Straight Outta Compton grossed $60.2 million at the box office for its opening weekend and is now being seen as a possible Oscar contender. Deep inside I’m happy because I’m originally from Compton and the city is finally getting its due. At the same time one thought keeps flooding my mind: “How has the church handled the generation that has been shaped and influenced by this album?
When NWA first came out with their hit album, it defined the city and defined a generation. Straight Outta Compton changed the game. It talked of the street life in a way that was unheard of. The KRS-One sample from Gangsta Gangsta — “it’s not about a salary, it’s all about reality” — was the war cry of kids who were tired of not being heard. Black youth heard their frustrations as well as their joys voiced in the lyrics of Eazy-E and his cohorts.
Straight Outta Compton broadcast street culture not only to the rest of the nation but also to the world. It put hip-hop on the map but it also put the hood on the map. It made being gangsta and being a thug normal. What used to be seen as the underbelly of society was now being celebrated on the stage at award shows and even getting invited to the White House.
[styled_box title=”Ice Cube and Son on ‘Straight Outta Compton'” color=”black”]
[/styled_box]
With this newfound prominence, a whole generation began to see its own plight as something not to escape but to embrace. The hood was still a bad place, but it was something that was glamorized. It was something that could put food on the table. Thug culture and being gangster became part of the mainstream. At the same time, while all of this was going on, the church for the most part buried its head in the sand.
Now the children of gangster rappers are adults. This generation was not raised going to church. Even if they did go to church like me, they were also connected to the media and culture outside the church as well. The one thing that I have not seen is the church embracing this new generation and communicating the Gospel to them in a contextually relevant way.
This is a new generation. They don’t know all the hymns. They don’t know when to sit and when to stand. They don’t care about any titles a bishop or reverend may have. These kids were born during the crack era. Violence and drugs and explicit sexuality are normal for them.
The question is: Will they have a place in our houses of worship? Will we be able to speak their language? I’m not talking about faking an accent or using ridiculous slang as a forty-year-old. I’m talking about dealing with the issues that they have to deal with. In order to connect with this generation, we need to speak to the issues of sex, racism, drugs, and violence.
[styled_box title=”Ice Cube Talks About the Straight Outta Compton Movie in Detroit” color=”black”]
[/styled_box]
Whereas before the hip-hop era and especially before NWA, there was a bit of shame and guilt over the things that were said and done by the younger generation caught up in the street life, now these things have become a badge of honor and a rite of passage. It’s not just those who live in the actual geographical place called Compton. There are those who have embraced a “Straight Outta Compton” mentality in just about every urban center in America.
Now that the movie is out, it would be good for the leaders of the church to reflect on its widespread popularity and what the implications are for the church. Part of it is sin, but there are other aspects of the music and the film that appeal to something unique in us as humans. Maybe then the generation shaped and influenced by Straight Outta Compton will be shaped and influenced by the Kingdom of God.
Born in inner-city Detroit in 1956 at the beginning of the Civil Rights movement, Jerald January was a firsthand witness to the complicated process of social change. From his boyhood in a violent urban neighborhood to his calling to be a minister, January recounts his experiences with issues such as gang violence, school integration, discrimination, class distinction, and racial prejudice.
Rev. January discusses his own journey of faith and finding his calling to serve God in the midst of these struggles. His inspirational life story will touch your heart and encourage you to reflect on your own ways of dealing with life’s difficult circumstances. A Messed-Up Ride or a Dressed-up Walk will help you think deeper about getting where you need to be at the time God has appointed for you.
PureFlix Entertainment, a trusted name in faith-friendly movies, has an urban inspirational film called Do You Believe on the way to theatres.
Director Jon Gunn, recruited by producer Harold Cronk and screenwriters Cary Solomon and Chuck Konzelman (the trio behind the 2014 release God’s Not Dead) is bringing to life a multi-layered emotional journey with an ensemble cast, headlined by Cybill Shepherd (“Moonlighting”) Lee Majors (“The Fall Guy”) and Ted McGinley (“The West Wing”) and also featuring a bevy of accomplished actors and stars-in-waiting, including JJ Soria (The Fast & The Furious, “Army Wives”) Mira Sorvino (“Falling Skies”) Senyo Amoaku (The Expendables), Sean Astin (The Lord of the Rings), Delroy Lindo (“The Chicago Code”) Tracy Melchior (“The Bold & The Beautiful”), former UFC champion Mavrick von Haug, and rapper Shwayze.
In October, I traveled to Grand Rapids, Michigan for a meet-and-greet with several members of the cast and crew, and then visited the set, on location in sleepy Manistee (right off the coast of Lake Michigan), in order to get an insider view on how the film was coming along.
Full disclosure, the travel costs were covered by PureFlix and their promotional partners, so of course, I heard 48 hours of nonstop praise for the film. However, I have a pretty active layer of skepticism whenever I’m subjected to boilerplate marketing copy, and I still came away from the experience feeling pretty good about the movie’s prospects, not only as a successful commercial investment, but as a vehicle for evangelism.
Here are three reasons why…
1. It has a relatively diverse cast.
Borrowing from the Crash playbook requires a wider variety of characters than what we saw in God’s Not Dead, and it appears that with Do You Believe, we’ll get it. Cybill Shepherd and Lee Majors may be headlining as the graceful diva / elder statesman combo, but in the clips we saw and the cast that we heard from directly (as well as other cast referenced whose shooting schedules didn’t coincide with the set visit, such as the aforementioned Delrey Lindo), it seems like diversity is a priority in this picture. That doesn’t ensure greatness, of course, but for audiences who prioritize it, it’d be a reason for a second glance at the multiplex or the Redbox.
Ensemble films can be hit or miss, because they require a lot of story juggling and have less time for character development or plot exposition. But this one seems to be well cast. I’m particularly looking forward to seeing more of JJ Soria’s character, who is one of the film’s heroes, and who has an extended action sequence during the finale. The last time I saw a faith-based film with a strong Latino lead was Eduardo Verástegui in the 2007 indie film Bella. In the cast Q&A, Soria mentioned that he often turns down faith-friendly scripts because they’re too cheesy, but in this case, he made an exception. Here’s hoping that JJ Soria can keep building his faith-film curriculum vita.
2. The tone seems to be less combative than the previous film.
From the title itself to the poster art to the scripted showdowns between professor and student, God’s Not Dead clearly appealed to a subset of Christian audiences who are conservative, weary from being disparaged by secular press, and in the words of character Howard Beale from Network, “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.”
In this film, that strident feel seems a little toned down. The issues of Christian identity in the public square are still there – one of the characters’ life is turned upside down after sharing his faith in the middle of a work-related crisis – and they might still have the same thought-provoking result, but the clips that we saw didn’t seem to be as shrill or confrontational.
This bodes well for the film, because I’m sure the release date is designed to coincide with Easter and facilitate a massive campaign for churches to invite nonbelievers to the local multiplex for a screening of the film. Living in the Pacific Northwest, one of the most unchurched regions in the country, it’s been my experience that people who aren’t believers don’t like being lectured to onscreen.
3. Bigger budget, actual action sequences
The financial success of God’s Not Dead has given the filmmakers a larger margin of error, which has given them a bit more creative freedom to stage more of the kind of dramatic sequences with action and spectacle that are cost-prohibitive when filmmaking on a shoestring budget. Obviously, no one will mistake this film for a Michael Bay or Jerry Bruckheimer production, but the location of Manistee, MI seemed like an inspired choice, not only for its bucolic views and enthusiastic locals, but because many of the costs associated with staging and fabricating stunts and stunt vehicles can be done more inexpensively and with less red tape in small-town Michigan than in New York City or Los Angeles.
These three factors by themselves certainly do not ensure a successful film, either commercially or artistically. However, the sneak peek I got from PureFlix Entertainment makes me think that this spring, Christian audiences will be in for a treat.
Pastor Timothy Alden may be the only white pastor in the cast of “Preachers of Detroit” but that isn’t his most defining characteristic. UrbanFaith.com had a chance to talk with the Detroit born and raised pastor about how he sees himself, his hopes for the city of Detroit, the influence of reality TV and much more.
This interview was edited for length and clarity.
How has the move back to Detroit gone and what are the challenges you’ve faced with being on the show?
I still live in LA so I didn’t move physically back to Detroit. I’ve been going back and forth to Detroit because I have family there and I do ministry on and off at different churches and different events in Detroit. But, I definitely have been home more frequently. Some of the challenges of that have been just feeling the city, feeling what the city has been through, and then really committing to hoping there will be a comeback for Detroit.
Considering that Detroit is a city in a state of disrepair, what would you say are your specific hopes and dreams for the city especially as it pertains to your work and the show?
My passion in ministry has always been youth and I believe that when a city goes through the things that Detroit goes through, the ones that really catch the brunt of it, are the youth of the city. The youth having hope for a bright future, which is difficult living in Detroit with so much hopelessness surrounding them, is important. So my passion has really been how to reach the youth.
Do you have any specific ideas about how you want to do that?
Well I gear the message to young people at every church I go; everywhere I have an opportunity to speak I talk about young people about having vision, hope for the future. I also have a platform of abstinence that I preach to young people, I bring that message with me and it’s one that I model myself because I’m still a virgin and unmarried and committed to a life of abstinence and celibacy until I get married and I believe that’s a real important message for our youth with the statistics of STDs, teenage pregnancies, and high school dropouts. And that’s one of the important messages that I do stress when I have an opportunity to speak to them.
What is the practical advice that you give young people and your congregants on the regular about maintaining celibacy and abstinence in a culture such as we exist in?
That’s a great question and it’s one that I answer frequently because it is a message that’s targeted toward youth but it certainly applies to people of all ages. Basically it’s that we are all born with a purpose and we all have a reason for being on the planet and the relationships that we have should compliment that not serve as a distraction from that. There’s a scripture from the Bible that I use, “Without a vision the people perish,” and the word perish in the Hebrew translation means “they die for lack of discipline or their dreams and their hopes die for lack of discipline.” So to not get involved in the relationship in an intimate or serious way is a discipline issue. And how many people have gotten off track and maybe never gotten back on track as it relates to their education, their entrepreneurial dreams, their skills, their talents, how many have never developed themselves because they’ve invested a lot of time and energy into a relationship that they weren’t really ready for or that wasn’t really right for them.
So I just really teach people who, “You are complete as an individual, you don’t have to succumb to trying to be with somebody to get over your loneliness, you don’t have to succumb to the pressure of just getting with anybody or hooking up—as they say—because you’re feeling those temporary emotions like loneliness and heartache that you can push through it and focus on the bigger picture of where you want to be in your future and God will send the right people and the right person in a mate that will compliment that.
We have to know who we are before are ready to connect with someone on that intimate level.
Given your single and celibate status, are you going to be like the Bishop Noel Jones of Detroit?
Well there is another single pastor, there’s actually two of us. For myself I wouldn’t compare myself to Noel Jones or say that I’m going to be the Noel Jones of Detroit, I’m very different from the rest of the cast from Preachers of LA. This is a different show, it’s a unique show, a unique cast, a different city, a different flavor. So I think people are going to be surprised in a good way at the differences. I don’t think you can really compare any of the cast to the cast of Preachers of LA, it’s a completely different group of people who bring a different, unique perspective to the show.
What compels you to participate in a show such as “Preachers of Detroit” given what some people think is what can be or what is the negative influence of reality television?
That’s a good question. First of all I was in one episode of “Preachers of LA,” one episode in the last season, so I’m already familiar with the producers of show because the producer, Lemuel Plummer, is from Detroit and his dad is a pastor in Detroit. So I know his dad and I know him and when I was approached about “Preachers of Detroit,” being from Detroit, Lemuel thought it would be a good idea to bring me in as one of the cast members, considering that I am from there and I love the city and have a heart for the city. So when I agreed to do the show, I really listened to what their motivation was: to specifically highlight Detroit and how different this show was going to be, and that’s what encouraged me to commit to doing it.
As far as the negativity of reality TV, I think that reality TV itself isn’t negative, it could be some of what is portrayed on reality TV that could be considered negative. So I wanted to be a positive contributor to reality TV since it does have such a huge platform in our culture today, I really felt impressed to bring a different message other than what people have seen, typically, in reality television.
Many would say that a pastor participating in a show, even about pastors, is slipping into being of the world instead of in the world. So what is your response to those types of detractors?
My response has been, because I’ve heard that, the Scripture talks about us being “salt and light” and being “a city sat on a hill” and I really believe it’s time for the church to come out of the four walls and the stained glass windows and really speak to culture and spark some important conversations. Of course my story is unique in a lot of ways with abstinence, virginity, and celibacy…I was adopted by an African-American family and that’s going to be part of the story of the show as well. So it gives me an opportunity to speak about some issues that need to have a bigger platform as far as the conversation is concerned. I think the church has been happy with just TBN and some smaller Christian networks, but I believe God is opening a great opportunity for us to bring something to a bigger audience, not just church and religious people. Jesus was often accused of hanging out with sinners and hanging out with people who the religious Pharisees of the day thought that he shouldn’t be with and he definitely impacted the culture in a very profound way by being with people who some people thought he shouldn’t be hanging out with, those kind of people.
What is your relationship like with other pastors on the show?
Well me being born and raised in Detroit, I’m familiar with most of the cast already, some of them I’ve had personal interaction with, some of them I’ve not. But you’ll see a really unique group of people come together and it’ll be very unique to see how we relate to each other and how we get to know each other on another level. I think this is what’s going to make the show really good.
What was your experience like being adopted by an African-American family, when did that happen and what does that mean that you are the lone white pastor in the midst of this community of black pastors on the show?
Well I’ll say as a teenager, experiencing some things in my biological family which of course was the opening for me to really be introduced to a culture where I found an overwhelming amount of love and acceptance from a teenager on up into adulthood, it impacted my life just the way I was embraced and loved and received just blew me away. So people who look different from you and aren’t necessarily blood related but love you just the same, that’s been the stabilizing factor, that made a difference in my life, that was the most impactful thing.
The other part of your question about being the white pastor, I kind of don’t see myself as being a white pastor because I was born and raised in Detroit. I’m really with people who I’m used to being with. Of course I know other people looking on the outside will see that, but I’m very comfortable with it. With the show, with Detroit, it’s so unique because it brings a different flavor to the cast. We have two women on the show as well. So it’s going to be very unique to see the cast in its uniqueness. I am a white pastor but I’m not a typical white guy and people will see that and it will open up the door to talk about an important conversation that we need to have in our nation regarding race and racial reconciliation.
On the topic of racial reconciliation, what are you hoping to communicate?
I think what I would like people to see, with my life in general, is that love really has no color, it’s just one layer of skin that separates us. Underneath that skin we’re all the same and we all need love and acceptance and it can happen to people who are different from another. Our diversity really makes us stronger, and a lot of the problems and issues we see in our culture is because people are divided.
On your church website you mention the gift of prophecy and the accuracy of your prophecy. What does being a prophet mean to you and will we see some of that gifting released on the show?
Well there’s a variety of things you will see on the show, some services in there, some more personal sides. I don’t know that the show is going to necessarily highlight that aspect of my ministry.
What I think is important about prophecy and being an important gift is that the Bible says that the church is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and those gifts are often misunderstood and misrepresented or not represented at all. And the thing that’s unique about a prophet or flowing in a prophetic gift is it’s not necessarily something that comes from your head. Or if, like, I’m teaching a message I can study ahead of time, I can have an outline, I can have scriptures, and I can have Greek and Hebrew words defined. But when I minister to a person, and something is revealed to me that I didn’t know about that person, and it’s something that ministers to them and they know that it had to be God to expose that because they know I don’t know them, then it just really builds the faith of the individual that receives the ministry. It’s kind of like knowing God is really real because I know this person doesn’t know this about me.
Welcome to Part 2 of Testifyin’ or Signifyin’, an analysis of whether the many choir appearances and Christian allusions presented at the Grammy Awards were doing good work or perpetrating a fraud. As a reminder, here is the scale that I based my assessment on:
-Artistic style points: How does the choir enhance or detract from the overall experience?
-Social buzz: Did it look like a stunt to get attention, or was it a naturally buzzworthy performance?
-The faith factor: Does the song sound like an authentic expression of faith?
-Special circumstances: Is there anything else that elevates or detracts? Is there a certain je ne sais quoi about the musical performance?*
From this thoroughly biased, quasi-scientific process,** each song was given an appropriation index, and a final verdict. Is the choir appearance in this song one that testifies to the goodness of God, or is it signifyin’ – playfully insulting the faithful with irreligious or profane imagery?
Let’s go (back) to the tape!
Pharrell, “Happy”
Appropriation index: 3
Pharrell performing “Happy” at the 2015 Grammy Awards.
I give him one thing right off the top – Pharrell Williams is nothing if not eclectic. And considering how ubiquitous his hit was in 2014, you knew that for this special night, he was going to have to do something different.
And different, it was.
From the dramatic spoken word opening (interpreted in various foreign languages) to the string-heavy orchestral accompaniment, to the impressive solo from Chinese pianist Lang Lang, to the phalanx of players, dancers and singers accessorized in white, black and yellow, it seemed like the production was designed to elicit gasps every 30 seconds. By the end of the song, I was expecting military helicopters to detonate the roof so that a UFO could abduct Pharrell with a beam of light, “Close Encounters” style.
Ironically, the one emotion this song didn’t seem to really capture was happiness. The first chorus was in a minor key, and hearing the sound of the choir belting out the words about happiness to minor string arpeggios felt a little ominous. During the solo, his brown-skinned, black-hooded dancers, adopted the “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot” pose, which has become the universal sign of nonverbal protest against police brutality. That was great! I loved that he put that in there, but that’s not exactly a posture of happiness.
Matter of fact, It took almost four minutes for the arrangement to sound at all like the song we’ve all grown to like, love, and then get tired of.
So on the one hand, I give Pharrell a lot of credit for trying to endow more significance to a song that was initially just about being so happy that you don’t give a bleep what people think. On the other hand, I think his exuberance and willingness to jam so many ideas and images into one song made it feel chaotic and scattered. Whatever unity of message he was trying to deliver was sidetracked by the variety of spectacle and the thematic disconnect between interpersonal happiness and societal injustice.
But those yellow-sequined shoes, those were kinda fly. Was that enough to make up for the existential crisis we all witnessed? It’s hard to say.
The verdict: BOTH TESTIFYIN’ AND SIGNIFYIN’
Beyoncé, “Take my Hand, Precious Lord”
Appropriation score: 1.5
Beyonce performing “Precious Lord, Take My Hand” at the 2015 Grammy Awards.
Okay, so here’s the thing.
Beyoncé sang “Precious Lord, Take My Hand,” accompanied by a choir of tuxedoed black men. It’s the same song that the Mahalia Jackson was famous for singing, widely reported as Dr. King’s favorite.
As Kevin Bacon said in A Few Good Men, these are the facts, and they are indisputable.
But if you were on social media at all during the telecast on Sunday night, then you know this much already. And you’ve likely heard a hundred different takes, all clustered around two basic questions – did she do the song justice, and/or should someone else have been invited – namely Ledisi, who played Mahalia Jackson in Selma, and who’s garnered a reputation of her own as an incredible soul singer.
Here’s my take.
I think she did a nice job. Not a great job, but a good one. I would’ve preferred Ledisi do it, but it’s obvious that eyeballs rule when television decisions are being made, and no one can deny that Ledisi wouldn’t deliver anywhere near the number of eyeballs as Queen Bey.
That said, it was clear from her performance that the song was meaningful to her, and just in case the performance wasn’t convincing, she also had someone cut a brief rehearsal documentary to talk about why she wanted to do it and why she had a choir of black men up there with her. In it, she mentions the struggles her parents and grandparents faced, and she talks about how she wanted to sing from their pain.
I think that’s an admirable goal, but slightly misguided. Struggle and pain are not exactly synonymous with the Beyoncé brand. Not that she doesn’t have problems like the next person, but, well, no, she doesn’t. Not that she doesn’t have problems, but they’re not like the next person’s. (I’m resisting the obvious Jay-Z joke there.)
So yeah, it looks a little hypocritical to win a Grammy for “Drunk In Love” and then get up to sing that song. She certainly had a right to do it, and it made plenty of good business sense to do it, but I think it would’ve been classier to at least share the stage with Ledisi. Especially with her sheer, flowing quasi-wedding dress look, the whole thing just looked a little self-indulgent. The tenor of the performance was grounded enough overall that the whole thing still went relatively well. But, in this case, she needed the choir a lot more than the choir needed her. I could’ve just watched the choir by itself and been fine.
Also, I could’ve lived without a few of her runs, and maybe a little less of her rapid vibrato.
The verdict: TESTIFYIN’ (mostly)
John Legend featuring Common, “Glory”
Appropriation score: 0
What’s a zero appropriation score mean? It means they brought it.
Common & John Legend performing “Glory” at the 2015 Grammy Awards.
The rap bars were passionate and on-point. The lyrics were full of Scriptural references that embodied the struggle for civil rights. And, more than anything else, it seemed that both Common and John Legend, in their respective rhyming and crooning, were using their voices as proxies for the collective whole, not grabbing the spotlight for themselves.
And the choir was perfect. Dignified, but still full of fighter’s passion. Restrained, but pulsating with rhythmic intensity. As Common’s wordplay danced between the staccato bows of the strings, and John Legend’s plaintive wails echoed against his stark piano chords, the choir continued to respond to their call. Purely aesthetically, it was amazing.
But most importantly, the song seemed to echo God’s truth for all people – that we long for the Lord’s coming because His return will usher in a new era of justice and peace. And in that judgment, on that cataclysmic day, we will not only see the Lord’s glory, but we’ll be able to partake in it.
What I loved most about the arrangement was the very end, right when it looked like it was over, the strings kept playing as the lights dimmed on the two soloists, and the last moment left was the voice of the choir, vicariously standing in for all of us who yearn for His return, proclaiming in one voice:
“Glory.”
The verdict: TESTIFYING!!! (add more exclamation points as needed)
But that’s just my take, what’s yours? Leave it in the comments.
Note:
*Yes, I realize the irony of borrowing a French expression in an article about cultural appropriation. Welcome to America.
** In this case, “quasi-scientific” is a euphemism for “not at all scientific.”
Signifying… it’s one of the many terms that people have used for the historically black pastime of tossing playful insults back and forth, also known across generations as “cappin’,” “playin’ the dozens,” “stingin’,” et cetera. And testifying…well, if you’ve been to a black church, you know what testifying is. And chances are, that testifyin’ happened while a black church choir was present, swaying, clapping, and generally responding to the call flowing forth from the preacher or soloist.
This is probably how Beyoncé, John Legend, Katy Perry, Sam Smith, Madonna, Mary J. Blige, and Pharrell first learned it. Because if you were a musician blessed with enough good fortune to perform at the 2015 GRAMMY Awards, chances are, you probably had a black choir or vocal ensemble back you up. (Notice I didn’t say gospel choir…it may be semantics but I reserve the word gospel for actual gospel music.)
Not that this is a recent phenomenon. Pop artists have adorned their live sets with choirs for years. It can amp up the dramatic element, and makes for a great visual. However, anytime entertainment reaches this level of influence and scale, the politics of identity are unavoidable. In particular, artists – especially white artists – tend to open themselves up to the charge of cultural appropriation when using black choirs as backup singers. More often than not, the appearance of a choir endows the music with a sense of spirituality, even when the lyrics are less-than-spiritual in nature.
And yet, cultural appropriation is never just a black-and-white matter. Plenty of white, popular artists have no problem takin’ it to church, and some black artists do it and end up looking less-than-stellar. For a variety of reasons, some choir appearances work better than others. And in this GRAMMY celebration, it seemed like there was an undercurrent of spirituality, even stronger than in recent years. Even songs like “By the Grace of God” and “Take Me to Church,” while not having choirs per se, still carried an air of churchiness not usually seen on this stage.
So in order to make some sense of things, I took all the Grammy musical performances that involved choirs or had significant Christian imagery, and rated them for the following characteristics:
-Artistic style points: How does the choir enhance or detract from the overall experience?
-Social buzz: Did it look like a stunt to get attention, or was it a naturally buzzworthy performance?
-The faith factor: Does the song sound like an authentic expression of faith?
-Special circumstances: Is there anything else that elevates or detracts? Is there a certain je ne sais quoi about the musical performance?*
From this thoroughly biased, quasi-scientific process,** each song was given an appropriation index, and a final verdict. Is the choir appearance in this song one that testifies to the goodness of God, or is it signifyin’ – playfully insulting the faithful with irreligious or profane imagery?
Let’s go to the tape!
Katy Perry, “By the Grace of God”
Appropriation Index: 7.5
Not gonna lie, this song surprised me. I was only familiar with a few selections from the Katy Perry catalog, so I expected either something really saccharine and overwrought (like pretty much anything by Celine Dion) or something really cold and distant (like Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah”). Instead, what I heard felt, at first listen, like an instant classic, a song worthy of the main stage. As I listened, I couldn’t help comparing it to Carrie Underwood’s “Jesus, Take the Wheel,” especially because of the way it was staged. The white dress and the white backdrop with the interpretive dance behind, it all seemed very classy and polished, like the kind of production you might’ve seen from CeCe Winans in the late 90s. Though there was no choir, there were some really sweet background vocals toward the end, like maybe Katy Perry’s road manager hired a couple of the ladies from either Virtue or En Vogue, but just for one song.
Although I figured it didn’t have an explicitly gospel message, I knew it was preceded by an important message from President Obama about domestic violence, so I was ready to receive Katy Perry’s uplifting message about escaping — wait, what? The last line of the refrain begins, “so I decided to stay”??? Is this a song about leaving an abusive relationship, or staying in an abusive relationship? Does she move out of the apartment but still stay in the neighborhood? I’m so confused.
As someone who has never dealt with domestic violence, I don’t feel especially qualified to assess the moral validity of a domestic violence anthem. That said, if the emotional climax of a song about domestic abuse leaves open the question of whether such abuse should continue, that seems pretty unsatisfying. And if you prefer the sunnier interpretation, that it’s just about difficulty in a long-term relationship, then why precede it with stern words from No. 44?
I’ve since listened to the song three times in a row, and while I love that grace is at the center of it, the overall meaning of the song still feels unclear. It seems less like Katy Perry is embracing the mystery and ambiguity inherent in the pursuit of authentic Christian faith, and more like she tried to write a song that people on both sides of the issue would like. That feels dishonest, lame, and sadly, it’s exactly what I would expect from an artist of her caliber – a shame, because the song really does sound beautiful.
The verdict: SIGNIFYIN’ (barely)
Sam Smith featuring Mary J. Blige, “Stay With Me”
Appropriation Index: 4
A quick word about the Appropriation Index – the higher the number, the more appropriation has taken place, which in my view, is hardly appropriate (how ironic). And again, because I was unfamiliar with Sam Smith, I did not know what to expect. And like the Katy Perry tune, I was pleasantly surprised.
I was also surprised when I read the lyrics, because I had no idea what the song was really about until it was almost over. I don’t know how I missed it – the very first line refers to a one-night stand. I guess I was won over by the simplicity of the chorus, which was carried by Smith first, then by Mary J. Blige, and finally a very stately sounding choir. Soulful, but not too far out there.
The choir helped it to pass one of my appropriation tests – could you sing it in church with a straight face? If I didn’t know this was a Sam Smith song, and someone made a few tactful edits to the verse, I’d say yes, absolutely, and put it in the same corner of gospel-influenced hits as Foreigner’s “I Want to Know What Love Is.” You could easily pair this song with a reading from Psalm 51, and it would be powerful.
And honestly, now that I know that it’s about the self-loathing sense of desperation after a tryst, it feels even more honest and resonant. Because who among us can call out to God for help from a place of complete blamelessness?
But I could’ve done without quite so many goo-goo eyes between Sam and Mary J.
The verdict: TESTIFYIN’
Hozier featuring Annie Lenox, “Take Me to Church”
Appropriation Index: 8
This was a hard one to review, because I really like Annie Lennox (I use Eurythmics’ “Sweet Dreams” as a go-to karaoke jam) but I’d never heard of Hozier and all I knew about the song beforehand was the title.
Speaking of which, let’s talk about this title. Now, I realize that white people go to church. But white people, by and large, do not take it to church, musically speaking. No judge on American Idol is ever going to remark to a soloist, “boy, you really took us to church… I mean, a typical Midwest Lutheran church, that is. Your performance was perfunctory and unemotional.” Like, people don’t do that.
So between the combination of all the tweets and Facebook statuses I saw about how Annie Lennox “killed it,” “shut it down,” etc, and the title of the song, I was ready for some good ol’ fashioned chuuch.
And then I actually listened to the song.
Ummm… no.
In “Take Me to Church,” Hozier does what plenty of others have done before him in order to get a rise from the audience, he uses sacred words and imagery to paint a very dark picture. Even if you ignore the original video depicting a same-sex relationship (odd since the lyrics are written by a man about a woman), the lyrics are pretty antagonistic toward faith in general:
Take me to church / I’ll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies
I’ll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife
Offer me that deathless death / Good God, let me give you my life
This song is like the sonic equivalent of Andres Serrano’s urine-soaked crucifix. It’s bold, provocative, and to most Christians, patently offensive. I personally wasn’t offended, but I was disappointed. Not that God couldn’t use it, of course… He can use anything. This particular bluesy-rock medley was long on emotion, for sure, but short on anything that resembled spiritual truth.
Though it does explain why Annie Lennox, in her cameo appearance, segued into “I Put A Spell On You.” If you’re gonna do the anti-Christian thing, you might as well go all out.
The verdict: SIGNIFYIN’
Madonna, “Living for Love”
Appropriation Index: 9.5
The appropriation index is probably a little high for just this song, but you have to take the context into the matter. Madonna has made a career out of flouting the rules of the religious establishment. She took her stage name from the virginal mother of God, and her first hit was about how sex with her new boyfriend makes her feel “Like A Virgin.”
So it’s not like I didn’t know what to expect. And by her standards this was maybe even a little restrained, but that’s only because there was no cameo appearance of Dennis Rodman making out with Kim Jong-un. As it was, her major visual accompaniment was a fleet of glistening, masked topless men with bull horns affixed to their heads, leaping and undulating to the rhythm. Some people thought it looked satanic, I just thought it was rather bizarre.
As for the song itself, I actually liked it, somewhat. It was a bouncy anthem, fun and fresh feeling, much like, “Like A Prayer.” The choir came out at the end, clad in bright red robes, clapping and swaying. Thankfully by that point, Madonna was done with her more salacious pelvic thrusts, but still, the disconnect between how much they were wearing and and how little she was wearing was still a little jarring.
Also, I did find it odd that the song is called “Living for Love” when the lyrics make it clear it’s actually a break-up song. The overall message of the song appears to be, I’m living for love, and since I’m not getting enough from you, I’m outta here. But you wouldn’t know that from the chorus or the vamp, which consists mostly of the phrases “I’m living for love” and “I’m not giving up.”
It’s as if the two parts of the song were written by two people in separate rooms who couldn’t communicate until after the song was over.
“I can’t do this anymore!”
“What?! I thought we weren’t giving up?!”
The verdict: SIGNIFYIN’ (like a mug)
But that’s just my take, what’s yours? Leave it in the comments, and be sure to come back tomorrow for part two where I will take on Pharrell’s “Happy,” Beyonce’s “Take My Hand, Precious Lord,” and John Legend & Common’s “Glory.”
Notes:
*Yes, I realize the irony of borrowing a French expression in an article about cultural appropriation. Welcome to America.
** In this case, “quasi-scientific” is a euphemism for “not at all scientific.”
On Thursday night the first trailer for “Selma” premiered to much fanfare. The Ava Duvernay directed film is based on the 1965 Selma to Montgomery voting rights marches lead by Hosea Williams, and Martin Luther King, Jr., and John Lewis. Among the heavy-hitters starring in the film are Oprah Winfrey, Carmen Ejogo, David Oyelowo, Common, Wendell Pierce, and Tessa Thompson. From the dramatic trailer alone it is clear that this film will be an Oscar contender–and if it isn’t we might have another march to organize. But in all seriousness, the trailer is gripping and worth a few views and shares. Check it out.
The film will be on limited release on Christmas Day and extend into wide release in January 2015.
A Messed-Up Ride or a Dressed-Up Walk 
Not gonna lie, this song surprised me. I was only familiar with a few selections from the Katy Perry catalog, so I expected either something really saccharine and overwrought (like pretty much anything by Celine Dion) or something really cold and distant (like Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah”). Instead, what I heard felt, at first listen, like an instant classic, a song worthy of the main stage. As I listened, I couldn’t help comparing it to Carrie Underwood’s “Jesus, Take the Wheel,” especially because of the way it was staged. The white dress and the white backdrop with the interpretive dance behind, it all seemed very classy and polished, like the kind of production you might’ve seen from CeCe Winans in the late 90s. Though there was no choir, there were some really sweet background vocals toward the end, like maybe Katy Perry’s road manager hired a couple of the ladies from either Virtue or En Vogue, but just for one song.
A quick word about the Appropriation Index – the higher the number, the more appropriation has taken place, which in my view, is hardly appropriate (how ironic). And again, because I was unfamiliar with Sam Smith, I did not know what to expect. And like the Katy Perry tune, I was pleasantly surprised.
This was a hard one to review, because I really like Annie Lennox (I use Eurythmics’ “Sweet Dreams” as a go-to karaoke jam) but I’d never heard of Hozier and all I knew about the song beforehand was the title.
The appropriation index is probably a little high for just this song, but you have to take the context into the matter. Madonna has made a career out of flouting the rules of the religious establishment. She took her stage name from the virginal mother of God, and her first hit was about how sex with her new boyfriend makes her feel “Like A Virgin.”