Hello my friend!

I am sorry we have not had a chance to catch up the last few weeks. We got buried int hat ice storm and I’ve just not gotten caught up since. No excuse and I apologize.

I appreciate your shedding some light on the authors and editors of this article. As someone who was quoted without even remembering ever doing an interview (I’m not saying it did not happen, I just do not remember it), I too will stick to written-only interviews. Great idea.

Anyway- in the end I am just grateful that Jesus is never boring, because we certainly can be sometimes can’t we?

Let’s do Abuelo’s!

Bob

I really look forward to this series...thanks for writing it.

I am looking forward to reading the rest of the entries in this series.  As someone who works in Christian radio it frustrates me at how easily other people label what we are doing as wrong as a whole instead of searching out what’s happening that is right.

There will always be someone doing something wrong, whether we’re talking about artists, churches, organizations, or radio stations.  But the tragedy comes when we let that poor representation speak for everyone else.

Hi Shaun,
I want to thank you again, both for your participation in the radio series and for helping foster the dialogue that has followed. I am a proponent of constructive discussions that allow us all to take a look at what we’re doing and make sure it’s the best for the Kingdom.

I also want to thank you for your kind words about me and the folks at Christianity Today. They’re an outstanding bunch, and it’s been a pleasure working with them. (I should state that my response here is as an individual author and not as a CTI staffer.) That said, I do want to chime in on a few of your characterizations of the radio series.

First, you perceive that the series had an “obvious agenda”. I assure you it did not. It was pitched and pursued as a news piece, and my primary motivation was to explain how radio works. There are lots of folks out there who listen all the time but don’t have a clear understanding of what’s involved in producing radio. I thought it might be interesting for them to learn more about it. If you take a second look at the series as a collective, the majority of the words explain things like the history of Christian radio, how the music is chosen and for whom, and future technologies that might affect radio. (And speaking of words, I was actually afforded an extremely generous word count – over 7,000 words – a nice perk with online publications.) We also sought to get a few perspectives from insiders. In so doing we wound up exploring a ton of different angles, and I attempted to provide balanced opinions from artists, labels, promoters, and folks with radio stations.

I think there’s more balance in the series than you suggest. There are quotes that are critical of radio, and others describing commercial and ministerial success stories. There are those who think radio is becoming more and more dull, and those who think it’s better than it’s ever been, and both sides are represented in the series. This was not an easy task; as you state, it was difficult to find people willing to go on the record for the series. I sought perhaps a dozen interviews with artists who have been radio favorites, and was turned down over and over, possibly because of the subject and quite possibly because of simple availability issues. I often had to speak “off the record”, and I had to use some quotes anonymously. I had interviews set up with certain folks in radio only to have them cancelled by higher-ups. I had no idea what an incendiary topic this would be! So, while the positive perspective was the more difficult one to represent, I will add that I had far more inflammatory quotes than appear in the article that I did not use (not yours).

Now, about your quote. Perhaps it has garnered you some unwelcome attention, and for that, as I told you before, I am sorry. I would never intentionally harm someone’s ministry. Still, I think the quote does represent that part of our conversation and the follow-up explanation you gave me. I read my notes from our interview, and I read your subsequent email, and then I read the quotes we used, in several places actually, and I think they agree. Perhaps others have misinterpreted your words, and that’s unfortunate. I suspect your series will explain your position.

All told, I think a few of your words in this well-written blog, such as “one-sided criticism” and “obvious agenda” are a bit strong. Nonetheless, I applaud your efforts, and I look forward to reading your thoughts.

Thanks for joining the discussion, Mark.

I see now how “one-sided criticism” could sound a bit harsh.  Here’s why I used that phrase though, ad I’m open to alternate word suggestions…

In our interview I told you stories about radio done well, mentioned specific stations and individuals I respect and enjoy working with regardless of whether they play my music or not, and concluded by saying that Chuck Finney in particular (from the Fish) had successfully gotten me thinking that I truly couldn’t do a better job than anyone else currently in radio if the headphones were on my head instead of theirs.  I stressed that my concerns with radio were more about theology and the way radio affects the direction and health of the U.S. Church than about testing and what not.  I have those concerns of course but said, I believe, that they weren’t as important to me as they once were because I understand now what many radio stations are trying to accomplish and realize that their current methodologies are successfully helping them reach those goals successfully. None of that good stuff, which I recollect as being fairly well said, made it into your series.  That’s one-sided.  You or someone at CTI chose instead only to use two negative comments of mine, and without context on one occasion.  That’s choosing to be critical is it not?

As for “obvious agenda” - It was obvious as I and my friends in and out of radio read your series - TO US - that Russ was telling the truth in his e-mail to me (the one I quote in this blog post): he wanted to “stir” things up with radio and change it.  Nothing bad about that.  I didn’t say it was a negative agenda.  But that’s an agenda. 

I don’t believe the point of the series was to present a stoic dispassionate set of facts regarding Christian radio.  A few bullet points on a page and you’d have been done if that were the goal.  No, Russ has his opinions about Christian radio - many shared by me - and that obviously had to have affected how the piece was, um, pieced together.  Right?  How could it not? There are things about Christian radio I imagine you’d like to see challenged, changed, rethought. Again, that’s not a bad thing.  But that is an agenda: “a list or program of things to be done or problems to be addressed.”

It’s not a bad thing to write from a perspective.

But, my perspective is broader and just plain different.  That’s one perk of being an insider you know?  I’m not learning about radio via interviews.  I’ve learned about it from working with it, having my ministry and life and music shaped by it.

Obviously, while I can’t write as well as you have on this subject, I can add more dimension and insight to the description of what and why radio is.  My experience and perspective are more varied...and by comparison less one-sided, though just as agenda driven as any other journalist’s admittedly.

I look forward to the continuation of this series.  As a music lover (i.e. I am hip-deep in music every minute I’m alive), coming from the listeners perspective, I plan on chiming in where I can.

Mark, I enjoyed you series on CTI; informative and interesting.

I agree with Shaun, though, that more open dialog needs to occur.  Regardless of whether you like or dislike the current model of the industry, it has changes to make in order to adapt to changes in the world around us.  A stagnant industry/church/anything dies.  When people are shushed by their higher-ups about so relevant a topic - people whom I am sure could speak with diplomacy and honesty in such a way to form a dialog without offending people or burning bridges - I become worried and suspicious.  It makes me think there are people who want to maintain the status quo and resist any sort of change.  (Maybe I’m making more of that than it seems; don’t know.)

Anyway, thanks, Shaun, for being willing to foment this discussion.

Nice work, Shaun.  The CT series prompts at least two thoughts for Mark, or anyone at CT:

First, why doesn’t CT’s website allow comments on the article?  Odd.  Interactivity is good, folks.  Welcome to the 90s.  Maybe I missed the link.

Second, the last installment suffers from a logical lapse:  Yes, iPod users can choose from “millions” of songs.
But so can radio programmers, it turns out.

And you know what?  They’ve studied iPod use, and users keep playing, to themselves, the same songs, over and over and over!  In fact, personal playlists rarely go more than two-three hundred songs, no matter how many gigs your iPod.  (Nearly the same number for this “infinite” user as the “finite” radio playlist, it turns out.)

Yes, it’s a “playground of variety”, yet “Bucky” stays on his favorite totter, and “Becky” her fave swingset.  Kudos to programmers who use thoroughgoing means of finding either.

I’m glad the point of this series wasn’t to polemicize—because if it was, it fails.  Turns out there’s nothing scandalous about radio stations employing radio strategies. 

Yes, the Gospel “doesn’t have a target demographic”, but you know what?  Radio stations do.  Here’s to Christians who ply their trades wisely.

Brant

Brant and Bob and Euphrony, for mine and Mark’s sake, how did you view the series at CTI?  As a positive or negative description of radio or balanced or something else?  Obviously, to me, I saw it as mostly critical of radio.  But I’m wondering if my perspective was skewed by my knowing what did and did not make it into the piece from my interview.  I want to be fair here.  How did you all see the series?  The same or different?

And Brant, I suggested to Mark that he speak with Matt from WAY-FM about WAY’s take on competing with the iPod.  Matt once told me WAY wasn’t trying to compete with an iPod, because it couldn’t.  His take (Geez, three years ago?) was that a radio station can’t be tailored to the individual as well as an iPod, can’t hold as much music, be as eclectic, etc.  So, back then anyway, he said he saw WAY as being able to introduce people with iPods to the “hits” they’d then want to go buy for their iPod.  Again, old old conversation but I thought a good one worth asking Matt about. Makes sense to me - does your info on how many songs an iPod user actually listens to.  True for me anyway.  But that list of songs I’m listening to is quite diverse, unlike a radio station.  Does that train the next generation to dislike focussed station playlists?

Unfortunately there’s no way to talk to everyone and include every thought in such a short and focussed series.  I think Mark did a great job with the time, space and industry (un)cooperation he was working with.

Brant,

I’ll admit I haven’t read any research about iPod use, but I will proffer this: perhaps people aren’t filling up their iPods because they can’t afford to. It takes some resources to legally fill up a 30Gb iPod with music!

I spent a month with a free subscription to Napster. All the songs one can download (expect they only last as long as your subscription). I was in eclectic Shangri-La. By the end of the month I was back deep into my childhood Glen Campbell favorites! (And let me add that Wichita Lineman has aged quite well in my book.)

I might not be the typical example, but my personal playlist is about as vast as I can afford.

MDG

The study showed that people listen to far less music than they actually had on their iPods.  They tend to go back to the same 250 or so songs, regardless of how many tunes they’d downloaded.

I’m apparently typical in this respect:  I’ve listened to everything, but my “play count” does not show equal time.  Family Force Five gets a lot—while I’m running—and so does Yo Yo Ma, but poor Bob Dylan gets ignored. 

Was the series balanced?  It began like a polemic, but seemed to run out of gas.  Reminded me of moving the couch, and seeing there really isn’t much dirt under there after all.

And I’m unclear on the editing.  We’re saying the editor took your quote out of context...? 

Here’s my understanding:

1) Your—Shaun’s—quote, which I found rather shocking, originally—was not reflective of the overall tenor of the interview, and didn’t even reflect the context of the quote itself.

2) ...but it was used anyway.  And the editor even moved it up to grab attention.  The actual tenor of the interview, which you say was FAR more charitable—was never apparent.

3) If I do that as a journalist, and I’ve been one, I’m using you to make a point.  And it’s not actually your point.  Hey, guess whose it is?

Even self-congratulatory, eclectic, artsy folks like me don’t listen to 1% of the music that’s available. 

Radio is about figuring out how to better serve the listener.  The listeners interests, while varied, rarely coincide with that of a given singer/songwriter who wants to make a living off their music. 

Sorry we don’t play Derek Webb, and maybe he’s better and smarter than Jeremy Camp—heck if I know, I’m sure he’s a cool guy—but if we play the truly “best” Christian artists, Derek Webb won’t see the light of day.  Cue Johann Sebastian.

If a radio programmer truly reflects the diversity of music, he will have no listeners.  For listener-supported stations, that ain’t just strategically silly, I’d call it shoddy stewardship. 

Might make a nice series:  “Big Budget Stations For Elite Few”

I’m feeling really bad for Mark right now.  I’m not sure all the context in the world could have made that ridiculous quote of mine completely non-shocking.

He’s admitted to me now that his articles didn’t represent my full perspective on Christian radio as communicated in our interview.  He agrees that I said some nice stuff about radio in general and specific people I applaud in that sector of our industry.  We agree to disagree about whether including those comments would have been in the best interest of creating a balanced series.  All’s forgiven on my end.

In the end this mess is my fault.  I said those words.  And without any further explanation they left too many unanswered questions in the minds of at least a dozen readers who made up strange answers for themselves.

Questions like: Is he (Shaun) saying it’s bad for Christian music/radio to be mostly listened to by Christians?  Is he against evangelism or so for it that he wants radio stations to do more of it?  Is he angry that more teens in particular aren’t being evangelized?  Does he want younger or older folks to be evangelized too?  Does he want no one evangelized?  Does he dislike Christian music in general?  Is he going mainstream now that he’s failed in Christian circles?  Is he talking to one person, all radio stations, all formats, just one? WHAT THE @&@% IS HE TALKING ABOUT???

Seriously, I’m thankful some of those folks (about a dozen) wrote me for clarification. But how many wondered the same things but didn’t get in touch?  How many wrote me off as a wacko immediately?  My fear? A lot.

So, this quote harmed me.  Some people won’t ever listen to anything I have to say ever again. I’m to blame.  I forgive Mark for inadvertently throwing me under the speeding train that is disgruntled radio folks.  I’ll do a better job in the future of making sure every sentence I speak to an interviewer can stand on it’s own, is clear, concise, kind and neccessary. 

And get ready for some much needed context.  Lots of it, and more.

That’s a charitable way of putting it, and that’s cool. 

As a reader, I think that quote was chosen over others, and it’s because it made a point they were looking for you to make.  I’m thinkin’ that’s a safe bet.  One doesn’t inadvertently choose a quote, write it, and edit it, and the “speeding train” was likely manufactured after people read the quote.

Here’s another “What was missing?”:  Proposals for the alternative, more “Christian” radio.  I happen to love insightful criticisms of the status quo.  But I find it terribly boring to hear criticisms, even in context, without a larger vision for “Here’s how Christian radio formats should REALLY work...”

Those of us doing it actually have to hazard an answer to that question every day.

In a sense, this series confirmed for me that, in this easily-critiqued field, some otherwise very bright critics don’t actually have much to offer.  I’d sit at their feet if they did.

Shaun, I understand your frustration with being misrepresented by the CT article. I think it’s fine if the article had an agenda to change things (I largely agree with that agenda), but they should have represented the things that you (and anyone else they interviewed) had to say to more of an accurate extent.

I’d be interested to see, in coming entries, where you would defend Christian radio. I think it’s a great medium for communicating messages that Christian and non-Christians need to hear, but it’s vastly under-serving its purposes. I feel that if it continues to go the way that it does, it will die out as other competing technologies become more and more relevant to people who are seeking intelligent, though-provoking Christian entertainment.

But therein lies the rub - and this may be where my prediction is wrong, especially taking into account your opinion (if I’m reading you correctly) that people only want to hear the same stuff over and over, even if they’re the techo-savvy types with iPods and whatnot. Maybe people just want to be coddled be the same old simplistic stuff over and over, and if you’re doing that in the name of Christ, then it’s really hard to argue against it because they’ll just treat you like you’re seeking to obscure the Gospel message or you’re just being a downer or whatever.

But yeah, it is in human nature to want more of the same. Few people seem to genuinely crave variety and want their entertainment to make them think or challenge their narrow horizons. And if this were just “secular” business that we were talking about, I’d see no higher purpose for the music industry than to give consumers whatever service they wanted and make boatloads of money doing so. But this is supposed to be a business that bears the name of Christ… so should we just say “oh well, people want more of the same” and settle for that? Or should we challenge them even if it means those challenges will translate into fewer dollars to deposit in the bank? Won’t God still provide if we’re fulfilling the calling He has for us? (That goes for artists, radio programmers, bookstore owners, record label presidents, etc.)

That said, it’s fine if some artists just want to offer simple comfort, or basic worship songs, or just plain have a lot of silly fun, or just make good art for the sake of celebrating creativity itself. Those things fulfill kingdom purposes, too. We just need more room for artists with all of these purposes, not just a select few.

“I think it’s a great medium for communicating messages that Christian and non-Christians need to hear, but it’s vastly under-serving its purposes”

David, for the sake of spurring on discussion before the next part in this series gets posted...What do you see as the purposes of Christian radio that are being under-served?  If you were in charge of a station or two hundred, what would you purpose be?

I see Christian radio as being a conduit for Christian music - a service that gives a potential audience exposure to songs and artists with which they may not be familiar (as well as the latest from their favorite artists, and older songs from all of the above, etc.) This is assuming we’re talking about stations that exist to play music, and not to broadcast sermons or other things like that which aren’t music. (That’s a valid purpose too, but we’re talking specifically about Christian music stations.)

The problem is that a large percentage of the audience is being exposed to a very small percentage of the music, and the reasons often cited for that have to do with it either not being appropriate for the target demographic from a stylistic perspective, or being too “challenging” or “difficult to understand” or “not uplifting enough” from a lyrical perspective. And I’m sorry, but while it’s valid for Christian music to comfort its audience, it’s also valid for it to challenge its audience. This is being done less and less as radio playlists get smaller and tigether. People’s horizons are being narrowed rather than broadened. I think this is under-serving the purpose of Christian radio.

You’ve seen this yourself. “Should I Tell Them?” is a classic example that I sometimes cite, where a song is totally stylistically friendly in terms of what Christian radio would play (don’t take that the wrong way; it’s not bland at all, but it fits comfortably into a pop/rock format and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that), but it gets rejected because it asks its audience to think and examine themselves. Somehow it’s OK to play songs which confront the non-Christian with their own failings, and we can point the finger and say, “Yeah, you folks need to change” even though most of ‘em probably aren’t even listening to this stuff in the first place, but look inwards at the church and challenge its own traditions and rituals and so forth, and it’s too much. Especially if the questions asked aren’t answered perfectly within three and a half minutes (never mind that it would take God Himself to fully answer many of them). We don’t like questions. We don’t like admitting uncertainty. We don’t like cliffhangers. We like easy answers that make us feel good about ourselves. This is what Christian radio largely caters to, regardless of the “demographic”.

Aside from the issue of lyrics, there’s an issue of style and what is considered “radio-friendly”, which is a narrow definition that Christian radio has erroneously carried over from mainstream radio. OK, so we’ve got a “Christian rock” format now that is common in major cities, and that took a lot of work to get there. But we’re still largely targeting youth group teens and soccer moms. Those groups are good people, there are a lot of them in the Church, and they should absolutely be able to find music that fits their “needs” on the radio. But there are other people in the church whose needs are not being met by the decision to focus on “Becky” (and even “Bucky”!) As a result, there are hard-working artists who have difficulty finding an audience. I don’t think every good artist is intended to be signed to a major label and racking up #1 radio hits, but wouldn’t it be nice if the playing field was leveled a little bit more? Wouldn’t it be great if profit stopped being such a motivator and we started catering to some of the niches as well? Yeah, I know, soccer moms would complain. Tough. There’ll still be plenty for them to choose from. If you’re that much into sheltering your kids from hearing anything that might confront them with a tough question you can’t answer, invest in some “safe” CDs and play those in the car. I don’t intend to devalue this “soccer mom” demographic, but I resent the notion that we’re all more or less supposed to conform to what’s being put out largely for that demographic to consume. Some Christian music isn’t “safe for the whole family”. Some of the Bible isn’t “safe for the whole family”. Some of are interested in finding that stuff, and are tired of everything having to cater to an eighth grade reading level in terms of our spiritual growth.

I think the problems with Christian radio are a microcosm of problems within the Church that may need to be addressed first. We’re a cult of personality. When you get saved, you’re basically handed your “How to become a soccer mom and listen to nothing but the Christian version of Michael Bolton (or maybe Creed, if you’re a teenager)” handbook. We’re taught to be docile, not confront hard questions, not point out truths that make us squirm. We’re supposed to be little Jesus, but instead we come out as suburban robots. Maybe some people genuinely only know that style of personality and that segment of life on Earth - fine. But the rest of us are largely being asked to fit a mold that isn’t the personality God gave us. Some of us are rough and tumble, daring, risky types, or maybe just really artsy or really intellectual. The current climate within the American Christian Church (capital “C") discourages that. It carries over into our music. If you don’t like chirpy, three-chord, big-boyfriend-in-the-sky worship songs, then tough, you’ll probably just not be able to connect very well on Sunday mornings. It’s valid to draw the romance analogy between us and God, or the parent analogy, etc. but there so many other ways in which different people relate, and we’re being severely limiting. Christian radio studies the Church as its market and imitates what will make its audience most comfortable.

Look, I don’t think that these people who run the Christian music industry are money-grubbing tyrants. They just want to feed their families like anyone else. But I don’t think lulling the Church into complacency is a worthy way to earn your paycheck. Because that involves taking many artists, and many more audience members, and telling them that they and their radical callings to challenge the Church don’t fit your agenda. It’s trickier to stay in business when you promote the diversity of God’s Kingdom and you try to stand up for difficult truths. But truth is a higher calling than staying in business. So basically, people need to just accept that and deal with it.

David, are you in the music business?  You make some pretty confident assertions about what radio stations do and don’t do and why you believe that is.  What do you base these assertions on?  Stories you’ve heard?  Things you’ve personally experienced?  What’s your involvement with Christian radio?  Are you an artist, label guy, work at a station, or a listener?

Just curious where your viewing this issue from: the inside or the outside of Christian radio.

Just a disgruntled ex-listener. I have no special industry ties. I just know that I’m sick and tired of the sheer mind-numbing repetition that I get out of radio stations (not just the Christian ones) here in Los Angeles, and judging from what I’ve read, things are pretty similar nationwide. Even when they’re playing music I like, I really don’t need to hear that same awesome song ten times a day.

If radio stations are doing some things that I’m asserting they don’t do (or vice versa), please feel free to educate me.

man,i think it only happens here in the philippines !!!

i think the state of radio worldwide is the same except those some independent.i dont know if they still exist today but the radio station where i can hear Reg’s coffehouse online is awesome.too bad they changed format.Now Reg’s can be heard at 94.7 and i dont like that station though…

David, it’s not that I agree or disagree with anything you’ve said - that’s not why I’m asking how you know the things you’re asserting.

I’m asking because I wonder how a listener comes to the conclusions you have that radio stations operate the way you think they do and how a listener can be as certain as you are about why they operate this way?  Are these thoughts of yours based on the Christianity Today article, things I’ve written before about radio, a blog somewhere??  How do you know so much about how and why radio operates?

Just curious.

David (or others) --

Honest questions:  How would YOU program a music station? 

1) Which artists would be on your playlist?

2) What about the 99.99% of artists, whom you are not going to mention?  Why aren’t they deserving?

3) Regarding styles:  Should we include chants?  African music?  Eastern styles?  Or merely songs from limited genres that you relate to?  I’m actually not being flippant here.  Which genres, for a station, say, in L.A.?

Only in English?  Limited to songs with vocals, or would that be catering only to those with limited musical maturity, who under-appreciate instrumentalists?  Should we play entire works, rather than 4 minute “songs”?

If it’s somehow obvious that we should stick to a certain subgenre of pop or rock, please explain why this should be the case, since it doesn’t reflect the breadth and depth of the Kingdom.

4) About rotation:  Honestly:  How many songs should—as if this were really a moral issue— be in the playlist?  How often should they be repeated?  This isn’t hypothetical; in radio we actually have to come up with real numbers. 

5) Lastly, if you were a programmer, given a radio station, and found that smaller playlists result in FAR more—not fewer—listeners, would that matter?  I’m guessing “no”, but I’m not sure.

These questions require no more expertise to answer than the subjects you’ve already addressed.  I’d honestly be interested to read answers to these. 

You do seem like a thoughtful guy, so I’d love it.  Between you and me, I’ve heretofore heard a lot of criticism, but not many prescriptive answers.  My mom called that “just complainin’.”

Brant

I freely admit that some of my gripes with radio are probably based on assumptions. Most of it’s just based on my own listening - stations such as The Fish and Air1, which I’d assume are pretty much the same in any cities where they exist, and a local station (KFSG, 96.3 FM) that used to exist here in L.A. which was my main conduit to discovering new Christian music when I first got into it in the mid-90’s. All I can see is the end result - the content of playlists. They’ve gotten narrower, in terms of the sheer number of songs on the list at any given time, and the (apparent) criteria for who they’re willing to play and what the songs have to say. The CT article confirmed some of my own observations that I was honestly hoping were just my little crazy conspiracy theories, about how hard it is for new artists to get a break, especially if they have a message or musical style that is challenging to listeners. I wanted to be proved wrong. The CT article may have portrayed some unbalanced opinions, but I don’t think anyone’s accusing them of getting their actual facts wrong in terms of how radio operates - it’s just their representation of people’s feelings about whether this approach was good or bad that was suspect. And I already had my own opinions on that before reading the article. All the article did for me was add more fuel to an already-burning fire.

Some of what you’ve written before about radio did inform this as well, though. I was quite surprised when you admitted, in your series about the making of Twilight, that you had to make certain concessions for radio. It shocked me that an artist with your particular style, which as I said before is a good fit for a pop/rock radio station without being bland and totally blending into the background, would still have to “dumb it down” to a certain extent so that the label could have one or two songs to push to radio. You tested your boundaries with much of the rest of that album, so it’s not like there was an extreme dictatorship censoring you or anything, but it bugged me that you, an intelligent artist whose style was generally already palatable to what they would be willing to play, had to make any compromises at all in order to be considered more marketable.

Maybe I’m remembering the content of that Twilight series wrong; I don’t claim to have absolute knowledge here, so that’s why I say I’m open to being further educated. But I have become pretty pessimistic about whether the Christian music industry as a whole really understands what it means to challenge and edify its Christian listeners. Either they’re confused and think simple baby food is enough for all of us, or they just plain don’t care whether Christians are growing as long as they can feel like they’re converting lots of new ones. This kind of ties in to your “Don’t lie and tell me I’m saving teenagers” comment, but it sounds like there was more to that than what was printed, so that’s why I await your future blog entries on this subject.

Cool, David.  I was just wondering how you knew so much about radio and suspected it was from what you’ve read.  Thanks for clarifying that for me.

I think Brant asks some good questions.  I’ll answer of of them in my posts later on, but for now, I think it’s more than fair to ask the critics of radio what they really want instead.

So, you think it’s busted.  Got any better ideas?

My “better idea”, up until I read the CT article, was simply “double the playlist size”. More artists would get exposure, and the most-played songs would still be the most-played songs, so it wouldn’t upset the overall hierarchy of things. But the CT article seemed to suggest financial or demographic reasons why this didn’t work. So I’m kind of stumped there.

I’m not a businessman, and there’s a clear reason why - I’d go broke. Or at least I wouldn’t make much of a profit. I’d want to give people something interesting and different if I worked in the radio/music business. Human nature, for the most part, seems to go against that. I think that’s a problem, but we’re probably not going to repair human nature any time soon. At the very least, we can facilitate the ministries of a more varied pool of artists with different styles and different things to say by making their music more available to people. It probably won’t attract millions of dollars in revenue. It may catch the ears of a few curious folks. But I believe those artists deserve a shot at finding more of an audience. And I believe it’s worth some financial investment in helping that to happen, because that’s part of the reason why I believe record labels and radio stations exist. Let’s work the niche markets a little more and see what we find. Maybe some of those niches won’t be such isolated niches by the time we’re done with them. God cares about those people just as much as He cares about the soccer mom, so even if it’s not a lucrative business, God will provide. God provides for long-term missionaries; surely He can provide for radio programmers and record labels who go off the beaten path a little more, and who challenge people to broaden their horizons (both artistically and in terms of the maturity level of the message they’re willing to listen to).

I know, easy for me to say, I don’t work in the music business and probably never will, so I’m not the one who’ll have to stick his neck out and face uncertainty about his paycheck. But plenty of artists are already doing that, artists who I think have something valuable to say and who Christian radio and Christian record labels are just casting aside like yesterday’s garbage. It’s time for the industry to start serving the artists and the listeners, instead of the other way around.

I know I’m being rather non-specific there, but I’ve always been more visionary than practical in these matters. You don’t have to know how to build a car from the ground up to know when a car needs to be taken to the mechanic.

Respectfully, I think you need to be more specific.  The car analogy doesn’t hold, because it IS working for lots of people. 

You’re saying it should be different.  How so?  What would make it right?  Or, are you saying that a radio programmer, like a mechanic, actually has special knowledge that you don’t?

You wrote that music radio isn’t meeting the needs of the church—please tell me how a music format would do that.  It’s not that technical.

The questions can be answered.  Will someone do it?

I’m a critical person, myself, whose learned that critical vision, without corrective vision, isn’t helpful.

Any analogy breaks down when you take it too far - my point was to say that I don’t need to know the complete inner workings of something to be able to critique it and say it isn’t working for me. Since I’m not the lone voice saying that Christian radio isn’t working for me, it isn’t really valid to shoot back, “Do you work in radio? If not, then what the heck do you know? Go away.” I don’t think that’s what anyone here is saying, but I do get that response to music reviews that write sometimes. “Can you make a better album. If not, then you have no right to talk.” Well, actually I do. I’ve listened to better albums that attempted to accomplish the same goals, and the artist is trying to communicate something to, or have some effect on, the listener, so if that’s not working, I have the right to say so.

That said, I realize that it’s not terribly helpful to criticize without suggesting helpful alternatives. I really don’t know the best way to be more specific in this case, though. Do you want a specific list of genres, or lyrical subjects, or artists, that I think Christian radio should be broadcasting? It’d be hard to come up with such a list that wasn’t specifically biased to my own personal tastes, which is part of the reason why I’ve resisted such specifics. Diversifying the scope of radio playlists would, by necessity, need to go beyond the specifics of my own preferences. Otherwise it’d just be Murlough’s personalized radio station, and if I wanted one of those, I’d go get a last.fm account or an iPod or something.

Certainly it doesn’t take a genius to realize that something’s wrong when Christian radio is turning its nose up at the likes of Shaun Groves and Derek Webb. This sort of stuff shouldn’t be a stretch for them. But those artists, who I think are fairly easy on the ears and incredibly sound theologically without fear of asking tough questions, have basically been sidelined, despite the fact that both (well, if you count Webb’s work with Caedmon’s Call) were once Christian radio darlings. This is evidence to me that Christian radio has narrowed rather than broadened its focus, because it’s not like either artist has undergone an extreme drop in quality. If anything, they’ve just explored more, and Christian radio has proven to me that it doesn’t like exploration.

I wouldn’t want to hold up Christian radio in the mid-to-late 90’s as a harbinger of all that is great, but back then it seemed they wanted to meet more of a quirky, “alternative” appeal (and by that I don’t just mean alternative rock), and they’d take more chances on artists with an unusual sound or a more cryptic lyrical approach. Then SonicFlood and Delirious? and the whole “modern worship” trend came along (and don’t get me wrong, I like those guys - well, I liked the original SonicFlood anyway), and within a few years it seemed like Christian radio only wanted the most straightforward, immediately-accessible and immediately-recognizable-as-worship type of stuff. I’d like for it to go back to the way it was in the 90’s, with more of a mindset of finding and exposing independent artists, or those on small labels, and especially those who experiment genre-wise while still somewhat resembling the format of a radio station (i.e. I don’t expect to hear progressive Christian metal, or hardcore Christian rap, or ethnic Christian music performed in a foreign language, or IDM recorded by Christian artists, etc. on an AC station, but I do expect there to be stations that will play the progressive Christian metal and those other genres I’ve come up with at random (or at least blocks of programming on specific stations), and I expect the AC station to experiment with artists who aren’t so aurally different from the station’s core style as to totally alienate listeners, but who write more thoughtfully and color outside of their genre lines a bit. Derek Webb would fit that format this fine if they weren’t so stuffy about callenging lyrics.

We’re accomplishing some of this with Internet radio. But in terms of the convenient FM dial that most folks can just flip on in their cars without being technologically-inclined, we’re still not achieving this diversity.

When you have a radio signal, you have infinite possibilities, but must choose something quite finite.

So “resisting the specifics” is precisely the issue.  My questions can be answered, but rarely will critics try it, because now they have to be specific, and whatever answers they come up with will be subject to their own criticisms. 

I’m really saying quite the opposite of, “Oh, you’re not in radio, so get out.” I’m inviting non-specialists to answer the questions.  I *don’t* think we’re like technical mechanics.  Tehse questions, again, they’re quite answerable. Please have at them.

Agreed, one certainly has the right to say, “this doesn’t work for me,” but your critiques above go well beyond that.  Respectfully:  Try your hand at the finite, like the rest of us.

The first solution is going to be a little /less/ finite in selecting from those available possibilities. The playlists are narrower than they once were. I’ve seen the financial excuses for why this is so; I have yet to see the ministry excuses for it.

And you’re still going to have to be specific about what specifics your asking me for. Believe me, I’ve tried writing into or calling certain radio stations and asking “Why don’t you play such-and-such?”, and I’m sure they get that all the time and can’t accomodate everyone’s wishes, but often the answer seems to be that the artist in question either doesn’t have the appropriate label beauracracy behind it pushing the single and basically forcing a chart-topping hit, or that the song wasn’t among the singles chosen (since these things are apparently determined way ahead of time for most released albums nowadays). Radio can only work with what its given, so this is more an industry problem of the labels and miscellaneous powers-that-be not offering Christian radio stations as much to choose from.

I see that some radio stations are making the effort to get out there and test the audience. The problem is that they’re largely testing an existing audience who seems to more or less be fine with the status quo and will click on a link to vote for an artist who is already a favorite ten bazillion times, so this just ends up reinforcing the narrow playlists because it appears to be “what the people want”. So you not only have to get people who don’t work in radio, you have to get people who have stopped listening to it and develop a better picture of why that is.

Meeting people’s wants (which often reside within the shallow space of what they’re already comfortable with) and meeting their needs (growth, edification, the ability to wean oneself off of only wanting the familiar) are often two different things. I’m not convinced that what most of the potential audience out there wants is what they really need to begin with, so try to give them what they need and you’re likely to take a hit financially. I respect that, but I don’t see it as a reason to not try.

I appreciate your perspective, and your kind tone.  Thanks for that!

Honestly, I can’t imagine how my questions would need to be more specific.  They’re very answerable. 

There’s *plenty* of music to choose from.  Not just in the rock/pop genres.  There’s music Christians have been writing for centuries.  If you have a radio signal, who do you play?

As for the testing—again, you demonstrate quite a bit of sophistication for “just a listener”—you’re not quite accurate.  It’s not just current listeners who are tested. 

I used to be a youth minister, and have taught hundreds of middle school Sunday School lessons.  Radio is similar: You have to meet people where they are, not where you wish they were.  And someone more mature, a doctoral student, might walk in and say, “What IS this fluff? Let me do some exegesis of...” but you have to lovingly say, “Not everyone is where you are yet, please let me do this...”

Sure, venture beyond the pop/rock genres. That’s why takes the perspective of someone whose tastes go beyond my own to suggest these things.

And quite frankly, I don’t care that not everyone is “where I am”, because I’m not arrogant enough to think that I’m the only person who is where I am. There are plenty of Christians out there at all different stages, and even if the majority of the market is made up of “baby Christians” (I don’t agree with that assessment, but that seems to be who we’re largely marketing to), what good does it do to expose them to only baby food? No wonder they’re resisting growing up! Give ‘em some stuff that’s within their reach, sure, but also challenge ‘em with something that they have to put a little effort into. People won’t see this as being so much of a chore when everyone else around them isn’t reacting this way.

More Christians need to learn to enjoy a good mystery. I don’t care if they like it now. If it’s what’s available to them, I think they’ll adapt, and why shouldn’t they, when mystery is a big component of what we know about God?

We need some fluff from time to time. It’s fun. I think God smiles when we have some good, clean fun. That’s an act of worship, too. It’s just the proportion that I’m concerned about. It’s can’t be all deep, cerebral stuff, and no fluff, and it can’t be all fluff, either. Sometimes I need to be challenged to exhale a little bit and just enjoy the fluff. I can accept that. But I do think, to some extent, you /do/ need to meet people where you wish they were, or at least a little farther from where they’re expecting you to meet them. That’s how I think God does it; Christians looking to mimic a creative God should follow suit, and those whose job it is to make that art available to the Church should honor those attempts more than they currently do.

Ok, now that you’ve used your screen name from CMCentral (Murlough) I know who you are and the reason for your surprising knowledge of the inner workings of the Christian music business is revealed: you review music for a living...or part of your living.  ANd you’ve given me good reviews.  Thanks for that.

At the risk of getting a bad review in the future…

It’s not complexity of thought or theology that has kept my music off the airwaves or Derek’s.  It’s style.  It’s metaphor and simile.  It’s a heavy tone to the music and lyric.  It’s not being as good today as I once was in the beginning at disguising heavy things (confession, contrition, sin and sanctification in Welcome Home, for example) as fluffy pop songs.  It’s evolving musically and vocally to the point that listeners no longer recognized what I created as mine.  I’ll get into it more in future posts - the exact reasons given for my music not being played anymore, all that often - but I don’t want you thinking that my music specifically isn’t played because radio guys think I’m writing music that is too mature spiritually.  Never heard that.

And Brant, you asked, “ If you have a radio signal, who do you play?”

Instead of tackling this question in my posts I’m going to go after a harder one: HOW do you decide what to play?” The method will create the playlist your asking for, not my personal taste.  The end may sound the same but the means will be different and, maybe I’ll be the only one, but I think that will matter.

And then the million dollar, root-of-it-all question behind every question: “Why?”

So the question every radio guy being criticized wants to know is what you’ve asked, Brant.  Essentially, what would you do differently?  Very fair question...one few critics can or want to even try to answer.

My question to everyone in radio, and to myself everyday, is, I think, more important though.  It’s answer helps us answer all other question we have about how we do our jobs within this industry: Why do we do this?  What is the reason you write music, artist guy?  Why does your station exist, program director?

What’s your personal answer to that, Brant?  You’re a very intentional guy so I’m sure you have an answer.  I’d love to hear it.  I’ve asked other people in radio this same question and, boy, wait to you hear their answers.

I think - to play armchair philosopher for a moment - that when we don’t have our why right, we’re really B.S.ing our way through all the whats and hows.  I think that’s what SOME in radio are doing right now..and even more artists...and labels...and

Heh. I thought you’d either have recognized the screen name from my Email and the URL to my Xanga site which it asks for when I post a comment, or you wouldn’t remember it at all (if your memory is as bad as mine). I just realized those things weren’t appearing onscreen, and I used my screen name in the text of a post due to force of habit.

Anyway… never meant to imply that your earliest hits weren’t spiritually mature, or less well-written, or whatever. I think radio’s willingness to broadcast these things has gone downhill, even since 2001. “Should I Tell Them” was perhaps an early warning sign regarding what Christian radio wasn’t willing to handle, and that was from the same album as “Welcome Home” (just several singles later, if I recall). What’s the difference? I think it’s specificity. “Welcome Home” is a well-stated, clever take on a somewhat familiar metaphor. It compels something within us and that’s good, but it doesn’t take a whole lot of thinking to figure out what’s being said. Neither does “Should I Tell Them”, but that song’s more specific, admitting doubts on your part as to your own ability to do this whole “Christian musician” thing. That’s an important thought in a culture that puts musicians on pedestals, but it’s more confrontational. Easier just to think about “Jesus, come clean up my house” because those are broader terms that apply to everyone. Both types of songs are valid, but one type is something that I think Christian radio has a much harder time dealing with.

Stylistically speaking, and in terms of your writing, I don’t think you’ve changed so radically as to be unrecognizable. You’ve definitely done some unexpected things that take a few tries before they grab hold of a person’s memory. Some songs are just like that - they take hold slowly and then refuse to let go. But I wouldn’t listen to anything on Twilight or White Flag and go, “What the heck, this doesn’t sound like Shaun Groves”. I wasn’t really listening to the radio by the time White Flag came out; I have no idea how anything on that album performed, but I will say that releasing the one song that you didn’t write (sorry, but it stuck out like a sore thumb, and not in a good way) as the first single really sold you short as an artist. Maybe it’s a song that you really admire and wanted to record, and that’s fine, but it’s not like “Amen” would have been such a stretch, or “Only”, or “White Flag”, and those aren’t even necessarily my favorites; I’m just making a point. ("What’s Wrong with This World” would have been a perfect CHR single like, ten years ago, and that’s not saying the style is outdated, that’s just saying that Christian radio had a little more of a sense of humor back then - see All Star United’s “Smash Hit”.) The record label, or whoever it is was that decided “Bless the Lord” should be the single, went with the song that made it easiest for you to blend in, because that’s what the Christian music industry is doing lately. Blend in, record worship songs with phrases we’re already familiar with, don’t ruffle any feathers. And then when your song manages to blend in and people don’t have as much of a motivation to buy your record over ten other people’s records who also blend in, you get unceremoniously dumped due to a lack of spins. Maybe I’m exaggerating the way it really works, but to an outsider, that’s the way it looks.

Just so we’re clear on this, the money I make from writing reviews is a pittance. Enough to buy a few extra CD’s every few months. I don’t make my living off of it, and I wouldn’t want to. I enjoy my real job (web design) quite a bit, and prefer to keep the critic thing as a hobby, so everything I write should be taken as the opinion of a layman who listens to a lot of music in his free time, and nothing more.

And you’re not gonna get negative reviews just because you dared to disagree with me. It’s actually part of what’s earned you my respect. (But it’s not gonna guarantee you positive reviews, either - you’re just gonna have to keep making good music to get those.) I mean, look at Amy Lee from Evanescence - I think she’s an overgrown impish child and I still give her band’s albums positive reviews.

“Should I Tell Them” was perhaps an early warning sign regarding what Christian radio wasn’t willing to handle, and that was from the same album as “Welcome Home” (just several singles later, if I recall). What’s the difference? I think it’s specificity. “Welcome Home” is a well-stated, clever take on a somewhat familiar metaphor.

“Should I Tell Them” was a #1 CHR single.  Very well received.  AC stations did not play it.  Jon Rivers, at the time with KLTY in Dallas, said his listeners didn’t want to think that hard when listening to the radio.  The language, not the idea, required too much effort and time and focus on the part of his busy kid-toting errand-running listeners - he felt.

The difference between the reception Welcome Home received (single #1) and the one Should I Tell Them received (single #7 - yes, #7!) was testing.  I’ll get to that.  Should I Tell Them was the first single multiple stations told us didn’t test well because it was too different from my other music and from the rest of the station’s playlist.  That was 2001.  The year of the big change.

BUT, to be fair, Welcome Home was not an overnight success.  It languished for a few months until Jon Rivers at AC radio and Matt Austin at CHR radio’s WAY-FM took a chance on it.  The rest of their format followed them.  And they did so timidly, some stations going so far as to create their own radio edit of the song without a bridge.  The bridge, one PD told us, sounded too angry to be on a positive music station.

So, it’s always been a battle to get my music on the radio.  The battle was just more easily won before 2001.

“Should I Tell Them” was a #1 CHR single.  Very well received.  AC stations did not play it.

I stand corrected. I remember reading about that all those years ago, and I must have forgotten that the refusal to play it only happened within a certain radio format - which, by the way, is still a load of crap as far as I’m concerned. But at least the crap was confined to only one Christian radio format.

Jon Rivers, at the time with KLTY in Dallas, said his listeners didn’t want to think that hard when listening to the radio.  The language, not the idea, required too much effort and time and focus on the part of his busy kid-toting errand-running listeners - he felt.

Whatever. It was still an idiotic decision made for an idiotic reason. If people don’t want to think, they’re probably not going to be paying close enough attention to know that someone’s asking them to think in the first place. Whether that’s because the idea was challenging or because the language took some work to figure out what you were talking about (and it’s not like this is a cryptic song we’re discussing here), it still shows how stupid they think their audience is.

The difference between the reception Welcome Home received (single #1) and the one Should I Tell Them received (single #7 - yes, #7!) was testing.  I’ll get to that.

I suppose I should be grateful that Christian radio even let you get as far as single #7, though I’m guessing that the “worship song” trio in the back half of the album accounted for three of those - and those aren’t bad songs by any means, just more obviously up the alley of Christian radio in terms of their language.

Should I Tell Them was the first single multiple stations told us didn’t test well because it was too different from my other music and from the rest of the station’s playlist.  That was 2001.  The year of the big change.

It doesn’t seem to me that it was really that strikingly different, other than just plain being the best song on the album and having a different time signature. It was actually the only song that really grabbed my attention the first time I listened to your album. The others that I came to really like took a few more tries, but that’s just me. Stylistically, I don’t see how it’s so radically different - I would think “Satellite” would have been the odd duck if you were an AC radio station.

And was there actually a big change that year, or are you just referring to the big change that I accused Christian radio of making at some indeterminate point in time?

BUT, to be fair, Welcome Home was not an overnight success.  It languished for a few months until Jon Rivers at AC radio and Matt Austin at CHR radio’s WAY-FM took a chance on it.  The rest of their format followed them.  And they did so timidly, some stations going so far as to create their own radio edit of the song without a bridge.  The bridge, one PD told us, sounded too angry to be on a positive music station.

That’s about the most hilariously stupid thing I’ve heard in the last few months. Too angry? Who really thinks these things? Wait, I know - extremely sheltered Christians who think that any small measure of questioning or doubt or honesty is wrong and you always have to put forth a “nice-guy” facade. That’s the type of attitude that we don’t need Christian music to encourage. Even if it was an angry bridge (which it wasn’t; it just sounded a little more melancholy to me), there’s a time and a place for that and it’s an honest part of the flesh’s ongoing struggle for control. If their meek and mild radio listeners can’t handle such a basic truth, then honestly, why are they even Christians?

I don’t intend to shoot the messenger here - these things must have been frustrating for you to hear as well, and maybe you’re just trying to make sure I fully understand the reasons why radio stations made certain decisions regarding your music. Not playing it because the style just plain doesn’t fit their format ("Satellite" on an AC station, for example) would be something that I could understand, but the excuses they actually gave you? I’d be deeply offended if I were an artist and people were either blacklisting or cutting pieces out of my songs because they weren’t even really paying attention to what I was trying to communicate. I don’t see how anyone who really listened to “Welcome Home” could find its bridge to be angry. It sounds very comfessional and contrite to me.

So, it’s always been a battle to get my music on the radio.  The battle was just more easily won before 2001.

Duly noted. It’s always going to be a battle for a new artist, so that partially explains “Welcome Home” (all I knew was that it was a hit; I didn’t realize how long it took). But it seems that we agree it has become a more difficult battle, and this is my primary concern. The harder it is for new artists to get their stuff played, the more repeats of stuff we already know we’re going to hear. And I think that’s counterintuitive to the very purpose of Christian radio.

Well, I didn’t intend to come here and post.  But I got sucked in.  When somebody who’s been on the radio posts a comment on your blog, curiosity often gets the best of you.

Anyways, I thought the Xianty Today article did a pretty poor job of addressing any of the issues, with the exception of the Becky explanation.

What I was hoping for and disappointed to not find was a discussion of the commercialization of Christian art and the VERY striking differences between Christian radio and nonChristian radio.

What struck me most, as I read the article, was how similar AC stations seem to be to normal radio stations.  With this exception:  they call themselves ministries.  But their models for sucess aren’t any different than non-ministries whose business models are designed to make them money.

Does anybody else see a problem here?

Does anybody else see a problem here?

Yes and no. I don’t think it’s a problem to operate as a business and to want to feed your family. I don’t think it’s a problem if you so happen to make money (plenty of Christians do so in other professions), unless you’re making compromises in order to make that money.

But that’s where operating like a mainstream station is a problem. In mainstream business, the only goal is, give your customers what they want and they’ll pay you for it. When those customers are Christians and you’re a Christian doing business with them, making money isn’t a justifiable reasons for making the compromise of encouraging their complacency. That’s what I think Christian AC stations are doing by constructing this overly “safe” world for listeners to escape into. If they played music within their preferred format that gave a more accurate picture of the Christian life, I’d have no problem with them making money from that pursuit. Everyone’s gotta eat.

Being called a ministry and not just a radio station also allows them to pay less (I’ve heard half) than what commercial stations pay to ASCAP, BMI and SESAC and pay less in taxes.  And they still run commercials acknowledging their sponsors, though those “spots” can contain no comparative language (#1 in sales) or pricing info ($99 a month, no money down).  Still a commercial though right?

This doesn’t bother me tremendously but it’s one rarely discussed peculiarity of Christian radio that I think helps create an atmosphere in which the WHYs and WHATs have become what they are.

I was hoping for and disappointed to not find was a discussion of the commercialization of Christian art

Jake, what are your thoughts on the commercialization of “art”...and how do you define “art?”

Another thing that non-com stations cannot do in their ads is issue any kind of “call to action”.  At least, that was one of the rules when I worked in radio, about 5 years ago.

What would a “call to action” be?  Something like “visit our store today?”

Interesting.  Pretty restricting.

Yes, anything like that. “Call today” is another one.

I just found this on one radio station’s website:

The FCC specifically prohibits us from four types of messages:

1- Messages containing price information (all cars selling at 1% below
invoice)
2- Messages containing a call to action (stop by our store today and
check our low prices)
3- Messages containing an inducement to buy, sell, rent, or lease (10%
off this week only)
4 - Messages containing comparative or qualitative language (the best
candy store in Payson)

Brant’s defensive bluster is even less helpful to the conversation than the critical listeners he’s suggesting aren’t helpful.

Guess what? Inability to fix a problem, or provide instructions to fix a problem, doesn’t mean there’s no problem to fix. The car analogy was valid. Likewise, you don’t have to be a fireman to know a house is on fire, and it’s not “just complainin’” to shout “FIRE!”

You can throw back “well, what would you do?” all you want, but no amount of asking will convince us former and would-be listeners that Christian radio doesn’t suck, or that we should submit to that drivel.

As for me, a mere listener, my solution is simple: changing the channel. If “Christian music” on the radio is nothing but unchallenging and “safe” Becky & Bucky crap, I’ll find better music elsewhere.

And it’s fine to change the channel...ur, station, um, Mr.Fool.  I think folks working in radio would say there should be a lot of people who don’t like what they broadcast, because they’re not trying to get everybody to listen.  They have a target market, just like any business, just like any musician, just like - I’ll say it - any church.

Some targets are larger than others - all evangelical white women 35-45 is pretty small compared to a target of all people agreeing with Christian theology living in this XYZ zipcode or all lovers of acoustic guitar music written with a Christian world-view - but they’re targets none-the-less.  What sucks to those outside the target sounds pretty sweet to those in the target...if the target is being hit.

I’d argue that the problem isn’t having a target, but why the target was chosen and whether or not it’s really being hit.  It doesn’t bother me that you and I don’t like what K-LOVE plays.  We’re not suppsoed to.  What might bother me is why I’m not the target listener and my wife is AND I can say that she’s not being hit.  SHE can’t stand AC Christian radio piped out by the major network in our city, and THAT is something said network should care about.  She’s the bulls-eye they’re said to be aiming for.  Not even close.

And, Mr.Fool, I’ll let Brant defend himself but my opinion is that you’re off-base in your characterization of his comments thus far.  Please reread and reconsider both your summation of his words here and the attitude with which you issue it.

And thanks for stopping by.  All points of view communicated respectfully are welcome.

I know you couldn’t know this, Sean, so this isn’t an attack on you. I’m not a Mister. I’m a Christian woman, in the 35-45 range. “Becky” is me and my peers, and none of my Christian friends can stand it either. When Christian radio misses me, as when it misses your wife, Christian radio misses the target.

(Why they wouldn’t have other target demographics as well is a total mystery to me.)

We don’t want the syrupy, saccharine, always “positive,” “safe” music. Christians are not supposed to live in “positive” and “safe” cocoons, and perpetuating that idea is a disservice to everyone. We do like a wider variety of musical styles than this breathy musical cholesterol. We appreciate thoughtful, provocative, and honest lyrics, including lyrics that ask challenging questions and lyrics that aren’t always happy. If Christian women aged 35-45 really are the target demographic for what I’ve heard on Christian radio, I consider what they’re presenting to us insulting.

I grant that you may have a different perception of Brant. Perhaps you even know him personally, or have some broader knowledge of him, which gives you a perspective on his words that others don’t share. But I’ve read his posts more than once, and if that’s not what he intends, he hasn’t managed to communicate any other point to this “Becky.”

*Removes foot from mouth and begs a pardon*

Why they wouldn’t have other target demographics as well is a total mystery to me.

“They” as in Christian radio stations in general do.  “They” as in Adult Contemporary radio stations do not, generally.  There are multiple “formats” and they each have a unique (I’ll debate this later) target in theory.

We don’t want the syrupy, saccharine, always “positive,” “safe” music. Christians are not supposed to live in “positive” and “safe” cocoons,

I’ll get to this as well.  Depends on how they’re defining “safe” and “positive” doesn’t it?  How you and I may at first take those terms may not be what they in fact mean to the folks at radio stations.  And what one station means by “positive,” for example, may not be what another station means by it.

Geez, I have a lot to get to.  Better get part two out quick.

May I ask you a personal question MRS.Fool?  What denomination, if any, would you say you most closely identify with?  And another: Do you have children, and if so, how old?  And one more: What’s your education level, and if you attended college, what did you study?

Trust me, I’m going somewhere beneficial with this line of questioning and do not intend to use it against you in any way.

I’d be curious to know the same things about nay other lurkers who fit the “Becky” profile but do not enjoy their local Adult Contemporary radio station’s choices in programming.

I think it’s fine to have target audiences - my question is why a wider variety of audiences aren’t being targeted. We’ve got so much effort focused on a particular demographic, and because of that I think it puts forth the subtle message that you have to be like “Becky” or you don’t fit into Christian subculture.

Nobody can do the job of reaching everybody. But we have a lot of Christian radio stations out there and a lot of hours during the day for a variety of programming. Why is so much effort spent on such a narrowly defined target audience at the expense of all others? Is there an answer to that other than that they buy the most stuff?

No pardon needs to be begged, Shaun. It is I who mispelled your name, after all, and should be begging yours! (My apologies, force of habit.)

I’ve heard there are different “formats,” but I’ve only heard two from Christian radio:

1. The sugary, breathy musical cholesterol previously mentioned (the only Christian radio I’ve ever heard on local stations).

2. A bizarre and incongruous mix of kiddie pop with what appears to be a corporatized neo-punk and neo-metal (heard a couple of times on satellite radio).

Please forgive me for not knowing the names of these formats. Neither appeals.

I look forward to your further installments.

My background is Methodist & Episcopal, heavily influenced by Southern evangelicalism. I’ve attended many kinds of churches over the years myself, and my friends are all over the board (Baptists, Lutherans, Evangelicals, etc).

Yes to children (a toddler); most of my peer friends have children 11 and under.

Yes, I have a college degree (religious studies); but this varies among the friends. Some have college degrees, some don’t. Those who do have varied degrees, including biology, art, literature, history, etc.

...And if it helps, for future reference, my personal musical tastes tend toward:

* “folk rock” past & present (e.g. Indigo Girls, Derek Webb, Dar Williams, John Denver, Tracy Chapman, Peter Paul & Mary, David Wilcox, the Grateful Dead, etc.)

* classic rock (e.g. Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the Who, CCR, the Eagles, etc.)

* alternative/college rock of the ‘80s-90s (e.g. REM, TMBG, Jane’s Addiction, Red Hot Chili Peppers, NIN, etc.)

* some relatively current rock that appeals more to adults (e.g. U2, Sheryl Crow, Lenny Kravitz, etc.)

* “world” music (e.g. Afro Celt Sound System, Baba Olatunji, Ravi Shankar, etc.)

And other stuff (older punk, old school hip hop, classic jazz, roots reggae, Motown, outlaw country, etc.).

You’ll see few examples of “Christian music,” sorry, I don’t have any idea where to find any I would like.

From what I can tell, a lot of what I would like is called “AAA” and “Hot AC” in radio, though my tastes are more eclectic than that. (Unlike the people Brant mentioned who listen to the same stuff over and over, I really do listen to all these genres.) But I’ve never heard anything like AAA or Hot AC-- even without the eclecticism-- on Christian radio anywhere I’ve lived.

It would be good to hear from more “Beckys.”

I think it’s fine to have target audiences - my question is why a wider variety of audiences aren’t being targeted.... Why is so much effort spent on such a narrowly defined target audience at the expense of all others?

I wonder the same thing, David. I fit the Becky profile, but I certainly don’t think I’m the only Christian who wants to listen to music. I think it’s crazy.

I wonder the same thing, David. I fit the Becky profile, but I certainly don’t think I’m the only Christian who wants to listen to music. I think it’s crazy.

And I respect that you’re part of an audience that can and should be targeted - since you already are, I don’t want to take that away from you, I just want to be sure we’re reaching a bunch of other people and you.

But since you fit the “Becky” profile, let me ask you this: Are you turned off when you don’t understand a song on first listen, or when it falls slightly outside of your musical comfort zone? Or when it expresses more vulnerable, honest emotions that aren’t as upbeat and 100% happy? Or are you intrigued? Would you rather hear more of a variety on Christian radio than what you’re hearing now? Is so (or if not), why?

David = leading the witness ; )

David and Mrs.Fool, what do you two do for a living and what do your spouses do for a living? ...if you don’t mind me asking.

David = leading the witness ; )

Well, not necessarily. For all I know she may be fine with what she’s hearing. And if so, part of me wonders how that can possibly be.

David and Mrs.Fool, what do you two do for a living and what do your spouses do for a living? ...if you don’t mind me asking.

I do web design. My wife is a teacher. She’s a bit more tolerant when it comes to mediocre music than I am.

But since you fit the “Becky” profile, let me ask you this: Are you turned off when you don’t understand a song on first listen, or when it falls slightly outside of your musical comfort zone? Or when it expresses more vulnerable, honest emotions that aren’t as upbeat and 100% happy?

Of course not; in fact, I much prefer the vulnerable honesty. Hence my statement: “We appreciate thoughtful, provocative, and honest lyrics, including lyrics that ask challenging questions and lyrics that aren’t always happy. If Christian women aged 35-45 really are the target demographic for what I’ve heard on Christian radio, I consider what they’re presenting to us insulting.”

Look at my post above for examples of the kinds of music I like.

Shaun: Non-profit work and writing. But there’s a lot of variety among my “Becky” peers in the work arena too. Some don’t work outside the home, some work from home, some work outside the home.

Of course not; in fact, I much prefer the vulnerable honesty. Hence my statement: “We appreciate thoughtful, provocative, and honest lyrics, including lyrics that ask challenging questions and lyrics that aren’t always happy. If Christian women aged 35-45 really are the target demographic for what I’ve heard on Christian radio, I consider what they’re presenting to us insulting.”

Look at my post above for examples of the kinds of music I like.

I apologize for my poor short-term memory.

No apology necessary. I thought you just hadn’t seen it.

Mrs. Fool, when you write are you writing for everybody?  David, when you design a site are you designing it for everyone?

How do you decide who you write and design for?  What’s that process look like?

David, when you design a site are you designing it for everyone?

We design with the general public in mind, but the specific group being targeted is students (generally high school or younger) and educators. Sometimes the audience is internal to NASA, so it’s other employees and therefore the language can be more technical and the design more functional instead of flashy.

How do you decide who you write and design for?  What’s that process look like?

Most of that’s determined by the customers I work for, who actually write the content - I just help them organize it and display it on the Internet. I don’t get to determine the audience; my job is mostly to make the information easily accessible, understandable, and enjoyable to the audience that the customer wants to reach. It’s a niche audience, and I’m fine with that. If we attempted to make the website that absolutely everyone in the world would love, we’d probably lose some of the specific focus and purpose in the process. If other people wander in and enjoy what they find, great! But our intent is to satisfy our core audience.

Now, if everyone made websites for the same target audience that we did, there’d be a problem. Fortunately, there are people out there running websites for parents of young children, and big businesses, and small businesses, and music industry professionals, and speakers of a multitude of foreign language, and teenbyoppers who want to look up their favorite celebrity, and fans of obscure cult films, etc.

There needs to be material out there for all audiences - but no single provider of material can possibly hope to hit all audiences. That’s why we need a multitude of content providers for a multitude of different audiences.

I know why you asked the question that you did - some radio programmers are going to need to target a specific audience and that’s fine - know who they are and give ‘em what’s going to reach them most effectively, and do a bang-up job of it! But if everyone else is also trying to reach your audience, then you have a major problem due to competition, and the segment of the population who is not part of that target audience is left to fend for themselves.

And also, when reaching that audience with a goal of nurturing their faith in mind, you don’t want to stop at just giving them stuff that makes them happy. It needs to reflect truth as well, even if that truth is difficult to hear. To make an analogy, the purpose of most of the websites I work on is not just to entertain, but also to educate the public about space exploration. If we skim the facts and give them a romanticized view of space (we’ll have people living on Mars in 5 years, NASA has never launched a mission that failed, Pluto is still a planet, etc.), then we’re doing them a disservice, even if we can wow them with flashy design and entertain them enough to guarantee millions more hits daily than we’d get by presenting the truth (it’ll be forever before we get a person to Mars, NASA has screwed up several times, and Pluto was recently voted not a planet by the powers that be - a hotly contested issue which has caused some people to not like us very much even though I sure as heck didn’t make that decision), but at what cost?

This is the problem that I think Christian radio runs into (AC or otherwise) when it aims to be easygoing and “safe” and “uplifting” at the expense of any specific mention of conflict, doubt, struggle, etc. There is mellow music out there which fits an AC format that deals with these things honestly. Shaun, some of your songs are examples of this (they don’t all need to be - some songs are just happy or confident, or just more general in their mention of struggle and sin, and that’s fine). And those are the songs that AC radio apparently isn’t playing despite the style being compatible.

This would be like my Solar System Exploration website ignoring the news of Pluto being voted “not a planet” because I thought that the reality of it might upset people.

Good thoughts, David.  Let me chew and get back to you.

Mrs. Fool, when you write are you writing for everybody?

Most of the things I’ve written are written for very broad audiences, trying to include as many people as possible. I may not always succeed, but we strive to make our materials to be accessible, educational, and engaging.

Occasionally, a particular piece must be written with a target audience in mind, or to address a specific need, but in writing it I do not thereby limit the number of audiences I’m willing write for. In other words, I might write one particular piece for young adults, but I do not in the long run write only pieces for young adults: another might be for children, and yet another for older people, another for women, another for men, etc.

The main thing that limits what I write in the scope of my work, really, is the talents of others. Someone else may be more gifted at writing about a given topic or for a particular audience. In that case, I defer to that person or those people. The most important thing is that people get the best service possible, not that they get it from me!

Like David, I usually don’t choose the audience. It depends on perceived needs.

Now, if everyone made websites for the same target audience that we did, there’d be a problem.... There needs to be material out there for all audiences… no single provider of material can possibly hope to hit all audiences. That’s why we need a multitude of content providers for a multitude of different audiences.

Yes, I definitely agree. Some writers are best at writing children’s books, and some publishers specialize in books for young children. That’s wonderful! Many writers and publishers deal only in one language. Completely understandable. But if books were only written and published for five year olds, or only available in Russian, it would be a very serious problem indeed.

quoting Shaun: “hey have a target market, just like any business, just like any musician, just like - I’ll say it - any church.”

thank you, shaun, i wondered if anyone was going to mention the fact that the question of lulling vs. admonishing the audience is very analogous to the situation in any church.  if the preacher pushes hard truths too hard, the congregation will shrink.  of course, the ones who leave that church didn’t really want a church (or at least they wanted something else more, like the rich young ruler).  in a good church, that’s ok.  the true and complete gospel takes precedence.  a church whose main goal is attendance is off-track.

there are some mega-"churches" that aren’t truly non-profit enterprises, but most churches are small affairs where the bottom line is not king.  that’s one place where the radio-church analogy stops working, since we’re mostly talking about commercial radio.  commericial vs. non-commercial is a big difference.  another related difference is that commericial radio is generally “entertainment”.  seeking entertainment is a very different purpose from seeking God’s pleasure and glory.

i have no stake in the music industry other than my appreciation of music, so i’m unbiased when i say that i rarely listen to commercial radio (i listen to public radio daily, college radio from time to time) because the quality is poor.  based on the limited listening i give secular and “christian” radio, my opinion is there’s way too much inane talk from the dj’s and commericials, and the music on most formats is bad in 43 ways.

the obvious conclusion is that not only is a marriage of art, faith, and money inherently impossible, but even just the combination of art and money doesn’t work.  51% or more of americans will watch american idol and then listen to radio stations that play equivalent fare.  art can’t thrive; message of faith can’t remain pure.

the way commercial radio is managed, people only hear what they want to hear, and what’s comfortable.  actually, that’s going to be the case whether or not people listen to radio, but Christian radio has the added problem of inadvertently placating christian listeners.  as a bottom-line venture, christian radio in general will inevitably mellow the message, and listeners will inevitably be underaware of this bias.

just as off-track mega-churches may do some good, so may “christian radio”.  they still may be off track.

my email: tstilwel [symbol for a certain locational preposition] hotmail [you-know-which top level domain]