Sometimes I have this thought about music that I can't defend and I think sounds crazy. I'd actually like your opinion/take on it. I am sure it will come across as preachy, but that's mostly because it is preachy.
When we consume and enjoy music, are we encouraging an individual's destruction? Specifically, the destruction of the individuals creating the music?
Popular music today is so firmly entrenched in heartache, drugs, sex and debauchery. I am convinced that the music today is worse than it was when I was a kid, because I can still listen to the music from the early 90's when I started riding the bus and getting my first listen to popular music. There is much less overt, glorified talk about sex and drugs in the musical "stylings" of my childhood than there is today. Listening to the radio makes me feel ill if I stop and listen to what they are saying.
But it's no secret that drugs, heartache and sex are what make good music in a world post-Elvis. Sometimes I find myself wishing that my favorite artists would get their heart broken or would relapse so they'd put out a good album again. It's an entirely selfish thought on my part. It's also what I have been more-or-less conditioned to think.
Here's an example: The Smashing Pumpkins were creating their first album in like a decade a few years ago. (If you don't know, they are essentially the third best grunge band of the 90's, meaning they get mentioned in every "best band ever" list, but never before Nirvana or Pearl Jam.) I didn't really experience grunge, being born in 1985 (meaning I can't appreciate music until I am like twelve, which was 97, which was boy bands and Britney), but I have come to appreciate the hits of the above mentioned bands.
When the pumpkins were creating that first album in like a decade, there was a lot of chatter that it could never be as good as their original works. That's not new or surprising. What I found interesting is that the band came out, mid-production, with a statement that those doubts were pissing them off. It went something like this:
"To hear people say that we can never produce music, or be as creative, as we once were when we were fried out of our minds on drugs is insulting and demeaning." It was both well articulated and profound, in my opinion. I don't know if their subsequent albums were any good (but I also don't really know for myself if their first ones were), but that quote stayed with me. People who loved this band were essentially rooting for more disaster in their lives, so they could suck some pleasure out of it.
Do I do that? I must. Probably not actively, (at least not often, but I have at least once lamented that I wish Stephan Jenkins of Third Eye Blind would start doing Crystal Meth and screwing Charlize Theron again), but does that matter?
This is the age-old issue with rock and roll. It comes from a place of hate, loss, pain and anger. Those emotions and experiences fuel truly gripping and fantastic music that speaks to generations, but either leads to binges of sex, drugs and alcohol, or the fame and success takes away the situations of hate, loss, pain and anger. Either way, us fans are left thinking either a) it's too bad that Rocker X is killing himself with drugs, but he keeps spitting out fantastic music, or b) it's too bad that Rocker X got wealthy and comfortable, I would have liked to have a few more good albums out of him.
Of course there are exceptions to this. James Taylor has effectively kicked his cocaine addictions, at least as far as I can tell, and still makes great music. But he was never singing true rock-and-roll, where he fights the man and sings from a place of anger. Maybe this issue only applies to music that is fueled by personal disaster. Bands that sing for causes or in defense of something might last longer (like Incubus, which has consistently turned out quality music for a while now), or that just sing about life and experiences (like, I don't know, Taylor Swift? Maybe all country music?), or bands that just make no sense half the time like The Red Hot Chili Peppers.
But the top music makers of today are people like Adele, Katy Perry, Kanye West and Lady Gaga. I am sure I am missing some big ones (sure, throw in Jay-Z, and I guess the Biebs and Taylor Swift). Those names fall under two groups: certifiably crazy and talented (Kanye and Gaga), and tons of heartache and/or debauchery (Adele, Perry, Gaga, Kanye). Adele and Kanye are two of the only new musicians I have really enjoyed in the last, I don't know, five years?
Here's where I really start to talk about stuff that I don't understand. Reality Music Shows and interviews with musicians have taught me that true music comes from within. It comes from either the pain and suffering of loss or the joy of love. Isn't the first of those two options, well, awful? It's one thing if writing and performing music based on loss and pain is therapeutic, but at what point does it become exploitative? At what point am I contributing to someone's poor choices and harmful dependencies, when I buy and appreciate their heartache and then don't enjoy the following, less compelling music.
So, what about gospel music? Isn't that the only music that can come from a true, sustained well of joy? Why do I hate it?
In all fairness, I don't listen to it. Hardly ever. But I have tried it. I grew up with it, and have gone back to test it a few times, and am continually amazed at how bland, boring, and unoriginal it can be. It's as if someone heard a real rock band and said "let's Christianize that," which apparently means "let's copy the sound and hope for the best."
Christian music can't really have the edge of rock music, because of the lack of sexdrugsalcoholdebaucheryetc. Can playing music that comes from a place of peace, joy and forgiveness be, I don't know, good?
This leads me to wonder if rock music is fundamentally flawed, from a Christian perspective. Is it in fact the devil's music, like Nat King Cole's dad yelled at him that one time in that one movie I saw on OPB or something when I was young? If that's the case, then, wow, we're screwed up. If it's not the case, then, okay, maybe Christians can make some good stuff?
(Also, don't come to me with a million links and a hundred band names saying "have you heard my band Tattooed Crusaders" or send me a youtube of you singing "better is one day," because I would rather listen to Outkast.)
.jpg) |
| If you ever wonder how I get such great pictures, I google things like "rock and roll" and pretty much take the first thing that pops up. |
When we consume and enjoy music, are we encouraging an individual's destruction? Specifically, the destruction of the individuals creating the music?
Popular music today is so firmly entrenched in heartache, drugs, sex and debauchery. I am convinced that the music today is worse than it was when I was a kid, because I can still listen to the music from the early 90's when I started riding the bus and getting my first listen to popular music. There is much less overt, glorified talk about sex and drugs in the musical "stylings" of my childhood than there is today. Listening to the radio makes me feel ill if I stop and listen to what they are saying.
But it's no secret that drugs, heartache and sex are what make good music in a world post-Elvis. Sometimes I find myself wishing that my favorite artists would get their heart broken or would relapse so they'd put out a good album again. It's an entirely selfish thought on my part. It's also what I have been more-or-less conditioned to think.
Here's an example: The Smashing Pumpkins were creating their first album in like a decade a few years ago. (If you don't know, they are essentially the third best grunge band of the 90's, meaning they get mentioned in every "best band ever" list, but never before Nirvana or Pearl Jam.) I didn't really experience grunge, being born in 1985 (meaning I can't appreciate music until I am like twelve, which was 97, which was boy bands and Britney), but I have come to appreciate the hits of the above mentioned bands.
When the pumpkins were creating that first album in like a decade, there was a lot of chatter that it could never be as good as their original works. That's not new or surprising. What I found interesting is that the band came out, mid-production, with a statement that those doubts were pissing them off. It went something like this:
"To hear people say that we can never produce music, or be as creative, as we once were when we were fried out of our minds on drugs is insulting and demeaning." It was both well articulated and profound, in my opinion. I don't know if their subsequent albums were any good (but I also don't really know for myself if their first ones were), but that quote stayed with me. People who loved this band were essentially rooting for more disaster in their lives, so they could suck some pleasure out of it.
Do I do that? I must. Probably not actively, (at least not often, but I have at least once lamented that I wish Stephan Jenkins of Third Eye Blind would start doing Crystal Meth and screwing Charlize Theron again), but does that matter?
 |
| I like their music but don't really care about their well being, I suppose. |
This is the age-old issue with rock and roll. It comes from a place of hate, loss, pain and anger. Those emotions and experiences fuel truly gripping and fantastic music that speaks to generations, but either leads to binges of sex, drugs and alcohol, or the fame and success takes away the situations of hate, loss, pain and anger. Either way, us fans are left thinking either a) it's too bad that Rocker X is killing himself with drugs, but he keeps spitting out fantastic music, or b) it's too bad that Rocker X got wealthy and comfortable, I would have liked to have a few more good albums out of him.
Of course there are exceptions to this. James Taylor has effectively kicked his cocaine addictions, at least as far as I can tell, and still makes great music. But he was never singing true rock-and-roll, where he fights the man and sings from a place of anger. Maybe this issue only applies to music that is fueled by personal disaster. Bands that sing for causes or in defense of something might last longer (like Incubus, which has consistently turned out quality music for a while now), or that just sing about life and experiences (like, I don't know, Taylor Swift? Maybe all country music?), or bands that just make no sense half the time like The Red Hot Chili Peppers.
But the top music makers of today are people like Adele, Katy Perry, Kanye West and Lady Gaga. I am sure I am missing some big ones (sure, throw in Jay-Z, and I guess the Biebs and Taylor Swift). Those names fall under two groups: certifiably crazy and talented (Kanye and Gaga), and tons of heartache and/or debauchery (Adele, Perry, Gaga, Kanye). Adele and Kanye are two of the only new musicians I have really enjoyed in the last, I don't know, five years?
Here's where I really start to talk about stuff that I don't understand. Reality Music Shows and interviews with musicians have taught me that true music comes from within. It comes from either the pain and suffering of loss or the joy of love. Isn't the first of those two options, well, awful? It's one thing if writing and performing music based on loss and pain is therapeutic, but at what point does it become exploitative? At what point am I contributing to someone's poor choices and harmful dependencies, when I buy and appreciate their heartache and then don't enjoy the following, less compelling music.
So, what about gospel music? Isn't that the only music that can come from a true, sustained well of joy? Why do I hate it?
.jpg) |
| Seriously the best Christian music not called "Jars of Clay." But seriously go listen to this song. |
In all fairness, I don't listen to it. Hardly ever. But I have tried it. I grew up with it, and have gone back to test it a few times, and am continually amazed at how bland, boring, and unoriginal it can be. It's as if someone heard a real rock band and said "let's Christianize that," which apparently means "let's copy the sound and hope for the best."
Christian music can't really have the edge of rock music, because of the lack of sexdrugsalcoholdebaucheryetc. Can playing music that comes from a place of peace, joy and forgiveness be, I don't know, good?
This leads me to wonder if rock music is fundamentally flawed, from a Christian perspective. Is it in fact the devil's music, like Nat King Cole's dad yelled at him that one time in that one movie I saw on OPB or something when I was young? If that's the case, then, wow, we're screwed up. If it's not the case, then, okay, maybe Christians can make some good stuff?
(Also, don't come to me with a million links and a hundred band names saying "have you heard my band Tattooed Crusaders" or send me a youtube of you singing "better is one day," because I would rather listen to Outkast.)
6 comments:
Grant, I enjoyed your thoughtful post particularly because it concerned self-reflection and cultural critique on music and the music industry. Most of us simply will consume what ever entertainment is set before us hardly questioning if it is good, much less if it is even good to take part in its consumption. So, thank you for being so conscientious!
I think the issue you've raised is an important one. Engaging in the entertainment industry involves our support of its product and the people who create it. Whenever we purchase an artist's work, we help perpetuate their work, enable their livelihood as well as their way of life and creativity. For those who find their creative outlet in meditating on destructive relationships or engaging in substance abuse, are we not helping to validate and affirm their personal choices through our financial support of the products that are born from it? How do we not incur some level of responsibility over their eventual physical and spiritual demise? To what avail are our own Christian imitations of these artists' works? What sense is there in propagating and art form that stems from such self-destructive behavior?
As important as these questions are, I think to fixate on the art itself as the thing to be changed or avoided is to miss the central issue. As much as any art is an expression of the mind of its creator, it gains a new life outside of him. It can be ascribed new meaning beyond that of its original intent. There is redemption for an art that can reflect the redemption in wait for the artists of the world. In fact, I believe that in a similar way that all men, no matter how corrupt, bear the Imago Dei as a reflection of their Creator and a hope of who they can become, all art inherently brings glory to God, for it is only by God's grace that art, being the creative act and manifestation of mankind's imagination, is even made possible.
Therefore, I think it is better to love an artist and support their God-given creative gift and pray for their souls, that as they are made free of the shackles of sin, so their art will express this transformation as well.
As for our current Christian imitations of popular music, I agree that they often seem to lack in the artistic integrity and gut-level honesty of the "non-saved" versions. Shouldn't an expression from a redeemed life ring clearer and more profound than the messages coming from the lost of the world? I experience your disappointment when the Christian music industry comes up short time and time again. However, I think that the problem lies in the intent of one artist to glean inspiration from another, to learn from them an adopt it as their own. The problem is more in the CCM industry's attempt to harness the success and mass appeal of one art form while not remaining true to its form. It's my view that CCM has watered down the aesthetic of rock music in an effort to make it "feel" more Christian and polite enough to be endorsed by the church-going population. However, this cuts against the grain of the very fabric of what rock music is all about - the unrefined, unashamed, expression of one's anxieties and confusion. CCM bottles up the artform and scrubs away its edges in an effort to make it more palatable to a Christian culture who tries hard to suppress what is the emotional basis for this music. The result is something that seems watered down and less honest.
Yet, I think there is hope for rock music in the church still. The white washed walls of the conservative evangelical church has lost credibility in the eyes of the world. They've seen through this guise and are looking for unpretentious honesty and vulnerability, an aesthetic which could is inherent in rock music. Furthermore, I challenge anyone who is uncomfortable with the thought of Christian music expressing the same level of angst as popular music to read the Psalms of David or the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Here, we have great examples art where such emotions make sense within the emotional scope of the Christian life.
Having gone on long enough, I'll leave you with this thought: If you value art, search for music that has intrinsic value and when you find it, celebrate it and the person who realized it. Pray for them and pray that the church may take its rightful place as an example of all that is truthful, honest, and good in the realms of creative thought and expression.
-Winston Arblaster
Winston, I am sure you have heard of (and I would assume are a fan of) Ravi Zacharaias. I don't have a lot of exposure to him, but he speaks a lot on redeeming the arts, like you said.
I agree with what you said about art and the shortcomings of Christian music, and appreciate the insights of one who is more artistically inclined than myself.
Hey Grant,
Caleb told me about your blogs a couple months ago. Wyatt is adorable! Anyway, my bro and I just had a similar conversation. For the record, no, in our opinions (his more informed than mine), Smashing Pumpkins new stuff is not as good as their old stuff.
So, my perspective as an artist:
On the big one up top, no, we aren't encouraging an artist's destruction. Even if artwork is inspired by some negative aspect of an artist's life, the artwork created is separate from the life. I appreciate songs, poems, and novels on many levels that have nothing, or very little, to do with their content.
I doubt most people directly root for disaster in artists' lives, but good art does come from loss and suffering, and people want good art. They want the byproduct, not the cause. They are not enjoying the destruction by enjoying the art, because a piece of art, as I said above, is distinct from a life.
Why does more good art stem from suffering and loss than joy and love? Hell if I know, but personally, I think it has to do with non-understanding. People don't get loss and suffering, and non-understanding breeds good art.
For the most part, artists who are Christians who are good at their art don't sign with Christian record labels or go with Christian publishing companies, etc. Why? Because they're creating art that relates to the human condition, not the Christian condition. Because most blatantly marketed Christian art sucks, and good artists want legit recognition and competition. Why does Christian art suck? Lots of general and technical reasons, depending on the genre and the artist, but sometimes because it is a more black and white take on reality than is actual reality, and secular music/art captures reality better than Christian music/art. Unexplainable loss on a personal and communal level exists intensely in this world, whether or not you're a Christian, and sometimes non-Christian artists aren't as hesitant to state this. Maybe I'm wrong, but didn't the rise of the purely Christian art market correspond with the rise of an evangelical culture that wanted to sugar-coat reality and say that if you accept Jesus into your heart, everything would be OK?
I guess a lot of that repeated Winston's views in a different way. Well, I agree.
A good rock (post-hardcore, technically) band made up of Christians that I love: mewithoutyou. Listen to stuff from one of their first three albums. To me, their lyrics speak to the reality of the human condition, and that's what often draws me to certain artists. Actually, often I am initially drawn more to a work of art by its formal qualities, such as the structure of a poem or novel or, in mewithoutyou's case, their unique sound and vocals.
Obviously, I think about this topic. Hope some of that made sense.
Best,
Rachel King
Rachel,
Having Caleb inform you of my blogs' existence feels like high praise, so I will interpret it that way.
I agree with your sentiments that the art is different from the life, my question really stems from rooting for the next piece of art. Isn't hoping for another piece of great, enjoyable art really hoping for more mistakes to learn from? Really big, grand mistakes, potentially? Should I bear some responsibility for that as a consumer, in the same way I should bear responsibility for global warming and the existence of walmart?
It was totally a compliment.
You don't support Walmart? They have cheap organic stuff now! :-)
I guess the reasonings not to shop at Walmart would be: 1) They treat their employees poorly and maybe, since they're profit-driven, if a bunch of people don't buy there, they will reconsider their employee policies. 2) Even if they don't reconsider their policies, they're acting in an unethical way, and I shouldn't support that.
As far as the music industry goes, I'm obviously not gonna say they're not profit-driven, but I think the artist drive makes them more multifaceted than a traditional business, and my relationship as a consumer is slightly different.. For some reason, I think of someone such as Elliott Smith, who would have continued his music and lifestyle whether 5 or 5 million people supported him. I get 2, however, and I think maybe it's one of those Christian conscience issues or case-by-case basis. I like the formal experimentation of a lot of bands even when I don't agree with their lyrics/lifestyle so I actually DO want to support them. To me, perpetuating good art trumps not supporting immoral lifestyles. But then there's people such as David Bazan, from Pedro the Lion, who used to be a Christian and now blatantly blasphemes Christianity in a disrespectful and unintelligent way. That guy isn't getting a cent of my money, and I don't even want to give his recent music hits on Grooveshark or Spotify.
Thanks for the great post!
Post a Comment