A band from my college days is making waves for suing its label over the way it was marketed, and it implicates the nature of “contemporary Christian music” (CCM) itself. Mute Math grew out of Earthsuit, a hard-to-define alt-rock group with reggae, rapcore and electronica elements that mixed together unbelievably well. Of course, as a band full of Christian guys that spoke of their faith (albeit ambiguously) on their debut, they got picked up by EMI’s Sparrow label for Christian music. I found their CD in a hole-in-the-wall Christian coffeeshop where my friend worked, bought the album and saw them in concert in Seattle. Reforming as Mute Math a few years after disbanding, they tried to go mainstream with Warner, but marketing got handed off to its Christian Word label, which of course hit them with the “Christian” moniker, leading to the lawsuit. Music producer and author Mark Joseph uses this as a jumping-off point to take aim at the idea of CCM itself:
That “system” had been created by people like Billy Ray Hearn of Sparrow Records and Mike Macintosh of Calvary Chapel who had said of the mainstream, respectively, “I never wanted to be a part of that world, and I got out of it,” and “We had just come out of Egypt and we didn’t want to go back.” They in turn passed on a business model to a succeeding generation for whom its central organizing premise—escapism—was no longer operative. …
Think of it this way: Would a plumber advertise himself as a “Christian plumber” if he wanted to serve both believers and non-believers? Perhaps, but then, many non-Christians with clogged toilets might not hire him because of that designation. But if he simply presents himself as a “plumber”—still intending to do a great job and prepared to discuss his faith with any interested clients—he’s likely to get more business, earn a better living, and interact with more non-believers. …
CCM labels need to understand that strong statements of faith, when combined with attractive and interesting music, are not automatic disqualifiers for consideration among non-Christian Americans— provided that the marketing and labeling doesn’t frighten them away before being heard. When that happens, they’ll have an opportunity to change the way they do business.
The real stumbling block here could be clergy – the pastors who promote this music to their youth groups and render it sufficiently pious for skeptical parents to buy for their kids. If a band doesn’t play up their faith, and the label honors that in the marketing, will pastors take that as “I’m ashamed of my faith” and cast them with that old chestnut “secular”? They did it to Amy Grant, although she didn’t help things with her very public divorce.
But I think we’re in a more tolerant and – dare I say – subversive time in the church, led by a new generation that doesn’t see the lyrical content of music in rigid terms. If it’s honest expression and it isn’t candy-coated, the object of the message shouldn’t be a turnoff for most potential listeners. We’re all cynics at sixteen now – just tell us you’re flawed and ugly, and you’ll get our allowance money! (Via my alum music critic Joel Hartse.)
Very interesting post Greg.
From a marketing point of view I understand the idea of marketing it as a Christian band. As I understand it, the ‘Christian Music Market’ is quite large in the US.
On the other hand, of course, the ‘general market’ is much bigger, so if one has a base already, a base that’ll buy the CD’s, radio stations that will play their songs, etc. it seems a better decision to me to try getting them in that general market.
However and most importantly, what I find strange is, didn’t they consult with the actual band members? Don’t they have to agree with what they are supposed to ‘be’, what they are supposed to express?
Greg, Amy Grant came to my mind as well as I read your post. Though, as you say, she has had other problems. Still, I remember mentioning her in passing to a youth minister a few years ago and he basically said she was a traitor. I’ve seen encouraging signs, though, of the wall coming down between Christian and secular music worlds, with more bands blurring the line. Back in the old days, we only had Kansas doing that. And, some blatantly Christian songs are making it onto secular radio stations down here, as well as secular bands making it onto Christian stations.
The big surprise for me came when my daughter mentioned the fact that she liked Green Day because they weren’t offensive. She meant that they sang about deeper stuff than sex and drugs, but my first thought was “Isn’t Green Day supposed to be offensive?”
Green Day mentions drugs and sex plenty.
But they are much deeper than the party, party moronic stuff. I’d be 1000 more worried if she listened to Britney Spears.
But they are offensive towards simplistic thinking. All and all a very good band for anyone with an IQ above 90.
I have friends in the record industry and follow it pretty closely. Creed and Lifehouse were first marketed as Christian bands. There was another really big one that escapes my mind. Also Curb Records had a number of acts which are either directed toward the Christian music scene or got their start that way. Leeann Rhymes would be an example
Although the general market is larger, it is also more difficult to get air play there. Thus Christian markets are a good way for some acts to get started before finding a broader audience.
As a non-Christian, I usually back away slowly from the CD’s that have obviously religious messages in them. But that doesn’t stop me from enjoying music by Christian artists who aren’t preachy. For instance, I love Collective Soul, Switchfoot and Lifehouse and it doesn’t matter to me that some of their songs have religious connotations because they aren’t pushy about it. When the music has more to do with taking joy in life and faith, and less to do with hellfire and damnation, there’s a much wider audience.
Not sure Collective Soul is actually Christian – they were always a little sketchy on their religious views – but point well taken.
Woah there, Greg — I’m “your” music critic. Untrue, creepy.