Why I left the Conservative Music Movement

John, can you help us understand specifically why you consider most CCM to be turrible, other than that it mimics Top 40 music?

It seems to me that many music critics equate “turrible” with “mass-produced” or “popular,” but I am certainly willing to learn on this issue.

And maybe an example as a point of discussion would be helpful. What do you (and others, like Greg) think of Crowder’s Neon Steeple?

David,

I still prefer recordings on period instruments but I don’t think you are in sin if you listen to horns with valves in them… :)

Greg,

You know that we are not on the same page regarding this subject but I will concede that you can find many examples of the things you mention in your article. The same could be said for YEC but that doesn’t invalidate the position, just makes it suspect to those who have been poorly taught. In general I’m pretty discouraged by the direction that music is going in our circles.

[AndyE]

David,

I still prefer recordings on period instruments but I don’t think you are in sin if you listen to horns with valves in them…

Thanks :) There are some interesting quotes from the past. One that I can remember off the top of my head was written somewhere in the 1500’s, and it said, “When the trumpets stop playing, music begins”. There was a lot of disdain for trumpets by many of the classical composers. The difference is the Baroque era, which really brought the clarina alive (a high register trumpet). Much of that music died after that era, because tastes changed and most people couldn’t play the baroque trumpet. It wasn’t until you had the invention of the piccolo trumpet and some greats like Maurice Andre who focused on this genre in the early and mid 1900’s that it came back in popularity as trumpet pieces. There are some people who really prefer the baroque trumpet, and it does sound different.

[Mark_Smith]

a little off topic, but you seem knowledgeable. I have always loved Mozart’s horn concerti. There aren’t that many, but the music is a joy to listen to. I have always wondered if what is played today by french horn players is what Mozart actually wrote, because as you say, valves are a recent invention. Do you know anything about this>

I don’t know specifically for this piece how it was played, but valves didn’t come to a French Horn until the early 1800’s, about 50 years or more after this piece. They didn’t even look the same. I believe in the 1700’s it was still a single tone instrument and in the middle of the 1700’s they introduced slides that could be interchanged.

dgsweda, it’s actually almost all string instruments that get better with age—really about 75% of an orchestra, and the classical guitar. Now you are correct that metal instruments have improved with metallurgy—that is your trumpet, your saxophone, probably even the flute—in no small part because it was finally possible to do precise machining of metal. Wooden instruments, not so much. That is precisely what I argued.

And it should be pointed out, if we must discuss this, that improved musical technology does not as a rule equate to improved musicality. In church music, I’ve often found the opposite—people get caught up in the gadgets and ignore the larger issues of the music before them.

And Joel raises a good point; I readily concede that when I say “CCM”, I am referring primarily to “pop” CCM, and more specifically what I’ve heard tends to be more along the lines of soft rock than hard rock. Put bluntly, given that song which shall not be named, I’ve half-wondered if referring to black gospel as “CCM” would be almost a racial slur. But the newer version of black gospel is, of course, contemporary, Christian, and most importantly, MUSIC. Which we cannot say about “that song”, though I can say that regrettably I became aware of it as a friend in a CMA church was having trouble singing along.

(does CMA qualify as conservative evangelical these days?)

I don’t know if it’s just a Minnesota thing, but my experience with churches moving to modern music is decidedly not an updated version of the Swan Silvertones. It’s Katy Perry (no relation) without the musical skill or theological content.

Now if my view of the “CCM top 40” is not representative, I’m glad. I’ll be glad to take a look at some other examples (thanks Joel) if people want to bring them up. Especially black Gospel—my kids have been enjoying what they’ve been doing at Deo Cantamus, and further links that would be the “genuine article” would be wonderful.

Hey! No fair calling me out, especially when I’m not on the clock :)

I’m not familiar with Crowder’s “Neon Steeple,” and, to be honest, I’m not interested in throwing other Believers under the bus in specific ways. Maybe that’s an odd thing and inconsistent thing for me to state, but … I’m not going to impugn David Crowder in public – and he may not deserve it; I don’t know; I’d need to sit down and actually listen to his music. However, I’ll be more than happy to throw the current pop music zeitgeist under the bus, and people can extrapolate. So, Taylor Swift, brace yourself, cause you’re about to get run’d over!

First, though, I want to be clear – if anyone enjoys Taylor Swift, I do not believe that that individual is sinning because of their entertainment choices. I mean, I secretly listen to Bon Jovi on long road trips from time to time; who am I to judge?

Taylor Swift’s latest album is dominating the airwaves and the sales charts. There are very few albums/artists that reflect the current state of pop music as does the likeably goofy ex-country singer turned pop star. Rolling Stone magazine even declared that ‘1989’ will go down as influential as the best of Michael Jackson and Prince (fyi, in my opinion, MJ is incredibly overrated. Prince is a brilliant musician, but not my cup of tea). Swift’s album is supposed to be a game changer. Which is absurd. (by the way, I just realized that something else that is absurd is that I’m essentially writing a Taylor Swift review for Sharper Iron – it’s Greg’s fault, people!)

Taylor Swift, from a musical standpoint, and setting aside the lyrics (do we even need to discuss the banality of the lyrics?), is about as innocuous as you can find on the airwaves. And it’s supposed to be. It appeals to the lowest common denominator – in other words, the twelve year old in all of us. Take the album’s first single, “Shake it Off.” (By the way, Greg, I hate you for making me listen to Taylor Swift!) The song opens with drums that essentially replicate the basic straight rhythms of rock drummers going back to rock-a-billy. That’s fine, on one hand, but nothing in the rhythm of the song reflects any of the evolution in rock drumming since the 50s. And, good songs, even those of the 50s, don’t have rhythms that reside solely within the straight rhythm of rock. The rhythm of “Shake it Off” is about as consistently bland as is possible. Even the song’s break, the “this sick beat” segment, has no variations. That raises the question, “What ‘sick beat,’ Taylor? The same ‘sick beat’ that your song began with?” If the drums on “Shake it Off” were to be compared to the work of a drummer like Ginger Baker, for example (the drummer for Cream, among other bands), who utilized things like the swinging 8th notes of jazz as well as complex time structures like 7/8 time - I mean, if you really listen to Ginger Baker and then really listen to the drums on “Shake it Off,” - the differences are astounding. “Shake it Off” is child’s play compared to what’s possible with the drums. But, “Shake it Off” doesn’t challenge the listener. It’s made to be consumed without any effort.

One of the many flaws that I have in regards to my job is that I don’t consider myself a musician. I took piano for ten years, trombone for six years, and I can still read music. Unlike my wife, I can’t listen to a song and tell you the chords used. If I sat down at a piano as I listened to a song, I could probably figure it out. But, back to Ms. Swift and her silly song. If you listen to it, count the chords used. One? If we’re being generous. Not to be overly pejorative, but I think that my eight year old daughter is playing as complex of melodies in her first year of piano lessons as is used in this chart topper. For contrast, listen to ‘Pet Sounds’ by the Beach Boys; which is, in my opinion, the best example of baroque pop (a genre that includes ‘The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society’ and ‘Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band’). The use of counterpoint, while not on Bach’s level, makes for complex, interesting, and artistically engaging pop music. It can be done. It has been done. But, the record industry realized that the Beach Boys sold more records when they were producing bubble-gum beach-rock. By the way, the Beach Boys started off as the sanitized version of Dick Dale. Dale, who essentially created heavy metal guitar, didn’t have the broad appeal that the Beach Boys did before their baroque pop days. ‘Pet Sounds’ was one of the band’s worst selling albums in the U.S. Pop music can utilize interesting melodies, but the market doesn’t want it as much as they want the simplistic melodies of Taylor Swift and her fellow chart toppers.

And the harmony on “Shake it Off?” To Bert’s point, the harmony is so muted as to be almost not there. Once again, nothing is asked of the listener, and, so, nothing is gained by the listener except for being able to shut their brain off for four minutes. The industry doesn’t like innovation. Musical innovation poses a threat to the work the industry has put into their focus groups, projected sales figures, and ultimately their ability to pay their mortgage on their Malibu beach houses. The pop music industry wants musicians and artists who are comfortable with the status quo and who play by the rules of the market’s lowest common denominator.

I picked ‘1989’ because it’s probably the most reflective of mainstream pop music at the moment. It’s not really fair to pick on Taylor Swift. She’s simply reflecting what the pop music market wants. She’s being a good capitalist. And, the Christian pop market is part of the broader pop music market, and it reflects that. Banal lyrics accompanied by simplistic melodies, rhythms, and harmonies. Good art should strive for transcendence - art used in the worship service, even more so. When I listen to contemporary Christian music, which I admit isn’t often, I hear the same thing that I hear from Top 40. It doesn’t challenge the listener artistically, and it doesn’t even attempt to reflect the transcendent nature of the original artist and Creator.

I know that there are exceptions, but, when I walk into a church and the majority, or the entirety, of the songs used are contemporary, I form an opinion about that church’s view of God. Most of the musicians that I know and hang out with feel the same way. God isn’t artistically banal, and our worship shouldn’t be either.

Greg, the main reason why I didn’t interact specifically with the Crowder song you asked about is because I don’t want to give anyone some sound bites for their next message on the evils of CCM. I understand that I may have done that anyway in big picture terms (and if they want to preach against Taylor Swift), but I don’t want to give specific ammunition against specific Christian artists. If you’re curious, I’ll be happy to listen to the song and send you my opinion via a private message. But, honestly, from what I gather, you can probably critique it better than I can. I just know pop music history and am good at pretending like I know what I’m talking about.

Even Brian Wilson believes everything was better in the past, I mean, “I Guess I Just Wasn’t Made for These Times” anyone?

:O

(apologies for the heart attacks I may have just given)

[John E.]

Taylor Swift, from a musical standpoint, and setting aside the lyrics (do we even need to discuss the banality of the lyrics?), is about as innocuous as you can find on the airwaves. And it’s supposed to be. It appeals to the lowest common denominator – in other words, the twelve year old in all of us. Take the album’s first single, “Shake it Off.” (By the way, Greg, I hate you for making me listen to Taylor Swift!)

John or Greg, whoever is to blame, I would hold you responsible for that horrible sound, “Shake it Off,” except you suggested. thankfully, the Beach Boys which washed my mind of the dull droning noise. :-)

Isn’t that just ZZTop with accoustic instruments? Speed bluegrass or something? Does he make duck calls, or does he have 47 Rolls Royces in Oregon? :^)

Seriously, big step up from a lot of what I’ve seen of CCM in “my environment.” Agreed with somebody that some would say it’s horrible that people are dancing to it, but musically, a big step up. My personal preference would be for a little more patience in playing—don’t just rev up the tempo for no apparent reason—and could deal with a little clearer voice (can we drop the “coffee shop mumble”, please?), but not too bad by my experience.

Looking forward to someone showing me that this is way down on the curve, BTW.

And the Beach Boys? Lessee…..”the Ukraine girls really knock me out, they leave the West behind…” ….is that about it? :^)

Yeah, John, I wasn’t really expecting a Taylor Swift album review. :) I guess I was looking for some specifics on what makes all CCM so distasteful musically.

As someone who is somewhat musical but certainly not in any way a musician, I am interested to learn the perspective of someone who won’t just dismiss it out of hand because it has a 2/4 beat, but can give an educated opinion.

I just hear this quite a lot, that all CCM is bland, unimaginative, etc., etc. I actually happen to agree with that to an extent. Just to throw out a rough percentage, about 75% of the stuff on Christian radio starts to run together—all “encouraging,” “uplifting,” “hope-filled,” “positive”…which translated means “I’m having a rough day, give me something upbeat that will tell me that it will all be OK” (because God is in control and because I’m special because I’m his child, of course, that’s where the “Christian” part of it comes in).

But I do think (again, to this untrained ear) that there are a significant number of exceptions that seem to me to be creative either musically or lyrically or (gasp!) both, and that direct our thoughts beyond ourselves to our great God or that challenge us rather than just encouraging us.

• I think Crowder is creative musically, but then again a trained musician may see him to be simply mimicking other sounds/artists. His “Give Us Rest (A Requiem Mass In C [The Happiest Of All Keys] )” double-sided album contains many songs that seem to be simply creative musical expressions that were never meant to be played on Christian radio. I love his new Neon Steeple album, with songs like “Ain’t No Grave” and “My Beloved”. Maybe it’s not creative in the sense of “he’s the first person to ever come up with this kind of music,” but certainly creative in the sense of “not what is usually played on Christian radio.”
• I think Brandon Heath writes amazing lyrics, such as “Give Me Your Eyes”.
• Maybe the conundrum that is CCM is exemplified by Third Day, which has such theologically weak songs as “(I Feel Like I’m) Born Again” and “(Give Me) Revelation” but then comes out with a tremendously gospel-centered song like “Trust in Jesus”.

IMPORTANT NOTE: You might think by my posts that I am some sort of CCM apologist or groupie. I am not. I actually prefer music like Sovereign Grace, Indelible Grace, Red Mountain Music, Citizens, All Sons and Daughters, the Gettys, and others. I just start twitching a bit when people make broad generalizations and dismiss the entirety of CCM as trite and banal.

And P.S. you won’t hurt my feelings if you find the songs I mentioned above to be trite and banal. I would just like to know why you think so, musically speaking.

[Greg Long]

IMPORTANT NOTE: You might think by my posts that I am some sort of CCM apologist or groupie. I am not. I actually prefer music like Sovereign Grace, Indelible Grace, Red Mountain Music, Citizens, All Sons and Daughters, the Gettys, and others. I just start twitching a bit when people make broad generalizations and dismiss the entirety of CCM as trite and banal.

I agree, Greg. Those are my preferences. My twitching starts when imperatives are dished out with no scriptural support. The lack of support is why there is a debate.

Greg, I am right there with you. The extremely wide brushes and generalizations drive me nuts. As was stated somewhere earlier in the thread, in general we only see the best of the best when we look back but see everything (good and bad) today.

BTW, you mentioned Third Day…I agree that some of their stuff is theological cotton candy, but it is tough to get better lyrics than Third Day’s Creed (though some won’t care for music side of it!) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfkhL_a54bk

…which, of course, was written by Rich Mullins, who was fairly creative musically and lyrically.

I’m not opposed to CCM in theory; I’m opposed to CCM how it is most often practiced. And, I probably should have pointed this out earlier, when I write “CCM,” I’m not thinking of Sovereign Grace, Indelible Grace, or the Getty’s. If I walk into a church and the majority of their music is Sovereign Grace, Gettys, et al., as long as it’s done to the best of the congregation’s ability, I’m good with it; in fact, I would like it. In my mind, CCM is the segment of the Christian music market that dominates the airwaves of Air 1 and wins Dove awards. If someone listens to Air 1, I don’t really care outside of it how it pricks my aesthetic snobbery. I do believe, however, that much of the contemporary music that dominates the airwaves falls short of the aesthetic standards of the actual genres – deliberately so, in some regards. That was the point of my Taylor Swift mini-review. I don’t believe that her music is evil or should be shunned. I don’t believe that *fill-in-the-blank* Dove winning CCM artist is evil or should be shunned. But, I do believe that, when possible, we should strive for excellence in our worship services in ways that we don’t feel compelled to in our daily lives.

As far as generalizations (and I don’t know if I can adequately explain this) - while discussing this topic on this website, I’m going to try and be very careful not to give any credence about any specific Christian artist to those who want to flat-out condemn CCM. But, back to my Taylor Swift review (which I would like to think is a first on Sharper Iron), I wanted to point out that there are aesthetic standards within the genre of pop music that records and songs should be measured against. I think that you (Greg L.) agree with me on that, and your question was in regards to what are those standards. Pop music has been on a downward spiral to find the most palatable form for the largest possible number of people. That’s not a new thing. Check out the history of Tin Pan Alley. The market does not reward complexity. Simplistic melodies supported by basic rock rhythms are what the industry wants. Because the industry is dependent on the dollars of teenagers – dollars that are increasingly harder to get. None of this means that the pop genre (and I’m using the term in its broadest possible sense) doesn’t have aesthetic merit and is unworthy of use in worship. But, just like I don’t want to go to a church that sings the “Jesus is my boyfriend” dreck from the 19th century and early 20th century (“In the Garden,” for example), I don’t want to go to a church that uses contemporary music that reflects the goal of bland, mass-appeal, corporate rock. I willing to bet that in terms of actual music theory, Greg L., you know more than I do. That’s why I gave some positive examples earlier. Listen to what is considered by most to be aesthetic standards, and then listen to *fill-in-the-blank* CCM artist and compare how the drums are used, for example (Ginger Baker vs. whoever the session drummer for Taylor Swift was - probably a very excellent drummer getting a very excellent paycheck playing music that he/she could play in his/her sleep). Listen for the complexities in the melody and how harmony is used by a band like Nirvana, for example (or better, the Pixies), as compared to a band like Nickleback. Nirvana and the Pixies are grunge/alternative rock; Nickleback is post-grunge/post-alternative. One genre is the honest language of a sub-group; the other is an A&R’s interpretation of that language that will hopefully appeal to the most people.

I don’t know if any of that was helpful or answered your direct questions, but, and being completely honest, I may not be the person to answer them. I am going to ask my brother, who is working on his MFA in voice performance and is not a believer, some specific technical questions. If he believed in sin, he would tell you that Taylor Swift, Nickleback, and *fill-in-the-blank* CCM artist are all sinful. He hates most pop music with a passion. But, he does love bands like Pink Floyd, Muse, and Nirvana. For me, I can best explain my aesthetic divide with two anecdotes – 1. A bank teller once told me that he was trained to recognize counterfeit bills by only being allowed to handle and pay attention to the real thing. I know enough about music to make me dangerous, and I pretty much, except today, only listen and pay attention to the real thing. I’m not a technical writer. I write about bands that I like and that I know are good, and try and find a narrative arc for my review that explains my response to the music. My job is to be an interesting writer that keeps readers clicking on the website. In my opinion, my responsibility to the artists is to get people interested in their music. I can only do that if I’m interested in their music. I rarely write negative reviews; I don’t see what purpose negative reviews serve. 2. One of my favorite all-time bands is the folk-punk band The Men They Couldn’t Hang. They, along with The Pogues, essentially created the folk-punk genre which has morphed into bland bands like Mumford & Sons. A friend of mine, after listening to TMTCH, said to me, “They sound like Mumford & Sons if Mumford & Sons were making music and not money.”