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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Not the Hero We Deserve, But the Hero We Need

The Dark Knight is the best film I’ve seen in years. Not just the best “superhero” film, but the best film of any type. It’s not perfect, not quite a masterpiece, but it’s flaws are, to me, tiny and overwhelmed by the time the film ends. While relatively bloodless, it is consistently brutal, not just in what it depicts but in the themes that drive it. TDK is a film for adults, please leave the kids at home. Let’s deal with those “flaws” first, the largest being the character Rachel Dawes . In Batman Begins , I blamed Katie Holmes . Her acting was weak, to say the least, which is regrettable in that who she is and what she says and does are important to the film. Critics agreed and either for that or other reasons, Katie was replaced by Maggie Gyllenhaal , who is a better actress. Yet here she’s weak, real weak. Maybe it’s the character, not the actress, which is frustrating because Rachel is a pivotal character. The film,...
1 comment
Read more

Dune Part 2 (2024)

I have come not to praise Dune but to bury it. I am in a distinct minority. So be it. To explain why, there will be some minor spoilers ahead; sorry. The short version is #NotMyDune. Summary: Picking up where Dune Part 1 left off, we find the young Paul Atreides (Timothée Chalamet) hanging out with the Fremen. Plots to overthrow rival houses and empires ensue. Go here to see what I thought about Dune Part 1 (2021) . Overall, I found it to be technically brilliant, but lacking a human heart, an exercise in frenetic slow motion. D2 is more of the same, though with far more action. Acting-wise, everyone is doing a fine, more than adequate job. Absolutely no one or nothing stands out. The way the characters are written (adapted, actually), their back and forths and interactions, are all weak and unengaging. I generally hate when they speak. I've read the novel a ridiculous number of times, and these films are prompting me to read it again. I understand that trying to translate the n...
1 comment
Read more