Why is it that Christians feel the need to offer something that sounds exactly like the secular "something", except with Christian lyrics or "plot"? And why does it usually seem worse than the thing it is trying to imitate?
I think that for some reason or another Christians have got the idea that we can't show real emotions, and act sad when we're sad, and be normal human beings with real emotions. SO we must make music that is like that too.
I remember being so entranced by this guy that came to our Christian school when I was in about 6th or 7th grade (Before I listened to any music mind you), when he came in to give a speech about Christian music. He gave us a humongous list with about 50 different secular bands on the list with a Christian band that sounds similar right beside them. For a few years, I bought into his philosophy of just using "sanatized" christian stuff, until I really started listening to music. First of all, there is an absolutely wonderful world out there that the Christian is missing out on if he or she just listens to what is considered Christian music. Secondly, the Christian music that they are listening to may be made with less of a biblical perspective than the secular music that is just like it. There are sure some good motivitations going on with these Christian artists, but they are also neglecting the biblical idea of "singing a new song to the Lord". Like I said before, by limiting yourself to being copies of someone else's music, you are limiting your creativity. And by limiting yourself to just praise music, you are limiting yourself to one aspect of God's world, and leaving so much of the life he has given you untouched. As the years pass, I have less and less feelings of what I believe is false guilt for not writing or listening to straight up Christian music. I think I was told one thing for so long from Kindergarten through 8th Grade, that it is very hard to this day, to keep Romanowski's perspective on the arts, and especially Christian music, though I know it is the correct one.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Widespread misunderstanding of violence/language
I love this book. The chapter on violence, language and sex was wonderful.
I think that a large majority of Christians have had a great misunderstanding of the place of language, violence, and sex in film. Although I didn't think The Passion was as spectacular as everyone said it was, I do think it was a step in the right direction as far as helping Christians understand the place of violence in film. It showed how violence, used properly, can have a profoundly repulsing effect on an audience, and invoke a very moral response. Though I'm sure less Christians have seen Schindler's List, the use of violence in the film is for exactly the same use, and is used to a highly justifiable end. The problem is (and I am just as guilty of this as the next guy)that with films like Die Hard, Speed, The Terminator, etc., violence may not be nearly as graphic, but its use in the film may much less justifiable anyway. These films use violence to increase the heart rate, heighten tension, and make the film a whole lot more fun. Now, maybe a Christian wouldn't want to see one of these films in the theater because of language. So they wait until it gets on TV. The violence is still there, and used for the same reason, although less may be shown. So who is using violence in more of a morally justifiable manner? The action directors like John Woo, John McTeirnan (If I didn't write these blogs before 12, I'd check my spellings), and James Cameron (excluding Titanic) or Martin Scorsese, Stephen Spielberg (his Prvate Ryan, Schindler's List type films), and Oliver Stone?
Some may shy away from watching the last three director's films due to the high degree of graphic violence in them, feeling that showing such content is morally unjustifiable, yet they may not think twice about watching something like Face Off, or Terminator 2. There seems to be a big contradiction there, and such a mindset is a huge part of American and even Christian culture today. Scorsese probably has some of the most violent films out there, yet hardly any of the films use the violence to make the movie more fun. Violence is used to show the complexities of the human heart, and the reality of life in certain parts of New York in Scorsese's films (Gangs of New York did use some violence as means of entertainment though). Scorsese uses violence to show complexities of character. His purposes seem to have moral ends most of the time, and he certainly doesn't use violence to fill up extra space in a film. His Age of Innocence didn't require any violence, so it didn't have any, and the film was still so effective that it has hard to move once the credits started rolling from the emotional tension that kept building through the entire film.
I think that a large majority of Christians have had a great misunderstanding of the place of language, violence, and sex in film. Although I didn't think The Passion was as spectacular as everyone said it was, I do think it was a step in the right direction as far as helping Christians understand the place of violence in film. It showed how violence, used properly, can have a profoundly repulsing effect on an audience, and invoke a very moral response. Though I'm sure less Christians have seen Schindler's List, the use of violence in the film is for exactly the same use, and is used to a highly justifiable end. The problem is (and I am just as guilty of this as the next guy)that with films like Die Hard, Speed, The Terminator, etc., violence may not be nearly as graphic, but its use in the film may much less justifiable anyway. These films use violence to increase the heart rate, heighten tension, and make the film a whole lot more fun. Now, maybe a Christian wouldn't want to see one of these films in the theater because of language. So they wait until it gets on TV. The violence is still there, and used for the same reason, although less may be shown. So who is using violence in more of a morally justifiable manner? The action directors like John Woo, John McTeirnan (If I didn't write these blogs before 12, I'd check my spellings), and James Cameron (excluding Titanic) or Martin Scorsese, Stephen Spielberg (his Prvate Ryan, Schindler's List type films), and Oliver Stone?
Some may shy away from watching the last three director's films due to the high degree of graphic violence in them, feeling that showing such content is morally unjustifiable, yet they may not think twice about watching something like Face Off, or Terminator 2. There seems to be a big contradiction there, and such a mindset is a huge part of American and even Christian culture today. Scorsese probably has some of the most violent films out there, yet hardly any of the films use the violence to make the movie more fun. Violence is used to show the complexities of the human heart, and the reality of life in certain parts of New York in Scorsese's films (Gangs of New York did use some violence as means of entertainment though). Scorsese uses violence to show complexities of character. His purposes seem to have moral ends most of the time, and he certainly doesn't use violence to fill up extra space in a film. His Age of Innocence didn't require any violence, so it didn't have any, and the film was still so effective that it has hard to move once the credits started rolling from the emotional tension that kept building through the entire film.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
P2P's and the music industry Part 2
So I don't think Lars Ulrich was completely correct in speaking out against P2P's. But I also don't think it is right for record companies to be taking so much money from bands or artists either. If Lars would have said "I think that record companies should give a larger percentage of the profit of albums to the artist, because without the artist, the record company wouldn't be getting any money at all. And if the record companies decide to take my advice, and give a large portion of album sales back to the artist, I would highly discourage the use of P2P's because with this new system, you would be cheating the artist, and not giving them the respects they deserve for the hard work they have done that you are enjoying in your headphones."
A statement like this makes perfect sense to me, but with the current system, it looks like Lars was just looking out for Lars.
Indy Media does seem to be one way of dealing with this problem. With Indy media, most all of the profit from an album would go back to the artist, which would solve the problem of big studios taking most of the profit. The downside is that an Indy artist can't get nearly as much promotion as they could with a huge studio. So some of the benefits of Indy Media include getting most of the profit from your work, having much more control over your project, and having much more of a sense of artistic moral integrity. The downside is, you might be fantastic, and have a great sense of artistic moral integrity, but have to wait tables the rest of your life because not enough people know about your album or your live shows for you to get any profits anyway. Not that you wouldn't have a blast creating the music that YOU want to though. Just might not be able to make a living off of it.
A statement like this makes perfect sense to me, but with the current system, it looks like Lars was just looking out for Lars.
Indy Media does seem to be one way of dealing with this problem. With Indy media, most all of the profit from an album would go back to the artist, which would solve the problem of big studios taking most of the profit. The downside is that an Indy artist can't get nearly as much promotion as they could with a huge studio. So some of the benefits of Indy Media include getting most of the profit from your work, having much more control over your project, and having much more of a sense of artistic moral integrity. The downside is, you might be fantastic, and have a great sense of artistic moral integrity, but have to wait tables the rest of your life because not enough people know about your album or your live shows for you to get any profits anyway. Not that you wouldn't have a blast creating the music that YOU want to though. Just might not be able to make a living off of it.
Lars Ulrich, and the music industry
Lars Ulrich needs to stay away from the mic. Back in his Master of Puppets days, he really had some crazy chops going for him, and he's an overall pretty decent drummer. But I'm not sure how much good he really did anyone by coming out and bad mouthing P2P's. From what I understand in class, most of the people don't get hardly any money from their record sales because most of it goes back to their record company, except the really huge acts, and Metallica would be one of them. The band deserves a good amount of money. They were a great band from their thrash days up to their blues-metal days, and have some of the best riffs in the history of riffs, but I think there was a point where getting the fame they finally deserved (in this case, they were still teenagers, but I'm speaking of bands in general), and getting too much money made at least one member of the band a little too greedy. Lars Ulrich, making a huge amount of money from The Black album, which still sells a ton of copies from what I understand, finally made it. Once he gets there he decides that he thinks it is annoying that these people are listening to his music without paying for it. That's understandable to a certain degree, but there are still quite a bit of people paying for Metallica's albums, and hardly anyone paying for band A, who just put their stuff on Oink. After a while, people start to really dig band A, and they decide that they're so good that they are gonna go to Wal Mart, and actually pay for an album by them, and then attend one of their shows.
I don't think Metallica understood how helpful P2p's were to small bands just starting out. They just saw P2P's as one opportunity where they fail to get more money, and failed to look at the benefits it has for other bands.
I haven't checked out the deal with Radiohead's new album yet, but from what I have heard you say, I think that in a perfect world, this is how the music industry should operate. Admittedly, I only buy CD's of bands that I want to support, and I listen to new music of bands I have never heard of by other means. Since I really enjoyed OK Computer, and The Bends, I might give Radiohead a little something. Donations seem a little insane to me, but it is certainly a very Christian idea. If you like their, art, they are confident that you will pay them enough for it so they can still make a living. It's a wonderful concept that will never get very far in the U.S. with mainstream acts like Metallica of which some members are far too greedy and suspicious of the public.
I don't think Metallica understood how helpful P2p's were to small bands just starting out. They just saw P2P's as one opportunity where they fail to get more money, and failed to look at the benefits it has for other bands.
I haven't checked out the deal with Radiohead's new album yet, but from what I have heard you say, I think that in a perfect world, this is how the music industry should operate. Admittedly, I only buy CD's of bands that I want to support, and I listen to new music of bands I have never heard of by other means. Since I really enjoyed OK Computer, and The Bends, I might give Radiohead a little something. Donations seem a little insane to me, but it is certainly a very Christian idea. If you like their, art, they are confident that you will pay them enough for it so they can still make a living. It's a wonderful concept that will never get very far in the U.S. with mainstream acts like Metallica of which some members are far too greedy and suspicious of the public.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Another reason to stay intellectually engagd in popular culture
The previous blog explored one of the reasons why Christians should engage in more than just surface level discussions of film and music. Here are some more reasons.
As Christians, by standing aside, and watching culture from a distance, there isn't much hope of having any impact on it at all.
If we simply protest and picket certain things we HEAR about that we don't like, it isn't going to help create a Christian voice in popular culture. In the beginning of the first chapter of Eyes Wide Open, the opening of The Last Temptation of Christ is discussed. Most of the Christians protesting never saw the film for themselves. Do you think Martin Scorsese, who has veraciously studied the history of Christ, and is somewhat of scholar of history in general, is going (to paraphrase John Mayer)change his mind from the paint on a sign? It would have been much more beneficial for a Christian professor to watch the film, and then respectfully challenge Scorsese as well as Nikos Kazantzakis on their theology in the film. I'm sure both of them would be more than happy to discuss where they are coming from. The film had many wonderful things to say about Christ that are very true, and Christians could have benefited greatly from getting a new perspective on what it means to be both fully God and fully man. There were huge theological problems in the film also, but they all merited discussion not picketing.
If we can work side by side secular movie producers, and directors, and screen-writers, and bring what we have to say from a Christian perspective to the table, instead of creating our own separate film industry just for christians, I think our culture would be much richer because of it. I don't how possible such things are, but the idea at least seems somewhat plausible.
As Christians, by standing aside, and watching culture from a distance, there isn't much hope of having any impact on it at all.
If we simply protest and picket certain things we HEAR about that we don't like, it isn't going to help create a Christian voice in popular culture. In the beginning of the first chapter of Eyes Wide Open, the opening of The Last Temptation of Christ is discussed. Most of the Christians protesting never saw the film for themselves. Do you think Martin Scorsese, who has veraciously studied the history of Christ, and is somewhat of scholar of history in general, is going (to paraphrase John Mayer)change his mind from the paint on a sign? It would have been much more beneficial for a Christian professor to watch the film, and then respectfully challenge Scorsese as well as Nikos Kazantzakis on their theology in the film. I'm sure both of them would be more than happy to discuss where they are coming from. The film had many wonderful things to say about Christ that are very true, and Christians could have benefited greatly from getting a new perspective on what it means to be both fully God and fully man. There were huge theological problems in the film also, but they all merited discussion not picketing.
If we can work side by side secular movie producers, and directors, and screen-writers, and bring what we have to say from a Christian perspective to the table, instead of creating our own separate film industry just for christians, I think our culture would be much richer because of it. I don't how possible such things are, but the idea at least seems somewhat plausible.
Eyes Wide Open-Old American Band Stand Standard
In Eyes Wide Open, Romanowski brings up the point, that like most people, Christians want to have media to relax to, and ease their mind, and most of them don't think a lot about the films that they watch, or the music that they consume. "'It has a good beat, and you can dance to it' suffices for determining musical quality".
The statement, unfortunately, captures about 25 percent of the people I see on facebook, when they describe what music they like.
I suppose part of the reason such a statement bothers me so much is because I naturally tend to over analyze media because it is just part of my make up. So when I see something like "Anything that can make me move my rump", it goes against every way I think.
Secondly, I think that such a standard for determining musical quality, or even film quality ("it has lots of action in it" for example is a statement equivalent in the film world) undermines our capacity for creativity and our ability to understand and appreciate art that is part of being in the image of God. God has given the human race so much potential creativity, and along with that creativity, the ability to appreciate creativity. By giving up our ability discuss film, and music in any type of intellectual format, we are robbing ourselves of a great opportunity for enrichment, but also robbing the artist. The worst case scenario is this: the public becomes so indifferent to cinema and music and art in general, and in what ways it moves them, that artists are no longer motivated to create anything beyond what gives an instant sensation to the consumer. The artists stops trying to achieve ingenuity because he is never made to think in such terms. Instead, the aim of art is simply to produce instant gratification for the consumer in the easiest way possible. The idea of trying to reach one's full potential in creativity that God has given him or her is squelched until the ideal and idea of ingenuity, and creativity is a thing of the past.
The statement, unfortunately, captures about 25 percent of the people I see on facebook, when they describe what music they like.
I suppose part of the reason such a statement bothers me so much is because I naturally tend to over analyze media because it is just part of my make up. So when I see something like "Anything that can make me move my rump", it goes against every way I think.
Secondly, I think that such a standard for determining musical quality, or even film quality ("it has lots of action in it" for example is a statement equivalent in the film world) undermines our capacity for creativity and our ability to understand and appreciate art that is part of being in the image of God. God has given the human race so much potential creativity, and along with that creativity, the ability to appreciate creativity. By giving up our ability discuss film, and music in any type of intellectual format, we are robbing ourselves of a great opportunity for enrichment, but also robbing the artist. The worst case scenario is this: the public becomes so indifferent to cinema and music and art in general, and in what ways it moves them, that artists are no longer motivated to create anything beyond what gives an instant sensation to the consumer. The artists stops trying to achieve ingenuity because he is never made to think in such terms. Instead, the aim of art is simply to produce instant gratification for the consumer in the easiest way possible. The idea of trying to reach one's full potential in creativity that God has given him or her is squelched until the ideal and idea of ingenuity, and creativity is a thing of the past.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
More negatives
Another way conglomerates can control how people think is by stifling anything that they don't particularly care for. By owning so much, it is hard to keep their values in check. Since one conglomerate could potentially own about fifty percent of everything of what fifty percent of the population watches each day, who would report on the conglomerate doing anything ilegal, or unethical,? Since they own so much, they can easily stifle any negative information about themselves, leaving their greed unhindered.
Also, if a certain conlomerate leans a certain way politically, to the right, for example, they would have no reason to report anything from the other side if they didn't want to. They could only report the things that the left has done wrong and the right is doing right. Then all the viewers of everything the conglomerate owns would only be exposed to the conglomerate's viewpoint, which would put their political views a little off balance. Each and every American is guilty of being put off balance to some degree by this process, some more than others.
A great film about some political position that a conglomerate disagrees with doesn't have to get any exposure, which would result in a good number of people not being able to witness the great film-making, and a good amount of hard-work from great minds would be squelched. Of course, the makers of the film could look elsewhere for distribution, and may succeed, but I am trying to highlight the worst of what could happen.
Also, if a certain conlomerate leans a certain way politically, to the right, for example, they would have no reason to report anything from the other side if they didn't want to. They could only report the things that the left has done wrong and the right is doing right. Then all the viewers of everything the conglomerate owns would only be exposed to the conglomerate's viewpoint, which would put their political views a little off balance. Each and every American is guilty of being put off balance to some degree by this process, some more than others.
A great film about some political position that a conglomerate disagrees with doesn't have to get any exposure, which would result in a good number of people not being able to witness the great film-making, and a good amount of hard-work from great minds would be squelched. Of course, the makers of the film could look elsewhere for distribution, and may succeed, but I am trying to highlight the worst of what could happen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)