Talk:Contemporary Christian music/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Christian Metalcore

Something should be added in this about the importance of Christian music in the genre of Metalcore. As I Lay Dying, Zao, Norma Jean, and The Chariot are some of the most important bands in the genre of Metalcore, As I Lay Dying preformed at Ozzfest last year, and Norma Jean is preforming at it this year, and many of their fans are even atheists.

See Christian hardcore you may wanr to split Christian metalcore (not capitalisation) off. -- Paul foord 09:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

anybody outside the United States listen to CCM

Does anybody outside the United States listen to this stuff? Are there any prominent artists from other countries? --Robert Merkel 01:15 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

South Korea has a self-sufficient CCM industry. In fact, the term "CCM" is now part of the Korean language vernacular. Meaning, that if you say the phrase "CCM" to an average Korean person, they will understand you.

The largest Christian music festival is apparently the Greenbelt festival in England --rmhermen

The group Delirious? is, I believe, from the UK. They tour there, in the US, and in Australia. Their most recent tour includes dates in India, Finland, and Holland. --rholton

Both Newsboys and Rebecca St. James are Australian, and were very popular in their day (back in the '90s). I still think this is mainly an American phenomenon but there's certainly plenty in Canada, the U.K., and Australia. 141.158.237.141 05:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Both of those groups are still quite popular and still touring the U.S. Rmhermen 13:08, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)

There's also Tree63 in South Africa. I believe they're quite popular there as well in the US. Aidje 03:29, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

Blindside and Selfmindead are both from Sweden. Royal and Extol are also from Europe, I believe. Man Alive is from Israel. Thousand Foot Krutch, Hawk Nelson, The Undecided and others hail from Canada. Jpers36 13:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget downhere and Turn Off the Stars. They're Canadian, as well. Eclectic and Eccentric 04:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I worked around SE asia and the Western Pacific and saw a number of artists and groups in those areas, some quite remote. Coffeehouses in Japan were also noted to have CCM solo acts appear. Australia has a number of places where CCM (of all categories) is performed.

is this music only "country"-like, or are artists like kanye west, who sometimes sings with christian background also ccm?

CCM is not limited to 'country-like' music. There are Christian bands that are rock, punk, hardcore, hip-hop, and basically most everything else. Jpers36 13:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with that statement. It is true that there are different types of Christian music, but I would say that Contemporary Christian consists of the more 'Pop' Groups (such as Casting Crowns or even Ray Boltz). Many of the punk, rock and everything else would qualify as alternative Christian rock (ie most of Tooth and Nail, Solid State, Gohtee Records and bands of that area).Dateless 1 der 05:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Christian background is sufficient though. CCM should be groups who produce music entirely intended to convey Christian values. As such, Kanye does not count in this category.--Will2k 14:36, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Portsmouth Virginia has a number of Praise Rap artists, additionally they have had features written up in the local newspapers and the Link (cultural) daily. Jamaica also has a number of Reggae Christian artists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.146.136.7 (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

In Germany these Music is in Chruch verry populär, here they play songs in the orginal version but alos in german translation. Some great Artis comes from Germany to like Judy Bailey who lives in germany now, Sahra Brendel , Atnon and the watergirls they all perform in englisch. And there Musians like Arne kopferman, Albert frey, Lothar kose who composed and play their Songs in german. Every year we have to CCm Festivals "hiommelsfahrstfestival" und Maiday (www.maiday.info) GenomInc 00:30, 22 Mai 2007 (MEZ)

I'm Indian and all my fav bands are CCM bands. Starting from Petra to even the most recent acts such as eleventyseven, I listen to many of these bands. We've also got people (bands/groups/solo artists) who sing/compose Christian music. However, due to lack of funds/markets, very few records are released. :) aJCfreak yAk 07:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, almost all of the bands identified as examples of CCM at the beginning of the second para are white. How many non-white acts identify as CCM? FloydPink99 (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Many, but most follow the Gospel music tradition and would not identify themselves as exclusively CCM. Kirk Franklin would be the most notable in that vein, but Nicole C. Mullens is also popular, although she is married to a white man. Probably the most notable, and the exception to your rule, is former dcTalk member and current Newsboys front-man Michael Tait. Jerome Fontamillas currently of Switchfoot is Filipino. As was written above, South Korea has a self-sufficient CCM industry. There have been many other examples, but CCM, like much of popular music, is dominated by Caucasians. Is it a problem? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

External list

Would it be better for me to add a massive amount of bands in the list, or to add an external link to another site that has the list? Anaraug 19:31, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Probably both. Add any group signficant enough to have an article written about it in the future and add the link to the external page. If the list gets to long we can split it off this page and add other navigation features. Rmhermen 21:04, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I would favour limiting the list to those artists and groups which have historical significance, or if currently recording/touring have a substantial market share of a major label. Otherwise, we end up with thousands of local/regional bands and artist who might make it big in the future. In other words, I would include any group significant enough to have an article written about it now. Holford 20:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I admit my sentence was unclear. I meant that we should include any band important enough to deserve an article, not only bands that already have articles. Rmhermen 22:57, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that the list is a bit too long. Is this really the proper place for everyone to put their favorite artists? In short, I agree with Holford. I think I do, anyway. I think that this list should contain only artists with historical significance. So I guess I don't totally agree: I don't think we can necessarily define whether someone is significant now or not. Perhaps we just need a good definition. Perhaps we could have a list of CCM artists separate from this article, rather than everyone listing their favorite artists here (I saw a few bands in that list that I've never even heard of, as well as some bands that are just plain in the secular market, such as U2 and Creed. Sure, maybe they're Christian. Does that make them CCM? I think I'm wandering again. Okay: I think that this list is not very well defined as to who can go in it. We should decide more specifically what it's for. That is what I mean. I could be wrong. Aidje 03:27, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)

I think you are addressing two different issues. If the list is too long for this page we can separate it and add alphabetical headers for navigation. The list should be long and complete. See Wikipedia is not paper. There are, however, some minimums recognized, usually in Vfd discussions as to how notable a band needs to be to deserve an article. I am not sure whether they are written out anywhere. Maybe [[1]]. Usually any band with a recording contract, a couple albums and a few years existance, I think.

The second issue you raise is whether a group is classified under this genre. Recently this has become less clear with groups being less explicit in their lyrics and some groups having migrated from this genre to another secular one. Some bands early work is CCM but their later work isn't. They should still probably be listed here. Others like Creed and U2 which include Christian themes but reject the CCM label are less clear. Rmhermen 15:19, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I was talking about two different things. At the moment, I'm really more concerned about the first one. The reason I think the list is too long is that it says Notable, and yet we don't have any definition of what Notable means in this case. I do think that there should be a complete list, but I think that if it's complete, it should be on a separate page. The one on this page should either be reduced to artists that actually are Notable, or simple removed and a link added to the other list (obviously, if there's another list, it should be linked to regardless of whether the list on this page is removed). Aidje 18:50, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Whether or not a band is on a "Christian Record Label" or a secular one shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not they belong in the CCM category. The lyrics and what the band members stand for should be the precidence. Thus a band like U2, who sings about God in their songs and does many things for Christian causes, should definitely belong in the list; as where a band like Creed who publicly claim to not be Christian, and whose lead singer says he doesn't really know what to think of whether he believes in God and Jesus probably should not be on the list. As for the length of the list, it is very long, but maybe it should just be categorized by musical genre instead of trimming it. - --Zephyrxero 23:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notable artist on major labels? What about the indie's? A number of artists are only up on mp3 sites, or have web based distribution through thier ministries. They shouldn't be disregarded because of a lack of funding or significant contractual backing.

Images

The list of images are too long (longer than the article). I recommend two options:

• Remove some images that aren't needed. Though I am not familiar with the importance of most of those albums so not sure which must be kept and which could go.
• Someone with knowledge of how images work in wikipedia can layout two images right next to each other to try and compact the list.

--Will2k 17:25, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

While on the topic of images, does anyone object to moving the images beside the artists name as opposed to listing them in chronological order?--Will2k 15:01, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the current way. They show a progression and also illustrate the text. If all are moved to the artist's names, they will be too crowded and there will be none alongside the text itself. Rmhermen 15:17, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Well the biggest issue is the two stuffed in at the very end.--Will2k 05:10, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Travail

Dove Award nominees Travail are on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Travail, and their article is tagged for cleanup and expansion. Samaritan 20:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Currently, Christian music sales exceed those for classical, jazz, and New Age music combined[1] (http://www.cmta.com/GMA%20Industry%20Overview.pdf)." says the article. However the article it links to as a source is US only. Secretlondon 01:48, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no international tracking of album sales in any genre. Rmhermen 02:32, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Is CCM pop music?

I wonder is CCM Pop music for evangelical Christians? Paul foord 10:54, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It certainly could be considered that, however, pop music is a genre and CCM is not a genre. CCM could be considered closer to a national music. You could not ask if Canadian Music is pop music. There are pop elements, rock, folk, metal, classical, jazz, and most western genres of music involved in CCM. CCM even uses Gospel music. --Walter Görlitz 15:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It is also not restricted to evangelicals, although it is probably omst popular among them. Some CCM artists even occasionally have mainstream hits. Rmhermen 23:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

record labels

I wonder, should Atlantic records be specifically listed under here? I don't think that Atlantic records is really a 'Christian' record label. It may have some Christian artists, but I wouldn't deem them as Christian.

"not deem them as Christian", but if they carry a substantial number of CCM artists then they belong, probably useful for some explanation though. Paul foord 01:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I see more non-CCM artists under their label than I do actual CCM artists. I think 'atlantic records' and it just seems secular to me. am I alone on this one?

On the main page, the list seems too long. I think we should create a page called List of Contemporary Christian music labels. What do you all think? --Rejnal 22:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

CCM vs. "Praise Music"

Are these the same thing, or two different genres? The Praise style seems to be much more contemporary than traditional Hymns, yet the inclusion of MxPx and U2 in this group seems to indicate that CCM is a genre dealing with groups that may not be "in your face" about being Christian. Thesquire 20:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

U2

I think that the reference to U2 is misleading - U2 were not a CCM group that broke out of the ghetto (minor examples of those would be ATF and Delirious ?) - they were a mainstream group which included Christians as members. However not all of U2 described themselves as Christian at the time.

Was Bob Dylan a CCM artist ?

-- Beardo 05:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find any references to Bob Dylan as a CCM artist. I also agree with you on this point; I will remove the reference. ~Linuxerist L / T 05:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the reference to U2 is misleading as well. A band that has 3 out of its 4 members as practicing Christians and who pray openly before each performance is Christian in my opinion. They choose not to be associated with any label like CCM or Mainstream Pop, and a large portion of their songs are either scripturally based or make a reference to scripture. This is not disputable. See "Get Up Off Your Knees - Preaching the US Catolog" by Raewynne J. Whiteley & Beth Maynard (Cowley Publications), and "Walk On" by Steve Stockman (Creation House Press 2001). suenadam2000@yahoo.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.14.20 (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Christian pop

Christian pop differs from CCM, but in a way many artists which were CCM artists are now classified as Christian pop artists. Take U2 for example. Another is Guy Sebastian. They are signed to a non-Christian label but sing songs with Christian lyrics. That would be classified as Christian pop but not CCM.

Christian pop is akin to popular culture.

Also artists like Bethany Dillon, Joy Williams, Zoegirl, BarlowGirl are now referred to as pop artists who are Christians (aka Christian pop artists), hence the term. (added by User:Candice Coppins)

This isn't entirely true. CCM has often meant the entire range from worship to pop to rock to punk. Rmhermen 15:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Who else thinks this? I'm from Australia, and to be honest with you, I have never even heard of the word Chrsitian Contemporary Music (CCM). And also, on the front page, it clearly says that the word is outdated. Okay, if it is, then what is the replacement? Christian pop seems the most obvious because it relates to the style of Christian pop culture living.

Candice Coppins 15:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am for a fusion. The Christian pop music article beings this way: Christian pop music (also known as Contemporary Christian music)... Martious 15:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Soft rock?

The assertion that CCM is used nowadays to refer only to Christian "Soft Rock" is just plain wrong. This may be the case in the USA, but in the UK, the term CCM is used to refer to all genres of contemporary Christian music, including dance/trance/house/techno/whatever, as well as rock. Granted, the majority of CCM bands are probably soft rock bands, due to the popularity of guitar-led worship bands; but contemporary Christan dance music, for example, is still Contemporary Christian Music. Waggers 13:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Page Cleanup

I did some overall editing and page cleanup to this article. I hope no one takes any offense to my work, particularly since, if you look in the page history, I am the one who wrote most of this material in the first place. Thank you! Snow1215 12:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are you gutting this article? Are there particular problems you are trying to fix? Please don't just delete large sections of the page though. The infobox, for instance, should not be removed. Rmhermen 20:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to fix a couple of problems:

1. There is no need for the bit about Martin Luther's quote. That has more to do with Martin Luther than with CCM. It is superfluous.
2. There really need be only 3 "views" stated: separatist, purist, and incidental. The 'spiritually reflective' postition does not deal with Christian involvement in popular music, but rather the Christian listener's attitude towards all popular music in general. It's a different subject, really
3. The Artists section is currently quite silly and subjective. This is an encyclopedia article, not a blog about someone's favorite artists of the year. If the article really needs something like that, perhaps more objective and solid information would be better, like an end of the year top selling albums and singles list, or something.

Those are the main problems I was trying to fix. Hopefully as an administrator you will agree these improvements would better the article. Snow1215 13:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Snow on this one. The bit about Martin Luther is perhaps relevant, but probably not in such great extent. I am going also going to try make the criticism part a little more NPOV. I am not going to completely throw out the old stuff, but there will be some changes. If this is a problem, feel free to post here, Rmhermen. -Patstuart 04:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox and General "Cleanup"

This article is getting worse and worse each edit! I propose to revert this version. Compared to the older one, the present one is very inferior. And User:Gazza13527 added the infobox which I understand User:Snow1215 deleted. User:Marissa Coppins then redirected the article to Christian pop music! Any major changes should be discussed here before it is done.

Because there are an article for each, Contemporary Christian music is not Christian pop music. (See the first sentence of Christian pop music.)

Now here is the infobox that was apparantly delted by User:Snow1215 and reinstated by User:Gazza13527. It was thereafter restored by me when I reverted to the last edit by User:Aviator33029. Well, here is the infobox that was deleted:

Contemporary Christian music (aka Christian pop)
Stylistic origins	A variety of influences evolving from the Jesus Music movement.
Cultural origins	1960s United States and Australia
Typical instruments	Electric guitar, Bass guitar, Drums, Keyboard, Synthesizers
Subgenres
Christian bubblegum pop - Christian hip hop - Christian rap - Christian metal - Christian punk - Christian rock - Christian worship music - Christian soft rock - Christian pop rock
Other topics
Christian pop culture - Christian boy band - Christian girl group

Here is what I think of the infobox.

1. The (aka Christian pop) should be taken out (See my second paragraph).
2. Is this true? A variety of influences evolving from the Jesus Music movement.
3. Why is Continuous from 1990s in the popularity parameter smaller than surrounding text? Is there something else that can be placed in that parameter?
4. Never heard of Christian bubblegum pop
5. Other topics? Christian boy band? Christian girl group? The wording sounds like a second grader's.

Please reply to my comment. —Black and White (_TALK^CONTRIBS) 22:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Black and White, except on #2: the movement does have roots in the Jesus Movement. But the others? Christian bubblegum pop shouldn't even have its own page, and Christian boy band might be a phenomenon, but not worth mentioning in the infobox. --Patstuart 17:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As for your other comments: there have been some reasonable changes made to the page (I suppose I'm a little biased towards my own). I looked back on the history, and someone removed decided to "scatter fair-use images"; in other words, he took them out, but I can't find any good reason why (it makes the page much uglier). Finally, there is a lot of linkspam on this page, and I'd like to take a quick survey to see if we agree it's OK to go in and clean that junk out.

So, in summary, I propose

1) adding the images back in (if no one says anything, I may do this on my own)

2) Fixing up the infobox (and possibly even nominating Christian Bubblegum Pop for deletion). Besides, do we really need two infoboxes? They both say exactly the same thing.

3) getting rid of the heavy linkspam (I just may do this on my own too) --Patstuart 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject?

Does anyone else think that CCM and Christian Contemporary Music should receive a Wikiproject. I have been thinking of this for quite some time. Some major artists (Matthew West) still don't have Wikipedia pages. Many other artists including MercyMe, Casting Crowns, Jeremy Camp, etc, have only a small portion of information, and barely any information about their albums and singles. I would be willing to participate if anyone would like to start this Wikiproject. I think it is highly needed, especially with the growing popularity with CCM. However, I believe it should be soley to Christian Contemporary Music, and not include Gospel. The two can overlap, but Gospel should get its own Wikiproject, and not be directly connected with CCM, due to the large differences. Casey14 20:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• It already exists; check Wikipedia:WikiProject CCM. [ælfəks] 14:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Keith Green

Someone (IP address only) added this text to the article: "Keith Green was the first of these artists to record with the London Philharmonic Orchestra." Can anyone tell me if this is relevant to the article or not? I don't mean to be picky, but if it turns out that someone is just adding stuff to the article that shouldn't be there, then we should remove it. --Patstuart 16:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer:It was a significant achievement at the time, something totally new. An ex-hippie singing with a Philarmonic Orchestra! Christian music! It impulse better musical cuality in the industry.I vote "Songs for the Shepherd" the best almum in contemporary christian music.It deserves at least to be mentioned in the article.By the way,Green was the only christian artist at the 80's sending almost free albums by mail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.50.12.225 (talk • contribs) .

comment: It might also be noted that Keith Green deviated from the Christian Music industry and was a public critic of the concurrently established CCM industry.

Radio Station available online

WCIC-FM (91.5 FM in Peoria, Illinois) is available online. They are non-commercial and non-profit. Their website is http://wcicfm.org. Their feed is at http://wcicfm.org/wcic.m3u. Enjoy. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I may use that some day. :) --Patstuart 03:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I listed it so it could be added to the article. I can't add it as it is the ONLY station I listen to. :D I would be biased.

BTW: If you like WCIC, you might be interested in helping out at the Christian Music Wiki. We need all the help we can get. Your account is good at all Wikia.com wikis, which includes the Star Trek wiki MemoryAlpha. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Views

I see a lot of views discussed in this article, including that of those who feel that contemporary music is inherently bad and shouldn't be imitated. However, I see no discussion of a certainly quite-common viewpoint, that being that contemporary music is good, and that CCM doesn't imitate it _well enough_, instead sounding like a cheap or lame imitation of out-of-style music, and therefore making us christians look out of touch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk • contribs)

I actually tried to clean it up quite a bit; it was even uglier before. If you believe that you can add or chang something that will make the article conform better to the WP:POV policy, then I encourage you to do so; be bold in editing. -Patstuart 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Is there a specific reason Contemporary is always capitalized? Usually you don't see other forms of music capitalized like this. I noticed that other phrases in the artical, such as Fundamentalist Christian, were also capitalized like this. Any real reason, or can it be fixed? Cat Parade 02:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, CCM has become a title for the type of music. It's not necessary, I assume, but it's become a de facto way of referring to the music. If you want to change it, I don't think anyone would mind. -Patstuart 03:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We have a user, User talk:Cmspin that keeps adding cmspin.com to the links list

I think he or she should wait for for a consensus here. However, he or she is not willing to wait. Since the user name is the same as the URL, I have to believe the user account was added soley to attract traffic to the website. Please comment. Will (Talk - contribs) 05:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Page Cleanup

Please take a look at this version of the page as a possibility for a new, cleaned up version of this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Contemporary_Christian_music&oldid=83697215 So much of the current article is unencyclopedic and unnecessary. Less is more, so to speak. If anything, more could be written on the actual history of the genre. But the entire "Views" and "Criticisms" sections are not needed at all, in my opinion. As far as I know, no other music genre page has these sections. Snow1215 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I would be all for it; I think near everybody watching the page thinks the current version is lousy. Anyone else agree? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a shot. Thanks. Snow1215 02:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Much better, I'd say. Now we'll have to wait til someone comes along who added a big section, and that person will get mad. But it's definitely better now. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Catholic Music Zine

The link for it should be removed. This article is for Contemporary CHRISTIAN Music only.

Last time I checked, Catholics were considered to be part of Christianity. If you're aware of a change, please let us know. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism is no longer considered a part of Christianity. The Catholic views have become far too different from Christian views. Also, Catholic music artists are not played on Contemporary Christian Music radio, and are not featured in anything having to do with Contemporary Christian Music, execpt for the link here on Wikipedia, which should be removed. -------- Switchfo0t813 22:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to make an assertion like that, you'll definitely need to back it up with some pretty hefty citations from reputable, mainstream theological sources. For that matter, you'll probably need to start by convincing the editors over at Christianity to rewrite that page as well, since it makes no mention of the split that you describe. Until then, there is no valid reason for removing the link in question, or for that matter for removing the "See also" link to Korean Contemporary Christian music. --01:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well keep it there for now then. But please leave the link for www.jesusfreakhideout.com there please. =] --- Switchfo0t813

Well, if you feel it belongs here, I have no reason to remove it. My concern is to avoiding "duelling links", where editors are swapping in their favourite sites and deleting others. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I havn't seen anyone ask every single CCM artist what branch of the Christian religion they are. There are many Protestant artists, but there are still Catholics and Orthodox artists. Christianity, Catholicism, Protestantism, Eastern Orthodox Casey14 03:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Casey14, consider this a warning. For your sake, I have deleted several portions of your above comment that could be considered as a personal attack against Switchfo0t813. Please be advised that this is not an attempt to censor your thoughts. However, you should be aware that the talk page is only for discussing the article topic. Wikipedia policy does not permit personal attacks of the sort you wrote above, and Switchfo0t813 would be well within his/her rights to protest. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Catholics were the first Christians. Any history or religion book will state that. How can one say that they arn't even Christians? Wikipedia is not a place to bring discrimination against different groups into articles. And by the way, Switchfo0t813 personally atacked me, by saying I was not a Christian, take that into consideration. Casey14 03:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, I do understand your perspective on this. However, there is a difference between a broad statement like "Catholics aren't Christians", which can be discussed by all editors, and an argument that deteriorates into "You're X", or "You're not Y" between individuals. Your second post makes the same point about Catholicism as your first post, but avoids the personal attacks that could get you blocked by an administrator. (I'm not an admin, by the way - just offering advice.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Switchfo0t813, could you please tell me how Catholics are not Christians. Casey14 03:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to bring up another point. Does the link in question meet the WP:EL criteria? If not, the entire discussion is mute. -Will Pittenger 05:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a valid question - but also one that would have to be applied to the entire list, not just one selected link. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Then let's do so in another thread. See below. Will (Talk - contribs) 15:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Casey14, you are correct in saying that Catholics were the first Christians. However, and this is not a personal attack against Catholicism, the Catholic Church has taken their views far out of proportion, and have literally seperated themselves in many ways from the views of Christianity. For example, Jesus clearly states in the Bible that one must believe and be baptized and accept him into their hearts in order to recieve eternal life. Catholics however do not teach this practice, and instead sprinkle babies at birth. Those babies are not aware of the choice that they have to make in Christ. That is only one of the few reasons why Catholics have seperated themselves so much from the original teachings of Christianity. ---- Switchfo0t813 23 November, 2006 (Happy Thanksgiving)

Catholicism is one of the three branches of Christianity. Catholics may have some minor differences from Protestants, but Catholics are still very much Christians. They are not Protestants. There is a difference between Protestantism and Christianity. And, Catholics do teach the acceptance of Jesus Christ as their savior, and they baptize children at birth. Catholics do something called confirmation when you want to accept Christ. Casey14 15:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Methodists also baptize at birth and use confirmation in a similar manner as the Catholics. However, we have many differences. Catholics hold that the mother of Jesus was herself holy. If so, then those of us that are Methodists have to ask why did we need her son? We could have crucified her instead. (Hey, it's the era of womens' lib.) -Will Pittenger 15:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of this debate is that on Wikipedia, you cannot bring biased disagreements about different religions into articles. All different Christian religions have different beliefs. On Wikipedia, when an article is about Christianity as a whole, we cannot discriminate against different groups of Christianity. Casey14 16:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's vote which external sites should be kept

Which external links do we want to keep? I vote that we block any commercial site with vigor. Will (Talk - contribs) 15:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I just removed a bunch of them. We'll see what happens. --King Bee 17:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Aly and AJ, or no Aly and AJ ?

I've noticed the beginnings of a revert war, so let's discuss. Admittedly, I don't listen to CCM, but I have heard of every act listed there except Aly and AJ. I don't think that being a fan of them is enough to warrant their appearance here. I say we remove them from the list of "such as" bands. --King Bee 22:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove. Aly & AJ, while having some minor crossover hits, has not acheived major recognition either in Christian or secular circles. Jpers36 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think they should stay. Jpers36, they actually were nominated for Christian Artist of the Year at this year's 2006 American Music Awards. Just because they are "new" doesn't mean we shouldn't include them. "Such as" lists should contain familiar faces in CCM like Amy Grant and Relient K, but should also include breaking out artists like Aly & AJ. And, this is not a personal attack, Aly & AJ had a #1 Christian CHR hit earlier this year with the song "Never Far Behind", and they are releasing their second Christian radio only song tomorrow (December 5), which is called "Shine." They need to stay. Switchfo0t813 23:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Switchfo0t813, can you cite those claims you make about their CHR hit and the second Christian radio song? --King Bee 18:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Remove Aly and AJ have only had one hit in their career, according to Switchfo0t813. Most of their popularity has came from being on some Disney channel show, and not actually being a part of the Christian music scene. One hit is not enough to warrant them to be one of the major singers/bands on the page. Many other current bands, that are "new" have many more hits, such as Sanctus Real, Starfield, Leeland, the Afters and others, arn't included, and neither should Aly and AJ, which many less people know about. Casey14 22:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

They're gone. After a week, only one person is in favor of keeping them in the article. I also checked out their myspace page, and not one appearance of the word "Christian" or "Jesus" is to be found. I agree with Casey14. --King Bee 16:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Remove - first off, they are only a pseudo-Christian band. But please listen to my reasoning here: we already have several bands listed. We can mention another band if we wish. In other words, it's not the end of the world if we say David Crowder Band instead (besides, he's much more notable in the industry anyway). Do you see what I mean? It's not worth revert warring over it. -Patstuart^talk|edits 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus seemed to be to remove Aly & AJ, but they have returned under a different wording. This appears to be contrary to the above discussion, so I have removed them. They also seem to fail the notability test, as per the same discussion. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Outside of Wikipedia, I've never even heard of them. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They should not be on ANY Christian music list. We had a Mediation over this, and it was agreed that they are teen pop. There are sources to prove that they are teen pop. I have the Into The Rush album, and the album isn't Christian, or any religion, at all. Acalamari 20:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem isn't that they aren't Christian, Acalamari. The problem is they are not notable enough to be mentioned with the other bands that have the "Christian themes, but not Christian genre" tag. For instance, we are not going to list them alongside Bob Dylan, U2 and Coldplay. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I know they're not Christian. I pointed this fact out. As for Bob Dylan, U2, and Coldplay, I didn't realize that they were in the "Christian theme, bot Christian genre" category. Also, I didn't think that Aly & AJ's music was even Christian themed. The only thing with Aly & AJ is that they are Christians, not their music. Acalamari 21:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In that Blender magazine interview, they stated that they instill Christian ideas into their music, just like the other artists listed on the CCM page. Switchfo0t813 22:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Switchfo0t813, I know. It's that they aren't notable enough. That's the issue here. –King Bee ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they are a fairly notable band. I've heard of them quite often, in and out of the Christian circle (they're always right on the cusp if in). Perhaps we could list them as on an on the bubble band. Patstuart^talk|edits 22:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The same can be said about Sanctus Real, Building 429, Stellar Kart, Nichole Nordeman, Joy Williams, Bethany Dillon, Natalie Grant, BarlowGirl, tobyMac, Rebecca St. James, Leeland, Krystal Myers, Shawn McDonald, and countless others. Aly and AJ are less notable than many I listed. Why should they be included why others are not? Casey14 22:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Someone added them to the list again. WAVY 10 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

While Aly & AJ did have that one single which was a #1 hit on CCM radio, it was their only CCM chart hit to the best of my knowledge. The single is on an import CD (from the U.S. perspective). I agree with Casey14's comment that they are less notable than the other artists listed, so I think delist them. I have heard some of their other songs on mainstream pop radio stations and on the Disney Channel, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. I think that BarlowGirl should be listed though, as "I Need You to Love Me" was most played song on CCM in 2006, and "Never Alone" was so huge in 2004. Royalbroil ^T : C 05:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Coldplay

I think U2 and Bob Dylan are great examples of mainstream artists who also deal with spiritual themes from a Christian perspective; they have both even released Christian albums (October and Slow Train Coming, respectively). I'm not as sure about Coldplay. I'm not questioning whether the artists are Christians and sometimes write from a Christian point of view; I just think it may not be as evident as U2, Dylan or certain other artists. For example, how about Johnny Cash, T-Bone Burnett, or Alice Cooper? Jpers36 16:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Earlier today, the entire "Criticism" section was reverted outright without any discussion. Personally, I think the information was interesting - I didn't realize that the genre was banned at some Christian institutions. The text might need a rewrite for clarity and style, citations for verifiability, and perhaps a different heading (so as to avoid being a magnet for mischief-makers). However, I think that if done properly, it can actually improve the article by making it more encyclopedic. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, CCM is simply a genre of music. Every genre of music has it's critics - ("I hate country music", etc). Just because some extreme fundamentalist Christians have banned the music in the past (along with every other type of music other than hymns) doesn't necessarily make it a needed aspect of this article. I wouldn't be opposed to something more encyclopedic, as you suggested, but the Criticisms section as it stands now is not encyclopedic or relevant. Snow1215 23:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference, though, between "I hate country music" (which is personal preference) and "You can't play that music at this institution" (which could be defined as censorship). The latter is notable, especially given that the presumption amongst non-Christians might be that all Christians openly accept Christian music. As well, while CCM is a genre of music, it represents something beyond that, given that the category is defined not just as a music style but also by the message it conveys. I will say again that a different section heading would help (although I can't think of one right now.) "Criticisms" is a bit of a loaded term, and can attract the wrong sort of contributions. (It's kind of like having an "Observations" section in a TV article - it invites anyone who has a thought, complaint or bit of trivia to toss it in, as opposed to relevant information.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Take a look at my latest edit and see what you think. Feel free to change as needed. Snow1215 19:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is quite one-sided! The only subsection with text is "Criticism." Hardly a balanced presentation. There needs to be a section arguing the other side.--Camulod 06:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there needs to be some heavy-duty support to the implication that Bob Jones University speaks for the average conservative Christian; even people I've known who are affiliated with the school would admit that it is not a mainstream organization. I would strongly recommend that the BJU example be stricken and replaced with an example involving an organization that is less of a fringe group.--Camulod 06:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

There used to be some counter-points, from what I recall. I think they went away when Snow1215 made some changes, but I could be mistaken. Again, the section heading is a big POV problem, but titles like "Controversy" and "Criticisms" are problematic across the Wiki. What about something like "Reception" or "Public reaction"? Might that be a bit more neutral? It would also be interesting to see some exploration of the makeup of the audience; is it primarily people of Christian faiths, or is there "outside" interest as well? --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

MacArthur Irony

Is it just me, or does it seem ironic that John MacArthur (known for criticizing CCM) once called CCM veteran Steve Camp "Keith Green with theology"? Is it possible he changed his stand on this issue?

WAVY 10 17:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Christian musician guidelines

After seeing the Aly & AJ "debate" on this talk page (and wading through a similar discussion a few weeks ago on the Miley Cyrus talk page), I have a set of guidelines for those to be included in the Christian musician category.

They must...

1. Be Christians themselves. (NON-NEGOTIABLE)

2. Make music for a Christian audience (This is where the Aly & AJ madness sparked.)

There. That's fairly simple, I would think.

WAVY 10 16:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One big (BIG) problem with this - it means that Wikipedia is acting as the deciding body for what constitutes CCM, as opposed to reporting what others say (including the artists themselves). In a similar vein, it would be inappropriate to say "X is not a jazz artist because of..." The encyclopedia would instead say "Y and Z do not consider X to be a jazz artist, because of..." --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that should be a qualification for these musician's articles to be categorized on Wikipedia!

7thdiversity 19:01, 12 January 2008

The problem with the second guideline is that a lot of "famous" CCM artists make music for a mainstream audience e.g. Stacie Orrico, P.O.D., Mandisa etc

Neutrality

This article can hardly be considered Neutral. While expressing criticisms of CCM is valid and merited, there should be a section devoted to the opposing view, perhaps documenting its popularity. The tone of the article as it currently stands would suggest that there is huge opposition to and little support of CCM.--Camulod 06:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Look at the References section. Almost all of those are books supporting CCM.WAVY 10 15:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The references are different than the article itself, I agree there needs to be a section about the increases in popularity.

I would have to say that the both of them have so much on each side that they could be made in two seperate articles, one talking about the proponents and the other about the opponents. I would not be one to post a neutral article on either, since I have a very strong stand that the Bible should be the only source to support such arguments, and since the Bible doesn't address the type of music one should listen to, we shouldn't be debating about it.

That's my two cents. Sculleywr 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not neutral, as there are only sub-sections which expand upon the opponents of CCM. I've added a pov tag to this article. This article needs a set of sub-sections about supporters of CCM, and perhaps sources which tell us why they do what they do. By thw ay, I'm just giving suggestions here, I don't know enough about CCM to do this myself, I only listen to a select few. But anyone who is willing to look for these people and sources, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks----JamesSugrono^U|C 06:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

POV tag as of January 25, 2008

Was this concern ever addressed? The POV tag is still on the article, yet it is rated as "B-Class" in the WikiProject. That's a disconnect. Could someone who's been on this article for a while provide an update? Thanks. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be removed. Not quite sure, though. aJCfreak yAk 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Selection of artists listed

The list of artists mentioned near the top of the article is in question. Obviously this list can only be a small sample, but it is almost entirely currently-popular artists. In the spirit of a more encyclopedic approach, it ought to include a sampling of artists representative of the whole historic sweep of the CCM genre (dating to the 80s, not the 90s, as incorrectly mentioned in the infobox). Encyclopedias are generally not about tracking the most current trends, but about giving a broader picture of a subject. Of course, 20 different people may generate 20 rather different lists of who should be represented, but I'm sure there are a few that could be agreed upon. Steven Curtis Chapman is the one already mentioned in the article who would best fit the bill. And what happened to Keith Green? Regardless of anyone's like or dislike of his music, from an objective standpoint, it would be hard to argue his influence on the genre (the enduring popularity of his music, its increased acceptance even in more traditional-minded churches, and--more to the point of this article--his influence on later musicians and on the genre as a whole).--Camulod 06:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

On the list had been/ are Amy Grant, Michael W. Smith, and Steven Curtis Chapman, who are probably three of the most influential CCM artists of all time. They should stay. Casey14 19:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Added Petra, not because of personal preference but because of the band's significant impact to CCM. Also added Keith Green and Michael Card for the same reasons.--Camulod 13:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can anybody really justify Relient K being in this very short list of singers/ groups who are supposed to be representative of CCM? Since there is debate over whether they should even be classified as a Christian band (or a band whose members are Christian), then they don't belong on this short list. Please speak up of you have a convincing reason otherwise.--Camulod 14:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

They are probably the biggest CCM group today in mainstream, and they are obviously a Christian band. They are on CCM charts, in CCM magazines, on CCM stations and radio shows, take part in CCM awards. There is really no debate, except for those fans who want to hear that the band is not Christian. Casey14 19:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I think that we need some sort of criteria for determining who should and should not be in the list. As a starting point

• a winner of a major Dove award in the past five years
• recognizable artists who consider themselves part of the industry. (This would include Amy Grant and Stryper, but not U2 or Switchfoot.)
• a band who has had a major or recent cross-over hit. (This would then include Bob Carlisle)

If we implement this policy, we should somehow note the reason for their presence on the list. While I have nothing against the artists currently on the list, I don't think that they should all be there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Scripture list

Why not put a list of Scripture references pertaining to music and/or how we are to worship in church so the readers can search for themselves what their feelings about CCM should be; instead of simply the opinions of the talking heads for or against it?

WAVY 10 15:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

References

The "Church Music" reference should probably have as the author "Dr. Nelson Price", as it is on his website, but the article does not actually claim to be written by him. --Osndok 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Favorite Christian Artists

I am new here and I've been reading what others wrote and I was just wandering what everyones favorite christian artists are.Soccerman1000 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! In case you're wondering why no one has responded, it's probably because talk pages are supposed to only be used to discuss how the article could be made better. Using them to discuss an article's subject without relevance to to improvement of the Wikipedian project is a common mistake that most people make at some point or another, so don't feel too bad about it. Just try to refrain from doing so in the future.--Supernerd 10 20:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)P.S. The Newsboys.

MacArthur Reference

Kimberly Smith and Dan Lucarini had evidences of being against contemporary Christian music, there is no reference, book, or resource that can back up the claim that John MacArthur is against contemporary Christian music. I have personally never heard a sermon, read a book, or inferred that he was against contemporary Christian music. So I will take down John MacArthur's name from the sentence, "Other noted Christian critics of CCM include John MacArthur, Dan Lucarini (the author of the book Why I Left the Contemporary Christian Music Movement), and Kimberly Smith (author of the books Oh Be Careful Little Ears and Let Those Who Have Ears to Hear)." If you find a reference then you are welcome to put it back in by all means. However, until then I do not believe that there is substantial evidence to allow for this to be an encyclopedic fact. Professor Davies 04:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Added to CCM pioneers

I have included Children of the Day in the section listing pioneers of CCM. Children of the Day was the FIRST Jesus-Music/CCM group ever. You cannot have an article about CCM without listing them. As well, Barry McGuire essentially discovered 2nd Chapter of Acts. It would not be right to list 2nd Chapter without listing Barry McGuire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kelly A. Siebecke (talk • contribs) 05:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

They don't get much mention in various CCM sources because of a major scandal (a lesbian affair involving the lead singer). Check Daniel Mount's history of CCM (it's in this article's external links). WAVY 10 14:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally got the COTD article up. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding

The article says, "Some conservative Christians feel that the medium of popular music is unholy, and thus unfit for Christian participation."

I think this is incorrect. Although there may be a few who hold this view, the majority of critics of CCM do not think all popular music is unholy. Popular music is called popular music because it is popular. So somebody who is against popular music is against all music that large masses of people enjoy. This is almost never true.

JBFrenchhorn 10:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Usually that would refer to the more outspoken fundamentalists that not only oppose but attack CCM, and I think using "some" probably fits pretty well in the description. WAVY 10 17:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Removing "Christianized" pop and uncreativity

I am removing this as per WP:PROVEIT, because I believe that there has been sufficient time to find sources. If anyone disagrees with me and wishes to re-publish the text, it would be better with reliable sorces attributed to them. WP:RS----JamesSugrono^U|C 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. One good step towards an article that is in desperate need of improvement. Snow1215 12:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claims

Please do not add statements without verifiable sources attached to them. Again, I'm reverting the last edit as per WP:PROVEIT . If anyone wants to re-publish it, we need a source. Thanks----JamesSugrono^U|C 06:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

subgenres

Recently, a number of subgenre articles were taken to WP:AFD, the results were to merge those articles back to this one. I will leave it to the editors of this article to decide on whether or not they want to discuss subgenres in the article or not. Mangojuice^talk 14:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Contemporary Christian" vs "Christian Contemporary"

The article currently uses the word order "Contemporary Christian". Till now I've only heard it the other way around, though that's not saying much since I haven't heard the phrase very often. Now, I don't want to get up and do a switch just because of that, and mess up the article history and all that, so I won't, but I wanna find out if I'm not the only one who keeps wantin to reverse the words? Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. "CCM" most commonly stands for "Christian Contemporary Music," rather than "Contemporary Christian Music." However, the later usage is more common that I expected: Google finds 721,000 references to the former phrase, but also 496,000 references to the later. NCdave (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider adding SourceOneTV.com to External Links

May I sugget adding a link to Source One Television (www.SourceOneTV.com). Source One TV is a Christian music news program. Thank you.

--Pmatadeen (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - The link is not content-relevant. Per WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#ADVERTISING I oppose. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Lack of reference to usage of Contemporary Christian Music in Churches

Most major denominations have some form of CCM found in their churches. So it behooves that a section should be added to reflect this. I have been to Catholic, United Church of Canada, Baptist, Methodist, non-denomination , Pentecostal and they almost always have some Contemporary Christian Music. Granted I have only been to church in 5-10 different countries. From Contempory music sang in a more "angelic tone", blended services where some part of the service is CCM and another part of the service contains older Hymns, through to straight rockin services.

It should probably be reflected that CCM is on the radio in every major market in America, and can be found on both American Sattelite Networks.

The "Why do we only listen to 150 year old music" was covered by Rick Warren in Purpose Driven Church. And maybe some take up from that book as a reference would be appropriate.

It might also be worth noting that CCM tends to have longer lifecycle for music. "How Great is Our God" has been number one (or at least in the top 5) on the CCLI listing for like two years. The CCLI reflects people licensing the music for churches.

It might also be worth noting that the two major forms of Christian Music, CCM and Gospel often are played in SuperChurches, Rick Warrens, Saddleback, and T.D. Jakes "Potters House" as two examples. Included in this list would be HillSongs, which is also grossly missed from the list.

I agree there needs to be a section added for some balance. As right now all you read is there are some churches opposed to this music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DevonSprings (talk • contribs) 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Popular Contemporary Christian

There were some bands on the page that no one listens to anymore or that aren't as famous now as they once were such as Petra and Rebecca St James and then there are those people whom everyone has heard about; Amy Grant and Michael W Smith. My suggestion is that more of the popular and newer Christian artists like Switchfoot, Sanctus Real, Reliant k, and Britt Nicole. My guess is that if there were more of the popular groups, then more teens and tweens would read this page. --Watchout4snakes! (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Would tobyMac be considered a Contemporary Christian Music Artist? The K.O. King (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...Well, he might be more of a Christian Rap Music Artist, but some of his songs are Contemporary. --Watchout4snakes! (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Jonas Brothers: CCM?

I was reading the introduction to this article, and I noticed the Jonas Brothers included in the list of different CCM artists. I know that Nick Jonas had a Christian release before the group's formation and that all three are quite vocal about their faith, but I'm a little uncertain as to whether or not the band should be considered Contemporary Christian musicians in the sense of the industry that is what we usually refer to CCM as. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Accountability and Restoration

These two bits of unencyclopedic POV commentary just keep coming back over and over. If someone needs an explanation as to why these bit are completely inappropriate, perhaps that can happen here. There are plenty of editors who have to keep fixing it who can try to reply to editing summaries like "define encyclopedic". In the meantime, please stop adding this. Holford (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Not my original work. It's also not POV. It's actual criticism. Now we just have to find citations. Restoring. Please stop deleting this. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not it is your original work. But to that point, how can you quote something and not have to find the citation? That aside, let's take it bit by bit and see if you can see the POV.

1. There seems to be no reproving process for those who do not live up to the image they are portraying publicly in their personal lives implies that there should be such a reproving process or that there is an obligation for certain individuals to live up to a particular image. POV.

2. Those involved in the CCM industry, especially the performers are looked at as leaders by those who follow them, particularly young people. Irrelevant.

3. With this in mind it is imperative that their "walk meet their talk", when it does not, biblical priciples should be inforced Who says that it is imperative? Who says that biblical "priciples" should be "inforced"? Wikipedia? POV.

4. this has not been the case even though groups like the Christian Music Association espouse accountability Even if this were relevant (and it's not), who says this has not been the case? Where is the verifiable independent research published? What consitutes accountability? POV.

5. God's leaders are too frequently overworked, abused, and overcome by the pressures of ministry and the wounds of people. Ministry designed to restore leaders to lives of wholeness is a goal of this fellowship. CMA intends to provide grace-filled and Bible-based restoration for spiritual leaders who have fallen into sin or destructive life patterns with the goal of seeing full and complete restoration whenever possible. How can you have a quote or a paraphrase from a particular organisation as its own sub-section? This has no qualifying or justifying information to support it's inclusion. It's not even presented as a quotation. It is only POV with a footnote attached. It appears that Wikipedia is saying that God's leaders are too frequently overworked. First of all, how did Wikipedia decide that they are God's leaders?

6. The CMA does not disqualify musicians and artists who do not live up to that standard. How do we know? You still haven't included any reason why we should care. Why is it relevant what the CMA does or doesn't do?

I hope this makes it more clear why the material you have included is unencyclopedic, POV, and inappropriate. Thus its removal is not vadalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holford (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Who's quoting something? It's also not original work. It's valid and if we had left it instead of starting this childish revert war, we would have seen sources added. Since you see censorship, which is against Wikipedia's principles, instead of letting those who are active on this page to work out the problems, you decide to single-handedly delete what you don't like. The foundations of the passage are from a GMA letter. I won't address your points. The main answer to most of them is contained in the hierarchy of article: this is a Controversy section. It is the opponents of CCM who hold these opinions. Again, if you had bothered to leave the article as it was, you would have seen your sources. Without the request for sources, you won't get them. I suppose that's what you wanted. I may just have to spend a bit of time this weekend to restore some of the long sections that have been removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Gorlitz, you'd do well to take the time to read Wikipedia's policies and try to communicate your ideas well within the guidelines. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. This is basic "facts vs. opinions" stuff. You can't just state opinions, you have to state verifiable, documented facts, with sources. Or else it will get deleted, every time. VillageGreen1215 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No thanks. When discussion controversies, PoV is unavoidable. I'm not against this topic but am fully aware that there are others who take offence at CCM. These are not opinions. If you would like, I could also spend some time looking at your edits and those of Holford and remove everything not referenced, but I don't have time to troll like you two. The verifiability rule seems to come into play when editors don't like the content. Look at the first paragraph of the Beatles article for a passage that has no references. I could give more, but I get it. You don't want to have a two-way discussion of this sort of thing, you want to make Wikipedia a happy place. I won't step your toes any longer.

For the record, here's what the article contained prior to the last deletion. If you're an author who can back-up some of the statements, feel free to add those sections back and make sure to cite your sources or you'll have problems.

===Accountability===

There seems to be no reproving process for those who do not live up to the image they are portraying publicly in their personal lives. Those involved in the CCM industry, especially the performers are looked at as leaders by those who follow them, particularly young people. With this in mind it is imperative that their "walk meet their talk", when it does not, biblical priciples should be inforced, this has not been the case even though groups like the Christian Music Association espouse accountability:

Leaders are crying out for practical ways to be accountable in their lives and ministries. While there are many beneficial methods for accountability to occur, we believe that this fellowship can provide mutual accountability through ministry relationships.

===Restoration===

God's leaders are too frequently overworked, abused, and overcome by the pressures of ministry and the wounds of people. Ministry designed to restore leaders to lives of wholeness is a goal of this fellowship. CMA intends to provide grace-filled and Bible-based restoration for spiritual leaders who have fallen into sin or destructive life patterns with the goal of seeing full and complete restoration whenever possible. [2]

The CMA does not disqualify musicians and artists who do not live up to that standard.

PS: there were many cited sources in the controversy section about a year ago, but they were deleted for some reason. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Walter, you are missing the point. First of all, to call VillageGreen1215 and me trolls is completely unjustified. I have been editing this article since 2004 and VillageGreen1215 has been editing it consistently lately. No one is looking around Wikipedia for your edits. When you say "no thanks" to reading Wikipedia's policies there's a problem. You aren't steppingon anyone's toes. You just aren't playing by the rules. You can discuss controversies without POV. It's not a matter of sources or verifiability until you are actually working with facts. You have to first demonstrate that the issue you raise is a controversy and one of general concern. There is nothing to indicate why there should be a "reproving process". There is nothing to indicate why it matters what the CMA says or collectively thinks. There's nothing to indicated that there are opponents of CCM who raise these issues. If things were deleted a year ago, there was probably a reason. Holford (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I will acknowledge that the article could use some improvement by way of being more comprehensive, thorough, and well-rounded. But it needs to be a collaborative effort and most of all it needs to be fact-based and verifiable. I've always wanted to get around to working on this article more but haven't had the time. There are several books out there that would serve as helpful resources in bringing the article to a higher level of quality. That can be a discussion of it's own, though. "Suggestions for article improvement." I guess I'll start that. VillageGreen1215 (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

To be collaborative, one person writes something, I expand it and request citations, and you two delete it, so it can't be worked on my anyone else. That sounds very collaborative. Go delete the first paragraph of the Beatles article since there are no references. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, it is not about the references. I have not collaborated with VillageGreen1215 in any way. We both just happen to see the additions that were not encyclopedic. I haven't even written much of this article, which has changed substantially since I first came upon it. It used to be a much larger article and then various other article were spun off it. Holford (talk) 22:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The section that was deleted is critical to understanding CCM's role in the larger Church. Without it, a reader would assume that there are no problems observed by all Christians. It's unencyclopedic because there are no references. If references would have been given, there would be no reason to delete the information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

This article could use a lot of work. I'll start by asking: is the term "Contemporary Christian Music" still in wide use today? I know it was prevelant in the 70s and 80s, and even 90s. But I honestly don't know if it's still commonly used. Can anyone weigh in on this? I guess what I'm asking is: Is this the best and most appropriate title for this article, or the best place for the content herein? Or should CCM be a subsection of some other larger article? All I know is, this article is about modern pop/rock and worship music that comes out of Nashville. Is CCM the best name for this?

Another thought I have is that it would be nice to go into greater detail about the history and development of this genre, and discuss relevant acts. Is there a way to find out who the biggest selling Christian artists of all time are? That would be a helpful qualitative way to determine some of the most influential artists in the genre. VillageGreen1215 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How about discussing why it's controversial with Fundamentalists and other conservative theologians? Sorry, I don't have any references, just the knowledge that it is having been in the industry for twenty-five years. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Walter, that's exactly what the Controversy section discusses. Holford (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But to a lesser extend than it did before two editors decided that a fuller explanation was unencyclopedic and deleted the material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyone out there who want to have a relevant, grown-up discussion about this article? VillageGreen1215 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you don't. You'd rather imply I'm childish, when in fact you are the childish one: if I can't have it my way, I'll delete your edits. That's mature. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You continue to be quite personal in your attacks. It seems little progress will be made if you continue thinking that your material was deleted because anyone else wanted it their way. No one decided that a more full explanation was ipso facto unencyclopedic. The one that was provided was unencyclopedic. It is worth mentioning that an explanation could eventually be of such size as to take over the article. If it is a topic that you wish to explore to its full dispassionate academic potential, then perhaps it should be the subject of its own spin-off article. Holford (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked in on this article in ages, and I must say that I'm well pleased with the reduction of content. The previous rendition (lenthy) of the article made it sound like some media-sourced (+hyped) write-up. Shoot - U2 was mentioned as being a part of the CCM movement. I am pleased with the tone of the article currently, however, there is room for vast expansion. Surely a genre that has spanned 3-4 decades and is currently quite popular could have a lot more encyclopaedic content. Jus' my two cents - not looking to start/continue any argument on any level. aJCfreak yAk 18:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Conservatives, Fundamentalists, BJU, and CCM

Most conservative Christians I know and of which I am aware are have no particular issues with CCM. Most CCM artists are conservative Christians by the common usage of that term. There is a tiny fringe of conservative Protestants, most of whom are self-described as Fundamentalists, and primarily within the Independent Baptist tradition, who are opposed to CCM. Therefore language such as "Conservative Christians tend to feel that the medium of popular music is unholy and thus unfit for Christian participation" is a very inaccurate generalization. Holford (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In India, most conservative Christians do feel that way. I can't talk about America, having never been there. :) aJCfreak yAk 16:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the largest CCM market is America and most of its artists are American it is not surprising that American acceptance is used as a reference point. However, as an American ex-pat in the UK, I can say that most conservative Christians in this country would also ahve no problem with CCM. Holford (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Christian Electronic music

There's a rather sizeable underground scene of Christian electronic music, from synthpop to industrial metal, or at least there was from the early 80s to the early 00s (seems to have gone mostly dormant in recent years), but it's not really discussed anywhere on Wikipedia apart from one small section in Christian metal that mentions a handful of industrial metal bands from the mid 90s. Is anyone interested in putting a page on Christian electronic music together with me, or should it be added to a page that already exists? I figure if there are pages for Christian punk, metal, and hip hop, there ought to be something that covers the electronic stuff, somewhere. -BrentonRyan (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

You are correct in stating that only a few artists have decent profiles; I have written a few of these myself. If I could, I would write more (or even a genre article), but it turns out that it's extraordinarily hard to find significant information about these sorts of bands (or the genre as a whole), especially from mainstream CCM sources. As things coalesce in my research, I try to write what I can. If there are specific non-ccm sources that may be helpful (electronic music magazines, etc.), I'd also be interested in finding them. Most genre specific books fail to mention Christian artists entirely, except in the most extremely well-known cases (Stryper in metal books, etc.). Dan, the CowMan (talk) 22:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Blackhouse! I'm glad you linked that, I had forgotten about them. Yeah, I hear what you're saying...there are very few publications. If I can get my hands on any old issues of Ballistic Test Zine, and if I can dig out my Flaming Fish Automata mags from wherever they are, I feel I would be able to get at least a partial genre history written, but so far I've limited myself to overhauling pages for the bands I know best (all of Scott Albert/Klay Scott/Klayton's projects). Makes me wish that other old mags like 7Ball and even HM had complete online archives. At any rate, I just put together a page for Flaming Fish Music. -BrentonRyan (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the bands the Dan was talking about are industrial music bands. What about electronic dance bands like Code of Ethics (band), Joy Electric, and others? Yes they are under represented here, but are there enough of them to justify a page? I'd be happy to contribute what I can if the consensus is yes. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

On that line, I've dug up several articles. Electronic music was covered specifically by:

• CCM, 1994. This article establishes a Christian dance music "scene" starting about 1990 and gaining ground (acceptance) since that time. It mentions that the Cornerstone Festival started holding raves in the late 1980s. Also, it specifically mentions the following as covering the scene: Heaven's Hip Hop, 23:4, (Harvest Rock) Syndicate.

Another instance of where the magazine was wrong. I attended their first ever rave at Cornerstone '92. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• 7ball gives the subject a treatment in 1998, briefly highlighting artists in genres such as Techno, house, and jungle/d&b.
• Thompson gives it ~ two pages in Raised By Wolves, again establishing an early 1990s origin.
• Finally, doing unrelated research I stumbled upon this article, which details the formative years in the mid-late 1980s.

So there may be enough to establish a genre here, with a bit more digging (at least for dance music). Industrial music will require, of course, more digging. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And I had a compilation CD of Christian dance music. It included a track by Moby, which was my favourite track if memory serves. I don't know where that CD went though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember hearing about Raised By Wolves but never read it - does it profile record labels, by any chance, or just artists? Also, IS there anyplace online to read 7Ball, or does it exist only as dusty stacks of 90s back issues in peoples' closets now? I'm looking for any outside references to Flaming Fish Music, because, go figure, an exclusionist just marked it for deletion. *eye-roll* ---BrentonRyan (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Raised By Wolves is pretty sporadic in coverage: maybe, but possibly not. From what I've seen it's not so in-depth with labels where it does cover them. I don't own a copy, but my library does. That said it'll be at least a few days before I can thumb through it (longer than a PROD takes). 7ball (like so many Christian music zines) is just dusty stacks, it's content ownership having been liquidated to a large debt. I'll peel through my stacks, but ya know.... I suggest saving the text as a file on your drive for the moment. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 05:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Then there's the part where I usually think of online sources after I've exhausted all physical ones. Guess I'm just more oriented towards that media. Here's Google Book search results. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

WWJLT

Someone added What Would Jesus Listen To? Christian Electronic and Dance Music Review and an editor removed it as SPAM. What do you guys think? I saw it and don't think it's SPAM. I thought it was an attempt to meet this topic. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed an external link by 96.49.149.235 because it was spammed across multiple pages. See his contributions; all of his edits have been to promote that website and when this happens it is customary to remove the links. I'm not sure why I was asked to justify that, my edit summary and the IP's contribution history are pretty clear on this. ThemFromSpace 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

You Were asked to justify your deletion because it's not SPAM here. Just as discussed above. I'll be restoring it now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. This is my first time seeing this. So let's examine it. First impressions: nice looking site, has the slight appearance of a blog, in form but not function. In any event I wonder who the editor is. I'm thinking, if the editor is already known somewhere in the Christian music community, that's positive. The front page doesn't tell me anything. "About This Site" says "-Electronic Christian", which is less revealing than one would hope. Next stop, "Contact Info": and we have an email link and it's to: drfraud@[redacted]. That's an interesting name, and not one that I'd choose for my public web site (And coming from a person who has chosen an odd name, that's saying something). Right then: Dive deeper, it's WHOIS time. Which reveals that the domain has been active for a while, likely under different ownership. Presently (since 07 Dec 2009) it is registered to one Anton Petrov of Vancouver, BC. And that's apparently as much as you'll get (and maybe more than you actually would get) without contacting the good Doctor F directly.

So, it's a brand new site, which is not especially problematic in and of itself. It's not necessarily a problem that the site is unsigned, especially if it was a fan site or something of the sort, but this site is proposing to be "a definitive source of electronic Christian music reviews..." And as editors we are all acutely aware that the quality of content is directly linked to the people who make it, which brings me to point #2. Starting at an artist whose albums I at times enjoy, I see that a link was placed on the 12th, listed as "What Would Jesus Listen To? Andy Hunter Music Review". It turns out that the content on the linked page is not exactly a review, but a description of the artist (opinionated (and let me say again unsigned)), and a discography. So my next thought is "maybe the discography links to reviews". This should make sense, after all. Unfortunately, another dead end. Turns out that all the links in the discography funnel back to Amazon.com in one way or another, as either a clip player or a "buy this" link.

But I just looked at one entry. If there are others that are better examples of what the site is trying to do, feel free to point them out to me. To summarize my findings: We have (1) A "Doctor" who calls himself "Fraud" and perhaps misrepresents his links. These links are being (2) placed by an annon, 96.49.149.235, whose traceroute follows back to, guess where... and (3) provides a number of links to the behemoth of Internet commerce. (4) This is perhaps a side point, but the HTML code has markings indicating that it was built with WordPress. Conclusions: The site (at this moment) has to my eye the appearance of spam and perhaps a blog, when examined closely. Links being placed by an annon doesn't help. And I can't find any significant amount of redeeming content...

Walter I was apparently writing this as thing are changing. But I'd like to ask you directly: What do you see as redeeming about the content of the site? Dan, the CowMan (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

As discussed in the previous section, there's not a lot of information on Electronic Christian music and with a cursory glance I said, not too bad. not advertising (but I do have an ad filter at home) and it's on-topic. I didn't delve deeply into the content. Dan, you're a better judge on the subject matter than I am. If you think it's SPAM, let's toast it. If you like it, let's keep it. From what I'm reading, you're leaning to removing it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with the sentiment that there's not enough readily accessible information about this genre, but at this moment I think that the site does little to correct the situation. Some of the discography links (on other pages) don't lead to Amazon but to Youtube (I'm digging at inconsistency here). I haven't found any true reviews yet. And additionally, the javascript that is supposed to generate the popup window is malformed and won't even work in IE (I didn't mention this before because I thought that it was my popup blocker... That situation is just sad.). That said, it's literally less than a week old. Let's let it develop into what we would consider a reliable source, or at the very least an informative external link, before we give it the impression of credibility. Content is the key. Frankly, that's what is missing at this juncture. Given some time, it may well develop into what it wants to be, which is "a definitive source of electronic Christian music reviews..." but it's certainly not there yet. You are correct in my reading my leaning toward deletion of the link. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 23:49, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Serves you right for using IE :). Agreed. Let's leave it until the end of February. If the site doesn't improve, it's gone, unless you think a review is due earlier. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, unless others have objections ^{(please speak up)}. I'm not huge on External link policy, but I would like to see significant improvement. And, um, I only use IE for development, as a least common denominator. Just had to check it, because it is known for taking non-compliant code.... Props to Opera, my regular browser. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see people take issue with my removal of this link, although the fact stands that it is linkspam because it was added across multiple pages. Just look at the IP's contributions to see this. Spam should be reverted on sight. Regarding the merits of the link in question, it fails WP:ELNO point 4, and more importantly, point 11. It should be removed as such. I deal a lot with the external links guidelines and I'm pretty sure the community's consensus is against this link. ThemFromSpace 03:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't take it personally. If you want to remove it, you have every right to. After reading Dan's comments and your concern, I would not contest the removal. I would suggest that if the original author wanted to post again, it should only be after the site is improved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Right then, get to it. I'm just trying to offer observations, in this case there are a great number of negative points. I take no issue with it's removal. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversy?

Christianity is not opposed to alcohol use, it is "overuse" of alcohol it is opposed to. Anyone remember what Jesus's first miracle was? turning water into wine. How is that antithetical to Christianity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.250.209 (talk) 06:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Until recently, evangelical Christians, particularly in North America, have been opposed to alcohol use. Many Evangelical institutes of post-secondary education (Universities, Colleges, and Bible Schools) have community standards that prohibit the use of alcohol by faculty, staff, and students. Many evangelical missionary boards have similar contracts or agreements. The stands on this have been changing recently.

More conservative Christian denominations and institutions, many of whose foundations are in the holiness movements of the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, are deeply opposed to any consumption of alcohol going so far as to use grape juice in communion.

With this said, what does this have to do with the Controversy section in this article? Your comments have nothing to do with the article. The only connection that I can make is with a song that pokes fun at the toothless prohibition or condemnation that many Christian institutions' have against alcohol consumption: Hide the Beer, the Pastor's Here! by The Swirling Eddies. So unless you have something to say about the article, I suggest that you not stir up controversy here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Christians hold differing views on the subject. May I direct you to Christianity and alcohol. I believe that this annon is referring to the portion which reads "...and other topics normally considered antithetical...". Perhaps our statement should read "...and other topics sometimes considered antithetical...". It should be noted that some literature indicates that CCM (historically) has been both dominated and opposed by factions of Evangelical / Fundamentalist Christianity (and the statement that we have would seem to reflect this, no?). Mark Allan Powell in particular, himself a theologian, seems to assert this in his text. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 07:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

(now I'm responding to my own comment) Truth is, though, the whole section needs to be expanded, it's too short and way incomplete. For instance, Howard & Strek (page 32), citing this author's work, indicate that Plato considered new musical forms to be associated with subversion of society and sexual promiscuity. Similarly, a Baptist preacher named John Bentzein apparently called the waltz a "dance of death" in 1907. So our statement that "...rock music has historically been associated with themes..." clearly understates the problem by singling out rock music. In effect, it represents a sort of reverse presentism, or at least a bias toward the present time. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the section when it was too long, rambling, and mostly un-cited. I too believe that the state it's in now is too short. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably rather have it the way it is now than the other. But... This is something I've been mulling over how to approach since I outlined the "criticisms" section at Christian music industry. I (think that I) was able to keep that one pretty focused, but knew that those were really only surface arguments. What I mentioned before, for instance, is relvant here as background, but may require it's own article to fully explore the broader topic. (And there's more to that was well: the English resisted German style hymns (think Luther "A Mighty Fortress Is Our God") with strikingly similar arguments ). But there's so many branches to Christian thought and the resulting culture and attitudes. I'm not in any way ready to make sweeping changes here without a great deal of research, which will take time. Without significant sourcing it'd be very easy to trample on original research and come off as opinion. For instance, there are other issues with the list of things that "may" be considered antithetical towards Christianity, but all of these (and the discussion of the reasons behind them) are truely outside the scope of the article. I'd also like to try to explore Censorship in Christian music, which I have started to do. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be naive, man. Jesus didn't create fermented wine. A little study in the Greek and a bit more digging of other scriptures relative to alcohol use will make that clear. For one thing, it's not for kings to drink wine, Proverbs says. To drink it just to feel its effects is as much a shame as the day Noah drank too much. Mdoc7 (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He didn't? More than half the scholars would argue against it. Perhaps, using the Greek, you can explain how the wine Jesus made was considered to be better than the wine served before it? And while you're at it, explain why Paul advised Timothy to drink wine, and why he says not to be drunk on wine but to be drunk in the spirit. If they were drinking grape juice how would get a silly notion like that? And finally what does any of this have to do with CCM? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions

To User:71.68.44.64: I deleted your additions because they were ridiculous. First you're confusing contemporary worship music with CCM. The additions that suggested that the former started in the 4th century were also outrageous. That was the start of organized Christian religion. Several authors such as Michael Frost and others from the Missional Church movement suggest that this was the start of the end of real Christianity, it's controversial to say the least. Then listing every musical reformation from Gregorian chant through to modern hymn writers who used bar tunes is missing the point: CCM didn't start when they made their changes, God moved them all in the same way. That's all.

To talk:Katekates08, a single source is one book or article. You don't have to cite each sentence, but you shouldn't rely so heavily on one article.

I trust that I'm not offending you by pointing these things out. This is the proper place to carry on the discussion, not my talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't even know what was in that part of the history my classmate wrote it. CCM stands for Contemporary Christian Music. No your not offensive but the words you choose to use can be taken wrong, because its easier to say harsh words over text than in person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katekates08 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Revisit the artists listed

We're sorry if your favorite band isn't listed here, but we can't list every band in the world. If you would like to see your band listed here, start a discussion on the talk page of this article, explaining to us why they belong here. This has been discussed at length on the talk page. If you disagree with those who think so, join the discussion, don't just add them for no reason. Thanks!

I would like to revisit the list of artists. It's not particularly current. My suggestion would be to have a list of pioneers such as Steven Curtis Chapman, Amy Grant, Jars of Clay, Newsboys, and Michael W. Smith would fall into this category, but so would a few not mentioned from even earlier. These represent those artists who brought CCM from the mid-seventies to 2000 or even later. Perhaps those with multiple historical Dove Awards or similar recognition.

Then we should include a list of recent notables. the current list of artists includes too many who were popular four years ago but no longer have the spotlight such as Avalon, Natalie Grant (although her tweets are still fun to read), Casting Crowns, and my favourite from the list: Rebecca St. James. Again possibly Dove wins would be an appropriate measure.

I'm not sure how Hillsong crept into the list but they're certainly not CCM. They're a worship band. DCB and Tomlin are worship too but have a few songs that could be considered CCM. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter, the pioneers of CCM are what are listed in the History section. ...unless you want to talk about the pioneers of the current trend of CCM—praise & worship.

I don't know how you could possibly say that Hillsong is not CCM. Their latest album debuted (and is currently) #1 on the Billboard Christian chart ! You can't get more contemporary than that.

And Casting Crowns? They're currently #8, and I don't know when they haven't been on the charts. Musdan77 (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Fine. I still think Hillsong in modern worship more than CCM. Are you suggesting that we should consider currently charting bands? I am looking for some sort of criteria so we can keep the list current and reflect the phrase in the lede: "Today, the term is typically used to refer to the Nashville, Tennessee–based pop, rock, and worship Christian music industry, currently represented by artists such as". Since worship is in there, I suppose Hillsong is welcome in the list. Criteria? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, contemporary worship is a subgenre of CCM. I looked at the latest CCM (not the magazine) singles radio airplay chart, and Hillsong is not in the top 20. So the list could a selective mix of both radio and sales charted artists. And it could be an actual bulleted list (alphabetical), with links to the artists respective sites. And I think it should have no less than 10, but no more than 20 (like it is now). Musdan77 (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that there are too many charts and they change too frequently. Also whose charts do you look at? There are several CCM charts and a few CHR charts.

Wouldn't the GMA Dove Award be a better representation of peer approval and they occur in February so the winners change less frequently. Particularly multiple winning of a category over the prior ten years or something. Categories of interest would be Song of the Year, Male Vocalist of the Year, Female Vocalist of the Year, Group of the Year, and Artist of the Year. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine with me. And if that's the case then I definitely think that Phillips, Craig and Dean should be on the list. After a popularity of almost 20 years, they finally won 2 Doves. But don't just look at the winners. Consider all nominees. Musdan77 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with everything Musdan77 said. Toa Nidhiki05 22:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, the only reason Hillsong is on the Billboard charts is that both CCM and CWM are represented on the one chart, kind of like the Rock songs chart tracking most genres of Rock music. Can we get some discussion on the addition of PCD to the list? Toa Nidhiki05

How about "having been on the WOW collections three times over the past ten years" as a criteria? We could shorten the number of years or reduce the number of appearances, but I am trying to reach some sort of method of determining who should be and should not be listed in the section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Phillips, Craig and Dean

I think they should be added to the list;. They have 18 no. 1 singles and have managed to stay relevant in the CCM community for almost 20 years; also, they are ranked as high-importance on the importance scale. I see no reason why PCD should be excluded but BarlowGirl be included. Toa Nidhiki05 22:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that so many other CCM artists with multiple awards are excluded: they weren't relevant to the editor to created the list. I suggest that you offer some input into the criteria discussion above. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's funny how we were writing about the same thing at the same time! Musdan77 (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Toa Nidhiki05 21:08, 12 July 2010 (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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Contemporary Christian music/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Contains some good information, but does not have a recognizable lead per WP:LEAD. The sections should be fleshed out and organized more in line with the article on Jazz. Also could use some work with references and inline citations, see WP:CITE. -- Pepsi2786 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 20:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)