The Earth is Yours

Man, I love these guys. I've probably watched this video a thousand times, but realized I never shared it. I hope you come to like Gungor as much as you should.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uRUCV78IULQ&]

-B

My New Song...Name It For Me

I haven't written a ton of music as of late. I have a few that are coming but are unfinished. I stumbled across this one, which I wrote at the end of college, yesterday. The thing is, I never really came up with a name for it. I like the song, I think the message is relatively clear, and the recording came out pretty well for being done in our dorm room.

So, the issue remains. I wanted to share the song, but I didn't have a name for it. So I came up with this idea: have you all name it.

I put it on YouTube with the lyrics sliding by as it goes along in hopes that you'll listen to it. The visuals are minimalistic and bare bones, but that way you'll be able to focus. If you'd like, leave your idea for a title in the comments. I'll give two prizes, one for the one I pick or think most fits, then one for the most creative.

I'm seriously considering putting it on iTunes too, so anyone who wants to design some cover art for it as a single will win my heart forever (after Jesus, Allie, and my family of course).

Hope you enjoy.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbAihr-ws5o&]

-B

"Passion"ate Music in The Church

I've been enjoying my time off thus far. I've watched television, listened to music, and made Allie breakfast this morning. Good start to the break, This morning I started watching some of the videos from my Digital All Access Pass that I bought from Passion 2011. In the middle of the second one, I started having some thoughts about what was actually occurring. I was watching a worship session, watching others worship to new music that they had just learned. It seemed strange, possibly for one of the first times, that I was watching others worship God. A little weird right? Many readers might take this opportunity to move to the next logical step. The step might be that this is entertainment instead of worship and it's just wrong by principle(and hence why I am watching it and feeling strange) but hear me clearly: they are wrong, uninformed, and overly critical.

I immediately jumped to the conclusion that I was in a place where their feelings made sense. But something felt odd to me still, so I went to YouTube. You know what I found? A whole bunch of videos, posted online, of people worshipping in traditional settings. To traditional hymns. To an organ, sometimes a choir, and whole bunch of awful sounding tones. I mean, really, a lot of it was bad. Very bad.

So I thought, if the contemporary music model is so "wrong" because it allows itself very easily to be recorded and placed in a position where someone might watch it later for, perhaps, entertainment value, why in the world are these churches recording these hymns? There is almost nothing about it that is pleasing to the ear. The camera angles are such that you can rarely see anything of consequence. Why put this on YouTube?

As I struggled with this question, I considered different things: maybe they're trying to advertise their church. Maybe they're trying to pay homage to the old hymns. Maybe they just discovered that you can put things on YouTube and so they decided to try it. Any of these could be right.

But one significant difference stuck out: energy. The Passion videos had energy. I could feel it sitting here on the couch. The traditional videos didn't.

When I lead others in worship, and I tend to do a lot of that, I can tell by the middle of the first song whether or not the energy of the room is anything that can be worked with. I very much believe that though the Spirit is always present, sometimes it manifests itself in ways that are easier seen than other times.

As I sit in Goodson Chapel for worship during the day at Duke, sometimes I feel it, and sometimes I don't.

Over the past four years or so I have tried to experiment in ways that will make my methods of leading more effective. The ways I interact with the musicians, the way transitions are planned, the way the text of songs interacts with other parts of the service, all of this matters.

And I think that is where the contemporary music movement has hit a nail on the head. They discovered a way to be effective. Many of the songs are still used in appropriate times in worship. Many of the songs resemble good musicianship in the layout, form, and overall direction. And because they used a style of music that allows people to really move to and feel within themselves, they reached an inner part of the body and spirit that truly sings. Good music, no matter what the style, does this...but simplistic forms tend to resonate with our inner souls more.

There is a reason that slave songs sounded the way they did.

There is a reason that today's African American Gospel music borrows many themes and styles from old slave songs.

My argument is that I see the contemporary music movement doing and borrowing the same things. That's why, in the mostly-Caucasian world, it tends to invoke more energy in the room. When you hear a worship leader say, "I felt like they were really getting into it." I think this is the principle they are referring to.

Like it or not, in 2011, the traditional services and traditional worship styles of old do not carry the energy. Some may say this can't be true, and I might agree that this is a sad reality, but it is nonetheless a reality. At least I see it like this.

Keeping this in mind, my ultimate question is this: if the Spirit is always present and presumably the Spirit doesn't care what style of music is played, why does it manifest itself inside of this type of music more? How much of that depends on the musicianship of those leading? Do others experience the Spirit in different ways? If yes(most likely), does that manifest itself in ways that speak loudly (and tangibly)?

How do we know?

-B

Born This Way

I believe that by this point I have made it clear that eccentric, brilliant, crazy people intrigue me greatly. I don't really see how this will ever change. But, this new Lady Gaga video is beyond where I am willing to go.

Gaga' new single "Born This Way" found its way onto these here inter-webs in video form last week sometime on Vevo, YouTube's recent offering for legal artist-submitted and promoted music video content.

Born This Way, like Gaga's "Alejandro", is about 7 or 8 minutes long and truly reminds me of the old Michael videos that were really short films rather than just a music video. Something about this production style seems to be very artistic and I really like it. I like story lines, creativity, and one medium acting as another.

But, also like Alejandro, the video of Born This Way does not necessarily add to the song in a way that provides any insight into the textual poetry. And, also like Alejandro, it shows way too much skin unnecessarily. For that reason, I choose not to link to the video here as I would often do. I do consider it an attempt at art and so I won't necessarily discourage you from watching it, but I do recommend that you be careful.

The Born This Way video approaches the art of movie making much like the Thriller video did. It gives a little context, tells a little story, and then infiltrates the screen with dancing and singing. One major difference though: Gaga is nearly naked for the entire video. Same thing was true of the Alejandro video and when she WAS clothed she was dressed as a nun (and it eventually heads toward a sacrilegious ending). Not only is Gaga almost naked, but she enacts sexual movements throughout the video as well. It is extreme overkill. (Arguably, the Alejandro video is still much worse.)

Typically, those of us who are offended by this blatant sexual outpouring from a TV screen would just change the channel or click a different video. But I watched this all the way through because I couldn't figure out if it was the sexual discourse that I struggled with or whether or not it was the fact that this was a great song, written for a noble cause, and was simply destroyed by a terrible video design.

I interpret the text of the song like this: love yourself no matter who you are, what you do, how you feel, or what people think of you or call you. In today's world this is a message that ought to speak loudly. Very loudly. God makes no mistakes.

I interpret the video like this: a star like Gaga was born and helped to raise up followers who don't hate. Given, the metaphor used in the video was extreme, strong, and downright weird...but I still got the message.

Problem number one: is this video about keeping people from wanting to kill themselves because they feel out of place because they are gay, fat, or not cool? Or is it a message that Gaga is helping the world out by promoting self confidence? I would argue that it might be both. As a Christian, I appreciate an effort to promote an idea and message of love.

Here's the issue that I see though. If the ultimate goal is that someone love themselves no matter who they are or what they look like, what is the need for the sexual acts on screen? What good does that do? I might argue that, if anything, it only makes a fan look at Gaga's body and think differently about their own body. This seems counterproductive.

P!nk's new video and song seems to be a better representation of this message.

As a result of the issue stated above, I think that Gaga's new video does nothing to advance culture in a way that she wants it to advance (toward a movement of love and acceptance) because it is so bogged down with sexual aspects that a viewer may never be able to get past it. (Though, P!nk's new video uses the F word unnecessarily as well.)

It seems to me that the popular world is catching on to the damage it has caused. And some artists are trying to fix it. I appreciate that.

But, they're not seeing the whole picture.

-B

I have a lot a respect for Gaga but I think she is quickly losing me as a true fan.

The Sad Reality That Is Gwyneth Paltrow's Singing

When this debuted on Glee (or rather, the video debuted on YouTube first) I posted it here and made some sort of snide comment about the questionable amount of auto tune used. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1_B9FCZJMA&]

My basic feeling at the time was that while she is an entertaining actress and for the sake of Glee they had to use some pitch correction, I doubt that she had that much of "pop" control over her voice. Not that "pop" control is really all that much different from any other type of control.

Little things like her performance of the word "driving" in the first line "I see you driving 'round town with the guy I love" just made me think there had to be too much computer work done to the vocals.

I had no idea that this was turning into a career for her.

She was introduced tonight at the Oscars as "Country Music's next sensation" (or something like that) and I assume this has all come from Country Strong's suc-wait, lack of success. [I'll post the video whenever it becomes available]

My theory remains true. What was the thing most missing from the performance? Control. Her voice isn't terrible, and yes she has some slight pitch problems. But, mostly what is missing is her control.

She probably sounds like a decent singer in the shower, but not in a microphone.

While in the shower, given the acoustics of typical bathrooms, little nuances in your voice that might not be as pleasing to the ear are covered up by the resonance supplied by the tile, etc. But, in a microphone (and worse, in a dry mix driven to a TV feed) all those nuances cover up the parts of your voice that are actually decent.

It is as if microphones do THE EXACT OPPOSITE that the bathroom walls do.

Which is why, in today's world, people who are not in mastery of their voice ought not sing into a microphone. Or be recorded. Or perform at the Oscars. Or be described as the next big thing.

Stop making actors...singers. Unless they are good. Gwyneth isn't.

-B

For the record, Bieber has incredible control of his voice for not having much training and being 16.

Justin Bieber's Talent

Yes, I did see this movie. By far the most impressive clips from the film were the ones where he beat on things as a kid.  At one point, you watch him open a djembe for Christmas and beat on it, like he's been doing it for years.  He's like two.

He gets a bad reputation because his music is marketed to tweens. But-the kid can sing, and he can play.

Really.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COJCN3Mhr14]

-B

A Taste of Passion 2011

One of the things that I like about a progressive Church culture is that new music continues to be written for the masses and the Church. When contemporary music began to become mainstream, the world took cues from WillowCreek in Chicago. Then, the work that Darlene Zschech and Reuben Morgan did at Hillsong Church in Austrailia made an impression on the musical world. Around the end of the 90's, artists like Charlie Hall, Chris Tomlin, and David Crowder became more celebrated worship writers through a series of conferences led by the 268 generation (under the direction of Louie Giglio) known as Passion.

Since then, more artists have come forward and more songs have been written for the Passion conferences in hopes that they would allow the Church to worship in new ways. It continues to change the worshipping world. These songs are usually somewhat accessible by a mediocre worship band at a local church or camp. Though other conferences have certainly gained the attention of worship leaders and potential song writers, Passion continues to develop the mainstream and new material comes out of them every year.

I didn't want to post these at first, because there is bound to be some sort of copyright infringement (and surely at some point these will be taken down), but in the world of video cameras on cellphones readily connected to YouTube and music written for the Church at large, this is the way we live. Because I don't know the specifics of those who authored these works, I'll simply list the leadership.

I thought you'd enjoy the aggregation of the songs below. Please, in March, buy the album.

Open the Heavens/All My Fountains - Chris Tomlin Leadership

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mzOBgvPixE]

Spirit Fall - Chris Tomlin Leadership

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSqpkW2hKDM]

We Are Here for You - Chris Tomlin Leadership (although this sounds like a Matt Redman tune)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXytBVDRdm0]

All To Us - Chris Tomlin (This is actually on his most recent album also)

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWaOv91E5N4]

Where You Go We Will Follow - David Crowder Leadership

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObsBu2_CtAQ]

Song of Liberty/Set Free - Chris Tomlin Leadership

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-l0O1lR_BU]

I Need You - Chris Tomlin Leadership

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEoO1cGcBzE]

And...the results from "Do Something Now" as read aloud by Louie

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZDRmghpOb8]

 

That's it for now. When I get a kind email from Passion, I'll take them all down.

-B

 

 

On Marketing the Church

If you talk to a lot of people, especially church people, you'll get a lot of mixed responses about marketing and its relation to the church. Many many people think of marketing as a negative word.  Many many other people think that marketing is a reality, whether good or bad. Rob Bell has a quotation in Velvet Elvis that speaks about how upset he was when someone from the church that he was starting put a sign up advertising the church. He said something like "the words marketing and church can't be in the same sentence."

I bought into this theory for awhile. People have to want to come to church. No amount of commercials or billboards are going to bring them in. Sounds like a righteous argument right? If our intentions are the best, then people will want to come to church.  They will just have to.  As far as getting them there, God will take care of that.

My issue here is that I just don't see it working.

I've had the blessing now to help start two churches. Both very different, in different parts of the country. One has been around quite awhile and has struggled with many issues. One is still pretty new but has not shown any signs of huge growth.  Both have moved buildings when the first wasn't working. Both are in communities that don't allow for signs to be placed on the street.  Both are in communities that have tons of houses that house people that work in the surrounding cities. Both are surrounded by many churches. One committed itself early on to being a "contemporary" modeled church.  The other considers itself "eclectic", merging hymns and praise songs with traditional liturgy.

The second church spends lots of money sending out mailers to the surrounding neighborhoods in hopes of inviting more people to church. My initial reaction to this process (besides knowing that your response will be anywhere below 0.5% of all of the mailings you do) was one of Bell's fancy. Marketing? Church? How can they mix?  Are we trying to sell something? (You can read my take on whether or not the church has products here)

The answer (for new churches at least, and I would imagine almost for all) is...yes. We are trying to sell something. Because the more people come in, the more offering is given.  The more offering is given, means the more work that can be done to advance the Kingdom. The more work that can be done to advance the Kingdom, the more the church can live out its role. Don't believe me or disagree on principle? Ask any pastor who has been faced with a snow day or hurricane day. The decision to "cancel" church for Sunday means one thing: loss of offering.  It is even worse for those years that Christmas or Christmas Eve falls on a Sunday. Some churches refer to it as "low Sunday" (along with the week after Easter) because the attendance will inevitably be down. A low attendance means a low offering. Churches are like clubs, dues are necessary to keep them rolling.

I can tell that many seminarians are grinding their teeth at this point, but it is a reality of ministry. If your church can't meet payroll, you are out of a job and the ministry will inevitably suffer.  I don't care how "just" your principle is.  New church starts struggle in America with the same struggles that new businesses have. You have to establish your product and name in order for people to be attracted to you. This is why restaurant chains are so successful, it is much easier to start in a new area.

So, living into this reality, the next obvious question to ask is about marketing. What role does quality marketing play in the renewal of a church body?

Everyone knows that the best form of marketing is word of mouth. People speak highly of you and people come.  IF what you have to offer is worth grabbing hold of (not meaning music and sermons...although those play a very real role in the attraction of new members) then people will come. It really isn't much more complicated than that.

I recently returned from Passion 2011.  Say what you want about Louie Giglio, in a world that appears like the Church is dying - Passion is still moving. Passion is known for marketing.  They put out albums, books, DVDs, etc. all with the intention of glorifying the name of God...and bringing people to their conferences. It seems to be working too (if you consider more attendees, "working"). Next year, they are going to combine the 22,000 students who meet every year in Atlanta with the other 10,000-15,000 that are meeting in Fort Worth with presumably many more who couldn't register and hold the event in the Georgia Dome. I think it houses somewhere around 70,000 people. We'll see if they get anywhere close to that.

Passion gets a lot of criticism about a lot of things. One of the biggest - money. They market and sell everything. I mean everything. And for awhile I bought into Bell's idea. This is ridiculous.  It is the church.  I don't need to see another video advertisement.

But then I saw this video: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJnPnXmXk5k]

And I compared it to this video: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQ91eFAoJAk]

Both are simple.  Both have issues with them. One is noticeably "better" than the other.

And it occurred to me: Both are marketing. Given in different ways, both are marketing. Many United Methodists would disagree that the Church doesn't need marketing. But this video was sent out by the UMC. To market the conference.  I mean, really.

The reason marketing is necessary for us is because this is the way that humans take in information. You can tell someone about something. Or, you can show them. This is the role of marketing in the church. We have to tell and show people who we are. You may disagree with it on principle, but it is what it is. This may be unfortunate, but unfortunate is the way we have to live our lives sometimes.

The question then comes down to quality. Quality marketing triggers an emotional response. I think you can figure out which video above triggers the bigger emotional response.

If we confuse the ways of the world's money making with the Church, we will be pursuing a goal that does not align itself with the heart of God. IF, though, we take the principles that the world teaches because it better understands how sinful human beings relate to things and one another and use these to progress the Church, then we may learn something about ourselves and who God wants the Church to be.

Small churches are great. Small churches with clear mission statements are even better.  Small churches that are using evangelism to grow are even better. Small churches that meet solely in small groups may grow in their discipleship, but if they don't tell anyone about who they are, what they stand for, and what they think God is doing inside of them, they will die. Because people die. And unfortunately, the Kingdom work that that church had been doing dies with it.

And it doesn't need to.

-B

 

IN ADDITION - It is probably worth noting that the UM video is meant to encourage others to encourage young people.  Using word of mouth as well. Interesting use and direction.

Andre Rieu, "Classical" Music, Entertainment, and Art

[caption id="" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image via Wikipedia"]The image represents André Rieu in Atlantic City[/caption]

If you've ever been bored in front of the TV and have stumbled upon PBS, you've probably seen Andre Rieu perform with his 5o-or-so member orchestra. The Today Show did a special on him last week an replayed it this morning. I couldn't find it online, but plenty of his performances are on YouTube.

In short, the sequence talked about how Andre was raised in a musical family and his father was a classical conductor. I assume that they were referring to the genre, not necessarily the actual Classical period.

Supposedly, Andre didn't like the "stuffy" atmosphere that was present in the Classical music world and sought to fix that because "music is an emotion" and served a higher purpose. I suppose you could say that Andre felt as if the uppity sense of the Classical world and the fans of it ("that pop music is just too...catchy")was destroying the culture of the art and he desired to make it a fun experience. If you watch any of his performances on PBS, you'll know that there are all kinds of parts added to the "show" to make it entertaining.

That's the word I was hung up on.  Entertaining.

When I studied music, I came to understand it as a form of art; it was sometimes in attractive forms, sometimes not...but still art.  Often, because it is a form of art that many people are not as skilled at, musical performances of any degree bear a sense of entertainment.  I enjoy going to recitals of singers who are better than me because I am not as good as them-I can learn from their performance and interpretations.  At face value, that logic would hold for a non singer...because someone who doesn't sing well is by definition not as good as the performer meaning that they would find a degree of entertainment inside of the performance.

However, if you have been to a "Classical" performance (recital or otherwise) in recent years and you observe the audience, you'll do well to glean a few details that might lead to a better understanding:

  1. If it is not an incredibly popular artist or series, most of the crowd will be at least in their 60's.
  2. Those who are musicians will be there with eyes wide open and critiques flowing.
  3. Those who aren't either a)Seniors or b)Musicians will be a few winks away from sleep.

Obviously these are generalized statements and will in no way hold true across every performance, but do have a ring of truth to them.

The logic from above just doesn't work. I've noticed it in the declining ticket sales of the Fine Arts Series in Branscomb Auditorium at Florida Southern. I've noticed it in conversations with others.  I've noticed it in observing performances and the audiences of them. Perhaps you have too.

I think the key is that a musician (or one who sympathizes...I know the broad statements seem a bit utopian-don't be offended) has a bit of a higher understanding about the composition, about the technique, and about the practice of performance.  This knowledge stimulates some sort of intellect that seeks to learn more. That learning is entertainment. It is enjoyable and will keep one who is intrigued by those thoughts on the edge of their seat at every phrase and breath.

But that's not the typical world. Most people don't understand. And because their idea of "good music" hinges around the backbeat and clever rhyming of words...this type of art is no longer as "entertaining" as it once was.

In the Baroque and Classical eras, music wasn't the "stuffy" thing we think about as now. It was meant for dancing.  It was meant as background music. It was meant for parties. It was an art form, but entertained as well. It was all they knew. Gradually, over time, this shifted. What would have been considered "catchy" melodies in Bach's time were replaced by "catchy" melodies in Beatles' music. Sure, people went to Beatles concerts, but as recordings were easier and easier to come by, people played that music at parties. Even now, you cannot walk into a club or bar where music isn't playing.

The interesting thing about Andre Rieu is that he appears to have caught it.  He seems to understand this disconnect between the art of years ago and the culture of today. In making it funny and adding showmanship he has made it "entertaining". He is incredibly popular.

What was funny about the Today show piece this morning is that they spoke about how the "Classical" world has turned their nose at Andre Rieu's efforts. They say it cheapens the art.

I try to be a little more positive. I think it brings an awareness back to a culture that forgot.

It probably only "cheapens" the art because our culture has been..."cheapened". The music on the radio today is much more simplistic than even Beatles songs. And The Beatles were known for having A LOT of catchy music (I mean, just compare their stuff to Dylan and you'll understand). But Andre Rieu is taking a form of art and entertainment that he enjoys and bringing it back to the masses in a way that will get everyone's attention. I don't think it can be considered "cheap" if it is referring back to the art of old.

Better yet: his main crowd...Seniors.

I guess I'm saying this: Artists tend to want to bring attention to the art that they view as "sacred". That's fine. But in the end it was just a creation by a human. Talented, brilliant, genius humans are born everyday.  Let's celebrate the past and the thoughts and art forms of old.  But let's also recognize innovation.  Let's call what is good good and what is bad bad.

And finally, let's all get over ourselves just a little bit.

 

-B

These Kids Get Everything...

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gKYFZyvehE] If you can stand the barrage of screaming kids excited about-well, everything, you'll understand that PS22 has been invited to perform at the Academy Awards. Red carpet treatment and all.

I typically don't pay too much attention to award shows (sadly, this often includes the Oscars) but I'll probably watch this time. In the past, these kids have been pretty darn impressive for an inner city school choir.

Hats off to the director (former teacher of a friend of mine) who has used YouTube to take the choir to national acknowledgment. The internet is so powerful.

 

-B

Just Tell Me This Isn't Like American Idol...

You won't find many more people more excited and driven to continue and advance with contemporary worship music than me. I love Hillsong. I think that most of the work that they do has advanced American Christianity. In many ways, for the better. But they miss the point on so many occasions. I can't help but think that this just is a bit...over the top.

Maybe sometime when I don't have studying to tend to I'll talk more about how I think that production in these services can work toward a higher goal and so we ought not be so quick to judge the work that they are doing to advance the Kingdom, but my first glance's reaction to this video was...a little bit of outrage.

I wouldn't be surprised if they started having Coke cups on stage because they had all of the sudden secured a sponsor.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHKeVmuQ8V4]

Thanks to Bryan Browning for the link.

-B

Kinetic Typography

I've been a fan of well done kinetic typography (music or spoken word put to motion) for a while. This is by far the best one I have seen. I watched it three times, and each time noticed things I hadn't before.

Phenomenal work.  I'm sure it was hours of labor-intensive work with Adobe's After Effects, but well worth the effort.

Devote the next three and a half minutes of your life to it.

Jonathan Coulton's "Shop Vac" (art and animation done by Jarrett Heather)

[vimeo=http://vimeo.com/17419652 w=640&h=360]

[Found via Daring Fireball]

Many churches are starting to use this moving text idea in worship services as a means of projecting lyrics for congregational singing. Sometimes it is done well.  Most of the time, it is annoying.

This clip above proves that it is possible to do, and to do well. We are a visual culture, and perhaps the lyrical display of text can add to the intention of the song...so as to be better understood.

I thought that it was worth sharing.

 

-B

On Bruno Mars

I often feel bad about posting so many videos. I feel like it is the way in which we all communicate now a days, so it seems fitting. You may know Bruno Mars (or Peter Gene Hernandez). Or have heard his stuff. If you haven't at least heard his name, you've been living under a rock.

Here's the deal with him: He is phenomenal. He is 25 years old, from Hawaii, and has been somewhat of an instant success. Let me list the songs that he has had a hand in since his career took off:

[I've had to edit this list three times to add to it....when Glee covers four of your songs in a season...and you're not Madonna...you've got something big]

You may be thinking to yourself, that's a lot of songs in the space of a year for one guy.

Yes it is.  All radio hits.  All extremely successful.  Allison and I have a joke that "Just the Way You Are" is on every time we are in the car.  Because it is.

In watching some of the YouTube clips (and there are tons) it is more possible to see the talent that this kid actually possesses.  Whether it is in an interview situation, remixing Nirvana and Michael Jackson, doing requests at a live acoustic show, or straight up covering Michael (tell me his voice doesn't sound so close to Michael's); this kid's got it.

What strikes me though, is the content of the songs.  With the songs that he explicitly sings on (do not count Flo Rida's song or Cee-lo's), the content is not the typical stuff that our trashy culture has been putting out recently.

The songs are about love, with eyes only for one, considering beauty (without the need to change), fixing the world if you had the money, and the lengths that one would go to for another.  It is refreshing to see an artist become popular and not have all of their songs be about sex, drugs, or getting shot.  It also helps when they are good at what they do. I feel as if we need lots more of THIS type of influence (not perfect, religious, or anything by any means...but good, somewhat wholesome music) in our culture and on our radios.

This isn't to say that his songs are clear of foul language and worldly desires, but they seem a bit...more real than a lot of the other stuff on the radio.  I find it intriguing to say the least.

If only he could stay off the crack.

If he can keep clean, he's gonna be huge.  Bigger than he is now, for sure.  There aren't a lot of people in the world with this kind of talent and charisma.

Don't believe me?  Watch this:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjhCEhWiKXk]

BTW, his album is $5.99 on Amazon for a limited time.  Eat it up.

-B