Boils My Piss

4xMWwdLh.jpg
 
Coralkong said:
Not my thing, but what's wrong with that?
Click to expand...
I'm with Peen. For starters it's appropriation and it's also got cultish elements (luring the seekers in with free Nike shoes). It takes a thousands year tradition /philosophy/faith and cheapens it to a trendy commodity.
Faith/religion/philosophy need not "reel 'em in" the seekers will gravitate naturally towards whatever fits their aesthetic...that's the way it should be anyway


TL/DR....roawk church cheapens the whole of religion
 
Coralkong said:
Not my thing, but what's wrong with that?
Click to expand...

For one, anything that casts the aesthetic abomination of "worship music" in a positive light is wrong.

Second, this faux-insightful article relies on ye olde boring "Christianity vs. gays" panic as the source of its meager compare and contrast--neverminding that whole swaths of mainline Christianity have actual doctrinal statements and policy positions on the books about "hey, gay folks are cool with us." It's a lame bit of "controversy" that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of Christianity. The worst of the anti gay business seems to come from particularly weird congregations/communities where the whole secular/pious art/entertainment debate is a thing. But no real investigation of that tension. Just bromides about seeming open mindedness and props to edgy cute worship leaders in alt rock drag.

Finally, this sort of shit proves what a complete conceptual/intellectual shitshow that poptimism is. That a former snark factory like Pitchfork is out there apologizing for fucking U2-lite worshiptainment crud because "it's popular so who are we to judge" is just mind boggling.

Truly vapid crud masquerading as "longform" journalism. It's a fucking PR piece.
 
idn_smilie

Still don't understand your rage.

If you don't like the church service, don't go.

Or are you mad at the article?
 
Last edited:
What's odd to me is that this is a thing worth writing about now. A lot of churches have been doing contemporary services for years and years. Some of it's rock music, some folk, some jazz, etc. etc.

I ran the sound board for a church focused on Generation Xers and younger people way back in 1999-2000. Geez, I'm old. We had a full rock band most Sundays, and we were far from the first church to do that.

As for churches "appropriating" rock music, I don't see how that's a problem. Rock music is an appropriation of blues, jazz, country, etc. etc. Seems fitting that rock music gets appropriated.

I do get a little freaked out when churches get too into the marketing thing, and the church featured in the article probably would make me feel a bit sleazy. And it sounds a bit Jesus freaky for my tastes.

But I have no problem with churches using contemporary music. The church has frequently used popular music styles in services, going back centuries. It shouldn't have to stick with music written in the 1700s and 1800s.

All that said, don't get me started on most of the music that passes for contemporary Christian pop/rock these days. It's worse than John Mayer's worst song.
 
Last edited:
Coralkong said:
idn_smilie

Still don't understand your rage.

If you don't like the church service, don't go.

Or are you mad at the article?
Click to expand...

The article...and tangentially at worship music for simply existing and creating an unassailable (because religion) ball of useless faux rock that embraces all of rock/pop music's worst elements in order to turn church into an ahistorical pep rally.
 
Christianity has inspired great art.

Some rock and roll is great art.

No Christian rock is great art.

People who need contemporary music to make Christianity "relevant" to their lives are probably close to committing a heresy or two.
 
Peen Simmons said:
The article...and tangentially at worship music for simply existing and creating an unassailable (because religion) ball of useless faux rock that embraces all of rock/pop music's worst elements in order to turn church into an ahistorical pep rally.
Click to expand...

I think you might be uncomfortable with the pep rally element of some evangelical churches, regardless of the kind of music that's played. If so, I get that. Pep rallies aren't really my thing either.

Peen Simmons said:
Christianity has inspired great art.

Some rock and roll is great art.

No Christian rock is great art.

People who need contemporary music to make Christianity "relevant" to their lives are probably close to committing a heresy or two.
Click to expand...

So people back in the 1700s who used Bach music in services were close heretical? Churches have embraced contemporary music styles for centuries. The style of worship doesn't have to freeze with hymns written 150 to 300 years ago. Heck, most of what we think of now as standard hymns didn't even exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

As for "no Christian rock is great art," I can really disagree. But I could name plenty of great songs by "secular" artists that deal with spiritual and even Christian themes.
 
OK, well thanks for the clarification.

I wonder if composers who wrote Christian-based/themed music in the 16th, 17th, 18th century were viewed by their contemporaries in the same light.

Interesting thought.
 
Grant Gross said:
So people back in the 1700s who used Bach music in services were close heretical? Churches have embraced contemporary music styles for centuries. The style of worship doesn't have to freeze with hymns written 150 to 300 years ago. Heck, most of what we think of now as standard hymns didn't even exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

As for "no Christian rock is great art," I can really disagree. But I could name plenty of great songs by "secular" artists that deal with spiritual and even Christian themes.
Click to expand...



Beat me to it.

I would simply suggest that before an entire genre of music is dismissed, perhaps a more in-depth sampling might be in order before passing definitive judgment.

Of course, I guess it boils down to one's definition of art.
 
Grant Gross said:
So people back in the 1700s who used Bach music in services were close heretical? Churches have embraced contemporary music styles for centuries. The style of worship doesn't have to freeze with hymns written 150 to 300 years ago. Heck, most of what we think of now as standard hymns didn't even exist for the first 1500 years of Christianity.

As for "no Christian rock is great art," I can really disagree. But I could name plenty of great songs by "secular" artists that deal with spiritual and even Christian themes.
Click to expand...

Go back and read. It's not the use of contemporary music but the need--specifically for the veneer of "relevance" that I challenged.

There are probably no dedicated Christian rock artists capable of even competing with secular pop B-teamers like Tom Petty or Metallica or Vampire Weekend or Taylor Swift or whomever in terms of hooks, charisma, content, etc. and there's certainly no Christian rock Dylan or Beatles or Prince or Madonna--say what you will about those artists' relationship to/contributions to organized religion.
 
Coralkong said:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I could offer at least one suggestion for you to check out, @Peen Simmons , if you're interested.
Click to expand...

Shoot. Though to be fair, this article is specifically about worship music...which I hate with a passion clean and true.

Semi-Xtian stuff in the vein of a Pedro the Lion or Sufjan Stevens isn't really the same thing.

If your recommendation ends with "...ewsboys" or "...ars of Clay," I may need to have Deebo buy you a bus ticket to his house so Sonny can abuse you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top