I'm not sure what Peter Suderman's point is here at Alarm-Alarm, but the line he cites from a Pitchfork short track review is pretty straight forward:
Why is Christian Rock the new punk rock? Because those bands care about what they're selling-- care a lot-- and they make a culture out of it: a weird, fucked, mortal-enemy-to-what-we-hold-dear culture, but there it is.
To which Peter comments:
If pop culture art with Christian ideas succeeds, it may well be because of what Baron is describing.
Well, yes, because of that passion. Too many performers today seem more caught up in themselves than in their craft. And I said "craft" because it's not "art". (What is art? In the eye of the beholder. In other words, I know it when I see/hear/smell/taste/touch it.)
Lately I've taken to listening to a variety of what I suppose is called "Christian rock". Certainly Lincoln Brewster is right there, singing songs of straight-forward praise and redemption.
But where do you put BarlowGirl? Oh, certainly they're driven by their faith; they make no bones about what they believe. Yet their songs are often wrought with the same angst that drove much of the punk rock I've listened to. Listen to a song like Porcelain Heart which is almost entirely about the pain of a broken heart.
Someone said, "A broken heart
would sting at first then make you stronger."
You wonder why this pain remains.
Were hearts made whole just to break?
That's damn-near bitter bitch money cynical. The positive spin they put on it is a cry to the Creator, the only one who can make a broken heart whole again.
Anyway, I stray, because Peter's point is well taken. Passion and belief in the message you're delivering goes a long way in any industry, in any endeavor. Much of modern rock has lost both, while those performers casually dismissed as "Christian rock" have both. And in spades.
I'm just wondering what "threat" Pitchfork's Zach Baron perceives.
No comments:
Post a Comment