RE: Contemporary Christian Music....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Aaron:
New to the music forum, are ya?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLOL! I think we have beat this topic to death, resurrected it once or twice and beat it to death again Aaron.

UNP
Adam

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John 3:16:
I do understand what CCM is. IMO, CCM is the best worship music out there.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Fine. Tell me what you think CCM is. You say you know but you have not, as yet, defined your terms. If you don't wish to define your terms, may I assume you agree with my definition?

 

Many of our sacred Hymns such as "A Mighty Fortress" "Amazing Grace" were CCM for their day since they reflect popular music of that day when most music before then was Metrical Psalms.

There can be some valid criticism made of CCM but most critics focus on the superficial (Such as a singers long hair or the style of music). Many of the lyrics in CCM as well as Southern Gospel are superficial but that certaintly is not true of all. In CCM music I think the worst offenders are found in the Praise and Worship Genre and not in the Rock Genre. Nothing irrites me more than to hear a superficial one verse Praise and Worship song that has the depth of a nursery ryhme sang over and over over and over over and over over and over over and over again and again SIGH.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John 3:16:
I think CCM is worshipping Our Lord Jesus Christ. So what if people think it's rock? That is their own opinion. CCM, is singing to God the Father. So what if people think it is rock? That is their own opinion<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So you have redefined the term "CCM" to mean what you want it to mean instead of what it really means, and you don't care that you are the only person who uses that definition? Sorry, but you get an "F" in English for today.

 

Jesse, you really do need to learn how to take critism. Your going to get it the rest of your life.

Doc Cassidy was trying to point out that you have to look beyond your own definitions and keep an open mind. It was dry humor though I get accused of that all the time, lol.

UNP
Adam

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
So you have redefined the term "CCM" to mean what you want it to mean instead of what it really means, and you don't care that you are the only person who uses that definition? Sorry, but you get an "F" in English for today. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is that any different from what you've done by implying that all CCM is rock?

Actually, as I understand it, a lot of people use that definition. I wouldn't necessarily define it that way, but I do think there's a lot of truth to it.

Many people, myself included, do use CCM as a part of their worship and find it very uplifting.

If you choose not to, I certainly respect that but I really disagree with such a broadbrush approach to the demonization of such a diverse kind of music.

Mike

http://www.keylife.org

 

Thomas Cassidy said:

In my opinion, a person could only find the old hymns boring if they find Grace boring.

Or if they're poorly led, sung, and accompanied. Nothing kills good hymns like having them all done at exactly the same tempo and volume, accompanied by a fuzzy old organ and a piano always played in that same jingly-jangly style that went out of fashion at the turn of the LAST century.

Said churches never had any problem with over-enthusiastic worshippers raising their hands, clapping, or moving their feet. It's a hard thing to express joy to joyless music.

 

Good point, Ransom! I like what you said! Personally, I find older hymns and stuff great for meditation and introspection. I don't possess the vocal ability to sing a lot of them, so I usually contemplate and think about the words, which are often more profound and meaningful than mainstream lyrics in general.

However, and this MAY offend some people here, I really enjoy modern music used in a worship atmosphere. The Bible tells us to "sing a new song" unto him. And I'm don't know if I have all the English definitions and stuff down , but "new" and "contemporary" seem to be similar. For me, modern music helps me to capture and express the emotions I feel for my "sweet, sweet Saviour", and that's why I think it's great. So... I guess I like a mixture of hymns and modern music. Hymns are great because of their depth and maturity, and modern music is also important because of the emotions it can capture, and because it can sometimes relate to people more.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ransom:
Thomas Cassidy said:

In my opinion, a person could only find the old hymns boring if they find Grace boring.

Or if they're poorly led, sung, and accompanied. Nothing kills good hymns like having them all done at exactly the same tempo and volume, accompanied by a fuzzy old organ and a piano always played in that same jingly-jangly style that went out of fashion at the turn of the LAST century.

Said churches never had any problem with over-enthusiastic worshippers raising their hands, clapping, or moving their feet. It's a hard thing to express joy to joyless music.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought this discussion was about music and not about song leaders and church pianos. I have been a believer for 37 years and in many fundamental Baptist churches during that time, and I can count on one hand the churches where the music was bad, boring or joyless, and I did not have to jump, shout, clap or get involved in some other type of emotional response to enjoy it.

 

Ransom just likes to contradict anything I post.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by emopunker:
And I'm don't know if I have all the English definitions and stuff down , but "new" and "contemporary" seem to be similar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's see. Paul was a contemporary of Peter, so both must be "new?" Shakespear was a contemporary of the KJV of 1611 so both must be "new?" Uh, well, uh, I don't think so!

Contemporary means "at the same time as." In music the term refers to music being popular in the church at the same time it is popular in the world. It is about style, not date.

 

To Thomas Cassidy:

What's currently in style in the secular world is usually "new" or at least "refurbished old stuff". So I think there is some similiarity, at least.

Oh, wait. Here's what Webster says:

Contemporary- 1. Existing, occuring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same period of time. 2. Of the present time; modern

New- 1. Of recent origin, production, purchase; having but lately come or been brought into being.

I guess they're kind of similar.

 

Love43, no God is not the creator of confusion and yet we have churches who fight over the simplest things including music. This however does not make the music wrong, keeping in mind there are many different people and different tastes so not everyone will like one particular thing and agree all the time. Appearance, well that seems to be a regular christian descrimination that most christians don't get. Frankly I don't want to look like a christian if it means I must dress to fit the part...my acountanence better show for that part or there is something wrong with me.

As for Amy, what she does is with she and God and not me so whatever God is doing in her life, is up to God.

Karen

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy
In my opinion, a person could only find the old hymns boring if they find Grace boring.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Me?? Boring? Never!

Just kidding Mr. Cassidy. I understand what you are saying. So many of the old hymns let us sing about God's precious Grace and Mercy. I love them.

 

Dr. Bob--you have to make a concerted effort to have hymn variety. I suggest that all MOMs (Ministers of Music) have a devoted hymnal in their offices in which they write a date at the top of each hymn as it is used. That has helped me avoid this "75-and-no-more" repititon problem. It really keeps you on the the track to achieving variety.