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.)
I’m a tech journalist who’s making a TV show about a college newspaper.