Music Influences

Just been listening to some different styles of worship music today....

Worship genre has always been a bit of an issue for me... I rarely like most stuff musically. This poses a bit of a challenge being on a worship team. It certainly has forced me to grow in many ways....

For this blog I want to reflect on some of our "boundaries" in what is appropriate and inappropriate styles of music for corporate worship.


I think my biggest influence growing up (and even still) is much heavier music. Growing up I listened to a lot of grunge/alternative and some metal, and the last 10 years I've listened to a lot of prog rock. I've always wanted to bring this influence to worship, but have found very few opportunities because there is a lot of unspoken (and some spoken) opposition to this, especially in a church environment. (I'm certain ppl who like rap are in the same boat).

I've been listening to some Hillsong United today, (realizing that a lot of Biola's worship is from them) and I envy them... I can sense a clear influence of emo / indie styles, and can see how they've avoided falling strictly into those influences, but still utilizing them. I wish I could do this w/ my musical influences!

Its weird how we have these "traditions" of sorts of how we define boundaries for "acceptable" corporate worship styles... For more contemporary churches, the goal is something more like Hillsong, for more emerging churches, Hillsong United. I can respect qualities in both, but I'm not sure where these come from. I mean, why is it that almost everyone in the congregation reacts at a song that is pushing the edges of "acceptable", when certainly there is hardly consensus among their individual musical preferences? Where do these "notions" come from?

We could also try to define worship in a Biblical way first.... something like "music that stirs the body to a heart of reverential, authentic, fearful, and submissive worship of God as a community". (This is very much shooting from the hip). But even with that sort of definition, we really aren't setting up any boundaries for genre.

I'm sure cultural values play a roll here, but even those are more ambiguous than some might at first think. For example, we could make the point that genre could be distracting. But I can speak from personal experience that if your desire is to worship God, you can get over it. In fact I've heard many times that people being exposed to worship music "outside of their comfort zone" was actually a growing experience. The first few times I was at a black gospel worship service, I was very uncomfortable and turned off. But as I started to develop an appreciation for it (both for the musical skill and the great passion that the music stirred), I've found it to be one of my favorite genres of worship music.

I think a good case can be made that one important boundary is the emotions that the music stirs up. Some genres naturally stir up anger, which really doesn't have a place in a corporate worship experience. Awe, love, praise, joy, humility, even sorrow all have a place I think, because these are all right responses to God. This doesn't necessarily exclude a genre of music as worship, but it definitely limits some genres more than others.

Another good boundary is the degree of performance. Prog rock is very technical music, and having a 10m long instrumental in the middle of a worship set may be stepping across the line of watching the musicians and worshiping God. But this certainly does not mean worship music must be simple: in fact, I've seen several examples of Latin, jazz, and gospel worship sets that were very technical, but still maintained a very real worshipful environment.

I can appreciate that another boundary for some is something that has the widest appeal, something that positively affects the greatest percentage of the body. The problem here is that, often this criteria only produces bland music. I also think that there is a good place for taking people a bit outside of their comfort zones. After all, if we only want to worship God corporately when we are comfortable, could this not reflect a similar attitude in our spiritual lives? I don't think there is a necessary correlation here, but definitely a point worthy of some reflection. After all, how many Sunday mornings are already uncomfortably bland and comfortable?

I'm not sure if I've really come up with any conclusions, more just rambled a lot in this blog.... but I think at the very least, as worship leaders we need to strive to pursue excellence. After all, we are attempting to lead part of God's church in the very important act of offering praise to Him. Music is a tool, a medium, and the worship that flows through it must come from a genuine heart of worship that is already present. This means we need to pursue authenticity in our own lives of worship, but also excellence in wielding the tool of music.

The reality is our culture is saturated with media in all forms, and perhaps that is the reason that we respond so half heartedly to "bland" worship. Its a delicate balance, because its important to teach a true biblical heart of worship, but also use music to stir people's emotions to a point of worship. I'm not entirely sure what this looks like, but I suspect that challenging some of our assumptions about worship music and challenging people's comfort zones (in moderation) can help, at least they've helped me. Certainly finding a place where we can express worship to God through a wide variety of music is a good thing too. God is the source of diversity in our creation, and I doubt that he ever planned for there to be only one, exclusive form of response in musical worship.

Read more...

Dream Theater’s Compositional Style

I have loved Dream Theater's music for a long time, over 10 years now. I've watched an amazing band explore new territory, and mature musically far beyond most. Many people I've talked to find the band revolting. They either can't stand the vocalist's style (which was difficult for me at first), comparing it with 80's hair bands. Or, because some songs are heavy and have fast solos, they instantly put it into the mindless shred category. Most will recognize their talent, but add the qualifier that its just not "my style".

I can respect this, but I think that if you can get past the vocal style, there is a lot every musician can learn from the band. Its not the crazy time signatures, or how fast they can play, but their compositional style. I thought I'd collect a few of my thoughts here on what currently is impressing me about this.

1) First, they use repetition and restatement creatively. In a lot of ways, Dream Theater's music demonstrates many of the qualities of good classic music. This means that a given song might only have a few themes, but throughout the song these themes are not just repeated mindlessly (like so much other music would with just 1 or 2 themes), but develop them. This can mean different instruments will play the theme each time it is repeated, or the theme is changed slightly, or there will be radically exposition on the theme. Sometimes a vocal theme from early in the song will make up a lot of the exposition in the instrumental section.

2) Second, they incorporate a lot of themes into one song. In contemporary worship, all too often songs only have 2 themes, with a possible third as a bridge. The better recording artists will often have a creative intro for some songs, and might even have a pre-chorus. However, Dream Theater songs rarely have less than 5 different themes.

For example, a normal song probably has something like:

Intro > Verse > Chorus > Verse > Chorus > Bridge > Chorus

That's 3-4 themes (depending on the intro).

However, with that structure, Dream Theater would do something more like this:

Intro > Transition Riff > Verse > Pre-Chorus > Chorus > Transition Riff > Verse > Pre-Chorus > Chorus > Bridge > Riff 2 > Riff 3 > Chorus

The point is that they repeat riffs, but they have a lot of other creative riffs added. This brings an inexplicable depth to a song. There is enough repetition that the song is memorable, and the themes are related enough that the song flows. This is the hardest part. Coming up with a series of 5-6 riffs that connect in an obvious way can be very tough.

3) They don't get overburdened by a typical "full" sound. This is especially pointed towards worship music again. I just can't get over how so many worship bands think that they need 1-2 people on acoustic trying to do all the jobs of the entire band (rhythm, bass, soup, lead, etc.). A lot of Dream Theater songs are actually very simple. Some riffs are only one chord, but the melody and riff are strong enough to carry the riff. I've heard several professional worship bands that sorta get this. Now, undoubtedly there are appropriate times when you want such a huge sound that it just smacks people in their faces, but this must only be used for effect. So many worship teams have 1-2 people over-playing on their acoustics, + 1-2 on electric, piano, etc. This results in a very messy, overlapping sound that is just ugly.

This really means separating out the rolls and keeping it that way. Percussion takes care of the rhythm, "soup" instruments provide the necessary filler, and melody instruments drive alongside the bass. Keeping these rolls tasteful and distinct really gives a riff character.

4) They have very interesting chord progressions. So many songs just rely on the basic I IV V chords, and only use open voicings. This is beyond cliché, for me personally it is to the point of sickening. First, you don't need to fill empty space with chords, you can simply have a riff that builds off the chord in an interesting way. Second, Dream Theater often only uses simple chords, but uses very tasteful filler chords like secondary dominants. Very simple theory, but they know just the right spots to throw a sweet substitution in.

5) Dynamics. This simply cannot be overstressed. Dream Theater songs build, fall off, and weave through a storyline. So many other songs follow very simple patterns, or just maintain throughout. This is boring, and very unmusical. Music is supposed to tell a story, and it does that through dynamics, who plays what where, the intensity, the fullness, etc.

6) Riff length. This falls under a couple of the above, but it has always fascinated me how Dream Theater almost never repeats a simple 4 measure progression as part of a riff. Many of there riffs are 8 measures long, and if the riff repeats, there will usually be substantial variation on the last few measures of the repeat. This again requires a lot of work and creativity, but it pays off in having very original material, and again, the music tells a story.

Anyway, I could probably rant all day about this, but I'll stop for now. I might add more later though.

Read more...

LTE review

just gotta say this was the absolute most amazing musical experience I've ever had.. I cannot begin to convey the overwhelming emotions I experienced.... needless to say, my socks have been officially knocked off. It wasn't just the experience of hearing songs I've loved and cherished over the last 10 years live for the first time, but also all those extra little DT moments :) (like the extended ending of Kindred Spirits).

First off, they covered a lot of the LTE 1 and 2 material.
Here is a rough breakdown (not in order) of what they played (best I can remember):

Acid Rain
Kindred Spirits
Biaxident
Freedom of Speech
Hourglass
Universal Mind
When the Water Breaks (you better believe this was amazing)
Another Dimension
Osmosis
Paradigm shift

And all of it was note for note perfect. Including the improvised solos, they covered them perfectly (I really expected them to be a bit more loose on some, but nope). There were only a few very minor rythmic parts that were off (and taht is from somebody who has memorized those albums note for not).

They had a couple of improvised songs that brought in elements of 3 minute warning and chewbacca, but still very improvised and abstract. They were okay, but these were my least favorite part.

Halfway through the jam part of universal mind, Petrucci's rig died. Especially after what happened in Chicago, tensions were high. The timing wasn't that bad, because it was right before Rudess began his piano solo. It was obvious it was going to take some time to fix Petrucci's rig, and Portnoy slipped a note to Rudess which obviously said "keep going".

This was amazing... Rudess just kept going... what an awsome time of improve. Its a bit ironic for albums that were recorded at the speed of improv that they've been forced into long improv sessions on two shows :)

They had a 5+ camera video shoot going on, so I'm really hoping they are going to make a DVD. From the camera's point of view, you never would have known that there were technical difficulties, Jordan just kept the show going. After about 5 minutes, they fixed the guitar rig, and the rest of the band transitioned naturally into the rest of the song.

I think the highlight of the night, and definitely worth the cost of admission, was a version of Rhapsody in Blues LTE style. I really hope there is a DVD, or they jump into the studio for this song. I wasn't too familar with it, but after hearing they were playing it on this tour I listened to the original all afternoon. What a great song, and they definitely owned it. There were just some classic LTE moments with this newer material.

So all in all, no question about it, this was the absolute BEST musical experience I've ever had. The bar of my expectation for musical performance has been raised a lot higher than I care to admit. Part of me is uncontrollably drive to play my guitar, another part is terrified to ever pick it up again.
Read more...

Dream Theater Concert Review

This is my review of the Dream Theater concert Friday night at the Universal Studios Gibson Amphitheatre.

Into Eternity:

Overall, this was a very disappointing set. The audio was so poor that it was often hard to hear the guitars and vocals, enough that at parts it was very difficult to hear the melody/chord progression. Further, the bass wasn't even in the mix. This didn't help their performance, which was the typical thrash/metal deal, which isn't really my taste and a bit boring "hey look, another cram as many notes as possible solo".

Redemption:

This is a band I want to hear more of… some interesting stuff, but some also some more typical metal stuff. They use a lot of odd tempo changes, and are very rhythmically interesting. What I don't get is why bands will have a riff that has very little to do w/ the vocals its behind. It just doesn't work. The audio and lighting was also mediocre for this group… at this point in the show, I was wanting my money back.

Dream Theater:

Wow… just wow. Best dream theater show ever. When the curtain dropped, the band rocked my world. They played over 2 hours, which was surprising because both opening bands played for just under an hour. They played a lot of new stuff, but also covered a lot of older songs. There were a couple I'd never heard live before, like misunderstood, surrounded, and caught in a web. All of the extended solos were very interesting, the stage presence was good, and the band was very tight (though got a bit loose at a few parts). Highlights included Rudess breaking out a keytar and playing a duet w/ Petrucci the way we always wanted him to. Another highlight was the new Dream Theater medley. They have 9 albums now… so its hard to cover a lot of that material in one show. The new medley incorporated parts from the previous 8 albums, including Finally Free and In the Name of God. The Spirit Carries on was a special moment for sure.

While the lighting for the first 2 sets was mediocre (12 intelligent lights), when the curtain dropped fro DT, I was blown away to see over 40 intelligent lights on the ceiling. Consequently, the lighting was very amazing.

Petrucci's tone was also outstanding. He preferred his new wooden design guitar.

Rudess' setup seems to grow each tour. He has a new keyboard stand which is a molded hand point upwards at its base, with the main keyboard resting on its fingers. He also has a second controller and a tone generator attached to the main keyboard, making it quite a monster.

Labrie was also on for most of the night. Sometimes he's hit or miss, but he nailed it.

Walking away from the show, I realize even more so how amazing this band is. Some of the new songs that I'm not as fond of were awesome live. The opening bands really contrasted starkly w/ Dream Theater. Dream Theater has a metal element to them, but it is entirely inaccurate to call them metal. Hearing them side by side w/ metal bands makes this painfully clear. The production of their songs is outstanding, and despite their virtuoso chops, they remain melodic and creative. It is amazing that after 9 albums, they've still got it. That, and each album has such a distinctive tone to it, each so unique and creative. This band truly is the best band ever.

Read more...

Gospel Worship

Just wanted to note that I'm starting to fall in love with Gospel music...

There's just something about classic hymns being sung with that kind of groove and musicianship. I am all about simplicity, (as in, Dream Theater should not lead worship), but I think simplicity is often used (especially in western non-charismatic churches) to mean simplistic.

What bugs me about Gospel music is often it has a lot of shallowness to it (theologically), but when you mix classic hymns... somehow.. it just feels complete. Its like, here God, we're going to worship you in truth and we're not going to worship you in mediocrity, but with our full persons to our very best.


Anyway.... so the question is,
if music is such a powerful medium to worship God in, why should we not strive for excellence?
What qualifies as distractions (both in being too musical and not enough)?
What does it mean (spiritually) if we are not striving for excellence?
Why is it that the very best (musically) worship teams usually are so weak theologically, and the strongest worship teams (theologically) usually are so poor musically?
How does better music benefit worship? Does it help people worship more, does it glorify God more?

That's all, any thoughts would be appreciated!

Read more...

A New Philosophy of music

I still haven't quite figured out where I stand on music in worship, but I have had some recent thoughts on the issue. I used to be very frustrated about the idea of using music to facilitate worship because I felt that music can be manipulative. How can it be true genuine worship of God if the music creates an artificial emotional feeling (which it does)? Music is very powerful, it can evoke a wide range of emotions, feelings, sensations, memories, etc. It is very addictive for this very reason.

However, I think I’ve changed a lot on this issue. Basically, I now question why even use music? I think that this emotional response from music is its purpose: good music is supposed to send shivers down your spine at a climax or modulation. It’s supposed to make you want to sing along, and its supposed to be pleasurable.

This is not something I’ve ever questioned, but then it hit me: if we think music in worship is ok, then there shouldn’t be anything wrong with this being part of the worship experience. I don’t think biblically there is a good argument to rule out music entirely, and maybe this is alright.

Maybe the benefit in music facilitating worship is just because of this. It draws us in, opens up our emotional poors and allows us to express feelings, experience feelings, and ultimately offer up praise to God in a way we might not naturally be able to.

This is manipulative, for sure. But not necessarily wrongfully so. A good preacher has the ability to give a convicting message. This is not manipulation, but a tool for the Spirit to work.

Now, it may be countered, that the Spirit is the one that /should/ open up our receptivity to worship, the Spirit should be the one who convicts us, etc. This is very true. However, if we’ve all heard a badly presented sermon, or heard a bad worship set, it is obvious that the Spirit’s moving in our hearts is contingent to some degree (sometimes more, sometimes less) on the human element. This simply is the way that God has chosen to work.

One last thought: I think there still is a point where music in worship can be too manipulative. When the worship leader is trying to bring glory to himself (which believe me is EXTREMELY easy to fall into), there is a certain degree of hollowness that is conveyed. In fact, when the whole presentation of a service is just that: a presentation, this really can bring a deep sense of shallowness, emptiness, and fakeness. Unfortunately, for most in our culture I think this often feels more desirable and ideal than the more ideal situation.

In this ideal situation, the worship leader is simply humble before God. While often times this accompanies a simpler set (acoustic for example), I do not think this is necessary. What is necessary is for humility above all, and submission to God. When this takes place, I think that the element of manipulative music can be there (given the quality of musicianship), and the Spirit is least hindered to move. The result can be quite powerful, and very enjoyable.

Of course, this is a simplistic perspective: if a worship set goes bad, it could be any number of things. It does not necessarily mean that the worship leader wasn’t humble, or the band sucked. The spirit of a worship set often is determined by far more than we can comprehend, (both spiritually and physically).

But anyway, I'm not sure if this is where I stand, but its a new way for me too look at things.

Read more...