|
Dec
06
|
Some time ago, I had a post called “Who Says What’s Christian Music?” In that post, I lamented the fact that the term “Christian” music has come to mean little about actual content and more about marketing. The post referenced an article (which is now unavailable online though this piece also references the same article) in which John Styll, president of the Christian Music Trade Association, says that Sufjan Stevens, an artist who openly expresses his Christianity, is not considered a “Christian” artist because he “just doesn’t want to play the Christian music-market game, and that’s OK.”
The sad truth is that for many consumers, the issue of discernment has simply become a point-of-purchase decision. Many people feel that just because they buy something at a “Christian” bookstore, then of course it must be OK. But this is not the case. As Styll alludes to, the real determining factors for what is considered “Christian” music are not really about content but marketing. Artists like Sufjan Stevens and others who openly express their faith will not be found in “Christian” bookstores because they don’t use the “right” distribution channels. Yet artists like Phillips, Craig and Dean who deny the Trinity (see also) may be found in nearly every such store. Clearly the issue is not content because if you deny the Trinity, you are not a Christian in any orthodox sense of the term.
It is the Christian Music Trade Association, that determines what is and what is not considered “Christian” music. The original article noted that, to be considered “Christian music,” “Styll says albums must receive some national play on Christian radio, 25 percent of sales in the first week must be in Christian shops, and lyrics must have “Christian content.” Styll further says that the lyrics in question must in line with Scripture, but acknowledges that these boundaries may be “a little loose.” Styll himself nearly acknowledges that there are not content guidelines while there are very clear marketing principles at work.
So we start with the problem of “loose” guidelines that allow heretical beliefs through the door with the title “Christian” music. But the problems with “Christian” music don’t end there. Behind the scenes there are questionable tactics to boost sales figures while saddling many artists with a tag they have gone out of their way trying to escape. While it may seem odd to some people, many Christian artists have intentionally tried to distance themselves from the tag of “Christian” music. Many feel that their music is not just for Christians, they want to reach as many people as possible and the presence of that tag immediately limits an audience. Others recognize that the term itself is more of a marketing ploy than anything else. Whatever their reasons, many artists who are quite open about their faith do not want to be identified with “Christian” music. Yet that is exactly what is happening to many, in spite of their clear intentions, again, because of marketing.
It seems that the Christian Music Trade Association (CMTA), along with the Gospel Music Association (GMA) have often reported questionable figures at best detailing growth trends in “Christian” music. For example, Mark Joseph reports in his book Faith, God and Rock n’ Roll: How People of Faith Are Transforming American Popular Music, that in 2001, Newsweek reported on the tremendous growth of the only genre that is determined by content rather than musical style: “Christian Music.” Joseph says that that the piece relied heavily on reports provided by the CMTA that showed unprecedented growth in “Christian music.” But, Jospeh warns that:
a closer look at the top-sellers of 2001 showed that the strongest “Christian music” draws were actually the instrumental favorites Mannheim Steamroller; the soundtrack for O Brother, Where Art Thou? and P.O.D. All had become “Christian” records courtesy of SoundScan, the company originally created to clear up confusing and misleading statistics in the music industry.
Joseph goes on to explain how it works:
Once the industry decided to distribute an album such as Mannheim Steamroller’s Christmas Extraordinaire, representatives of the CMTA and Billboard magazine then declared it a “Christian record and announced its findings to “Christian SoundScan.” Then every Christmas Extraordinaire sale, no matter where it occurred, was credited as another sale of “Christian music.”
Joseph quotes P.O.D’s Sonny Sandoval’s reaction:
That’s all the politics. It’s like the same people that banned us, now they’re in their little meetings and stuff and they’re like ‘our goal is to help P.O.D. break into the mainstream.’ No, it’s not. Let’s be honest with ourselves: that’s not your heart’s intention. You’re just selling records. Whatever link you have to P.O.D. it looks good on your plate . . . we’re not trying to be a part of this little . . . it’s almost like a secret society type thing. It’s like ‘thank you for anything you might have done in the past, thank you for your support, no disrespect, but we’re going to go on and do what we want to do . . . we’re not trying to cater to one audience.
Clearly there is a disconnect here. P.O.D. had signed with Atlantic Records, turning down an offer from a “Christian” label. The band was insistent that that was not their intent, and in interview after interview, band members upheld their Christianity while distancing themselves from the industry. But the band allowed their records to be distributed in “Christian” bookstores via the now defunct Squint records with the understanding that this was not their primary market. The “industry” then capitalized on that, using P.O.D.’s sales to prop up an industry the band itself had tried not to be a part of. So, you have a band who very clearly said they didn’t want to be considered a “Christian” band being touted exactly as that, against their wishes (though they did allow their music to be sold in “Christian” stores), because of marketing.
Obviously there are many problems here that would take more than a blog post to sort through. But one of the main issues that arises here is that there is an industry built, not on biblical fidelity but marketing and money. This industry is not concerned with content but money and is willing to label top-selling artists who have tried to distance themselves from those same labels while ignoring lesser-selling artists who are quite open about their faith. There is a deep problem when I can buy an artist who denies the Trinity but not Bob Dylan’s trilogy of Slow Train Coming, Saved and Shot of Love.
Looking at the larger issue, at least part of the reason we have these problems is because Christians have become simple consumers. Too many of us have lost the ability to discern an artist’s content through the lens of Scripture and we have allowed marketers to make judgments for us. We have not been trained to adequately discern the presence of biblical Truth when it is not spelled out in neon, nor have we been trained to spot and refute error. Instead we have come to rely on marketers who, frankly aren’t interested in our souls but our money.
Joseph points out another disturbing reality to the “Christian” music idea by noting that it is an “industry that effectively made money by separating the Christians from the non-Christians, creating, labeling, and then marketing art in ways that guaranteed that it would go unheard by the unchurched masses.” With the possible exception of “Praise and Worship,” I cannot think of any other meaningful reason for labeling music as “Christian” other than marketing. The very notion, as Joseph points out, promotes seclusion rather than interaction with the surrounding world.
- Read my post “Who Says What’s Christian Music?”
- Read Faith, God and Rock n’ Roll: How People of Faith Are Transforming American Popular Music by Mark Joseph
True dat. The fact that Christian music is, at heart, a money-making industry is what drives me most crazy about Christian radio, because there’s such a front put up that it’s ‘ministry.’
I understand making money. And I’m in marketing–I understand: everybody wants people to buy what they’re selling.
But I think art and Christianity have a deep-seated responsibility to distance themselves from that machine, because at it’s heart, the machine has neither truth nor beauty. It only has money.
The disconnect between artists and their labels is a big reason I’m excited about where we’re at in music right now. For the first time ever, distribution costs (via the internet) are approaching zero (in the calculus sense of ‘approaching’), and bands have access to publicity channels and ways of getting known that are cheaper and easier than ever before.
Big labels aren’t going to die off (although we can hope they’ll keep shoveling their own graves with these ridiculous RIAA suits) because most people ARE consumers and they want somebody else to tell them what to listen to.
But serious artist have possibilities of success (in at least an artistic sense) that they’ve never had in the past WITHOUT a label.
And of course, this brings me full circle to something I commented about here a while ago, which is the sort of spectrum of ‘art’, using art in the broadest sense, which distinguishes (but refuses to draw hard lines between) art and entertainment (and further between those two and utilitarian things like ad jingles and songs with a specific non-art-or-entertainment purpose, like worship songs, for example).
I still owe you a good blog post about that. It’s been on my horizon for a while. I’ll get there. I promise.
What I want to know is, is “Christian music” even a legitimate enterprise? Of course music for worship could legitimately be considered in some sense Christian, but doesn’t the notion of “Christian music” contradict the goodness of physicality, the goodness of the God-given physical realities, the goodness of just MUSIC. Let’s remember that, although yes the earth groans, etc., the Fall was not ontological; it was ethical. Therefore, it is fallacious to assume that the “stuff of earth” is bad. Please don’t label me as “worldly” for what I just said. That’s not the definition of worldly. Worldliness has to do with following the patterns of thought that rebellious humans have dreamed up. Patterns like, oh say, thinking that material reality is somehow inferior to “spiritual” reality–Platonism–these are worldly. And I think that really the notion of “Christian music” conforms to this way of thinking, thinking that we need to baptize all material reality and make it always point to something spiritual and therefore “better.” God has embedded us AND HIS WORK OF REDEMPTION in the physical world; we simply can’t ascend the ladder of ontology to get beyond that. Jeremy Begbie in his new book on Christianity and music, “Resounding Truth,” covers this idea well.
Anyway, thoughts?
I think you’re totally on track, Matt, 100%. It’s that Platonic, physical=bad, mindset that’s jacking us over on this.
I was under the impression that the whole Gnostic heresy thing back in the day took care of this.
But maybe I’m wrong.
Or maybe I don’t know my old school church history very well. I suppose there’s not much argument about that….
[...] Colossians 3;16 (the blog, not the verse) reports on a dangerous trend in popular Christian music reporting: It seems that the Christian Music Trade Association (CMTA), along with the Gospel Music Association (GMA) have often reported questionable figures at best detailing growth trends in “Christian” music. For example, Mark Joseph reports in his book Faith, God and Rock n’ Roll: How People of Faith Are Transforming American Popular Music, that in 2001, Newsweek reported on the tremendous growth of the only genre that is determined by content rather than musical style: “Christian Music.” Joseph says that that the piece relied heavily on reports provided by the CMTA that showed unprecedented growth in “Christian music.” But, Jospeh warns that: a closer look at the top-sellers of 2001 showed that the strongest “Christian music” draws were actually the instrumental favorites Mannheim Steamroller; the soundtrack for O Brother, Where Art Thou? and P.O.D. All had become “Christian” records courtesy of SoundScan, the company originally created to clear up confusing and misleading statistics in the music industry. [...]
WOW, I bought my first Sufjan Stevens record last saturday. Bought my second sunday via Itunes and was searching the web for more info on the guy. I have visited your site in the past, but your first article from 2005 came up. When I clicked to see what you’re talking about today, I was shocked to see that it was a similar article. One in a million huh!
I agree entirely with what you’re saying. Christians are artists. They make art. They don’t make christian art.
I have never thought of the angle that what the christian music industry is doing is harmful to the reach of the message, by labeling it. That is an interesting thought!
[...] Also, Colossians Three Sixteen, curiously enough, has done a couple articles recently on the topic. Read them here and here. He does a better job at researching and buiding a case than I do, but I think I rant better. [...]
Maybe it’s not always bad to label music as Christian music, not from a marketing perspective, but from a content perspective?
I love indie Christian music, and am learning to like more contemporary Christian music as well. I personally like to hear or know “hey, there is this “Christian band” or song you should hear”. For this reason, I think the label of “Christian music” is helpful.
I agree, we ALWAYS have to compare what we read, hear (from people’s mouths or the radio), and listen to against the Bible. Not all music in a Christian bookstore is Christian, and not all music outside of a Christian bookstore is not. But it’s also nice to know “OK, here are some people who are singing songs about God and Jesus, who profess to be Christians, even if they are not being sold in Christian bookstores”. Some people may never find out about some great artists (especially indie or older ones) unless someone labels it in some way or another as Christian.
Very well written piece, good facts and excellent questions. While I understand and sympathize with the concerns over labeling and not selling the likes of Sufjan Stevens, I would caution against dismissing the entire Christian retail industry as money changers.
There are many within the industry who truly desire to offer something with a different message to the marketplace. We can talk all day about how these product should be delivered to the masses, and very few will disagree—but there’s no way WalMart is going to carry the breadth of product you can find at your local Christian store. (How will people discover John Piper?)
Yes, the system has problems. But God has chosen to use broken people to minister to a broken world—and our churches and businesses and GMA’s and SoundScans are filled with broken people–but people who are trying to make a difference.
Gary, I tend to agree with your sentiments that not all is lost within CCM and, moreover, we always need to be seeking a way to unite CCM and Liturgy and Independent.
Nevertheless, I think reconstruction of a flawed mechanism or religious approach is very much appropriate. As I think of Christ with the moneychangers, I can’t help but believe Jesus was dealing harshly with a system that perpetuated itself inappropriately. He dealt not with individual tax collectors that day, but the industry in which they engaged.
And I feel like God does this a lot, deal with Israel as a whole. Meanwhile, I’m not sure everyone’s innocent who plays the game.
So, sackcloth for all! (I kind of derailed the train of thought there … sorry.)
[...] Blog Posts by Brent at Colossians Three Sixteen Who Says What’s Christian Music? Who Says What’s Christian Music? (Part Two) Misplaced Boundaries “Engage” by Being “Christian” Rock, Sincerity, and “Engage” by Being, Part Two How to Think Biblically About Christian Music (posted at Said at Southern) [...]
