| The Passion of Evanescence...? |
 |
 |
|
I remember many sermons on the evils of rock (the devil's music) in the eighties (we really needed more sermons on the evils of tele-evangelism instead). Christian rock... let's admit it. Most of the Christian rock acts back then seized on the fads of the day and made copy-cat, throw-away music. Sure- there were exceptions; Petra immediately comes to mind for solid song-writing and good music, plus a few scattered bands here and there. Christian artists learned that they simply needed to do what they did, they way they naturally did it- not copy fads or start a new genre where they only "preached to the choir." Some shot into the mainstream- if only for a small fraction of time. And these artists attempted, as much as humanly possible, to maintain integrity and share the Gospel that they believed in as long as someone listened (and, I guess, as long as they sold records). Many "Christian" artists still want to share what they believe- but in a manner that is more subtle than hitting your listener over the head with a King James reference Bible. So what about today's bands- bands that have "believers" in them? Do they reject the Christian label for more mainstream acceptance? I came across this letter in the May 16, 2003 copy of Entertainment Weekly. It was written by Michael Tenbrink from Contemporary Christian Magazine (CCM is a long-time Christian music mag). It is in response to a short piece that ET did on the band Evanescence: So Evanescence have no idea "what the f**k" their CDs are doing in Christian bookstores, or why they are on Christian radio ('SOUTHERN DISCOMFORT')? Maybe its because Wind-up Records sent a single to Christian radio stations and bought ads in Christian music publications to promote the band. Or maybe it's because the band members themselves flew to Nashville early this year and played a show for sales executives and retailers promoting their record to- I'll be darned- the Christian music market. Call me cynical, but their supposed naiveté feels an awful lot like calculated distancing spawned by sudden success. Hmmm- Mr. Tenbrink makes me think about the term we Metal-heads used: "poseur." To define the term: "a person who pretends to be what he or she is not : an affected or insincere person." If Mr. Tenbrink's facts are straight, then perhaps we have a case of manipulating an audience with the right words- playing the role- all in order to get into the limelight. Fame comes, then a distancing of yourself from the one group that catapulted you forward- all because that audience isn't exactly popular and mainstream. That would be posing, would it not? Shouldn't an Artist be kind enough to continue to dance with the one who brung 'em?" Maybe Mr. Tenbrink isn't being fair to the band. Maybe the band was mis-represented by fat-cat producers. What do you think? Anyone have a thought or a rebuttal for Mr. Tenbrink? Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites          Add your comment
|
||||