sign in sign up
<<
Home , Christian punk, Christian radio, Christian rock, Gospel Music Association, Jesus music, Lost Dogs

Introduction

This book provides alphabetical listings of artists associated with contemporary . For the first time anywhere, an attempt is being made to present such data as personnel lists and discographies for these artists, along with essays that provide biographical information and critical summaries of their work. The book is fairly ex- haustive in its treatment of performers associated with contemporary Christian music and, as such, provides a com- prehensive treatment of the phenomenon itself. They’re all here: the saints, the pilgrims, the pious, the outcasts, the hypocrites, the prophets, the heretics, and the martyrs;they’re all here in their earthly and spiritual glory. You’ll read about miracles and scandals, about incredible sacrifices and greedy exploitation. You can trace the early gospel influences on some of ’s biggest stars or explore the (sometimes temporary) midcareer detours of spiritual converts. You can find out what happened to a lot of folk now regarded as has-beens in the world at large, and you can also read about the incredible productivity of an impressive number of never-weres, folk who have labored in obscurity for decades, producing an impressive and occa- sionally brilliant body of little-known material. Rolling Stone magazine refers to contemporary Christian music as “a parallel universe.” That label rightly indicates that we are talking about a distinct world analogous to the realm of popular music in general. Thus, contemporary Christian music encompasses a wide variety of styles and genres. There is , but there is also Christian country, Christian folk, Christian new wave, , Christian death metal, Christian gangsta rap, and everything else imaginable. But one should not think that these styles simply mirror the general market or that the Christian artists are just creating Christian versions of whatever is hot in the world at large. In general, the Christian music world has an integrity of its own. Some artists are more creative and original than others, but the stylistic vari- eties tend to develop in a manner that is more parallel to the general market than simply reflective of it. In a few in- stances (a capella groups, third wave ska, rapcore) the Christian artists have even been in the forefront, with knowledgeable general market performers copping from them. Rolling Stone agrees: “The top Christian-pop artists aren’t any more derivative than, say, 30 artists randomly selected from Billboard’s Top 100 in a given week.” If there is one great misconception regarding contemporary Christian music—aside from the idea that it is limited to a particular style or is necessarily derivative—it may be that the music is definitively religious. The perception is understandable, but it does not hold true: the divide between what gets called Christian music and popular music in general is not drawn with regard to what is religious and what is secular. As it turns out, a great deal of contempo- rary Christian music is completely secular and, of course, a fair amount of general market popular music is at least 10 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN MUSIC tangentially religious. Christian music artists do not just sing about God and church and Jesus and the Bible. They also write and sing songs about romance and the day their dog died and how cool their new car is. In quite a few in- stances (perhaps about 25%), the material labeled contemporary Christian and that labeled general market would be indistinguishable—if the tapes got mixed up or sent to the wrong radio stations, no one would ever know the differ- ence. This, of course, begs the question as to why there should be a parallel universe in the first place.

What Is Contemporary Christian Music?

Joe Bob Briggs (America’s self-proclaimed Drive-In Movie Critic) once defined contemporary Christian music as “bad songs written about God by white people.” We’re going to adopt a somewhat broader definition in this book, which can be understood only in light of the phenomenon’s historical development. Contemporary Christian music came into existence as a recognizable entity during the revival of the late ’60s and early ’70s. Artists like Children of the Day, Andraé Crouch and the Disciples, , Love Song, Barry McGuire, , and began songs about Jesus that re- flected the character of that revival and of their own transformed lives. The music was called back then and, critically, it is probably more appreciated now than at the time. The simplicity and, indeed, naiveté of the songs can be charming, and the zeal with which they are delivered is inspiring. One would be hard-pressed to find another instance in popular music in which the performers cared as much about what they were doing as these young Jesus freaks. Of course, the production standards were terrible and the native talent of the artists sometimes left something to be desired,...butthese people really did believe their records were going to change the world, and that is some- thing difficult to capture in a studio. And, for hundreds of thousands of people, their records did change the world—a fact seldom noticed in either musical or ecclesiastical histories. Contemporary Christian music, then, did not develop out of traditional or . The Jesus music pio- neers were for the most part completely ignorant of those forms (Crouch is an obvious exception). Rather, it devel- oped out of rock and roll, as young musicians who were excited about Christ began writing faith songs in the only musical idiom available to them. But why did these Jesus music stars form their own network, separate from the popular music industry? I can think of three reasons: 1) there were simply too many of them. The revival produced hundreds of Jesus music bands. A few token Jesus songs made their way into the Top Forty, but DJs were prepared only to sample the onslaught, not to give it full control. This is understandable apart from any prejudice against . If, following James Brown’s “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud,” hundreds of African American art- ists had all begun recording songs about how wonderful it is to be black, mainstream radio stations would not have played very many of them—not because they were racist, but because in the general market, songs that celebrate the special interests of a particular subgroup are by definition exceptional. 2) For all its joy and festivity, the Jesus move- ment revival had a dark side, an apocalyptic spirit that encouraged isolationism and mistrust. The Jesus people didn’t want to sign contracts with unbelievers, lest they find themselves in the employ of the Antichrist. 3) Most of the music lacked widespread appeal apart from appreciation of its ideology. In this regard, the strength of Jesus music (and of much contemporary Christian music to follow) was also its weakness. Precisely because the music connected so well with its target audience, it failed to garner much appreciation from those on the outside. For those who were “into” Jesus, the Christian music from this period remains some of the greatest music of all time;but for those who weren’t, it just doesn’t do the trick. By the ’80s, the special-interest network that Jesus music had spawned had developed into a multimillion-dollar industry. Contemporary Christian music had its own magazines, radio stations, and award shows. The Jesus move- ment revival was over: some say it morphed into the Religious Right;others (including this author) contend that it was devoured (destroyed) by that aggressor. In any case, the world of Christian music was now less beleaguered. Big budgets and high production standards came into play, and artists like DeGarmo and Key, , Petra, and INTRODUCTION 11

Stryper came to define Christian music in radically different terms. The whole point, now, seemed to be that the music was just as good as anything the world could churn out and, indeed, could be appreciated on its own merits apart from any particular system. Often, these claims were true, and yet the music still did not get much air- play within the general market. Why not? The constant contention of the Christian artists was that this was due to a censorship born of ideological bigotry: Christian artists were persecuted for their faith by being blacklisted from gen- eral market radio stations and record racks. Many artists found they could not get past this impasse even when they recorded completely nonreligious songs (Grant is an obvious exception). It is certain that such censorship sometimes did (and still does) occur. Music industry personnel and station pro- grammers confirm (always off the record) that some radio stations had (and sometimes still have) unofficial policies against playing music by “any artist known to be a Christian.” I asked one such programmer the rationale for such a policy. The reply: “Christianity is not cool. If people hear a Christian singer on our station, they will think we’re not cool. It’s as simple as that.” Such an attitude goes a long way toward explaining the continued existence of con- temporary Christian music as a parallel universe, as an entity that needs to exist to grant a forum for artists who are otherwise denied participation in the music business for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of their work. But there is more to this censorship thing, and I think much (probably most) of the time, the bias is not against Christianity per se but, more legitimately, against any attempt to co-opt the music field for promotional purposes. A lot of Christian music is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as propaganda—as an attempt by a special interest group to gain free advertising for their cause. It is perceived this way not only by radio station programmers and music critics but also by the great majority of music fans (to whom the programmers and critics are accountable). Let us imagine for a moment that the Goodrubber Tire Company were to put together a rock to promote their products—and let us assume that the band turned out to be one of the tightest, most competent, and indeed creative groups on the scene. My guess is that if they made a whole album of songs glorifying Goodrubber tires, they would get very little airplay on most radio stations, even if the songs were very good songs and even if they were played exceptionally well. But what if they made an album of secular party songs and love ballads, with only one tire song at the very end? Wouldn’t their non-tire songs get some airplay? Maybe—but probably not. Once news about the band got around, there would be a critical and commercial backlash against the sneaky tire salesmen that would overshadow any ap- preciation of the music on its own terms. In the ’90s, things got a lot more complicated. With the growth of and the viability of marketing through independent labels, many Christian artists rebelled against the stereotypes of their industry. Of course, there had been radicals and rebels all along (T Bone Burnett, The Choir, , LSU, the Seventy Sevens), but now these increased exponentially until it became commonplace to hear a group say, “We are just in a band—we’re not a Christian band.” What they usually meant was that they did not want to be confined to the paral- lel universe of the Christian music (or ghetto as it was increasingly called). In a few cases this seemed to work, but in far more it didn’t, and the we’re-not-a-Christian-band groups ended up with few fans outside the Chris- tian music scene. By the turn of the millennium, a distinction was often made between Christian performers who pursue their music as ministry and those who view it as art. The distinction is of course arbitrary and flawed (the two need not be mutually exclusive), but discussion of the labels and categories helped some Christian music stars grapple with their identity crisis. Quite a few artists in this book make it clear that they view music as a means to an end. They view themselves primarily as ministers who merely use music as a medium for conveying evangelistic or edify- ing messages to the world. Many others, however, insist that they do not set out to create Christian music at all. They are simply artists creating music that is true to who they are, but, because they are Christians, the songs that are most true to who they are sometimes do end up revealing the faith that informs their lives. It is usually with regard to the latter artists that the whole parallel universe scheme comes off as unnecessary and somewhat tragic. Artists like AdamAgain, , the , Starflyer 59, and the Vigilantes of Love do not at all fit the tire salesmen paradigm described above, but they have often suffered from a sort of guilt by associ- ation that stereotypes of Christian music foist upon them. Indeed, when someone does manage to gain a foothold in 12 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN MUSIC each world, he or she often gets pegged as a crossover artist: , MxPx, P.O.D., and are viewed as Christian artists who have crossed over into the general market, while Creed and Collective Soul are considered to be general market artists who have crossed over into the Christian realm. But in either case, overlap would be a better word than crossover. Some artists simply have a broad enough appeal to earn and maintain fans on both sides of the artificial divide. So matters of definition are difficult and confused. Still, in putting together this book, I had to decide (with apologies to Bob Seger) “who to leave in, who to leave out.” Which artists qualify as performers of contemporary Christian music? First, as for the word contemporary: the term contemporary Christian music was coined as a euphemism for Chris- tian back in the days when many Christians could not bring themselves to admit that they were listening to the supposedly demonic sounds of rock and roll. Thus, by definition, the genre is distinct from traditional gospel (the politically correct term for what most people still call black gospel) and southern gospel. Books the size of this one could (and probably should) be developed for those genres as well, but only a smattering of traditional or south- ern gospel artists appear here (cited mainly for their role as influences). Likewise, there is no discussion of Charlotte Church’s operatic renditions or of Paul Manz’s organ fugues, though these would certainly have to be considered ex- amples of contemporary Christian music in any literal sense of the phrase. We’re talking about Christian , loosely defined. The harder question is how one considers whether the music is Christian. The problem has vexed the for some time as it grapples with such questions as “what records should be sold in Christian book- stores?”;“what songs should be eligible for Christian Dove awards?”;and so on. Two approaches to this problem have been proposed, neither of which works. I follow a third proposal (my own), which does. The first proposal is that Christian music be defined in terms of content, as music that deals in an obvious way with matters explicitly related to Christianity. This is pretty much the official position of the Associa- tion, which in the late ’90s adopted the following definition for gospel music: “music in any style whose lyric is sub- stantially based upon historically orthodox Christian truth contained in or derived from the Holy Bible;and/or an expression of worship of God or praise for his works;and/or testimony of relationship with God through Christ;and/ or obviously prompted and informed by a Christian worldview.” Such a definition is fraught with difficulties. For one thing, it pretty much eliminates the possibility of there being such a thing as Christian instrumental music, wiping out a rather large subgenre of the field. It further encourages endless theological disputation as to what might or might not fit the grade: Why, exactly, does a song about a woman regretting an abortion qualify as Christian when a song about a woman wanting her husband to kiss her does not? Worst of all, a content definition (this one or any other) necessarily presents Christianity as merely a facet of one’s life, as a compartmentalized religious or spiritual as- pect of who one is. But one of the central claims of Christianity is that the faith is holistic, transforming the entire being and affecting every thought and action. Christians who actually believe what Christianity teaches will claim that everything they do (including every song they write or sing) reflects who they are as Christians and, accordingly, will be insulted by the notion that only the overtly religious songs reflect this. As rock critic Steve Turner puts it, “I am a Christian when I sleep or enjoy a bath, pull faces, eat dinner, and all the other things that humans do. Jesus wasn’t more the Son of God when he was on the cross than when he ate and drank with his friends. He didn’t have thirty years of a secular life and then turn into someone spiritual.” Of course, many pundits would also note that the has never actually followed any standard similar to that which their stated definition was intended to describe. The Doobie Brothers and were never nominated for Dove awards for stellar material that would have met the criteria;other artists were presented with awards for songs that probably didn’t (e.g., Michael W. Smith’s “A Place in This World”). A second suggestion is artist- or author-defined and holds simply that Christian music is music made by Chris- tians. Of course, this would broaden things considerably, since a great many artists in the general market who are in no way associated with the Christian music scene may actually be Christians. And a problem immediately arises as to whether it is the faith of the performer or of the composer that is to be determinative. If Michael McDonald, who is INTRODUCTION 13 known to be a Christian, writes a nonreligious song like “You Belong to Me” and Carly Simon sings it, is her version of the song now to be considered an example of Christian music—apart from any knowledge of her own faith stance? In any case, such a potentially broad definition may also run aground over quibbles as to just what qualifies an artist (or composer) as Christian. Anyone who has been baptized and who hasn’t formally renounced the faith? Or only those who go to church regularly, or who show evidence of a vibrant relationship with Christ, or who espouse orthodox doctrine? And just who gets to make those determinations? Quite a few fundamentalists claim that Roman Catholics are not Christians, but a book on contemporary Christian music that excludes John Michael Talbot is pretty un- thinkable. And then Harold Bloom, in his history of in America, claims that all the fundamentalists (including Southern Baptists and Pentecostals) have actually separated themselves from historic Christianity and should be viewed as adherents of another (gnostic) religion. Personally, I think such distinctions are ludicrous, but they just go to show the problematic character of ever defining Christian music as “any music that is written or performed by Christians.” What I propose is that we define contemporary Christian music exactly the same way we define all other genres. Such labels are always audience-driven and are based unapologetically on perception, not content or intent. If I were writing a book on , I would find out what people who call themselves fans of punk rock like to listen to. There would no doubt be squabbles among such fans as to who did or didn’t deserve the label, but if large numbers of punk rock fans told me they considered a group to be punk, I wouldn’t really care if someone else—even members of the band itself—insisted that they weren’t. The thing with labels is, we never get to choose them for ourselves. And such labels never describe everything that a person or group is—they only indicate some aspect of what some people see. If I had been hired by the Gospel Music Association to come up with a definition for contemporary Christian music, I would have proposed the following: Contemporary Christian music is music that appeals to self-identified fans of contemporary Christian music on account of a perceived connection to what they regard as Christianity. So far, that agency hasn’t employed my services. But for the purposes of this book, I include in my consideration of contemporary Christian music whatever large numbers of self-identified fans of contemporary Christian music con- sider to fit the genre. In actual fact, such perceptions seem to be based either on professions of Christian faith by the artist or on perceived Christian content in the music itself. I know of no instance where at least one of those two fac- tors is not present, and in the majority of cases, both may be. But most self-identified contemporary Christian music fans seem to think that material by Christian artists like or qualifies as belonging to the genre even when the lyrics to the songs are not overtly religious or spiritual. They also tend to put into the genre music by artists whose personal faith convictions remain unknown (Sounds of Blackness, Simple Minds) when the songs themselves consistently seem to deal with faith-oriented topics. There are, of course, many questionable cases, and artists who claim that they don’t want to be known as Christian bands (Collective Soul, Creed) some- times get put into the mix regardless. On borderline cases, where I’m not sure what to do, I have followed the ex- ample of The New Rolling Stone Encyclopedia ofRock and Roll, which faced a similar dilemma in deciding which artists qualify as legitimate rock and roll acts. Those editors decided that “it is in the nature of rock and roll to err on the side of inclusion.” I submit that it is in the nature of Christianity to do the same. That said, space limitations prevent consideration of all but a smattering of minor artists and independent re- leases. I have tried to include enough of these to provide a representative sampling of what the Christian music field has to offer, but for the most part only those artists who have received considerable media exposure receive listings.

How This Book Was Written

This volume is the result of about seven years of research, including a year and a half of full-time work during which I took a sabbatical from my regular job and employed a number of student assistants. The first thing we did 14 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN MUSIC was gather an enormous data bank of material from media associated with Christian music. Every article, interview, review, or news reference from all issues of the following periodicals was copied and filed by artist name: • CCM (formerly Contemporary Christian Music), began publishing 1978. • The CCM Update, began publishing 1987. • Cornerstone, began publishing 1971. • Harmony, began publishing 1975;ceased 1977. • HM (formerly Heaven’s Metal), began publishing 1985. • Release, began publishing 1990. • 7ball, began publishing 1995. • Shout, began publishing 1995;ceased 1996. • True TunesNews, began publishing 1989;switched to electronic format 1995. • Visions ofGray, began publishing 1996;ceased 2001. Other periodicals and underground newspapers (including The Activist, Cutting Edge, Harvest Rock Syndicate, Hollywood Free Paper, Notebored, Renaissance, Right On!, and The Truth) were accessed to the extent that copies could be obtained. The archives of the following electronic publications were also plundered mercilessly, with every page of the on- line materials being printed and added to the files: • Bandoppler (www.bandoppler.com). No longer active. • Christian Music (www.christianmusic.com) • Christian Music at about.com (http://christianmusic.about.com) • Christian Music Review Headquarters (www.christianmusic.org) • CMCentral (www.cmcentral.com) • Gospel City (www.gospelcity.com) • Gospel Flava (www.gospelflava.com) • Jesus Freak Hideout (www.jesusfreakhideout.com) • Jesus Music (www.one-way.org/jesusmusic) • The Lighthouse Electronic Magazine (www.tlem.org). No longer active. • Musicforce (www.musicforce.com) • The Phantom Tollbooth (www.tollbooth.org) • Real Magazine (www.realmagazine.com) • Solid Rock Radio (www.solidrockradio.com) • True Tunes (www.truetunes.com) • TSRocks (www.tsrocks.com) To these were added printouts from individual artist or label websites. The entries for the volume are based largely on material drawn from these sources, in addition to information pro- vided in the packaging of the recordings themselves (e.g., liner notes, album covers), information provided by record companies and artist management firms (e.g., press releases), and in some cases information provided through direct contact with the artists or with persons close to them. Information for the discographies and personnel lists was typi- INTRODUCTION 15 cally obtained the old-fashioned way, by sifting through enormous piles of records, tapes, and CDs and copying the data on an item-by-item basis. Both HM and CCM magazines made their music libraries available to me for this pur- pose. Information for the critical essays tended to be drawn from the files of periodical literature, though it is impor- tant to note that I have personally listened to about eighty-five percent of the albums discussed in this book. Some of these sources, of course, are more reliable than others. I have had to make judgment calls with regard to conflicting reports. Where I have erred, I would like to be corrected. At times, all of my sources have failed me, and significant information is lacking. While it is embarrassing to admit to such ignorance, it seems better to include in- complete entries than to omit completely those artists for whom my knowledge is less than satisfying. Again, I would appreciate hearing from readers who are able to fill such gaps.

Key to the Entries

The listings may include the following elements, in order:

• Name Artists are of two types: soloists and groups. Soloists are alphabetized by the first letter of their last name (Geoff Moore under M). Groups are alphabetized by the first letter of the first key word in their name (The Waiting under W). When the name of an individual and a group are combined, the listing is usually found under the last name of the individual (Andraé Crouch and the Disciples under C). Numerals are treated as though they were spelled out (4 Him under F-O-U-R).

• Personnel For groups, a list of personnel is offered, indicating names of members and their primary roles in the band. Et al. will indicate additional contributors who are not named. The following abbreviations are used: acc.—accordion; bgv.—background vocals; DJ—disc jockey; dulc.—dulcimer; elec.—electronics; gtr.—guitar; harm.—; kybrd.—keyboards; mand.—; perc.—percussion; prog.—programming; sax.—saxophone; synth.—syn- thesizers; tromb.—trombone; trump.—trumpet; voc.—vocals. The original lineup of the group (on their first re- lease) is given first, followed by a double slash (//). After the double slash, changes in personnel are noted in chronological order. Parenthetical dates indicate additions (+) and departures (-). N.B.: departure and addition dates are geared to the discography, indicating which personnel perform as official group members on which projects (ignoring compilations of previously released material and other such anomalies). If a group released al- bums in 1983, 1984, and 1985 and one member left in 1983 after the first album was released, the notation will not read (- 1983)—the actual date of departure—but (- 1984)—the date of the first release on which the person is no longer listed as a member.

• Discography A relatively complete discography of the artist’s significant recordings usually follows. The label on which the listed products were released can be assumed to remain the same until a new label is given. For some overlap artists who are known primarily for contributions in the general market (Glen Campbell, ), a more selec- tive discography lists only those works that have been of most interest to contemporary Christian music fans.

• Website When available, the link to the artist’s website is provided. Only official or endorsed sites are indicated. Such sites, of course, become outdated quickly. 16 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN MUSIC

• Essay The essay that accompanies each entry is usually biographical and critical. Biographical details are often sketchy in keeping with available data and the relevance of that data for an appreciation of the artist’s work. The essay normally focuses on a description of the artist’s most significant work and attempts to summarize critical evaluations of specific or overall contributions. In a few cases, comments are also made regarding the theologi- cal perspective of the artist;such critique is never intended to promote or disparage anyone’s religious beliefs, but to indicate what might be regarded as laudable or as problematic within the Christian music subculture, or within Christianity as a whole. Boldfaced names in the essay indicate that there is a separate entry for the art- ist named.

• Chart Hits A list of the artist’s charted Hits, if any, follows each essay. This information is based on charts kept by SoundScan and published weekly in The CCM Update. Only information from the CHR (Christian Hit Radio) chart (or its predecessors) is included. This chart is intended to provide the most mainstream data for Christian pop music, analogous to Billboard’s Hot 100 chart in the general market. In fact, the chart betrays a rather strong bias toward light pop and adult contemporary material. Data is available only for the years 1978–2001.

• Awards A list of Dove awards and/or Grammy awards received by the artist is also included. The Dove award is pre- sented annually by the Gospel Music Association. The Grammy is given by the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences.

A Word about Comparisons

Many of the entries attempt to describe the musical style of an artist by naming other artists who sometimes dis- play a style that is similar at least some of the time or in certain respects. I recognize that many of the artists dis- cussed will be unhappy with this portion of the book because, in my experience, most artists quite understandably do not like their work to be understood with reference to anyone else’s. This dissatisfaction seems to be magnified in the Christian music subculture because Christian music sometimes bears the stereotype of being derivative of music in the general market (see above). Indeed, the matter has become a touchy one in the Christian music subculture, and many reviewers for Christian magazines refrain from comparisons altogether or offer them only with the utmost sensitivity, cushioned by caveats and apologies. Well, I offer lots of comparisons without any apologies at all. Merely to point out an artist’s influences, much less to indicate sonic analogies that their work evokes in the minds of certain listeners, in no way implies that the artist’s music is derivative or uninspired. If early reviewers had said that betrayed the influence of Chuck Berry or that they sounded kind of like Buddy Holly and the Crickets or Gerry and the Pacemakers, that would have been in- formative and correct without in any way indicating that the band was lacking in talent or creativity. There is a very simple test according to which my readers will be able to tell when my offer of a comparison is intended to imply that an artist lacks creativity. When I wish to suggest that, I do not imply it but state it outright. Search long enough and you will find a sentence similar to this one in the pages that follow: “GROUP XXX copied their style directly from GROUP YYY.” And this one: “The song AAA follows GROUP X’s song BBB so closely in sound as to amount to artis- tic if not legal plagiarism” (I leave out the names here to avoid the inequity of double condemnation for single INTRODUCTION 17 offenses). When I say an artist sounds like another artist, I don’t mean anything more than the two artists have a similar sound.

A Theological Postscript

It is important to note that the Christian music scene is a subculture not only with regard to popular music in gen- eral but also in some respects with regard to Christianity. Though this would begin to change in the ’90s, the roots of contemporary Christian music lie within fundamentalism, and a large number of the primary participants continue to be drawn from sects representing Christianity’s more conservative factions—and, in particular, from those churches that have their historical origins in America (Baptists, Nazarenes, Pentecostals, Free Methodists, and various nondenominational groups) rather than from those with origins in Europe (Episcopalians, Lutherans, Mennonites, United Methodists, Presbyterians, Roman Catholics). Thus, the image of Christianity expressed in most contempo- rary Christian music differs from that of historic and global Christianity in key ways. This is evident above all in an emphasis on a personalized, private relationship with Jesus as opposed to a concept of incorporation into a commu- nity that relates to Christ corporately. A more literalistic reading of the Bible also attends much of the contemporary Christian music culture, along with the notion that God may speak directly to the individual through Scripture (or other means). Likewise, the pursuit of holiness generally (though not always) stresses matters of personal morality over concern for social justice, and meaningful worship tends to focus on sentiment and piety rather than on liturgi- cal heritage or sacramental experience. These observations are offered descriptively, without judgment, simply to ac- knowledge that those who know Christianity in alternative forms may find their faith expressions underrepresented in a field that lays claim to the very broad label Christian.

Bibliography

The body of literature on contemporary Christian music is sparse. Aside from personal testimonies and other de- votional writings by the artists themselves (cited in the individual listings), only a handful of serious studies on the subject have been written. The following list includes the most excellent.

• Brothers, Jeffrey L. Hot Hits: Christian Hit Radio: 20 Years ofCharts, Artist Bios, and More. Nashville: CCM Books, 1999. • Di Sabatino, David. The Jesus People Movement: An Annotated Bibliography and General Resource. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1999. • Granger, Thom. The 100 Greatest Albums in Christian Music. Nashville: CCM Books, 2001. • Howard, Jay R. and John M. Streck. Apostles ofRock: The Splintered World ofContemporary Christian Music. Lexington: The University of Kentucky Press, 1999. • Joseph, Mark. The Rock and Roll Rebellion: Why People ofFaith Abandoned Rock Music—And Why They’re Coming Back. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999. • Thompson, John J. Raised By Wolves: The Story ofChristian Rock and Roll. Toronto: ECW Press, 2000. • Turner, Steve. Hungry for Heaven: Rock ’n’ Roll and the Search for Redemption. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1995. 18 ENCYCLOPEDIA OF CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN MUSIC

Updates

This book is a historical reference work and, as such, does not intend to compete with resources that are able to offer up-to-the-minute information on the newest works by the latest artist. The goal was to be as complete as pos- sible regarding contemporary Christian music through the year 2001. Depending on reception, updates or subsequent editions may be published. In anticipation of such a likelihood, artists and publicity agents are invited to send ma- terials regarding ongoing or future work to the address at the end of this entry. In the meantime, readers should be cognizant of the following resources: • The two best print resources for keeping informed with regard to contemporary Christian music are CCM magazine (online at www.ccmmagazine.com) and HM magazine (online at www.hmmagazine.com). In general, CCM has a more adult-oriented focus on the softer and more mainstream material, while HM pur- sues a youth-oriented take on the harder and edgier material. • The two best Internet resources have been True Tunes (www.truetunes.com) and The Phantom Tollbooth (www.tollbooth.org).

Additions, Corrections, and Other Comments

may be directed to [email protected] or mailed to: Mark Allan Powell Trinity Lutheran Seminary 2199 E. Main Street Columbus, OH 43209-2334