Skip to main content

Christian rock as a threat?

I'm not sure what Peter Suderman's point is here at Alarm-Alarm, but the line he cites from a Pitchfork short track review is pretty straight forward:

Why is Christian Rock the new punk rock? Because those bands care about what they're selling-- care a lot-- and they make a culture out of it: a weird, fucked, mortal-enemy-to-what-we-hold-dear culture, but there it is.

To which Peter comments:

If pop culture art with Christian ideas succeeds, it may well be because of what Baron is describing.

Well, yes, because of that passion. Too many performers today seem more caught up in themselves than in their craft. And I said "craft" because it's not "art". (What is art? In the eye of the beholder. In other words, I know it when I see/hear/smell/taste/touch it.)

Lately I've taken to listening to a variety of what I suppose is called "Christian rock". Certainly Lincoln Brewster is right there, singing songs of straight-forward praise and redemption.

But where do you put BarlowGirl? Oh, certainly they're driven by their faith; they make no bones about what they believe. Yet their songs are often wrought with the same angst that drove much of the punk rock I've listened to. Listen to a song like Porcelain Heart which is almost entirely about the pain of a broken heart.

Someone said, "A broken heart
would sting at first then make you stronger."
You wonder why this pain remains.
Were hearts made whole just to break?

That's damn-near bitter bitch money cynical. The positive spin they put on it is a cry to the Creator, the only one who can make a broken heart whole again.

Anyway, I stray, because Peter's point is well taken. Passion and belief in the message you're delivering goes a long way in any industry, in any endeavor. Much of modern rock has lost both, while those performers casually dismissed as "Christian rock" have both. And in spades.

I'm just wondering what "threat" Pitchfork's Zach Baron perceives.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.