2 of 3

I recommend that formula, though it's certainly not the ideal. And the real question is, Why should bands have to follow such a circuitous path in order to be in a position to be heard by the mainstream music culture? And for bands like Mute Math who do follow that path, it's counterproductive to then be marketed as a Christian band.

Think of it this way: Would a plumber advertise himself as a "Christian plumber" if he wanted to serve both believers and non-believers? Perhaps, but then, many non-Christians with clogged toilets might not hire him because of that designation. But if he simply presents himself as a "plumber"—still intending to do a great job and prepared to discuss his faith with any interested clients—he's likely to get more business, earn a better living, and interact with more non-believers.

Using "Christian" as an adjective—whether you're a plumber or a musician—is little more than a weapon, used to beat back people who might otherwise be interested in the service or product offered, but upon hearing that it is "Christian" are no longer interested.

Attacking Mute Math is easy. After all, Christians are supposed to avoid lawsuits, right?

But the real questions people should be asking is what drove the band to take such extreme action, and why can't Christian-oriented labels like Word, EMI/CMG, Provident, and others help these artists to fulfill their mission by providing a platform from which to reach the entire culture—mainstream and Christian—with their music?

Why are artists being put in a position where the only way they think they can be heard outside of the CCM subculture is to sue their label—or to leave the CCM industry altogether and sign with mainstream labels, which are staffed by people who often don't share their faith or sense of mission?

Imagine what would happen if Christian-oriented labels announced that they would change the way they do business—that for the artists who wanted to reach the mainstream, the labels would stop marketing them as "Christian music," and instead develop and market artists who write songs that reference their faith to fellow believers, as well as to millions of Americans who may not share their faith but like their music.

Impossible? It shouldn't be. Consider a recent LA Weekly review of a show by an artist named Reeve Carney. The reviewer, Stephanie Lysaght, who is Jewish, says she was invited to the gig by a friend named Joey who promised, "It will change your life."

Lysaght writes: "Right away I see that Joey is onto something, and already feel that my $5 cover has been well-spent." She notes that Joey then says, "Hey, there's one thing I didn't mention on the phone. They're kinda religious… . Just listen. Sometimes, when you think Reeve's singing to a girl, he's actually singing to Jesus."

She continues: "I spin around to see hordes of hipsters bellowing along with Carney… . Do they have any clue what they're saying? Am I the only one who notices that Carney is singing to Jesus? Finally, I give in to the power of the band. A few verses later, I'm chanting 'I will testify' along with the rest of 'em. After Carney's encore and final farewell… Joey and I discuss the show… . We languish together in the calm that permeates the room. I've been converted."

CCM labels need to understand that strong statements of faith, when combined with attractive and interesting music, are not automatic disqualifiers for consideration among non-Christian Americans— provided that the marketing and labeling doesn't frighten them away before being heard. When that happens, they'll have an opportunity to change the way they do business.

next page... |  2 of 3