Generally, I'm inclined to agree that Christian Rock makes me feel oogie on the insides, especially when it comes to the motivation behind the rockers. I really can't abide proselytizing (which is a really oddly spelled word...) However, I've made some notable exceptions lately, and I think Relient K and Switchfoot have found ways to make relatable rock without being overtly faith-based and Jesus-heavy in their rock and roll. Now, I realize your tastes run more indie than mine do, and you may not be down with the more machined sounds, but they're a lot better songwriters than most of the admittedly brainless XR acts.

Jesus acts get through the Classical Music Agenda all the time. And are good to boot!

While his last two albums sucked canal water, Moby is a rather outspoken Christian. Peep his old liners.

Also: Low, I seem to recall.

but it'd be a stretch to call either of those acts Christian rock though, right? I certainly don't mean to impugn the rock talents of Christians. I just mean to impugn the talent of Christians who decide to make rock music exclusively about their faith.

Yup, two members of Low are Mormon, and there are some Christian (and more specifically Mormon) references in their music. They are more rock by Christians than Christian Rock though, in that Mormonism isn't the defining characterstic about their music.

Low's Christmas album is really good.
I think I'll listen to "Long Way Around the Sea" right now.

Also, you know, Sufjan Stevens? Kinda Christian. Juuuuuuust a little. You know, if you look at his lyrics real close.

I think the indie rock focus is going to weed out 95 percent of the problematic acts, but among metal and hip-hop acts are many who perform evangelically. You guys have written up Matisyahu before, right?

I don't blame you for not digging bad Christian music or advertising barely concealed evangelical promotion . . . but don't Tooth and Nail bands all write songs in that vague, it-could-be-about-Jesus, it-could-be-about-my-girlfriend vein anyway?

Good point on Sufjan. I haven't listened to his stuff all that much -- my daily allotment of music listening time generally occurs at the gym, and he's not very well-suited to that.

Tooth & Nail I also know very little about, but Kyle vouched for the label. I can probably stand artfully ambiguous XR for a while, at least.

As for Matsiyahu: lord, I hope we haven't covered that idiot. 14:55.... 14:56... 14:57...

We have mentioned Matisyahu, though it may have been to point out that he sucks.

My objection to CR is, I suppose, a philosophical one, but the line I draw also directly impacts the quality of the music. A very large amount of music references or discusses or even praises god(s), and that's ok. Metaphysical uncertainty is a perfectly fine theme to focus on in art. The primary focus of making music should be making good music, however, and not glorifying god or whatever. Music with an alterior motive disqualifies itself, whether it's Jars of Clay, or focus-grouped pop, or the theme to that Dodge Ram commercial. Any appreciation for that stuff is like appreciation for found poetry -- it might be interesting to consider it critically, but it's not art.

The primary focus of making music should be making good music, however, and not glorifying god or whatever. Music with an alterior motive disqualifies itself

How Schopenhauerian! So the St. Matthew Passion or Vingt regards sur l'enfant-Jésus, no good?

I think it's a little different for instrumental works than from pieces that are following the relatively new singer/songwriter tradition, where original personal expression is highly valued.

Do we know what Bach's real intentions were? Was he glorifying god or indulging his artistic impulses? In any case, I said that music with an alterior motive could be considered critically and found interesting or enjoyable. But intention is important.

The primary focus of making music should be making good music, however, and not glorifying god or whatever.

i think for a lot of people, the two are intertwined, and that doesn't bother me, as long as the music is good. like, i don't see why sufjan would get a free pass here, which he clearly would in the circles we exist in. yet we're happy to not check out the creds of any number of non-CR bands that might suck even harder than a CR band whose main purpose is to talk up the big G. additionally there's also probably a number of DCist readers who like the big G. so i don't think it's a bad thing to include that music, if it happens to come up once in a while. but then again, i don't hate christians. like ryan does. you dirty hippie.

Instead of god, think Pepsi. Someone could write a perfectly good song about Pepsi or inspired by Pepsi, but if it's trying to sell you Pepsi, doesn't that make you consider the song differently? I hate Pepsi, too, by the way.

While having God as a subject matter doesn't necessarily discredit a piece of music, it is also important to realize that Christian Rock is also a sub-genre. When I say that I hate Christian Rock, I am not thinking about songs with guitars about God, I am thinking about the artists represented on WOW cds, like Michael W Smith, or Steven Curtis Chapman. And they, unfortunately for my Sundays, are not very good at all.

I believe that the reason they are not very good, yet surprisingly popular, is that they believe the act of writing about God is sufficient, and thus they don't have to concern themselves with trivial things like chord progressions and melodies. Don't even get me started on the lyrics.

Ryan, that's slightly freaky: I sometimes use the exact same analogy to explain my distaste for CR, down to the choice of cola.

I think you've got a good point about Sufjan, Catherine. But I think everyone would agree that glorifying god isn't his only artistic concern.

To be honest, this applies to the classics for me as well -- I can't tell you how sick of madonna & childs I got during ARTH101. That kind of self-imposed restriction can be transcended (see Filippo Lippi), but in my opinion it's a starting point for an artwork.

I think you've got a good point about Sufjan, Catherine. But I think everyone would agree that glorifying god isn't his only artistic concern.

How would YOU know? The "well, it's not his only concern" retort can't just get trotted out in response to seeming counterexamples without some reasoning behind. Well, actually, everyone (you're considering) would agree with that, not necessarily based on any knowledge of the facts, but rather to preserve the semblance of self-consistency.

As for the Pepsi thing: the fact that you don't like Pepsi makes me inclined to discredit the example. Sure, you'll say, you could switch in the Jones Soda Thanksgiving flavors WLOG, but what I think is: maybe you couldn't. (Stipulate that you think the Jones Soda Thanksgiving flavors are the awesome.)

If a band I liked wrote a quirky, interesting song promoting something else I liked (in the right way*), I might well think, "neat-o!". If Richard Thompson wrote "Alexander Graham Bell" because, at heart, he wanted to spread the good word about AGB, well, more power to him, because it's a fun song.

*this proviso doesn't get you off the hook.

i think y'all are overestimating the power of CR. like, a lot of the songs/ads about products are subversive and might trick some people into thinking differently about the product, or encourage them subconsciously to buy it. but i think most people realize right out what they're getting when CR stuff is played. i don't think the intent of CR is to trick people into becoming religious, and i don't think people are dumb enough that they listen to some CR tracks and suddenly love god if they didn't before. i also agree with ben's response about sufjan.

anyway, my main point should be that people should be concerned with recommending actually quality acts, whether they're secular or not. it's not really fair to pretty much freak out about a CR band and bar it from the picks when a shite band might slip by with nary a thought or massive background check. commenters didn't really give a crap about the CR band; they would let loose a storm, though, if a shitty band was recommended.

also: Someone could write a perfectly good song about Pepsi or inspired by Pepsi, but if it's trying to sell you Pepsi, doesn't that make you consider the song differently?

not really, if it's a good song. but i also hate pepsi. ain't nothing going to make me buy it over coke.

Point A: You've got me. In this case I am trusting the judgment of other people whose taste I respect in order to maintain a coherent position. I agree, that's not a good way to argue. So let's swap in Pedro the Lion, who I know more about. In his case I know religion isn't his only concern because I've listened somewhat carefully to his albums and, although many of the songs express ideas that are clearly affected by his religious faith, his work isn't solely focused on it, either in terms of subjects or implied conclusions. This is a substantive difference from many modern Christian Rock acts. Perhaps I'm not communicating properly how this difference is obvious, but I doubt many would disagree that it is. Now sure, I can't *know* that he doesn't think every word he sings is glorifying god through the use of the talents he's been granted. But if he does, I don't care, because it's not interfering with his mission to entertain me.

Point B: It's true that I might enjoy an iPod commercial more than an Exxon commercial because I like Apple more than rapacious oil companies -- but that's just a personal (or, I'd argue, biological) failing. It doesn't mean that my behavior is consistent with what I believe in -- which is that such commercial entertainments should both receive extra (and equal) aesthetic scrutiny.

My perceptions of music do shift significantly when I learn new things about the motivation behind a song. Partly this is me being a petty, cool-hunting ass. But part of it is an honest and justified reappraisal: if I thought a song on the radio was catchy and then learn that, say, Coke is sponsoring the band's tour and giving away tickets to a "secret show", I'll think a little harder about why I like it, and whether I should. Did this band achieve prominence because people like them, or because someone's trying to capitalize on a trend? Were their ideas stolen from someone else (in music, this is of course relative)? Were those ideas twisted to be cola-friendly in a way that made them less interesting? Some compromised acts succeed despite all these things, but I think it's worth a reevaluation of a band when you learn its motivation isn't primarily centered around making art on their own terms.

Point C: Alexander Graham Bell is a bad counterexample, because a song about him would presumably not be attempting to elicit action from me (at least, in no more significant way than a song about getting dumped is encouraging me to think a particular way about getting dumped). Commercial and proselytizing messages are designed to make me do things, which is a distinct form of communication and one that I'd say is inherently at odds with optimal artistic expression (it's hard to optimally satisfy two imperatives at once).

But you're the professional aesthete. I know you've thought about these questions more carefully than I have, and I won't be surprised to learn that you have a more coherent approach to approaching art. This is the way that my tastes work, though -- I really don't like feeling that I'm being manipulated. It destroys my ability to enjoy a work of art. I may not always be as conscious of that manipulation as I ought to be, but that's the root of it. Just ask Kriston -- he thinks I'm a crazy AdBustin' leftist.

The AGB example was merely supposed to be of a song with an ulterior motive.

I would feel the same way about the art in question whether it was selling Christianity, a product, or a political ideology. I might enjoy a song encouraging folks to vote Democratic in 2008, but I couldn't consider it musically in the same way I consider music that's made for music's sake.

And, you know, it won't always be clear what the artist's motives are, to us or even, quite possibly, to the artist. But sometimes it will be adundantly clear, and in those cases, say, for self-identified Christian rockers, we can make a judgment.

Last thing, I don't think it's fair for us to fault artists from centuries ago for not having discovered and made viable postmodernism. You work within the media available to you. If the world give you oils, you use oils. If a dominant and oppresive culture gives you Christianity, you use Christianity.

What makes you think the point you're making has anything to do with postmodernism?

So, lots of art from the past has, as its theme, Christianity. I don't think we can judge those works as being evangelical in the way that DC Talk is evangelical, because they didn't have the option of getting outside established modes of expression. Maybe they should have tried to destroy the prevailing idea of what art should be, but they didn't, for lots of good reasons.

There is a difference in making music about god when that's what music has to be and making music about god when notions about what can and can't be celebrated have been ripped up.

I ignore your most recent comment (except to say that you're moving back and forth between music about god and music with an ulterior motive), and merely point out that Schopenhauer (writing in the 1830s!), for example, was not a postmodernist, not even one avant la lettre.

Geez.

I'm sorry. I said about god as shorthand for music that intends to sell people on Christianity. It should be clear that the selling part is what gets me.

Postmodernism isn't really the sticking point. I'm just trying to say that if an artist painted a picture about Jesus back when every picture was about Jesus, that has a different significance than a picture of Jesus would now, when millions of pictures are made about millions of things for millions of reasons. It's fair to assume the earlier Jesus painter and the later Jesus painter had different motives.