Michael Sweet says that Stryper is not a christian rock band

Here is a new interview with Michael...
http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/strypers-michael-sweet-we-are-not-a-christian-rock-band/
.....................................
In my opinion Christian metal is not a genre..its actually a religious term thought up by Retailers to market something to Christians...alot of churches saw that as a way to control the youth in their churches... Everyone is simply singing what is in their heart and where they are in life at the moment they wrote the song...Stryper is a band comprised of Christians who simply write songs from their heart (as all us musicians do) and being Christians they obviously write from a christian heart view...The new heart that God gave them...

People are going to label things to give them description.  It isn't just music that does it.  We have soap operas, dramas, games shows and reality shows on television.  Should we just drop those descriptions and be forced to call them all tv shows?  Same with movies, horror, action, sci-fi....all labels that should be abandoned so we are forced to just call them movies?  Same with books, cookbooks, repair manuals, Christian self-help, fiction etc.

I get what you are trying to say (and at some level I agree), but as long as "Christian" or "Jewish" or "Muslim" or even "Secular" can be used as a descriptive label towards something it will be, and even Michael Sweet complaining about it won't change it.

I think what Michael is trying to say is that stryper is not a ministry....his comments lead me to think that the idea that calling any rock band a ministry is ignorant in his view...Thats why they record songs by artist that are not Christ centered...many people got upset with "the covering" because it did not reflect a christian/ministry minded idea but if stryper is not a ministry then what...if they are just a band like any other then what...as much trouble as me and Michael had on the cmr I did find out that he holds the same theological view that I do...interesting...

I like what Derek Webb said on the Bad Christian podcast, even though I don't care for his music:


"I have never, and will never use my spirituality as a marketing tool... some people are called into vocational, full time ministry and some people are accidental ministers."


That being said, I hear what you're saying staybrite but I'll admit two things:
1. I'm tired of iTunes labeling my stuff "Religious".
2. I'm tired of hearing about Stryper.

ishmael81 wrote:

I'm tired of hearing about Stryper.

Michael's constant rants about not being a "Christian band" and "buy my record ... buy our T-shirt ... vote for our video" posts on Facebook are why I quit "following" him. I swear every third or fourth post on my "timeline" was from him or Stryper, and it was ALWAYS a marketing post. It's like hearing the same stupid drug commercials when trying to watch the news!

Now Tim's posts are interesting; "check out this old ham radio I found in a pawn shop" and the like.

As for Stryper not being a ministry, fine. They can call themselves what they want, or not call themselves what they don't want. But like SB said, people will use labels, even if you tell them not to, and Michael's rant about it is turning into a dead horse thing. Besides, they didn't make a fuss about being called a Christian band in the 80's. If I'm not mistaken they rode that wave for all it was worth!

ishmael81 wrote:

That being said, I hear what you're saying staybrite but I'll admit two things:
1. I'm tired of iTunes labeling my stuff "Religious".
2. I'm tired of hearing about Stryper.

I certainly won't disagree with that.  I cannot stand it when music is labled "Religious"....and I am a bit tired of hearing about Stryper, they will never be as successful as they were in the 80's no matter how hard they try to market themselves.

Savage Amusement wrote:

I think what Michael is trying to say is that stryper is not a ministry....his comments lead me to think that the idea that calling any rock band a ministry is ignorant in his view...Thats why they record songs by artist that are not Christ centered.....

Interesting take, I hadn't thought of it that way.  You just might be right.

As long as Stryper or any other rock band have lyrics that are Christ-centric, then "Christian band" is the label that both Christians and non-Christians will put on it as a qualifier.  It is just what is.  Just because Michael denies that will not make the tag go away.  The record companies, radio stations, magazines, fans, etc. will use that term and it is just something that will always be.  Deal with it, Michael.

BearDad wrote:

ishmael81 wrote:

I'm tired of hearing about Stryper.

Yeah!  So what's going on in the Tourniquet camp?  Hey!  Put that down!  Nooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I heard Michael say the same thing he said in this interview on that metal show 2 seasons ago. I am confused because the gipper on the cmr doesn't say what Michael said here..so is the gipper and michael the same guy...seems like he called himself and stryper a Christian band in his book...
I did look up the lyrics on the sweet lynch album and they do not appear to be Christian to me...

Savage Amusement wrote:

seems like he called himself and stryper a Christian band in his book

Chapter 1:

"We've sold almost 10 million records to date and were the first Christian band to air on MTV..."

Chapter 9:

"... but they had never signed a Christian band."
"... to consider looking at labels that had signed Christian bands."
"... until after we signed the deal that they realized we were a Christian band."
"So there we were, the sole Christian band signed to a label that celebrated Aleister Crowley's birthday."

Chapter 11:

"...wasn't a Christian and was thrust into this job with a bold Christian band."

Chapter 18:

"I'm not here to judge other Christian bands from the '80s."


Gotta love Kindle books!   I could go on, but my point is made (or rather SA's point is confirmed).  In all, Michael called Stryper a "Christian band", or in so many words inferred they were/are a "Christian band," at least twenty-five times.


I know that this isn't from Michael, but he sure pushed it on Facebook before the release (note the 0:10 spot):

I think that the thing with Michael and Rex Scott both saying this is that they are trying to distance themselves from the mindset that they are not valid bands because they are Christians.  They want that secular audience because it is large enough to support their music--just playing to Christians not so much.

However, as I stated earlier, as long as their lyrics keep[ pointing to Jesus, then that is what they will be branded by radio people, record labels (even Frontiers called them a Christian band in the above clip), fans, article writers, etc.  Everyone labels everything and especially when it comes to how to market any brand.  You don't just sell shoes--it has to be running shoes, loafers, tennis shoes, basketball shoes, pumps, stilettos, etc.  Even within the realm of metal, it has to be hair metal, glam, thrash, black, death, NWOBHM, doom, stoner, sludge, nu, and I could go on for days.  We label things.  You won't shed that label just by saying you are not that.  I could say that I am not overweight, but that won't change that fact.

Just be confident in the music you make and just don't let it get to you.  Even if they drop the Christian tag, they are still gonna throw Bibles from the stage and sing about Jesus.  What changed?  As Shakespeare once wrote, "A rose by any other name is just as sweet."  (See what I did there?)  Change the tag and even change the stripes, but the tag "Christian band" will stand because of Jesus.  It is what it is, folks. 

On the other hand, saying that they aren't a Christian band sure gets people stirred up and talking about the band.  That is free publicity.  Hollywood does things like this all the time to get people talking about an actress or actor in order to promote a new movie or tv show.  Perhaps this is nothing more than to get people talking about Stryper to, could it be, promote a forthcoming album?  Ah, we may have hit the nail on the head, folks.  KISS took off the makeup in the 80s to stir the pot and come back from a couple of lesser selling albums.  They put it back on for the reunion shows.  It may all be sabre rattling and marketing through controversy:  a big Hollywood sales tactic.

alldatndensum wrote:

On the other hand, saying that they aren't a Christian band sure gets people stirred up and talking about the band.  That is free publicity. 

Personally I think that's all it really is. If Michael is anything besides a musician, it is a marketing man. He promotes his stuff hard.

I like Stryper. Preferably on my MP3 player, and not in my news feed.

The thing that strikes me is stryper did go platinum and gold back in the 80s when they were proudly a  "Christian" band...pretty sure it wasn't just Christians that made that happen...seems like everyone had a copy of To Hell With The Devil and In God We Trust and they got regular MTV airplay plus radio play on the same station as all the other hair bands...heck, I was a christian hater back in the 80s and I had those albums

I have to admit that until now I had not read the Blabbermouth article for which this thread was started, as the title was enough for me. It's something Michale has said before and no doubt will say again; it's his favorite rant anymore.  However, I have read it now, and here are a couple of my thoughts:

Michael Sweet wrote:

I do not know where the label 'Christian rock band' came from.

Um ... you, in your book. OK, sure, you didn't start it, but you surely embraced it.

MS wrote:

I do not like being referred to as a Christian rock band.

How about "I no longer like being referred to as a Christian rock band."  That might be a little easier for your Christian fans (not just fans that are Christians   ) to swallow.

MS wrote:

I just feel like it does limit the band. Some people misinterpret that as saying that I am ashamed of my faith

I myself would never accuse you of that. I don't know about some of the tunes you cover, but all the stuff you write is either very positive or downright Christian. I think your position concerning your faith is secure.  However, when you say a label limits a band, what specific limits are you concerned about? 

• Sales?  Dude, you sold hundreds of thousands of albums during the 80's while so labeled! Even if you didn't sell that many now, do you really need to? Seriously! You have made more money in one lifetime than most of us would see in ten! And besides, who is your god? Money? If so then your songs are just lip service and your faith is, in fact, in question.
  
• God?   Surely you are not suggesting that a label that men attach to a music group will limit God's ability to reach people!? 
  

MS wrote:

I have been trying to break down that theory for a long time now ...

Um ... except in your book. It's OK to break down a theory, except when you want to use it for your own purposes (i.e., to make money).

MS wrote:

... although I do not think I ever will. There is a genre of Christian rock and I guess that will always be.

That's a fact.


OK, enuf's'enuf. Time to get off the soap box and move on.  

Sometimes I would like to hear from the other members of stryper..

I've read somewhere else that Oz in fact does not share the same view as Mike does about the labeling of the band. I've also read that Tim agrees with Mike. Never hear from Rob.

Savage Amusement wrote:

Sometimes I would like to hear from the other members of stryper..

The more I read and hear about Stryper, them more I am convinced it is Michael's band, and out of respect, fear, whatever, I think the other three are very careful to not anything in public. Tim once said on Facebook that he agreed with Michael, but he said "We are not a CCM band".  Not really the same think IMO; when someone says CCM I think Steve Green, Bryan Duncan, even For King and Country ... definitely not Stryper. I wonder if he deleted his post, though, as I can't find it now. Maybe Michael didn't like it. 

It is interesting to me that Oz is also a member of Bloodgood, a band that, to my knowledge, has never balked at being called a "Christian metal band."

Bloodgood has often referred to themselves as Metal Missionaries.

I think Oz' opinion is pretty clear in this article:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnmusic/interviews/carpenter_stryper_murderbypride.aspx

thanks for posting that BearDad...sounds like Oz does embrace the Christian band moniker, does see it as a ministry but also recognizes that Michael has changed and that Stryper is 110% Michaels band..I am a fan of Oz Fox guitar playing...I love the bloodgood album he is on..I wish he would leave stryper and do bloodgood fulltime but I understand he has to go where he feels led... This article along with Michaels book and everything I have read concerning Michael as well as my encounter with him on the CMR has made me more of a Oz fan and if possible soured me on Michael that much more..I am really starting to think Michael is a narcissists..

Yeah thanks BearDad. The article confirms some things I susptected...

Savage Amusement wrote:

thanks for posting that BearDad...sounds like Oz does embrace the Christian band moniker, does see it as a ministry but also recognizes that Michael has changed and that Stryper is 110% Michaels band..I am a fan of Oz Fox guitar playing...I love the bloodgood album he is on..I wish he would leave stryper and do bloodgood fulltime but I understand he has to go where he feels led... This article along with Michaels book and everything I have read concerning Michael as well as my encounter with him on the CMR has made me more of a Oz fan and if possible soured me on Michael that much more..I am really starting to think Michael is a narcissists..

Can't say I disagree.

I feel like I'm one of the few that never really got into Stryper. Then again, I only ever really listened to Murder By Pride (which some feel wasn't a true Stryper album), and I went to their show in Ottawa last year and picked up NMHTP there. Therefore, if I'm honest, I'm kinda apathetic about the band…