[an old article, finally published; broken links have been noted]
The Problem
And no one pours the new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the Wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for he says, ‘The old is better.’
(Luke 5:37-39 [niv])
I first stumbled upon Christian ‘Parody’ Music (my quotes) from a link a friend posted on Facebook, which sent me to a Nativity puppet show video with music that appeared to be a reworking of Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody”. At first I was entranced; after all, I’d greatly enjoyed the Muppets rendition of the original tune, and have always had a special place in my heart for cover songs of all sorts and genres. But as I watched the amateur and amateurish production, a vague sense of disquiet and unease began to envelop me, a disturbance in the Force (if you will) the like I’d not felt since first learning about Furries. No it wasn’t the odd “Jesus Loves You” Web site, with its ads for a Christian dating service promising (from Psalms 37:4) “Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.” Nor was it the singles net.com banner above the video, the buxom woman in her pink halter top leaning expectantly against her bed a contrast to the sepia-toned chiseled Christians meaningfully gazing at each other in the first ad. No, it was the music. As the video continued, the pedestrian puppetry paled against the polished soundtrack which appeared to precisely mirror Queen’s original music, with raucous guitar breaks and languorous dripping notes; only the lyrics had been changed, perhaps to protect the innocents.
Consider, for example, the opening lines of this “Bethlehemian Rhapsody”:
Is this the real birth?
Is it Nativity?
Caught in a census,
In the town of his ancestry.
Open your eyes,
Look up to the skies & see…
He’s just a poor boy, foretold by prophecy
Because the wise men come, wise men go,
Angels high, shepherds low;
This is how God’s love shows,
It’s a wondrous story to me, to me.
The changed lyrics are cute, one might even say clever, but my sense of misgiving grew stronger as the song continued. By the time the puppet manger dropped haltingly from the rafters (a scene I don’t recall from my Bible), and the closing words — “This is how God’s love shows” — rang out, my initial enthusiasm had waned, replaced by a sense of uncleanness.
Wishing to know more about this oddity, I uncovered a plethora of examples and references to “Christian Parody” (so-called) music. Apparently a large subculture of earnest believers have spent many hours taking popular tunes and eviscerating their lyrics, replacing the original words with homely homilies and doctrinal doggerel about this or that biblical story. Perhaps the biggest generator of this denatured rock is ApologetiX, with over perhaps a score of albums released since the band’s formation in 1992. ApologetiX has their own ‘version’ of “Bethlehemian Rhapsody” — two, in fact — telling the story of David and Goliath rather than the Nativity tale.[1] The band’s oeuvre includes doctrinally safe versions of “Should I Stay Or Should I Go?” by The Clash, “Stacy’s Mom” by Fountains of Wayne, and “The Real Slim Shady” by Eminem — along with literally hundreds of re-lyricked songs from the pop charts of the past five decades.[2]
And there are more, many more, examples of this displeasing ‘genre’. Besides Mark Bradford’s “Bethlehemian Rhapsody” which initiated my descent into this underworld of feebly copied praise music, YouTube abounds with exemplars of this unholy artifice. Dan Smith provides a faux-hip faux-rap video for his “Baby Got Book” to accompany the music from Sir Mix-A-Lot’s classic “Baby Got Back”. Beyoncé’s “Single Ladies” has been reworked into a plea for abstinence (keeping the same title). Churches across the land are performing and posting reworked songs by Green Day, Katy Perry, Coldplay, Bruno Mars, Lil’ Wayne, and Lady Gaga. Not even a band with the unpalatable (one imagines, to those committing these misdeeds) name of LMFAO is safe, as their “Party Rock Anthem” has been reworked by one Joshua Goodwin into the oddly dispiriting “Party Praise Anthem”, with such lifeless lyrics as
Praisin’ God is in the house tonight.
Everybody just raise Him on high.
And we goin’ praise Him ’til we die.
There is also the “largest Christian Parodies site on the Internet”, parodeities.org [link no longer works; archived link], [no longer] maintained on the servers of UC Riverside. Its mission statement:
There is no such thing as “Christian Music” Only Christian lyrics.[sic] This site is dedicated to giving a lot of songs the lyrics God originally intended for them.
The Parodeities site gives a home to thousands of song-poems generated by earnest reworkers for Christ, the new and holier words meant to be sung “to the tune of” actual songs, created by actual musicians.
But let me back up a moment. I’ve just said some pretty negative words about this demi-creative enterprise, calling Christian Parody songs an “unholy artifice”. What is it about these imitations of music which distresses, which depresses me so? Is it the derivative nature of the work, the fact that people are profiting from the creative labors of artists upon whose shoulders they cling dwarf-like and righteous? Perhaps I have a bias against Christian music, homiletics, apologetics, and all the appurtenances of the modern Church.[3] Maybe I have a moral or biblical issue with these ‘songs’, a sense of some great wrong being committed under the banner of the greatest good. Whatever the case, the sense of unquiet at my original exposure to Bradford’s substitute for Queen’s “Bismillah!” chorus[4] — “Hey Herod — No! he will not let him live — better go!” — has only grown deeper and darker as my exposure to these travesties has increased. Some dark deviltry is at work at the heart of these so-called Christian ‘Parodies’, which I hope to exorcise in the course of this essay, at least from my own spirit.
Legal Issues
Like a partridge that hatches eggs it did not lay
are those who gain riches by unjust means.
(Jeremiah 17:11 [niv])
Much of the debate (and there is a great deal of debate; at times the ApologetiX FAQ reads more like apologetics for ApologetiX rather than for Christ) about ‘parody’ Christian music on the sites dedicated to the same revolves around the word ‘parody’ itself. This is because the commercial appropriation of others’ music is legal in the United States only if it falls within the bounds of ‘fair use’ of copyrighted material, and labeling the derivative work a ‘parody’ is the strongest case that the new version actually qualifies as ‘fair use’. Before examining whether Christian ‘Parody’ music actually qualifies as a ‘parody’, let’s look first into the sometimes byzantine world of copyright law.
Copyright and othe intellectual property compel a lot of attention today, as a sea change in technology has made the reproduction and transmission of audio and visual materials possible on a scale unimagined by our forebears. Just as movable type transformed forever our relations to words and images, so too does the ability to reproduce perfectly sound, film, and software herald a fundamental shift in human relations to what were once the most evanescent creations: artistic performances. Where once a man or woman would have to travel to see a play or concert, now we can carry our music with us wherever we go, and that portability seems unstrange. Even as the RIAA and MPAA new MPAA link lead the charge against ‘piracy’, there is a sense that some djinn has escaped from his bottle and we must wait to see just what has been unleashed.
In the 16th Century, the idea of copyright arose simultaneously with widespread institutional censorship which culminated in the Catholic Church’s Index of Prohibited Books. The new technology of the printing press had led to an explosion of works attacking government or religion, and the insistence that published works receive ‘prior consent’ from the powers-that-be led to “the modern laws of printers’ ‘privilege’ and copyright”.[5] The nascent United States was to eschew censorship in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but only after the Constitutional Convention had made its pronouncement on copyright law. The U.S Constitution states that “The Congress shall have Power”
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 8, cl. 8)
Upon these twenty-seven deceptively simple words all U.S. copyright and patent law rests. Though this is often referred to as the “Intellectual Property Clause” of the Constitution, the words “intellectual property” do not appear; nor do “copyright” or “patent”.
We notice, first off, that the Constitution doesn’t declare what copyright is, only that the Congress has the power to define it through its legislative acts. And though through the first half of the American republic’s existence most of the sexiness of this clause was to be found in the workings of the Patent Office, with claims of prior work for brilliant insights sharing shelf space with perpetual motion machines, over the past century the extension of intellectual property rights has accelerated as technology has found new and powerful ways to capture intellectual acts. The original idea of securing the rights of authors dates back to Great Britain’s Statute of Anne of 1709 (enacted in 1710). The English law gave an author exclusive rights to license or publish his work for a period of fourteen years, with the option to renew for another fourteen. This same period of 14 + 14 was used in the United States’ Copyright Act of 1790 (the year after the ratification of the Constitution), though this time period was repeatedly extended by Congress over the years. The current law, with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act in 1978, now provides an author these exclusive rights for his entire lifetime, plus 70 years.[6] Corporations who generate creative works (wherein the authors are presumed to have produced the work “for hire”) have these exclusive rights for 120 years from its creation, or 95 years from its first publication, whichever is shorter.
The competing idea of ‘fair use’ existed only in common law until relatively recently. The general principle is that there should be some extent to which copyrighted creative works could be cited or quoted to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts” as envisioned in the Constitution. Most of the case law, however, stemmed from exploitative efforts of publishers taking large extracts of a published work and selling it as their own, as in Folsom v Marsh, 9 F. Cas. 342 (C.C.D. Mass. 1841), where a twelve-volume biography was trimmed to a two-volume set without the consent of the author and published as a new work. In this seminal decision, the court ruled that four factors determined whether a citation of a copyrighted work was permissible. Those four factors were finally codified by the U.S. Congress with the passage of the Copyright Act of 1976, which stated
the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[7]
Unfortunately, “the fair use doctrine is one of the least predictable and doctrinally confused areas in copyright law”,[8] and rapidly evolving technological changes and vested interests in intellectual property make unlikely any sudden clarity in this area of jurisprudence. For our purposes, for example, the four-part checklist for fair use has been extended to more narrowly define how parodies may repurpose previously copyrighted works. Without a definition of the music we are looking at as “parody” these recordings — at least those offered for sale — would almost certainly fail the tests above, because
- the works are being sold,
- the music used is often if not expressly a direct copy of the original music,
- the entirety of the songs — with the sole exception of the lyrics — is copied over wholesale from the originals, and
- … well…
One might argue that the last point probably doesn’t apply, as few would argue that Christian ‘Parody’ music is likely to be confused with the originals, and in any case is not likely to draw sales awy from the originals. It is a point to which we shall return. However, the fair use doctrine does not require all four points be upheld against the defendant, but rather supposes a more nuanced assessment of the effect of all these points taken as a whole. Without the ‘parody’ defense, most of the commercial Christian ‘Parody’ works would seem to fall outside fair use — certainly the slew of albums by ApologetiX violates these standards if they are not comprised of parodies.[9]
Parody status is critical because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that repurposing another piece of music as a “parody” is fair use under the law. The Court’s ruling came in the landmark case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.,[10] in which the Supremes ruled that 2 Live Crew’s appropriation of Roy Orbison’s classic “Oh, Pretty Woman” qualified as fair use in spite of the fact that it was a commercial release, because the rap group’s version — titled “Pretty Woman” — was a parody of the original. The case had bubbled up to the highest court’s docket after the copyright holder of Orbison’s song had lost its original suit, only to win upon appeal when the Sixth Circuit overturned the first finding of fair use saying that “every commercial use … is presumptively … unfair.”
There are several interesting things to note about the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case, which is the lynchpin of most arguments about the legality of merchandised Christian ‘Parody’ music. So axial, in fact, is this case to “parody apologetics” that not only does Apologetix highlight the case on their FAQ page defending the legality of their “parodies”, but some anonymous editors have made sure the Wikipedia page about the band contains a link to the article about the Supreme Court case on the same encyclopedia site. The unanimous opinion of the Court, written by Justice Souter, states that
It is uncontested here that 2 Live Crew’s song would be an infringement of Acuff-Rose’s rights in “Oh, Pretty Woman,” under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. §106 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV), but for a finding of fair use through parody.
The justices found that the Court of Appeals erred in finding a presumption of illegal use due to the commercial nature of the work. Instead the Supreme Court decided that a more nuanced review of all pertinent factors on a case by case basis was necessary to determine whether a re-use, parody or not, fell into the category of fair use. They thus did not replace an assumption of guilt due to money-making with a presumption of innocence due to the fact of parody:
Like a book review quoting the copyrighted material criticized, parody may or may not be fair use, and petitioners’ [2 Live Crew, basically] suggestion that any parodic use is presumptively fair has no more justification in law or fact that the equally hopeful claim that any use for news reporting should be presumed fair.
So finally we come to the point of examining whether Christian ‘Parody’ music is actual parody or not. As we have seen, this may not be enough to give it legal status under fair use guidelines, but the absence of parody in these works would seemingly indicate their illegality — the commercial examples, at least — given their wholesale appropriation of all of the originals save the changed lyrics.
Let us be clear, before turning to definitions of parody, that much of the mass of amateur Christian ‘parody’ music is not meant to be sold, is written by poetasters in mimicry of the success of ApologetiX and a few other practitioners of this ‘art’ who do sell their works. These “works” unintended for sale do not fall under the purview of the Copyright Act of 1976[11] if they remain the futile scribblings of wannabe Christian rock stars. Thus, in the sections to follow examing legality and morality, we chall concentrate on the Christian ‘Parody’ music works offered for sale, and in particular those of ApologetiX, as that band quite frankly (if not always intelligibly) basks in the glow of legality through parody.
What Does “Parody” Mean in Christian ‘Parody’?
Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air. Undoubtedly there are all sorts of languages in the world, yet none of them is without meaning. If then I do not grasp the meaning of what someone is saying, I am a foreigner to the speaker, and he is a foreigner to me. So it is with you. Since you are so eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church.
(1 Corinthians 14:9-12 [niv])
One might assume that it would be easy to decide if this music under discussion were parody or not: look up the word in the dictionary and see if it meets the definition found there. Unfortunately, on this point the Christian ‘Parody’ apologists seem to tergiversate and cavil — perhaps not unexpected among people who might argue NIV versus KJV all day, only agreeing that the NKJV made too many unnecessary and unindicated changes to the scripture. There is an elusive quibble about just what the word “parody” means, which no amount of discussion seems to remove. All the apologists for this ‘genre’ agree that parodies involve reworking an original work, but the discussion tends either to pivot around specific words found in parody definitions (as if this antonomasia can replace the whole), or to fall upon particular aspects of ‘parody’ as it is defined legally (as if the copycat wolves were falling upon the Assyrian fold of sheep-like songs with their lawyers in the van). An interesting though ultimately distracting argument is brought up about legends and rumors of repurposed bar tunes crafted into hymns, with one or two real examples and a huge stress upon the ‘parody masses’ of the 16th Century.[12] But the most troubling aspect of the entire discussion is the removal of humor, and convoluted arguments seek to explain this deficit by explaining that the introduction of serious topics into popular tunes seems funny to the unbelievers, as we shall see.
But before turning to the equivocating explications, let us look at the definitions of parody found in the Oxford English Dictionary:
1. A composition in prose or verse in which the characteristic turns of thought and phrase in an author or class of authors are imitated in such a way as to make them appear ridiculous, especially by applying them to ludicrously inappropriate subjects; an imitation of a work more or less closely modeled on the original, but so turned as to produce a ridiculous effect. Also applied to a burlesque of a musical work.
2. A poor or feeble imitation, a travesty.
While I may be arguing that it is the second definition which most fits the examples of Christian ‘Parody’ music I have listened to, it is the first definition — more or less — that ApologetiX and its apologists seem to intend by their use of the term.
ApologetiX appeals to both the general intent of this first definition as well as to the more specific section dealing with music on their FAQ page answering the question (apparently frequently asked) “Are ApologetiX songs parodies or just rewrites?” They write:
Please note that we do closely imitate literary compositions and adapt them to a subject that seems to the world to be ridiculous. Of course, to the members of ApologetiX, that subject matter is not ridiculous. However, we are well aware when we perform these parodies, that the world sees the mix of secular rock and roll (primarily hedonistic) mixed with religion as ridiculous.
Though this seem somewhat an inversion of the definition of parody, it is quite in line with the words of Jesus speaking of the spiritually blind who “may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding” (Mark 4:12 [niv]). Jesus was explaining why he spoke in parables, quoting the prophet Isaiah, so perhaps that is the reason for ApologetiX’s parabolic explanation.
The band goes on to mention the “burlesque of a musical work” aspect of the definition, though they have cited a Webester’s definition of parody which more literarily speaks of “a burlesque imitation of a serious poem”. Turning again to their Webster’s dictionary, they find burlesque defined as “Tending to excite laughter by ludicrous images, or by a contrast between the subject and the manner of treating it.”[13] In their FAQ, ApologetiX follows this definition of “burlesque” with the following significant passage:
We’re sure you’ll agree that there is a strong contrast between the subject (religious matters — we hate the word religious, but that’s how the world classifies it, and they’re the ones who judge parody) and the manner of treatment (serious rock and roll songs). Prime example: The idea of using an Eminem-type song for an altar call, as we did in “The Real Slim Shady.” That is a ludicrous image to the majority of the population. Of course, that song also comments on the original in a number of ways, and also parallels the original’s theme, in which Eminem keeps asking for “The Real Slim Shady” to please stand up, whereas ApologetiX is also asking for the listeners to “please stand up” and accept Christ.
The first thing of note in the explanation of ApologetiX is the almost legalistic slavishness to the definition (of “burlesque”, remember) just proposed from Webster’s dictionary. The ‘proof of parody’ is presented with as much seeming rigor as a mathematical proof or a proof in a court of law. Most of the elements from the definition of burlesque are called out: (1) the ludicrous images, (2) the contrast between (a) subject and (b) manner of treatment (the “Tending to excite laughter” is missing, but you can’t have everything); as well, there are two other points: (4) the commenting on the original and (5) the parallel to original’s theme. Now, neither the definition of parody nor that of burlesque mention commenting on or paralleling the original. The O.E.D. definition I provided does describe ‘imitating characteristic turns of thought and phrase to make appear ridiculous’, but this doesn’t seem to dovetail with what ApologetiX is saying. The band’s own definition of “parody” quoted from Webster’s defines parody as
A literary composition in which the form and expression of serious writings are closely imitated but adapted to a ridiculous subject or a humorous method of treatment; a burlesque imitation of a serious poem.
But this, too, doesn’t highlight the areas of commenting on or paralleling an original. Where does this idea come from? And why are they noted with such vigor?
Well, one might hesitate to judge the intent of any author, but I have my suspicions. And, significantly, the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music case quite explicitly speaks to what definition of “parody” should be used for determination of fair use:
For the purposes of copyright law, the nub of the definitions, and the heart of any parodist’s claim to quote from existing material is the use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works. … If, on the contrary, the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition, which the alleged infringer merely uses to get attention or to avoid the drudgery in working up something fresh, the claim to fairness in borrowing from another’s work diminishes accordingly (if it does not vanish), and other factors, like the extent of its commerciality, loom larger.
Now this section of the Supreme Court decision is provided (“Just so you know”, says the band) on the same FAQ page just after the Eminem example quoted above. The mélange of multiple definitions and hand-picked examples seems structured to provide a legal defense or cover for the band’s habitual activity. Even the author of the parodeities.org [link no longer works; archived link] site seems to sense the legally self-serving motives in the band’s claim of “parody”, as he notes in his defense of ApologetiX [link broken]:
So are these guys parodists? Gee, I don’t know. Legally, they probably need to make that claim but only a few of their songs fall into the category of traditional parodies. Perhaps one could argue that their whole genre (taking secular songs and rewriting the lyrics) is a parody in and on itself.
The second reason I find the explication of ApologetiX significant is is unapologetic humorlessness. Not only the missing “tendency to incite laughter” among the components called out in their work, but the lack of wit or anything funny in the songs, the explanation, or the example. The “idea of using an Eminem-type song for an altar call” may be laughable, but not laugh-worthy.[14] There is also the defensive and odd aside “we hate the word religious, but that’s how the world classifies it, and they’re the ones who judge parody” line in their reasoning as trained as a bonsai tree. Again, I find it funny that so much care and devotion can be lavished on the word “parody” while in the next thought the word “religious” is ‘hated’ — shades of Bill Maher! — but once more I suspect that the humor is in my own mind’s eye, and is unintentional on the part of ApologetiX.
At this point it may be worthwhile to summarize our discoveries above. We have found that ApologetiX a) defines “parody” by b) seizing on the mention of “burlesque” which they c) cite and map to their own work, d) adding elements of commenting and paralleling the original work, e) which just happens to be included in the definition of parody given in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music decision of the Supreme Court. The explication manages to elide the element of humor, which seems central to the very idea of parody in my estimation. Though the Court noted that they “will not take the further step of evaluating its quality” when reviewing the parody of “Pretty Woman” by 2 Live Crew, the question of how funny a work is appears quite distinct from whether it is funny at all.
“Parody” is one of a system of literary terms which revolve around the pairing of comedy and imitation. Other terms which inhabit this space include burlesque, cariacature, satire, spoof, travesty, pastiche, lampoon, farce, takeoff. Though all of these words — including parody — signify greater or admixtures of humor or mimicry, and though there are established and specific nuances in literary criticism for each, a funny copy of some work will generally fall into one or more of these categories — for the terms are not necessarily exclusive, and one critic may term the mimicked piece a “farce” while the other will argue for “burlesque”. The mimicry is most explicit, however, in parody and pastiche; in pastiche, in fact, the humorous element may not be present at all, with only the style being (sometimes slavishly) imitated. I remember enjoying Scarecrow & Tinmen’s “God Is Good” some years ago, and thinking it quite a pastiche of Rage Against The Machine’s signature style. Though I found the song humorous, I can imagine that many would not.
When considering the humorous element of the ‘works’ of ApologetiX, of course, we find ourselve in the aesthetic realm outside what the Supreme Court defined as its purview. As Justice Souter noted in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, “The threshold question when fair use is raised in defense of parody is whether a parodic character may reasonably be perceived.” Thus consideration of the level of human comedy in lines such as
May I have your repentance please? May I have your repentance please?
Will you tell Him “Save me” and please stand up?
I repeat: will you tell Him “Save me” and please stand up?
We’re gonna have to prod them here
Y’all act like you never seen a nice person before, you oughta hope in the Lord
Your panting tongue is just thirstin’ for more
You started lookin’ around searchin’ cause you’re
Uncertain you’re sure you know where you’re goin’ eternally
cannot speak to the legality of this so-called parody so-called music.
However, in a footnote to the Court’s statement above, Souter explains that
The only further judgment, indeed, that a court may pass on a work goes to an assessment of whether the parodic element is slight or great, and the copying small or extensive in relation to the parodic element, for a work with slight parodic element and extensive copying will be more likely to merely “supersede the objects” of the original.
And indeed the copying does seem great, slavish almost. Even ApologetiX admits, in their defensive style, that
Our songs closely match the rhyme scheme of the original — not just the last words of a sentence, but internal wording — commenting often on the substance and always on the style, showing that we are in effect poking fun at the original work, whether we do so with a serious subject matter or not.
But if the copying is close, the parodic elements are more difficult to discover, the strained arguments of the band mirroring our own critical exertions. The “close matching” of the original works is what has allowed ApologetiX to release 18 albums of 18 years; even Bob Dylan took 16 years to release his first 18 records. Shall we say that ApologetiX is on a par with Dylan? Or perhaps their profligacy is due to the fact that they do not have to write music, do not need to create a rhyme scheme, and can buy a karaoke version to make their demos?
Beyond that, perhaps paramount to the claim of fair use, is the fact that this music seems directly intended to “supersede the objects” of the originals. For the audience for Christian ‘Parody’ music is beset by two countervaling forces. On the one hand, popular music is popular to the culture as a whole; on the other, a Christian disgust with the language and topics of some of the most popular of these songs make listening to them a sinful pleasure at best. This is the impetus behind the horrible bowdlerization of ‘clean’ albums destined for WalMart, where parents can feel safe and children can learn to fill in the blanks. How much better for this market is a slew of popular tunes with not only all offensive material removed, but also replaced by good and godly messages of ‘inspiration’? One certainly can make the case that the wholesale production of this music replaces the market for the originals, and that as such stretches the bounds of “fair use” far past what they can reasonably describe. As ApologetiX admits, they choose the originals from the most popular songs they can lay hands on. Perhaps this is for the (justifiable) reason that a parody needs a familiar original; or perhaps it is so that “multiple generations say, ‘They’re playing our song!'” as the band writes on the same page. The problem, of course, is that they are not playing our song, but our songs with the wrong lyrics. No one listens to Weird Al’s “Like A Surgeon” and confuses it with the original. One fears that such a distinction is lost on the audiences of Christian ‘Parody’.
Like the fabled Chinese water torture, the pressure on words, law, and taste becomes almost unbearable under the overwhelming weight of song after stolen song. Perhaps each individual song is fair use, but to build a band’s career upon such revisionism smacks still of piracy. If all the songs collectively could join up in a class-action suit against ApologetiX, or if some RICO act against a pattern of inappropriate touching of others’ private musical places could be invoked, perhaps then these travesties could cease. But for now, it seems doubtful that this behavior will be stopped, unless all the copyright holders start suing them — a doubtful occurrence, as the blowback from Lady Gaga’s manager not allowing Weird Al to parody “Born This Way” can attest. Apologetix has expert legal counsel. Perhaps the best summation of the legal situation is made by our ApologetiX apologist [link broken]:
The bottom line is that it’s probably an open question whether the stuff ApologetiX is doing violates the copyright laws. Until their work gets tested in court we may never know. Furthermore, the Supreme Court suggests that each parody must be handled on a case by case basis; so the fact that ApologetiX prevails in one case doesn’t mean that all their work is problem free.
Nevertheless, a narrow legalism is exactly what Jesus came to dispense with, as in Luke 5:37-39 quoted in the opening section of this essay. Whether or not some examples of Christian ‘Parody’ should eventually be judged an infringement of copyright, the irritation I feel that artists’ hard work is being re-appropriated without their consent for the pecuniary benefit of others is minor when compared to a greater disturbance the entire ‘genre’ engenders deep within my psyche. Mayhap it is a moral outrage I feel, and so now let us turn to the Bible itself and try to discern what the Holy Book has to say about such ‘parody’.
Imitation of Christ
You know we never used flattery, nor did we put on a mask to cover up greed — God is our witness.
(1 Thessalonians 2:5 [niv])
Unlike the voluminous records of the courts and bloviators on copyright law, intellectual property, and the new piracy for which theoretical harms lead to judgements of real and punitive damages, the Bible speaks only a little about the theft of ideas. The obvious place to begin is with the 8th Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:15 [kjv]). This is one of many places in the Good Book where the injunction against theft is made. And though we know that “law is made not for good men but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious” (1 Timothy 1:9 [niv]), still Jesus reiterated this commandment when he gave guidance to the rich young man (Matthew 19:18). In the Old Testament, even theft in a good cause, while understandable, must be remitted:
Men do not despise a thief if he steals
to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.
Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,
Though it costs him all the wealth of his house.
(Proverbs 6:30-31 [niv])
There seems little leeway in the Holy Writ on this matter of stealing.
Or perhaps not. The ‘ApologetiX apologist‘ [link broken] argues that “the term ‘steal’ applied to tangible property only”, and that to claim that Christian ‘parodists’ are committing the sin of stealing is “a bit of a stretch”. His argument is essentially that, although Hebrews 13:17 commands the Christian to submit to “Earthly authority”[15], copyright law is bad law, and God must be obeyed when his commands conflict with the laws of men (he cites Acts 4:19 & 5:29). The unsigned piece backs off from the very of brink of this argument, admitting that “it would be difficult to claim you are obeying God when abusing the copyright law”. But he then returns to earlier points that he had made about the perversion of U.S. copyright laws — points with which I agree — only to make a tenuous claim to a sort of ‘spiritual civil disobedience’:
Although the copyright laws have little to do with being righteous or not, clearly the current revisions of the law are in direct opposition to the original intent of the law. Because of the way these revisions came about, one could claim that they are inethical [sic].
Now, this argument is made on a page discussing “Are Christian Parodies Ethical?” [link broken] (we looked earlier at his page examining “Are Christian Parodies Legal?” [link broken]), so it was with astonishment that I read his conclusion:
The bottom line is this: if the law of the land offers an opportunity or loophole to praise God by writing parodies of secular music, a Christian shouldn’t feel that doing so is an inethical [sic] act until the courts decide that doing so is illegal.
This seems tergiversation of the worst stripe, to judge a possible “loophole” as ethical as long as it has not been ruled illegal; all in all, a weak condoning of potential copyright theft on the grounds that a) the law is bad so it doesn’t have to be obeyed, and anyway b) it seems to be on my side in this case. I thought Christians were supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard (2 Peter 3:14,17), but maybe that’s just the Jews who make hot dogs.
There are those, however, who do hold that the 8th Commandment forbids theft of intellectual property. Professor Claude Mariottini argues strongly that this biblical injunction speaks directly against the theft of others’ music, saying that “To pilfer music without proper acknowledgment is one way by which countless Christians violate the eighth commandment.” Ironically, the teacher at Northern Baptist Seminary is discussing in particular the case of churches or other Christian singers who use the songs of other Christian musicians without paying for the rights.[16] Mariottini bolstered his case with a later post in which he publishes a long extract from Philip Graham Ryken (one assumes with permission), who in his book Written in Stone: The Ten Commandments and Today’s Moral Crisis investigated the applicability of the Biblical prohibition against theft in Exodus 20:15 to modern times. Ryken found that the Hebrew word for stealing — ganaf — applied to a very comprehensive list of the many forms of unlawful taking, including extortion, embezzlement, shoplifting, underpaying taxes, and of course copyright violations.
The 8th Commandment is not the only stricture which speaks to the issue of copyright violation. Both Professor Mariottini and William Patry (copyright attorney and author of Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars) reference the 10th Commandment as enjoining Christians against copyright violation.[17] The prohibition against coveting is specific in its inclusivity, stating that besides your neighbor’s house, wife, servants, ox, and ass, thou shalt not covet “any thing that is thy neighbor’s” (Exodus 20:17 [niv]; my emphasis). Perhaps this is the answer to those who complain[18] “Why should the Devil have all the good songs?” As Psalm 37:1 says:
Fret not yourself because of the wicked,
be not envious of wrongdoers!
(Psalm 37:1 [rsv])
Or perhaps this envy manifests itself in the tempting thought that the “Devil’s Music” can be repurposed for God, just as “The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”[19] But this seems another error, on two levels.
The first, more obvious, point is the inappropriateness of returning evil for evil. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Though men and women have been plagued always by the depressing realization that the wicked sometimes win, and that good people suffer from bad things — witness the plaint of Job — still, to respond to bad acts with more unethical acts is only hypocrisy at best, evil at worst. To say “everyone does it” or “I only steal from those who can afford it” is to eschew morals altogether in an area, whether it be property, sex, or duty.
The second difficulty in the contention that “the Devil has all the good songs” is itself bifold. Primarily, this reasoning goes explicitly against the highest commandment of the new covenant: Love thy neighbor as thyself. As Jesus quite clearly said:
You have heard that it was said, “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I tell you: “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,” that you may be sons of your Father in heaven.
(Matthew 5:43-45 [niv])
The idea that Christian ‘parodists’ are just “giving a lot of songs the lyrics God originally intended for them” is coveting the works of the true rockers, pure and simple. This is no love of neighbor, only lust and envy masquerading as faith. The ‘parodists’ violate the 8th and 10th Commandments; if I steal the prize possessions of others, how can that redound to the greater glory of God?
The other half of the difficulty with the plaint “Why should the Devil have all the good songs?” is the subject of the next section: he doesn’t.
The Banality of Feeble
Praise the Lord with the harp;
make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.
Sing to him a new song;
play skillfully, and shout for joy.
For the word of the Lord is right and true;
he is faithful in all he does.
The Lord loves righteousness and justice;
the earth is full of his unfailing love.
(Psalm 33:2-5 [niv])
In 2005, Mark Morford wrote an insightful column for the San Francisco Chronicle, asking “What’s On Jesus’ iPod?” Morford noted quite cogently that
You might think Jesus would be all about the cheeseball holy music. All about only caring for tunes that praise him and him alone and no one else but him because hey, the only music that’s truly acceptable is music that celebrates God, right?
Wrong. Just look. See? There’s Jesus, rolling his eyes.
See, Jesus knows true worship, true spirit, has nothing to do with giving away your sense of self to some angry bearded deity who will just as easily love you as smack you down and condemn you to hellfire for all eternity with no access to chocolate or HBO or old AC/DC records.
Jesus knows this Big Obvious Secret: All music celebrates God, because God is merely another word for life and life is merely another word for “hot divine energy force” and “hot divine energy force” is merely another word for, well, “Steven Tyler.” So there you go.
While one might argue with Morford’s understanding or strict adherence to doctrine, he makes a very valid point. God loves music. Why else would an entire book of the Bible be devoted solely to songs? (Not to mention the “Song of Songs” of Solomon.) God loves his creation, and His very creation makes music: “Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains” (Isaiah 49:13 [kjv]) The great truth is this: God has all the good songs, not the Devil. How could anyone have thought otherwise?
There are so very many wonderful religious and spiritual songs that one scarce knows where to begin. Shall we start with the sonorous Gregorian chants that speak of tireless devotion from anonymous monks of long ago? The beautiful Requiems by Berlioz and Mozart and many others which still stir the most secular spirits today? The inspired “Stille Nacht! Heilige Nacht!” of Mohr and Gruber? The modern sacred work of Avro Pärt? Shape note singing? Or American Gospel? How shall we ever do justice to the depth and breadth of Gospel music, from the earliest Negro spirituals to twangy white guy banjo versions to sacred steel? Inspirational music has inspired and continues to inspire, filling disparate hearts with joy and passion that cannot be constrained by words and doctrine.
Even the supposedly secular artists feel the tug of the this passionate spiritual gravity. From Elvis Presley’s heartfelt recordings of old Gospel to Bob Dylan’s “Gotta Serve Somebody” to less inspired numbers (such as Norm Greenbaum’s “Spirit in the Sky” or The Doobie Brothers’ “Jesus Is Just All Right”[20]), modern artists have attempted to repay the debt Rock and Blues and Reels owe to devotional music, with varying success. Leonard Cohen’s songs are often filled with biblical imagery, and his “Hallelujah” reached its broadest audience through its use in the distinctively secular film Shrek in a version by Rufus Wainwright. Persnickety Bible-thumpers may find much to object to in the song, a retelling of the story of David and Bathsheba, with its complaint that
You say I took the name in vain
I don’t even know the name
But if I did, well really, what’s it to you?
There’s a blaze of light
In every word
It doesn’t matter which you heard
The holy or the broken Hallelujah
So perhaps this does not adhere strictly to the letter of the law, as revealed to latter-day evangels. But is it not just this bitter and unforgiving legalism that Jesus came to end?
Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
(Matthew 23:25-26 [niv])
Unfortunately, in cleaning so vigorously the outside of the cup of Christian music, a pallid and weak substitute for the “living water” of inspiration has found its way into the vessel. Although Sonseed’s “Jesus Is My Friend” is a catchy little number, the bouncy rocker with the lyrics
Once I tried to run
I tried to run and hide
But Jesus came and found me
And he touched me down inside
He is like a Mountie
He always gets his man
And he’ll zap you
Any way he can!
cannot begin to compare to classic Gospel such as “When The Roll Is Called Up Yonder” or “What A Friend We Have In Jesus” or “Bringing In The Sheaves” (I could go on, and on). And say what you want about Sonseed and Stryper, at least their works were original. Perhaps the dehiscence of Christian ‘Parody’ music is a reaction to insipid modern church flaccid rock, but why choose this cure, when a rousing round of “Do Lord!” would fill the bill of keeping the flock awake, without turning off many churchgoers for several reasons?
Unfortunately, modern Christian popular music is on dangerous ground where its songs include a hard-edged guitar or pounding drums, due to the decades-old battle against Rock and Roll as “the Devil’s music”, waged from the advent of Elvis the Pelvis. Though most Americans may only dimly remember this war as long over, embodied by Michael Mills’s “exposé” of hidden satanic messages in Rock[21] or Tipper Gore’s Parents Music Resource Center[22], in fact la guerre continue. Many Christian Web sites still debate the issue, and the basic moral premise resides hidden in the ever-present “Parental Advisory” labels affixed in stern black-and-white upon offending albums — although these are being supplanted by the red “Explicit” warning in iTunes.
Thus ApologetiX is forced to wage a two-front war. On the one hand their cadre of lawyers provides strong defense against the perfectly rational assumption of copyright theft. On the other, however, a never-ending internecine guerilla campaign is being fought over whether music is evil and — if so — which music is evil. One sympathizes, and begins to understand the simple fiat of the Primitive Baptist Church in barring musical instruments altogether: at least such a position is consistent.
But although this prim and proper concern for the morals of youth dates back to at least the legal murder of Socrates, and though the reaction to the reaction usually seems but a pallid response (as witness the jeunesse dorée who followed the sans-culottes), and though the jesuitical squabblings of the righteous from the Second International to the harassment of John Boehner inspire a piteous regret, this cultural war-without-end provides neither rationale nor excuse for the less-than-inspiring outpourings of these bathtub singers cum rock stars. The true tragedy here is not only the refusal to seize the wonderful expressions of spiritual music already bequeathed to the Christians, nor the refusal to accept and acclaim the inspired music of so-called secular artists. No, the true tragedy is the substitution of vapid crap in place of music of real power, the trading of heroes for ghosts, hot air for a cool breeze.
The Capitalist Ethic In The Spirit Of Protestantism
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
(Matthew 7:16-18 [kjv])
They are trying to rip off our culture. They are smoking our dope, wearing our clothes and talking like us. They are seling us our culture. They are trying to take the revolutionary sting out of our culture by making it a style.
– Jerry Rubin
My biggest problem with this ‘music’ is not that ApologetiX is a cover band that doesn’t pay royalties, though that is an issue — a big one. Hiding behind religion to provide a “loophole” for wontonly re-purposing already good music goes against Paul’s imploring Christian leaders to hold themselves to a higher standard:
Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless — not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to much wine, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and retute those who oppose it.
(Titus 1:7-9 [niv]; my emphasis)
But what does ApologetiX encourage others to do? Write bad poetry? I do the same thing in the shower when I misremember my favorite songs. There are many wonderful cover songs, and many instances where new and original work was created that borrowed liberally from earlier pieces. Jimi Hendrix remade the light background music of Dylan’s “All Along The Watchtower” into a searing guitar-driven menace that even Bob Dylan uses now when he plays the song. Danger Mouse mashed together Jay-Z’s The Black Album and The Beatles’ White Album into the wholly unexpected (and debatedly illegal) Grey Album. It is perfectly true, as the ‘parody’ apologists repeat ad nauseam, that artists and musicians have appropriated elements of others’ work throughout the history of human creativity. The point is not the pilfering, however; the point is the creativity. By taking as their ministry the work of appropriating perfectly good rock songs and changing the lyrics to reflect Christian themes, complete with biblical annotations, ApologetiX has replaced the command “Be fruitful and multiply” with “Replicate robotically”.
The entire oeuvre is reminiscent of fan fiction, or of the song-poems of the earlier LP record days. Hundreds, thousands of swooning fanboys and fangirls have written stories using characters from Star Trek and every other cult favorite of the past four-and-a-half decades, but few would argue that these derivative works are the equals of, let alone superior to, the originals which inspired them. Similarly, no one argues that Weird Al’s oeuvre is ‘better’ than the original works he parodies.[23] The remaking of “Stairway to Heaven” by Little Roger and the Goosebumps replacing the original words with those from the Gilligan’s Island theme song was clever, very clever, yet no one thinks that this reworking surpassed, let alone equaled the creativity of the original. However, this is exactly the claim made by the Christian ‘Parody’ apologists; ApologetiX even makes an argument on another of their endless FAQ pages that it is God who has made their songs (and we can assume that God’s version is better):
But God can change a human being and make him a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) filled with righteousness. God can do the same thing with music. When God changes a human being, on the surface that human being may appear exactly the same, but his heart is changed. When God changes music, it may sound the same, but the heart of the song is changed.
Hmm… It is one thing to quote scripture to show how the reborn Christian is a “new creation”; it is quite another to make the same claim about a song.
And yet… Here is the statement of the ‘lyricist’ for ApologetiX:
As the lyricist for our songs, I know without a doubt that our parodies are a gift from God. They come to me too easily (that doesn’t mean I don’t have to put blood, sweat and tears into them, of course) to be just the product of my own talents/imagination.
Hmm… they come too easily “to be just the product of my own talents/imagination“? With all due respect to the heavenly Creator, perhaps the ease with which these ‘parodies’ come is ironically summed up in that line. And lest anyone still hold to the constitutional argument that these putatively fair use “derivative markets” will not tend to supplant the originals, the statement from ApologetiX above was preceded by this proud boast:
The biggest blessing for us is that people come back to us after a concert or listening to one our tapes or CDs and say, “Now, when I hear the original song, I can’t help but think of the new Christian words.” (We very, very rarely find someone who says, “When I hear your song, I can’t help but think of the original.” (Maybe the first or second listen, but not after that.)[sic]
Is good rock then something which needs its lyrics effaced like a prison tattoo?
I confess to some sympathy for this position, but my own conscience will not let pass the fact that changing the creator’s original words is an act of human pride, however well-intentioned. I can understand the need, the desire. How many will ever read The Canterbury Tales in the original Middle English, taking the time to learn an almost wholly new dialect (to them)? The controversy over the bowdlerization of Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn shows that we change an earlier work at peril, even with great reason. What is the reason for Christian ‘Parodies’?
As the father of a young pre-teenaged daughter, I insisted upon one and only one rule when it came to music. “Don’t ever,” I told her, “ever let me find out that you have bought the ‘Clean’ version of an album.” Now obviously this is not a rule every family would have, but I felt strongly about both the integrity of the original work of an artist, as well as a distaste for buying a version from which something had been removed. When I discovered that the majority of ‘Clean’ albums simply had had the vocal track turned off whenever an offensive word occurred, and that this ‘version’ was actually a spayed copy of the original beast, I disliked the idea that I would be asked to pay for this ‘privilege’, as if I were to pay for a DVD not only without bonus features, but with critical scenes of the movie removed.
So if you wish to avoid lyrics or words or images which you find offensive, or wish to protect your children from the same, I understand and even approve that very moral act. However, I can only repeat what anti-censorship mavens have stated: To avoid this material, do not listen or read or watch it. To take a whole segment of culture and strip out the parts that may offend smacks of Yul Brynner’s pharaoh in The Ten Commandments intoning “Let the name of Moses be stricken.” And thus history, and culture, is destroyed. Even worse, then, is to provide a bogus replacement to keep us all happy and smiling in the face of materials which sometimes have as their point the shock and dismay they bring. At this point we have entered Josef Stalin territory, removing the images of Beria and others deemed not to follow the party line.
And let not us ever forget the pecuniary motive, and how this drive for doctrinal purity rides roughshod over the well-established intellectual property rights of others. For a more visible example of this than the admittedly niche world of Christian ‘Parody’ songs, we need look no further than the illegal misappropriation of Bill Watterson’s iconic little cartoon boy Calvin, who was first stolen and made into a car decal pissing on whatever the driver wished to show he or she (most likely he) despised. In an equally illegal reaction to this widespread auto meme, some other enterprising people realized there was a market showing the urinating offender genuflecting instead before the cross. Now Calvin never peed nor prayed in the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip, but this proxy battle between haters and prayers has continued on vehicles across the United States for many decades now, equally unending as the battle between “ICHTHYS” fishes and “Darwin” ‘fish with legs.[24] Why do people slap any of these devices on their cars and trucks? That is a question for psychologists and cultural anthropologists. Why do people manufacture them? To make money.
Now ApologetiX proudly proclaims that they do not take royalties for their songs. (Perhaps this is why the back-up singers for one of Apologetix’s albums have unclaimed royalty monies [link broken].) But money is made on each iTunes transaction and each record sale. Mark Bradfor sells his “Bethlehemian Rhapsody” for five bucks on his Web site. The Wikipedia page for ApologetiX even crows about how the band’s original lead guitarist developed software for booking and online sales, “challenging the notion that for a band to be successful, it needs to be signed to a major record label.” Having their own record label means that the royalties would be a small fillip to the money they are already making, rather than the lifeblood it is to creative artists who sell their work to others.
For money is the real root of ApologetiX’s profusion of songs. Just as the power of WalMart combined with parents’ horror at “offensive” lyrics created a market for ‘Clean’ versions of popular music,[25] so too did a quite natural desire for popular music (hence its name) combine with Christian parents’ fear of its words (satanic or obscene) to create a market for the music without the message — or with the message replaced, poorly,[26] with “The Message”. And ApologetiX filled this market. The entire process seems to underline Adorno’s criticism of modern popular music (he was writing in the 1930s) as commercialization replacing musical taste with the familiar. “The familiarity of the piece is a surrogate for the quality ascribed to it. To like it is almost the same thing as to recognize it.”[27] Now the implacable and insensate workings of capitalism have come full circle, and the creative center is extracted and replaced by a marketable core, ensconced in the familiar musical shell.
It is true that most, if not all, music — and art as well — is “derivative” in the sense that it is based on earlier ideas, themes, even scales. Perhaps an idealized “perfect” creation would be incomprehensible to us mere mortals. But this dialogue between the current day and the past flows best as new ideas, or a new focus on old ideas, come into clearer view through the exertions of artists of all stripes. Witness how Patti Smith reworked “Land of a Thousand Dances” into a tale of teenage bullying and redemption in her song “Land”.
And it is also true that copyright violations and the greater crimes of plagiarism and theft veiled behind that phrase are a part of the story of music in the modern era. A.P. Carter created his family dynasty in country music by travelling and collecting folk songs, copyrighting them as his own upon his return. The reworking if not outright theft from black Blues singers by white artists during the first heyday of Rock is well-known. But these past violations do not forgive ApologetiX or other Christian ‘Parodists’ for their present depredations.
The real crime here, the real sin, is the wholesale substitution for a vibrant culture with a bogus simulacrum of culture, a vapid facsimile in place of the deep and stirring strains that continue to erupt from the human spirit
Spite of despondence, of the inhuman dearth
Of noble natures, of the gloomy days,
Of all the unhealthy and o’er-darkn’d ways
Made for our searching.
Instead, “things of beauty” are remade and made as arid as Eddie Money.
When, then, does this compulsion end? At what point does this impulse to take the stellar and strident creations of authentic artists and refigure them as “God intended them” subside under the weight of its own banality? When do people agree the line has been crossed? Is it when ApologetiX releases their Wu-Tang Clan ‘parody’ song, “J.C. Clan Ain’t Nuthin’ Ta Fuck Wit”? How long before people realize that this Frankenstein monster does not conceal a kind heart, but a heartless cash flow and the death of all culture?
The old adage states that “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” But flattery is obviously not intended here. The originals are assaulted for their actual content, and so the catchy melodies are filled with hapless uninspired words of hope and inspiration. Either the music they are copying is originally good — in which case it does not need to be poorly imitated, watered down, or denatured — or it is bad — in which case trying to make it acceptable is only perfuming the pig.
Yet in spite of all this
you say, ‘I am innocent;
he is not angry with me.’
But I will pass judgment on you
because you say, ‘I have not sinned.’
(Jeremiah 2:34-35 [niv])
But it is my hope that believers — and all who feel the upswelling of creation within them — that those who wish to make offerings of praise and joy would aspire to the best, that they no longer “serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things” (Hebrews 8:5 [nkjv]), but aim for the very highest and very best possible, as Paul said,
Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.
(Colossians 3:23 [niv])
I’d rather listen to Little Marcy’s “Love Is A Simple Thing” than endure a pale copy of a song, the original of which can only become greater in comparison. Then let everyone sing and create to the best of his or her ability, not envying the thoughts of others.
Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God.
(1 Peter 2:16 [niv])
In the end, however, “culture” is like “ecology” or “diet” — we have the culture we are immersed in, whether it be bad or good in our judging mind. Even “bad” culture has its place, even if only as a bellwether of the capitalism’s cannibalization as it devours meats both creative and spiritual alike. To cry against the arid wind is only to feel maudlin tears drying upon our cheeks. Therefore, though I still do implore a cessation of these hostilities against the creations of the human spirit, I pray only that Dylan’s “The Mighty Quinn” will never be supplanted in my heart by Mark Bradford’s “My Mighty God,” but instead will be embraced by a greater abiding spirit of which this ‘music’ is the counterfeit.
We who are strong ought to bear with the failings of the weak and not to please ourselves. Each of us should please his neighbor for his good, to build him up.
(Romans 15:1-2 [niv])
________________________________
1 Using the name for the classic battle of weak against strong apparently depends upon the fact that David was from Bethlehem, though of course the actual fight with Goliath took place in the Valley of Elah, some ten miles or so to the west.
2 The titles of the ‘parody’ songs mentioned are, respectively, “Should I Pray or Should I Go?“, “J.C.’s Mom“, and “The Real Sin Savior“. Over a hundred and fifty ApologetiX songs are available for download on iTunes.
3 Spoiler Alert: I shall be arguing that this is not the case.
4 Interestingly, “Bismillah” (or more properly “Basmala”), is the term for the first verse of all but one of the suras in the Qur’an, the word deriving from the Arabic phrase meaning “In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful”. Thus it makes much sense as a preface to the plea to release the tragic youth at the center of Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody”. After listening to and reading a surfeit of Christian Parody lyrics, one concurs.
5 G. Legman, “Pisanus Fraxi”, in The Horn Book: Sutdies in Erotic Folklore and Bibliography (New Hyde Park, NY: University Books Inc., 1964), p. 23.
6 The author obviously would not get much enjoyment out of these extended rights, but presumably his heirs will have something to bicker over. Thus “rights” become “property” in this legislative magic.
7 Actually stated in 17 U.S.C. § 107, as amended by the aforementioned Act.
8 Dotan Oliar, “The Origins & Meaning of the Intellectual Property Clause“, p. 67.
9 There is actually another argument being made on some sites [link broken] that the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and freedom of religion may protect writers of Christian ‘Parodies’ because they are making a religious statement in their (re-)works. I am not sure that I concur with this position, as it would seem to give license to most illegal acts, making them miraculously legal if done with a religious rationale. Perhaps others may see some difficulties that might arise if such a standpoint were to be widely maintained.
10 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1993). The case was decided in 1994.
11In the tumultuous era of copyright infringement and enforcement in which we live, a copyright holder might very well object to the mere ‘publication’ of such works, whether money changes hands or not. Thus, posting a video to youTube made by earnest teens recapturing the words of a Green Day anthem for Christ might be considered ‘publication’ and might thus be a violation of copyright in spite of the non-commercial status of the work. With such nuances we need not concern ourselves; that is why earnest young men and women go to law school.
12 The parody mass was a phenomenon of the 15th and 16th Centuries in which fragments of secular music were reworked into mass composition. So popular was this form of church music that it received the honor of being banned by the Council of Trent. The term “parody” in this context is controversial even among the academics who study this ancient music, with “borrowing” or “elaboration” often being more neutral terms for the same style or elements. To get the flavor of how this term is actually used, please see an example paper such as Michael Scott Cuthbert’s “Zacara’s D’amor Languire and Strategies for Borrowing in the Early Fifteenth-Century Italian Mass” [link broken]; the reader will perceive that bringing in this usage of the term “parody” to comment on modern Christian pop music is similar to using the “charm” of quantum mechanics to speak about the latest ingenue from Hollywood. (Hyperbole on my part, I confess, but not too far off the mark, I argue. (You can’t) Read the musicology article.)
13 In the Webster’s definition of ‘burlesque’ that I was able to find, the definition continues “as when a trifling subject is treated with gravity.” I was unable to find a Webster’s containing both this defintion of ‘burlesque’ and the one used on the abovementioned FAQ page for the term ‘parody’, so I am unable to be sure that the ‘burlesque’ definition continues this way or not.
I prefer the O.E.D. again, as there is a subtle shift in emphasis (as well as a more precise characterization of such famous burlesques as The Rape of the Lock and Hudibras):
adj. Of the nature of derisive imitation; ironically bombastic, mock-heroic or mock-pathetic
n. That species of literary composition, or of dramatic representation, which aims at exciting laughter by caricature of the manner or spirit of serious works, or by ludicrous treatment of their subjects.
I shall leave it to the reader to decide which of these or other definition of ‘burlesque’ they prefer.
14 Two random thoughts occur to me here, which don’t have a place in the general essay, but…. Well, here they are.
First, the original police-like demand for “the real Slim Shady to please stand up” reminds me of the Romans demand that Spartacus give himself up, with the consequent parallels (made explicit by Eminem in his song to the extent of saying that “your kids act just like me”) to the classic “I am Spartacus” line of Tony Curtis and all the other non-Kirk Douglases. Of course, turning a police megaphone demand to a felon to give himself up into a “come to Jesus” altar call does have a certain ironic humor to it, though I doubt that was the intent of ApologetiX in “The Real Sin Savor”. (Check out the lyrics here)
The second random thought is that my all-time favorite altar call song, “Just As I Am”, shows an interesting parallel with Eminem’s entire oeuvre, though admittedly Eminem’s work is a defiant insistence that he be taken for just who he is, warts and all, while the old gospel hymn expounds with almost plaintive disbelief that the speaker could find redemption in spite of the blackness of sin which has stained his life.
15 This appears to me to be a misreading of the text, though not of the Word as a whole. The passage in Hebrews is clearly referring to the leaders of the Church, and not to the secular authorities. However, submission to secular authority is explicitly commanded in Romans 13:1, Titus 3:1, and 1 Peter 2:13, so the author’s sense is correct even if his source is not.
16 Note that there is a religious services exemption [link broken] to U.S. copyright law for “nondramatic literary or musical work or of a dramatico-musical work of a religious nature” performed during services at a place of worship. Mariottini in his blog post was examining the case of a church that used a song without license on a compilation CD of praise music for sale at the church, which is not covered by this exception.
17 In Jewish tradition, a source different from the 8th or 10th Commandments is held to speak to copyright issues — for several hundred years. Instead, rabbinical law looked to Sefer Devarim, Parsha Shoftim (19:14), which Christians may know as Deuteronomy 19:14: “Do not move your neighbor’s boundary stone set up by your predecessors” [niv]. William Patry discusses how this tenet was presumed to recognize “a full legal right in respect of one’s own spiritual creation” from as early as the 16th Century. The stricture against trespass — hassagat gevul — showed consideration for those who toiled over artistic or other creative works, protecting their inspiration from those who would despoil it. At its best, copyright laws have always shown this concern for creators.
18 This link is to the ApologetiX FAQ page once again answering the unasked quesion “Are some hymns just rewritten bar songs?” I say “unasked” because this discussion is only of interest for those apologizing for the creation of Christian ‘parody’ music, and so they cling to stramineous arguments about ‘contrafactum’ music (the Parody Mass) or the relyricking of old tunes for the Salvation Army (one of the sources oft-cited for the question about the Devil’s music above). The discussion about whether secular music was re-used for “sacred purposes” misses the point, however. At the time of the events mentioned, copyright law was either non-existent or nowhere near as restrictive as it is today. The argument is similar to saying that drunk driving is not a bad thing, because movies from the fifties show people drinking then driving all the time.
19 William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice, Act 1, scene 3. I remember how crestfallen I was to discover that my favorite Psalm was the one the devil quoted first when he tempted Jesus in the desert.
20 Of course the Doobies were following in the footsteps of The Byrds who had covered The Art Reynolds Singers 1966 original three years before, but the 1972 release had all the lifeless hallmarks of denatured ’70s rock, in spite of its higher placement on the Billboard charts. The song has been covered again by Robert Randolph, with no one complaining.
21 My personal favorite, his spurning of Blondie, in part because of Debbie Harry’s song “Rapture”.
22 As memorialized and castigated in Eminem’s “White America”.
23 And for which he gets permission before selling his songs.
24 The Darwin fish itself became the issue of a copyright dispute, which was resolved when no actual copyright protection could be established.
25 Do not mislead yourself into believing that the demand rose up from masses of teenagers wishing to have the dirty parts removed.
26 “Poorly?” you may ask. Witness these first lines of ApoogetiX’s substitution for Charlie Daniels’ “The Devil Went Down To Georgia”, which the Christian ‘Parody’ band remakes as a version of the devil tempting Jesus in the desert:
The devil went down to the Jordan
He was lookin’ for a show to steal
He was in a bind ’cause Jesus came to find
The people willing to make it real
Why “show to steal”? How does this add anything to the original story, which mirrors ancient legends of the tricky devil tricked?
27 Theodor Adorno in his essay “On the Fetish Character in Music and the Regression of Listening”, reprinted in The Culture Industry (New York: Routledge Classics, 2001), p. 30.
Leave a comment