Can we have a civil discussion about something?

So I was wondering if we could have a civil discussion about something. I don't want to argue; rather I want to state my thoughts and have some of you clarify where I may be misunderstanding.

In the thread about Lipstick (the band, not the product), this comment was made:

"It is not a Christian album though, in that lyrics also touch upon boy-girl relationship themes or fun rock n' roll songs."

Now I think I've been pretty clear about why I don't even like the label "Christian" for music. But why does this type of thinking exist? If the CD isn't a Christian CD because there are songs with those topics, then do we become non-Christians if we talk about those things?

I know, I know. That's a crazy jump in logic. But follow me for a second here.

A = the item talks about topics other than Jesus
B = the item isn't Christian
1 = I talk about topics other than Jesus

Now, if B is true due to A, then B must also be true of 1 (man, logic class was a long time ago).

Let's follow this through to a really disturbing thought.

A = the item talks about boy-girl relationship themes
B = the item isn't Christian
1 = Song of Solomon talks about boy-girl relationship themes

Again, if B is true because of A, then 1 must also be true because of A.

Is there something I'm missing here?

Also, Dynamis - I'm not picking on you or trying to provoke you or anything. I just don't understand.

For your first question, "Can we have a civil discussion about something?", the answer is no.  It's just not possible.  Ok.  I'm kidding.


For me and my opinion, it comes down to how and why it's being marketed.  Are the songs written to reach people for Christ?  Is the purpose of the album to spread the Good News?  If the answer is yes, then it's a Christian release.


If the album contains a song or two that are influenced by faith or are even about Christ, then I would call it secular.  Example:  Extreme's first album contains a song called Watching, Waiting which is clearly about Christ on the cross.  The rest of the album clearly is not about faith based themes or topics.


In the end it doesn't matter what we label or don't label things.  I played in a band that hated being labeled as Grunge.  If you don't want to labeled, stay inside you hermit.

Interesting. So you wouldn't label Chris Tomlin's music as Christian since it's designed (according to his own words) for the church? It isn't designed to reach people for Christ as he wrote it for people who already know him.

ishmael81 wrote:

Interesting. So you wouldn't label Chris Tomlin's music as Christian since it's designed (according to his own words) for the church? It isn't designed to reach people for Christ as he wrote it for people who already know him.

Who the heck is Chris Tomlin and why would ANYONE around here want to listen to music from an artist named that anyway?

ishmael81 wrote:

Interesting. So you wouldn't label Chris Tomlin's music as Christian since it's designed (according to his own words) for the church? It isn't designed to reach people for Christ as he wrote it for people who already know him.

I didn't mean for it to come across so black and white.  Chris Tomlin is a Christian artist as his music's message is clearly Christ based.  There's a purpose in his music beyond just writing a cool song.

Ish wrote:

Can we have a civil discussion about something?

Probably not collectively as a group, but we can give it a try.

I think the problem arises because people have their own definitions of what a "Christian Band" is.  Seems as if I have heard of several.

1. A band that plays hymns and worship music in church setting.
2. A band that plays contemporary Christian music (with a message glorifying God) to nearly any audience.
3. A band that plays any style of music with lyrics that appear to come from an obvious Christian perspective.
4. A band that plays music with lyrics that show the song writer (and presumably band member's) Christian faith in at a majority of the songs.
5. A band that plays music with lyrics that aren't offensive and contains mostly (or all) Christian members.
6. A band that plays music with lyrics that aren't offensive and has at least one Christian member.
etc. to infinity.

I won't even address the whole "ministry aspect" as I think that is another can of worms.

So when Carl gives Lenny a cd from his favorite band Impellitteri and says to Lenny "Hey dude, check out this cool Christian band".  Lenny listens to the cd is quite dismayed because the lyrics to some of the songs do not appear to allude to Christ or God in anyway.  Lenny berates Carl by telling him "Dude this isn't a Christian band, you don't know what you are talking about."  Which one of them is wrong?

The problem is that Carl & Lenny both have different definitions for the same term.  I don't want to speak out of turn for Dynamis (the very cool dude who owns and operates Angelic Warlord) but I am guessing he defined the band the way he did in an effort to appease people who might not consider a band who doesn't sing about the Savior in every song a "Christian Band".  He (Dynamis) has said before that he reviews music from Christain bands/artists and other music that is "Christian Friendly"

Xid wrote:

ishmael81 wrote:

Interesting. So you wouldn't label Chris Tomlin's music as Christian since it's designed (according to his own words) for the church? It isn't designed to reach people for Christ as he wrote it for people who already know him.

I didn't mean for it to come across so black and white.  Chris Tomlin is a Christian artist as his music's message is clearly Christ based.  There's a purpose in his music beyond just writing a cool song.

I gotcha now. I took you a little too literally.

Staybrite wrote:

Ish wrote:

Can we have a civil discussion about something?

Probably not collectively as a group, but we can give it a try.

I think the problem arises because people have their own definitions of what a "Christian Band" is.  Seems as if I have heard of several.

1. A band that plays hymns and worship music in church setting.
2. A band that plays contemporary Christian music (with a message glorifying God) to nearly any audience.
3. A band that plays any style of music with lyrics that appear to come from an obvious Christian perspective.
4. A band that plays music with lyrics that show the song writer (and presumably band member's) Christian faith in at a majority of the songs.
5. A band that plays music with lyrics that aren't offensive and contains mostly (or all) Christian members.
6. A band that plays music with lyrics that aren't offensive and has at least one Christian member.
etc. to infinity.

I won't even address the whole "ministry aspect" as I think that is another can of worms.

So when Carl gives Lenny a cd from his favorite band Impellitteri and says to Lenny "Hey dude, check out this cool Christian band".  Lenny listens to the cd is quite dismayed because the lyrics to some of the songs do not appear to allude to Christ or God in anyway.  Lenny berates Carl by telling him "Dude this isn't a Christian band, you don't know what you are talking about."  Which one of them is wrong?

The problem is that Carl & Lenny both have different definitions for the same term.  I don't want to speak out of turn for Dynamis (the very cool dude who owns and operates Angelic Warlord) but I am guessing he defined the band the way he did in an effort to appease people who might not consider a band who doesn't sing about the Savior in every song a "Christian Band".  He (Dynamis) has said before that he reviews music from Christain bands/artists and other music that is "Christian Friendly"

All good points staybrite. This is starting down the road that led to where I am now with labels.

And yeah, I meant no disrespect at all to Dynamis. I've read several reviews on the site. I just thought we could discuss the other part.

ishmael81 wrote:

This is starting down the road that led to where I am now with labels.

Labels are arbitrary but I wouldn't call Extreme a Christian band because of a couple of songs that could easily be on a Christian album just like I wouldn't call Stryper a secular band because of some non-Christian covers.

Quote :

Now I think I've been pretty clear about why I don't even like the label "Christian" for music. But why does this type of thinking exist? If the CD isn't a Christian CD because there are songs with those topics, then do we become non-Christians if we talk about those things?

In the days of classical music, you had this great divide where you had music that was sacred or secular.  Sacred music was music written for use in the church.  Everything else was secular even if it were Christ centered.  Then, lines blurred as folk music began to take over.  Artists sang songs of faith and songs of love, tales of the macabre, etc.  Some folks sang songs primarily in the churches while others traveled around singing anywhere they could.  This would be the beginnings of what would become the southern gospel movement.

During the turn of the 20th century as the blues was coming of age, many old blues masters sang their songs as they traveled.  They had their lyrics they'd sing in the bars on Saturday and had Jesus lyrics they'd sing in churches on Sunday to the same tunes.  It was accepted in many larger cities this way. 

The southern gospel movement began as the golden age of radio began.  The Grand Ol' Opry introduced country and western on a wide scale and Christian songs were part of the Opry.  However, the gospel singings at the Ryman launched the singing careers of many artists who sang songs solely of a Christian nature and performed in churches, school gymnasiums, county fairs, etc.  While country musicians often had hits with an old gospel song, the southern gospel artists made their money singing about Jesus all the time.  There was a market found for this.

In the 60s, the Jesus Music era began with people starting to copy the contemporary music of the day to reach out to the hippies.  While some of the mainstream labels did sign guys like Larry Norman, Christian artists were not widely accepted and really didn't garner big radio success.  They were great musicians and respected by other label mates & musicians.  But, the music industry as a whole just never caught on and many of those early rockers for Jesus were dropped from their major label deals.

In the 70s, there were a handful more bands trying to be "missionaries for Jesus" by playing the same music as what was popular at the time to reach a new generation.  This would be when bands like Petra, Rez, Stronghold, etc. came into their own.  They would have the struggle of not getting record deals with the recording labels of the day.  They would also be rejected by the church folk of the day and labeled as the devil's music.  They didn't care.  They wanted to share Jesus with the world and knew how they wanted to do it.  A few years later, a couple of small indie labels had popped up and signed some of these acts as they saw a market and saw a way to help these acts promote their ministry.  The Christian music "industry" was born.  Many colleges set up radio stations and had a "Christian" show or two on Sundays.

In the 80s, WAY-FM and K-Love were born and brought CCM to a much wider audience.  Stryper got regular play on MTV.  Several Christian bands were played on the secular radio show Metal Shop.  Deliverance also was in rotation on MTV's Headbanger's Ball.  Sanctuary, Pastor Bob's church at the time, was heavily pushing the whole "Christian rock" thing as a real ministry and they even owned Frontline Records & Intense Records at one time before they sold out.  It was during the latter part of the 80's that I can really remember the stigma towards Christian bands beginning.

During the 90s, Christian music began to splinter a bit as some acts wanted to be more artistic but still wanted to be marketed in Christian bookstores, play Christian festivals, etc.  It was a weird time.  Since then, the whole "what makes a Christian band" battle has played out over and over and over and over and over and over until I am really sick of the whole thing.

Whether you call yourself a "Christian band" or not really doesn't matter.  If you make music and the majority of your songs are about Jesus, then you are gonna get slapped by that tag just because people like to label things in order to market them.  If not to market them, we tend to read labels when choosing what to buy.  It is just going to happen.  If you don't want the tag, then don't sing about Jesus.  Don't share your faith or your testimony ever.  Just sing songs about whatever.  However, when your faith begins to really shine forth in your life AND in your lyrics, people are going to being to look at you a bit differently.

And Bingo was his name-o.

so basically let people use whatever label they want..listen to what you want...move on...

That's precisely what most of us here do, but sadly others want to take pot shots at us for our choices by labeling us.

Dude!  You are such a labeler!  Don't be hatin'!

Haters gonna hate
Labelers gonna label

And while they be hatin and labelin, I be drinkin my glass of "I don't care"

Samson wrote:

Haters gonna hate
Labelers gonna label

And while they be hatin and labelin, I be drinkin my glass of "I don't care"

Chorus:

I don't care!
I don't care!
Label the hate
Hate the label 'cuz
I don't care!
----

New song we're workin' on.

I'll be here all week. Be sure to tip your waitress.

Quote :

I don't want to speak out of turn for Dynamis (the very cool dude who owns and operates Angelic Warlord) but I am guessing he defined the band the way he did in an effort to appease people who might not consider a band who doesn't sing about the Savior in every song a "Christian Band".  He (Dynamis) has said before that he reviews music from Christain bands/artists and other music that is "Christian Friendly"

Staybrite's post sums things up best in this regard.  Yes that is correct in that I write reviews of both Christian bands in addition to those that are Christian friendly.  Looking back the mistake I made was placing a label on Lipstick's album: "It is not a Christian album".  Perhaps I could have thought things through a bit better- and no disrespect taken from anyone.  It might have been better to say 'several songs reflect the groups faith while others are about boy-girl relationship themes, etc' without placing a label.


When I developed the vision for Angelic Warlord over then years ago, I wanted to cover not just Christian bands but also 'bands of Christians' and 'mainstream bands with Christian members'.  Lipstick falls well within the sites style guidelines both musically and lyrically in this regard.  So sorry for any confusion in that I did not intend to open a can of worms.

I don't see any can of worms.  Just a nice discussion.

alldatndensum wrote:

Quote :

Now I think I've been pretty clear about why I don't even like the label "Christian" for music. But why does this type of thinking exist? If the CD isn't a Christian CD because there are songs with those topics, then do we become non-Christians if we talk about those things?

In the days of classical music, you had this great divide where you had music that was sacred or secular.  Sacred music was music written for use in the church.  Everything else was secular even if it were Christ centered.

Even then, Bach and others frequently borrowed tunes from their secular songs to use in their sacred works and vice versa.

Dynamis wrote:

Quote :

I don't want to speak out of turn for Dynamis (the very cool dude who owns and operates Angelic Warlord) but I am guessing he defined the band the way he did in an effort to appease people who might not consider a band who doesn't sing about the Savior in every song a "Christian Band".  He (Dynamis) has said before that he reviews music from Christain bands/artists and other music that is "Christian Friendly"

Staybrite's post sums things up best in this regard.  Yes that is correct in that I write reviews of both Christian bands in addition to those that are Christian friendly.  Looking back the mistake I made was placing a label on Lipstick's album: "It is not a Christian album".  Perhaps I could have thought things through a bit better- and no disrespect taken from anyone.  It might have been better to say 'several songs reflect the groups faith while others are about boy-girl relationship themes, etc' without placing a label.


When I developed the vision for Angelic Warlord over then years ago, I wanted to cover not just Christian bands but also 'bands of Christians' and 'mainstream bands with Christian members'.  Lipstick falls well within the sites style guidelines both musically and lyrically in this regard.  So sorry for any confusion in that I did not intend to open a can of worms.

I see no can of worms either, Dynamis.  You do one heck of a job with Angelic Warlord.  With the type site that it is, you will always have naysayers.  Heck, even your biggest fans don't always agree with you!  LOL  Your rating is too high or it is too low.  You labeled them as Christian or didn't label them as Christian.  You said they were this style of metal when they were really this other style.  Whatever.  Some people just want to stir the pot. 

You do an amazing job with your reviews and go more in depth than anyone I have ever heard of in this regard.  As long as you have the time and the heart for it, keep it up as you are doing a lot of musicians a great service.

^^ Hear, hear!

Quote :

Some people just want to stir the pot

  sometimes the pot needs to be stirred ....especially when things get stale...

alldatndensum wrote:

That's precisely what most of us here do, but sadly others want to take pot shots at us for our choices by labeling us.

I can't help but think this is directed at me since I started the topic. I just wanted to understand what you guys think about how this works. I've shunned it from my own use because it quickly becomes convoluted and confusing. 

If this was directed at me, I'm curious to see what potshots you're referring to.

^^ I do not believe that was directed at you.