Should Advent start on November 1st?

A few hours ago, I posted this on Twitter and Facebook:
"Since the retail industry starts the "holiday season" at the beginning of October, should the American Church celebrate advent that early?"

I meant to write November, so that's why the title of this blog doesn't match the original question. :)

People are already thinking about Christmas, or at least the holidays, so should those of us who are Christians talk about Christmas so early as well?

I think so.

The concept of Christmas is near opposite to what the retail industry celebrates. Commercialism and Materialism emphasize spending, things, wealth, and even debt.

Here's what Christmas is about: God in flesh--the incarnation. What are the major concepts in the incarnation?

Sacrifice, people, choosing to become poor, and grace are the key concepts of the incarnation. Those are near opposite to the concepts of spending, things, wealth, and debt.

So, as Christians, we should begin to emphasize the concepts of Jesus' incarnation as much as possible, and especially to counteract society's obsession with acquiring stuff.

As my friend Juan wrote in response to my original post, "Most of the Christian holidays, if not all, were established to counteract the pagan celebrations."

We need to establish a holiday to counteract our materialistic celebration of money. Bring on the Advent Conspiracy!

If you're not an artist, don't compare artists

Have you ever criticized a work of art? A song? A painting? A movie? It's OK to not like something because your taste doesn't agree with it. But, it's not OK to bash it for being too much like something else or breaking rules of art, unless you actually have a background in that sort of art.

I've been reading a lot of music reviews lately because I've been buying a lot of new music. There are a lot of music snobs out there who think they know everything about music. Most music snobs aren't even musicians, much less people with any sort of experience in producing (arranging the instrumentation of a song).

They aren't songwriters, creators, or technologically informed people who know how gear works.

Here's an example. I've written about how I enjoy the new band "The Temper Trap." They had a song "Sweet Disposition" on the (500) Days of Summer soundtrack. I liked it. I listened to the rest of their album and loved it. The other songs don't sound much like "Sweet Disposition." So check out this example:

When I read a review comparing The Temper Trap to U2, I find such a comparison to be partially beneficial, but also incredibly inaccurate.

Yes, both bands have lead singers with quite a big vocal range. "Sweet Disposition" uses a dotted 8th delay on the guitar (most people could recognize that distinct sound even if they didn't know how it was done). Both bands have a mixture of Christian and non-Christian band members that influences their lyrics.

But comparing them is ludicrous. U2's musical distinctives are (in order):

• percussive, dotted 8th delay-laden guitars run through a Vox AC30 amp
• Bono's voice
• melodic bass lines
• syncopated drums

The Temper Trap's distinctives (in order) are:

• driving drums
  
• Dougy's voice
• One song has a U2-like delay, but even that song has delay-free, completely different chord shapes on the pre-chorus and chorus. Not to mention that their choices of guitars and amps aren't the same as U2, which changes the tone significantly to the trained ear.

So that's one example. The problem is that non-guitar players hear one song from Temper Trap and think it sounds like U2, and assume that they sound the same. Yeah, they do have some elements in common (which is why I like both), but the drums are the key instrument across all of Temper Trap's songs, not the guitar, so they clearly aren't the same style.

Another example that bugs me is in the area of electronic music. People put artists like Imogen Heap and the Postal Service in the same category. They don't sound at all alike, if you know anything about how a synthesizer works. Imogen uses what I think are more sine waves and high-pass filtered square waves. On the other hand, it sounds like the Postal Service uses a lot of low-pass filtered square waves and sawtooth waves.

You can create infinite variances of sounds based on what waveform you start with and how you filter it. But to the uneducated music critic, it sounds the same. I read one review calling Imogen's new album "Organic electronica." That has to do a lot with what sort of waveforms she uses.

We're probably beginning to see a "second generation" of indie synthpop arising, and they're going to mimic their influences. If they're decent, they can reorganize waveforms and re-voice their sounds. The average music fan still probably won't be able to tell the difference, and thus has no credibility to talk about it. They will write it off as copycat music, even though the use of synths was only new in the 70s and 80s, and some of the other muscial concepts could be attributed to 80s new wave.

There is a lot more to music theory than knowing chord progressions, rhythms, and melodic structure. Timbre and tone make a huge difference. The problem is (in this postmodern, internet age), that anyone with a blog can review stuff and feel qualified to talk about it.

As an artist, you always have to find the balance of pushing yourself experimentally and sounding somewhat like other musicians you enjoy. You don't want to come out of left field or no one will like it.

As certain styles become "pop," they become imitable. That's the reality of music. Things do start to sound more alike.

But please, if you don't know what you're talking about, turn down your critical attitude and let people express themselves. It's hard enough to write a song and arrange it without your so-called expert opinion.
______________________

I know more about music in this area, but I'm sure the same is true with everything else creative. When I take photos and edit them, I do so in a style like other photographers I like. Is this a plagiaristic insult or the highest form of compliment?

When I'm designing something (website, logo, motion graphic), I'm going to copy elements of other artists who I enjoy. It would be stupid not to.

It's scary to put your work out there for others to see. If you don't like it, just keep your mouth shut (like Thumper's mom said in Bambi). If you like it, then encourage the artist, because their taste and your taste happen to align.

I basically find no reason for the average person to discuss their dislike of art in a public forum. Of course you can dislike things, and it's good to learn why you dislike and like things (kind of--once you learn the theory, the joy of art gets lost a bit). But until you get to the point where you understand exactly what the artist was doing and exactly why they did everything, you really aren't an authority on anything, and don't deserve to pull their work down.

___________________________

This really all goes back to the idea that each of us is made in the image of God and each of us is meant to create--to express ourselves. To judge anything that someone else creates from an attitude of snobbishness is to insult the image of God in that person. It is possible to call people to really dig deep and be more creative without insulting their imago Dei, but all too often we don't do that. I know I often criticize art and I am sorry for that. Yeah, I whine about how most Christian Music is lacking. And maybe the artists could be better, but I need to acknowledge that these are ordinary people like me who are doing their best to express the thoughts and ideas they have through art. I commend them for that.