| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Trademark 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
 Posted: February 14 2008 at 23:23 |
Thanks Ivan, this clears up most of my questions and I thank you for your answers. You are a thoughtful person and I always appreciate discussiions with you (even when we disagree  ).
"So,
if you can't even agree within the Protestant community if Christian
Rock is positive or Satanic, then how can you force us not to disagree?"
I'm not trying to force you to agree with anything. I'm just asking for clarification on a couple of specific points, one of which is "Do you see evangelism as brainwashing?" It appears to me that you might view them as being the same thing.
Well, not even all the Protestant Churches agree with you, some of them believe Christian Rock is Satanic, here is a short list:
Yes, the Protestant tradition has a pesky history of being fragmented and frankly I sometimes wish we had a more centralized spiritual authority, but the fact that a minority take this view was not the point. The point was that music was not specifically forbidden as a tool to spread the Gospel. I think, perhaps, that our difference of opinion lies in what the appropriate parameters are for this use.
Jesus said tell the message, not lie to the people telling them it’s just music when it’s really under covered evangelism.
I don't think any Christian Rock act would ever tell you that what they do is "just music". The groups I have seen and talked with (Audio Adrenaline, Geoff Moore, Tree 63, Paul Colman, Third Day, and others) are very, very clear both in concert and in person that the purpose of their work is evangelism.
If not, Why is religion banned in most schools of USA?
This was a particular point of the "founding Fathers" of this country and was intended to prevent problems of religious control of government which wreaked such havoc in Europe in the past. Separation of Church and State. Political expediency and nothing much more, otherwise our Currency would not be inscribed "In God we trust", and our National Pledge of Allegiance would not read "One Nation under God", which we all said every morning in school for decades.
Of course you can mention them, but most Protestant attacks are based in past acts, people talks everyday about the Inquisition (Which was wrong), but never talk about the Witch Hunts in USA or the slaughter of Catholics in United Kingdom, but if that is the case, we can also mention the sick anti semitism of Luther for which nobody has asked forgiveness.
This is , I think, an exaggeration. Movies have been and continue to be made about the sins of various protestant sects (The Crucible as a fairly recent example). I do not know if anyone has asked forgiveness for Luther's anti-semitism and I can't imagine that you can be quite so sure of the opposite being true. The Protestant tradition is not centralized so it is up to each individual denomination to take care of this type of business. I know that the Methodist Church (of which I am a member) has officially denounced Luther's views. Beyond that I cannot say.
Hey you criticized us because you believed we condemn other religions to hell, what I proved is wrong, now you criticize another religion and qualify them as a cult?
It wasn't a criticism, it was an observation of what I erroneously believed to be fact.
I could point thousands of similar sites made by pastors and Protestant denominations, you will NEVER find an official site of the Catholic Church doing this aberrations.
I did a quick search and found a number of Catholic sites strongly condemning Mormonism and dozens more giving very explicit instructions on how to "effectively argue with, and correct" Mormon errors. I don't think my own beliefs about Mormonism are very different from those of the Catholic leadership. Perhaps I spoke too strongly. I didn't see the addition of Mormon ideology (which both Protestant and Catholic leadership condemn as false teaching) to be germaine to the discussion at hand.
Edited by Trademark - February 14 2008 at 23:31
|
 |
artguyken
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 05 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 187
|
Posted: February 14 2008 at 23:38 |
|
Gentlemen, there is music to be discussed! Can we get back to this poorly named thread?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 00:51 |
 Trademark wrote:
Thanks Ivan, this clears up most of my questions and I thank you for your answers. You are a thoughtful person and I always appreciate discussiions with you (even when we disagree ).
I'm not trying to force you to agree with anything. I'm just asking for clarification on a couple of specific points, one of which is "Do you see evangelism as brainwashing?" It appears to me that you might view them as being the same thing.
I don't consider Evangelism as brainwashing if done directly to persons who are willing to accept it, but masking it as popular music, is wrong IMO.
Yes, the Protestant tradition has a pesky history of being fragmented and frankly I sometimes wish we had a more centralized spiritual authority, but the fact that a minority take this view was not the point. The point was that music was not specifically forbidden as a tool to spread the Gospel. I think, perhaps, that our difference of opinion lies in what the appropriate parameters are for this use.
Exactly, preaching should not be a part of Rock, much less attacking any other religion.
I don't think any Christian Rock act would ever tell you that what they do is "just music". The groups I have seen and talked with (Audio Adrenaline, Geoff Moore, Tree 63, Paul Colman, Third Day, and others) are very, very clear both in concert and in person that the purpose of their work is evangelism.
Not in certain circles, but lets be honest, when recorded for lets say gentiles  to listen, it's a form of passing a message with a costume of Rock, and to people that has not accepted to receive it.
Evangelism must be volutarilly accepted.
This was a particular point of the "founding Fathers" of this country and was intended to prevent problems of religious control of government which wreaked such havoc in Europe in the past. Separation of Church and State. Political expediency and nothing much more, otherwise our Currency would not be inscribed "In God we trust", and our National Pledge of Allegiance would not read "One Nation under God", which we all said every morning in school for decades.
Sorry man, but your currency is a mixture of everything, even Masonic symbolism.
This is , I think, an exaggeration. Movies have been and continue to be made about the sins of various protestant sects (The Crucible as a fairly recent example). I do not know if anyone has asked forgiveness for Luther's anti-semitism and I can't imagine that you can be quite so sure of the opposite being true. The Protestant tradition is not centralized so it is up to each individual denomination to take care of this type of business. I know that the Methodist Church (of which I am a member) has officially denounced Luther's views. Beyond that I cannot say.
But be honest, the hatred agaoinst Catholic Church in many Protestant sites is terrible, to the point that weignored it but some really crossed the line.
It wasn't a criticism, it was an observation of what I erroneously believed to be fact.
It's a Church, not a Christian one, but a Church.
I did a quick search and found a number of Catholic sites strongly condemning Mormonism and dozens more giving very explicit instructions on how to "effectively argue with, and correct" Mormon errors. I don't think my own beliefs about Mormonism are very different from those of the Catholic leadership. Perhaps I spoke too strongly. I didn't see the addition of Mormon ideology (which both Protestant and Catholic leadership condemn as false teaching) to be germaine to the discussion at hand.
The position of the Catholic Church about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is an exception to the rule of accepting all Christian Baptisms, but the OFFICIAL position is very moderate:
The Roman Catholic Church declared Thursday that Mormon converts must be rebaptized, a setback to the Mormon Church's effort to characterize itself as a Christian denomination.
The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith declared that baptisms in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are "not the baptism that Christ instituted."
The ruling was a departure from the Catholic Church's usual practice of recognizing the baptisms of converts from most other churches. The Vatican held that the Mormon view of the nature of God was too different from Catholicism's.
It was the second time in as many years that a major Christian church had ruled that Mormon converts must be rebaptized. Last year, the United Methodist Church, the nation's second-largest Protestant denomination, took a similar stand. [...]
Dan Wotherspoon, editor of Sunstone Magazine, an independent journal of Mormon life and issues published in Salt Lake City, said, "Clearly, the LDS church still has their work cut out for them in this effort to be known as a Christian church."
In Salt Lake City, Latter-day Saints spokesmen sought to minimize the importance of the Catholic decision, or its possible effect on efforts by the church to present itself as a Christian church.
[...]
In Rome, the Vatican congregation indicated that radically different theological views of God and Jesus Christ necessitated the rebaptism of Mormon converts.
The congregation said that the Catholic Church could not accept Mormon belief that "God the father had a wife, the Celestial Mother, with whom he procreated Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit." |
But as you see, they don't call it a cult, it's recognized as a Church, not a Christian one of course, or called Joseph Smith the Anti-Christ, just doesn't accept their Baptism for converts.
And the position with other Christian Churches (even those who attack Catholicism) is very moderate in OFFICIAL sites, and I highlight official because we have our fundamentalists also.
Of course when a religion is centralized as ours, it's easier to have more control with the relations with other Churches, it's incredible that Catholic Church has more contact with Jewish and Moslem churches, because they are more united than most Protestant Churches..
I'm añso gladto talk with a moderate person.
Iván
|
|
|
|
|
Jorvik
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 21 2007
Location: The Danelaw
Status: Offline
Points: 81
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 07:01 |
kiwi wrote:
Jorvik wrote:
kiwi wrote:
An athiest has faith that there
is no God.
|
 I wish people would stop regurgitating this falsehood: atheism is not a belief that there is no god or gods. It is a lack of belief due to there being no evidence.
[snip]
|
I am sorry to have offended you.
[snip]
He rides majestic
Past homes of men
Who care not or gaze with joy
To see reflected there
The trees, the sky, the lily fair. (Genesis)
|
Why are you apologising, why would I be offended? I'm not. In some ways I regret using the "angry" emoticon as that might have given the wrong impression and also plays up to the stereotype of "angry atheist". Talking of stereotypes and clichés, it's interesting to see that the old "Hitler and Stalin argument against the evils of atheism" still hasn't been worn out yet . I really don't see the relevance of the Genesis lyrics, but never mind. Back to the original topic, here's a thought. It seems to me that to espouse an atheistic view in lyrics is to stand opposed to religion, to say that there is/are no god/gods ergo religions are wrong. This is a negative view of the ‘opposing side’. From what people have said here (and it's mostly been about christian-related prog rather than any other religions), christian-prog seems to tend to espouse a positive message about itself, to be evangelical. My question is this: are there any examples of christian prog where the message isn't "this is what we believe, this is good, come join us and be saved" (to put it very crudely) or isn't an affirmation of what is believed or written, but which is openly critical of, and negative about, christianity's opponents? To clarify, to have christian prog isn't necessarily to be negative about ‘the other side’, it can just be postive about itself. Is there any christian prog where the lyrics are to the effect of "atheism is wrong, atheists are amoral [or insert your favourite counter-atheist view here], your arguments are flawed" etc?
|
|
I ljuset från min lykta
ser jag skuggan utav sorg
drömmar som har slocknat
ifrån ett liv som haft sin tid
|
|
WaywardSon
Prog Reviewer
Joined: April 23 2006
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 2537
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 07:09 |
I don´t like the term "Christian Prog" where the lyrics are overtly Christian.
I´m not sure if there is "Islamic Prog" or "Buddhist Prog", but the question is how would a Christian feel about listening to a band that says they are an "Islamic Prog band" and the lyrics are only about the Islamic faith?
I prefer a more broader outlook, where the lyrics have a more spiritual feel
In the 70´s, Kansas were sometimes called a "Spiritual Prog Band" because the lyrics were open to interpretation. Crypic Vision´s lyrics are also very spiritual without forcing Christianity down the listeners throat.
|
|
Jim Garten
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin & Razor Guru
Joined: February 02 2004
Location: South England
Status: Offline
Points: 14693
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 07:27 |
Admin note:
Tommydouglas on page 4 of this thread wrote:
I'm impressed that, on the first page (I haven't read the others yet) people were respectful in their replies avoiding the usual "I hate religion" defensive. Impressive since the anti-relgion folks tend to be extremely defensive and usually more dogmatic and fundamentalist than those they're criticizing.  |
Unfortunately this has not always been the case since; several posts have had to be deleted/hidden by the Admin team; this is not censorship of thought in any way shape or form, merely reacting to those either genuinely offended by the bile shown in some posts, or deleting posts before they can cause offence.
This is an open forum so please bear in mind that whilst honest (occasionally heated) debate is welcomed, insults to individuals or belief systems are not.
I would also ask again that the debate be confined to "Christian prog vs secular prog" only, and not veer into a generalised debate about religion per se; if it goes back this way, the thread will be moved to 'General Discussions'
Many thanks,
Jim
PS - Great debate, BTW  ; pray continue (no pun intended) but bearing in mind the above caveat
|
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
|
artguyken
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 05 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 187
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 08:11 |
Jorvik wrote:
kiwi wrote:
Jorvik wrote:
[QUOTE=kiwi]An athiest has faith that there
is no God.
|
I wish people would stop regurgitating this falsehood: atheism is not a belief that there is no god or gods. It is a lack of belief due to there being no evidence.
[snip]
|
My question is this: are there any examples of christian prog where the message isn't "this is what we believe, this is good, come join us and be saved" (to put it very crudely) or isn't an affirmation of what is believed or written, but which is openly critical of, and negative about, christianity's opponents?
To clarify, to have christian prog isn't necessarily to be negative about ‘the other side’, it can just be postive about itself. Is there any christian prog where the lyrics are to the effect of "atheism is wrong, atheists are amoral [or insert your favourite counter-atheist view here], your arguments are flawed" etc?
|
Certainly! Ajalon, Apple Pie, Cryptic Vision, Kansas & Proto-Kaw (though neither of the last 2 are Christian bands, Kerry Livgren's lyrics, post conversion, reflect his world view) Orphan Project, Glass Hammer, Salem Hill & Ten Point Ten, to name a few all have plenty of music that is top notch and is without the either proselytizing or condemnation. Truly, of all the CProg that I know, the Neal Morse album that started the flame wars here is the single most inflammatory album by a Christian artist. I don't like the term Christian Prog. It's set apart purely on the basis of lyrical content -- what other religion or philosophy has their own pigeon hole? Is it helpful or detrimental?! If so, to who? I'd personally rather they were all just mixed in with all the other prog. HA! Actually, since most prog can't be found in stores and has to be bought online, the label becomes more artificial. Either way, I think it puts the artists at a disadvantage because there is a scrutiny applied that doesn't exist in the same way for other recording artists, it puts expectations on their music from the start. For those with certain religious beliefs it the music is examined to see if it fits with their theology. For others who think that Christian music is going to be either 'in your face' about spiritual belief or think it is going to be condemning, they are more likely to simply avoid it, when they might not find anything offensive if they had listened and are missing out on some fine music. Dave Beegle is an excellent guitarist with a number of solo albums with strong prog elements, such as his wonderful Kara Kum, which is included on CPR 1. It's instrumental! There is no message conveyed except some great music, but he happens to be a Christian. Does that make it Christian Prog? I think the original idea of the group of guys who put together those CPR samplers was to identify artists of belief for people of belief who love prog. Prog is a niche market. CProg is a niche within a niche. If you have a niche, scratch it, I guess.
|
|
Trademark
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 08:20 |
"what other religion or philosophy has their own pigeon hole?" Maybe Magma, a niche unto itself.
|
|
Jorvik
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 21 2007
Location: The Danelaw
Status: Offline
Points: 81
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 08:49 |
artguyken wrote:
Jorvik wrote:
My question is this: are there any examples of christian prog where the message isn't "this is what we believe, this is good, come join us and be saved" (to put it very crudely) or isn't an affirmation of what is believed or written, but which is openly critical of, and negative about, christianity's opponents?
To clarify, to have christian prog isn't necessarily to be negative about ‘the other side’, it can just be postive about itself. Is there any christian prog where the lyrics are to the effect of "atheism is wrong, atheists are amoral [or insert your favourite counter-atheist view here], your arguments are flawed" etc?
|
...to name a few all have plenty of music that is top notch and is without the either proselytizing or condemnation... |
I'm sorry for not expressing myself more clearly, I was actually genuinely wondering whether there is
any Cprog that is condemnatory. Or is it only
Aprog (to coin a neologism) that comes across as reactionary? (I say this because some people seemed a little perturbed by the bluntness of Greg Lake in ELP's The Only Way and it struck me that it's hard to put across an atheistic view without seemingly mocking or knocking religion.) With regard to labelling, I find it helpful as it allows me to steer clear of artists I wouldn't want to spend time and money on. I've actually learnt from this thread a few bands to avoid – I can concentrate my efforts elsewhere . You gotta have a system: so much prog, so little time (and money). The ‘musician who just happens to be a christian’ case is a bit different: if there is genuinely no religious content to the lyrics (or no lyrics at all!) I would be okay with it and think it would be a shame is such an artist was labelled as Cprog, or whichever label you want to use; I'd use that label solely for the ‘prog as a vehicle for a christian message‘ type which I don't want to hear (and seemingly neither does Iván). The Strawbs' Dave Cousins would fall in to the former category for me and I hate to see them labelled as Cprog when there's no real christian element to them (I'd consider The Hangman and the Papist to be about sectarianism). I suppose it boils down to this: the music should be known for its actions, not the religion, or lack thereof, of the people who make it. If we didn't have labels, I might accidentally buy some prog metal and feel that I'd wasted my money as I don't really like metal and I can't see that changing. Maybe the prog metal label might put off some music that I'd actually quite like, but like I said earlier, with limited resources, you need a filtering system. Sometimes that's genre, for some people it's the religious beliefs of the musicians, sometimes it might even be an arguably uncharacteristic sound sample on some website somewhere. We humans seem to feel a need to categorise things, some people more than others.
|
|
I ljuset från min lykta
ser jag skuggan utav sorg
drömmar som har slocknat
ifrån ett liv som haft sin tid
|
|
artguyken
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 05 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 187
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 09:07 |
Jorvik wrote:
[QUOTE=artguyken]
[QUOTE=Jorvik]
I'm sorry for not expressing myself more clearly, I was actually genuinely wondering whether there is
any Cprog that is condemnatory. Or is it only
Aprog (to coin a neologism) that comes across as reactionary? (I say this because some people seemed a little perturbed by the bluntness of Greg Lake in ELP's The Only Way and it struck me that it's hard to put across an atheistic view without seemingly mocking or knocking religion.)
With regard to labelling, I find it helpful as it allows me to steer clear of artists I wouldn't want to spend time and money on. I've actually learnt from this thread a few bands to avoid – I can concentrate my efforts elsewhere . You gotta have a system: so much prog, so little time (and money).
The ‘musician who just happens to be a christian’ case is a bit different: if there is genuinely no religious content to the lyrics (or no lyrics at all!) I would be okay with it and think it would be a shame is such an artist was labelled as Cprog, or whichever label you want to use; I'd use that label solely for the ‘prog as a vehicle for a christian message‘ type which I don't want to hear (and seemingly neither does Iván).
The Strawbs' Dave Cousins would fall in to the former category for me and I hate to see them labelled as Cprog when there's no real christian element to them (I'd consider The Hangman and the Papist to be about sectarianism).
I suppose it boils down to this: the music should be known for its actions, not the religion, or lack thereof, of the people who make it.
|
Jorvik, I suppose condemnation is somewhat in the ear of the beholder. I cannot think of any CProg that IS condemning, with the noted exception of the rather bitter tone of NM's Sola Scriptura, which is a turn off for me. It leaves me shaking my head, because the rest of his are so good. I'm curious, what artists have you decided to avoid? (besides NM, I'd assume) As to the labels, yes, they can be helpful. As you stated, I have little patience for metal/prog metal, but by the same token, friends have shared some in that category that was quite good. In any genre, it's not all created equal. And, like you, I do not have endless resources for my purchasing -- "so much music, so little dime!"
|
|
Jorvik
Forum Groupie
Joined: December 21 2007
Location: The Danelaw
Status: Offline
Points: 81
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 10:32 |
artguyken wrote:
Jorvik, I suppose condemnation is somewhat in the ear of the beholder. |
True, much as I've often thought that offense is also in the mind of the beholder, rather than a problem with the person who has supposedly caused offence.
artguyken wrote:
'm curious, what artists have you decided to avoid? (besides NM, I'd assume) |
Pretty much all the ones recommended to the OP (and others) at one time or another in the thread . A while ago someone recommended Glass Hammer to me. When I discovered PA I looked them up and wasn't encouraged by what I read in some of the reviews: mention of them in this thread sealed the deal, I shan't bother to investigate them.
|
|
I ljuset från min lykta
ser jag skuggan utav sorg
drömmar som har slocknat
ifrån ett liv som haft sin tid
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 11:07 |
This discussion has wandered way beyond the original Topic and is no longer related to Progressive Music, so I am moving it to General Discussions.
However, please bear in mind that we already have two religious discussion threads running there so this thread may soon be drawn to a conclusion and closed.
|
|
What?
|
|
kiwi
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 05 2008
Location: New Zealand
Status: Offline
Points: 127
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 12:50 |
Jorvik wrote:
kiwi wrote:
[QUOTE=Jorvik]
[QUOTE=kiwi]An athiest has faith that there
is no God.
|
To clarify, to have christian prog isn't necessarily to be negative about ‘the other side’, it can just be postive about itself. Is there any christian prog where the lyrics are to the effect of "atheism is wrong, atheists are amoral [or insert your favourite counter-atheist view here], your arguments are flawed" etc?
|
Good point. It is better to work from a point of commonality than to try and focus what is wrong with another's stance. Or to put it another way racing car drivers are better off focusing on the track ahead rather than the wall.
|
|
We, verily, have made music as a ladder for your souls, a means whereby they may be lifted up unto the realm on high.. (Baha'u'llah)
music
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 12:58 |
darqDean wrote:
This discussion has wandered way beyond the original Topic and is no longer related to Progressive Music, so I am moving it to General Discussions.
However, please bear in mind that we already have two religious discussion threads running there so this thread may soon be drawn to a conclusion and closed. |
Dean, I always agree with the decisions of the Adms, but in this case I ask that this thread is allowed to continue, we complain (with reason) that the forum is getting boring, because threads start and die soon because of lack of interest, well, this one has gathered a lot of interest.
The problem is that because how the question was asked, this thread should had always been in the General Discussions topic...Why?
Simple, because if somebody would had asked, Do you like X Christian Prog band? or even Do you like Christian Prog? The right place would had been in Prog forums.
But the word VS implies confrontation, it implies Do you think that Christian Prog is better than Secular Prog? So the main point ceased to be Prog to become a thread about Christianity vs Secularity (don't know if this last word exists in English . but I'm sure you get my point).
But I believe it's ok, if people want to debate about this issue in the in the General Discussion section, great, as long as the debate is respectful as this one has been during most of it.
If there is one, two or ten religious debates in the General Discussion Section, and all have several pages, this is what the members want and are interested in.
My two cents
Iván
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 13:16 |
|
^ point noted Iván. I said "may be drawn to a conclusion and closed" giving no reasons or prerequisites either way for closing or keeping it open. As you say, as long as it remains respectful there is no issue, however some members have raised private concerns over this thread over the past few days which we have to take into consideration.
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 15:06 |
Artguyken wrote:
| I don't like the term Christian Prog. It's set apart purely on the basis of lyrical content -- what other religion or philosophy has their own pigeon hole? Is it helpful or detrimental?! If so, to who? I'd personally rather they were all just mixed in with all the other prog. |
Just a question Artguyken….You talk as if the secular industry had created that label and arbitrarily placed it on Christian Rock, but that’s not the case. If somebody must be blamed for this label are the Protestant Christians.
Christian Rock is a creation of Christians to be used as a method of evangelism,
First it was Gospel, which was born as a response to secular music, but they discovered it was also profitable, there’s Gospel almost in every genre, there’s Bluegrass Gospel, Country Gospel, Blues Gospel, etc. To the point that it’s recognized by the industry as a genre, Gospel artists go to the Grammys and proudly receive their awards in the same night and under the same roof in which even satanic bands are awarded, it became part of the industry and they share the same stage and fight for the same public.
But Gospel became a cliché because popularity of Rock grew exponentially, and in 1970 Mind Garage signed a contract with EMI, then came Larry Norman with "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?" and they found it was also profitable and a way to evangelize kids, because that’s the main reason of Christian Rock boom.
For God’s sake, since the birth of Metal, it has been accused of Satanism and Witchcraft, but as soon as they found there was a market, they created Christian Metal.
If you take the Christian name from Christian Rock, it wouuldn’t exist, that’s the reason why it was created, as an alternative to secular Prog.
Artguyken wrote:
| HA! Actually, since most prog can't be found in stores and has to be bought online, the label becomes more artificial. Either way, I think it puts the artists at a disadvantage because there is a scrutiny applied that doesn't exist in the same way for other recording artists, it puts expectations on their music from the start. For those with certain religious beliefs it the music is examined to see if it fits with their theology. For others who think that Christian music is going to be either 'in your face' about spiritual belief or think it is going to be condemning, they are more likely to simply avoid it, when they might not find anything offensive if they had listened and are missing out on some fine music. |
But Artguyken…Who created that lable???? Why do musicians as John and Dino Elefante have labels exclusively dedicated to promote Christian music? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE LABELED AS CHRISTIAN ROCKERS.
Why do festivals as CFest, Soul Survivor or EXO Day exist? Because Christian musicians love that label, they fought for it, so if they are scrutinized, it’s their own responsibility.
And believe me, it’s not a disadvantage, they have a captive audience, most Fundamentalist sectors only listen CRock if they listen Rock, so they are in advantage with other artists who have to gain their own audience.
There are hundreds of Regional C Rock Festivals organized by producers who want to earn money aw much as evangelize, if it wasn’t profitable, it wouldn’t exist, so don’t complain, if somebody has to be held responsible for the term Christian Rock we are talking about the Christian Rockers, nobody forced them to accept that label, they choose it and exploit it with great success, both evangelistic and financial.
If it wasn’t for the Christian label, they would have to fight for audience in the streets with all the other artists, and believe me the vast majority wouldn’t have a chance a outside a captive audience like Christian Rock fans or a safe environment as the Crock Festivals, where just mentioning the name of Jesus grants them applauses.
BTW: I seen a few Catholic Music shows in the Catholic channel and believe me most of the singers are not better.
Iván
Dean: As always I respect your decision.
|
|
|
|
artguyken
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 05 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 187
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 16:00 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Artguyken wrote:
| I don't like the term Christian Prog. It's set apart purely on the basis of lyrical content -- what other religion or philosophy has their own pigeon hole? Is it helpful or detrimental?! If so, to who? I'd personally rather they were all just mixed in with all the other prog. |
Just a question Artguyken….You talk as if the secular industry had created that label and arbitrarily placed it on Christian Rock, but that’s not the case. If somebody must be blamed for this label are the Protestant Christians.
Christian Rock is a creation of Christians to be used as a method of evangelism,
First it was Gospel, which was born as a response to secular music, but they discovered it was also profitable, there’s Gospel almost in every genre, there’s Bluegrass Gospel, Country Gospel, Blues Gospel, etc. To the point that it’s recognized by the industry as a genre, Gospel artists go to the Grammys and proudly receive their awards in the same night and under the same roof in which even satanic bands are awarded, it became part of the industry and they share the same stage and fight for the same public.
But Gospel became a cliché because popularity of Rock grew exponentially, and in 1970 Mind Garage signed a contract with EMI, then came Larry Norman with "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?" and they found it was also profitable and a way to evangelize kids, because that’s the main reason of Christian Rock boom.
For God’s sake, since the birth of Metal, it has been accused of Satanism and Witchcraft, but as soon as they found there was a market, they created Christian Metal.
If you take the Christian name from Christian Rock, it wouuldn’t exist, that’s the reason why it was created, as an alternative to secular Prog.
Artguyken wrote:
| HA! Actually, since most prog can't be found in stores and has to be bought online, the label becomes more artificial. Either way, I think it puts the artists at a disadvantage because there is a scrutiny applied that doesn't exist in the same way for other recording artists, it puts expectations on their music from the start. For those with certain religious beliefs it the music is examined to see if it fits with their theology. For others who think that Christian music is going to be either 'in your face' about spiritual belief or think it is going to be condemning, they are more likely to simply avoid it, when they might not find anything offensive if they had listened and are missing out on some fine music. |
But Artguyken…Who created that lable???? Why do musicians as John and Dino Elefante have labels exclusively dedicated to promote Christian music? BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE LABELED AS CHRISTIAN ROCKERS.
Why do festivals as CFest, Soul Survivor or EXO Day exist? Because Christian musicians love that label, they fought for it, so if they are scrutinized, it’s their own responsibility.
And believe me, it’s not a disadvantage, they have a captive audience, most Fundamentalist sectors only listen CRock if they listen Rock, so they are in advantage with other artists who have to gain their own audience.
There are hundreds of Regional C Rock Festivals organized by producers who want to earn money aw much as evangelize, if it wasn’t profitable, it wouldn’t exist, so don’t complain, if somebody has to be held responsible for the term Christian Rock we are talking about the Christian Rockers, nobody forced them to accept that label, they choose it and exploit it with great success, both evangelistic and financial.
If it wasn’t for the Christian label, they would have to fight for audience in the streets with all the other artists, and believe me the vast majority wouldn’t have a chance a outside a captive audience like Christian Rock fans or a safe environment as the Crock Festivals, where just mentioning the name of Jesus grants them applauses.
BTW: I seen a few Catholic Music shows in the Catholic channel and believe me most of the singers are not better.
Iván
Dean: As always I respect your decision. |
Do you simply enjoy being argumentative, Ivan? I blamed no one for the label and even mentioned that CProg was formed by an association of the Prog bands that happen to be Christians. Most of them are not on CCM labels. (Whether or not you like CCM or Christian Rock matters little to me. You can sit and make all the accusations you want. No one is forcing you to like it or buy it). My point was that labels can be harmful as well as useful depending on how they are perceived.
|
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: May 22 2004
Location: So Cal, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4338
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 16:12 |
Actually Ivan all the major labels have had subset labels for Gospel and Inspirational music going back to the beginning of recorded music. They still have categories for those things at the Grammies. (Kerry Livgren was actually nominated for a best inspirational song in 1982 with Crossfire while still with Kansas.) When Kerry left Kansas and joined AD they recorded their first album on CBS. They were promoted on secular radio stations and they preferred it that way. They were playing concerts in clubs where people were drinking and they never preached. Yet it was the label that moved them to Sparrow records and marketed them as gospel. That basically killed them. You see these labels and their Christian offshoots such as Maranatha music market strictly to and for Christians. Those companies started because they felt, and rightly so, the major labels did little or no promotion for the artists that were pigeon holed there. They aren't trying to evangelize because they know their market is Christian. The music is pretty bland or vanilla and some of it is used in contemporary worship. Some of it would be labeled folk or light pop. I am pretty sure there are not many if any at all prog bands in that stable.
The thing is most of the bands Ken mentioned in this thread do not want to be labelled as Christian Bands or Christian anything. They happen to be in bands that have members that are practicing Christian and some that are not. In some cases that happens to be the guy who writes the lyrics is a Christian. That is really the whole point. It is us that are labeling it that and are we labeling it Christian prog because of the lyrics alone? If my vice president of my division of the company happens to be Muslim does that make our whole division Muslim? Or if the President is Jewish does that make it a Jewish company? Of course not. This music is not used in worship services it is not marketed strictly to Christians and it is prog in every sense of the word. Do we label Rush "Humanist prog" because for the point of view Neal Pert takes? Of course not. So why is this one point of view the only one we do?
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?"
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 20:58 |
Garion81 wrote:
The thing is most of the bands Ken mentioned in this thread do not want to be labelled as Christian Bands or Christian anything.
Hi Garion, I don't just replied to a post by Artguyken who literally said:
I don't like the term Christian Prog. It's set apart purely on the basis of lyrical content -- what other religion or philosophy has their own pigeon hole?
This implies that non Christians lump all music WITH CHRISTIAN LYRIC CONTENT into Christian Rock or Prog, and my point is that nobody is doing nothing, the concept of Christian Rock to identify Rock with Evangelist purpose was created by Christian musicians, he didn't quoted any band, he just talked in general terms.
If I go to the Catholic station and find a bunch of Catholic kids performing music with Cathoilic preaching, its' Catholic Rock, that's all. In the same way any band who plays in CFest is a Christian Rock band, nobody gave them that title, they choosed it.
They happen to be in bands that have members that are practicing Christian and some that are not. In some cases that happens to be the guy who writes the lyrics is a Christian.
Then the non Christian Rocker can and should leave if he doesn't agree I believe you remember this Steve Walsh interview:
|
K2K: I understood that the reason you actually left the band originally, and then ultimately why Kerry left, was due mostly to religious reasons, or differences.
SW: Yes. I would say that it was due to religious beliefs. I do have religious beliefs, but it was the way that they were being...
K2K: So is that part of the reason why he quit the band?
SW: The reason was that the lyrics were just getting... Kerry, at that point when he was writing "Dust In The Wind" and "The Wall" and "Carry On My Wayward Son" and all, he was on a journey, man. I was along because he wrote some great stuff. But, once he found himself, I just couldn't empathize with the salvation that he was trying to get me to put across to masses and masses of people. It just didn't fly.
|
So, despite at least Steve Walsh and Robby Steindhardt (at least) didn't wanted to be part of a Christian band, Kerry started to turn Kansas into a Christian Rock band, so both simply left, they didn't wanted to be part of it, and it was an honest decision.
We all know Neal Morse is making Christian Rock even when Mike Portnoy is a Jewish born musician, the fact that he is not Christian doesn't stop him from being part of a Chreistian band, maybe for friendshiop or maybe because he likes the music, I don't know,
But if an evangelist form of Rock exists and a band starts to preach, they can't blame anybody for being labeled as Christian Rock.
You can't play two different sets of cards, promnote a religion, make religious lyrics for their audience, but refuse to be called a religious band to avoid being rejeceted by people who are not Christian Rockers, either you are or you are not part of a Christian Rock band.
That is really the whole point. It is us that are labeling it that and are we labeling it Christian prog because of the lyrics alone?
If a band had Christian lyrics, preaches and tries to convince people that they should search for salvation in Christianity, we are talking about a Christian Rock band,
Genesis did lyrics about the Revelation, but nobody will label them as Christian Rock because they were not preaching, the same goes for The Strawbs, despite I believe they are Catholics or Aphrodite's Child who did a conceptual album about the Book of Revelation.
Lets be honest, if somebody is labeled as Christian Rocker, is because he/she/they want to be there.
If my vice president of my division of the company happens to be Muslim does that make our whole division Muslim? Or if the President is Jewish does that make it a Jewish company? Of course not.
No, but if your company stops working Friday at 6 PM to celebrate the Sabbath while writting articles in favour of Judaism and prohibits the workers to eat pork meat, it turns into a Jewsh company, and the people that work there despite their religion are working in a company that promotes Jewish Religion.
But the case is different and you know, the Christian Rocker is PREACHING CHRISTIANITY, if a member doesn't agree, he can leave as Steve and Robby did, if they stay with the band, they are being part of this evangelism despite their personal beliefs.
This music is not used in worship services it is not marketed strictly to Christians and it is prog in every sense of the word. Do we label Rush "Humanist prog" because for the point of view Neal Pert takes? Of course not. So why is this one point of view the only one we do?
The music for worshiping is RELIGIOUS MUSIC Garion, here or in China, you can call it anyway, you can change the name, but oif their goal is to transmit the message of a Christian Church, it's Christian Rock.
Christian Rock was a label created by Christians, nobody did it except them, so if they don't want to be labeled as Christoian Rock musicians, they should stop preaching.
Now, a band formed by Christians that plays secular music, it's not a Christian band, but as soon they start to preach, it´s Chrsitian Prog, because their goal is not art exclusively, it's also Christian propaganda.
Iván
|
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - February 15 2008 at 21:10
|
|
|
|
artguyken
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 05 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 187
|
Posted: February 15 2008 at 22:46 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Garion81 wrote:
The thing is most of the bands Ken mentioned in this thread do not want to be labelled as Christian Bands or Christian anything.
Hi Garion, I don't just replied to a post by Artguyken who literally said:
I don't like the term Christian Prog. It's set apart purely on the basis of lyrical content -- what other religion or philosophy has their own pigeon hole?
This implies that non Christians lump all music WITH CHRISTIAN LYRIC CONTENT into Christian Rock or Prog, and my point is that nobody is doing nothing, the concept of Christian Rock to identify Rock with Evangelist purpose was created by Christian musicians, he didn't quoted any band, he just talked in general terms. |
|
You're mixing two different things, Ivan. I am talking about prog. That's what this site is about. It's what this thread is about. I am NOT talking about the marketing of Christian music in general, which, as Garion pointed out, is marketed to Christians. The CProg label is what I am talking about, but if you would read a bit further in my post, I also talked about how most prog isn't sold in stores, but is mostly an internet phenomenon anyway. Still, the question I raised was simply whether the label was helpful or harmful. You seem set on an anti-Christian music crusade. We all get it, you're against Christian music. You don't like music that sings the praises of God, unless severe restrictions are placed on how it can be used, performed, broadcast or sold. Now that we all understand your position, do you think we could move on?
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Christian prog vs secular prog
