For you, Murlough

[PaulDA]

But, again, that is your opinion.
No one has yet been able to tell me how it is decided what is 'good art' or not.
And don't say: "Well, the majority of critics decide."
Sorry.....those are just opinions.

i feel like a bible scollar whe I say "please read in context" I showed some comparisons that state that it is not just opinion...

.....Your comparisons in writing and music are based on your opinion of who you think makes better art.
For instance, you think C. S. Lewis is so great and Max Lucado isn't.
Also Mae (who I never heard) being better than Kutless.
Again: opinion.
There is no factual proof there other than your preference.
.....Coffee comparisons are a wholly different thing. Quality of anything that is ingested can be measured to an extent, although people can still disagree on what is more quality.

[PaulDA]

My opinion remains the same - Kutless makes horrible music, but I do think their hearts are in the right place.

This is the most logical thing I have read yet.
And you have a perfect right to say that because it is your opinion.

[murlough23]

Not on art though.
There is no fixed criteria to decide what is good music and what isn't,
except for each individual's opinion.
You, and everyone else, has YET to show what is the criteria for judging good or bad music to make that judgement a FACT.

We have provided that evidence; you just haven't listened. You have yet to provide any evidence from your side that those objective standards do not exist. You're just being stubborn at this point because you apparently can't keep up with the actual discussion.

How about refuting the claim that music in and of itself is defined as being the creative arrangement of melodic sounds and rhythms?

How about refuting the claim that God, a creative being, gave us the ability to create when we were created in His image?

How about refuting the claim that not everything communicated by the Bible is straightforward and methodical?

How about refuting the claim that God didn't create us just to exist in comfort zones?

It takes more than saying "Well, that's just your OPINION" to add something useful to the discussion. You have to prove to us that these things are not objective facts.

NP: "Come Back Down", Lifehouse

[phaith]

[TheWandererisinPennsylvania]

All I see when I read this thread is:

blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah (stolen from John Reuben)

[murlough23]

All right. I'm having the day from hell for reasons unrelated to this thread, and I'm going to recognize that and recuse myself from this discussion until I cool down, in order to avoid further use of the rest of you as punching bags.

[PaulDA]

Not on art though.
There is no fixed criteria to decide what is good music and what isn't,
except for each individual's opinion.
You, and everyone else, has YET to show what is the criteria for judging good or bad music to make that judgement a FACT.

We have provided that evidence; you just haven't listened. You have yet to provide any evidence from your side that those objective standards do not exist. You're just being stubborn at this point because you apparently can't keep up with the actual discussion.

How about refuting the claim that music in and of itself is defined as being the creative arrangement of melodic sounds and rhythms?

How about refuting the claim that God, a creative being, gave us the ability to create when we were created in His image?

How about refuting the claim that not everything communicated by the Bible is straightforward and methodical?

How about refuting the claim that God didn't create us just to exist in comfort zones?

It takes more than saying "Well, that's just your OPINION" to add something useful to the discussion. You have to prove to us that these things are not objective facts.

NP: "Come Back Down", Lifehouse

You still haven't shown concrete guidelines that prove one song is better art than another.
All you have to go by are what is 'accepted critical analysis' by humans who have gone to college for music and have set themselves up to be the deciding factor of what good art it.
I reject that and still say all music is subjective.

[murlough23]

You still haven't shown concrete guidelines that prove one song is better art than another.

I promised myself I'd stay out for a little while, so I'll just make this brief since I want to make sure what I said before comes through clearly.

I tend to see art and creativity as synonymous. You might see it differently - let me know if that's the case. I think it's usually fairly easy to tell if something is creative or if it is following established rules and guidelines. We can debate whether it's truly "better" to be creative. But if you want to talk about what is better art, obviously that which attempts to be creative is going to be more artistic than that which does not attempt to do so. (Between two things that are both attempting to be creative, it's a lot more grey and I'd agree more with your assessment that it's a matter of opinion in many of those cases. Attempting it doesn't always equal achieving it, but I'll generally give someone the benefit of the doubt when I can see that they're genuinely trying.)

Kutless, by their own admission, isn't making a real attempt to be creative. Therefore, they are not making good art because they are not trying to make art in the first place. I'm not basing that on my assumptions; I'm basing that on their statements about what they aim to do with their music.

The real question here is not what makes better art, but whether music necessarily needs to be "good art" in order to be "good music". You beleive that this is not necessary; I believe that to some extent, it is. That's the crux of the argument here. What I need from you - and take your time to think a little more deeply about your reasons for thinking this while I'm on hiatus from the thread - is your reasoning for why you do not believe artistry is a necessary component of good music.

NP: "Time Enough for Tears", The Corrs

[worldofcm]

How about if we slap your hands for telling us we don't have a right to discuss the subject? If you don't like the discussion, don't read the thread. How many times do I have to tell people that? If it's so useless, why do you see the need to contribute to it or even read it in the first place?

 

Wow.  You know I don't use this word that often - but I will in this instance.  

Why are you acting like an ass to me in this thread when I actually came to your defense?  

[murlough23]

Why are you acting like an ass to me in this thread when I actually came to your defense?

Sorry. Let me just rephrase it and say that I don't think it's helpful to make a post complaining about the length of a thread and stating that the discussion is useless and should not continue. If you have something to contribute to the discussion, that's great, but if you don't feel that it's worthwhile, then don't take part in it. I just don't like being told that I shouldn't be having a conversation on a particular topic. It's for me to decide whether I want to participate in a conversation or not. It just frustrated me that you and Tom both pulled an AJ; that's all.

(And yes, I've rejoined the thread now because I'm not as hopping mad as I was a few hours ago.)

[PaulDA]

Kutless, by their own admission, isn't making a real attempt to be creative. Therefore, they are not making good art because they are not trying to make art in the first place. I'm not basing that on my assumptions; I'm basing that on their statements about what they aim to do with their music.

This is the crux of the matter. You think that good art has to be original.
I don't believe that. Someone can copy a style already out there and make good art.

[Silvah]

Well, what do you mean by copying a style? Do you mean being in the same genre as somebody or directly copying an artists style of writing, singing, or playing?  

[PaulDA]

Well, what do you mean by copying a style? Do you mean being in the same genre as somebody or directly copying an artists style of writing, singing, or playing?

Both.
There is nothing wrong with sounding similar.
I like certain styles and I WANT others to sound like them!
I never got this big deal with being "original" anyway.
I mean, there hasn't been any truly original artists in the rock/soul field since the early 1960s anyway.
Even Elvis copied early rockers. The Beatles did too.

[Silvah]

Well, I for one don't have a problem with an artist being influenced by another, but I don't want them to sound just like another artist. Why would I waste money on Hilary Duff's cd  if it's going to sound like any other in their genre?

We're all different people with different experiences therefore our music shouldn't sound the same since music is a part of self expression. Similarities is one thing, but blatantly ripping off is lazy and irritating...

[PaulDA]

[Silvah]

[PaulDA]

[Silvah]

[PaulDA]

I threw Jo Jo in with the others because when Myla was listening to her on a radio station, it just sounded like everyone else to me. I'll have to listen a bit closer in the future. I didn't know she was only 14.

[Waltrane]

Who are you to say that Kutless is not giving their all?
Sorry you don't like the 'opinion kick; remark, but what you just said here is your opinion.
Opinions can be right or wrong on certain issues.
Not on art though.
There is no fixed criteria to decide what is good music and what isn't,
except for each individual's opinion.
You, and everyone else, has YET to show what is the criteria for judging good or bad music to make that judgement a FACT.

It's not just Kutless Paul that I'm commenting on. I can say they aren't giving their all because they say they aren't giving their all (when it comes to creativity.) Such as...

Sometimes you have to make certain sacrifices to make it radio friendly, you know what I'm saying? And so while we're not trying to sacrifice the message or the music, sometimes there's just certain techniques to even like a radio song you gotta keep it a certain length. Things you gotta keep in mind as you do it. And I don't think it's necessarily selling out. I think it's just a part of the world we live in and surviving as a musician. And striving to be successful and do well.

That tells me it's not about art, but about making money. I can respect them wanting to support their family. That's fine. When Christ gets thrown into the mix, it makes me wonder. Another quote from the same interview by Jon Micah

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.

 See - they don't want to push themselves to be their best. Just good enough to sell records and please ears. That's where my critiques come from --- their mouths.

As for the criteria - here's what I've seen that people use to judge.
As for the lyrical portion - creativity (things not said before, or said in a different way), originality (the way the new things are said)
For music, there are many things to consider. Musicianship and instrumentation, Timing (tempo, time signature, time changes), Phrasing (how the lyrics work in the song), creativity, originality and how all this works together. There's a start. Hey critcs (from 2nd guess) - how do you judge these things?

[Dan]

It's not just Kutless Paul that I'm commenting on. I can say they aren't giving their all because they say they aren't giving their all (when it comes to creativity.) Such as...

Sometimes you have to make certain sacrifices to make it radio friendly, you know what I'm saying? And so while we're not trying to sacrifice the message or the music, sometimes there's just certain techniques to even like a radio song you gotta keep it a certain length. Things you gotta keep in mind as you do it. And I don't think it's necessarily selling out. I think it's just a part of the world we live in and surviving as a musician. And striving to be successful and do well.

 

Well, in fairness to them, being a band that tries to write pop songs or radio songs doesn't always make you uncreative. Some bands (U2 and Jars of Clay come to mind) actually prefer the challenge of trying to make music that's interesting and still radio-friendly.

There's a start. Hey critcs (from 2nd guess) - how do you judge these things?

It's hard to explain, after a while you tend to develop an ear for these things. Musicianship does play a part, but unless it's exceptionally good or bad, we don't always notice it. I tend to look at various qualities a song has (a nice groove, a tight beat, a pleasant melody, personal lyrics) and let each song stand on it's own. If the whole package comes together as something exciting, then I consider it a great song. If it works but it isn't exciting, I'm usually just ok with it. There is some amount of subjectivity to this, but generally if you're paying attention to what's on the track, you'll notice if there's experimentation, a variety of instruments, creative lyrics, and other stuff like that. I don't think we can pin down an exact set of guideline for measuring all recordings because different genres and artists aim for different things. In a hip-hop song, that beat's really important, but a good melody or interesting sample could help to set it apart. In a rock song, you'll do better if you have some kind of exciting beat.

Apologies if this doesn't make any sense, I was up late last night and I just woke up a few minutes ago.

[Waltrane]

Well, in fairness to them, being a band that tries to write pop songs or radio songs doesn't always make you uncreative. Some bands (U2 and Jars of Clay come to mind) actually prefer the challenge of trying to make music that's interesting and still radio-friendly.

The key word there is interesting. Kutless is not interesting. At all...

[PaulDA]

Well, in fairness to them, being a band that tries to write pop songs or radio songs doesn't always make you uncreative. Some bands (U2 and Jars of Clay come to mind) actually prefer the challenge of trying to make music that's interesting and still radio-friendly.

The key word there is interesting. Kutless is not interesting. At all...

They are not interesting to you.
But others must find them interesting or they wouldn't buy their records and see them in concert.
As far as others saying Kutless isn't 'doing their best' because they are putting out records people want to hear, that is bogus too.
EVERY singer puts out stuff people want to hear to some extent or another.
No one just sings what they like completely. Music is a business.
And if Kutless is drawing more people because they 'put out what people want to hear', that is a great way to spread the gospel.
The apostle Paul said he bacme ALL things to ALL people so that SOME may be saved.
That means Paul did things he didn't want to do to draw more people to Jesus.
 

[Usadingo]

I've always found it fascinating how a lot of Christians hold this attitude of "If an artist can bless just one person, than that's all that matters" while disregarding the possibility that nine other people can be turned away by the artist.  
If someone goes to a Marilyn Manson concert, has Godly conviction, and turns to Christ- does that mean the Christian world should accept Manson's music as wonderful?

My problem with Kutless is that I've seen them an and other artists like them turn many teens away from the church.  I know it may be harsh to say, but it's the truth.  I've seen teens hear their music, say how they're ripping off bands like Creed, and then talk about how the whole Christian music industry is one giant alternative to mainstream music.  They talk about how unoriginal Christians are, and move on with their lives while viewing anything with religion of any sort as lame.  
I've seen non-Christians go to a concert and see bands like Kutless.  They'll look around and see people loving the music, and laugh at how people could love "such apparent crap" (I quote because that's what was said).  
My point is that yeah, Kutless may be blessing a few people here an there, but how many are being turned away?  And who are they really blessing?  The few random Christian kids who go to every Christian event?  How many non-Christians are they reaching?  For a band that claims to be so focused on outreach, they sure are turning a lot of people away.

On a slightly different note, allow me to offer my support to Murlough.  Out of all the things he's said about Kutless, I've never seen him criticize their faith or who they are as people.  I have seen him state that he doesn't like their art work, and that they don't appear intelligent based on what they've shown.  The only thing Murlough has judged has been what Kutless is giving out.  If we're not allowed to be honest about what we see and hear from artists- if we're supposed to be all flowers and smiles towards every album and interview- than lets all go work for CCM Magazine.

[Tom]

Music is a business.
 

ok, my silence is broken. music is / should be art. selling music is business.

and i think making music "purely" from a business perspective (i.e. let's see what is selling best and let's jump on that bandwagon) is reprehensible. yes, of course we should try to be all things to all people. and we should care enough about "all people" to give them what they need (depth, spiritual growth, challenges to the status quo) and not just what they want (let's just sing songs we know and not pay attention to any "new song unto the Lord" i might have to LEARN).

Derek Webb had good points in a recent interview when he said that the secular culture used to look to the church for great art and innovation. the CCM industry today thrives on mediocrity, that is why there will not be a CCM industry in a few years, and the world will be better for it.

real people who need to be won for Christ live in the real world. they loathe our flippant disregard in most CCM lyrics for the trials they face.
face it, CCM was created by church people for church people. Jesus said GO into the world, not hide in a shiny, safe subculture.

the cream nearly always rises to the top in some form or fashion. and the trendy mediocrity will eventually be seen for what it is.

[PaulDA]

Music is a business.
 

ok, my silence is broken. music is / should be art. selling music is business.

and i think making music "purely" from a business perspective (i.e. let's see what is selling best and let's jump on that bandwagon) is reprehensible.

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard.
The main objective of a musician who is doing it for a JOB is to make as much money as he can to support his family.
That comes first, as in ANY job.
What good is creativity if your family is starving because you are too proud to record something that someone might actually buy?

[Tom]

artists who evolve creatively are far more likely to have a lengthy career. people get bored with bands who simplistically ape whatever is popular.

you're also assuming that most musicians create music as their sole means of income. true artists create music because it is in their blood, not for monetary gain. Franz Schubert died a pauper for Pete's sake! sure, making a ton of money from your art is awesome, but true artists never see wealth as the sole motivation. and you're assuming they all have families relying on them.

Wayne Coyne of The Flaming Lips was a fry cook for Long John Silvers up until they released Transmissions for the Satellite Heart. that album came out after he'd been in the band for over a decade. so are you telling me that all those years as a fry cook making minimum wage that his motivation for making music was money?

you're confusing art with business. besides, since when has art been a key to instant wealth?

most, and i do mean MOST artists create music / paintings etc. on their own time. you'd be surprised at how little money many artists with critical acclaim actually make. and most will never reap a financial windfall from it. in that respect, artisans are quite similar to the prophets of old. they have a message burning a hole in their heart and they must communicate it; regardless of the personal consequences.
 

[murlough23]

OK, rejoining the thread now after an extremely busy day yesterday.

This is the crux of the matter. You think that good art has to be original.
I don't believe that. Someone can copy a style already out there and make good art.

Well, they can work within existing genres. For example, very artistic music can be made that is also Top 40 Radio-friendly pop. Creativity can exist even within the boundaries of well-established styles - but there's a difference between being inventive with the music you make in your preferred genre, and just following all the rules because you feel like you have to. I understand that not everybody can be James Brown and invent every genre known to man.  

There is nothing wrong with sounding similar.
I like certain styles and I WANT others to sound like them!

I think it depends on how similar. If you came up with something on your own that you felt was fairly inventive/original, and someone turned around and mimicked it so specifically that it was unmistakably derived from your work without crediting you, I think you'd probably be kind of offended. There's a difference between being influenced and outright copying.

And Paul, I think you like enough different artists to admit that if everybody sounded like RSJ, it would get rather boring rather quickly. And remind me - why is it that you keep heaping praise upon James Brown?

I never got this big deal with being "original" anyway.
I mean, there hasn't been any truly original artists in the rock/soul field since the early 1960s anyway.
Even Elvis copied early rockers. The Beatles did too.

I can't speak about Elvis because I don't really know enough about the guy. It seems like he popularized a combination of styles that may have been done by others but just weren't as well known or as well liked by the audiences he brought that stuff too. Or maybe he just had a nice voice and people though he was sexy.

The Beatles, well, they were basically a boy band when they began (though at least they were an actual band!). They did more of their creative stuff later on. If they had just stayed in boy band mode, they'd probably have still had the legions of screaming fans, but probably not as much notoriety for adding so much to the rock & roll landscape. They worked with new recording methods and things that we take for granted today with all of our pristine-sounding overproduced pop records. I'm not a huge fan of their actual music (not that I dislike it; I just haven't gotten into a lot of it), but I respect what they contributed to rock music's evolution.

Well, I for one don't have a problem with an artist being influenced by another, but I don't want them to sound just like another artist. Why would I waste money on Hilary Duff's cd if it's going to sound like any other in their genre?

Exactly. Why should people be wasting their money on repeats of the same thing? More importantly, when applied to the Christian faith, why should an artist merely be content to cover the same ground ministry-wise that is already quite well covered? What about the niches that no one seems to be reaching out to?

We're all different people with different experiences therefore our music shouldn't sound the same since music is a part of self expression. Similarities is one thing, but blatantly ripping off is lazy and irritating...

Yes, and I think that God made every person unique for a very good reason. We are supposed to imitate God, not each other. True, we can learn from examples and be inspired by how other people have imitated God, but God's plan is not alike for any two people. God loves me and God loves Billy Graham and God loves Bono, but God doesn't want me to be a clone of Billy Graham or Bono.

For every really talented artists like Alicia Keyes, Kelly Clarkson (I love her voice), Christina Aqulara and Beyonce, there are a dozen weak voiced ones like Hilary, Jo Jo, Britney, Christina Milian, Brandy, Janet Jackson, Jennifer Lopez, etc, and ALL of them basically have the same music! the weak voiced ones even sound alike vocally.

Right. So do you see the problem there? One of those artists succeeded, record labels decided that it worked so they should reproduce it as much as possible, and kids who weren't grown-up enough to realize their own dreams instead of mimicking someone else's got signed up by these record labels on the basis of looks and vocal similarities (or in some cases, the ability to tweak those vocals in the studio).

As far as others saying Kutless isn't 'doing their best' because they are putting out records people want to hear, that is bogus too.

They said they weren't putting out what they think is cool. That indicates to me that they may have talent that they aren't using, because they feel the need to simpify for an audience. And you know what, I'm sorry, but we don't need to be treating people (especially youth) like they're stupid. What are they so afraid of? Will people not get it if they play what's a little closer to what they actually think is cool, or if they don't dumb down the lyrics? Do they really think the church is full of morons?

EVERY singer puts out stuff people want to hear to some extent or another.
No one just sings what they like completely. Music is a business.

Not true, and bloop and I could name a bunch of examples of singers/songwriters/whatever who put out the music that they want to put out, period. Granted, these artists are generally on minor labels or independent as a result, because the big labels know that stuff isn't going to get noticed by most people, or liked if it is noticed, because most people have short attention spans and can't actually sit down and give something different a chance. But such artists do exist.

I'm not a recording artist, but I do write songs. And I actually consider the lyrics that I write and the melodies I come up with to not be all that difficult to wrap one's head around. I do try to not just repeat everything I've heard, but at the same time I'm not nearly as complex as some of my favorite lyricists or composers (it may be a lack of talent on my part or it may just be that it fits my personality better to be conversational and go for pretty melodies rather than being cryptic and going for experimental dissonance or whatever). But I don't change things around as I write, thinking I can make more people like it if I just did such-and-such instead of something I really wanted to do. Yes, I might still need some feedback to make sure that the different things I try actually work and actually fit the context of the song. But I don't write with mass accessibility in mind. My writing is an expression of who I am, and I'm happy to explain if it confuses anyone, but I have to be true to the things God put on my heart and my own likes and dislikes in terms of the way I express those things.

And if Kutless is drawing more people because they 'put out what people want to hear', that is a great way to spread the gospel.
The apostle Paul said he bacme ALL things to ALL people so that SOME may be saved.
That means Paul did things he didn't want to do to draw more people to Jesus.

I didn't see Paul shamelessly ripping off others without crediting them, AND putting forth potentially dangerous and false messages about God, in the process. Yes, he tried to adapt to culture and understand how they spoke. That makes sense; he was part of the culture surrounding him and he used that as a tool. But that didn't mean he went against the skills God gave him to do that. It didn't mean that he had to fake being something that he knew he wasn't.

I've always found it fascinating how a lot of Christians hold this attitude of "If an artist can bless just one person, than that's all that matters" while disregarding the possibility that nine other people can be turned away by the artist.

I think that argument works in the sense that if an artist isn't terribly popular and not having thousands come forward at their altar calls, but one person does hear their music and is positively affected by it while others just ignore it, that artist has still done well. There have been no negative effects - it just wasn't for some people, and that's fine.

But yes, the situation you just described is a problem. If it's turning off people who are thinking of becoming Christians, or people who already are Christians, because it's espousing a bad doctrine that it's OK to copy and OK to act judgmental towards non-Christians who engage in certain things, or OK to guilt trip backsliders, etc., then that's a big deal. It might "bless" a few people who are too dumb to realize that rat poison is being slipped into their ice cream, but even for those people it's doing more harm than good in the long run. You'll be fed, but you'll also get really sick.

If someone goes to a Marilyn Manson concert, has Godly conviction, and turns to Christ- does that mean the Christian world should accept Manson's music as wonderful?

I suppose that could actually happen - maybe a reverse psychology sort of thing when you see just how horrific a vision of a universe with no God, or an evil God (Manson can't seem to make up his/her mind on that one) would be. But yeah, just because God can used something as effed-up as Marilyn Manson's music (or Kutless's music) to move people doesn't mean that what MM is doing is totally good and right and justified. God can use the worst of the worst to get His message across if He wants, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to give God our best.

On a slightly different note, allow me to offer my support to Murlough. Out of all the things he's said about Kutless, I've never seen him criticize their faith or who they are as people. I have seen him state that he doesn't like their art work, and that they don't appear intelligent based on what they've shown. The only thing Murlough has judged has been what Kutless is giving out.

Yes, thank you for that. You'd be amazed how often my criticism gets redirected to look like I'm attacking their faith or their intentions or things that I just can't know either way.

Derek Webb had good points in a recent interview when he said that the secular culture used to look to the church for great art and innovation. the CCM industry today thrives on mediocrity, that is why there will not be a CCM industry in a few years, and the world will be better for it.

And what a glorious day that will be! The true artists who are Christians already seem to be heading for the hills (in terms of getting away from the CCM industry and the major labels), and several are emerging outside the industry who are Christians, so it seems that those who are really dedicated to making art in Christ's name will survive the transition just fine and probably find their ministry to be a lot easier once the dust settles.

That is the craziest thing I have ever heard.
The main objective of a musician who is doing it for a JOB is to make as much money as he can to support his family.
That comes first, as in ANY job.
What good is creativity if your family is starving because you are too proud to record something that someone might actually buy?

Yeah! And for that matter, what good is abstinence if prostitution is the only way to feed your children?

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. People need to use the God-given gifts they have, as they were given to them, without selling out and being untrue to who God made them to be. Making art that you don't even like is definitely an act of selling out. So is shamelessly copying others. These things are underhanded, offensive, and sinful. There is no justification for them - I don't care who has to be fed. The fact that an artist, or a record label exec, or really anybody would use the need to provide for oneself or others as an excuse for sin is simply evidence that they obviously don't trust God to provide for them.

Anyway, Tom is doing a better job at this than I am at the moment, so maybe I should go back into lurk mode for a few days and let him take care of things.

[PaulDA]

I understand that not everybody can be James Brown and invent every genre known to man.  
 

That is the most intelligent thing you have ever said!  

[PaulDA]

And Paul, I think you like enough different artists to admit that if everybody sounded like RSJ, it would get rather boring rather quickly. And remind me - why is it that you keep heaping praise upon James Brown?
 

Ok ok.....you've painted me into a corner here.
(You are one of the few people who can do that Murlouh and sometimes i just want to hit you in back of the head! )
My problem is, I get defensive quickly and lash out at things when I perceive (rightly or wrongly) that someone is being maligned maliciously.
Let me draw back a bit and say:
My main problem with all the Kutless criticism (much of it from you Mr. M), is the almost hatred i feel in the posts. I may be imagining this, as a message board is hard to figure out someone's tone.
I just feel that it serves no purpose to bash Kutless the way they have been bashed.
Honest criticism yes, calling them idiots and similar things, no.

[Waltrane]

The Beatles, well, they were basically a boy band when they began (though at least they were an actual band!).

I said that once and had my ass handed to me...so here's yours!


You can print it and color it too, if you want.  

[bloop]

Yeah, there was more to the early Beatles than just a boy band.  What that is, exactly, I'm not sure.  My guess is that the boy band thing in itself was innovative at the time.  Most who really understand the band seem to consider them creative early in their careers as well, even if it does look so creatively lax by more modern standards.

[Waltrane]

Everyone really should contrast this interview with the one cbluejays (sorry!) put up linking to Bono's interview with the Chicago Tribune's rock critic Greg Kot. Greg pulls no punches with a legend and Bono takes it and answers like a man.

[murlough23]

My main problem with all the Kutless criticism (much of it from you Mr. M), is the almost hatred i feel in the posts. I may be imagining this, as a message board is hard to figure out someone's tone.

Make no mistake, I hate that band. I hate their music; I hate the principles that their intentional non-artistry represents. I do not, however, hate the people. That would be counterproductive. What I really hate are ideas, and groups that cling to those ideas. If the people can be separated from these groups that are centered around these ideas, they'd stand a better chance at not succumbing to the ideas.

The notion that ministry trumps artistry and that artistry is not in any way significant or useful in a Kingdom perspective is utterly offensive to me, and that's why I am so angry about this. It's not that I think that being flowery and complicated matters more than the Gospel. I simply think that God has the Bible, God has the direct message to offer to people, and if all they needed was the facts, God wouldn't need to use people to pass along the message other than to say, "Here's a Bible, read it." But God does use each of us, with our own unique talents and experiences, to present our testimonies of what God has done in us and how that affects every area of our lives. When I see Christians acting like robots and following trends just because it'll get attention, that strikes me as being counter to this purpose. There's a difference between using the cultural language to communicate, and losing your identity as you get assimilated into all of the trends. I believe strongly that we are unique individuals - not in the individualistic sense that we only do what is right for ourselves and make our own rules and decide our own destinies and all that - but definitely in the sense that God did not make us to copy others, and God did not make us to encourage others not to think and have their own personal experiences of God. I get that vibe again and again when I listen to Kutless's music and when I read their interviews. I go in hopingfor the best, but each time I am utterly offended by the way they promote a lack of thought.

Is my reaction to this the best possible reaction? No. I'm trying to work on that, and I'll admit it's hard not to have a knee-jerk reaction. I'm working on it.

I just feel that it serves no purpose to bash Kutless the way they have been bashed.
Honest criticism yes, calling them idiots and similar things, no.

When someone is doing something that egregiously wrong, it's generally because they're either not smart enough to see their error, or they are smart enough but they either don't care or are being coerced into it by someone else. Because my default action is not to assume the worst about anyone's intentions - I believe their primary goal is to preach the Gospel and not to serve themselves or make money or whatever - I have to assume that they're just not smart enough, because it's better than assuming that they have full knowledge of what they're doing wrong and they just don't care. A lot of the things that they've said they believe about their reasons for making music are just completely and utterly stupid. Should I call them idiots? No, and I apologized for that. But their comments and their actions - I have no reservations about callign a lot of those things idiotic, because they genuinely don't seem to realize the damage they're doing.

Yeah, there was more to the early Beatles than just a boy band. What that is, exactly, I'm not sure. My guess is that the boy band thing in itself was innovative at the time. Most who really understand the band seem to consider them creative early in their careers as well, even if it does look so creatively lax by more modern standards.

The first people who made simple, catchy, and gooey pop songs were extremely innovative for doing so. If the Beatles were the first boy band, or close to it, then great, being a boy band was something original and artistic for them. "Boy band" isn't automatically a bad term; it's just developed negative connotations because of how crass commercialism and image-over-substance has taken over the format for most modern boy bands.

Still, I think that most of the creativity that the Beatles are really regarded for happened later in their career. If someone with more knowledge wants to correct me on that, please go for it.

NP: "Painless", Mae