NEW ISSUE OF HM MAGAZINE

[dougv...@gmail.com]

The Zao cover story.
Can I say (out loud) that I'm less than pleased with the cover story?

What? Why would an editor say something like that?
Isn't it there job to edit a story if they don't like it?
Why's he complaining now?

Hey, I'm just a dude. Not perfect. Maybe this article is cool. I
obviously leaned that way in the pre-press process. Something doesn't
sit too well with me, though, and I just felt like saying it out loud
here.

The Zao interview with Scott kind of ends with a pro-universalist
message/quote. No conclusion. No countering the point. Nothing.

I'm kind of turned off by an editor using "heavy hands" and coming in
and throwing his opinion around. That's one major reason why I didn't
offer a post-ed opinion piece or anything. I figure we could talk
about this together.

Did anyone else feel weird about how the article ended?
Should I be fired?

[deathisgain]

I haven't had a chance to read it. Are you talking Christian
Universalism? Like Dale Thompson of Bride?

[lopda...@gmail.com]

I read it & I just think that Scott was speaking for himself. It
would be cool to see how each member of Zao believes. Nowadays there
are some bands that do not all believe the same thing which I think it
is healthy. The reason I think this is that if you are a plumber &
are around plumbers all the time then all you know if plumbing talk &
other "occupations" will be put away in your mind. Hope that makes
sense, it is 6:12 am. I think it would be good to have a letter to
Editor thing about this, so it is not made huge but your thoughts are
presented, Doug.

Jason Irvin

[RagingRevdotCom]

i guess i messed up my last attempt at posting...

Zao is not a Christian band, Scott is not a Christian...if there is
fault to be had it is in that it wasn't realized that Zao is not a
Christian band and hasn't been for a very long time...98ish i
think...Scott confirmed that he was not a Christian in a recent
interview on my website @ http://ragingrev.com/2009/04/14/zao-awake-interviewed-reviewed/
and i know Jeff does not Identify as a Christian anymore either, I
can't speculate as to Marty's beliefs but i know from other interviews
i have seen with him he seems to be at the very least a fairly liberal
christian.

Still, there are very christianish or spiritual themes in the new
album...dan writes from his heart and his experiences...that should be
good enough to still merit this band as one of the greatest and they
shouldn't lose listeners because they don't believe the way they did
when they were kids.

Matt @ http://ragingrev.com

On Apr 23, 3:13 pm, dougvanp...@gmail.com wrote:

[RagingRevdotCom]

I just read your interview Doug, I thought you did an excellent
job...im not sure if it's better than my interview...but it was good
jk ;)

On Apr 23, 3:13 pm, dougvanp...@gmail.com wrote:

[Matt]

This is something that I have wanted to write in about for a while,
but have not because I don't necessarily think you are doing anything
bad. I just have a different perspective on it, one as a writer (not
for HM) and another as a customer. Not that mine is better, just
different.

I understand that you don't want to be heavy-handed as an editor, and
that is good. On the other hand, I don't think you want to be too
easy either. I am firmly convinced that artists of all kinds -
whether painters or musicians or writers - are the worst critics of
their own art. Either they are too hard on themselves and think
everything is bad, or too easy on themselves and produce sub-par art
and then attempt to dump that on the paying public.

This is one of the many reasons why most musicians need a producer on
their album - to lend an external perspective that lets the good stuff
through and keeps the bad stuff buried (in theory, at least). To me,
the editor is like the producer. As a writer myself, I want the
editor to protect me from myself. If I write something bad and it gets
published, people will read that and it will reflect poorly on me. I
may lose future work because of it.

Most of what I publish is related to my work. I had an article
published recently in an anthology. Looking at the article, I wonder
how it made it in the there. It reads fine, but it just doesn't fit.
As much as I love getting published, I also wished the editor had made
the decision not to publish it. Ultimately, it makes me look bad.

There was a letter to the editor recently about a Copeland article
written by Mark Salomon. I went back and read the article. It was
pretty bad. I know that it was hard because he never got the band to
talk for an interview. But compare that with the article on Damian
Jurado several years ago where the same thing happen. Even though the
writer was mad, he kept the piece short and still turned in a decent
article. Now, I know Mark has written some good pieces. But what if
that was the only one I read? What if I was the editor of Rolling
Stone or something like that, evaluating whether I wanted to let him
write for me, and that was the first thing I read and then decided to
end it there? Ultimately, not printing bad articles will protect the
writer more than they know. Of course, they may or may not cry about
it, but such is the way it is when dealing with sensitive artist
types :)

To me, the Zao article is great, but it could have used an ending. I
don't think it would have been heavy handed at all to ask for an
ending, or write an editorial response. Not at all. That is my
perspective as a writer.

Personally, I think it would feel the same for album reviews. There
was also a question recently about a Disciple review. As a writer, I
feel I should only do reviews for bands that I have a good grid on how
to judge them. If I was assigned a Derek Webb review - no thanks. I
didn't grow up in church and just can never relate to anything he
says. If I was assigned a CD by a band that I was not a fan of, or
that I don't even have an appreciation for their style of music, I
would turn down the assignment. That would not be right for me to do
a review like that. Once again, as a writer, I don't think it would
have been heavy handed to come in and re-do the review in my place.
That has nothing to do with editor/writer relationship in my mind
(unless I was a cry baby). It has to do with quality control. And
every writer has to submit to quality control.

Not to mention the band - whose sales might suffer if you print a bad
review for a food album. I'm sorry, but you putting your rank of the
album next the writer's like you do is cool and al... but it means
nothing to me. What you are saying is that you care more for the
writer's feelings than the the band's livelihood (yes, I know they
don't make money off of CDs, but CD sales can get them better bookings
and more attention). Don't underestimate the power of your magazine
to influence sales on a significant scale.

As a customer, I think most of your articles/reviews are good to
great. But it gives me pause to think that you would sacrifice my
trust as a customer just to pamper a fragile writer's ego.
Ultimately, I'm not wanting to pay for something that is sub-par. And
what are your advertisers going to think when they read that you won't
cut something that you think is bad? Will they want to advertise in
your magazine? Ultimately, I think you do have a quality magazine
here, so these are not issues for me. But will they be issues for
others? Good writers are a dime a dozen (sorry that these last two
paragraphs are so harsh, but it is what I am thinking), but you also
don't want to get a reputation as a hard man to work with. I think it
is good to balance giving writers freedom with providing quality
content. Just my two cents.

[Doug Van Pelt]

Thanks. I truly appreciate the criticism.

[Doc]

Yeah, this is very helpful. As the managing ed for Heaven's Metal
fanzine, I hear what you are saying as well. I proof everything that
goes into the zine and sometimes edit as well. At times I'll nudge a
writer in a certain direction, how to pursue an interview, etc. but
mostly I've adopted the model Doug has had in place for years - to let
the writers have independence but with some restraint. We have a much
smaller pool of writers to manage with the fanzine, so I can usually
direct a review to the right writer, but it doesn't always work out
and then you are right, it's up to me and ultimately Doug to decide if
it should be printed. I guess we don't always get it right, but I
respect what Doug has been doing for many years.

But your points are well-taken. As a physician, I run my own practice.
I have nurses and a nurse practitioner that work under me. I allow
them to work their own style, but ultimately, I'm responsible for what
they say and do with the patients (or quality control as you say). I'm
probably a bit more of a control freak than Doug, but its in my genes
and its engrained in me due to the nature of my work which doesn't
allow any margin for error.

As for the Zao piece... I just didn't like it. It was like a totally
neutral interview, no confrontation. Isn't it our job as journalist's
to draw things out of the interviewed that they might not otherwise
share openly? that's why the what so and so articles make for such
good reads in my opinion. When the interview goes outside the "safety"
net of the person answering the questions you often find some of the
most enjoyable, controversial, insightful remarks. Why are we so
afraid to just ask Zao, "Are you guys Christians?" or even "What do
you think of Jesus Christ?" Sometimes I think that because a band has
been in the Christian news and headlines for years that those
questions are somehow off limits. Isn't that one of the things readers
really wanted to know about Zao? And the article seemed to dance
around that issue without hitting it square on. Just my opinion

So, in light of all this, perhaps the only thing I might have done
different than Doug might have been to say to the writer, "Why don't
you just ask him what he thinks of Jesus Christ?"

> > Should I be fired?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Doug Van Pelt]

I'd like to see more fairy tales about policemen.

Other than that, I think the Disciple review mentioned was a good "fit" for
the writer in the sense of style and whatnot. Disciple made a turn to fit
more in with the My Chemical Romances of the world (i.e. more modern rock,
less old school metal) and this writer is very good at that style. Therefore
it was the perfect fit, style-wise, I think. Well, it obviously wasn't
"perfect," but it wasn't a complete mis-fire. Let Spin Magazine review the
latest Disciple and see if it gets a rave review.

-----Original Message-----
From: hm-forums--mess...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:hm-forums--mess...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Doc
Sent: Saturday, May 09, 2009 2:48 PM
To: HM Forums & Message Boards Group
Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE OF HM MAGAZINE

[The Voice]

I don't think it was a bad article at all. Remember, this is Schwab
doing the interview. The outcome is through the Schwab lens. Let us
look at some info Andrew shared back in the truthless Heroes era. If
you read their now-defunct forum and A.S's books he constantly alluded
to the fact that not every band posing as "Christian" lives it off
stage. You see a lot on the road. He noted that people superimpose
what they want onto the artists, making them in THEIR own image,
making them safe, acceptable. This leads to all kinds of weirdness and
stomach-turning encounters. Then there are the fans who spoke to P86,
relating all kinds of abuse at the hands of clergy, pastor-fathers,
etc. Schwab always preached that we cannot assume anything. We have to
be "awake?" and make sure we know what we know and why we know it.
Once you start messing with a Schwab piece, it is no longer a Schwab
work. It is like adding mustard to a fine pizza. Andrew-interviews are
never "in your face." He teases out a piece of intestine through a
small incision on the abdomen. By reading you see what is meant
without the need for guts splattered all over. What, exactly, would
you want to have brought out in the article? Based on conversations
with their manager and friend, I know that Zao is not a ministry band.
One member is a "Christian" and names Jesus as Lord (see humble liner
note). The others do not identify themselves with Christ and I believe
there is more to it than "Jesus is not Lord, ain't no hell or heaven."
While I am convinced, as best I can be, that Christ is THE way, these
Zao guys are still seeking what is Truth. I bet that Christians have
turned them off to Christ in some way. Forcing them (Zao) to answer a
"litmus test" will not be beneficial to readers or band members. While
I have no problem asking straight up questions, especially to a band
that was IN the Christian scene, we may not like the answers! I
predict that they would not be printed in HM.I predict that they would
probably sting quite a bit. OTOH, that kind of transparent talk can be
very healthy and helpful, healing. IDK. I guess I have mixed feelings
about bands, ministry, and all that. If you catch a "Christian" band
at a certain point in their history, you will may drug use, sexual
encounters, drunkenness, anger AT God, greed, and on and on. And this
is while they are touring and giving a Christian message. I don't like
to take people at face value or make quick assumptions-especially
about bands. It is tough. Treasure in imperfect people. Schwab used to
use a screen name something like "The guy who hates himself"..he
viewed himself as THE truthless hero. Honesty is the currency of the
day.

On May 9, 3:48 pm, Doc <jtsw...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yeah, this is very helpful. As the managing ed for Heaven's Metal
> fanzine, I hear what you are saying as well. I proof everything that
> goes into the zine and sometimes edit as well. At times I'll nudge a
> writer in a certain direction, how to pursue an interview, etc. but

> mostly I've adopted the model Doug has had in place for years - to let lens

[Genesis Winter]

I liked the article. I appreciated the fact that it respected Scott
AND the reader's intelligence. There was context given on the history
of the band and the interaction between their music and their
Christianity/spirituality/lack thereof. Scott was given an oppurtunity
to explain how he felt about religion without being attacked for it
(either at the time of the interview, or in print), and I think that's
good! The reader can use discernment and check what he is saying
against their own understanding of these things. Should HM be a mag
where only musicians that toe the evangelical theological line can
honestly express what they think? I'm not trying to say it should
shift to covering mostly secular bands, or something. So & So Sez
aside, HM is a mag mostly for Christian bands. But obviously, Zao has
a history in the Christian scene, and there are many HM readers
(myself included) interested in the band's music, and feelings about
God/Christianity/etc. these days.

Of course -- full disclosure -- I'm also fairly sympathetic to Scott's
perspective. I consider myself a follower of Christ again these days,
but have a hard time with the delight the evangelical community I grew
up in has in drawing lines, and the arrogance it shows. Does anyone
besides God know who will and won't be in heaven? As Jesus' parables
taught, we're probably going to be might surprised by some of the
people who are 'in' and 'out' on judgement day. If God is the source
of all life and goodness, than it seems very arrogant to pretend that
some Buddhists, Muslims, shamans, etc. haven't tapped into it, even if
they do so with imperfect knowledge (see CS Lewis' "Last Battle"). But
isn't all our understandings of God imperfect? Is it up to me to judge
what understanding is 'good enough' to get someone into heaven?

I'm sure there's lots of Bible verses that could be cited against what
I'm saying, and that there's other legitimate ways of understanding
things... but I also happen to think my understanding has some
legitimacy -- and for that matter, so does Scott's, for all that he
isn't a Christian I for one am glad that HM let it stand the way he
said it, and the way Andrew wrote it. At the same time, I think it
would be a great idea to use the comments as a starting point for
further discussion. Getting HM readers (and writer's!) thinking and
talking about their beliefs concerning salvation and the status of
other religions would be great, and hopefully a good oppurtunity to
practice brotherly love as different perspectives come out.

Finally, on a personal note (Doug, I hope you read this, and apologies
to everyone for how long this is going on), and since I just stumbled
onto this page by accident, and may never have a chance to say this
again... Thank you Doug, and to all the other people that have
contributed to HM over the years. Discovering the mag and a lot of the
bands in it as a teen during the late 90s, helped me to feel less
alone and to realize that you could have and express feelings of
sadness, loneliness, guilt, etc. and still love God. Those music and
words helped me get through some tough years. Thank you.

On May 12, 2:36 pm, The Voice <oldwoodwor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think it was a bad article at all. Remember, this is Schwab
> doing the interview. The outcome is through the Schwab lens. Let us
> look at some info Andrew shared back in the truthless Heroes era. If
> you read their now-defunct forum and A.S's books he constantly alluded
> to the fact that not every band posing as "Christian" lives it off
> stage. You see a lot on the road. He noted that people superimpose
> what they want onto the artists, making them in THEIR own image,
> making them safe, acceptable. This leads to all kinds of weirdness and
> stomach-turning encounters. Then there are the fans who spoke to P86,
> relating all kinds of abuse at the hands of clergy, pastor-fathers,
> etc. Schwab always preached that we cannot assume anything. We have to
> be "awake?" and make sure we know what we know and why we know it.
> Once you start messing with a Schwab piece, it is no longer a Schwab
> work. It is like adding mustard to a fine pizza. Andrew-interviews are
> never "in your face." He teases out a piece of intestine through a
> small incision on the abdomen. By reading you see what is meant
> without the need for guts splattered all over. What, exactly, would
> you want to have brought out in the article? Based on conversations

> with their manager and friend, I know thatZaois not a ministry band.

> One member is a "Christian" and names Jesus as Lord (see humble liner
> note). The others do not identify themselves with Christ and I believe
> there is more to it than "Jesus is not Lord, ain't no hell or heaven."

> While I am convinced, as best I can be, that Christ is THE way, theseZaoguys are still seeking what is Truth. I bet that Christians have

> > As for theZaopiece... I just didn't like it. It was like a totally

> > neutral interview, no confrontation. Isn't it our job as journalist's
> > to draw things out of the interviewed that they might not otherwise
> > share openly? that's why the what so and so articles make for such
> > good reads in my opinion. When the interview goes outside the "safety"
> > net of the person answering the questions you often find some of the
> > most enjoyable, controversial, insightful remarks. Why are we so

> > afraid to just askZao, "Are you guys Christians?" or even "What do

> > you think of Jesus Christ?" Sometimes I think that because a band has
> > been in the Christian news and headlines for years that those
> > questions are somehow off limits. Isn't that one of the things readers

> > really wanted to know aboutZao? And the article seemed to dance

> > > To me, theZaoarticle is great, but it could have used an ending.  I

> ...
>
> read more »