Jump to content

Talk:Contemporary Christian music

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Paul Race (talk | contribs) at 20:49, 9 March 2012 (→‎Evie: fixed my own misprint. :-)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NPOV

I put the npov thing on because the criticisms section was removed completely and subsequent edits have been simply adding more positives about the genre.

Well, I feel that this page is quite objective. However, I grabbed the "criticisms" section from an older version and reworked it a little bit. Thoughts? --Snow1215 08:41, Apr 28, 2005
I assume that the npov thing can be removed now, since the "criticisms" section has been added back to the page. I hope this is okay. -- Snow1215 12:13, Apr 29, 2005

CCM vs Music by Christians - particularly alt genres

see

Paul foord 4 July 2005 03:43 (UTC)

Change to the bands in the lede (February 2011)

The list currently reads:

Avalon, BarlowGirl, Jeremy Camp, Casting Crowns, Steven Curtis Chapman, David Crowder Band, Amy Grant, Natalie Grant, Jars of Clay, MercyMe, Newsboys, Michael W. Smith, Rebecca St. James, Third Day, tobyMac, and a host of others.

I would like to remove Avalon, BarlowGirl, Jeremy Camp, and Rebecca St. James. TobyMac might also be good to remove since he's much less CCM and more rap. As suggested PC&D might be a good addition, but definitely Brandon Heath and some other recent Dove winners. I plan to modify the list by the end of February, if not sooner. Comments? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, except Camp and Avalon have recently had #1 singles. Avalon was certainly much more popular quite a while ago, but Camp is still pretty popular as of now. PCD, Brandon Heath, and others are fine IMO, we just need consensus. *shrug* Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let's leave Jeremy in (I loved his first album, but have not been impressed since=WP:OR). I don't know that we need consensus, we just need to make consensus. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents— These are the artists I think should be on the list:
Casting Crowns; Steven Curtis Chapman; David Crowder Band; Natalie Grant; Brandon Heath; Kutless; MercyMe; Newsboys; Phillips, Craig & Dean; Third Day; TobyMac. But, as you probably know, the Dove nominees will be announced Feb. 16., so you might want to wait till then to see who's among them. Musdan77 (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can add those right now and make changes after the Dove Awards. Just my thought on it. Toa Nidhiki05 00:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And then what after the Doves? Are you suggesting we only list the current Dove nominees? Which nominees? Artist of the year? Songwriter? new band? I think it's important to have a grater respect for the history of the genre. As much as I dislike Ms. Grant, she is likely the best-known artist in CCM and to exclude her would be a mistake. Kutless isn't CCM. They're Christian rock. I would prefer to exclude them, but would attend their show before I attended the show of almost any other band in the list! --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, absolutely not. The Doves skunked PCD for 15 years. The Doves are merely a helpful tool for determining popular artists; no. 1 singles and gold/platinum certifications help, among other things. And Christian rock is a subgenre of CCM (something I disagree with, since it is growing outside the range of CCM, but it nonetheless is), just like Christian rap and Christian pop. Besides, Kutless has toned their sound down dramatically lately anyway. Toa Nidhiki05 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't say which "Ms. Grant" you're talking about. I assume it's Amy, so... let's clarify what contemporary Christian music means. It means just that—Christian music that's modern, currently popular. Amy was CCM but not now. And she is mentioned in the History section.
And I will echo what Toa said (which I would have said, if he hadn't), Christian rock and rap/hip-hop are subgenres of CCM. As well as contemporary worship – which is what Kutless does. Musdan77 (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary does not mean modern. It means that the people making the music are still alive. wiktionary:contemporary.
However, this isn't an article about who's popular now, but it's about the entire genre. It's development from the inception of the term in 1976 until today. It must reflect not only those who are popular today but also those with whom readers are familiar. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Christian rock and Christian hip-hop are in your minds sub-genres of CCM does that mean Christian metal is as well? So we should list Disciple, Underoath, and The Devil Wears Prada. And Christian punk? List Kids in the Way, mewithoutYou, and Hawk Nelson are all must-adds. And Christian dance music? Must list Family Force 5 and LZ7. And don't forget Unblack metal? I really want to see Slechtvalk listed here! Their new album is doing tremendously.
I think you are both missing the point. They may have some overlap, but they are distinct genres. This is why most of those have separate articles and are not incorporated into this article. The overlap is in the cross-over artists and the distribution channels, but they are distinct stylistically. Some (rock at least) have separate charts on Billboard and separate awards at the doves, just as Gospel does, which is the parent of all of them and I don't see any mention of Gospel artists here. I'm sorry, they are not sub-genres, they are related though. Call them siblings and I'll buy in.
Now returning to the question, who do we list? I don't mind adding Dove nominees for Artist of the Year, Group of the Year, Male Vocalist of the Year, and Female Vocalist of the Year if they've been nominated at least three times in the past five years. Before the 2011 announcements, that gives us:
* Francesca Battistelli
* Jeremy Camp
* David Crowder Band
* Casting Crowns
* Natalie Grant
* Jars of Clay
* Mandisa
* Marvin Sapp
* Skillet
* Third Day
* TobyMac
* Chris Tomlin
If we want to add any bands or artists for historical reasons, Michael W. Smith, Steven Curtis Chapman, and Amy Grant, I think we're still on safe ground. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't know we were going to get into a debate on what CCM is. I thought we already should know this. If contemporary just meant "the people making the music are still alive" then we would have to include southern gospel and traditional gospel as well. See the third definition here. "this isn't an article about who's popular now, but it's about the entire genre. It's development from the inception of the term in 1976 until today." Right. That's why there's a History section, but what we're talking about here is a paragraph in the lead which is specifically talking about today's popular artists.
Basically anything that is currently being played on CCM radio is what is best known as CCM. But even fringe subgenres like Christian metal, or punk, etc. I believe still come under the CCM umbrella.
But speaking of the Doves, if the GMA includes artists in their "contemporary" categories, then they would/should be considered CCM. But a list like this should just come from awards or just radio airplay or just record sales, but should be a combination of all these. Musdan77 (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not just talking about people who are still alive. We're talking about people who are involved in either the genre or the industry. I don't know what the other editors were talking about. The lede no longer says who's popular now, and I don't think it ever should have. It should list people who are representatives of the genre. The fact that this genre is still current makes it necessary to update with current examples. What is in current radio rotation is not what's popular. Someone who listened to music in genre or was familiar with it twenty years ago may no longer listen to it. When they come to the article, they don't necessarily want to be told that there is a disconnect. The phrase is "Today, the term is typically used to refer to the Nashville, Tennessee-based pop, rock, and worship Christian music industry, represented by artists such as", so we just remove "Today". First, it's wrong. It's meant that for much of the past twenty years, when Word records shut down Myrrh LA and the parent company relocated from Waco to Nashville.
Any idea how to get record sales figures for pure CCM artists? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a couple of points. First, it's obvious that the definition of CCM per se is tricky, since it doesn't refer to a specific genre. However, the common perception is that it refers to modern, more pop-oriented music (not quite rock-rock, but kinda on the verge). I never felt that the term "contemporary" referred to the artist being alive or not (If Steven Curtis Chapman died today, do we stop listing him under CCM?). Either way, I think that some rough boundaries should be drawn regarding the definition so we can decide what artists to include in the lede. That said, the inclusion of artists on the lede, although necessary perhaps, lends itself to fanboys coming in every now and then to edit and add their favorite band just because. I think the list of artists should be as brief as possible (5? 6?) covering perhaps the most notable artists throughout the history of the genre. I'm not that big on earlier years of it (50-80s), and I'm not that updated on current trends (00s)... (I was more of a late 80s-90s guy) So, speaking of the music I know, I think Amy Grant, Steven Curtis Chapman, and Jars of Clay, should probably be on the lede. Third Day? Maybe, but I'm not so sure. People are more inclined to label Third Day more as Christian rock than they would Jars of Clay. As for recent bands/artists that I think fit the genre and are "popular" or "influential" enough to be on the lede... Casting Crowns and/or MercyMe might be appropriate. Chris Tomlin? Like I said, I'm not that educated on recent years. But remember that the lede is just a guideline for readers to "quickly" browse and identify what we're talking about. It shouldn't be a list of all the artists that we can think of. Either way, I think the important thing first is to define the genre as clearly as the term allows us. If it's problematic, then couldn't we include that in the article? How the term CCM doesn't fully refer to a specific genre, which lends itself to different definitions? Am I rambling? :-) Thief12 (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I too have been thinking about the fanboi problem and in retrospect am not sure why we mention artists in the lede at all. Perhaps it's a substitute for the non-existent List of contemporary Christian musicians, but perhaps creating that article would be a better way out.
The lede is designed to summarize the article and the artists mentioned in the lede are not mentioned in the article. Some of the artists that Thief12 and I have mentioned are in the History section, but nowhere else. Maybe we need to expand that section and elaborate on artists in that way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was going to say: especially with all the trouble that it causes, there really doesn't need to be a list in the lead.
Now if I may, here are some quotes from different sources that may kind of support my view on what CCM is, and I'll let them speak for themselves:
1) wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_music#Contemporary_Christian_music— "It can be divided into several genres and sub-genres, although the dividing lines and relationships between music genres are often subtle, sometimes open to individual interpretation, and occasionally controversial. Specific sub-genres of CCM may include (but are not limited to): Christian country music, Christian pop, Christian rock, Christian metal, Christian hardcore, Christian punk, Christian alternative rock and Christian hip hop."
2) CCM World— "a style of music that first became popular in the 1970s that combines popular musical sounds and genres of the times with Christian lyrics. Encompasses the following Christian music genres: pop, rock, alternative, metal, ska, swing, hip-hop, rap, and others."
3) www.wordiq.com "the term CCM usually refers specifically to artists within the Christian music industry that are played on Christian radio. The term is sometimes used synonymously with Christian Rock, but this a subset of CCM, as much of the music that is regarded as CCM is not within the rock music genre."
4) Encyclopedia of contemporary Christian music: pop, rock, and worship— "Contemporary Christian music is popular music with Christian lyrics. It encompasses a number of genres."
—Musdan77 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we convert the list to include figures or groups influential in the formation of modern CCM (Amy Grant, Steven Curtis Chapman, Michael W. Smith, Jars of Clay, dc Talk, etc.)? This would allow us to include artists that helped found and popularize the genre, without having to worry about removing and adding them every couple of years. Toa Nidhiki05
I'm seriously considering that we should remove the list. What purpose does the list serve? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we don't want a lot of small archives wasting peoples' time"

Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) is reverting any changes the archive settings of this page, stating "we don't want a lot of small archives wasting peoples' time". Walter, can you explain what you mean by "a lot of small archives" and "wasting peoples' time"? How will your reverts avoid either of these things? Jayjg (talk) 01:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started the automatic archiving through mizabot. Having been a member here know the pattern of discussion and would like to maintain the archives in a manner that is best suited to the pattern of discussion. Your settings would have archived single thread. Mine are to archive no fewer than three discussions. Your archive settings are every 100 days, just over three months. My settings are to do it every 180 days, just under six months. Can you explain why you think that this is a better way of doing things when for the past four years we've had more than a dozen messages and no one got confused? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted the adjustments made on the grounds that "We don't want to make a lot of small archives" and "we don't want a lot of small archives wasting peoples' time". Can you explain how these adjustments would have "made a lot of small archives" or "wasted people's time"? Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already have. Please don't change the settings again. They are set correctly and will work fine for the pattern of discussions we have here. There is no reason to have it archive only one thread when it's 100 days old. Plain and simple. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make bald assertions, because they carry no weight. Instead, please support what you say with rational arguments. Jayjg (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't explain how they would waste peoples' time. If someone was looking through the archives manually, more is worse. With your setting, one thread would be archived when it's 100 days old. If you look at the existing archive, it's much larger than that. No one even thought that archiving was an issue here until I added the Mizabot settings three calendar days ago. It could even be 365 days and no fewer than seven threads. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they're looking for something, they'll either have to look on the existing page or in the archives. The amount of text is the same, so no time will be wasted. Your explanation doesn't work. On the other hand, responding to dead threads does waste peoples' time, because the commenter expects a response, but never gets one, since the issue is already resolved, or no longer relevant to the article, or the previous commenters have moved on. The settings could even be 60 days, and no more than 3 threads left. Also, please explain what you mean by "a lot of small archives"? I didn't make the archive size smaller. Jayjg (talk) 07:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done explaining things to you because there is no need to change the settings. They are fine. minthreadstoarchive = 3 and algo = old(180d) are more than adequate for this article. Your settings are not. I saw you make this change on another group I follow and where I added the Mizabot archiving and didn't mind it there because it made sense. Here it doesn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight to controversy?

The prose of the 'controversy' section in larger than that of any other section. I believe it is far too large, and is giving undue weight to a minority or fringe viewpoint (that is, that only a certain type of music is permissible ie. legalism). I think we should shorten this to a paragraph or two, and change the overall tone to be more neutral. Toa Nidhiki05 14:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Walter,

I see that you are a fellow Christian and a fellow Christian musician, although being 12 years younger than I, it's not likely that you lived through the early days of the "Jesus Movement" as I did.

As a longtime Web Site content developer, K-12 Textbook editor, English Professor, Bible teacher, Music teacher, professional writer, and a one-time "Jesus Musician," I've recently started a project (SchoolOfTheRock.com) to help disciple the 18-15-year olds I minister to regularly on issues of contemporary Christian living, especially in areas related to worship and Bible teaching. Despite an ad here or there on the site to help pay a fraction of the site's expenses, you'd be hard-pressed to call it a commercial endeavor. (I pay the site's manifold expenses as a "write-off" from my professional consulting business.)

Because I grew up with people who hate Contemporary Christian music (and still run into them from time to time), I thought it would be nice to include articles that show some of the ways in which Biblical living, and Biblical worship through contemporary musical forms tie together.

To find links I could include from my pages, I went looking for any internet articles that provided insightful, balanced, detailed, and fact-based accounts of the history of Contemporary Christian music. I didn't find any that fulfilled all of those qualificatiosn. Your Wikipedia summary IS useful, and is a good introduction, VERY appropriate for Wikipedia, but I wanted something that presented more details and presented them in a stronger narrative that showed the history of Christian music from the musician's perspective.

So I wrote an fact-based, detailed, well-organized article that included, not only the history of the industry, but also personal experiences as well as the experiences of friends who were either touring artists or industry professionals.

You might be put off by a couple of paragraphs in first person, but if you've ever read Paul Baker's books, you'll find all the proof you need that it's an accurate history, even to the minor details.

Or maybe you're put off by some of the "negative" statements about dark times in the history of Christian music. But the sources you cite and books you recommend have sections that are FAR more negative. Also, I carefully chose details that would get the point across with inspiring the reader to outrage on certain topics, as a fully-detailed account would have done.

I've also "vetted" the article for content, balance, and tone by running it past former touring artists and Christian broadcasting professionals who lived through the same era. I have gotten nothing but enthusiastic response.

If you can find another Internet-published article (or ten) on the same subject that is as well written, organized, balanced, and fact-based as my article, please let me know. I'd be VERY glad to link to them from my web site. I'd also like to know why you don't link to those articles from the Wiki article? If they exist, that is.

Finally, I confess that I am at a loss as to why you consider my article either to be a "commercial advertisement" or a "personal blog" (both accusations came through the message to me, though it was largely "boilerplate," so I'm not sure which part was really yours). I recognize that is is NOT a Wikipedia article, but it is a fact-based, detailed, and hopefully balanced article nonetheless, far more so than quite a few other article links I see on similar Wikipedia pages. It is not advertising any specific product, or even any commercial web site. BTW CCM magazine is commercial - they cost money to subscribe to and have LOADS of advertising. Why do you have THEIR link, if you are seeking to avoid even the appearance of supportiing a commercial enterprise.

Also, the article dos NOT contain unverifiable personal ramblings or rants, as a blog would. (I publish blogs in other web sites so I know the difference.)

Perhaps you object to the fact that I posted the link myself. Would it be a better article if I asked an industry contact to post the link? Or maybe you should read the article yourself and let me know specifically what you feel is unsuitable about it?

If you've lost the link, it's at: http://www.schooloftherock.com/html/a_brief_history_of_contemporar.html

Frankly, I'm hoping that as a fellow musician you find the article edifying, exhorting, and comforting. And if you ARE aware of anything "wrong" with it on any level, please let me know, because I strive for proessionalism.

Sorry for the VERY long comment, and God bless, Paul Race


198.134.2.62 (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELNO 11 states "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)". You are not a recognized expert and so the link to the "history" does not qualify to be included in the external links section. It's difficult to include all of that information in the edit summary. That's why I left it on your talk page. If I didn't remove it someone else would. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point Paul, you're not even notable by Wikipedia standards, which is what is required. Your material may be a good read, but it's not acceptable by Wikipedia's guidelines to add to this article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "The issue is simple though. You're not a recognized expert and so adding your page violates WP:ELNO. "--Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that you don't know any more about me than I do about you, so a balanced, fact-based, well-organized, professionally-written article that has been vetted by industry experts does not deserve a link from a page you edit. You must have some supernatural way of divining that your qualifications to report on this topic must tower over mine, or you would never have the nerve to make such an assumption. So I will let it go for now, as long as you don't mind me adding this exchange as a humorous footnote to the article.

Did I mention that my blog subscribers number in the thousands? I'm sure they'll enjoy this story. If you ever decide to write me back, please go to ANY of my web pages and use the contact page, as I have no stomach for arguments in a public forum.

God bless and help you both with your music and with your ongoing efforts to make the contents of YOUR page appropriate, balanced, and accurate - those are areas in which you have my complete support.

Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Race (talk • contribs) 01:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines indicate who is and isn't notable. For WP:EL, (which is the same page as WP:ELNO) the guideline is that recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people. If you did, there would be a Paul Race article. There isn't, so you don't meet the notability criteria for people. If you were to create an article for yourself, it would be reviewed and rejected if you don't signify how you meet the notability guidelines. With that said, even if you were to somehow meet the guidelines and have an article created, you wouldn't be a recognized authority on this subject.
Your blog may have thousands of followers, but that doesn't make you a recognized authority, particularly when there are potentially billions of readers. Also, particularly not when you have indicated that you have students who are required to follow your blog. It would be a better case if you were paid by CCM magazine for your opinions and knowledge. Do you have a book on the subject published by a recognized publishing house (as opposed to self-published)?
Again, while the content may be wonderful and informative, if it breaks Wikipedia's guidelines, it will be removed. If not by me, by another editor who won't even discuss it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Walter, please help me. I'm having trouble finding the Walter Görlitz article that proves you are notable. Sorry, I couldn't resist. This gets funnier and funnier, especially as you misread my notes and make up stuff I haven't said. I DID mean what I said when I said have a great spring, and good luck with your own ministries. God bless - Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Race (talk • contribs) 02:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you don't understand. I've explained it every time and I won't be repeating myself. But I'll make a point. My cousin, once removed, happens to have been a German author and a recognized authority on the German military: de:Walter Görlitz. If he was still alive, he could contribute, to German Wikipedia, and reference his blog. He could also add it as an external link on an appropriate subject, but not on another distant cousin: Andreas Görlitz because, he's not a recognized authority on football (soccer). He couldn't add an external link to the German CCM article either.
I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm just applying the guidelines used on Wikipedia on the articles that I watch. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Baker's book is online, but the site is blacklisted?

Several Wikipedia articles about CCM and related subjects refer to Paul Baker's "Contemporary Christian Music", which has been out of print for at least 15 years. The complete online text is published on ccel dot us, but the site is blacklisted. I think it would be a good reference for people interested in CCM history. Do you have any idea why the site was blacklisted? Thanks - Paul Paul Race (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Garage had no direct relationship or influence on "Jesus Music," "Contemporary Worship," or "Contemporary Christian Music." Why do they keep popping up on these sites, while there are no links to the sites of artists who actually contributed? Paul Race (talk) 17:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Feel free to remove it. It was added out of self-promotion, but since I am a critic of that editor, it would appear biased if I removed it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evie

Admitted that Evie didn't belong in the list with Larry Norman, Randy Stonehill, and Andre Crouch. But in her own way, she was a precurser to Jesus music, and by recording songs by Larry Norman and others helped build a bridge between the largely "counter-culture" Jesus Music genre and the "legitimate" Gospel industry. Also, her stuff sounded trite to me at the time, but the company was positioning her to compete with people like Dionne Warwick and Petula Clark, not Grace Slick. No, there's not room in the article as it stands now. . . . Paul Race (talk) 20:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Paul Race (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Contemporary_Christian_music&oldid=481061568"