[SupaNova]

Originally Posted by Lee

I don't believe most of us have a problem with him using the word ☺☺☺☺. The problem I have with the song is that it is not very good...especially when compared to some of his earlier stuff. It seems (to me) that he is simply stirring up controversy to generate buzz for this album. You don't deliberately alienate the people you are trying to have a conversation with...and that is what it appears that he's doing. He is doing nothing to help solve the problem. I would suggest that he's actually throwing fuel on the fire.

You know, I've been thinking about this, and I wonder if at least part of the problem is that Derek doesn't quite realize who his core audience is. I remember reading an interview of sorts a couple years back where Derek made the comment that he writes with an older audience of Christians in mind and was surprised to see that his musical directions kept drawing in a younger, college aged group of fans. And that kind of seems like main issue to me: He's wanting to start a conversation with a certain group of believers, but he's writing in the prose of a younger generation that's more likely to agree with him anyway. I don't know, it just makes me wonder if he got his signals crossed with this particular song.

Originally Posted by thestorys

I'd also like to say that it doesn't bother me that you don't like the song. I wouldn't argue with your taste. But let me just speak as an artist for a minute. I write the lyrics I write because I like them, not because I want to fit into anyone else's pigeon holed view of who or what I am. I don't care if people like my words or not. If they don't, they don't have to listen. If they do, great. But I don't owe anyone an explanation for my art UNLESS it is irresponsible. But I think Derek has hardly been irresponsible with his work.

Writing a song and refusing to tell anybody the true meaning is fine and dandy when it's a personal song or whatever. However, it's an entirely different matter when you're dealing with the heavy subjects Derek deals with, especially when the artist claims to be writing from a Biblical standard. If you're claiming to be basing your words on scripture, I would say if it is not the artist's responsibility, it is certainly in their best interest to clarify what message they're trying to convey at some point. I might even argue that to ignore criticism and stay mum might even be dangerous. Taking Derek as an example, he's penned a couple pretty vague songs in the past which he claims have some spiritual meaning; he won't tell you what it is though. I think the "sit back and let people start conversations" concept can only go so far without a focused message to center the conversation around. And I'm still waiting on an explanation for which side of the debate he's taking in My Enemies Are Men Like Me.

As for generating buzz, when did that become a bad thing? Are other artists wrong because they take out an ad in a magazine to promote their albums? And when it comes to controversy, like others have said, he is hardly controversial to most. His record label (INO) did what was in their best interest, and in turn, Derek did what was in his best interest-- to self-release the real version of his record. So he had a little fun. His fans that followed the scavenger hunt enjoyed it. It was innovative and cutting-edge. You gotta remember, when you're on a label, music is still business and Derek was just on the cutting edge this time. I don't see anything wrong with garnering publicity.

Buzz and publicity are one thing. What Derek ultimately did was quite another. Sending cryptic e-mails that temporarily put his label in a bad light. Sending fans on a nationwide goose chase for pieces of the controversial, unreleashed song.....which he ended up keeping on the tracklist anyway (I'm aware that version was sold indepedent of INO). I hope I'm not coming off antagonistcally to you, because that's not my intention. And I don't even mean any disrespect toward Derek either. I followed all the twitter hijinks. I have Stockholm Syndrome. It's one of my favorite releases of the year thus far.

Still, that doesn't excuse the fact that he took a very minor issue between him and his label and blew it up into a partially manufactured controversy for the sole purpose of creating hype that wasn't even necessary. And no, not all of the fans liked the scavenger hunt parts. Some of them down right hated it, to be honest with you.

Leboman, you say he has alienated the people he is trying to speak to.... well, he hasn't alienated me. Even if you don't agree with how he made his point, his point is still valid, and on that note, I think we can all agree.

The validity of his message is worthless if he's intentionally alienating the very people he's trying to communicate with, and that's the crux of this whole issue.

[thestoreys]

Thesteve: haha, you got me. I am a songwriter, musician, and artist myself (one half of The Storeys). With that experience behind me, I felt compelled to say something. I'm not interested in this thread because I am a fan of Derek (though I very much am a fan). I'm interested in this thread because I am an artist who is in a constant struggle with the line between CCM and secular music myself. We're the kind of band that doesn't go over well in a church and doesn't go over well in a bar. I can just relate to the decisions he has to make. I can guarantee you, though, that this song wasn't written lightly. I would guess he debated in his head and prayed and this is ultimately what he felt led to do.

[thesteve]

That's cool. I definitely understand where you're coming from. Whether it's choices made in the subjects you do or do not choose to handle as a band or the lyrics you pen, it seems like it is difficult to be both a Christian artist that is accepted by churches and an artist that chooses to tackle (or in my former band's case, not tackle) Christian worldview outside of the accepted angles of CCM.

[thestoreys]

Supanova, I'm not sure Derek's intention is to alienate.

There is an Eric Peters lyric, "I want to be worthy of the words beneath the words", and I follow that concept in my own writing. I feel like to explain most of my songs would make them so one-dimensional. Not sure what the case is with Derek. We can speculate, but we can't draw conclusions such as "he is trying to alienate his fans" and "he doesn't know his audience". I'd ask him.

I don't think Derek blew the label controversy out of proportion. He banked his career on that song. He could easily have been out of a job so to speak. To him, it was probably that big of a deal.

I would not dare speak on his behalf. Just trying to offer a different point of view than most people here have resigned to.

Alas, I am finished with it and encourage your questions go to him! After all, the only way to get him to speak about the subject which you feel he is too silent on is to ask!

[SupaNova]

I don't think he was intent on alienating people either. But for whatever reason, that's the message certain people are taking away, and if What Matters Most is truly that important to Derek, it just seems like he needs to address this "controversy" directly. That's all.

Everything else, I think we can just respectfully agree to disagree on

[rock_show_host]

Originally Posted by Leboman

I don't believe most of us have a problem with him using the word ☺☺☺☺. The problem I have with the song is that it is not very good...especially when compared to some of his earlier stuff.

Exactly. I like the song enough, but the writing isn't anywhere near his best work. I'm all for Christian musicians and audiences growing more comfortable with the occasional "taboo" word here and there, but frankly, the amount of hubbub over this particular word lyric sort of makes me wish it were backed up by an overall better song.

[Nate]

Originally Posted by thestoreys

Leboman, you say he has alienated the people he is trying to speak to.... well, he hasn't alienated me. Even if you don't agree with how he made his point, his point is still valid, and on that note, I think we can all agree.

Can't speak for others, but, for me, I would not agree that his point is valid.

Something like 5,000 - 6,000 people in the world die of AIDS every day.

Something like 20,000 people in the world die from cancers every day.

Something like 500-1,000 people in the world die by murder every day.

In the time it took to research those three facts, about 250 people died.

Which of those groups, specifically, would you like me to "give a ☺☺☺☺" about?

It's not physically, spiritually, financially, or emotionally possible to say "all of them".

If I were to live my life like I cared deeply about every person on earth who died, I couldn't "live my life."

Heck, if I were to live my life like I "gave a ☺☺☺☺" about the people who died just this next [*pauses*] second (that's 1.8 people, worldwide), I'd take about a year to two years (about the length of time it takes most people to recover fully from the death of a loved one), during which another 200 million or so people would also have died. Am I really supposed to live my life like I "give a ☺☺☺☺" about each and every one of them? Do you have any idea what that would mean, practically? Can you even fathom what it would really entail?

What do you do when something that you really "give a ☺☺☺☺" about dies? Well, if they're in your family, you take off work, cry a lot, make funeral plans, etc. Should I do that for the 2 people who died this past second [*pauses again*]? What if they're just friends? Usually, you comfort the rest of your mutual acquaintances, attend the funeral, maybe make a meal or travel arrangements for their relatives, etc. Should I do that for the families of the 100 people who died in the minute that passed since that last second-long pause?

Life can hardly be lived by giving a ☺☺☺☺ about the death of one person, let alone 50,000 people.

"Giving a ☺☺☺☺" isn't sending off your $20 check every month to Compassion International. That's not enough.

Would a family member in need be satisfied if you said "Here's what I'll do, I'll give you $20 a month and see if I can find a couple thousand other people who can do the same." ? Should they be satisfied with this? What if it wasn't a family member, but just somebody else whom you decided to show compassion to? What if a church member needed help through a difficult stretch? Would $200-300 annually be enough? Would they feel like you "gave a ☺☺☺☺" about them? It's not likely.

Derek Webb is just falling into the activism that is so popular in our new "small world" mentality. The fact is that it isn't a small world. The world is unfathomably large. You can't even fit the amount of US governmental foreign aid into your feeble brain. Can you imagine if someone were to deposit $3,866 into your bank account today free of charge? Sure. Can you imagine if they were to make that same deposit every second of every day of every year? That's the size and scope of US foreign aid.

Put another way, US foreign aid is equivalent to everyone in the world writing a $20 CI check, then redistributing it.

Christian charity isn't about aggregates. "Love your neighbor" isn't an amorphous, global command about which we can debate "who is your neighbor"? It's about your actual neighbor, the 50 or so people you might run into in an average day. It's how much you "give a ☺☺☺☺" about the people whose lives you can actually impact, for better or for worse. It's not about shipping money off to some far off corner of the world or running marathons for victims you'll never meet of diseases you don't understand.

It's not even about "caring" in a general sense for the poor, oppressed, or downtrodden of the world.

The story about the costly ointment comes to mind. The Pharisees derided that woman for not "giving a ☺☺☺☺."

If we really "gave a ☺☺☺☺" about "the poor" (in general), we'd sell everything we had, because there is no upper limit to the amount of private charity that is needed to end [or even to reduce] poverty worldwide. Giving $20 a month doesn't affect poverty. Giving $2,000 a month doesn't even affect it. Giving your entire income to the poor and selling your possessions, your time and talents, and all your earthly labor doesn't even affect it. You might be able to save one family from the ravages of poverty.

And in so doing destroy your own, making the net gain zero, in terms of reducing poverty in the world.

Of everything you own, it could be said "It could have been sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor".

Speaking out politically, financially, economically for the underprivileged isn't really the Christian model.

The Christian model is private charity, unnoticed giving, invisible tolerance. Not putting on the Laramie Project.

True, Christians should not display public intolerance, xenographic hatred, or nearly universal and irrational fear.

But, the proper alternative to "silent consent" isn't public outcry about every moral liar or every denier of Christ.

Living like I don't "give a ☺☺☺☺" about 50,000 people dying today should be expected. It would be neurotic not to.

Taking action to try to remedy the deaths of 50,000 people would be irresponsible, and likely even unChristian.

Not even Christ attempted to remedy every person who was sick, hungry, poor, or dying. He often fled from them.

[thestoreys]

Just wanted to let y'all know that Relevant is running an interview with Derek where he addresses some of the things we discussed. Find it here: http://www.relevantmagazine.com/cult...ake-it-anymore