By John Wofford
GENRE: EXPERIMENTAL/POST-ROCK
LABEL: INO RECORDS
RELEASE DATE: SEMPTEMBER 1, 2009
RATING: 5 OUT OF 5
“Time looks the same at the ones who hate, and the ones who do nothing.”
Derek Webb’s folk has finally, reluctantly, given up the ghost. The jam band has been sent home – guitars and drum sets packed in cases and tucked away. The harmonica has been misplaced; the banjo is broken, its strings snapped and flayed. Forgotten for a time while Webb experimented with Beatles-era pop and Dylan’s rock textures, the intimate musicianship and grassroots songwriting economy here has its grave danced on by a motley chorus of thick distortion, inorganic textures, electronic beats – its soul communicated in solemn choral lines, harsh spoken word, and strained ecstasy that fights for prominence under the soundtrack of a sonic bloodbath. It’s a Frankenstein monster of electropop, doo wop, power noise, aggrotech, classic spiritual-form gospel, glitchcore – all hacked apart, sewn back together with violent disregard for structure, and brought to life with ferocity and courage. Profoundly uncomfortable at times in its blatant disregard for musical clarity or uniformity, melodies trail off toward incomprehensible resolutions – both irresistibly memorable and precociously evasive – and the liveliness of acoustic instrumentation is warped, kept breathing through an iron lung of smoky reverb.
“If you really believed, what you say you believe, you wouldn’t be so damn reckless with the words you speak.”
The role of the prophet has always been to present a certain modicum of clarity to the human experience, to grant spiritual significance to ambiguous times. With Christianity serving as the state’s religion in the 21st century, it is inevitable for hostility to arise between a nation-sponsored corporatization of Jesus’ teachings and those who feel Christ to have been misrepresented in the public eye, not by the “liberal media elite” but by well-intentioned-but-misinformed laymen and ministers who are unfortunately given a political platform. Webb stands in the fray, filling this role by engaging the themes of scripture in his expression (defense of the right to human dignity, love in the face of incomprehensible violence and hatred, and the prime allegiance of believers to a moral authority rather than a governmental system), acting unafraid to distance Christian ideals from the behavior of tyrants and hate-speech propagators, pointing out the inherent materialism of a state-sponsored religious system, and then (in the face of his criticisms) painting a picture of a perfect world so profoundly moving it serves as a call to action against social ills.
“I want to kiss your lips to shut you up.”
As an industry player, Webb isn’t status quo. He was a bastard child, a whore, a dirty-faced brigand in a wedding dress that didn’t quite fit, singing the song of a virgin that didn’t belong in his mouth – a song of redemption. A roomful of Crowders, Leelands, or Tomlins don’t equate, in spite of their own attempts at capturing the dance between the human and the divine; the mass of Christian hipsters and liberals were drawn less to his gospel and more to the animosity apparent between he and the industry that feeds him.
With Stockholm Syndrome, the tenacity for attracting attention has reached both a climax of sorts and had the curtain drawn back on it. We see it for the shallow blog-war fodder it always was, and in this revelation, the Gospel begins to take center stage, again isolating Webb’s work from the hippies who wanted to make him the soundtrack to their soulless rebellion and the fundamentalists who don’t appreciate him crossing the line. “What Matters More,” in spite of (or perhaps enabled by) its spattering of profanity, is simply the Gospel, completely represented in all of its tide-shifting, world-shattering beauty and aggression: God is profoundly moved by the suffering of his creation, and takes great pains to ensure their well-being; no man who aligns himself with the Father has business compromising the peace of others. To do so is violence against creation.
“Brother, you’re the one who’s queer.”
There’s a decidedly fed-up bent to a load of the lyrics, and it doesn’t take long before Webb actually engages a few of the quacks on their own turf. How does one respond to Fred Phelps – that scripture-quoting funeral picketer, a prophet to some and an enemy of God to others? Retaliation rarely works, but tongue in cheek consternation is a bold approach that humiliates the insufferable “God Hates F—gs” rhetoric without resorting to similar cheap tactics or impatient disapproval. “Freddie Please” channels retro vocal pop, a sermon with legs to reach the Westboro crowd and even condemn the logic of a few other so-called “defenders of traditional family values” in the process.
For all intents and purposes, it seems clear that Webb sides on behalf of minority groups – particularly the gay community – which have, of late, been persecuted by a collective of conservative Christian teachers and a push by the Republican party to amend the Constitution in an effort to define marriage. As an ardent advocate of the Gay Christian movement myself, it’s comforting to hear someone in the spotlight – particularly one who commands so much attention and respect – to intelligently and biblically articulate all the many ways in which the dialogue between the gay community and the church deteriorated before it truly began – even if, admittedly, Webb never addresses the “Is Homosexuality a Sin?” question. An account of an interview with Webb reportedly claims he refused to give a “short answer to a long question” when presented with the issue. Regardless of how one feels about the scriptural interpretations, it’s fair to say that there’s little to no fair and balanced exchange between the two groups.
On the flipside, Webb seems equally perturbed by the immature social allure and often-sensationalized behavior that comes with being an activist. “Cobra Con” and “Jena & Jimmy” both attempt to satirize the “go to a concert, dance with your friends, save the planet” mentality of my generation that reduces the solutions to severely important social issues to holding a benefit concert or buying a tee shirt.
“The agents of law should always be blind and on time.”
The sonic tapestry of Syndrome marries both the afore-mentioned cold excesses of electronic music with the vibrancy and energy of a century’s worth of American creative culture: from the warmth of post-bop jazz to the anarchy of stadium punk to the world-weariness of country – all warped and twisted, of course, but no less reminiscent. “The State,” both the album’s most accessible track and arguably Webb’s thematic focal point when coupled with seamless follow-up “The Proverbial Gun,” is a perfect example of this apprehension put to music – at turns stolid and quaint, usurped by flashes of harrowing emotion and a tragic finality that lasts long after the track runs out. “I Love/Hate You” dances with a tribal, world beat and a series of earthy images with a surprisingly erotic potency – romantic, but not safe; passionate and immediate. “Jena & Jimmy” is purely synthpop: a pulse-pounding chorus that’s teased up until the track’s climax, then let loose with the force of a hurricane. “Cobra Con” oozes a certain hip-hop groove, slow and unaggressive, but rhythmic and drum-heavy, before the bridge tips its hat to the Beatles – both in lyrics and melody. To sum up, electronic it may be, but Syndrome’s songwriting pays love to a variety of decidedly organic forms of songwriting. The resulting marriage is an unstable mixture, and the musical equivalent of a kid’s trip through a candy store: treats on every side.
“Stockholm Syndrome comes to where they’re keeping you.”
Where this album will stand in the history of Christian music remains to be decided by the retrospective analysis of the next few years, and a number of other factors – the future of the church’s overall political lean and how it will consider its current heavyweights in hindsight, the acceptance (however reluctant) of Webb’s daring, and the industry’s artistic response to this experience: its advertising campaign, controversial content, and sonic textures. Even so, a few things can be said outright: Webb has crafted a near-perfect album that rivals anything avid listeners have ever come across, one that deserves comparisons to Ok Computer and Kid A and challenges preconceptions about the depth of art reflecting the Christian experience. Stockholm Syndrome is a dangerous, volatile, stunning masterwork of prophetic brilliance and insight – one of the most important albums of the last 10 years.
As a Christian who has lived the gay lifestyle, and am trying to live above it and serve God, I hope Derek Webb is not advocating same-sex marriage, or homosexuality in general – unfortunately, the Bible still says it is a sin – you cannot practice it and be a Christian – God can help a person live for Him who has those desires and don’t act on them
I don’t like your inference that we are wrong to fight against same-sex marriage – if it passes, we are headed down the road where preachers will get in trouble for condemning that sin.
I do think Christians need to love the homosexual, and be more open to helping – but putting approval on any sin, will not help the sinner.
And did Derek Webb not get the memo that Christians don’t curse?
Love your site, just not impressed with this interview – maybe my comment won’t even get added.
John Piper recently posted on his blog about homosexuality. I thought his thoughts were interesting. “Bashing gays” is not the answer, I agree with Derek there. But as, you said, same-sex relationships are clearly wrong.
Thank you for commenting, Mark, and thank you John for writing the review. You always make me think at least twice when I read what you have to say!
Hey Lydia!
Thanks for the compliment.
I agree, gay-bashing is not the answer. I won’t judge Piper, or his comments. He follows his convictions, as do I. We can expect no less of any person.
I hope you continue reading. Also, I did an interview with Mr Webb, which is featured on
http://www.patrolmag.com/times/1778/derek-webb-interview
Be on the lookout for The Christian Manifesto’s own interview with this artist, which is coming very, very soon.
Let me just put in another plug for John’s interview with Webb. Fantastic. I don’t always agree with everything Webb says or sings about, but he brings the conversation to a new level and forces thought from both sides. That’s always a good thing.
I don’t think there is a memo about Christians not cursing. A common argument against it brings up verses that deal more with actually ‘cursing’ something directly, not the mere use of words that have been arbitrarily determined to be ‘vulgar’ by our society. Christians don’t cuss because it hasn’t been socially acceptable for the longest time, and it has mysteriously been turned into a complete sin (even saying ‘hell’, or ‘piss’, in some circles). I don’t believe there is any basis for that. I do believe that there is an issue, however, when the cursing is directed at someone from the heart in a vicious and completely sincere manner. This argument could go on forever, and I will not continue nor reply, just stating my opinion.
Although I do not advocate same-sex marriage, and I believe that it is clearly shown to be a sin by Scripture, I believe the “You cannot practice it and be a Christian” statement steps over a line. That is like saying “You can’t sin and be a Christian”. WRONG.
Many Christians have been caught up in sin before, for a long time, because it is hard to break out of, even as a Christian. If you have genuinely accepted Christ and become a Christian, and you fall into temptation and start to be come addicted to pornography, I think it’d be rather vicious and self-righteous of anyone else to accuse you of not being a Christian whatsoever.
Sure, you may be a Christian who did not flee from the sin, and have now fallen into it, but to determine the basis of someone’s salvation solely on the fact that they’ve fallen in sin is completely ignorant. I understand that a big issue here, is the fact that many believe that they can be a practicing homosexual, and are convinced that they aren’t doing anything wrong.
This is where the issue comes to light, because it is not only that one has fallen into sin, but that one believes it isn’t sin. However, this still cannot be a basis of determination regarding the spiritual state or salvation of a particular individual. Only that person and God know for sure, and I believe we take it upon ourselves too often in calling out a person’s spiritual state or salvation/lack thereof. That is not our place, it is God’s.
Brandon,
I’m totally with you, man.
I have a different take on the “gay debate,” but it’s almost one in the morning, I’ve been out tonight, and don’t feel like discussing it. It’s not particularly controversial, but it takes some thought, and a lot of it comes down to splitting theological hairs.
Basically, if you think it’s a sin, then that’s totally fine. As Webb told me during our interview, for some people, it’s just about changing how they present their theology — word choice and tact. For others, it’s a matter of reassessing how they turn theology into ethics. Either way, it should be done with a mentality that doesn’t swallow up “the enemy.”
For those of you who are in support of the recent trend of lifting bans regarding same-sex partners in ministry (as seen last night with the ELCA, or parts of the Presbyterian movement a couple years ago, and bits of both the Episcopal and Anglican traditions of late), then it becomes a matter of keeping the peace between the liberal and conservative sectors. My biggest problem with the debate is how it has reduced people to statistics or potential hell-bound souls, rather than souls with a divine spark inside them.
And honestly, I don’t care. This issue is the hot button right now, and while that’s fine — defend the truth, by all means — I just get tired of talking about it.
In other news, Derek Webb’s Stockholm Syndrome has a ton of other things we could be discussing. Not only is it a five-star album, but other than U2′s No Line on the Horizon (which I’m absolutely addicted to), it’s the only album I’ve ever given a perfect score to.
Now that I’m awake, I have a couple observations about how no one seems to pay much attention to the rest of the album’s content.
This I would attribute to a couple things: a) the audience’s lack of interest in engaging the album other than the one song with the words that make them cringe, b) the fact that most probably have no idea what Webb’s talking about apart from the homosexuality debate, c) the absence of shock at the notion of a faith deeply rooted in subverting empire that has now become interwoven with it.
Speaking broadly, no one knows what to do with this album because so few (including myself) have a clear grip of its concepts. So when Webb sings in “The State” and “Jena & Jimmy” about the dangerous interconnections between faith and politics (namely, when nationalism and the Bible begin holding hands — going so far as to metaphorically describe the church as a drunken girl taken home in a one-night stand), or parodies the recent trend of “I spent time in heaven/hell/purgatory” testimonies that are all the rage at the moment, or shines a harsh spotlight into abusive relationships in “Black Eye” and “I Love/Hate You,” listeners stand scratching their heads, eventually returning to the thing they understand: DIRTY WORDS! Like children in a schoolyard, we all point at the kid who said the “bad” word, until eventually, we get sick of saying “shit” and move on to the next shallow controversy, leaving this gem of an album forgotten.
That’s not to say we won’t remember this moment in CCM history. It’s just to say that so many of us will never totally understand how significant it was.
Quoting an earlier comment:
“And did Derek Webb not get the memo that Christians don’t curse?”
It’s comments like this that get me so frustrated over the stereotypical Christian/Christian music. We now believe that the ideal model for Christianity is Ned Flanders and artists like the David Crowder Band make millions from recycling old, tired-out Worship song formulas coupled with mindless pop. I’ve been debating how I feel about Derek Webb’s use of cursing to convey a song’s point, but it’s comments like this that make me realize he used such words to show how misguided Christians have become. Jesus was a radical who was willing to die in order for us to understand God’s love, not a prim-and-proper Conservative who scolded gays and hunted deer with his buddies. Although Mr. Webb could have probably conveyed his points in a more G-rated way, he included such lyrics for the purpose of reawakening people to the world around us and the injustices we look past in our hometowns and in other countries.
Here’s the deal…people have become so lax in their faith that that do not equate “cursing” with “treating homosexuals badly.” We focus on one, but not the other. I get the point. But, the point is, it does not make swearing or use of strong language any less sinful. That’s the problem with this debate. Anyone who says “Don’t swear…” is vilified and accused of missing the point and proving Derek Webb’s overall position on the matter. But, the point is, Scripture is just as clear on not swearing as it is about treating others as we would want to be treated.
Do I like Derek Webb’s style? Yes. For sure. Does that make it right? Nope. Not in the least. And that is a reflection of where our faith has gone. I’m part of the problem. We’ve got this “bigger fish to fry” mentality that is wreaking havoc on the faith and allowing us to do all manner of things that Jesus is grieved over while turning around and saying “He’s pleased with this because of the greater good accomplished.”
Anyhow…this is a good debate to have, as well as a debate surrounding how we treat others.
Well, it all depends on how you define swearing. In Jewish culture, swearing literally meant cursing the well-being of another person or group of people, with the intent to see it happen. As in, “damn you all to hell for eternity” or “I hope all your flock dies off” or “May God curse your health.” Granted, a lot of words today (while not related to actual cursing as a supernatural form of making something happen) are used simply because of their offensive nature, which would make them wrong. But I don’t think Webb used the word in a context that deserves criticism. I think his point was well-delivered, if not well-deceived. I know for a fact he caught the attention of Westboro Baptist Church, which is a nice thing to hear.
It all boils down to where your priorities are. As was written in Colossians Remixed (great book by the way), offensive language can’t just be relegated to “dirty words” you would hear in the playground, it has to include the rhetoric of empire (in direct contradiction to the practices and teachings of Christ and the apostles), which is all over Western Christianity, and other such misleading or inappropriate communication.
I’m not vilifying anyone who disagrees with me, but I stand by my earlier premise that there is far more potentially offensive, subversive language on this album than the words on “What Matters More,” which means either no one’s picking up on it, or that the ones who have aren’t talking about it– but why?
For the record, if you don’t believe in swearing, good for you. Really. That’s great. My best friend is in the process of becoming a Catholic priest, and he is entirely against it, whereas I use it all the time, provided I’m in the company of those who aren’t going to be offended by it. People believe things for very real, very valid reasons. And they’re entitled to, without being beaten senseless by angry bloggers, myself included. I’m just confused as to why it always goes back to the language thing, or the gay issue, with people discussing this album.
Grace and peace, guys and ladies. Good discussion.
Here’s my favorite take on the discussion thus far — the “swearing” issue, how silly it is that we’re all distracted by it, and the response from Christian publications:
http://www.patrolmag.com/opinion/1811/losing-their-salt
John,
You said something interesting in your last post before the link. You said, “…I use it all the time, provided I’m in the company of those who aren’t going to be offended by it.” I like that consideration.
Compare that to Ephesians 4:29: “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.”
I think that’s the real issue with language. We don’t always have the best interest of our hearers in mind when we choose that type of language. If you’re in the company of someone who isn’t offended by the words you choose, fine. The problem is, very little of what we say now (ESPECIALLY online) is guaranteed to only be heard by those we intend it for. 1 Corinthians 8 is helpful.
There’s also the issue of the heart. Some may be able to use foul language without sinning, but I think sometimes people rationalize to excuse their behavior. When I resort to that type of language, it’s out of anger or frustration. Yes, it communicates my feelings, but it’s also sinful. I think others use it because they don’t consider it’s effect on others.
Either way, language is important. The bible addresses it many times, so this is a good discussion to have. Some take prohibitions against language way too far, but I think we’re slightly reacting against that now and swinging to the other extreme.
Matthew:
I’m not sure how I feel about the back-and-forth over language. A lot of the people who disagree with its use tend to have perspectives on the biblical text that I don’t share (we came across this road-block once ourselves). I mean, 40 years ago, terms like “Lord-uh-mercy” were considered profanity (blasphemy, specifically), and now on any given day I could hear an old conservative minister say those words with no hang-ups or moral qualms.
In the 1930s, a few profanities were “flig” (which referred to someone of little to no social class), “opossum” (which was a woman of sexual deviance), and “banger” (which served as an alternative to male genitalia). The point? No one finds these words offense, or even cares about their use. My question is this– why is this discussion relevant? Granted, if I were around folks who were offended by the use of these words (or more modern “dirty words” like “damn” or “hell” and so on), I would hope I have the decency to refrain from tossing them around like so much crass confetti. Having said that, language propriety depends on WHERE you are as much as WHEN you are.
I live on a Catholic campus, where there’s no such thing as profanity — any word is fair game. There are a couple folks I know who are the exception to the rule about word use, but overall the attitude is “Why so serious?!” My point, then, is that Protestant Christianity seems all worried about something other sectors have moved on about.
Again, if you don’t swear — that’s awesome. Is it relevant to the overall discussion of Jesus and his teachings? Eh, not so much. But, like Paul said, if any man feels that something is immoral, then by all means he should stay away. We each follow our convictions to their conclusions. Nothing more can be asked of us. I do fear that, in our efforts to split theological hairs over these issues, we fail to make ourselves available to folks on the outside who aren’t quite sure they like “Jesus people” (a completely valid feeling, I might add). It plays out like this — we talk about “salvation by faith alone,” attach an asterisk to it, then lay out a load of social behaviors that we judge one another by. No wonder we’re losing believers left and right!
I might also add that in the next few years, these declining numbers will mean less money for churches nation-wide. And make no mistake, when churches start losing money, they will experience new “divine revelations” to counteract the leavers and attract new interested parties. It’s the tried and true method for integrating women, social minorities, and races of various kinds into the fold: cut off the trust funds of these leaders and they will do complete 180s.
That’s not to discredit the whole of divine communication with humanity, only to suggest that it’s a rare, beautiful thing that shouldn’t be credited for every menial decision we make as a spiritual collective.
John,
The whole “it’s depends on the culture” argument always seems a little off to me. Of course vulgarity depends on the culture and time period you’re in. That doesn’t make what’s offensive in our culture and time less offensive to a lot of people. I don’t think there’s some master list somewhere of all the words we shouldn’t say. We have to be in tune to what people in our context may find offensive and be sensitive to them. This is loving. It doesn’t matter if the words that offend them might be in common use in 20 years. If it’s going to offend them now, why can’t I just maintain control of my words and choose ones that won’t lead to that?
We might not think the words should be offensive, and in many cases, we’re probably right. But that’s a prideful response on our part. The loving thing is to take into consideration others before I speak. I struggle with this, especially since in my context, many words are considered offensive that are almost laughable to me. But I’m trying to learn humility and consider these people before my own right to speak whatever I want to. Nothing about this is cut and dry, and I don’t think it’s supposed to be.
I agree with you on this one, Matthew, completely and totally. I don’t think that being receptive to my brother or sister’s needs always means fulfilling their interpretations of scripture, but I think common courtesy is to avoid obvious offensive. Spot on discussion, bro.
Back to the review…
John, sorry to say — but if you’ve proved one thing, it’s that you don’t have a real sense of what makes Radiohead albums great.
This is not a bad album. No Webb album ever is. But this disc’s bleeps and bloops and experimental tendencies are about the only thing it has in common with Radiohead. I’m happy to hear Derek experiment, but he’s nowhere close to creating the atmospheric soundscape of a Radiohead or Sigur Ros. Derek’s songs can also be quite hit or miss. The doo-wop of “Freddie” may have some wit, but I find it nearly intolerable to listen to.
Actually, this disc reminds me more closely of the David Crowder Band. “A Collision”, considered their masterpiece, is also a highly-overrated disc in my mind. It’s got a lot of stylistic and production experimentation, and some genuinely great moments. But in the end, I find it disjointed; it really doesn’t hold up to the scrutiny or the hype.
Please don’t get me wrong: I will pick up every disc that Webb puts out. I appreciate his own work, and his advocacy for other artists in the American Church’s currently-tepid arts scene. But I wouldn’t label this as his best work. I’d still laud that honor upon his first solo disc, “She Must and Shall Go Free”.
Clay:
I’m with you on the whole Crowder thing. His music is not as inspired as critics have made it out to be.
With Webb, though, I’ve got to disagree. I’m wondering why you only hear a series of bleeps and bloops with Stockholm Syndrome.