Talk:Contemporary Christian music
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theContemporary Christian music article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives (index):1,2Auto-archiving period:6 months  |
 | This level-5 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article has beenmentioned by a media organization:
|
Archives | ||
Index
| ||
This page has archives. Sections older than180 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5. |
There is a tension within Wikipedia as to whether the music of the Catholic guitar mass should be included in this topic. This current article mentions nothing of guitar masses, Ray Repp, the St. Louis Jesuits, or any modern music for the Catholic mass (Carey Landry, etc). And yet, the Wikipedia article on Ray Repp says that his 1965 album "Mass for Young Americans" represented some of the earliest stirrings of Christian contemporary music. This problem is somewhat analogous to how the Wikipedia article on "Christian Colleges" tends not to consider Catholic colleges as Christian colleges. It is somewhat insulting to Catholics that they are implied not to be Christians. Thus it is really hard to decide whether modern Catholic music pioneers like Repp and the SL Jesuits should be included in this article. --Westwind273 (talk)21:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A number of bands have made high-profile rejections of the CCM label. I think that's significant for this article, in part because these usually include discussions of the meaning and significance of being labelled as "Contemporary Christian music". I'm thinking of, eg.Needtobreathe#Categorization andMutemath#Religion.Daask (talk)14:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts:One, I have no idea what that definitively means, and neither do you, especially "stylistically."Two, considering this topic is "contemporary Christian music" and given that term's typical usage, is there any reason the "stylistically-rooted" note shouldn't read "in pop/rock music?"— Precedingunsigned comment added by2603:6010:2240:7DAD:B08C:56C1:63F2:C334 (talk)12:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list of artists is severly out of date, including Third Day (which has now disbanded), Aaron Shust who hasn't released any popular music in a while, and under the historically part, Newsboys, who recently released an album, and has never disbanded. I think one band that should definatly be included is For King and Country, who is the one of the most popular artists in the genre. They have won grammys for their work, and just overall should be apart of this list.Cherrell410 (talk)21:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pretty exceptionally poor wording. Referring to a genre as “propaganda” seems about as silly as saying thatblack metal is Satanist propaganda, or thatpunk music is liberal propaganda. I’m actually baffled this has been included - it’s beyond unencyclopedic.ToaNidhiki0518:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the phrase is inflammatory, the VICE article that is cited contains the statement "contemporary Christian music (CCM) has often functioned as a propaganda wing of the Christian right." But that isn't what the article is about, the thesis statement for the article is "Queer musicians say the industry is facing a spiritual crisis: Adapt to a new generation of listeners, or die." While the article is using inflammatory language, such as "propaganda", "spiritual crisis", and "adapt or die", it isn't doing so to prove those points. It is using the language to explain contrasting ideas in theChristian music industry. The current criticism section lists several opponents to CCM within conservative circles, so I don't see how they could see it as a propaganda arm.2601:8C0:C7C:3DF0:1A9:3E7C:C72E:3635 (talk)02:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As perennial sources recommends, I think you're correct that we shouldn't be using the hyperbole from the VICE article verbatim. I passed the original statement through ChatGPT, and it said that it was biased. But it recommended that it be changed to this: "Contemporary Christian music audiences tend to be conservative but there are many on the Christian left within the genre, as such, diverse viewpoints have prominence in the genre Christian LGBTQ artists." So that's what I think we should go with, it removes the inflammatory language and it better reflects the given sources Vice, The Grammy's, LAist, and Pride Source.2601:8C0:C7C:3DF0:1199:4BB0:FD7F:23E4 (talk)15:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
