04.04.07 An Insider’s Look At Christian Radio Pt.6: Testing 1,2,3.
Profanity - a theological issue - is my primary and only real concern about Christian radio today. It’s the only thing, to me, that’s worth fighting about. But there are other issues worth discussing, worth working through with those in the radio industry.
Among those is testing - specifically, how songs are tested by radio stations before being deemed worthy of airplay. Many stations test songs on a group of target-market females without ever playing the songs on the air first. Some of us believe this isn’t in the best interest of the music business in the long run. Here are three observations about this form of music testing that will hopefully explain why some of us in Nashville don’t think it’s the best way to do business or treat listeners and artists.
1. When a radio station tests music without playing it on the air a few hundred times first, the test is primarily measuring the familiarity of a song, not how well the song will be received by its audience in the long run. The “long run” is as few as 300 spins away, by the way.
I majored in music composition with an emphasis on music of world cultures. (Impressed? Of course not.) One of the great unexpected insights gained from all that study was an understanding of how human beings, across cultures, religions, and history, determine which music is “good” and which is “bad.” A song, for instance, won’t be considered “good” by the listener unless it is familiar.
I’ll give you a far-fetched scenario to make the point. Imagine Mozart - someone universally considered a musical genius - were to be transported from his time and his culture into another. Say, we transported him into the 1980’s in America. Would he think any music made in the 20th Century was “good?” Ethnomusicologists say he wouldn’t. Having never heard a synthesizer and a song with a verse, chorus, bridge form sung in English, he’d reject pop music in the 80’s as weird. It would be too different from what he knows to even be considered musical to his brain. Also, having never heard a piece of music without a key signature and containing mixed meters, he would also reject “classical” atonal music of the 80’s. It too would contain almost no familiar musical elements for him.
Turns out, the first thing we humans unconciously determine about a song is whether it is familiar.
We also like surprises though: A bridge that changes key unexpectedly and returns to the original for the closing chorus, a rhyme we’ve never heard before, etc. But if we’re played a snippet of a song and forced to rate it as “good” or bad”, having never heard the song before, we aren’t warm to those surprises. Such surprises in a short clip make the clip feel more unfamiliar than familar. It’s then labeled “weird”, not “good.” A song must contain both familiar elements and surprises, and in the right amounts, if it’s to have a chance of being called “good.” Testing never-before-heard songs guarantees that songs with any amount of surprise in their short samples will be rejected...especially when being tested before or after very familiar sounding songs. The contrast is startling to the listener.
Play the song a few times for us though, in it’s entirety, and what was once weird and new can be more easily appreciated as “good.”
Take my song “Twilight” and the testing it underwent at two major stations, as an example. A certain large Adult Contemporary radio network tested the song. I was elated. They reported back to us, however, that it tested horribly. On a scale of one to five it received a two point something.
At the same time, KXOJ in Tulsa played “Twilight” a few hundred times on the air and then tested it. It did quite well. And it wound up on their year end chart, proving that their listeners loved it in the long run. And my sales in Tulsa on that album back up that claim as well.
Both stations tested the song on females of the same age in the bible belt (I think that’s important) using roughly the same methods. But only one played the song first, getting listeners/test subjects past the awkward new phase and enabling them to give a true opinion of the song, not how it’s unfamiliarity made them feel.
2. Testing music without playing it first irritates the music business folks and the consumer by killing diversity of choice. It gives listeners more imitations and fewer originals. It penalizes innovation and the new artist and rewards the copycat.
As one radio program director recently lamented to me over dinner after naming five female artists who, to him, sound identical: Record labels keep making the same record over and over.
Of course they do, I said. It gets played. And what gets played sells. And you have to sell stuff if you’re in the music business.
Need examples? That’s risky, but OK.
Mercy Me, Casting Crowns, and Stephen Curtis Chapman: Great guys. BUT...Vocally very similar. The production, also similar. Lyrical themes and style vary, but not much.
Barlow Girl’s first album and Evanescence: Good girls. I like what they say to teens and tweens everywhere about purity. BUT...A blatant imitation.
Jimmy Needham: Talented guy. So why did his first single sound just like Curbside Prophet by Jason Mraz? It sure tested well.
And then there are the covers of mainstream songs: Rosanna becomes Hosanna. Kyrie gets made over (with almost no changes) by Mark Shultz. Selah resang Josh Groban. My label’s radio promoter suggested I remake “Live Like You Were Dying.” Why? Radio will play it.
And what about worship music? A guy from our local AC station told me that I needed to find a worship song everyone knows and redo it so I can get back on the charts. Like By The Tree, The Newsboys, Big Daddy Weave, Michael W. Smith, Rebecca St. James and… The surest way to test well these days and, therefore, get played is to stop singing a new song and sing someone else’s, especially if church services have already made it familiar to test subjects. (How many Hymn records have been put out in the last three years for the same reason?)
3. Testing songs that haven’t been played on the air yet turns test subjects into nothing but a focus group. And leaders don’t limit themselves to the feelings of focus groups. Focus groups don’t know what they want or need or what they will like over time. All they know is what has already been done, what they liked once, what they might like again, how they feel. That’s a flakey set of data to base a business, let a lone a ministry, upon.
Consider this: If Henry Ford consulted a focus group, he would have made better horses instead of cars. That’s what the people thought they needed. Horses were all they’d ever known. Horses were familiar. They knew what to do with a horse. When the first farmers were shown the first car they laughed. But once they saw a few in action, well, exposure has a way of changing minds doesn’t it? Think about that the nest time you’re driving down the road listening to one of the many recordings of Breathe on your local Christian radio station.
keith said:
My wife was invited by some friends to be part of a listener’s survey hosted by a Christian radio station we get pumped in from California. She couldn’t go even though each participant was paid $50. Why couldn’t I go? They were only inviting women ages 29-45. My wife and I share some of the opinions expressed here about the radio industry, so I think she could have broken the mold, especially if they have an “additional comments” section on the survey.
My wife has recently tuned into Christian radio after not listening to it much for about eight years. She says she feels like she hasn’t missed a thing. They play the same songs they did ten years ago!
euphrony said:
I’ve formulated and deleted a dozen sarcastic comments regarding covers of popular songs and copycat sounds. Suffice it to say you cover it well enough without my attempt at wit. Dead on; and ages old, as well (think Beatles and Monkeys).
It’s funny that you mention the BarlowGirl/Evanescence link. I’ve read Amy Lee talk about the shaping of her sound being largely influenced by Plumb. So, Plumb more or less starts something in CCM (debatable, but she seems to be a reference) and is successfully copied in the mainstream, which is then successfully copied in the CCM. And the CCM copy (by all I can tell) is more popular/pushed/accepted than the original was/is. That also is typical and something you talked about: people don’t like the new, so the innovator suffers, while the copiers benefit from the exposure to that sound in a way the innovator never did.
And did someone seriously cover Rosanna as Hosanna? I must have missed that one!
Shaun Groves said:
Oh yes. They did.
euphrony said:
WHO?!?!? If it was ApologetiX, then I would understand. But otherwise . . .
said:
I fit that “target group” Christian stations are after, right down to the mini van. I hate listening to the snipits they send me though. For one thing, it’s never long enough to really get a feel for the song, or I’ve already heard it played so many times (sometimes more than once an hour!) that I’m sick of what I used to like. When I comment on things like this, I get no response at all. I’ve actually been sent surveys that contain music that’s 10 years old. OK for comparison I guess, but not something I should be rating. It’s already hit it’s target audience.
Beth
Shaun Groves said:
Beth, what you’re part if a listener advisory board, which helps determine burn rate (the point at which a song that once tested well has now been played too often to be enjoyed by the average targeted listener) That’s not the testing I’m talking about. You’re not in a room with a bunch of other women, a round knob in hand, turning it up if you like the snippet you hear and turning it down if you don’t.
Anyone been in one of those? They’re sometimes called auditorium tests. Anyone?
And, Beth, Part 7 will be about the target demo. It’s not who radio says it is. It’s even narrower. It’s a certain kind of female within a certain age range. Curious?
said:
I’ve never participated in that kind of panel, but I’d like to sometime. When I worked in radio (assistant to the program/promotions director) a hundred years ago, the vast majority of our playlist was determined by the number of requests a song got (minus the really off ones like “Shut Upa You Face") and a very limited number was determined by the the DJs.
As for the target audience for Christian radio, I have a feeling it’s married women between the ages of 25 and 45 with at least two kids, a mini van and a dog. They are white, middle class, suburban living, sometimes working, but not career women, who own at least 10 Bibles in 4 translations and teach or lead a class in their church. Am I close?
Beth
Shaun Groves said:
Wow, close. But not exactly right. How do they vote? What denominations are they from? How literally do they interpret scripture? What are their theological bents? What do they see the value of Christian music being? Why do they listen?
said:
They tend to vote conservatively/Republican (or not at all), they’re from mainstream protestant denominations (SBC, ECLA, Methodist,Pentacostal, etc.) or non-denominational. They intrepret scripture as taught in those churches and don’t typically STUDY the scripture for themselves although they’re involved in many Bible studies. They do not know much if anything about church history and their theology is based on the doctrines of their denomination or church constitution. The value they see in Christian music is that it is safe, family friendly, easy going, and middle of the road. It’s easy to learn the lyrics to sing along with. They hear many of the same songs on Sunday morning in church. They listen for relief of the backseat fodder in the van, something to sing to while driving, and background music while cleaning house.
I do NOT mean any of these descriptions to be negative or disrespectful at all. I’m not trying to offend anyone and I apologize if I have done so. I fit into some of these categories myself at the moment. As I mature (yes, I’m a very late bloomer), I’ve tried to address some of these issues in my walk. I’ve really started to look at scripture for myself, study and read more about church history (both in my denomination and in early church history) and pay very close attention to candidates when voting; no matter what office they’re seeking. I stay involved in the workings of my church because I think it’s my responsibility as a member. I’ve been seriously burned because I didn’t pay attention and it was a hard,hurtful lesson to learn. I seek mentors in the older women I know and expect them to hold me accountable. I’ve tried not to feel angry or attacked when someone questions my theology or stand on something and instead have a mind and heart that is open to the Holy Spirit and His guidance. You’ve taught me much in that respect Shaun and I’m greatful for it. Let me know if I’m getting closer.
Beth
shaunfan said:
Beth and euphrony, thanks for your comments on this. As usual your perspectives are similar to mine on this topic. Shaun, hats off to you on setting us up on your “I like cover songs” topic including asking for examples of songs we’d like to see covered and then you actually named 2 of my observations/suggestions in this post (Kyrie and Jason Mraz, although I was suggesting you try Jason Mraz and I knew there was something I liked about that Jimmy Needham guy).
As for the Plumb inspired Evanescence who inspired BarlowGirl observation by euphrony, great points and despite the copying, I like all 3 artists and rank them in the order they are listed. In secular music, The Killers had to apologize to Fall Out Boy and Panic at the Disco for accusing them all of copying each other. See wikipedia entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Killers_(band)
Again, I like all 3 artists, but rank them in the same pecking order.
So, I guess I’m guilty of supporting un-originality because I like the sound. Am I a major “fan” or more casual listener and buyer of copycat artists? I am the latter for the copycats but I still buy the music so I guess that’s the point. However, I tend to stick with the original artists more, i.e. I own all the Plumb and Killers stuff, but only selections by the copycats.
The Jimmy Needham single is a great example of catching my ear, but I’m a Jason Mraz “fan” which is why in all sincerity I suggested Shaun consider that musical style to adapt to current radio preferences by “Volvo driving soccer moms” to quote Everclear.
said:
Shaun,
Where’d you go?
Beth
Shaun Groves said:
Nowhere. I’m right here reading. Next in the series coming soon.
said:
Thanks. I just wanted to know if I’d gotten any closer on my guess as to the radio panel.
Beth
Shaun Groves said:
Closer but not exactly where I’m headed.
shaunfan said:
Shaun, sorry I focused all of my comments on only one part of your post. I had dinner at Outback Steakhouse last night and in 1 hour, I counted 5 cover songs out of 15 songs. That’s an alarming percentage. Someone covered “Lovesong” by The Cure and didn’t change it, although the Reggae cover of “Lovesong” by 311 worked for me. Therefore, your Kyrie by Mark Schultz example is spot on in that it doesn’t update, change or improve on the original version by Mr. Mister.
In that light, neither do most of the hymn and worship song covers. I’ve found myself scratching my head about all the current iWorship, WoW Worship and Songs 4 Life Worship collections in that all of them include someone covering “Here I Am To Worship”, a song which was best recorded by the writer, Tim Hughes, and I have no need for other versions of the song.
So, without even replying to my post, you’ve convinced me that I need to be more discerning in my appreciation of covers.
As for the other points of your post, I also have disdain for the current testing process as the songs all sound too similar to each other and my favorite artists are the creators of the sound not the copiers although it takes several listens to appreciate originality.
I love “Twilight” by the way and the song actually gets better over time. Sorry for my ranting on Friday, your points are right on.
said:
"I majored in music composition with an emphasis on music of world cultures. (Impressed? Of course not.)”
There is a professor for Music Appreciation at Ole Miss whose specialization was the music of different cultures. I always liked him. The sign on his door read: Dr. George Dor, Ethnomusicology. Such a sweet name for an academic area.
David Martin said:
Funny, I check back after some rather contentious discussion about parts 1 & 2, and find you totally in agreement with pretty much everything I suspected of being true all along, except that you can talk about it more specifically and with greater authority because you’re inside the industry. So I pretty much have nothing to debate with you from parts 3-6. You’re saying stuff that I’ve been wishing for years that someone “in the know” would come out and say (and all the while I secretly wondered if maybe I was just being paranoid, but nope, it’s all really true).
I know what it’s like to hear something “weird” and react negatively. It seems to me like the only “weird” songs that succeed, in Christian radio or in the mainstream, are the ones that do so by brute force. Play something “weird” enough times and it becomes familiar, and a lot of folks eventually surrender to it. That’s not always a bad thing. Some quirky radio hits that rubbed me the wrong way at first became favorites of mine once I got used to the idiosyncracies. But then there are others that I’ve just learned to have a little less seething hate for. Depends on the context. I might change the station when it comes on the radio, but throw up my hands and go “oh well” if a DJ plays it at a wedding and everybody’s dancing and just having fun. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
I’ve always been the weird kid who was attracted to unusual things. In more recent years that’s translated into a willingness to see God shining through in the dark and unlikely places, as far as music and film and similar art forms are concerned. I’ve become infatuated with the work of artists who I used to misunderstand, who I thought were just disturbed individuals who wanted to disturb everyone else. Not to say that I can tolerate absolutely anything - I still prefer my music to not have heavy doses of profanity and for my movies to not contain gratuitous violence. But I can account for some of those elements that I originally found “unsavory” if I can see that they truly help the story along, or the mesage that’s ultimately being communicated in a song or album.
Why did I go off on that tangent? Because I think I’m one of the weird ones. I’m sure that there are thousands, if not millions, of other “weird ones” out there, but still maintain that “normal” people just shy away from what’s unfamiliar. Mix that tendency to avoid the unfamiliar with so-called religious convictions, and what’s unfamiliar can easily be viewed as the work of Satan. And I doubt many Christians would vocalize such concerns, but you’d be surprised how many Christian acquaintances I’ve had who hear a song and say, “It doesn’t sound Christian”, more due to the style of it or an unfamiliar lexicon of words being used (not profane words and phrases, just different ones) in place of their comfortable Christian-ese.
What can we do about this? Radio still needs to be able to test the pulse of its audience; continually playing a bunch of stuff they don’t like isn’t gonna help. But I think what you’ve said gives me hope that the more grassroots form of “testing” (just play the new songs for your audience a few times and see what happens, rather than doing so much focused lab-rat testing) could actually work and result in more diversity in style and subject matter returning to Christian radio. (Or maybe appearing for the first time, depending on the station.) Will anyone actually do it? Doubtful. But I have more confidence that if attempted, it would work. Maybe not “work” in the sheer business sense of drawing in the most listeners and therefore the most pledge money possible. But it’d certainly create a more robust and loyal following, which I think is more important than massive numbers with a bunch of short attention spans.
To summarize, let’s force people to deal with the “weird” just a little bit more, and maybe, just maybe, it’ll start to feel familiar.
Shaun Groves said:
I’m not for throwing testing out totally. I think what KXOJ in Tulsa does is the ideal...in my not very humble opinion that is. They play songs first a few hundred times and then test them. Works for them.
But how do we define “works?” What’s the goal of a station? If the goal is to increase market share then stations that test first and play later are working just fine. They’re posting increases in audience size. So, why change? Seriously, I’m asking. If you run a station that is increasing it’s market share quarter after quarter why do you care what some guy with a blog thinks? I don’t think I would. If throwing darts at a stack of singles was the way I picked music and it worked for me - who cares if anyone thinks that’s a bogus way to run a station?
That’s what you’re up against, David. Stations that test - the big ones - are succeeding. So why should they change?
David Martin said:
I guess it’s a question of pragmatism versus idealism. What “works” verses what’s the right thing to do. You seem to have a pretty good handle on what the wrong thing to do is, since you’ve described it over the last few posts in this series - putting forth an image of God that is only a half-truth because it’s only the happy stuff. If in fact radio stations are doing this (you and I seem to be in agreement that many are), they’re doing it under an assumption that this is what people want to hear, according to their “testing” and whatever other methods they have of feeling their audience’s pulse.
If the goal’s just to increase your listenership and therefore increase your advertising dollars and/or pledge money so that you can grow your business, then shoot, I think they’re doing a bang-up job of it. Christian radio is a behemoth compared to what it used to be, in terms of the availability and the number of people who listen.
If the goal’s to get a true testimony of who God is to you out to a greater number of people, then I’d say that this is where the testing doesn’t “work”. The numbers are increasing, apparently, but that quality of the message going out to these people has taken a serious hit if we’re pretty much only giving them the “happy” stuff.
Why should they change? I guess it depends on what they want, and whether they care more about quantity (number of listeners and/or number of dollars) or quality (the actual ministry being done in the lives of the people being reached). Either (a) they’re not aware of the drop in quality that you have so accurately assessed in the challenge that you issued to “Happy Stations”, or (b) they disagree with your premise that a 1900% happy message is an inaccurate portrayal of God, or (c) they just don’t care about any of that so long as business is booming. I’m not quite cynical enough to assume (c)… at least not yet. If that were really the truth, then there’d be absolutely no rational reason for them to change, because the goal would be to simply keep growing the business, and the artist types and fan types really don’t give a lick about all that, and therefore aren’t a reliable source of business advice. But most likely it’s (a) or (b). In those cases, it’s just a matter of raising awareness.
I’m just an opinionated guy with a blog, and maybe for purposes of this discussion you see yourself that way, but you have a little more of a platform than that, and through this writing you’ve probably raised awareness of this problem among a few more blogger types like myself. It’s a small amount of influence, but it’s a start. Radio stations might not listen to you or me, but if we can at least encourage a few people to turn off their radios (or be more discerning in the stations they choose to listen to) and look for a more real, full portrayal of God in the Christian music that they listen to, I don’t think it’s wasted effort.
Not sure if I answered your questions, but that’s where my mind went when you asked them. What I keep asking of people in the Christian radio business is, “Why are you doing this? Ministry or money?” And they’d probably all say ministry, but they may be unaware that a lot of the decisions they’re making are more money-oriented than ministry-oriented.
As I’ve pointed out before, keeping a ministry going does require money, so it’s not a bad thing to have people donating it to you or paying it to you for a service you’re providing them. But it is a bad thing as soon as it starts to cut into the quality of your ministry. In the end, when we all have to stand and give an account to God of the things we did in this lifetime, I don’t think God’s gonna be too happy about us trying to play PR executives and put forth an unrealistic, overly romanticized, weak, superficial image of Him. I don’t think, “We just needed a few more advertising dollars so that we could reach more people” is going to serve as a valid excuse for enabling people to believe in a false image of God. Not to say that your image of God or my image is perfect - we all have a somewhat distorted view. But you at least are owning up to the difficult aspects of God that you can grasp in the songs you write, rather than ignoring them and only writing about the comfortable happy parts. I try to do the same whenever I speak of God or my life as a Christian in a song lyric or blog entry or whatever. We at least owe our fellow sinners that sort of honesty.
Shaun Groves said:
David, maybe I’ve miscommunicated. I don’t see a link between testing and the “always happy” message a FEW stations (not many) insist upon broadcasting. Testing, as far as I know, doesn’t result in always happy lyrics as much as it does familiar music. Testing does have an affect on lyrics, but I’ve never heard any anecdotal evidence supporting the assertion that testing songs gives us more or less happy stuff on the radio.
You got any?
David Martin said:
I think the audience for familiar music and the audience for “only happy music” is more or less one in the same, so maybe that’s why I merged the two.
What is familiar, to mose Christian radio listeners, is what is happy and not terribly challenging. So if the “testing” methods currently available are just giving them more of the same, that’s your connection right there.
Artists who are willing to be more daring musically are often also willing to color outside the lines lyrically - it’s not a direct correlation, but there’s enough overlap to justify my belief that these two problems ("happy radio” and “familiar radio") are linked.
Shaun Groves said:
I think the audience for familiar music and the audience for “only happy music” is more or less one in the same, so maybe that’s why I merged the two.
Not that it matters all that much but I still think that’s a leap.
euphrony said:
Why should the big, successful testing stations change? I think it is not the issue of how I’m doing today that they should be asking, but rather how will I be doing in 5-10 years. A man can eat nothing but twinkies and ding dongs and, if he exercises well, not get fat. But that does not mean he’s not killing his heart, starving his body in little ways, and killing himself slowly but surely. I think (OPINION) that this is what the stations are doing with their testing models. Sure, they give the people what they want and their market increases; but people are fickle and can quickly decide they’ve had enough and move on (like going from Atkins’ to a liquid diet). In some ways, this may already be showing in the much ballyhooed decline in music sales.
But still, would they care even with this perspective? Good question, because it depends on what the owners of these stations feel is the reason for the station. Is it a ministry, an important way of exposing people to Christ and/or caring for His body? Or is it part of a portfolio to be sold off or maybe revamped when the profits decline? I’m sure there are both of these represented in the Christian market, while for mainstream stations the owners who are music lovers had almost completely disappeared.
David Martin said:
euphrony, I like your diet analogy; that makes a lot of sense. Those Twinkies and Ding Dongs proabbly wouldn’t hurt a person if their diet was, for the most part, a healthy one, and if they exercised. Everyone deserves an empty calorie indulgence from time to time. I think that’s true with music, too. If happy fluff is all the music you listen to, though, I can’t help but think that’s going to affect your worldview and your expectations of the Christian life.
I don’t even think that most of the Christian stations out there are playing solely “happy fluff”, but I do think that the percentage is still too high. I’d honestly be fine with it if they kept playing pretty much everything they already played, but were less likely to reject new songs with more diverse styles/subject matter just on the basis of testing a brief snippet of it. More “healthy” stuff would work its way in and the balance would just be better.
One thing I forgot to address earlier, on the topic of familiarity, is this whole idea that an artist can kind of revive their life at radio by covering a familiar, popular song. Or how we can have endless worship compilations released that people eat up, that have a lot of the same songs on nearly all of them, just covered by different people. I’ve met Christian music fans who say they can never tire of hearing endless versions of “Here I Am to Worship” or whatever, and my question to them is, why not just listen to it over and over on the CD you already have, and save your money? Seems like a big waste to put so much effort into covering the same ground.
Not that I think all covers are bad… sometimes you can put a unique spin on one and make it your own. But there’s a difference between doing it as an artistic statement or just a fun thing that you as an artist always wanted to do, and just doing it to get back the attention of radio and consumers because there’s not enough confidence that your original material will be able to accomplish this.
David Martin said:
Not that it matters all that much but I still think that’s a leap.
And I think it’s a leap to insist that they’re totally unrelated. You’ve pointed out two problems: one with too much “happy” music, and one with too much “familiar” music. You’ve linked the testing methods to the “familiar” music problem. Are you prepared to say that this same method does not at all influence the amount of “happy” songs? How did some of your more bittersweet or melancholy songs (like “Twilight") perform? Why were they ultimately rejected? Just because they didn’t sound familiar? What about them was unfamiliar?
I suppose the best way to really test this would be to examine “happy” songs that more or less speak the “positive” Christian lingo, but sound “weird” musically, and then to examine some “not-so-happy” songs that more or less fit the musical mold. Try to separate out the two things that we suspect Christian radio is less prone to like, and see which one of them is really the sticking point.
shaunfan said:
You are on to something with the idea about testing of “not-so-happy” songs but familiar musically and an example of a beneficiary of that testing that popped in my head is Casting Crowns.
Shaun said in this same post that Casting Crowns sounds like MercyMe who sounds like Steven Curtis Chapman. So, when first MercyMe and then Casting Crowns got tested, the audience gave them “thumbs up” for musical style despite “not-so-happy” lyrics.
On the flip side, I think “happy” songs by artists that haven’t made it on radio for “weird” musical style are probably the last 2 Point of Grace CD’s, not because they’re “weird” but no longer contemporary. I don’t think “Circle of Friends” would get radio airplay right now, it sounds outdated. I got sent 3 Point of Grace songs to test recently and I believe they re-made the Beatles classic “We can work it out” which seems to be an attempt to revive their career. We’ll see.
Also, I love the CD “Divine Intervention” by Something Like Silas but I think they were considered “weird” musically so they re-grouped and changed their name to “Future of Forestry” and made their sound more mainstream based on the songs I’ve heard from the new CD. We’ll see about them as well.
Good points by all. I’m looking forward to the next post.
David Martin said:
You are on to something with the idea about testing of “not-so-happy” songs but familiar musically and an example of a beneficiary of that testing that popped in my head is Casting Crowns.
Yeah. Too bad Casting Crowns is a terrible band. When I listen to their stuff I alternate back and forth between feeling like I’m being fed inspirational pabulum, and feeling like I’m being yelled at by my youth pastor.
Seriously, though, you may be on to something here. We seem to not mind more of a challenging, “not happy” message when it’s challenging someone who we perceive to be less mature than us. Casting Crowns has some convicting statements in a few of their key songs, however awkward and blunt the writing may be, but honestly the lessons being taught there are rather remedial for most Christians. It’s easy to listen to songs like that and go, “Yeah, that selfish guy who just lives to make money is wrong and he should repent”, or “Those people who gossip in church are bad”. It’s easy to distance oneself from the convictions there. Not so much with the Derek Webb types. The truths are all the same in both cases, it’s just that the Derek Webb types are more adept at showing us how it applies to us supposedly “mature” people, and that makes us squirm a little more.
So maybe it’s less a matter of only “happy” stuff making the cut, and more a matter of stuff that doesn’t make us uncomfortable. We love hearing songs that tell other people how they should do what we’re doing.
I got sent 3 Point of Grace songs to test recently and I believe they re-made the Beatles classic “We can work it out” which seems to be an attempt to revive their career. We’ll see.
That sounds about as hilariously bad as when they covered Earth, Wind & Fire, and it’s sad that they’ve been reduced to that, but then again, they’ve never had a whole lot of depth or personality to their music to begin with. They’ve tried to take a more organic, personal approach at times, but it always felt like more of a career move than a personal conviction on the part of anyone involved, at least to me it did. I like the occasional POG song, but only for superficial/nostalgic reasons.
Also, I love the CD “Divine Intervention” by Something Like Silas but I think they were considered “weird” musically so they re-grouped and changed their name to “Future of Forestry” and made their sound more mainstream based on the songs I’ve heard from the new CD.
I absolutely adored Something Like Silas’s album. I had to get over my own preconceptions because I was so burned out by “modern worship” at that point, but they really won me over because they showed that they could really put their hearts and minds into an intelligent, creative, and personal expression of worship. It didn’t hurt that they were a stellar live band.
As far as I know, the name change came about when some personal turmoil led to some lineup changes (the lead singer got a divorce and his wife left the band; upon finding this out, a lot of churches wouldn’t book them and they found that their audience and the venues they played shifted a bit) - they basically felt that they were a different band, and they re-christened themselves and signed to a lower-profile label (they were originally on Sparrow/EMI). I thought the name change was kind of silly, but sound-wise, they’re more or less the same band, just a little more intense, and with a few songs that break away from modern worship toward personal reflection. They’re still an unmistakably Christian and unmistakably worshipful band - if they had released Twilight as Something Like Silas, I would not have been able to buy it as the same band, just with a little artistic progression.
Anyway, I never understood why Christian radio didn’t jump all over SLS. They were unique, sure, but still incredibly accessible, obviously influenced by popular and respected mainstream bands without totally ripping them off, they clearly did worship songs, they were on the most major of CCM labels… they should have been huge, and Christian radio would have totally benefitted from it. I chalk that one up to Murphy’s Law - I loved it, so of course Christian radio turned their noses up at it.
David Martin said:
Whoops, I misspoke. Meant to say that if FOF had released their album still as SLS, I would have been able to buy it as the same band. They’re a little more rocking and intense on certain songs, and the keyboards have been slightly diminished, but I wouldn’t say that they sound any more “mainstream” than they used to.