Jay-Z and Nirvana never though that maybe their music would help them with women, or that it might make them rich, or, less cynically, that it just feels good to make music? They have only have ever made music just for the sake of making great art? Puhhleeaase. There might not be an organization that counts every mention of "bling," but there are certainly arbiters of street-cred of which Jay-Z, or Nirvana, or whoever, is always cognizant. Do the dominating pop-music ideologies of LOVE and MONEY really engender great art in ways way past GOD, CHRIST, or, for that matter, TOMATOES? Wasn't Bach writing religious music?

'Wasn't Bach writing religious music?'

Yes, but in a time when craft and rigorous detail in the service of God were the height of worship, and greatly respected. Today, 'craft' and 'detail' are stodgy, especially when it comes to being forgiven for your sins by Baby Jesus.

Remember, the religious elite in Bach's time were also the intelligensia. I truly, thoroughly doubt you could say the same for our religious elite in America, unless you used some magical thinking.

Right, the ironies of selling Christ are VERY OBVIOUS. I suppose my larger concern is the idea that artistic greatness is a correlate to artistic subject. According to the article, The Beatles and Boyz II Men are working on more fertile artistic ground than Christian rockers, The Wiggles, and yes, Bach. Are we blind to the fact that most every popular song eventually turns to LOVE, SEX, or MONEY? Are these really such high ceilings?

What was that movie where Margaret Dumont says to Mae West "Goodness, what lovely diamonds" and West replies "Honey, goodness had nothing to do with it."? I've seen great paintings of the crucifixion and great paintings of chickens. I recently heard a really dull song about Jesus and a great song about not wanting to go to rehab. There's great songs about Jesus, too. If I'd painted the Sistene chapel the ceiling probably wouldn't seem so high.

Well, unfortunately the human condition includes aspects that our weak Christian churches don't feel equipped to deal with, so instead of dealing with them (and thus including them in the dialogue) they just ignore them and exclude them. Which is why so much sex ed in heavily Christianist areas is basically "Don't put your god stick in the shame cave, or you'll die!"

When you are that unsophisticated, your art is going to unsophisticated. And while I don't mind putting my 1 year old Nephew's art on my fridge, I'm not going to put the equivalently unsophisticated Christianist 30-year-old's art on my wall. Art doesn't respond well to exclusionary attitudes.

Upsidedownpoint,

Good point. It just seem like a dubious claim the writer of the article is making about Jay-Z, Nirvana, and, to extrapolate, all non-Christian popular music. Unlike Christian pop, these artists might not have a set of appropriate themes / subjects explicitly described to them, but they are certainly "confined" by inscribed cultural values / expectations / exclusionary attitudes: Jay-Z is as unlikely to release a critical-theory inspired rap album as Norah Jones is to release a gangster-rap CD. When we listen to Norah, we are gonna get love, period. I don't really think this hinders her output much.

I think you're describing the boundaries of style as opposed to content. But let's not ignore the genre-busting behavior of many of our most beloved pop icons, many of whom cover a great deal of ground in their themes.

Radiohead, Guns & Roses, REM, Jay-Z, Nas, the Fugees—these are all popular bands who have examined everything from God to Sex to Greed to just plain Rocking Out, across styles and genre boundaries. And the most shocking part? Their explorations of God are to me the most fully fleshed out and informed, because of their connections to all aspects of the way we live. Lauryn Hill's "Zion" from The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill is a pretty good example of this too.

around virtue or goodness but by definition it cannot be empty, frivilous,and devoid of meaning.