Michael Sweet says that Stryper is not a christian rock band

Driven wrote:

if I'm honest, I'm kinda apathetic about the band…

Yup, me too. 

I used to have all their stuff and was a big fan until Michael showed up at CMR and said some things to me that turned me off.

ishmael81 wrote:

I used to have all their stuff and was a big fan until Michael showed up at CMR and said some things to me that turned me off.

That's a pretty sad statement...    When an artist pushes fans away by interacting with them...

I used to like Tourniquet, but Luke's attitude turned me off to them.

kerrick wrote:

ishmael81 wrote:

I used to have all their stuff and was a big fan until Michael showed up at CMR and said some things to me that turned me off.

That's a pretty sad statement...    When an artist pushes fans away by interacting with them...

Yep. I felt silly but ultimately if you're arrogant and condescending to me as a fan, why should I give you my money?

sometimes I wonder if these artist know they are alienating their fans or if they even care...kinda wondering if Michael is pushing stryper into a mainstream secular direction...

Bands change over time, and although I prefer the Stryper of old where every song was clearly singing about some Christian thing, I don't mind them changing a little.  If they do want to go secular (which I don't think they do at all) then maybe they should do the Seventh Avenue thing and just quit, and then start a new band.  Actually maybe the Sweet/Lynch idea is a good one.  Michael can sing stuff that is less Christian on that, and then keep Stryper as the Christian stuff.

One of the things I keep trying to remind myself is that every band is full of people.  They all make mistakes and do things they may regret in future - like we all do, but I still have difficulty in getting past certain things that have happened (which is my fault).  One Tourniquet song bugs me so much that I don't even listen to their new stuff, which is silly I know, but sometimes we're out own worst enemy!

As someone once said, say ten positives before you say a negative.  Strewth, it's difficult sometimes!

Stryper already tried to go in a more secular direction with "Against The Law".  Look what happened to them.  Many fans ditched them and the band fell apart for a decade.  So, I don't think that this is where Mr. Sweet will take them again.

However, I still think it is all just a marketing ploy to sell the next record.

BearDad wrote:

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

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

That's a great article. Thanks for sharing. 

Stryper has always been a big part of my youth and their music has directed me towards embracing Christ. So reading Michael's statement about this not being a ministry band makes me sad. It maybe even confirms why their new music don't click like it did in the past.

Got one thing to add. I always thought it was cool that a band like Stryper was open about Christ and their beliefs and still made it into secular music. I don't see why this statement was needed.

Check out this video..watch the whole thing...then tell us what you think...

Not sure what your looking for.  What I first noticed is ...

• Tim is a lot more animated than in any video I've ever seen him in! 
  
• Michael referred to Oz as Ozzy, something I haven't heard in years.
  
• I couldn't understand the lyrics, as I couldn't hear Michael over the instruments.
  
• Michael worked the crowd for 5+ minutes, mostly to get them to chant "Jesus"
  
• What happened to the sound between 7:04 and 8:15!?  It sounds like there was a mic on the crowd that was turned off for a full minute.
  

Michael has posted yet again about the christain only this time he shared what Bob beeman thinks about what michael said. Bob Beeman pretty much is agreeing with what Michael said. I say this. This has been said before here in this thread. If he is so hung up on the christain label and that its not a christain band but a rock band made up of christains then go back to what the band was calledbefore Roxx Regime. I'm sick of this subject being brought up by him. I agree with Alldat. I think it has something to do with promoting the next album.

Mark Salomon (The Crucified, Stavesacre, Neon Horse) talked about this issue on his podcast a few weeks ago - not Stryper specifically, but the whole Christian band vs. Christians in a band debate. Pretty insightful.

His big point was that "Christian" is a faith and not a genre. He talked about when Stavesacre left the Christian scene and how they struggled and so forth but people judged them on the quality of the art and not their faith. He said their sales numbers dropped but told a story about playing at a youth rally type event. He said that there were about 50 kids who bought CDs and shirts after the show that all said they'd never heard of the band and they were there because their folks dropped them off knowing it was a safe environment and gave them cash to buy something if they wanted.

I see his point. It irritates me to no end to get a new CD, put in in my PC and have iTunes label the genre "Religous".

So at the end of the day does it really matter if a band calls itself a "Christian" band or not? If you found out that every "Christian" band out there felt the same way that Michael does would it cause you alarm or cause you to quit buying records... 

Quote :

Bob Beeman pretty much is agreeing with what Michael said.

and he should...

Savage Amusement wrote:

So at the end of the day does it really matter if a band calls itself a "Christian" band or not? If you found out that every "Christian" band out there felt the same way that Michael does would it cause you alarm or cause you to quit buying records... 

Quote :

Bob Beeman pretty much is agreeing with what Michael said.

and he should...

For me, no. I listen to a band because I respect the art they made. If they're also Christian, all the better because I can relate to it differently.

I used to go into a new band thinking "Is this artist Christian?" That led to some very disappointing times - Creed is a good example. I was more worried about their faith than the music.

Now I go into it thinking "Do I like this and relate to it in some way?" Then if it turns out the band is Christians, bonus.

If it jams, it jams

In truth, I don't care if a band (or artist) is considered a Christian band or a band of Christians, either by themselves or by the general public.  What I have a problem with is when the artist, in this case Michael, continually makes such a big deal about it, especially when his statements are contrary to his music. To me there is no compromise in his lyrics; they loudly proclaim he is a Christian. But then he states, just as loudly, that Stryper "is not a Christian band because being called a Christian band limits us." Limits???? What are the limits? IMO, it is the almighty dollar; I believe Michael is concerned that in today's market having the label of Christian will limit how much money he makes, which only shows that he is trying to serve two masters. Of course, I could be wrong; he could be afraid that the label will limit how many people are reached for Christ through Stryper, which is both contrary to his "we are not a ministry" message and disturbing in that he might believe man has any control of how far one of God's tools can reach.

I still like Stryper and will continue to listen to them, even if they start making albums that are less openly Christian, and even if I don't agree with, or understand, Michael's claims.

What if he is concerned about selling more albums? If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow of $10,000 would you turn it down? 

My point is they have to market a product just like we market ourselves to potential employers. I don't think he worships money if he does that.

ishmael81 wrote:

What if he is concerned about selling more albums? If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow of $10,000 would you turn it down? 

My point is they have to market a product just like we market ourselves to potential employers. I don't think he worships money if he does that.

I don't disagree, though "marketing the Gospel" is a slippery slope...  I think perhaps Michael sees a distinction between marketing Christianity and marketing the band, whereas many fans do not see such a distinction.

ishmael81 wrote:

What if he is concerned about selling more albums? If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow of $10,000 would you turn it down? 

My point is they have to market a product just like we market ourselves to potential employers. I don't think he worships money if he does that.

There is a major difference between being "concerned about selling more albums" and being afraid that being called a Christian will affect your ability to do so.  For your analogy to fit, you should have asked "If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow of $10,000 [ as long as you don't say you are a Christian ] would you turn it down?" IMO Michael is saying "don't call us Christian because then we'll make less money," which in plain and simple terms is denying Christ.  And yet, as I said, there is no compromise in his lyrics.  He's a conundrum! 

FWIW, I'm not trying to find fault with, judge, condemn, or otherwise state the Michael is not a Christian. I am merely stating I wish he would drop the "we're not a Christian band" rhetoric as it puts a negative impression on the band and turns away a lot of people. Of course, it also attracts a lot of people, which is probably what he wants; maybe this is his "dove's head" moment.

I see your point Bear. But we don't put those labels on anyone else. I think the logical side of it is getting Michael in trouble. 

I mean Kerrick won't put on his resume that he's a Christian engineer, and I'm not a Christian mental health worker. Why apply those labels to art? That always confused me.

I think he's trying to be popular on both sides of the fence. It sounds like he wants to be a Rock star first then sing about Jesus. Can't serve to masters. Right now from everything I've read it sounds like he wants to make Frontiers Music happy and sell cds. With the constant pushing of cds tshirts and other merchantise. I mean really pushing it. It turns me off. I personally think he's going through something personal or faith wise. He sounds at times to be an insecure person. Always begging to get likes and to drive up views on Strypers videos on youtube. Enough already.

Quote :

IMO Michael is saying "don't call us Christian because then we'll make less money," which in plain and simple terms is denying Christ.  And yet, as I said, there is no compromise in his lyrics.

I disagree..I dont see it as denying Christ...I would take the $10,000 raise you mentioned because I dont think we have any buisness talking about our faith at work..we are there to work..not preach...

Quote :

It sounds like he wants to be a Rock star first then sing about Jesus. Can't serve to masters.

I do not think Michael is trying to serve 2 masters....he is a rock star, he is a christian....he writes songs from the heart..the new heart God gave him... some of you talk about him always pushing product but every band out there is doing it...I am on other forums with rock stars and I am Facebook friends with lots of bands and believe me they drive their albums, shirts, tours and themselves into the ground with everyone..just like every corporation out there..and thats what Michael sweet and stryper and bloodgood and evangelist and christian writer's and christian book store's are..a corporation, a business...not a ministry...

That's what I was saying SA, sort of. Does anyone think the local Christian bookstore is serving two masters since they send me monthly sale bills?

Why is art treated so differently? God forbid (pun intended) artists that are Christians make money...