles your feathers because you expect everyone to play nice and quietly, but you know what, you don't have to read the threads on this band if it bothers you so to hear those of us who actually give a rip about creativity calling out a defiant lack of it for the travesty that it is.

[MJanke]

and I'm sorry if that ruffles your feathers because you expect everyone to play nice and quietly

What I expect, or what I would hope to see, if for us to show a little bit of love and grace, even when we're being critical. Even to take a pass on taking a free shot when we have the chance to.

And art is part of music ministry. You can't put one above the other because they both must be there. Period. Saying it's all about the ministry has become a free pass for every CCM artist..

I agree with that. It's not my point. I've always believed that excellence honors God. Of course art is a part of music ministry. If you read what I said in my above post again, I noted that good motives do not give the artist a free pass when it comes to music criticism. But lack of excellence just does not excuse personal shots; it does not all of a sudden make the less-than-stellar artist a free target to personally attack.

I don't buy it at all, and I'm sick of hearing it, and I'm sick of hearing you guys defend it, and act like I've done something childish by stepping up and calling their laziness out for what it is. I'm sick of the accusation that this is my own personal standard that I made up out of thin air. I have the right to call stupidity stupidity, and I will continue to do so

There is a HUGE difference in being fairly critical of an an artists art and resorting to attacking the artist. And I do think it's childish. Especially for someone, like yourself, who usually has a higher, intelligent standard.

What kind of critic resorts to name calling?

(You, in your career, could hypothetically do the shoddiest work of anyone in your field. If I were well educated in what you do and were looking over your work I would have the right to say that the work done was terrible. But it would be wrong for me to take the criticism of your work and start mocking you, calling you names, and spreading my diatribe on your stupidity in various conversations and message boards that I tended to frequent, would it not?)

There's a way to be critical and still be constructive and even loving. We all know this! Think about a good teacher. Or even parents. You can constructively criticize a student (or child), even give them a failing grade, and still build them up at the same time. No good teacher, or parent, is ever going to call their student stupid, or say they're idiotic. If they do, they're failing as teachers or parents just as bad as the student is failing at their work.

Call me naive if you wish, but I think that's how Christian critics should be. Be as fairly critical as you want of the art. But do it in a way that is constructive to the artist, and since we're Christians, show love and grace in the way that we choose words. You're a good writer. You can do it. Do you really think that it's God's will for us to tear each other down in this manner? No matter how passionate we feel about art, that passion should never be an excuse to choose not to treat our neighbor with love and with grace. Perhaps the grace part should be emphasized, since grace is unmerited favor.

you don't have to read the threads on this band if it bothers you so to hear those of us who actually give a rip about creativity calling out a defiant lack of it for the travesty that it is.

And I do care about creativity. Thank you. But I also care about the other aspects of the Christian life. I don't think that Christian critics should focus on the "critic" part at the expense of the "Christian" part. To walk with God as we should be, we have to do both. The mainstream critic can slice and dice - even the artist - all he wishes. The Christian critic is called to a higher standard.

Maybe I should skip these threads. I don't know. But I post comments like this not to tick you off or pick on you, but because I like you and have respect for you and, frankly, think you're better than this. I think you're a good guy, and a smart guy, and you love the Lord, and I just want to see you strive for a higher standard here.

[murlough23]

Maybe I should skip these threads.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

Seriously, what's your issue here? Does it really have anything to do with the art/ministry debate, or is it really just about the name calling thing? If that's all it is, please don't confuse me by trying to defend Kutless's ministry, because that's a separate issue.

Maybe I don't need to say it so harshly, but I seriously get the impression from every interview Jon Micah gives that he has a very low IQ. I don't say that to make fun, I say that because he seems to give very surface-level answers to almost everything, almost as if he's reading from cue cards because it's that difficult for him to articulate, and because he seems to think that what he's doing is amazingly new and fresh. Not that I expect all CCM artists to be complete geniuses, but I'm genuinely surprised at the level of non-insight there, and it shows in most of the songs he writes, too. Why are we giving record deals to people like this? I mean, they're still special people in God's eyes and no doubt God has a purpose for them... I just think that spreading God's word through what is supposed to be an artistic medium probably isn't that purpose, because he clearly isn't doing a good job of it. Yes, he's doing what sells and in the world's eyes, he's doing an excellent job, but then, so is Britney Spears. Just because thousands or even millions of people are listening to something doesn't mean it's good, and just because that something has good intentions doesn't necessarily mean it has a good effect on the masses.

On top of all that, he made it clear that the label kind of pressured the band into doing a worship record, and I'm sorry, but it is pretty idiotic to just go along with it like that. I guess I'll stick with calling the actions idiotic and not calling the person an idiot - that's probably a better approach.

[bloop]

but then, so is Britney Spears

Hey, leave Britney out of this.  

*spins "Toxic" and "I'm a Slave 4 U"*

On the topic, personally, I get the impression that the guy is rather slow as well.

[murlough23]

Hey, leave Britney out of this.  

*spins "Toxic" and "I'm a Slave 4 U"*

Ha ha.

Say, are you gonna let Janke and Paul hang me out to dry or are you going to help me out here?

[bloop]

I don't know, man.  You shouldn't have called the guy an idiot, but at the same time he kind of did come off as one.

[MJanke]

Seriously, what's your issue here? Does it really have anything to do with the art/ministry debate, or is it really just about the name calling thing?

I can't really make it any more clear than I did in my last post. And no it's not just the name calling - that's a symptom of the actual problem.

Maybe I should skip these threads.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

So much for trying to engage in constructive dialogue, huh.

Let me get this straight. It's okay to sit around and take shots at a band and their music/ministry/etc. But it's not okay to try to talk about the merits of that first discussion? Just trying to clarify the rules here...

[MJanke]

Say, are you gonna let Janke and Paul hang me out to dry or are you going to help me out here?

I'm not trying to hang you out to dry. And, again, I'm only really pursuing this because I have a level of respect for you as a person. If I didn't care about you at all I would just shut up and go on my merry way.

[PaulDA]

Say, are you gonna let Janke and Paul hang me out to dry or are you going to help me out here?

.....Murlough, I definetely am not hanging you out to dry either.
First of all, I was not only refering to your post but to the majority of the posts in this thread which are clearly condescending towards Kutless in a way that goes way beyond normal likes and dislikes.
.....2nd, I see myself in some of these posts, but in regards to other Christians, like George Bush, who I clearly unfairly castigate also. There may be a war going on, and this may be just about a singing group, but the attitude is the same.
I think we all need to chill out and try to criticise in a more loving and beneficial way, and sometimes (gasp), there is no need for us to say some of the things we do say.
.....3rd: If this was a thread on P.O.D., and if I, and others, said the exact same things that were said in this thread about Kutless, we would have been massacred by probably the very same people who posted here!

[murlough23]

I don't know, man. You shouldn't have called the guy an idiot, but at the same time he kind of did come off as one.

I guess I'll learn from your example and just insinuate that people are stupid instead of actually saying that they are.

I can't really make it any more clear than I did in my last post. And no it's not just the name calling - that's a symptom of the actual problem.

I asked the question because you seem to be flip-flopping about the art/ministry debate and whether I have the right to criticize/negatively review their work.

So much for trying to engage in constructive dialogue, huh.

You haven't said anything new and I'm tired of having to keep presenting my same counter-arguments again and again. So either enlighten me or get off my case.

Let me get this straight. It's okay to sit around and take shots at a band and their music/ministry/etc. But it's not okay to try to talk about the merits of that first discussion? Just trying to clarify the rules here...

I never said that. If you want to discuss the merits of that first discussion, then please give me something I can work with. But that's a separate discussion from the name calling issue. You're confusing the two.

And, again, I'm only really pursuing this because I have a level of respect for you as a person. If I didn't care about you at all I would just shut up and go on my merry way.

I'm touched.  

First of all, I was not only refering to your post but to the majority of the posts in this thread which are clearly condescending towards Kutless in a way that goes way beyond normal likes and dislikes.

Well, a lot of us have that attitude for good reason. This is not merely an aesthetic issue. Not liking that kind of music would be one thing. I actually do like some music in that style, though, so that's not really an issue (beyond the fact that it's not a style of music that requires a whole lot of thought to create in the first place). This is a moral issue regarding a band that is cheapening worship and the Gospel - not by setting it to a style of music that does not sound good to us, but by intentionally disregarding creative thought in their attempt to communicate that message. I see that to be very dangerous because it also communicates a message that Christianity is about rote memorization and following rules just because and not thinking beyond the pat answers and the familiar comfort zone. That's the message that gets sense when an artist categorically denies the importance of creativity in music. Music is defined as being a creative medium.

I see myself in some of these posts, but in regards to other Christians, like George Bush, who I clearly unfairly castigate also. There may be a war going on, and this may be just about a singing group, but the attitude is the same.

And if you felt that Bush was doing something idiotic that was contrary to his Christian faith and that sent a bad message, you'd have every right to call that action idiotic. people might argue with you on whether it was a dumb thing to do or not, but the fact remains that you'd have a right to pass judgment on that action.

If this was a thread on P.O.D. and if I, and others, said the exact same things that were said in this thread about Kutless, we would have been massacred by probably the very same people who posted here!

P.O.D can be pretty idiotic sometimes, too. I really like some of their stuff and I wouldn't criticize them for any of the reasons you historically have. I just think that attitude-wise and songwriting-wise, they come off as not being very smart on several occasions, and sometimes they even come off a bit prideful. Your past complaints about things like tattoos and apparent crotch-grabs and screaming and "Jah"... well, most of those were just not very well-founded, and you realized that and let those things go.

My problem is that every time this subject comes up, we run around in circles with the same old misunderstandings about why I have the strong views that I do about Kutless. This is not a matter of an aesthetic dislike of their style (which you, Paul, always bring up with some sort of lame relativistic argument about how we all like what we like and nobody has the right to say anything about it), and it's not a matter of me thinking ministry to be unimportant (which you, Janke, along with several others, always come back to despite clear indications from me that I value ministry as well when good ministry is actually being done).

If both of you can stop accusing me of those same old things, then maybe we can actually get somewhere with this discussion. Otherwise, don't waste my time and I won't waste yours.

NP: "Million Pieces (Kissin' Your Cares Goodbye)", Newsboys

[bloop]

I guess I'll learn from your example and just insinuate that people are stupid instead of actually saying that they are.

LOL!  Yeah, kind of underhanded there, mur, but that's also very much the way I operate.  I guess I'm just not as direct if I think something particularly "mean" about a person (which may be true - an angle that often goes ignored).

Going beyond that, my feelings on Kutless (worship, heck, CCM in general) just aren't as strong as yours.  I don't care much about the Christian music industry, honestly.  Musically, it's mostly irrelevant.

[PaulDA]

 

murlough23
Well, a lot of us have that attitude for good reason. This is a moral issue regarding a band that is cheapening worship and the Gospel -

Right here is where you and the others are completely wrong.
Who set you and anyone else up as judge and jury about how someone worships or ministers to others??? :angry:  
That is the height of condescension and is really unmitigated gall.
God knows the heart. Murlough, Paul, Wildcatblue, or anyone else has no right to decide how someone should worship God.

If both of you can stop accusing me of those same old things, then maybe we can actually get somewhere with this discussion. Otherwise, don't waste my time and I won't waste yours.

If you would stop saying the same old things, no one would attack you.
Frankly, I don't apprecuate you calling other Christians idiots just because they don't fir into your notion of what a ministry or artists should be.
What was the purpose of your 'I no longer want to be cynical thread' if the same old cynasicism rears up immediately thereafter?
 

[bloop]

Who set you and anyone else up as judge and jury about how someone worships or ministers to others??? :angry:  
That is the height of condescension and is really unmitigated gall.
God knows the heart. Murlough, Paul, Wildcatblue, or anyone else has no right to decide how someone should worship God.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's doubting the sincerity and intentions of the heart, but rather the limits to the depth of meaningful worship that can be derived from their music, and the message they send as artists working half-assed for God.

[PaulDA]

I've always believed that excellence honors God. Of course art is a part of music ministry. If you read what I said in my above post again, I noted that good motives do not give the artist a free pass when it comes to music criticism.

Criticism is fine, however:

.....1. 'Great Art' is in the eye of the beholder. It is all subjective. There may be fans of Kutless who think they are the greatest band of all time, and their opinion is as valid as Murloughs, yours, mine or anyone elses. None of these opinions, incidentally, will matter one bit to God when we get to Heaven.
.....2. Christians should criticize constructively. Call a spade a spade if we must,
but do it in a way that shows some love and not vitriol.

[PaulDA]

....and the message they send as artists working half-assed for God.

That is purely opinion. Only God is the judge of who is working for Him sincerely.
When we try to become the judge of who is working 'half-assed' for God we can become 'complete asses' ourselves.

[bloop]

Only two possibilities I see:

1)  They are working half-assed, and are perhaps capable of much more.
2)  They shouldn't be working in this field at all.

You see, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt.

"Art criticism" is not the purely subjective thing you make it out to be.  That's a lousy, cmc-esque, "democratic" viewpoint which is completely without merit.

[PaulDA]

"Art criticism" is not the purely subjective thing you make it out to be.  That's a lousy, cmc-esque, "democratic" viewpoint which is completely without merit.

Baloney!
I am not a Democrat, so labels don't work on me.
All art is subjective, I don't care if it's paintings, literature, movies or music.
.....I have seen some Picasso paintings worth millions that I wouldn't pay 10 cents for.....
To me they are not great art. Give me Norman Rockwell any day of the week!!
But I have no problem with others liking Picasso.
And I would never call him an idiot for drawing things I feel are whacky.
That is his perogative and it is others perogative to like or dislike his paintings.
.....I can't stand Shakespeare's works. His writings will never be great art to me. I would rather read Robert Ludlum any day. But if others like Shaespeare that is fine with me.
But to get so holier than though and judge an artist goes beyond the pale.
 

[bloop]

All art is subjective, I don't care if it's paintings, literature, movies or music.

No, there are established objective standards for each of those.

.....I have seen some Picasso paintings worth millions that I wouldn't pay 10 cents for.....
To me they are not great art. Give me Norman Rockwell any day of the week!!

.....I can't stand Shakespeare's works. His writings will never be great art to me. I would rather read Robert Ludlum any day. But if others like Shaespeare that is fine with me.
But to get so holier than though and judge an artist goes beyond the pale.

That's nice, but irrelevant to the quality of their work.

[Josh]

Paul, you're perfectly entitled to dislike the works of Shakespeare and Picasso. That's one thing. But it would be quite another thing to assert that Shakespeare had a poor grasp of the language, or that Picasso knew nothing about color and tone. Therein lies the crucial distinction here; we're not talking about what we LIKE, but what we think is technically and subjectively excellent.

[Brenden]

Tens of thousands of Christians will be uplifted by Kutless's worship record.
Can any of you say the same about anything you are doing?

I sort of can, actually, not tens of thousands, but people have said they were touched or uplifted by songs I've written.

[PaulDA]

Tens of thousands of Christians will be uplifted by Kutless's worship record.
Can any of you say the same about anything you are doing?

I sort of can, actually, not tens of thousands, but people have said they were touched or uplifted by songs I've written.

And that's fantastic.
And if someone called your music 'bad art', what is more important?
Would it be that person's opinion or the fact that your music touched the lives of some people?
And don't get me wrong, I wasn't downplaying anyone's ministry.
It all counts.
I was just trying to prove a point that we need to stop looking for faults in everyone else's ministry and start trying to correct our own faults.
There is a difference in not liking someone's songs and in being out for blood.

[PaulDA]

No, there are established objective standards for each of those.

.....I have seen some Picasso paintings worth millions that I wouldn't pay 10 cents for.....
To me they are not great art. Give me Norman Rockwell any day of the week!!

.....I can't stand Shakespeare's works. His writings will never be great art to me. I would rather read Robert Ludlum any day. But if others like Shaespeare that is fine with me.
But to get so holier than though and judge an artist goes beyond the pale.

That's nice, but irrelevant to the quality of their work.

.....It's not irrelevant. All art criticism boils down to people's opinions.
Someone had to come up with these 'standards' in the first place.
They are nothing more than human beings opinions of what art should be.
God doesn't give a hoot what we think about other's ministries or music or whatever.
He is the judge, by His standards, not by ours.
.....Art cannot be judged the same way as something physical, such as a house.
A house is either sturdy or it's not. there is no opinion there.
.....I may love James Brown and 100 music critics may now finally say he is one of the greatest musical artists of all time, but if someone else thinks he's horrible, then they have a right to think he is not great art.
But we don't need to get nasty about how we feel.

[MJanke]

I asked the question because you seem to be flip-flopping about the art/ministry debate and whether I have the right to criticize/negatively review their work.

Actually, I don't. I've always supported the right of a critic to be able to be critical and write negative reviews. I'm just trying to also uphold a higher standard in the process.

You haven't said anything new and I'm tired of having to keep presenting my same counter-arguments again and again.

Hmm... kind of like you keep doing with Kutless?

I never said that. If you want to discuss the merits of that first discussion, then please give me something I can work with. But that's a separate discussion from the name calling issue. You're confusing the two.

No I'm not. I plainly stated that my issue was not with simply writing critical reviews or discussing art vs. ministry, but with the way it's being done, and the lack of grace being shown in the discussion.

This is a moral issue regarding a band that is cheapening worship and the Gospel - not by setting it to a style of music that does not sound good to us, but by intentionally disregarding creative thought in their attempt to communicate that message.

So discuss the issue, but do it w/o killing the artist. Can we not see that verbally abusing the band is just as wrong as any wrongs that you are seeing in their technique?

You see danger in what they are doing. Fine. But is there also not danger in continually (and I do mean continually) bashing our brothers in Christ? You ask about the message that their music is sending ("that's the message that gets sense when an artist categorically denies the importance of creativity in music. Music is defined as being a creative medium"). Well what kind of message does it send when we keep taking our pens (or keyboards) and using them as weapons against each other? Kutless may be guilty of a lot of things - but none of that should give us license to continually assault them with our words. They may theoretically be sending a bad message in what they're doing, but tearing them down, constantly and viciously, is no less terrible.

and it's not a matter of me thinking ministry to be unimportant (which you, Janke, along with several others, always come back to despite clear indications from me that I value ministry as well when good ministry is actually being done).

Again, that is so not what I am doing. I really don't know how to make this any more clear - I apologize, because apparently I'm not communicating well. My point lies in your method and attitude - in the lack of love and grace being shown to those guys. Again, I have no problem with a Christian critiquing the art, or even method of ministry, of another - it just should be done in a manner that is pleasing to God, and respectful of the artist. Our critique should be honest, but also constructive and graceful. It should not tear down. And, to be frank, when it comes to Kutless I see a lot of tearing down and not much building up.

And I'm not even talking about just dressing up your words. Because deciding to use "nice words" may make things look nicer on a message board, but if the heart is still throwing daggers at the band the problem is still here. I'm really talking about a change of heart; shifting our mindset and deciding to strive to show love and grace towards each other, even when we have serious issues with the problems that we see.

It comes down to this. What are the fruits of the Spirit? What are the greatest commandments? I see self-control. Patience. Kindness. Love. Yes, we need to embrace excellence and creativity. But those things do not override the greater command to love. That is what is most important to God, and also how the Bible says we shall be known. Our love. That love should permeate everything that we do - when it comes to discussions and critiques on things like this it should shine through in our words and our attitudes.

I take you back to Ginny Owens' song, "I Have Nothing," and I paraphrase her: "I could be the most eloquent, honest, creative critic in the world, but if I do not love I am nothing."

[bloop]

You think the standards for art were just invented from thin air, Paul?  That God had nothing to do with it?  I'm not buying.  

Remember, God created us, and apparently gave us a bit of that creative spark.  I'm not going to be so quick to just shrug off these specific human standards as not being, at least in large part, divinely-derived, especially where there is such a concensus concerning certain artists.  

So, yes, God is the ultimate judge, but remember that God created us in his image, some of which remains evident in human attitudes.  Part of that is in our ability to appreciate and recognize good art as creative work is a part of the divine, and shared dimly with humans.

[PaulDA]

You think the standards for art were just invented from thin air, Paul?  That God had nothing to do with it?  I'm not buying.  

Remember, God created us, and apparently gave us a bit of that creative spark.  I'm not going to be so quick to just shrug off these specific human standards as not being divinely-derived, especially where there is such concensus concerning certain artists.  

So, yes, God is the ultimate judge, but remember that God created us in his image, some of which remains evident in human attitudes.  Part of that is in our ability to appreciate and recognize good art as creative work is a part of the divine, and shared dimly with humans.

I guess what I'm trying to say is:
I don't personally care about 'great art'. I just care if I enjoy it or not.
If I like a Hilary Duff song, I'll enjoy it.
If I don't like a Pavarotti song, I won't.
What is the point of dwelling negatively on a band a person doesn't like?
Why even bother?
I don't listen to singers I don't care for.  

[MJanke]

I guess what I'm trying to say is:
I don't personally care about 'great art'. I just care if I enjoy it or not.
If I like a Hilary Duff song, I'll enjoy it.
If I don't like a Pavarotti song, I won't.
What is the point of dwelling negatively on a band a person doesn't like?
Why even bother?
I don't listen to singers I don't care for.

For you, probably there is no point.

For an artist, it helps to know what went wrong so they can learn from it and improve on their craft. If you, for instance, go to art school you can see perfectly how the create/critique/create again process would work.

[bloop]

Even if I liked Hillary Duff, I wouldn't say something so sdrawkcab ssa as saying she's a more talented vocalist than that famous chubby tenor.

What is the point of dwelling negatively on a band a person doesn't like?
Why even bother?
I don't listen to singers I don't care for.

Good point.  I don't dwell negatively on it.  Murlough, however, attaches a bit more spiritual importance to the issue than I do, so I think it goes beyond a mere distaste for their music with him.

[Brenden]

And that's fantastic.
And if someone called your music 'bad art', what is more important?

If someone called it bad art, I would ask them how I can improve so I can touch people and make good art. The two are not mutually exclusive, and as an artist, I strive to do better at my craft.

Would it be that person's opinion or the fact that your music touched the lives of some people?
And don't get me wrong, I wasn't downplaying anyone's ministry.
It all counts.
I was just trying to prove a point that we need to stop looking for faults in everyone else's ministry and start trying to correct our own faults.
There is a difference in not liking someone's songs and in being out for blood

There is a difference between finding fault in the ministry and finding fault in the execution of that ministry.

If someone said to me "Brenden, these songs you play suck, your lyrics are sophomoric and your music has all been done before", I would be thankful that now I knew how to improve. If someone said "Brenden, it's stupid to minister through music", that would be another thing altogether.

Or take KLOVE, I love the idea of the station as a ministry, but they alienate most if not all the youth of the area who need to be ministered too by the songs they play, that's my main frustration with them (and the area in general).

[murlough23]

LOL! Yeah, kind of underhanded there, mur, but that's also very much the way I operate. I guess I'm just not as direct if I think something particularly "mean" about a person (which may be true - an angle that often goes ignored).

Well, I was thinking of the sig you got your hand slapped for at CMC: "If you think the above post was intended to make you look stupid, then you probably are." Which I thought was hilarious, by the way.

OK, so it's probably not in our best interest to go around insinuating people are stupid. I came on strong and I'm sorry. But people do very stupid things sometimes. I do stupid things too. I'd just be a bit shocked if I were getting all sorts of accolades and awards for doing and saying stupid things.

I don't care much about the Christian music industry, honestly. Musically, it's mostly irrelevant.

And that's why I care. Because Christian musicians can and should be making music that is relevant. Some exist who do, but the fact that an industry set up to market music to Christians is largely not doing that troubles me greatly. It only serves to put us in our own little bubble and make us look like idiots to the rest of the world. I realize that the Gospel is foolishness to the world, so to some extent, that can't be avoided, but that doesn't give us license to just not think.

Right here is where you and the others are completely wrong.
Who set you and anyone else up as judge and jury about how someone worships or ministers to others???
That is the height of condescension and is really unmitigated gall.
God knows the heart. Murlough, Paul, Wildcatblue, or anyone else has no right to decide how someone should worship God.

I didn't decide that rote repetition of cliches was a bad way to worship God, though. I became convicted that it was true. There's a difference. If I'd have had it my way, I'd have happily taken the easy way out that didn't require my brain's participation as I worshipped. But I don't get to decide these things.

Now, if we wanted to debate whether Kutless's music was actually seeking to worship through repetition and cliches, we could debate that. Though I think it's a fairly open-and-shut case. The facts kind of speak for themselves here, and Kutless isn't exactly trying to argue that they're not doing that. They're more or less accepted that they're doing that, and they seem to think it's OK to do that. I don't see any evidence anywhere that this is what God wants of us, though. The trend against actual thought is an invention of the modern evangelical church.

Frankly, I don't apprecuate you calling other Christians idiots just because they don't fir into your notion of what a ministry or artists should be.

I didn't call him an idiot for that reason. I called him an idiot because he said things befitting of a person with a low IQ and extremely poor communication skills, as well as extremely narrow horizons regarding what was going on in the music industry that he thought he was an important part of.

What was the purpose of your 'I no longer want to be cynical thread' if the same old cynasicism rears up immediately thereafter?

That's not cynicism; it's just an observation.

He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's doubting the sincerity and intentions of the heart, but rather the limits to the depth of meaningful worship that can be derived from their music, and the message they send as artists working half-assed for God.

Yes, thank you. I don't doubt that their intentions are correct. The problem lies not in their willingness to worship God and to see people come to know Christ - they clearly have that. They're just tripping up horribly in their quest to see these things happen, and the fault lies in their misunderstanding of the role of creativity in music ministry. Thanks for summing that up more clearly than I did.

'Great Art' is in the eye of the beholder. It is all subjective. There may be fans of Kutless who think they are the greatest band of all time, and their opinion is as valid as Murloughs, yours, mine or anyone elses. None of these opinions, incidentally, will matter one bit to God when we get to Heaven.

What is the best is certainly in the eye of the beholder. I don't think God cares much what man thinks is "the best", nor should there be the need for such a competition. I'm not worried about who is the most artistic. I'm just concerned when musicians who are insanely popular for spreading a Gospel message through their music are not artistic at all, by their own admission, and do not care to be. The flaw is in the approach. If they were trying to be creative individuals who shared their own testimony in their own unique way and failing, I'd constructively criticize that, but I wouldn't devalue their ministry for it. I devalue their ministry because of the message that they are sending to others through their intentional lack of creativity.

I'm sorry, but the relativity defense is what you always come back to and it just shows that you don't even understand the point I'm making in the first place.

Christians should criticize constructively. Call a spade a spade if we must, but do it in a way that shows some love and not vitriol.

I'm upset about this and I have a tough time controlling it, and I apologize for that. However, strip away the mockery and name calling and stuff, and I still have some very serious concerns here because of the damage that I think this band is doing. I'm going to have to express those concerns. When someone in the mainstream does something stupid, we all have no qualms about indicating that it was stupid; Christian artists should get no special treatment just because they are Christians. Dumb actions are dumb actions and dumb comments are dumb comments, period. Most of Jon Micah's interview indicated to me that he didn't have a clue what he was talking about.

When we try to become the judge of who is working 'half-assed' for God we can become 'complete asses' ourselves.

Funny, but that's where I'm going to have to cry foul. I'm sorry, but if you saw a pastor preaching a potentially dangerous message, you would speak up and question the value of that ministry. If you don't agree to this, then you do not have the right to criticize Roman Catholics.

Only two possibilities I see:

1) They are working half-assed, and are perhaps capable of much more.
2) They shouldn't be working in this field at all.

I see it similarly. When the hearts are there (something I always have to assume unless someone has made it obvious that they're only using Christ for personal gain, which I have yet to see happen) but the brains and/or skills don't appear to be there, I have to either assume that they're holding back on using their skills for some reasons (often because someone in charge of them thinks they'll appeal to a wider audience by dumbing things down), they haven't fully developed their skills yet (in which case they need to take more time before selling us a product for the same price that products by more skilled craftsmen are sold to us), or their skills lie in a different area of ministry that they haven't discovered yet. I don't think these people are worthless - even if I do think some of them have low IQ's and aren't suited for a field that requires some intelligence to articulate what you're saying and not just imitate everyone else. We don't let pastors run churches just because they can imitate other pastors. A certain level of intelligence is required. I'm not saying we should be that stringent on musicians - they are not all necessarily leaders - but we certainly need some better quality control. Just because ten million kids come to Christ as a result of some buffoon-like banging on power chorsd and spouting off cliches in a gruff voice doesn't mean that those kids are being fed good doctrine, necessarily.

I have seen some Picasso paintings worth millions that I wouldn't pay 10 cents for.....
To me they are not great art. Give me Norman Rockwell any day of the week!!

I don't know enough about Norman Rockwell. His means may be more conventional, but he may have his merits. Not all that is conventional is non-artistic. he may not be as regarded as highly as, say, Picasso in artistic circles, but again, the concern is not necessarily who is "best". If Norman Rockwell had become famous for drawing stick figures and doing fingerpaintings that did not set themselves apart in any way from stick figures and fingerpaintings done by four-year-olds, then I would say that there would be no reason for him to be famous or regarded as a great artist. Being a great artist requires creativity - that's what art is. You could do a paint-by-numbers Mona Lisa, and possibly paint it very accurately and beautifully, and it still wouldn't be art. It would be an imitation of art that required no real thought on your part.

Kutless doesn't have to become Picasso-like in order to make valid art. They don't even have to put out something all that extraordinary. They just need to break away from the shameless stealing of ideas and reliance on their listeners' comfort zones. Doing what everybody already knows and likes and will not challenge them in the least is not a worthy goal for any Christian. Christians need comfort sometiems, and that's fine, but it's not an area in which we should dwell.

I sort of can, actually, not tens of thousands, but people have said they were touched or uplifted by songs I've written.

And that's actually still not sufficient. Just because somebody liked something that I wrote does not necessarily mean that what I wrote was good. It gave them a warm fuzzy feeling; so what? I mean, there's nothing wrong with making a person feel good, but it gets to the point where that ends up being all we seek. Tell people what they want to hear, please them, make them think things are easy and they're totally safe staying where they are. Who knows; your songs may have impacted people much more profoundly than just making them feel good. But you have to be careful that in the process of making them feel good and even impacting them in more profound ways, you're not also communicating messages that are harmful. If you wrote great worship songs, but also made racist comments in some of your other songs, for example, then while some of your songs may well have been leading people to a knowledge of Christ, you would also be committing the serious offense of making it look like God hates certain races of people. And that could negatively affect more people than it positively affects. An extreme example, but I hope you get my point.

We live in a touchy-feely subculture where whatever makes us feel good gets called a "blessing". I'm not so convinced that this is the way it really works. A lot of the times I've been truly blessed in the last few years have been by things that made me feel extremely uncomfortable. Not that God always wants to make us squirm, but that squirming is often a necessary bi-product of spiritual growth. You have to become uncomfortable with where you are to want to grow, usually. And too much of Christian music is shying away from that because it wants to make spiritual babies and keep people at that stage. That's where it's easiest to convince them to buy more records.

All art criticism boils down to people's opinions.

No it doesn't. If an artist puts forward a message that is morally wrong, it is not my opinion that it is morally wrong. it can and should be criticized. We can debate whether that morally wrong message is actually being communicated - for example, does Eminem really advocate beating and murdering women, or does a Roman Catholic artist really advocate justification by works? That's where the focus needs to be in this Kutless discussion. Are they actually communicating a message - consciously or subconsciously - that is in opposition to the Gospel or that confuses people with regard to who God really is? I hold that they are. You probably don't feel that way, and that's the crux of the debate. If we could trim the artistic relativism crap and get down to that, we might actually get somewhere.

Hmm... kind of like you keep doing with Kutless?

I didn't start the thread. It was started and specifically addressed to me, and I offered my thoughts on the new evidence presented to me. I didn't start a discussion just to beat a dead horse. I haven't started a new discussion on them since reviewing their latest record, actually.

So discuss the issue, but do it w/o killing the artist. Can we not see that verbally abusing the band is just as wrong as any wrongs that you are seeing in their technique?

The band as an entity is a different thing than the people. In terms of what the band stands for as a group, I can and will rip that apart if I think it's not worthwhile, just as other Christians stand in clear opposition to groups that they strongly disagree with. It does not mean that I wish any ill will on the group's members - I just don't want Kutless to exist as a group if that's what it's going to stand for, and I will continue to point out the flaws in that grouop's ideology and even make jokes at its expense. It's when I cross over and insult the peopkle - and I admit I did it here and I apologize for that - that I've done wrong.

The band needs to either radically change their outlook on the importance of artistry, or it needs to cease to exist. Period.

My point lies in your method and attitude - in the lack of love and grace being shown to those guys.

I will try to show more love and grace toward the people. I am under no obligation, though, to show those things towards the band as an entity, or its ideals. If the band were to either radically change or cease to exist, I believe it would be better for the people in that band and the fans of that band. I have no desire for Kutless, as the band is now, to continue to exist. I think it's dangerous for it to continue to exist, and as an organization, I will continue to discredit it. Words are all I have because there is nothing worthwhile I can physically or legally do about it.

I guess what I'm trying to say is:
I don't personally care about 'great art'. I just care if I enjoy it or not.
If I like a Hilary Duff song, I'll enjoy it.
If I don't like a Pavarotti song, I won't.

But your standards for what you enjoy and don't enjoy need to be informed by God's standards. I'll grant you that none of us compeltely understand God's standards, but we need to be true to the things that we do know. I know that God does not want to be cheapened and commercialized and misrepresented. I saw that pretty clearly in Jesus' reaction to the temple dealers. He was angry. He physically destroyed stuff. And on occasion, He had some pretty accusatory things to say about the religious elite of His day that weren't exactly non-confrontational.

Is it OK for you to like Hilary Duff? Sure. her music seems pretty harmless. If all you wanted was to listen to harmless music, I'd worry about you, but since you also seek out music that will draw you closer to God (even if I disagree that some of it is useful for that purpose), I don't worry about it when you like a few "fluffier" things.

Is it OK to not like Pavarotti? Sure. Not finding his voice or his style of singing, or the Italian and Latin lanaguages, or whatever, to be appealing, is your prerogative. Not liking his music isn't the same as saying his music is not worthwhile or that it is harmful to people who listen to it. If it's well-made music that is adding something good to the world of music and not something negative, I would hope that you could at least respect it, or not have a problem with its existence.

But if an artist is communicating something that is morally wrong - even if you may find small likeable and redeemable things about their music - you have no choice. You have to dislike the things that God dislikes about that artist's music.

Murlough, however, attaches a bit more spiritual importance to the issue than I do, so I think it goes beyond a mere distaste for their music with him.

Yeah. There are plenty of CCM artists who make mediocre music, or even music that annoys me a lot, that I don't gripe about so much. I just don't get the vibe as much that they absolutely do not care about creativity whatsoever because they do creative things a little more frequently. Probably one of the other cases that riles me up the most is the Newsboys, who used to be both creative and very radio-friendly, and they traded in the creativity because they somehow felt that it was a hindrance to their ability to worship. I just don't get how that works.

Or take KLOVE, I love the idea of the station as a ministry, but they alienate most if not all the youth of the area who need to be ministered too by the songs they play, that's my main frustration with them (and the area in general).

That's a great example of something that someone would defend by saying that it's ministering to people. I would counter with the question of how many more people it's turning off, not just because the style doesn't appeal to them, but because of how superficial and cliche and repetitious it appears to be, and how aligning itself with being all good and holy and Christian-like makes it look like the superficiality and lack of thought are good traits for Christians to have. God's not like that. God's inventive and God makes all things new. Why aren't we portraying God that way?

NP: "How Great (Direct from Satellite City)", David Crowder Band