Friday, December 23, 2005

Reasons for continued questioning... (Part 2)

Because of the monster discussion that Part 1 created, I feel like I should write another blog to give you my thoughts. A sort of "conclusion," if you will.

To summarize what the this whole thing is about (for those who haven't read my blog lately), Switchfoot's Adding to the Noise was played during a Victoria's Secret commercial. Switchfoot fans, haters, and in-betweens took sides on the numerous issues that erupted - namely if Switchfoot truly and fully sold out or not when they moved into the secular market. I wrote a quick blog about it when I first saw it on TV, and it exploded into craziness. Mac even wrote about it. Read Part 1 and Mac's post if you want more detail on discussion.

With that, here we gooooooooooooooooooo...

---------------

Switchfoot surely wasn't joking when they decided the name of their band. Some can interpret the name as a term from "switching" from a life without Christ to a life with Christ. That is, at least, how a Christian could interpret it. (You could just take the name as nothing but a cool band name...your choice.) However, given the recent events of the band, one can now say that Switchfoot has taken the previous interpretation and turned it completely upside down. Not in terms of salvation, of course, but of marketing and business. Ironic how one's name can mean so much.

Victoria's Secret ad campaign during the Christmas season has been encouraging women and men alike to buy their products as gifts. "Give me sexy," they say, "Give me Victoria's Secret." It is no wonder why so many are sitting very unwell with the fact that Switchfoot's song would play on one of their commercials.

There are many arguments that fans (and those who even don't care much about Switchfoot) use to defend Switchfoot. What are they defending exactly? They're defending attacks against them that it was very unChristian-like for them to throw their music on such an unwholesome commericial; furthermore, lots of people are beginning to question that Switchfoot truly sold out when they signed with the Sony label - the VS commercial was like the nail in the coffin to them.

I will go through the arguments I've heard from my blog and this forum that Kuya linked to in Part 1, and I will give my opinion to counter these arguments:

Switchfoot has nothing to do with Victoria's Secret other than they have a song on their commercial. Are they dating the models? Are they having sex with the models? No!

Allowing Victoria's Secret to use their song is enough for Switchfoot to promote Victoria's Secret products. Especially for a commercial that promotes and uses sex and lust to sell their things. They don't need to date a VS model to be in the wrong.

The producers from their label made them do it.

This is most likely true. This is probably the only argument that I'll take very seriously because it's one I can see Switchfoot not being able to get around easily. It is a very sad case when a contract gets in the way of choices, and this is why I get skeptical when a Christian goes into the secular market. Anyhow, I feel like Switchfoot owes their hardcore fans some kind of statement. I feel sort of betrayed that I defended them so strongly about going into the secular market, but they're throwing their music around like a pimp with his whores. And they don't seem to care about it! (Note: For those who think Switchfoot doesn't owe their fans a statement - or anything for that matter - they owe the fans everything for being where they are now.)

Switchfoot didn't know, and had nothing to do with arranging it with Victoria's Secret.

This may be so, but I think they still need to tell people their thoughts on it. There's too much reaction to ignore it completely. Plus it just looks bad on them. To me, it looks like they just don't care and they just want the money. This would be the claim that they sold out. Could it be true that they just want fame and fortune? I certainly hope not because their music speaks against such views!

Victoria's Secret sells underwear. They don't sell porn, and they don't promote the idea of pre-marital sex.

This is true. But as Mac said, "It ain't so much about what Victoria's Secret sells, it's the way they sell it." VS definitely uses the idea of sex and lust to sell their product. Whether it'd be girls who want to buy it to attract men, or men who want to buy it because they want to see it on their girlfriend/wife/wife's girlfriend, it is incredibly unwholesome and degrading to one's soul. Switchfoot shouldn't have anything to do with VS for this sole reason. If the label forced them to do it, then they can always leave the label or write a statement to the fans.

Moreover, I wrote in Mac's blog that Switchfoot wrote a song against society's obssession with sex. From Easier Than Love, they sing, "Sex is currency/She sells cars, she sells magazines" and "sex is industry/The CEO of corporate policy." This is also what bugs me. Switchfoot is acting like a huge hypocrite right now. It almost sickens me.

"Does Switchfoot have to be glorifying Jesus with every move they make? Do you? Why do you expect more out of a band, they are human also and they need to pay the bills. Sure Jesus wouldn't PROMOTE a commercial but he also wouldn't condemn it, Paul would do that." - AldoDaldo

What...the...crap! How much more disturbing can you get when someone
actually writes this just to defend their beloved band! We must always strive to glorify God. Every move we make, every thought we think, and every word we say should be glorifying God. Granted that we, as people with corrupt flesh, do not do this even half the time we live on Earth, it is still indeed a true statement.

As the thing with Paul, Jon wrote in the comments of Part 1, "St. Paul, an inspired commentator on Jesus' life and sayings, by the Holy Spirit (the third person of that trinity that Jesus is also part of), is a good indication of what Jesus would condemn."

It isn't our business to concern ourselves with these matters. Who cares if Switchfoot put their song to a Victoria's Secret ad? If you think it's wrong, then it's wrong. If you think it's okay, then it's okay. Don't judge Switchfoot, leave that to God.

It's not a matter of judging, it's a matter of watching each other as Christian brothers and sisters. When a fellow Christian has sinned or is causing people to sin, it is definitely our business to set them straight. The idea that God will do the judging and we just need to look to ourselves is not a Biblical way of living. We aren't judging Switchfoot, we are just trying to show the correct way to see situations. Will Switchfoot go to hell for this? I highly doubt it, but that's not the issue. We must always concern ourselves with Christians' wrongdoings. Not to be smarty-pants or finger-pointers, but to help build each other up in our walk with God.

Switchfoot is using their music to reach out to people who watch that commercial.

Anyone who saw the commercial will know that only the intro guitar riff was played. None of the lyrics were sung, and no one who doesn't listen to Switchfoot would make any correlation to them and the music. With that said, what did Switchfoot do to reach out to the audience? Nothing. What did they get out of it? Easy money. Hmmm...

P.O.D. touring with Korn is a better example of reaching out to that type of audience. They are at concerts, talking with people, singing their music for all to hear their message. Switchfoot's song on Victoria's Secret did nothing but get models to prance around their underwear looking lustfully into the camera.

---------------

With all this said, I don't want people to think I'm some kind of high and mighty Christian who only sees the world from the clouds. I am a terrible and cruel sinner just like everyone else, but like I said, we strive to become more like Christ and help others along. One person said that we should just love Switchfoot and leave the rest to God. Is setting someone straight when they are wrong a way of love? I believe so.

Don't worry, I will still listen to my Switchfoot CDs. I'm still hoping for a response from them. However, until then, I will detach the person from the music and just listen to their songs as good Christian rock music. I don't know about their last two albums, though. It's just too painful now to listen to those. Their first three are still very good...and very Christian. :)

13 comments:

Eric said...

Switchfoot are sellouts:)

Anonymous said...

I probably should have said this earlier, but I agree with you, Lem. I know what I want to believe, but I'm afraid the truth of the matter isn't what I want. As much as I dislike like it, Switchfoot is not what they once seemed to be.

Todd the Moose said...

For the moment I'm not going to pick sides on the whole topic, but I just want to say that the name "switchfoot" really just came from a surfer term of riding in a diffrent stance. Since they are surfers they just thought it would be a cool name.

Luke said...

hey lem. you notice how much your page count rocketed?

btw, i think your summary is good, and right. nice job.

so... you make it back to RP ok?

Eric said...

Also, Switchfoot are stupid.

Eric said...

They're stupid because they nullified their selling point. I predict this will be the beginning of the end for them.

MalaBOOYAH said...

Todd: Good to know where their band name came from. I'm a Californian and I don't even know surfing terms. :P

Luke: I did notice that, but it's probably because I wrote "sex," "lust," and "porn" in this blog. Soooo wrong...

I don't think Eric likes Switchfoot that much. :)

Eric said...

No, I'm just being a troll:)

Phil said...

It's a sad fact, but when artists sign record labels with major companies, they lose control over the music they create. The music is owned by the label, and they can use it in whatever way they want.

Remember when Sony pulled a crap move and installed the copy-protection scheme on Switchfoot CDs? Switchfoot was pissed, but there was nothing they could do about it, since it wasn't their music anymore. (They did tell their fans how to break the copy-protection scheme, a move that was at the same time illegal and awesome.) Anyway, they got my approval and loads of respect from that.

I'm sure they're pretty disappointed about this. I wouldn't expect an official statement from the band right away since things work very very slowly in these kind of situations--you have to carefully consider your legal options....

Eric said...

Cool, my opinion of Switchfoot has improved.

MalaBOOYAH said...

I do remember that incident, Phil, and it's pretty much the only thing that's holding my respect for them right now. I'm just wishing and hoping for that statement one day. If it never happens and more things come up, I think I might just lose more and more respect for them.

Also, after several months of listening to Nothing is Sound, I again have come back to the old stuff and realized that it is better than their new stuff. Dang it, I was hoping that wouldn't happen. :P

Luke said...

as is so common... bands get worse over time. few (and amazing) exceptions, which escape me at the moment.

Anonymous said...

Since we're on the subject of music, here's a sober analysis of music in worship by Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, from "Pleasing God in Our Worship"
http://twoagespilgrims.com/files/show_article.php?id=15

Music In Worship

Of all the battles in the worship wars, the battle over music probably has been the most evident and the most emotional. Changes in the style of music have divided, frustrated, and even angered worshipers. Should we sing old hymns or praise choruses? Should the music be classical, traditional, folk, rock, contemporary, country and western, or what? Should we use organs and pianos, or guitars and drums? Is music exclusively for praise in the service, or does it have other functions as well? The amount of time given to music in many services has increased greatly. Some services begin with a lengthy time of singing called “praise and worship,” as if singing alone were worship and the rest of the service were something else.
What are we to make of these matters?
A change in music — whether to something older or newer — is difficult because most worshipers are not musicians and simply like what is familiar to them. Most worshipers are not motivated by some aesthetic theory, but by the emotional links they have to their familiar music. Because music so powerfully engages and expresses our emotions, it is not surprising that it is an emotional minefield for individuals and congregations.
As with all ways of worship, we must evaluate music in the first place biblically. We must stand back from our own experiences and preferences and ask again, “What pleases God?” We should recognize that not all music and praise pleases him. Think of the worship and praise that Israel offered to God in the wilderness at Mount Sinai. They made a golden calf, called it the Lord, and danced around it (Exod. 32:4-6). Such praise was an abomination to God and evoked his wrath! We must carefully seek what the Bible says about how we should praise the Lord and make music to him.
When we think of music in the worship of God, we are really thinking of three issues: 1) the words that we sing, 2) the tunes to which we sing those words, and 3) the instruments we might use to accompany the singing.
The Words We Sing
Of these three issues the first is the most important. The words we take upon our lips to sing to God must be true and pleasing to him. The Cambridge Declaration reminds us that one of the problems we face today is what we sing: “Pastors have neglected their rightful oversight of worship, including the doctrinal content of music.” How can we be sure that the words we sing please God? God has given us direction by giving us in the Bible a whole book as a model for what we are to sing. The Book of Psalms (which in Hebrew is entitled the Book of Praises) provides us with songs that God himself has inspired. The Psalms should at least function as the model for what we as Christians sing to God.
The Songs We Use
What do the Psalms teach about song? First, they remind us of the rich variety of songs that we can and should present to God. The Psalms contain joyful praise and thanksgiving. The Psalms are called the Book of Praises because they not only contain but also culminate in the praise of God (see especially Pss. 146—150.) But the Psalms contain more than praise. Some Psalms reflect on creation (for example, Pss. 19 and 104); others recount the great saving work of God in Christ (Pss. 2, 22, 24, and 110); still others meditate on the perfections of God’s revealed Word (especially Ps. 119). There are Psalms of lamentation and repentance (Pss. 32, 51, and 137) as well as Psalms that express the confusion and frustration that God’s people sometimes experience living in this fallen world (Pss. 44 and 73). John Calvin rightly observed about the Psalter, “There is not an emotion of which any one can be conscious that is not here presented as in a mirror.”
In some churches today it seems that only happy, joyful songs are sung. But joy is not the only emotion that Christians experience. Christian worship needs to provide times when sad or reflective emotions are expressed as well as happy ones. A variety of song texts, as we find them in the Psalter, are crucial for that purpose.
Second, the Psalms also model for us the substance of our singing. A few Psalms are short and have repetitive elements, but most are full, rich, profound responses to God and his work. Singing praise to God, the Psalter reminds us, is not just emotional expression, but a real engagement of the mind. Songs that are very repetitive or shallow and sentimental do not follow the model of the Psalter. The command to love God with all our mind must inform our singing. Mind and emotions together are the model of praise presented to us in the Psalms, and the modern church must work at restoring that union where it has been lost.
Once we recapture a proper sense of the texts we ought to sing, the other two issues about singing are relatively easy to resolve. What tunes shall we sing? We may use any tune that is singable for a congregation and that supports the content of the song. The tune should reflect the mood and substance of the song in light of the joy and reverence that are appropriate to worship. With those guidelines in mind (and a sensitivity to the congregation’s difficulty with change), the issue of tunes for songs should be resolved smoothly.
What Kind of Instruments?
What kind of musical accompaniment is biblical? In Old Testament worship a wide range of instruments was used in the worship of the temple. Yet in the worship of the church it appears that for almost the first thousand years of its history no instruments were used in Christian worship. Today most churches use one or more instruments. But where instruments are used, the instruments should aid the singing of the congregation, not overwhelm it. They should contribute to a deep spirit of reverence and joy, not undermine it.
Nowhere in the New Testament church are instruments clearly used for worship. They certainly have no central or independent role in worship. At most they should support the singing that the congregation is commanded to do. If that is their purpose, rock bands would be clearly inappropriate for Christian worship, but either an organ or a guitar might be used.
Music is a powerful and vital element in the worship life of God’s people. But precisely because it is so significant, we need to give careful thought to it. We must be sure that we are pleasing God and not entertaining ourselves. The temptation to turn worship into entertainment is great because as sinners we are much more inclined to be self-centered than God-centered. We are much more inclined to amuse ourselves than to serve God.