Evanescence, christian?
ju...@gospelmaailma.com
And their label is christian, right?
Jukka
David Bruce Murray
<ju...@gospelmaailma.com> wrote in message
news:37ahsv8goull0h0p7...@4ax.com...
> Is this a christian band? Their guitarrist thanks Jesus in the notes.
> And their label is christian, right?
Initially, they were marketed heavily to the Christian market. Then some of
the group members were interviewed and distanced themselves from the
Christian marketplace in no uncertain terms, and with enough foul language
to get their point across. At that point, their Christian record label was
said to have dropped them and they apologized profusely to the Christian
industry for not checking them out before pushing them. Their product is
still distributed to mainstream markets, but I don't know the details of
whether their label sold the rights to another label or if they just did
away with the Christian distribution and kept selling them to the general
market.
All that baggage aside, it's still a great CD . . . it had a grassroots type
of buzz that was similar to the first major release by Jars Of Clay, and the
sound stood out above the typical Christian market music you normally hear.
Their songs have a dark quality, but you can hear a sense of hope in the
darkness. The female vocalist has a very smooth voice that makes a great
contrast to the music.
--
David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@NOSPAMmailblocks.com
---Making hay while the sun shines---
"I know a pagan piano riff when I hear it." ---Dr. Bobby Clark
5/7/03 by "The Original Tenor of the Cathedral Quartet"
El-Master
all speak about Christianity(good spelling?).
BUT, they deny it for publicity, and MONEY.
Whoever shames the God is not a (big) christian.
If they do it for material reasons, isn't that a bit against Jesus'
teaching.
As we know, christians follows His teaching.
It is said: Who is shamed of me, I will be shamed of him when I come.
(Can't qoute, cause I have only Croatian Bible, and maby if I translate it,
some people could instantly take it as a lie, and it's not- look, I think
Apocalypse or John).
God with ya'll.
CDriver333
>all speak about Christianity(good spelling?).
>BUT, they deny it for publicity, and MONEY.
>Whoever shames the God is not a (big) christian.
It's a real epidemic in the realm of Christian music... bands downplaying
their faith in the secular industry. Not just Evanescence... I've seen it with
MxPx, Chevelle and several others. When interviewed by secular magazines,
they'll state that they're "not a Christian band" or something to that effect.
Are they afraid of people not buying their records? Maybe if they were to be
honest about their faith and not try to hide it (or even deny it!), they would
be much better off!
-MIKE-
> It is said: Who is shamed of me, I will be shamed of him when I come.
> (Can't qoute, cause I have only Croatian Bible, and maby if I translate
> it, some people could instantly take it as a lie, and it's not- look, I
> think Apocalypse or John).
> God with ya'll.
>
That's a good enough paraphrase and translation, and perfectly in
context.
Luke 9:26
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be
ashamed of him when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the
Father and of the holy angels.
Mar 8:38
If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and
sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he
comes in his Father's glory with the holy angels.
By the way, I had a friend who lived in Slavonski Brod for a few
years. Do you know where that is?
-MIKE-
"...enjoy every sandwich." Warren Zevon
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
-MIKE-
>
> It's a real epidemic in the realm of Christian music... bands downplaying
> their faith in the secular industry. Not just Evanescence... I've seen it
> with MxPx, Chevelle and several others. When interviewed by secular
> magazines, they'll state that they're "not a Christian band" or something
> to that effect. Are they afraid of people not buying their records? Maybe
> if they were to be honest about their faith and not try to hide it (or
> even deny it!), they would be much better off!
>
There's a *huge* difference in saying "We're not a Christian band"
and "We're not Christians."
I'm not speculating as to which of these statements were made or
implied by any band. I'm just saying don't lump both statements in
as having the same meaning.
Monte Castleman
>
>
>I've heard their songs, and 'Tournique' and others
>all speak about Christianity(good spelling?).
>BUT, they deny it for publicity, and MONEY.
>Whoever shames the God is not a (big) christian.
>If they do it for material reasons, isn't that a bit against Jesus'
>teaching.
>As we know, christians follows His teaching.
>It is said: Who is shamed of me, I will be shamed of him when I come.
Which is a valid point, but is there anything wrong with christians being in
a band to make money, as opposed to say working as plumbers to make money.
The reality is the fastest way to marginalize yourself in the industry is to
call yourself a christian band, and sign with a christian label. Mark
Joseph recently wrote an excellent book on the subject called Faith, God, and
Rock and Roll. There are chapters specific to such "secular bands with
christians" as U2, P.O.D, and Lifehouse, and it also covers issues in the
industry in general.
Another thing to think about. What kind of evangalistic effect do albums
openly praising the lord that are sold in christian music stores have, as
opposed to albums reflecting general christian values sold in Wal-Mart?
After all, how many non-christians shop in christian bookstores, or even look
in the "gospel" bins in mainstream stores? It seems preaching to the choir is
more common than we want to admit...
--
Monte Castleman, <<Spamfilter in Use>>
Bloomington, MN to email, remove the "q" from my address
David Bruce Murray
"CDriver333" <cdriv...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20031201122520...@mb-m05.aol.com...
> It's a real epidemic in the realm of Christian music... bands downplaying
> their faith in the secular industry. Not just Evanescence... I've seen it
with
> MxPx, Chevelle and several others. When interviewed by secular magazines,
> they'll state that they're "not a Christian band" or something to that
effect.
> Are they afraid of people not buying their records? Maybe if they were to
be
> honest about their faith and not try to hide it (or even deny it!), they
would
> be much better off!
I can understand a group making that statement in certain contexts . . . "We
don't want people to dismiss our music because we happen to be Christians,"
for example, or "Our music sounds more like current pop/rock music than
typical Christian music," or, "We don't play music for the primary purpose
of evangelizing the world for Christ," or "We want our music to be made
available in the general market."
On the other hand, Evanescence seemed to be saying they weren't Christians
at all. They seemed mad to be asked the question.
Skaught
> In article <bqcrql$jqe$1...@ls219.htnet.hr>, luka.m...@vz.htnet.hr says...
> >
> >
> >I've heard their songs, and 'Tournique' and others
> >all speak about Christianity(good spelling?).
> >BUT, they deny it for publicity, and MONEY.
> >Whoever shames the God is not a (big) christian.
> >If they do it for material reasons, isn't that a bit against Jesus'
> >teaching.
> >As we know, christians follows His teaching.
> >It is said: Who is shamed of me, I will be shamed of him when I come.
>
> Which is a valid point, but is there anything wrong with christians being in
> a band to make money, as opposed to say working as plumbers to make money.
What is it with Christian plumbers, anyway? Whenever the topic of
"Christian Band" vs. "Band of Christians" comes up, the example of a
"Christian Plumber" is always mentioned. I mean, c'mon! There are
Christian lawyers, Christian mortgage bankers, Christian chefs,
Christian rodeo clowns, etc. Give some of the other occupations a
chance.
Scott
Wes Groleau
> "Christian Plumber" is always mentioned. I mean, c'mon! There are
> Christian lawyers, Christian mortgage bankers, Christian chefs,
> Christian rodeo clowns, etc. Give some of the other occupations a
> chance.
Plumbers make more money? :-)
(Whatever one may think of lawyers,
the only one I know personally is NOT rich
by a long shot.)
--
Wes Groleau
"Ideas are more powerful than guns,
We would not let our enemies have guns;
why should we let them have ideas?"
-- Jozef Stalin
glenn
riding a secular horse. i stumbled for words to say regarding evil
associations and being unequally yoked.
...glenn
dono
YOU REPENTED RIGHT???
glenn
such a compromising position again.
..although i WAS voted most likely to be a rodeo clown.
...glenn
Sam Shem
worked for DC Talk, Michael W Smith, Newsboys, Kathy Troccolli and even Bob
Carlisle.
We had artist who crossed over from the secular market into the Christian
and without being afraid of professing their faith in both markets "
Charlie Daniels, Glen Campbell and Bill Medly (spelled incorrectly)".
Is it important to have the Christian label to be an artist of faith? No.
But it is important not to be ashamed of your faith if you plan on marketing
yourself to those who will not accept you because of you faith.
Is it more important to you to sing about the Gospel of Christ, His love and
His mercy or is it more important to you to just be heard, known and famous?
I hear so many artist say its about the music, if that is so, then why do
you care about peoples opinion about you?
--
Sam Shem
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation.
"David Bruce Murray" <dbmu...@NOSPAM.mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:oOmdnUPkN4P...@pghconnect.com...
El-Master
I was born, Osijek(if that means to you anything). Then again, everything is
near here in Croatia :-) Osijek and Slavonski Brod are in same... county, I
think it's
that.
God with ya, Mike.
P.S. What's with the mail? It's not working.
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
news:kuydnUdYMJ_...@comcast.com...
El-Master
> Which is a valid point, but is there anything wrong with christians being
in
> a band to make money, as opposed to say working as plumbers to make money.
> The reality is the fastest way to marginalize yourself in the industry is
to
> call yourself a christian band, and sign with a christian label. Mark
> Joseph recently wrote an excellent book on the subject called Faith, God,
and
> Rock and Roll. There are chapters specific to such "secular bands with
> christians" as U2, P.O.D, and Lifehouse, and it also covers issues in the
> industry in general.
What about the story of talents? Plumber can't preach when he
'operates'(and, it would be rememberd as something bad: Pain and Bible? Not
togeather :-). Evanescence have a real good chance to 'return' the talents.
They're wasting it for money! That's the point. They got popular, but that's
not enough. They want to be rich(story with the camel and neadle,
remember?), and famous. How to do it? Deny faith! Not right. People died in
the name of God. Can't they just loose some money?
I know *I* would. I would never wanted to be rich. It would be too big
temptation. They failed the test. They got a realy bad 'F':-)
God with ya.
Monte Castleman
>'operates'(and, it would be rememberd as something bad: Pain and Bible? Not
>togeather :-). Evanescence have a real good chance to 'return' the talents.
>They're wasting it for money! That's the point. They got popular, but that's
>not enough. They want to be rich(story with the camel and neadle,
>remember?), and famous. How to do it? Deny faith! Not right. People died in
>the name of God. Can't they just loose some money?
>I know *I* would. I would never wanted to be rich. It would be too big
>temptation. They failed the test. They got a realy bad 'F':-)
>
proper context? If they said that they are not a christian band it's one
thing, if they said that they were not christians it's quite another and
there is no valid reason for that.
My attempt was to defend bands made up of christians, such as P.O.D. and
Sixpence None the Richer, who have chosen not to wear the "christian band"
label.
Sam Shem
And isn't also a problem for bands who started out with a premise of being a
Christian band; working for a Christian record company, to refuse to "wear"
the label now.
If now they are saying they are not a "Christian band", then what were they
doing before, simply using the Christian audience as a stepping stone to
something bigger? Were they lieing to their fans about their faith? Or are
they sending a new message now. A message that says it is okay to deny you
are a Christian band or a Christian if it means more money to you?
As followers of Christ would you not be proud to say you are a Christian
band and try to sell to the secular world that it is not simply okay to be
labeled Christian but an honor.
Amy Grant, although she never considered her calling to be that of music,
will always be known as a Gospel artist but this did not prevent her from
having several number one songs in the Early 90's
"I for one disagree with her about the idea music was not her calling. For
if God did not call her to that purpose then why give her the talent."
What are we to expect in the future. "Christian Pastor" and Pastors who in
their private lives are Christian but for labeling sake, refuse to label
themselves as Christian Pastors?
Some may say that is apples and oranges but it is not. The old testament
holds the position of music leaders and choirs almost as high as the rabbi
or priest.
If you proclaim Jesus is your savior and the members of your group proclaim
it, then you are a Christian band. You are a christian band rather you
signed up with a Christian label or not. You are a Christian band rather if
you started out in the Christian market or not. This is your calling, for
these are the talents given to you.
To refuse this label is to refuse who you have become because of the
sacrifice of Christ and to me to also insult the one who made that
sacrifice.
"What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but yet loose his soul"
Just my point of view (or is it)
--
Sam Shem
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation.
"Monte Castleman" <qmdc...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:vt1uci2...@corp.supernews.com...
-MIKE-
> I just read your mail. Yes, I know Slavonski Brod. It's near the place
> where I was born, Osijek(if that means to you anything). Then again,
> everything is near here in Croatia :-) Osijek and Slavonski Brod are in
> same... county, I think it's that.
>
You might as well be describing Mars to me. :-)
I just know what he told me, I've never been there.
>
> God with ya, Mike.
> P.S. What's with the mail? It's not working.
>
Sorry, it's to prevent spam. You have to remove the "DOT" from the
address, like it says below.
Take care!
-MIKE-
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
"I suffer from two phobias: 1) Phobia-Phobia, the fear that
you're unable to get scared, and 2) Xylophataquieopiaphobia,
the fear of not pronouncing words correctly." - Brad Stine
Monte Castleman
>
>
>But is wrong with wearing the Christian Band label. It worked for DC Tal;k.
>
secular market (if that's what you mean by "worked". For their Supernatural
album, their Virgin Records publicist kept presenting them as a "christian
band" to journalists, who have no respect for the christian music industry.
As a result the album got lackluster reviews, which may have contributed to
it's poor sales.
>And isn't also a problem for bands who started out with a premise of being a
>Christian band; working for a Christian record company, to refuse to "wear"
>the label now.
>If now they are saying they are not a "Christian band", then what were they
>doing before, simply using the Christian audience as a stepping stone to
>something bigger? Were they lieing to their fans about their faith? Or are
>they sending a new message now. A message that says it is okay to deny you
>are a Christian band or a Christian if it means more money to you?
Good question. Maybe some bands start out in the christian market as a hobby,
and then want to make music a profession? Maybe some aren't aware of the
limitations of the christian market?
>
>Amy Grant, although she never considered her calling to be that of music,
>will always be known as a Gospel artist but this did not prevent her from
>having several number one songs in the Early 90's
Amy Grant, and how many others. There is always the exception to the rule.
Note that one of the songs was "Baby, Baby", which took a lot of flack from
the religious community for not being "christian" enough.
>
>What are we to expect in the future. "Christian Pastor" and Pastors who in
>their private lives are Christian but for labeling sake, refuse to label
>themselves as Christian Pastors?
>
>Some may say that is apples and oranges but it is not. The old testament
>holds the position of music leaders and choirs almost as high as the rabbi
>or priest.
And only priests, rabbis, pastors, music directors, and the like get
supported by the church, whether in OT times or now. These people are called
to evangalize, preach, witness, or whatever christianese words you like by
their job.
By contrast, my mechanic does not run a christian car repair business, but he
isn't shy about his faith either. Walk in and you'll see bible verses on the
wall and more importantly you won't get ripped off. How much business do you
think he would get if he put a big sign "Christian Car Repairs" outside his
shop.
Ordinary rock bands fall between these two extremes. Some view themselves as
an evangalism tool, some as a job. Making a living in the music industry
doesn't require using every four-letter word in the book in the songs, but
does require (for most) success in the secular marketplace. This is difficult
to do if they're on a christian label and get stuck in the gospel bin at Best
Buy. Very few bands secular get by without day jobs, even fewer christian
bands.
>
>If you proclaim Jesus is your savior and the members of your group proclaim
>it, then you are a Christian band. You are a christian band rather you
>signed up with a Christian label or not. You are a Christian band rather if
>you started out in the Christian market or not. This is your calling, for
>these are the talents given to you.
>
>To refuse this label is to refuse who you have become because of the
>sacrifice of Christ and to me to also insult the one who made that
>sacrifice.
>
>
>Just my point of view (or is it)
And my point of view. Where I'm coming from is that I'm friends with a
Minneapolis band made up of christians called Passing Thru. They've played at
Cornerstone Festival in the past, but their more usual venues are churches
and secular nightclubs. Although they don't have immediate plans to make the
band their job, they realize that it's difficult to get a christian band
booked at secular venues. And these are the places where they want to play,
since more people need evangalizing at a bar as opposed to a church.
Sam Shem
can get your larger audience?
"Monte Castleman" <qmdc...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:vt424b1...@corp.supernews.com...
> In article <19idnTlfNLU...@comcast.com>, bon...@comcast.net
says...
> >
> >
> >But is wrong with wearing the Christian Band label. It worked for DC
Tal;k.
> >
> It did for a while but they weren't able to maintain their success in the
> secular market (if that's what you mean by "worked". For their
Supernatural
> album, their Virgin Records publicist kept presenting them as a "christian
> band" to journalists, who have no respect for the christian music
industry.
> As a result the album got lackluster reviews, which may have contributed
to
> it's poor sales.
> But to them it was more important remain a Christian band then to see
their popularity rise.
>
> >And isn't also a problem for bands who started out with a premise of
being a
> >Christian band; working for a Christian record company, to refuse to
"wear"
> >the label now.
> >If now they are saying they are not a "Christian band", then what were
they
> >doing before, simply using the Christian audience as a stepping stone to
> >something bigger? Were they lieing to their fans about their faith? Or
are
> >they sending a new message now. A message that says it is okay to deny
you
> >are a Christian band or a Christian if it means more money to you?
>
> Good question. Maybe some bands start out in the christian market as a
hobby,
> and then want to make music a profession? Maybe some aren't aware of the
> limitations of the christian market?
That is the whole point then, if you are going to take on a Christian market
you should not be taking it on for the size of the market, or the potiential
growth you will have but you should be taking it on because of a calling or
desire to not only proclaim the gospel of our Savior but to offer up
praises, to sing about the Christian life, the good and the bad and to
worship the One who gave you the talent in the first place.
> >
> >Amy Grant, although she never considered her calling to be that of music,
> >will always be known as a Gospel artist but this did not prevent her from
> >having several number one songs in the Early 90's
>
> Amy Grant, and how many others. There is always the exception to the rule.
> Note that one of the songs was "Baby, Baby", which took a lot of flack
from
> the religious community for not being "christian" enough.
> >(Steven Curtis Chapman, Gary Chapman, Bob Carlisle, Susan Ashton, Pfr,
BeBe and CeCe Winans, DC Talk, Jars of Clay, Kathy Troccolli, John and Dino
Elephante, to name a few)
Maybe the problem is not there is not a large enough audience but the
marketing used by the industry is not good enough. Maybe instead of trying
to change what they are marketing they should try to change how they are
marketing it.
In school I did a study on the relationship between the Christian recording
industry and the Christian broadcasting industry and found there is
virtually no communications between the two. If the communication between
these two major areas are very limited then how much marketing do you think
it is going on.
> >What are we to expect in the future. "Christian Pastor" and Pastors who
in
> >their private lives are Christian but for labeling sake, refuse to label
> >themselves as Christian Pastors?
> >
> >Some may say that is apples and oranges but it is not. The old testament
> >holds the position of music leaders and choirs almost as high as the
rabbi
> >or priest.
>
> And only priests, rabbis, pastors, music directors, and the like get
> supported by the church, whether in OT times or now. These people are
called
> to evangalize, preach, witness, or whatever christianese words you like by
> their job.
>
But we, the fans, also the church. Is not the church more the a
congregation of believers in one building. So then are we, as the Church,
the One body of christ, supporting these groups.
And do not take likely to the words evangalize, preach or witness, for these
are all the duties required of every Christian everyday. They are not mere
labels but instructions given by Christ Himself to us. For it is commanded
of us to give an account of the hope that is inside us.
It is very simple, if you plan on using the Christian market as a stepping
stone to something greater or if you are having dreams of becoming famous
and rich, then don't. Don't come to us and sell us you wares, unless you
know you have been called to this purpose.
Every Christian should know we do not do what we do for fame but simply
because it is our calling. Every Christian should accept we live in a world
which will not accept Christianity but that it is our purpose to to be a
witness of Christ to the world. And we cannot do this if we are ashamed of
the label Christian.
Are there Christian Lawyers, Doctors, mechanics, data entry persons, sales
persons, business people. Yes. They are Christians who not only guided
their personal lives by the Gospel of Jesus Christ but they also guide how
they preform their jobs as according the Gospels and they are men a women
who are not afraid to say they are Christian.
> By contrast, my mechanic does not run a christian car repair business, but
he
> isn't shy about his faith either. Walk in and you'll see bible verses on
the
> wall and more importantly you won't get ripped off. How much business do
you
> think he would get if he put a big sign "Christian Car Repairs" outside
his
> shop.
> It depends, does your mechanic plan on using his shop to witness to his
customers?
But Chrisitian music is for that reason, to be a format for Christians to go
to and enjoy and a format to be used to witness the Gospel of Christ. But
how can you be a witness if you are afraid of the label?
Ordinary rock bands fall between these two extremes. Some view themselves
as
> an evangalism tool, some as a job. Making a living in the music industry
> doesn't require using every four-letter word in the book in the songs, but
> does require (for most) success in the secular marketplace. This is
difficult
> to do if they're on a christian label and get stuck in the gospel bin at
Best
"So again, is it more import to follow your calling or to make money?"
n
> bands.
So do alot of pastors. Most pastors I have come in contact with have normal
day time jobs.
And that is the point, its not about the money. It is about the Gospel.
>
> >
> >If you proclaim Jesus is your savior and the members of your group
proclaim
> >it, then you are a Christian band. You are a christian band rather you
> >signed up with a Christian label or not. You are a Christian band rather
if
> >you started out in the Christian market or not. This is your calling,
for
> >these are the talents given to you.
> >
> >To refuse this label is to refuse who you have become because of the
> >sacrifice of Christ and to me to also insult the one who made that
> >sacrifice.
> >
> >
> >Just my point of view (or is it)
>
> And my point of view. Where I'm coming from is that I'm friends with a
> Minneapolis band made up of christians called Passing Thru. They've played
at
> Cornerstone Festival in the past, but their more usual venues are churches
> and secular nightclubs. Although they don't have immediate plans to make
the
> band their job, they realize that it's difficult to get a christian band
> booked at secular venues. And these are the places where they want to
play,
> since more people need evangalizing at a bar as opposed to a church.
Then bring the people of the bar to them. Send out flyers and such. Do a
night there as an example of their talents but if they ask if you are
Christian do not sell yourself just to get it. If they don't ask then play.
But again I must ask, if you are planning to just use the Christian market
as a job, then don't.
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Monte Castleman <qmdc...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>It did for a while but they weren't able to maintain their success in the
>secular market (if that's what you mean by "worked". For their Supernatural
>album, their Virgin Records publicist kept presenting them as a "christian
>band" to journalists, who have no respect for the christian music industry.
>As a result the album got lackluster reviews, which may have contributed to
>it's poor sales.
Well, also there was the fact that it wasn't really all that good. It
was OK, but not particularly interesting. (It was also the album that
featured their one mainstream radio song, as I recall...)
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~jr70 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
Joy
> Then it comes down to one question. Do you sell out who you
> are just so you can get your larger audience?
Well, you can be all things to all men in order to win them to Christ
without "selling out". If I would reach more people with the Gospel by not
putting on my "Jesus Loves You" t-shirt, then I would. If I'd reach more
people by going vegetarian or cutting my hair or getting a tattoo, I would.
It's all nothing to me anyway. What gives God the most glory? I don't think
being immovably and brashly 'religious' all the time is the answer. How can
they hear without someone preaching to them? How can they hear someone
preaching if they won't give the preacher the time of day?
So, yes - I'd "sell out" to get a bigger audience, if it didn't involve
denying Christ or deliberate disobedience to God. There's no problem with
acting like Jesus and hanging out with prostitutes and 'sinners'. If it
meant I'd get to be a light in the darkness rather than just another bulb in
the store, I'd "sell out", no problem. The only thing really at stake would
be my own ego anyway.
-joy
Sam Shem
you refuse to be labeled as Christian then are you not refusing who you are?
"Joy" <flutterby20...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bqt6i8$26hcph$1...@ID-184973.news.uni-berlin.de...
El-Master
> Sixpence None the Richer, who have chosen not to wear the "christian band"
> label.
They say that P.O.D. is a christian band. I don't know.
Whoever rejects the label, doesen't even deserve it.
El-Master
> band and try to sell to the secular world that it is not simply okay to be
> labeled Christian but an honor.
> "I for one disagree with her about the idea music was not her calling.
For
> if God did not call her to that purpose then why give her the talent."
Exactly :-)
(...)
> To refuse this label is to refuse who you have become because of the
> sacrifice of Christ and to me to also insult the one who made that
> sacrifice.
>
> "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but yet loose his soul"
>
> Just my point of view (or is it)
My 2, man. With ya in all you've said!
El-Master
hobby,
> and then want to make music a profession? Maybe some aren't aware of the
> limitations of the christian market?
You're saying that the music can't be a professiona if you rock it(or pop:-)
for God?!
'Limitations'? 'Limitations' are cross! I do what I do, and I do it for God.
We all can. This way or another - the story of talents again. Return what
you have been given.
Or you'll loose what you have, and it'll be given to one with most. If
Evanescence keeps it up like this, they may be the most popular band in the
world, but still - I wouldn't if I have to deny my God. Ever heard of
punk-rock band named Dogwood? No? Because they are not popular, but in eyes
of God they have done more than Evanescence ever will. They bare they cross
with proud, and I feel proud to be a Christisn when I listen to them. Can't
feel that when I'm listening to Evanescence. That's why I stopped
listening(and why I seek for another good band :-)
[www.dogwood.ws]
God with ya brothers and sisters!
El-Master
"Sam Shem" <bon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NbOdnQ3jsfR...@comcast.com...
> Then it comes down to one question. Do you sell out who you are just so
you
> can get your larger audience?
Ok, am I posting this?!? ;-)
El-Master
> But the name Christian is not a t-shirt we wear but it is what we are..
If
> you refuse to be labeled as Christian then are you not refusing who you
are?
>
Mark Goodge
typed:
>But the name Christian is not a t-shirt we wear but it is what we are.. If
>you refuse to be labeled as Christian then are you not refusing who you are?
Christianity isn't a label.
Mark
--
--> http://photos.markshouse.net - now with added kittens! <--
"Save me from the nothing I致e become"
Jay
>without "selling out". If I would reach more people with the Gospel by not
>putting on my "Jesus Loves You" t-shirt, then I would. If I'd reach more
>people by going vegetarian or cutting my hair or getting a tattoo, I would.
>It's all nothing to me anyway. What gives God the most glory? I don't think
>being immovably and brashly 'religious' all the time is the answer. How can
>they hear without someone preaching to them? How can they hear someone
>preaching if they won't give the preacher the time of day?
>
>So, yes - I'd "sell out" to get a bigger audience, if it didn't involve
>denying Christ or deliberate disobedience to God. There's no problem with
>acting like Jesus and hanging out with prostitutes and 'sinners'. If it
>meant I'd get to be a light in the darkness rather than just another bulb in
>the store, I'd "sell out", no problem. The only thing really at stake would
>be my own ego anyway.
>
>-joy
Jay
Make me a wish, mind over matter
________________________________________
www.underheaven.com
Jay
>punk-rock band named Dogwood?
Yes, and they suck.
>No? Because they are not popular, but in eyes
>of God they have done more than Evanescence ever will. They bare they cross
Wow. That's a pretty brash statement. Are you God? Do you get special reports
from Him that shows you who has done more for the Kingdom than others?
John
>
> My attempt was to defend bands made up of christians, such as P.O.D. and
> Sixpence None the Richer, who have chosen not to wear the "christian band"
> label.
I am not sure how hard it is not to wear the "Christian band" label when
your band name is called Payeable on Death (reference to Christ's sacrifice
for us) and Sixpence None the Richer (alludes to a passage from C.S. Lewis'
"Mere Christianity")...
--
John Bonam
Hot Cocoa Christian Webzine
http://www.hotcocoa.org
Sam Shem
intellegent you are. Cause I found out the measure of a man God knows and
understands, for He looks inside the bottom of your heart and whats in the
bottom defines the measure of a man" 4Him (measure of a man)news:6OydnRVdRtE...@comcast.com...
Joy
> "El-Master" wrote:
> >Ever heard of punk-rock band named Dogwood?
>
> Yes, and they suck.
>
> >No? Because they are not popular, but in eyes
> >of God they have done more than Evanescence ever will.
> >They bare they cross
>
> Wow. That's a pretty brash statement. Are you God? Do you get
> special reports from Him that shows you who has done more for
> the Kingdom than others?
LOL!
I think the issue is who's giving God the most glory, which is the
Christian's first purpose. Now, I'm not defending Evanescence (who have
clearly tried rather hard to get themselves kicked out of the "Christian"
circle, so why begrudge them that?) but just because a band is "Christian"
and playing safe venues doesn't mean that they're giving God their utmost
for His highest either. Sure, Dogwood may be bearing (baring?) their
crosses, but if God had called them to preach to the lost rather than the
choir and they were disobeying their call, then I don't see how they're
being any more obedient than Evanescence. (All hypothetical, btw. I'm not
knocking Dogwood, even though I don't really like them.) (Oh, and just
because you're not popular doesn't mean you *are* being used by God. It's
not a direct correlation. God forbid.)
God can turn curses into blessings (Balaam, anyone?) and if you think about
it, Evanescence, by being brats, have gotten more publicity and a bigger
audience, and more people are listening to their music and reading their
liner notes, which are still unmistakably Christian. God has blessed them
with talent, and although they may have mishandled their publicity, it's not
like God was slapping his forehead in dismay and scrapping all His bigger
plans because of one misstep. Give me a break. Also, they've provoked a lot
of healthy dialogue about the roles of faith and music, which I think is
wonderful. What they did may have been stupid, but God used it for His glory
anyway. He cannot be limited by human idiocy!
Moreover, God's bigger than the categories at Tower Records, and He can
speak through and use whomever He well pleases, be it Marilyn Manson or
Yo-Yo Ma. So yeah... good luck looking for "secular" music. :o)
-joy
Joy
> "Sam Shem" wrote:
> > But the name Christian is not a t-shirt we wear but it is what
> > we are.. If you refuse to be labeled as Christian then are you
> > not refusing who you are?
> >
> Refusing? No, cause then you're not Christian!.. Or you're a week one.
Weak Christians are still Christians. Even one of the greatest Christian
leaders, Peter, denied Christ once upon a time. Did Jesus accuse him of
being an unbelieving heathen or reject him? No.
How much better off the Church would be if we prayed for and nurtured the
weak rather than rejecting them and kicking them while they were down.
I don't blame the Chinese underground church for staying underground.
-joy
El-Master
I was afraid someone could answer like that(I mean, like: Who are you to
judge).
I realy can't know, but I just wanted to make a point(I see you didn't get
it).
El-Master
> Weak Christians are still Christians.
Yes. But will they be worth it on The Day?
Worth to look at God's face?
Most of 'christians' arent. Many prey only when they're in need, or don't at
all.
Some was baptised only because everyoune else was.
>Even one of the greatest Christian
> leaders, Peter, denied Christ once upon a time. Did Jesus accuse him of
> being an unbelieving heathen or reject him? No.
Jesus did accuse him(I think), but he forgived him, cause he regret it.
> How much better off the Church would be if we prayed for and nurtured the
> weak rather than rejecting them and kicking them while they were down.
Good point.
El-Master
>So, yes - I'd "sell out" to get a bigger audience, if it didn't involve
>denying Christ or deliberate disobedience to God. There's no problem with
>acting like Jesus and hanging out with prostitutes and 'sinners'. If it
>meant I'd get to be a light in the darkness rather than just another bulb
in
>the store, I'd "sell out", no problem. The only thing really at stake
would
>be my own ego anyway.
>
Now the question is were we talking about that kind of selling out.
I don't think they did it for Christ, but for money.
El-Master
"John" <gt2...@mail.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:bque41$6c7$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
> "Monte Castleman" <qmdc...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:vt1uci2...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > My attempt was to defend bands made up of christians, such as P.O.D. and
> > Sixpence None the Richer, who have chosen not to wear the "christian
band"
> > label.
>
> I am not sure how hard it is not to wear the "Christian band" label when
> your band name is called Payeable on Death (reference to Christ's
sacrifice
> for us) and Sixpence None the Richer (alludes to a passage from C.S.
Lewis'
> "Mere Christianity")...
I don't think that in POD's case that was the problem. I think they are tru
Christians(at least the singer), who knows what the name realy means.
But, then again, I listen to POD, I can be wrong.
Regards.
Joy
> I wouldn't go that low to argue. Looks like you are
> Evanescence fan :-)
Nope.
> I was afraid someone could answer like that(I mean, like:
> Who are you to judge). I realy can't know, but I just
> wanted to make a point (I see you didn't get it).
Nope. What was it?
-joy
Joy
> I don't think that in POD's case that was the problem. I
> think they are tru Christians (at least the singer), who
> knows what the name realy means.
> But, then again, I listen to POD, I can be wrong.
"I listen to POD" and "I can be wrong"... Are those two statements related?
-joy
Sam Shem
why would he then ask for forgiveness. Also you didn't finished. Peter
denied, asked for forgiveness, received forgiveness and never denied Christ
again.
For Christians in China we are talking about death or life. For bands
wanting to throw off the Christian label we are talking about people who
want to make money and be well know. Like being known by 11 million people
is not enough.
What is most sad though, is all those artists and bands which did make it in
the mainstream, did not do so by claiming or disclaiming they are a
Christian band or artist but due to the fact the songs they released was
good enough to be played.
I guess that would be the key. If you produce good music, your songs are
good enough to be played, then the general public really do not care if you
are a Christian artist, band or group.
Butterfly Kisses was destined to be a mainstream hit not because Bob
Carlisle proclaimed he was not a Christian artist (which he did not) but due
to the fact the song was just that good.
Dc Talk, yes had on album fail but they had more then one succeed, as did
Michael W. Smith.
Why, because their music was just that good. I would have no problem with
the groups if they had never started their careers in the Christian market
and now say they are not a Christian band. That shows me they were lying to
me all this time.
But if they had started in the mainstream, stated they are Christians and
wish to release songs into the Christian market, I would accept that,
atleast they are being honest with me.
But eventually, I believe all talents come from God, and He will ask for you
to use the talent for the purpose of Christ. What do you do then, proceed
with your calling and do his will or proceed to make money. If you choose
to proceed to follow, then how can you do so, if the people you are trying
to reach do not know you are a follower of Christ.
If you choose to play in clubs or bars how serious do you think they will
take you if you never proclaim your faith or how far into the set do you
think you'll get once they realize your songs reflect a Christian belief,
meaning you lied to them just to get in.
I am not going to say who is a weak Christian and who is not for we all sin
and at times yes take a left where we should have taken a right but we are
not talking about backsliding, we are talking about someone willing to
forsake being called a Christian, to make money.
Sincerely
SamShem
"El-Master" <luka.m...@vz.htnet.hr> wrote in message
news:bqvlf0$f9s$1...@ls219.htnet.hr...
Sam Shem
knew, they were a Christian based band, "I for one hate the word based,
either you are or are not" but back to the point. They all knew or thought
they knew but nobody cared. They played their cds, they listen to their
music because they were just that good.
"Sam Shem" <bon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OYudndK0MN0...@comcast.com...
CDriver333
>proper context? If they said that they are not a christian band it's one
>thing, if they said that they were not christians it's quite another and
>there is no valid reason for that.
In one interview I read, the female singer was talking about getting drunk on
the tour bus. Not to mention the use of filthy language throughout the article.
Not setting a very good example, IMHO. Are they trying to be "worldly" or
something?
Joy
> > I don't blame the Chinese underground church for staying underground.
>
> Sorry, can't follow here.
What I meant was: just because these Christians hide their faith doesn't
mean that they are not doing their utmost for His highest. Some hide because
of fear of the authorities, but actually many Chinese are willing to get
arrested for their faith (and start real 'cell' groups!) but the fact of the
matter is that hiding their faith and meeting in secret is a much more
effective way for the church to grow in China. This is because when the
authorities start arresting people, *all* ministry in the area grinds to a
halt for many months. There have been cases of overzealous foreign
missionaries who have completely stunted Chinese church growth because they
went about and did their ministry openly, causing locals to have to halt
their ministries because it became too dangerous until the authorities
cooled down. My point was that sometimes being "bold" for Christ isn't the
best way to further His Kingdom and in fact can be detrimental to some
ministries.
There are different ways that people can minister. You can whack everybody
with a Bible, and some people may be flung into the Kingdom that way, while
others who are stuck deeper into whatever quagmire they're in will simply
get a huge bruise and offended.
> > Weak Christians are still Christians.
> Yes. But will they be worth it on The Day?
> Worth to look at God's face?
> Most of 'christians' arent. Many prey only when they're in need, or
> don't at all. Some was baptised only because everyoune else was.
I wasn't talking about nominal Christians with no real faith. I was talking
about "real" Christians, who are still babies in their spiritual lives. They
are weak and need support, but they are still Christians and redeemed. Weak
children are still children. Sickly sheep are still sheep. I'm not even
referring to the goats masquerading as sheep, which is another issue
altogether.
> > Even one of the greatest Christian leaders, Peter, denied Christ
> > once upon a time. Did Jesus accuse him of being an unbelieving
> > heathen or reject him? No.
>
> Jesus did accuse him (I think), but he forgived him, cause he regret it.
Nope.
-joy
The Breeze
> What about the story of talents? Plumber can't preach when he
> 'operates'(and, it would be rememberd as something bad: Pain and Bible?
Not
> togeather :-). Evanescence have a real good chance to 'return' the
talents.
> They're wasting it for money! That's the point.
This assumes that their *music* is the "talents" (or "talent") God gave to
them to produce a return. How in the world do *you* know what God has
entrusted them with? Just because the form of money used in the parable is
called a "talent" doesn't mean that the "talents" God gives people has
*anything* to do with what we call talents (eg: musical talent). He has
given us spiritual gifts and callings, which I believe are the "talents"
spoken of in the parable. How can anyone else be the judge of what the
actual "talents" are which God has given to anyone else? Perhaps the
members of the band are "talented" in music, and can make a good living off
of it, but yet the God-given "talents" to be used for the Kingdom are
something you and I will never know.
> They got popular, but that's
> not enough. They want to be rich(story with the camel and neadle,
> remember?), and famous.
Remember the rest of the story. "The things which are impossible with men
are possible with God." Look it up.
> How to do it? Deny faith! Not right. People died in
> the name of God. Can't they just loose some money?
I don't think they denied their faith. They denied the label of "Christian
band." There is an actual genre of music called "Christian Music." I've
said it before and I'll say it again - I'm glad there's an entire industry
called the "Christian Music" industry. But the sad fact of it is that it
has led many Christians to think that any and all music must fit inside that
box. If a Christian wants to make music, but not be involved in the
"Christian Music" industry, they've sold out and have denied Christ. That's
total bologna.
> I know *I* would. I would never wanted to be rich. It would be too big
> temptation. They failed the test. They got a realy bad 'F':-)
Sure there are temptations with being rich. I also personally know that
there are temptations with being good looking. ha. :) But there is
*nothing* wrong with being rich. Some people can handle it. Many people
can handle it. Abraham... the FATHER OF OUR FAITH... handled it. The Bible
does warn that those who only follow after riches fall into many snares and
temptations, but it does not *forbid* having wealth.
-Breeze
The Breeze
> And isn't also a problem for bands who started out with a premise of being
a
> Christian band; working for a Christian record company, to refuse to
"wear"
> the label now.
> If now they are saying they are not a "Christian band", then what were
they
> doing before, simply using the Christian audience as a stepping stone to
> something bigger?
This is where I had a problem with Evanescence. *Not* that they decided to
get away from the "Christian band" label, but rather how they went about it.
No need to get into that, it's been done a million times in rmc. But I will
say that I don't think it's *inherently* wrong to be a "Christian band" and
then decide to make a change into a general market band. I don't believe
that means a denial of faith in Christ. Some people have become pastors and
then decided it wasn't their calling, and went onto "secular" employment.
Is there anything wrong with that? I don't know of anyone who has used
their life as a pastor as a stepping stone to another field, so I can't make
the comparison you make in that way, but I do agree that the various forms
of God-given ministries and callings are not something we're to use to boost
our own fleshly longings and desires.
>Were they lieing to their fans about their faith? Or are
> they sending a new message now. A message that says it is okay to deny
you
> are a Christian band or a Christian if it means more money to you?
>
> As followers of Christ would you not be proud to say you are a Christian
> band and try to sell to the secular world that it is not simply okay to be
> labeled Christian but an honor.
-Breeze
The Breeze
> God can turn curses into blessings (Balaam, anyone?) and if you think
about
> it, Evanescence, by being brats, have gotten more publicity and a bigger
> audience, and more people are listening to their music and reading their
> liner notes, which are still unmistakably Christian. God has blessed them
> with talent, and although they may have mishandled their publicity, it's
not
> like God was slapping his forehead in dismay and scrapping all His bigger
> plans because of one misstep. Give me a break. Also, they've provoked a
lot
> of healthy dialogue about the roles of faith and music, which I think is
> wonderful. What they did may have been stupid, but God used it for His
glory
> anyway. He cannot be limited by human idiocy!
>
> Moreover, God's bigger than the categories at Tower Records, and He can
> speak through and use whomever He well pleases, be it Marilyn Manson or
> Yo-Yo Ma. So yeah... good luck looking for "secular" music. :o)
Exactly. Christian Music is a great and wonderful thing, but it's also a
small box which some people suppose will produce the entire Word of God.
-Breeze
snail
> Butterfly Kisses was destined to be a mainstream hit not because Bob
> Carlisle proclaimed he was not a Christian artist (which he did not) but due
> to the fact the song was just that good.
You obviously have a different take on 'good' :-)
--
snail @ careless net http://www.zip.com.au/~vvsnail
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Frost.
Sam Shem
copies, recorded by two different audiences and a number one song in
Christian, mainstream pop and mainstream Country.
"snail" <sn...@careless.netOOPS.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnbt7g7c...@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
Sam Shem
problems with bands who started out saying they were a Christian band and
then now say they are not. A pastor leaving his position is between God and
him I will not make any comments about that. But if he does leave, does he
leave saying he is no longer Christian?
"The Breeze" <bree...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:tzOAb.456752$Tr4.1272600@attbi_s03...
Sam Shem
If they can sing, they have a talent, given to them by God.
"The Breeze" <bree...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:%oOAb.260667$Dw6.896503@attbi_s02...
Sam Shem
put in the closet so others may accept who we are and what we can do.
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
news:kJednWB1NNN...@comcast.com...
> "El-Master" <luka.m...@vz.htnet.hr> wrote:
>
> > I just read your mail. Yes, I know Slavonski Brod. It's near the place
> > where I was born, Osijek(if that means to you anything). Then again,
> > everything is near here in Croatia :-) Osijek and Slavonski Brod are in
> > same... county, I think it's that.
> >
>
> You might as well be describing Mars to me. :-)
> I just know what he told me, I've never been there.
>
> >
> > God with ya, Mike.
> > P.S. What's with the mail? It's not working.
> >
>
> Sorry, it's to prevent spam. You have to remove the "DOT" from the
> address, like it says below.
>
> Take care!
>
>
> -MIKE-
>
> --
> http://mikedrums.com
> mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
>
> "I suffer from two phobias: 1) Phobia-Phobia, the fear that
> you're unable to get scared, and 2) Xylophataquieopiaphobia,
> the fear of not pronouncing words correctly." - Brad Stine
>
>
snail
>> > Butterfly Kisses was destined to be a mainstream hit not because Bob
>> > Carlisle proclaimed he was not a Christian artist (which he did not) but
>> You obviously have a different take on 'good' :-)
> copies, recorded by two different audiences and a number one song in
> Christian, mainstream pop and mainstream Country.
Dude, you need to buy a sense of humour :-) Personally I thought
the song blew major chunks.
[I'm skipping the quality vs quantity debate :)]
Sam Shem
gift.
"snail" <sn...@careless.netOOPS.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrnbt849f...@zeus.zipworld.com.au...
glenn
label that probably shouldn't be representing christ.
maybe we'd be better off with just a few quality, and i mean spiritual,
christian ministers of music.
..glenn
Joy
> "snail" <sn...@careless.netOOPS.invalid> wrote
[Butterfly Kisses]
> > Dude, you need to buy a sense of humour :-) Personally I
> > thought the song blew major chunks.
> > [I'm skipping the quality vs quantity debate :)]
> Really, and what number 1 song did you write for you daughters
> birthday gift.
As Snail said: Lighten up!
Personally, I thought Butterfly Kisses was nice, but sappy fluff and it made
me nauseated after it got played to death. Much like Celine Dion's 'Titanic'
theme, which was nice when it first came out and now darn near the most
irritating song ever. But I know lots of people who liked it (both).
Snail has every right to have a differing opinion on a song. There is no
need to get snippy. Where would we be if everyone liked the same type of
music?
That said, just because a song sells millions doesn't mean it's *good*.
HEEEEEEEEEY Macarena... ，aaa HA!
-joy
Joy
> If you can produce music, sing, write, draw, speak, etc that is a talent.
>
> If they can sing, they have a talent, given to them by God.
>
> "The Breeze" <bree...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:%oOAb.260667$Dw6.896503@attbi_s02...
> > "El-Master" wrote:
> > > What about the story of talents? Plumber can't preach when he
> > > 'operates'(and, it would be rememberd as something bad: Pain and
Bible?
Sam, please don't top-post.
-joy
snail
you seem to be fairly new here, may I recommend you have a read
of the "Welcome to rec.music.christian" FAQ at:
<http://www.zip.com.au/~vvsnail/RMC/welcome>
Usually when you follow up a post it's recommended that you
reply in context, deleting the material you're not directly
commenting on. There is no imperative that you take this
advice; simply pointing out that top posting does rub some
people the wrong way.
Now onto "Butterfly Kisses" below
Sam Shem <bon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "snail" <sn...@careless.netOOPS.invalid> wrote in message
>>Sam Shem wrote:
>> > Its not just my take, especially for a song that sold nearly 6 million
>> > copies, recorded by two different audiences and a number one song in
>> > Christian, mainstream pop and mainstream Country.
>> Dude, you need to buy a sense of humour :-) Personally I thought
>> the song blew major chunks.
>> [I'm skipping the quality vs quantity debate :)]
> Really, and what number 1 song did you write for you daughters birthday
> gift.
Your point being ? Am I supposed to automatically like this song
because it's a no.1 or because it was written for some guy's
daughter ? Yes, it was probably a good song for a father to sing
to his daughter but that's as far as it goes. I groaned the first
tiem I heard it on radio and have never managed to stomach it.
Having said that I've heard some pretty good parodies of it; though
I don't believe I've heard any parodieties :-)
Then of course, there's the whole other argument that I'm stepping
around that simply because it's sold a lot of copies is no indication
of whether it's actually any good or not. Simply that it's popular.
Similarly if it had sold only a few copies and was only appreciated
by a small group of people; it may well suck regardless.
snail
> me nauseated after it got played to death. Much like Celine Dion's 'Titanic'
Oooooh...bad movie, bad song :)
> theme, which was nice when it first came out and now darn near the most
> irritating song ever. But I know lots of people who liked it (both).
Likewise...though I try not to talk to them.
> Snail has every right to have a differing opinion on a song. There is no
> need to get snippy. Where would we be if everyone liked the same type of
> music?
Though I have to say, as I said to friend in email the other day
(Clive for those that remember...admittedly I owed him email from
18 months ago), the Mortification that I used to love, I'm not
really into any more. Tried listening to one of my favourite
albums of their's, "Post Momentary Afflication", and while it was
okay, it just didn't grab me in the way it used to. Alternatively
I have little doubt that _Dream Theatre_ will still sound good and
I still like older Metallica (managed to pick up their recent "St
Anger" cheap recently and it's okay but <fx: long sigh...>
> That said, just because a song sells millions doesn't mean it's *good*.
But if it only sells one, it may well suck :)
> HEEEEEEEEEY Macarena... ，aaa HA!
Um...<fx: guiltily admits>...that would be a guilty pleasure. It
sucks but I like it :)
I do like Evanescence though; and unfortunately Nick Cave did a
local gig last week and I missed it. The venue (Enmore Theatre,
Sydney) was only 5 minutes walk from my house. D'oh! My tastes
in music are generally different: still pretty fond of electronica
and hard house, also into choral (eg Avro Part, Tavener), if AC/DC
put out another album, I'd buy it in a flash. After that I dunno;
haven't got round to buying Kylie's new one though, though the
Ministry of Sound's new annual looks okay.
Joy
> haven't got round to buying Kylie's new one though,
Kylie is evil and must be destroyed!!
-joy
snail
...[you] should be so lucky...lucky, lucky, lucky *grin*
The Breeze
> I do not have a problem with bands doing cross overs either but I do have
> problems with bands who started out saying they were a Christian band and
> then now say they are not. A pastor leaving his position is between God
and
> him I will not make any comments about that. But if he does leave, does
he
> leave saying he is no longer Christian?
I don't know that Evanescense has done that. The "Christian Band" label is
not the same as calling yourself a "Christian." Not calling yourself a
"Christian Band" is not the same as denying your faith. It is denying that
you are part of the *industry* known as "Christian Music." They have denied
being part of a specific genre of music. I don't see where they have denied
Christ. As I said, perhaps they realized their calling in life was not as
Christian music ministers. I'm speculating. But anyone who says they're
denying Christ is also speculating.
-Breeze
The Breeze
> If you can produce music, sing, write, draw, speak, etc that is a talent.
>
> If they can sing, they have a talent, given to them by God.
I wholly agree that their musical talent is God-given. My point was that
just because a person has specific talents, that doesn't mean that those
specific talents are supposed to be their ministry in life. What's wrong
with using your talents to earn a living?
For the sake of the parable, let's forget that the form of money was called
"talents." A talent was equal to 3,000 shekels. So let's say the first man
received 3,000 shekels, the second man received 6,000 shekels and the third
man received 15,000 shekels. It has *nothing* to do with TALENT.
So... just because a person has abilities (talents) doesn't mean that those
are specific ministries and callings that God has given them, as per the
parable. The "shekels" God gave the members of Evanesence may be completely
unseen by you and me.
-Breeze
-MIKE-
How does your post having anything to do with the one to which you
replied? How does it remotely relate?
-MIKE-
"...enjoy every sandwich." Warren Zevon
--
http://mikedrums.com
mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
> "Sam Shem" <bon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Maybe I am old fashion, but I am sadden that the word Christian has to be
> put in the closet so others may accept who we are and what we can do.
>
>
Sam Shem
purpose. There is nothing wrong with using the talent to make money. No
one is saying the cannot. But what is being said is one should not forsake
name Christian to make money.
And its not just the name or label they are being asked to forsake but
everything Christian.
And it is my argument, its not necessay.
SamShem.
"The Breeze" <bree...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:YX0Bb.462006$HS4.3603802@attbi_s01...
-MIKE-
>
> Another case in point. Creed. At one time everyone knew, or thought they
> knew, they were a Christian based band, "I for one hate the word based,
> either you are or are not" but back to the point. They all knew or
> thought they knew but nobody cared. They played their cds, they listen to
> their music because they were just that good.
>
There's a big part of the problem. Creed never was nor ever claimed
to be a Christian band, nor Christians. Listeners and critics
falsely inferred this, period. Listeners thought they new they
heart and motives of the band, without ever getting it from the
horse's mouth. And even after the horse spoke, there are those who
*still* think they are a Christian band, when they never were.
The same thing happens to bands who come right out and say they are
Christians, who decide to release their music to mainstream markets.
People (usually Christians) falsely infer the motives of these
artists, accusing them of selling out their faith to make a dollar,
without having a single clue as to the artists' motives and their
relationship with and calling from God.
Sam Shem
audience in a big way and it was accepted without Bob Carlisle denying He
comes from the Christian market.
Which was the whole point of the original statement.
"Joy" <flutterby20...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:br1ho1$289tlc$1...@ID-184973.news.uni-berlin.de...
> HEEEEEEEEEY Macarena... ¡Aaaa HA!
>
> -joy
>
>
Sam Shem
Christ in order for the artist to be considered Christian and if an artist
wishes to release a song to the mainstream. All the power to them. My
argument is do not start your career in the Christian market if you do not
wish to be a Christian Artist. Do not use this market as a marketing tool
or a stepping stone.
If you wish to be a mainstream band, then concentrate on being mainstream
and if you wish to have a song released into the Christian market then good.
But if are a Christian, then you know everything you have is because of God
and is to be used for His glory and do not be afraid to say you and your
band are Christian. If they ask are a Christian band say with pride yes.
God blesses us so we may bless others. We all know as Christians are whole
life is to an example to others of the hope which inside us and this is a
duty that just does not end one day but is done everyday for the rest of our
lives. And this duty or responsibility is carrried out in everything we do
.
Are we Christian, then we are Christians in everything. We are Christian
doctors, lawyers, senators, artists, painters, mechanics, sewers, clerks and
students. We own Christian businesses, for if our life is guided by our
Christian beliefs so then is how we conduct our business.
As Christians we realize, we lose ourselves in Him, so He may be seen by the
world through us. Which is why I do believe it is important to have the
Christian label, which is not a label but a name, a name we took upon
ourselves when we accepted Christ as our savior.
You can say that we can be go on without the label or name but how is the
world to know we are Christian without it. If you look for a Mcdonald's,
you will look for the name outside the building. If you do not see the name
then you will not know you have found Mcdonalds. Oh you can take a chance
and go inside and look but most likely you will pass by not ever knowing you
just passed a Mcdonalds. They could come out start giving away hamburgers,
cheeseburgers, fries or sodas and to show people they are Mcdonalds. But
most likely the people will consider their product a lie because they do not
see the name on the product.
I also what to take the time to say, rather you agree with me or not, I have
found this debate fun and found good points on both sides of the argument.
sincerely
Sam-Shem
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation.
"Sam Shem" <bon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:uLydnZj92rq...@comcast.com...
David Bruce Murray
"snail" <sn...@careless.netOOPS.invalid> wrote in message
> Dude, you need to buy a sense of humour :-) Personally I thought
> the song blew major chunks.
> [I'm skipping the quality vs quantity debate :)]
I get your wry humor, BUT . . .
You have to admit there's a certain amount of skill involved to get a song
to that level. It's sappy as all get out, sure, but it would have connected
with listeners, even if it hadn't been so popular. Not every song you hear
does that, so in that sense, it's a "good" song. For another thing . . .
Carlisle can sing. There's no denying he has one of those "big" voices, even
if you dislike that style of singing. The other thing is that the lyrics
pulled at emotions on a topic that is often addressed by mainstream pop
music . . . father watching his daughter grow up, so the song had an element
of unique topic content going for it to make it stand out against the more
typical music. Otherwise, it was rather formulaic. It was almost like a
chick flick rolled up into three minutes of audio.
Now, that being said, I much prefer the song "The Living Years" if I had to
make my choice between the two, but "Butterfly Kisses" tugs at some of those
same emotions, and that's why so many people liked it. I heard it so much I
got sick of it, but I didn't start disliking it so much until it was run
into the ground.
--
David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@NOSPAMmailblocks.com
---Making hay while the sun shines---
"I know a pagan piano riff when I hear it." ---Dr. Bobby Clark
5/7/03 by "The Original Tenor of the Cathedral Quartet"
David Bruce Murray
"The Breeze" <bree...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
> I don't think they denied their faith. They denied the label of
"Christian
> band." There is an actual genre of music called "Christian Music." I've
> said it before and I'll say it again - I'm glad there's an entire industry
> called the "Christian Music" industry. But the sad fact of it is that it
> has led many Christians to think that any and all music must fit inside
that
> box. If a Christian wants to make music, but not be involved in the
> "Christian Music" industry, they've sold out and have denied Christ.
That's
> total bologna.
Nice paragraph you wrote there, Breeze. Straight to the point, too! You
feeling OK? :o)
-MIKE-
>
>.......
>
> Are we Christian, then we are Christians in everything. We are Christian
> doctors, lawyers, senators, artists, painters, mechanics, sewers, clerks
> and students. We own Christian businesses, for if our life is guided by
> our Christian beliefs so then is how we conduct our business.
>
> As Christians we realize, we lose ourselves in Him, so He may be seen by
> the world through us. Which is why I do believe it is important to have
> the Christian label, which is not a label but a name, a name we took upon
> ourselves when we accepted Christ as our savior.
>
> You can say that we can be go on without the label or name but how is the
> world to know we are Christian without it. If you look for a Mcdonald's,
> you will look for the name outside the building. If you do not see the
> name then you will not know you have found Mcdonalds. Oh you can take a
> chance and go inside and look but most likely you will pass by not ever
> knowing you just passed a Mcdonalds. They could come out start giving
> away hamburgers, cheeseburgers, fries or sodas and to show people they are
> Mcdonalds. But most likely the people will consider their product a lie
> because they do not see the name on the product.
>
> I also what to take the time to say, rather you agree with me or not, I
> have found this debate fun and found good points on both sides of the
> argument.
>
> sincerely
> Sam-Shem
>
> For mine eyes have seen thy salvation.
You seem to have a higher standard set up for the Christian
musicians than the Christian "doctors, lawyers, senators, artists,
painters, mechanics, sewers, clerks and students."
Why do you not require people in these other vocations to label
their practice as "Christian Doctor," Christian Lawyer," etc., like
you require the Christian musicians to label their practice as
"Christian Band?"
And I don't see any signs that say, "Christian McDonalds." :-)
Sam Shem
band that every song needs to be about Christ nor every song has to be
released to the Christian market only. I believe it is also important to
show we are people who live as well.
Also I will concede I have seen groups get thrown into the Christian market
by their record companies for marketing reasons, rather the group is a
Christian group or not.
But usually those groups do not last very long and are never heard of in
the mainstream.
There is a problem with presumptions on alot of groups without anyone asking
the members of the group what they thing or how they would have labeled
themselves from the beginning.
And you are correct about Creed but the point still is people in the
mainstream thought they were a Christian group and didn't care.
All they cared about was this group had talent enough to be listen to.
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
news:-OKdnTvIB4m...@comcast.com...
Sam Shem
just to say now they are not a Christian group because they want to be
recognize by the mainstream world. I would be having the same argument if a
Lawyer, doctor mechanic or Mcdonalds, if they all started out with a sign
saying this is a Christian business just to know say they are not to make
more money.
It would have been better for them never to have accepted or classify
themselves with the label or sign in the first place.
As stated before I have no problems with groups who never stated they were a
Christian band but were Christians and never started their careers in the
Christian market.
I agree, as stated in an earlier post, some groups were never asked just
labeled but they accepted the label, why, did they feel they would get more
money or did they feel it was true at the time. And if it was true at the
time what is different now that it is no longer true.
Yes I do set high standards for the word Christian because it is more then
just a word, I also so set these standards for myself. And I know these
standards will never be totally reach until the day we enter Heaven but
along the path we should be so willing to remove this label? There should be
pride in this label and yes, if according to the will of God for your life
and the life of your group, you will make it in the mainstream, without
having to loose this label or name.
I would hope others would agree with me, to be labeled a Christian, rather
in reference to me personally or a group of people I am with or what it is I
do with my life and career, is a good and honorable thing. Rather that label
prevents me from going places I would like to go or allows me success
should not matter as long as what I am doing, including my career is in
accordance with His will. "He causes me to do the things I hate doing and
the things I want to do I cannot."
SamShem
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
news:fpmdndGBOeB...@comcast.com...
Sam Shem
music to the mainstream and if you do label yourself a Christian artisit,
group or band and work inside the Christian music industry, you have every
right to release a song into the mainstream.
I'm only saying don't start out in the Christian music industry, call
yourself or accept the label of Christian artist, group or band to simply
deny it latter when you decided to release music into the mainstream.
"David Bruce Murray" <dbmu...@NOSPAM.mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:_radnUULH7J...@pghconnect.com...
-MIKE-
>
> Those are good points. I for one do not describe, if you are a Christian
> band that every song needs to be about Christ nor every song has to be
> released to the Christian market only. I believe it is also important to
> show we are people who live as well.
>
> Also I will concede I have seen groups get thrown into the Christian
> market by their record companies for marketing reasons, rather the group
> is a Christian group or not.
>
> But usually those groups do not last very long and are never heard of in
> the mainstream.
>
I have not known of any bands, other than Evanescence, that "get
thrown into the Christian market by their record companies." It
seems like pretty bad logic to me. If all these Christian bands are
trying to break into mainstream for more sales and a bigger
audience, why would a mainstream label want to pursue the Christian
market and take a step backwards, if it were?
> There is a problem with presumptions on alot of groups without anyone
> asking the members of the group what they thing or how they would have
> labeled themselves from the beginning.
>
>
> And you are correct about Creed but the point still is people in the
> mainstream thought they were a Christian group and didn't care.
>
Most people have no idea what a Christian is, so how would they know
what Christian band is. Many people who call themselves "Christian"
have never accepted Jesus and don't believe in the resurrections.
They see it as a cultural thing. "I'm not Jewish or Buddhist or
Muslim, so I must be Christian." My parents took me to a Lutheran
church as a kid, so I'm a Christian."
> All they cared about was this group had talent enough to be listen to.
>
Creed's lyrics seem to touch people with a hope and up lifting
message. Everyone has a God shaped hole in their hearts and they
try to fill it with many thing they think will fit.
You get groups like Creed who have "spiritual" lyrics and people
label it as Christian. You have Christian groups with spiritual
lyrics that don't come out and say "Jesus is the only way to
salvation." Both of these groups are equally palatable to the
non-Christian, given they are of the same quality (as you noted).
It comes down to personal testimony by the members of the band.
When trust and respect is gained by the artist of his audience, they
will listen to what he has to say with an open mind. When a
non-Christian from the band Creed or Evanescence says, "We're not
Christians and we don't believe in Jesus. Our lyrics are just
spiritual," it's up to the audience or fans to believe them or not.
When you get a group like POD who give a testimony to Jesus from the
stage and come right out and say that He is the only way to
salvation, it's up to the audience or fans to believe them or not.
There are bands who start out in the Christian genre, on a Christian
label, in the Christian market, who want to do more than make
entertainment for Christians. They want to take the Gospel to the
world, in a real, tangible way. Just like the Christian lawyer,
doctor, plumber, mechanic shares the Gospel with their "clients"
when given the opportunity, so do these Christian musicians.
Sam Shem
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
Christian can make it in the mainstream. Even if that label is placed on
them by the general public
The label of Christian does not prevent you from having success in the
mainstream.
The lack of talent does.
> There are bands who start out in the Christian genre, on a Christian
> label, in the Christian market, who want to do more than make
> entertainment for Christians. They want to take the Gospel to the
> world, in a real, tangible way. Just like the Christian lawyer,
> doctor, plumber, mechanic shares the Gospel with their "clients"
> when given the opportunity, so do these Christian musicians.
>
Fine take it out into the real world, no problem, but if you started your
career saying you are a Christian group and now say you are not, haven't you
just lied. Either you lied about being a Christian group this whole time or
you are lieing now about not being a Christian group. Or is it some thing
we can just throw off at anytime when it suits our needs.
-MIKE-
>
> Most lawyers, doctors, mechanics do not start out in a Christian industry
> just to say now they are not a Christian group because they want to be
> recognize by the mainstream world. I would be having the same argument if
> a Lawyer, doctor mechanic or Mcdonalds, if they all started out with a
> sign saying this is a Christian business just to know say they are not to
> make more money.
>
> It would have been better for them never to have accepted or classify
> themselves with the label or sign in the first place.
>
I want to know what bands you are claiming to have done this. You
mention Creed and Evanescence-- both of which are not and never were
Christian on Christian labels.
> As stated before I have no problems with groups who never stated they were
> a Christian band but were Christians and never started their careers in
> the Christian market.
>
> I agree, as stated in an earlier post, some groups were never asked just
> labeled but they accepted the label, why, did they feel they would get
> more money or did they feel it was true at the time. And if it was true
> at the time what is different now that it is no longer true.
>
What non-Christians bands accepted the label of Christian band?
When confronted with it, Creed and Evanescence rejected it.
So, what other bands are you talking about?
> Yes I do set high standards for the word Christian because it is more then
> just a word, I also so set these standards for myself. And I know these
> standards will never be totally reach until the day we enter Heaven but
> along the path we should be so willing to remove this label? There should
> be pride in this label and yes, if according to the will of God for your
> life and the life of your group, you will make it in the mainstream,
> without having to loose this label or name. I would hope others would
> agree with me, to be labeled a Christian, rather in reference to me
> personally or a group of people I am with or what it is I do with my life
> and career, is a good and honorable thing. Rather that label prevents me
> from going places I would like to go or allows me success should not
> matter as long as what I am doing, including my career is in accordance
> with His will.
I agree. But maybe there are people who would rather prove their
Christianity by their actions instead of their label. Maybe they
don't want to be confused with all the people on TV who wear the big
Christian label and then go and do things very contrary to what
Jesus taught.
> "He causes me to do the things I hate doing and the things
> I want to do I cannot."
>
> SamShem
Are you referring to this?
Romans 7:17-19
"As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living
in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful
nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot
carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the
evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing."
-MIKE-
>
> Okay that is not the point I was making. The point is a group labeled
> Christian can make it in the mainstream. Even if that label is placed on
> them by the general public
>
You are watering down the definition. I see a cultural definition
of Christian, which doesn't offend anyone. And I see a real
definition of Christian which offends many people.
The general public's labeling of any groups that is "spiritual" as
Christian doesn't mean a whole lot. If that's the label you're
talking about, then there is no point in discussing it. The general
public doesn't know what "Christian" is, so how could they
accurately label it.
When asked straight up front, "Are you Christians and are you a
Christian band?" these groups say no we are not. I don't know if
has any part in their mainstream success or not.
I know when Jesus was asked this, He answered and was crucified.
Luke 22:70-71
They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?" He replied, "You
are right in saying I am." Then they said, "Why do we need any
more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips."
If His message was just a spiritual message which the public falsely
labeled as religious, He would've been let go and called a prophet.
But His message was that He was God and He was the only way to
salvation, and was killed for it.
There comes a point when a Christian band is rejected by people,
when they reveal their real beliefs and the real message of the
Gospel because the Gospel is an offense. And there are those who
accept Christ through the witness and testimony of Christian bands
in the mainstream.
I think many Christian bands don't want to be called Christian bands
because most people see the label as defined by the general public,
which we've determined is about as accurate as calling a Honda Civic
a race car. So why start off with some ambiguous, falsely
interpreted label? Why not just go out there with your message and
give account for who you are and what you are about, through your
own lips and actions?
> The label of Christian does not prevent you from having success in the
> mainstream.
>
> The lack of talent does.
>
I agree.
>> There are bands who start out in the Christian genre, on a Christian
>> label, in the Christian market, who want to do more than make
>> entertainment for Christians. They want to take the Gospel to the
>> world, in a real, tangible way. Just like the Christian lawyer,
>> doctor, plumber, mechanic shares the Gospel with their "clients"
>> when given the opportunity, so do these Christian musicians.
>>
>
> Fine take it out into the real world, no problem, but if you started your
> career saying you are a Christian group and now say you are not, haven't
> you just lied. Either you lied about being a Christian group this whole
> time or you are lieing now about not being a Christian group. Or is it
> some thing we can just throw off at anytime when it suits our needs.
>
But who is doing this? You still haven't given any proof that this
is happening. You mentioned two groups who were never Christian
groups. Who is doing it?
Sam Shem
where they are coming from. And I for one would not have a problem with
hearing or playing "My Sacrafice" on a Christian radio station. Nor would I
have a problem hearing or playing "That's the way its is by" Celine Dion,
Mister, Mister's "kyrie Elieson" or other songs done by mainstream artist
which has a Christian message.
Sixpence none the richer also never actually made a statement but they did
allow themselves to be labeled as such for a long time.
While I understand the fear in being labeled with people who have used the
word Christian for their own gain, that fear is also not allowing you to be
labeled with those who have not. Good and honorable people who have served
their Savior. There will come a time, when a group offers up music with a
Christian them, a question if they are Christian.
Personally, no at this time I cannot think of who has done this, so I do not
offer this argument up on actual events but on a possible scenerio.
If I had to pick a group I would, in remembering their interviews, say
Dakoda Motor Company. But I would have to listen again to the interview
they did at Creation 93 and then the one Peter did for MTV.
Also I would have to say, Amy Grant, being changed from a gospel artist to
positive music artist. But I think that was done more by the mainstream
media then what actually was said by Amy Grant. I would need to fine the
interviews in order to justify saying she was involved. And given the
situation in her life over the last four years, there would be reasons as to
why she no longer considers herself a Gospel Artist.
But that is between her and her Savior.
Which brings up another point, if a group no longer holds themself as a
gospel or Christian Artist due to some private circumstance in their lives,
that I can also accept. For those reasons deals with the current spiritual
condition in their own lives and I would go on playing the songs they have
done before. But I would also believe they would stop releasing songs into
the Christian market until they have come to some sort of rebirth or
regrowth in their Christian walk. "Rebirth and regrowth" may not be the
proper words to use but unfortunately they are the only ones I could think
of.
Does a group have to be labeled Christian in order for me to hear them. No.
Just as every author does not have to be a Christian but I would be mindful
of what I read or accept when reading.
But if a group starts out calling themselves Christian, then to me atleast,
it is important not to change that label because no you feel it will hinder
you career possiblity.
By changing the label now, you could be hindering so much more.
And I would also say not to be afraid of being labeled a Christian artist,
band or group. Do not see this label a bad thing but as an honor. Someone
has recognize the hope that is in side of you.
Your right, there are alot of people who do not know what Christians are, so
would it not be wise of us to be willing to accept the label of Christian
and show them.
And yes I agree with Petra "Some Christians should be seen and not heard"
but that should not have a factor on us being willing to be called
Christian.
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
news:p_udnYcwZKn...@comcast.com...
Sam Shem
The whole point of the argument is, there are groups who feel they need to
through of the Christian label in order to make in the mainstream and I am
saying they do not.
And as an example of why not, I offer up Creed. Yes they never said they
were Christian but the general public thought they were and labeled them as
such.
This label did not prevent them from having a success in the market.
I am not making a point on what is a definition of a Christian
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
news:_4WdnZpwJdI...@comcast.com...
-MIKE-
> Actually I am not
>
> The whole point of the argument is, there are groups who feel they need to
> through of the Christian label in order to make in the mainstream and I am
> saying they do not.
>
Who feels this way? What groups feel this way?
> And as an example of why not, I offer up Creed. Yes they never said they
> were Christian but the general public thought they were and labeled them
> as such.
>
> This label did not prevent them from having a success in the market.
>
> I am not making a point on what is a definition of a Christian
>
You didn't read my post.
Until tomorrow,
David Bruce Murray
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
> I want to know what bands you are claiming to have done this. You
> mention Creed and Evanescence-- both of which are not and never were
> Christian on Christian labels.
Evanescence may not have been on a "Christian label," but there's no denying
that Wind-Up pushed them heavily to Christian stores at first, and if you
take the label's word for it, it was all with full approval from the artist.
After the fallout with the interviews by the band, Wind-Up then pulled them
from Christian stores with no restocking charges and issued an apology for
not knowing their group well enough before marketing.
http://freshreleases.com/news/1271.html
In a letter dated Thurdsay, April 10, Alan Meltzer of Wind-Up Records
officially recalled all Evanescence products from Christian stores,
Christian radio, and Christian charts.
"Despite having roots within the Christian community prior to the release of
Fallen," said Meltzer in the letter, "recent statements by band members have
made it abundantly clear that Evanescence is a secular band, and as such
view their music as entertainment. No more, no less. As such we strongly
feel that they no longer belong in Christian retail outlets. Despite the
spiritual underpinning that has ignited interest and excitement in the
Christian religious community, the band is now opposed to promoting or
supporting any religious agenda. The decision to release Fallen into the
Christian market was made subsequent to discussions with and approval by the
artist. Obviously the band has had a change in their perspective, as well as
changes within the band itself as relates to new band members. Wind-up
deeply regrets this situation."
----------------------------
----------------------------
Sam Shem
chick flick rolled up into three minutes of audio."
Now thats funny.
SamShem
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation.
"David Bruce Murray" <dbmu...@NOSPAM.mailblocks.com> wrote in message
news:Ms2dnTk8FI-...@pghconnect.com...
The Breeze
> Nice paragraph you wrote there, Breeze. Straight to the point, too! You
> feeling OK? :o)
Temporary lapse in judgment. :) Not to mention that I haven't posted
*anything* here for two weeks. Ouch! Something's wrong. I'll see the
doctor tomorrow. ;)
-Breeze
The Breeze
> Then why would God given them the talent if they are not to be used for
His
> purpose.
Who says they can't use their God-given talents to simply entertain people?
I personally like hearing the Word of God, but I also like to just sit back
and listen to great music. I thank God that much of the music I listen to
is "Christian" and also that much of what I listen to has *nothing* to do
with Christian "ministry." I hate to keep repeating myself on this, but
*why* do people think that just because someone is gifted to sing and make
music, it *has* to be ministry-oriented, or else they're disavowing God?
BTW I already stated my agreement with you that I don't like how Evanesence
started out with the "Christian" label and then dropped it like a bad habit
when it wasn't convenient for them. But if you don't like *how* they made
the jump from the Christian to the mainstream market, at least give them
credit for getting out of the Christian market where they don't belong, and
be glad for them that they've found where they *do* belong.
> There is nothing wrong with using the talent to make money. No
> one is saying the cannot. But what is being said is one should not
forsake
> name Christian to make money.
A band cannot be "Christian." Only individuals are Christians. Each
individual member of any given band can live their Christian life just fine
and give glory to God without having their band have the label of "Christian
Band." Let's take your McDonald's example. Does a McDonald's employee
forsake Christ when they show up for work every single day and fail to say
"Jesus loves you and died for you and would you like fries with that?" Just
because someone sings, it doesn't mean their call in life is to sing about
Jesus anymore than a McDonald's employee's call in life is to talk about
Jesus with every Happy Meal handed out. Some people just write music and
sing because they are gifted to do that, and there's nothing wrong with just
leaving it at that.
> And its not just the name or label they are being asked to forsake but
> everything Christian.
That's just simply not true.
-Breeze
Sam Shem
But if Mcdonald's had started their business that with every order you place
you will here God loves and then changes their mind because they wanted to
reach a larger audience that would be different.
All talent is given by God so it would be logical to think He expects us to
use those talents everyday for His purpose. An employee my not say God
Loves you to every customer but that employee would atleast make sure their
conduct was one where Christ would be seen through them. Also a talent
isn't the taking the order of a customer but the ability to take the order,
so you would figure this employee would find a way to use their order taking
skills for the purpose of God rather be at the drive-thru or any other open
door God provides for them.
Just as I don't believe every song has to be about God, I had no problems
with hearing love songs being done by Christian artist, or songs about
everyday life; I do believe the ability to make music would be used for
God.
So if a group is going to record a love song or a life song, this song
should reflect the values of a Christian life, as is described according to
scripture.
A band can be Christian, especially if they began for that purpose. The
purpose of reflecting a Christian life through music.
Also if you will re-read some of my statements you will see I do agree with
you, in that a Christian group or artist can use their talents to make
money. They have to eat.
"The Breeze" <bree...@NOyahooSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:YRaBb.477029$Fm2.465169@attbi_s04...
snail
> "snail" <sn...@careless.netOOPS.invalid> wrote in message
>> the song blew major chunks.
>> [I'm skipping the quality vs quantity debate :)]
> I get your wry humor, BUT . . .
No worries :)
> You have to admit there's a certain amount of skill involved to get a song
> to that level.
I'm not sure I'm game on that one; generally yes...despite appearances
I do like quite a bit of top 40 material...however there's been way too
many exceptions. Some absolute dreck has made it to the charts and
charted well for that matter.
> It's sappy as all get out, sure, but it would have connected
> with listeners, even if it hadn't been so popular. Not every song you hear
There was techno track out of the UK, a couple of years back that
was absolutely abysmal, I don't recall its title but it had
little "connect" type stuff in it, the melody was dull and had
about a line and a half of lyric repeated over and over, admittedly
that's more lyrics than you'd expect but it was still bad. It went
to number 1 in Oz and the UK.
> does that, so in that sense, it's a "good" song.
Hmmmm....I still don't think I'd use 'good' in that context :)
> For another thing . . .
> Carlisle can sing. There's no denying he has one of those "big" voices, even
No denying at all. He's not my cup of tea, but I have heard stuff
by him I like and will happily recognise that he's a good artist
with a good voice. Just don't use this song to justify it :)
> if you dislike that style of singing. The other thing is that the lyrics
> pulled at emotions on a topic that is often addressed by mainstream pop
I had a hard time getting past the syrupy sappiness to the actual content.
> music . . . father watching his daughter grow up, so the song had an element
> of unique topic content going for it to make it stand out against the more
I did like the idea of it though; particularly as it's rare to find
that sort of material in a chart topping song.
> typical music. Otherwise, it was rather formulaic.
rather ? :)
> It was almost like a chick flick rolled up into three minutes of audio.
.siggable! :)
> Now, that being said, I much prefer the song "The Living Years" if I had to
I have a vague recollection of that one, and I'm fairly sure I enjoyed it.
> make my choice between the two, but "Butterfly Kisses" tugs at some of those
> same emotions, and that's why so many people liked it. I heard it so much I
> got sick of it, but I didn't start disliking it so much until it was run
> into the ground.
That's where we differ, I was ready to vomit after the first listen;
repeated listens didn't improve things.
> --
<geek>sig separator is '-- ' not '--'</geek> *grin*
--
snail @ careless net http://www.zip.com.au/~vvsnail
A liberal is a man too broadminded to take his own side in a quarrel - Frost.
-MIKE-
>> mention Creed and Evanescence-- both of which are not and never were
>> Christian on Christian labels.
>
> Evanescence may not have been on a "Christian label," but there's no
> denying that Wind-Up pushed them heavily to Christian stores at first, and
> if you take the label's word for it, it was all with full approval from
> the artist.
>
> After the fallout with the interviews by the band, Wind-Up then pulled
> them from Christian stores with no restocking charges and issued an
> apology for not knowing their group well enough before marketing.
>
I think that supports my view. What secular artist wouldn't take
advantage of a niche market that could garner sales they would never
see without that push?
His criticism is that there are Christian bands selling out their
Christianity to go mainstream to get rich. The two artists he sited
are not, and never claimed to be Christian, and were not on
Christian labels.
-MIKE-
>
> Yes I know they did not make that statement and that's fine. Atleast I
> know where they are coming from. And I for one would not have a problem
> with hearing or playing "My Sacrafice" on a Christian radio station. Nor
> would I have a problem hearing or playing "That's the way its is by"
> Celine Dion, Mister, Mister's "kyrie Elieson" or other songs done by
> mainstream artist which has a Christian message.
>
> Sixpence none the richer also never actually made a statement but they did
> allow themselves to be labeled as such for a long time.
>
Are you saying they are not or never were? What is your beef with
them?
> While I understand the fear in being labeled with people who have used the
> word Christian for their own gain, that fear is also not allowing you to
> be labeled with those who have not. Good and honorable people who have
> served their Savior. There will come a time, when a group offers up music
> with a Christian them, a question if they are Christian.
>
I still don't get why a group has to have a label, in your view.
And I don't get how not being labeled a Christian band automatically
makes you a secular band. How do people know you are a Christian?
Does your life reflect it or is it the fish on your bumper? :-)
> Personally, no at this time I cannot think of who has done this, so I do
> not offer this argument up on actual events but on a possible scenerio.
>
> If I had to pick a group I would, in remembering their interviews, say
> Dakoda Motor Company. But I would have to listen again to the interview
> they did at Creation 93 and then the one Peter did for MTV.
>
> Also I would have to say, Amy Grant, being changed from a gospel artist to
> positive music artist. But I think that was done more by the mainstream
> media then what actually was said by Amy Grant.
>
I agree, it was a media thing and nothing to do with her, other than
releasing mainstream.
> I would need to fine the
> interviews in order to justify saying she was involved. And given the
> situation in her life over the last four years, there would be reasons as
> to why she no longer considers herself a Gospel Artist.
>
Well, I guess you have higher standards than God. As far as I have
read in the Bible, many of the heroes of our faith did some pretty
horrible things, but they repented and God forgave them and allowed
them to continue to do some pretty terrific things for His kingdom.
> But that is between her and her Savior.
>
Then why did you bring it up?
> Which brings up another point, if a group no longer holds themself as a
> gospel or Christian Artist due to some private circumstance in their
> lives, that I can also accept. For those reasons deals with the current
> spiritual condition in their own lives and I would go on playing the songs
> they have done before. But I would also believe they would stop releasing
> songs into the Christian market until they have come to some sort of
> rebirth or regrowth in their Christian walk. "Rebirth and regrowth" may
> not be the proper words to use but unfortunately they are the only ones I
> could think of.
>
Yeah, I guess once you're a Christian, nothing ever goes wrong and
you never screw up again. Personally, I want to hear songs written
by people like me, who still mess up and are working out their
faith. The ones who think the Christian walk is perfect and care
free scare me.
> Does a group have to be labeled Christian in order for me to hear them.
> No. Just as every author does not have to be a Christian but I would be
> mindful of what I read or accept when reading.
>
> But if a group starts out calling themselves Christian, then to me
> atleast, it is important not to change that label because no you feel it
> will hinder you career possiblity.
>
Again, please, please, please, give us some names of groups and
artists you feel have done this. Christian groups, not mainstream
groups that have spiritual lyrics. :-)
Give the name of a group or artist who dropped their Christian
"label" simply because they felt it was hindering their career.
> By changing the label now, you could be hindering so much more.
>
> And I would also say not to be afraid of being labeled a Christian artist,
> band or group. Do not see this label a bad thing but as an honor.
> Someone has recognize the hope that is in side of you.
>
> Your right, there are alot of people who do not know what Christians are,
> so would it not be wise of us to be willing to accept the label of
> Christian and show them.
>
> And yes I agree with Petra "Some Christians should be seen and not heard"
> but that should not have a factor on us being willing to be called
> Christian.
>
And I don't think you should get on someone's case if they don't
want to be typecast as a "Christian" group, if they feel a calling
from God to go out into the world and reach those who, otherwise,
would never listen to a "Christian" band.
Being a Christian is SO, SO, much more than having your record in
the bins under the "religious' section, or being signed to a
Christian label.
If I had the choice (which I may) of being "labeled" a Christian
band and being entertainment for Christians; or being a mainstream
band and reaching people who would never listen to the Gospel as
presented by a "Christian' band because of all the negative
connotations that might have for them, I think it might be a waste
of my talents to simply entertain or even edify people who already
know the Gospel, when I could be reaching the unreachable.
snail
> If I had the choice (which I may) of being "labeled" a Christian
> band and being entertainment for Christians; or being a mainstream
> band and reaching people who would never listen to the Gospel as
> presented by a "Christian' band because of all the negative
> connotations that might have for them, I think it might be a waste
> of my talents to simply entertain or even edify people who already
> know the Gospel, when I could be reaching the unreachable.
<dredwarddanieltaylor>Amen!</dredwarddanieltaylor> All good stuff.
Sam Shem
such.
I have to wonder if you are actually reading my enteries or just skimming.
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
news:x4OdndlrCJY...@comcast.com...
-MIKE-
> That was not my point. And I also stated Creed And Evanescence never
> stated such.
>
Then let's start over. What is your point? Seriously, get a fresh
start on it.
> I have to wonder if you are actually reading my enteries or just skimming.
>
To be perfectly honest, I have to read your stuff very carefully.
Without trying to sound condescending, some spell checking and
grammar editing could do a lot for you in the area of effective
communication. Sincerely, I'm not being petty.
Sam Shem
I believe, this is a question you need to answer on your own. It seems
currently there is a struggle going on inside of you on your future. How
should I proceed? I would appear, forgive me if I am wrong, it appears to
be a struggle between following a calling of God or doing what it is you
wish to do.
Everyone here has made good points on both sides of the question but the
only person which can help you with it is God.
If He leads you to the Christian music then embrace it with all your heart.
It may be an audience who know about God but not every person who listens
to Christian music is a Christian and there are still ministries which need
to be done to edify the body of Christ.. As I am sure your own walk has
proven, just because your are a Christian it doesn't mean you no longer need
to hear about the Good news.
In Christ
Sam Shem
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation.
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
news:XtKdnSO95Y0...@comcast.com...
David Bruce Murray
"snail" <sn...@careless.netOOPS.invalid> wrote in message
> > It was almost like a chick flick rolled up into three minutes of audio.
>
> .siggable! :)
I'm honored you think so! :o)
David Bruce Murray
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message
> His criticism is that there are Christian bands selling out their
> Christianity to go mainstream to get rich. The two artists he sited
> are not, and never claimed to be Christian, and were not on
> Christian labels.
The reports are that Evanescence did claim to be Christian . . . not just
WRT Wind-Up's involvement, but even prior to that. Even in the liner notes
of _Fallen_, they go quite a bit further than the generic "I want to thank
God" with their comments.
(And that should be "cited," BTW. This isn't architecture we're discussing.)
:o)
David Bruce Murray
"snail" <sn...@careless.netOOPS.invalid> wrote in message
> -MIKE- <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote:
> > If I had the choice (which I may) of being "labeled" a Christian
> > band and being entertainment for Christians; or being a mainstream
> > band and reaching people who would never listen to the Gospel as
> > presented by a "Christian' band because of all the negative
> > connotations that might have for them, I think it might be a waste
> > of my talents to simply entertain or even edify people who already
> > know the Gospel, when I could be reaching the unreachable.
>
> <dredwarddanieltaylor>Amen!</dredwarddanieltaylor> All good stuff.
We've had a discussion along these lines on a Southern Gospel message board
recently . . . about "singing to the choir" and Christian music just for
entertainment's sake, etc. Most SG fans think what they call "CCM" is just
music for the sake of entertainment, without the ministry focus. They take
this view because SG is so screwed up business wise. "Major name" SG groups
will sing in churches for love offerings, and SG fans are notoriously tight
with their cash . . . not to mention the sad state of SG radio. Thank God
that Bill Gaither took time to revitalize the SG industry in the 1990s! But
I digress . . .
In one thread on the message board, it was noted how many professional SG
artists had a salvation experience AFTER they had been singing gospel music
for a number of years. I commented that maybe "singing to the choir" is
singing to the lost more than we might think. Others also made the point
that good quality Christian entertainment is encouraging to the body as a
whole.
I think it applies on both sides of the issue. Music is beneficial to all
concerned when it's of good quality and coming from a sincere heart,
regardless of which group gets the brunt of the marketing. In fact, many
have advanced in their spiritual walk after hearing music from a vessel that
was living in sin at the time . . . maybe not even saved themselves, yet
being used of God to deliver the gospel message.
I guess I'm just getting a little tired of both sides trying to pump up
their own credibility by criticizing the efforts of those whose ministry
seems to go to the opposite side of the market. Perform with all your
ability and leave the influence on the hearer to the Holy Spirit. That's His
job.
-MIKE-
>
> Actually
>
> I believe, this is a question you need to answer on your own.
>
Nice dodge, but I won't push you. :-)
> It seems
> currently there is a struggle going on inside of you on your future. How
> should I proceed? I would appear, forgive me if I am wrong, it appears to
> be a struggle between following a calling of God or doing what it is you
> wish to do.
>
I'm very aware of His calling on my life and what I want to do-- I'm
pretty certain they are the same thing. I'm in the middle of
eagerly pursueing it. The only struggle comes when I try to put His
calling, or Him, in a box made up of the preconceived notions of
man.
NOT that I'm Jesus, but His life is a good example. All the people
in His life tried to put Him and His purpose in a box made of their
preconceived notions. His family, His disciples, the government and
religious leaders, and the general public all put Him in their own
box. No one knew His real purpose or plan, until it was finished.
Jesus was fully man *and* fully God, so He at least had the Father's
full plan for His life in mind, with complete discernment and
understanding.
I, on the other hand, don't have that miraculous convenience. I
also don't have to suffer and die on a cross to save the world from
its sin, so I'll willingly and joyfully accept the trade-off. :-)
> Everyone here has made good points on both sides of the question but the
> only person which can help you with it is God.
>
That's not Biblical, but I understand what you're getting at.
There are no lone ranger Christians. We all need the advice and
counsel of the ones with whom we are accountable.
> If He leads you to the Christian music then embrace it with all your
> heart. It may be an audience who know about God but not every person who
> listens to Christian music is a Christian and there are still ministries
> which need to be done to edify the body of Christ.. As I am sure your own
> walk has proven, just because your are a Christian it doesn't mean you no
> longer need to hear about the Good news.
>
> In Christ
> Sam Shem
> For mine eyes have seen thy salvation.
>
You are absolutely correct. I have done years of music ministry to
and with Christians. I see the hearts changed and the results of
edification, encouragement, uplifting, repentance, people brought
closer to God. I have personally been ministered to, deeply, by
Christian music made by Christian. I have also been ministered to,
deeply, by mainstream music made by Christian and mainstream music
made by non-Christians.
The reason and way I want to use the music talents God gave me, is
to make music that ministers others in the way I have been
ministered to. For a while I thought that was going to take place
in Christian music. I'm sure it has in ways I don't even know about
and I'm sure it will continue. What I don't want to do is to put
God's purpose for me in a box that says, "this has to be done, or
can only be done, in Christian music." To say that would be to
totally forget and disregard one of the ways God deeply and
powerfully ministered to me-- through mainstream music.
The real common sense way I look at it is... sure, Christians still
need Christian music for edification, et al. But there are plenty
of Christians in Christian music and quite a shortage of them in
mainstream music. :-)
Sam Shem
and it is a nice car.
"-MIKE-" <mi...@mikedrumsDOT.com> wrote in message