I am not a fan of LDS Contemporary Music. In fact, I've been quite unkind in my comments in recent years when speaking of the genre. Michael McLean has borne the brunt of my frustrations. Perhaps you can empathize.
I thought of this last night (my unkind comments of Michael) and felt quite guilty that I've made no effort to spare him or check my feelings in the least when speaking of his music. Surely if I knew him I would have been kinder, even if I still had little taste for his music (which I surely would have--maybe I wouldn't have told him though). I need to be better than that.
With that in mind, my problems with contemporary LDS music are three fold:
1. I don't think it's very good most of the time (though given my limited knowledge of music I really couldn't tell you why);
2. The sentiments and doctrines expressed in such songs grate on me because they almost invariably become cliche and are allowed only as much meaning as the beat or tempo allows. The music strikes as mere spiritual cheer leading: positive fluff with very little substance. This might be fine if I were looking for fluff, but I'm not. In an attempt to mix the worlds of the spiritual and the contemporary, I find the music to be neither spiritual nor contemporary. I liken them to Balance Bars (or most any nutritional/protein bar) trying to be both healthy and candy-like at the same time: the result is something almost inedible. Better to keep the two worlds separate in my mind.
3. And finally, my biggest problem with most LDS contemporary music is that focus shifts from the lyrics and doctrine to the music and singer. Whereas with hymns the music serves to complement and enhance the doctrine, with LDS contemporary music I find that the scant references to doctrine often mostly serve as vehicles for the performer to show off his/her talents. In short, the performer and performance become more important than the doctrine. With religious music, I dislike it when the message comes secondary to the manner in which it's presented.
All that said, I suppose I would prefer my children to spend their time listening to this kind of music than truly contemporary music that endorses practices contrary to the doctrines of the gospel. In fact, I'm sure of it. My only concern, though, would be that my children would never move beyond the cliche, and mistake it for the real thing.
So in the end, I can admit that, despite my reservations, this genre of music would be a good beginning for some--a safe beginning. But please let it only be a beginning.
4 comments:
I have a college degree in music, and I agree that McLean's musical quality leaves something to be desired.
But frankly, I'm surprised that you didn't include as one of your gripes with LDS pop one of the most common complaints I hear: these people are essentially selling the Gospel for profit. The more spirit you feel, the more they can charge for it. Don't we Mormons discourage making your living off of preaching the gospel (the word "priestcraft" comes to mind...)? How do you feel about that? (Me, I'm fine with it.)
I recommend a step up to sacred music. Not as repetitive as hymns, not as trite as pop. A lot of the good stuff is old Catholic masses in Latin by your famous classical composers. But you can also go with John Rutter, or, if you want specifically LDS stuff, Lex de Azevedo's "Gloria" and related works (just NEVER allow yourself to remember that this is the same guy who wrote the songs to "Saturday's Warrior")--a brilliant Mormon oratorio.
I have heard that complaint before, though it was related to General Authorities selling their books.
It's an interesting point, and it occurs to me to be something that perhaps contributes to the music being so empty. It's not necessarily being created from poignant experiences and testimony, but instead to market and sell CDs.
When the latter plays any significant factor, I cannot trust the music. I would think this kind of music reveals itself rather easily, too, because what it lacks in substance it tries to make up for by trying to sound cool or dramatic.
Although I think your point is right on, I also think your argument is a bit harsh. I am not a fan of contemporary LDS music either, but that is my own preference. Your point seems to be that the music in and of itself really isn't bad, but rather it is the label that some put on it as spiritual that is bad. That I agree with. However, is it wrong for someone musically talented to create a song about their beliefs? And then is it wrong for this artist to produce and sell their work to an audience who enjoys it? I don't think it is. It IS wrong to confuse their work and their beliefs for gospel doctrine, and it IS wrong to advertise the work as Church endorsed or in any way gospel doctrine. And although I am sure some people do get a bit confused, especially in a highly concentrated LDS population, I think for the most part people understand the difference and listen to the music for enjoyment and maybe even a little uplifting. The same argument can be made for BYU and books written by general authorities. Do some people confuse going to BYU and reading books by general authorities for spirituality? Sure. But does that mean BYU and those books should be condemned? Not in the slightest. The same should be said for our friends in the LDS contemporary music world.
Thanks John,
If my argument truly is too harsh, then I'm happy to be wrong.
I'm dubious, though, about your confidence in people's capability to distinguish the real thing from fluff, especially teenagers. As anecdotal evidence, it wasn't until I was 18 that I realized the lessons of "Saturday's Warrior" weren't necessarily church doctrine. If it was sold at Deseret Bookstore, it was from the church. I'd venture to guess my experience is far more common than it should be.
Understand, too, that I'm not accusing the LDS contemporary music genre of false doctrine--I'm accusing them of shallow, superficial doctrine: Spiritual Cliche's mixed with a beat. It's danger lies not in being false, but in being nothing more than cliche, which some may mistake for for the real thing.
I don't really equate this issue with BYU, unless people feel that a good member of the church SHOULD go to BYU. Otherwise I actually do expect a more spiritual experience there. If not through the religion classes and weekly devotionals, then certainly by Brigham Young's insistence that not even the math tables be taught there without the spirit of the Lord. No other non-church college I know claims that as their marching orders. So I do expect a BYU education to be a bit more spiritual. What I wouldn't stand for, though, is the notion that a good Mormon will go to BYU if he has the chance.
Post a Comment