Talk:Switchfoot/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive created 3 April 2006

Recreating artical

I have decided to take on the task of reorganizing this artical. I have not done so yet but would appreciate any suggestions that you have. Thanks --T-rex 22:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, It looks good enough to move to this page now. It's still not perfect, but it's better then what is here now... we can always fix it later (see here) --T-rex 05:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes made, please edit the artical is you see a problem rather then reverting --T-rex 15:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I am proposing that we change the lyrics link to an alternate site that doesn't have popups. I suggest changing it from [link to copyvio website removed] to [link to copyvio website removed]. Does any one object to this change? (Jdingman 19:54, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

As long as the lyrics are correct --T-rex 21:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I double checked them with the lyrics on the CDs and from other sites, they are correct. (Jdingman 21:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC))

In fact, the lyrics on both those sites have a lot of mistakes. I changed it to what seems like the only place on the internet that has the lyrics 100% correct [1].. and this site has song explanations from Jon, which is a nice bonus for readers. -Phil

Actually I have found out since then that Jdingman owns that site and was link spaming it everywhere, up until now i was unable to find a good reason to change it, so thanks. Also I had been looking for that background stuff for The Beautiful Letdown for some time now, nice to see them again. --T-rex 14:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Not Christian by genre

I dont understand the obsession with labelling Switchfoot as a "Christian rock" band, when even Switchfoot doesn't want to be called that. Christ didn't die for a few tunes, so how can it be "Christian" music? Its the guys in the band who are Christian... their music is universal - everyone can relate to it. The guys have repeatedly said that they dont want to be boxed into a genre.. that their music is for EVERYONE. "We're Christians by faith, not by genre." - Tim Foreman

Genres only limit. Please don't put Switchfoot in a box.

"As a musician I guess the only thing I would ask from a listener is to put the CD in, close your eyes and forget about all the peripherals," says Jon Foreman. "I guess that's a dream that may not happen in my lifetime, but I listen to music from all sorts of people and I think there is an open-minded individual who will be able to listen to music of all types." (http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2005/10/1910.cfm) -Phil

Even though it isn't quite right to describe Switchfoot as a christian band (like say Jars of Clay or Newsboys), their first 3 albums were put out by Sparrow records which is considered to be a christian music label. In the end I mostly have a who cares type attitude, and won't edit this either way--T-rex 00:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

First, Sparrow did not release their first three albums, re:think did. Charlie Peacock had a distribution deal with Sparrow and EMI Christian Music. Peacock didn't want to label his artists and he still doesn't.

Second, people don't think they're a Christian band because of their label afiliation, they think they're a Christian band because they are part of the Christian sub-culture that makes up Contemporary Christian music. If they don't want to be considered a Christian band, they can stop attending Christian music festivals such as Creationfest, where I most recently saw them in 2003.

Third, this is not the right place to carry on a debate about whether Christian music is a viable term or not. The term is in common use and this band is a part of most peoples' definitions of what constitutes a Christian band. Deal with it.

Finally, genres don't limit bands. The artists limit themselves. Generes allow people to pick other artists who are similar to what they enjoy. --Walter Görlitz 02:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Replying to Walter:
Yes "the term is in common use", but sorry, I'm not buying it, not dealing with it. Why do I want to make a common term thats highly debatable even more common? I prefer fighting for what I believe and maybe changing something, than going with the crowd. I know this aint the right place to discuss this, but I gotta get this out of me... Firstly, its been three years since 2003, and your point would be valid if you could name something they did that clubs them with the Christian sub-culture post-2003, or post-TBL (since that album broke them into the mainstream). I heard they declined an offer to be on the cover of CCM magazine, because they felt they weren't called to market themselves as a Christian band. They aren't shying from what they believe, but trying to reach a wider audience, which I trust is a noble intention that we must respect and support. Bands like U2, Depeche Mode and Thrice use as much Christian themes in their lyrics, probably more, than Switchfoot--why aren't they known as Christian bands? I think the only fair way of defining whether something is Christian music or not, is by looking at who the target audience is.. Christian music is music for Christian people (unless, by the term, you mean music that Jesus died for), and Switchfoot has repeatedly clarified that their music is for everyone. Consider this: When a band sings athiestic songs, why aren't they called "Athiestic rock"? If it were fair to classify music by the beliefs held by the artists, we should have 100s of redundant genres, which would be plain stupid. Call it rock, call it alternative, those labels are unavoidable and not as harmful--but don't call it "Christian rock", unless its targeting just a Christian audience. But hey, I'm being idealistic, I know this kind of open-mindedness might not happen in a million years, as Jon himself admits. People like labels. And people love to harp on the Christian-label, Christian-festival parts of Switchfoot's resumé, especially some silly Christians who like to lay claim on anything in the mainstream thats remotely of a Christian nature ("He is of our camp!" "That celebrity shares the same beliefs as me! I win!"...who cares, really?!). If they were smart, they wouldn't talk about it, and rather let Switchfoot do their thing and save lives. Oh well.

As for genres, true, they make things convenient, but like a lot of things that increase convenience, it comes with its disadvantages which cannot be avoided, but should be acknowledged. It never does justice to any piece of art, to be reduced to description by a word or two (like "Christian rock") that not only misrepresents it, but makes it a victim of prejudice. This isn't about labels, its not fair to say "this is what they call it, so deal with it". No. Its about doing the artist justice.. representing artists the way they want to be represented, rather than the way we want them to be represented, or rather than blindly going with the norm.

So, Sparrow still distributes Switchfoot to Christian stores while Columbia does the mainstream thing--and why not, why should they alienate their Christian fans? ...though another post-CCM band Mute Math was in the news recently for doing exactly that; they even went as far as sueing Warner Bros for assuming they were "Christian rock" just cuz they played at Christian festivals, and putting out their record through Warner's Christian sub-label ("Word") rather than the mainstream one ("Capitol", I think). They pulled back the record, and their CDs are now available only at their live shows or their website. That might've been extreme, but the point is, respect the artist.

So... Switchfoot="Christian rock"? Naaw. More people now know them as a mainstream band than otherwise, and its not like Sixpence None the Richer, whose "Kiss Me" was their only song mainstream listeners could identify with, so once the big buzz around that song ceased, they were never again heard of in the mainstream. But Switchfoot on the other hand- every song of theirs is universal in nature. This is a talented band that deserves to be OUT THERE, rather than boxed in as "Christian music". I rest my case, thanks for reading. -Phil

I get what you say, but it doesn't change anything. Switchfoot=Christian Rock and as you say, it isn't about lables. --Walter Görlitz 18:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It does change things. I thought I made it clear why Switchfoot aint Christian rock. Only if U2, Thrice, Depeche Mode and Sufjan Stevens were called Christian music, it would be fair to call Switchfoot Christian music. I took "Christian rock" out of the genre list. If the band themselves say they're not Christian rock, and don't display the characteristics of CCM, then what's the fuss about? And you yourself agree it isn't about labels, so please, lets leave out the redundant label that applied only to their playing-at-Christian-festival days.

No you didn't make it clear. The paragraph should stay. They are Christians. That should be mentioned. Their initial works are on a lable that distributes directly to a market place that is aimed at Christian audiences--sold in stores where material of interest to only Christians are stocked--and they play festivals that are aimed only at Christian audiences. This is something that U2, etc. have never done. It is part of who the band are. --Walter Görlitz 17:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you're wrong. (1) They are Christians. So what? Being Christian as an artist isn't what makes your music "Christian music". (2) Their INITIAL WORKS were distributed on an INDIE label that was run by a Christian (so you could argue it was a Christian label, but in any case it was their INITIAL WORKS, so it goes in band history.) Currently, they aren't on a Christian label, so that changes...and we got to keep up with what's current. We can mention their history though, but as a band evolves, they have to be described with regards to who they are NOW, not who they WERE. But its not like we haven't mentioned their Christian history. (3) THEY DO NOT PLAY CHRISTIAN FESTIVALS. PERIOD. They *used* to play at Christian festivals, but not any more--in fact, they *refuse* to play Christian festivals now, and they actively insist that they aren't a Christian band. So please move on. Its part of who the band were, but not part of who they are (and that's why we've mentioned it in their history bit).

You're fighting for a lost cause, please give up--they're NOT a Christian band. Deal with it. Thank you. --.phil. 18:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all *for* the paragraph staying...heck, I wrote the entire paragraph!! I'm just opposed to calling them Christian rock as of date, because they're just not. Its part of their history, and I'm not trying to hide that... but just don't make it their current genre, that's just not accurate, period. You said "They ... have a presence on both the Christian rock and the Contemporary Christian music pages. You can't re-write history." Sufjan Stevens has a presence there too, yet his music isn't described as Christian music on his page. U2 had a presence there until it was rightly taken off the page...showing that that's just another wiki page maintained by opinionated people, so it can't stand as evidence for your claims. And nobody is trying to re-write history, we're just trying to ensure the facts about the band *as of date* are accurate. What's history will suffice to be mentioned as history, not as if it were true to the present. --.phil. 18:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Indie Rock and Christian Rock

Seeing as how Switchfoot has been signed with Columbia for around 3 years now neither of these labels are really appropriate, however they do fit for the first three records. Any thoughts? --T-rex 22:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. How do you classify a band that evolves enough to be characterized differently at different points in their history? --Akrabbim 22:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't try to put them into boxes, you just say what boxes they have jumped around in. --Walter Görlitz 17:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

While they are signed to Columbia, it doesn't change that they are a Christian Rock band, despite the misguided debate above. They still have a distribution deal to Christian book and Bible stores with Sparrow, so the contract is more of a distribution arrangement rather than an exclusive arrangement the way the Springsteen and other artists have with Columbia. I agree that they are not an Indie band. --Walter Görlitz 17:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

They are more Indie then Christian. Re: think wasn't even a christian label when Switchfoot first signed with them. Just because they have a distrbution agreement with Sparrow is insignificant. If they say they are not christian rock, I see no reason not to beleive them --T-rex 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, its more like Sparrow is a distribution arrangement because they don't wanna alienate their Christian fans (and there are loads of em) which is fair enough. Columbia is their main label. Their official message board (which the guys post on) isn't run by Sparrow but by Columbia. Their music videos don't credit Sparrow, but they credit Columbia. Their management, representatives are all Columbia people.. not Sparrow people. So they are in an agreement with Columbia in the same capacity as Springsteen is. So please quit it. The debate above isn't misguided, but its an attempt to fix your misguided notions about the band. --.phil. 18:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

They are a Christian band signed to and distributed by a music label that is distributed by Sparrow. If you want to contact Sparrow to release them from their contract go ahead. Until they sever those ties, don't minimize their sales through that "channel". They are no different than Amy Grant who started as the darling of the CCM industry and now plays almost exclusively in mainstream venues. Please do not re-write history and exclude their ties to the Christian music industry.

I don't see anyone trying to re-write history or exclude their ties to the Christian industry, in fact I wrote that paragraph. --.phil. 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Columbia runs their board because the label does not want to alienate the mainstream media. Very simple. [Why can't you use the same simple logic to understand that Sparrow continues to distribute them even after they got a major label deal, because they don't wanna alienate their Christian fans? --.phil. 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)]

Columbia bankrolls everything right now for them, but they're both part of EMI, and yes, it's all marketing. But why doesn't EMI market them to their jazz lables? Because they're not Jazz. And they're not on the EMI classical lables because they're not classical. They are on an EMI Christian label, Sparrow, because they are a Christian rock band. [No, its because they happen to have Christian fans, thanks to their Christian roots. --.phil. 02:56, 28 March 2006 (UTC)]

I also firmly believe that anyone who suggests that they are more indie than Christian does not understand the CCM marketplace at all. There are a greater number of indie artists in CCM and Christian rock than there are major signed bands. Switchfoot's music is mainstream rock. they would not get played on the indie radio stations because they are signed to EMI/Columbia. They would not get air time on the indie video shows for the same reason. They do not deserve the indie label.

They are a Christian rock band and they have earned that label. --Walter Görlitz 20:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Their first 3 albums were indie, but I don't think they can be called indie now. --.phil. 04:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for why Switchfoot is not a Christian band

"Christian music has put itself in a box so that if you hear 'Christian band,' it has a bad connotation if you're in the mainstream," Jon says. "We've got to be who we're called to be." -- note that this is not anything new, and is from somewhere around early 2003

Good point, but not that they are not a Christian band just that the industry has put itself into a box and they have to be called to be Christians in a band. --Walter Görlitz

You seem to ignore the obvious assertation "We are in the mainstream". Christian bands have no business being in the mainstream. They're limited to Christian stores and Christian festivals. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Members have consistently downplayed their "Christian band" label, declined interviews with Christian publications and prevented pictures from being taken at Creation Festival (a Christian event). Defending this trajectory, bassist Tim Foreman told an interviewer in 2003, "As a band, we're Christians by faith and not in genre, and I think people have a hard time differentiating between the two."

Again they have downplayed the Christian band label, but they do not deny that they are a Christian band. They are Christians by faith and they are a in a band therefore they are a Christian band. --Walter Görlitz

Uh oh, hold on here buddy, U2 are Christians by faith, and they're in a band - "therefore they are a Christian band"?? Same with Sufjan Stevens, Thrice, Depeche Mode, Lifehouse, Stacie Orrico. So: bad argument. Besides, to say "they do not deny that they are a Christian band" is pretty silly if you read their words that basically say "We're NOT CHRISTIAN by genre", and what is "Christian music" but a genre? --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

When we signed with Re:think Records in 1997, Re:think was a label that was devoted to serving both communities. No walls. That label was bought by Sparrow Records, which is an incredible record company. But their purpose and vision is not the same as Re:think. For us, where we are now is a happy marriage where we feel like our songs are being heard by anyone who needs to hear them. We never had a change in purpose, or a change in the songs that we write. I want to be writing songs that my next door neighbor or some guy who's German can listen to and have something to think about at the end of the album. -- jon explaining how they didn't even view re: think as a Christian music label

another valid point, but it re:think was, in Charlie Peacock's thinking, a label for Christians who don't want to be in a Christian ghetto. The lable was never signed to be distributed on any mainstream label though. Again, making them a Christian band. --Walter Görlitz

No. No. No. re:think wasn't a label just for Christians who didn't wanna be in a Christian ghetto, but also for artists who made positive music. The label had nothing religious about it. Its only aim was to impact culture with positive music, not to directly bring anyone to Christ. "The lable was never signed to be distributed on any mainstream label though. Again, making them a Christian band." The label didn't *have* to be distributed on a mainstream label!.. besides, I'm sure they would've signed to a mainstream distribution label IF THEY GOT THE OFFER. So the real question is about intentions, and intentionally they were clearly not a Christian band, because "when we signed with re:think Records in 1997, re:think was a label that was devoted to serving both communities. No walls." That's the band's origins...origins without walls. And that's who they are today, no walls. [And the label's later decision has nothing to do with Switchfoot being a Christian band. Switchfoot and the label are two different entities. The label's decision is just something Switchfoot didn't ask for, but tolerated because they didn't mind reaching both communities--re:think reaching non-Christian stores, and Sparrow reaching Christian stores--and why not?] --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

We’ve always wanted to make records that our friends back home would understand. When we were mainly playing shows within the (Christian) community, I felt like I had to fight to keep this relevance and fight to stay involved. Now I feel challenged to make use of our involvement, to hear the still, small voice above the din. -- Jon again expressing his relief at no longer being stuck in the christian music industry.

I disgagree with your interpretation that the is expressing relief. He ist stating that they had to fight to stay relevant withing the Christian music industry. --Walter Görlitz

Dude its plain to see that your interpretation is wrong, and Jon is obviously expressing relief that they're no longer fighting to stay involved (i.e. break out of the Christian sub-culture, because staying there is like preaching to the choir), but "Now" that they're getting the chance to be involved with where involvement is needed (i.e. the mainstream), they're feeling challenged to make a difference. Its pretty obvious, its sad if you can't see what Jon's saying. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a religious salesman. I feel like God doesn't really need a salesman, and what these songs are are simply my interactions with this life and learning." -- another quote by Jon

Again, being a religious salesman is not synonymous with not being a Christin band. You'r not making your point with this at all. --Walter Görlitz

Buddy, if you can say something like: Christians being in a band is synonymous to them being a "Christian band"; then this is a far less crime...in fact, not being a religious salesman DOES mean they're not a Christian band, because Christian bands have an agenda to convert people to Christianity, and they often give altar-calls and what not, but Switchfoot stays far from such things, instead just giving a good rock show to their fan-base that stretches across many religions and beliefs. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"To me, this is not so much a crossover. It's really just about pacing a career and growing it at the right time and at the right pace," Leshay said. "People can call them what they are. They are a mainstream rock 'n' roll band that just happens to be Christian. But there are tons of bands out there that have religion, too."

again not stating that thy're not a Christian band, just that as Christians they always wanted to be precieved outside of the greater community that is Christian music. --Walter Görlitz

You said it. It says that "as Christians they always wanted to be perceived outside the greater community that is Christian music"--> that means: they're not a Christian band, because Christian bands stay within the Christian community. Thank you. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[2] lyrically U2 is much more explictilly Christian, yet there is not even a mention of this on their wikipedia page

simply because they were always signed to Island records. Only three of the band members have ever expressed a faith position. --Walter Görlitz

Nope, firstly, Bono recently led Adam Clayton to faith (Bono is quoted as stating that Adam is now a Christian, in the new book "Bono, in Conversation with Michka Assayas", by Michka Assayas. Check page 69. He admits that Adam has "become the spiritual grounding for us now."). Secondly: Bono, The Edge and Larry Mullen were part of an outright Christian band called "Shalom" before U2 happened. 'U2' was a makeover. So, if Switchfoot's called a "Christian band" (which they weren't, in essence, at ANY point, if you keep aside record labels' identities), then U2 deserves to be called that A LOT MORE. But they're not! Besides, their lyrics are more Christian-based than Switchfoot's. See how the logic of calling SF a Christian band falls apart? If U2's signed to Island, Switchfoot's signed to Columbia.. though they've preserved their Sparrow signing because they don't wanna upset their big number of Christian fans, and rightly so.. and that doesn't make them a Christian band, it just makes them more real and honest, unlike other Christian bands who've gone as far as sueing their record label for distributing them as "Christian" without their knowledge. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand Switchfoot's deal with Columbia (which is owned by Sony). Switchfoot is part of Columbia records (and as a result Sony). They have a deal with Sparrow Records for distribution to Christian reatail outlets only. They are not part of Sparrow (or as a result EMI) in any other sense at all. In 2003 Switchfoot signed a five album deal with Columbia, they only have a distrabution deal (through Columbia even) with Sparrow (and as a result EMI).

I'm sorry tex, it is you who don't understand the deal. EMI music is the parent company of Sony, Columbia, and Sparrow. The deal was reached with Comubia as result of their involvement with Sparrow. If they are not a part of Sparrow, explain how it is that they have a presence on Sparrow's site? --Walter Görlitz

Granted, but now that they've got to Columbia, Sparrow was just the means to an end. As of date, they're more Columbia's than Sparrow's. I quote myself: "Their official message board (which the guys post on) isn't run by Sparrow but by Columbia. Their music videos don't credit Sparrow, but they credit Columbia. Their management, representatives are all Columbia people.. not Sparrow people." And they having a presence on Sparrow doesn't say anything, cuz, why not?.. Sparrow is their distributor, after all. Those who buy their CDs at Christian stores need a corresponding website to hang out at, don't they? --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

They no longer will play at Christian festivals

But they did and that's a fact, and that is what was stated. --Walter Görlitz

But that is stated as part of their history. They are no longer a band that plays at Christian festivals--and what a band is, is what they are TODAY.. ofcourse, with reference to the past, which I have included in the "Ties to Christian rock" paragraph. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

See also the quotes in the by members of the band in the article

Seen and your point is not made by them. --Walter Görlitz

His point is made. If you read the article, and the discussion page, it couldn't get any clearer. --24.86.149.11 02:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If they were a Christian band you think the words "Christ" or "Jesus" might show up in their lyrics at least once...

Not a compelling argument because there are different types of artists in CCM, those whose music is for church consumption and those whose music reflects their lives. --Walter Görlitz

No band is lame enough to make such music as a biography purely for Christian audiences--it can't serve any Christian-specific purpose if its a biography without the words "Christ" or "Jesus", which is unnecessarily placing a illogical limit on the ability to express oneself! All Christian music is for church consumption, period. And by that definition, Christian music has no reason to hold back when it comes to using explicitly Christian words, unlike music that's targetting a mainstream audience and are signed to a mainstream label, like Switchfoot. Besides, you say the the two types of CCM artists are the ones whose music is for church consumption, and those whose music reflects their lives, but I don't see the difference--isn't the latter also for church consumption? If an artist wanted to make music reflecting his life, how would that in itself make him a CCM artist? It cannot. U2, and practically every single mainstream band makes music reflecting their lives, so what sets such CCM artists apart? The only difference I see is "church consumption". So, your point doesn't hold much water. There are different types of artists in CCM, those whose music is for church consumption, and those whose music is for church consumption. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

You did not make your point Tex. You are removing changes that are valid about the band and it's offensive. You did not addres why they would accept a Gospel Music award when they don't consider themselves to be part of the industry. You are missing the point that the relationship is entirely valid and as a result I'm re-adding my additions. Until you can prove that they are not part of the Christian music industry, not that they don't want to restricted to it—which is all that you've managed to do—leave the in place. --Walter Görlitz 00:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: thanks for your work in getting those references. It's good to know that you're passionate about the band and their ideas. Please understand that we are as well. --Walter Görlitz 00:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are passionate about the band, you would care about what they care about--and that is, not being attributed the "Christian rock" label. They've made it absolutely clear they don't like that label, while showing their love for their Christian fans by continuing Sparrow-distribution. --.phil. 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm gonna make an edit that will hopefully make both parties on both sides of this argument happy. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

A few points. First Sony and Columbia are competators with EMI, and are not the same company in any way at all. --T-rex

Columbia was a subsidiary of EMI. Sony music joined forces with EMI in 1999. --Walter Görlitz

Also re: think did not origionally want to be part of the christian music community. --T-rex

Secondly Charlie Peacock has gone on-record as saying that his label would be a label for Christians who wanted complete artistic control. They did want to be a part of the Christian community, but they did not want to be restricted to it. --Walter Görlitz

Honestlly, I don't know what else I can say. --T-rex

How about some facts instead of making things up to support a point that can't be supported. Please stop it, it's embarrasing. --Walter Görlitz

If this doesn't get you to see where I (and the band) is comming from then nothing will. --T-rex

You have no facts. Both are incorrect. --Walter Görlitz

Jon Foreman is a Christian musician in same way that I am a Christian engineer, nothing more. I realize that you want to promote them as a Christian band, but they are who they are and there is nothing you can do to change that. --T-rex

Actually I wish that they would do either what the three Christian members of U2, Brent Bourgeois, or Bruce Cockburn had done: been Christians who were just musicians. I would also rather have seen them do what Sam Phillips (singer) did: make a clean break with the Christian industry. They have done neither. --Walter Görlitz

Instead, they have done something more honorable: while being honest about their roots, and reasonable enough not to make a clean break with the Christian industry so as to not offend fans, they have still managed to secure mainstream respectability unlike any other artist with Christian roots. But their Christian fans scarcely respect that or respect the band's vision or their hatred for pigeonholing. Oh well. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to insist on reverting (I suspect that you are), then please at least give some references for your reasoning, until them I will have to revert. --T-rex

You do not own this page T-rex and you keep lying or misrepresenting the facts to make your "points". I am not. --Walter Görlitz

thank you --T-rex 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I will not be getting into an edit war with you. I would like you to stop as well. The facts are simple and I have gievn you reproof on your interview quotes as youc an see above. I have also given you a phrase-by-phrase explaination of the edits that I made showing you the facts. It's time for you to stop being stubborn and to accept the facts:

They started on a Christian label.
They are still marketed to Christians.
They have played in Christian venues, not the least of which is festivals. Whether or not they will continue to do so in the future is not the point. The fact that they have is my point.
They have been given awards reserved for those in the Christian industry.

This couldn't mean much except that the industry regards them as one of their own (and with obvious intent--now that Switchfoot's so big, everyone wants to claim them.) Its the industry's opinion, which Switchfoot tolerates and appreciates in a way, rather than rudely turning down awards. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not making these facts up. they are obvious. To almost anyone, these would be marks of being a Christian band. For some reason, T-rex, they are not enough for you. I'm not sure what other facts I can present. If you do not put my edits back, I will request arbitration from the admins. I will accept their word as final. --Walter Görlitz 06:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The Four points that you make above are all true (although the second is a bit decieving), however what you have been trying to change the article to is inaccurate and eliminates some of the accrate information that is currently part of the article. Note also that the first and last points are already part of that section of the article. I am in no way saying that Switchfoot has no connection at all to the christian music industry, only that they are not a close as you would like to think. As far as EMI goes, I think you have them confused with Bertelsmann (BMG) who in 2004 merged with Sony. Please read up on EMI and Sony BMG, and notice that they are two very seperate corporations (a non-wikipedia source) the link you provided above only indicates that EMI supported Sony's mini-disk format (which they probably regret now). I am neither lying nor misrepresenting the facts and am insulted by this accusation. Also you might want to note that this section was mostly written by phil and Andrewduffell (not myself). Just because you don't like the facts doesn't make them untrue. I'll come back later with even more sources, ok? --T-rex 15:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We are not denying any of those facts, in fact I've taken initiative to mention those points in the article. Our only beef is that those facts don't mean that they are a "Christian band" now. Those aren't the marks of a being a Christian band to "almost anyone", besides, popular thinking has to be differentiated with truth, and that is what the article has to do. That is why the article accepts their Christian roots, and puts forth their desire not to be known as a Christian band, without making any verdict. Walter, you and many others think they are a Christian band, and we and many others think they're not, so the best way to go about it would be to lay down both sides of it (the article doesn't deny Christian roots or that they won Dove awards, yet they state facts about their lyrical approach and what they consider themselves to be) and let the reader decide. Deal? The whole perception about what constitutes Christian music is a gray area anyway, so lets reserve judgement and let the reader perceive the situation. That's why I initially titled the section as "Christian rock?" and I still think that's a better title, sort of like introducing the reader to the debate and leaving it there. --.phil. 02:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I do like the facts. You keep deleting them. Here's my suggestion. Since you agree with the first and fourth points and think the second is a bit misleading, either take my changes and edit them to clean them up or propose a new paragraph that encorporates the information as you see it. I think that minimizing this fact is a dis-service to the band and many of their fans. --Walter Görlitz 16:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't hide their Christian roots (and we're not), since yes, that would be a disservice to the band, but calling them "Christian rock" is an even bigger disservice to the band if you're smart enough to know why. --.phil. 03:04, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that working on this seperatlly would be a good idea for a while now, so I'll set up a page for that porpose later today. Although I really think that it is important to get some of the other editors involved or else it is just going to get reverted as soon as we put up our worked out version. Above I was saying that I believe that you first and fourth points are already mentioned in the article --T-rex 20:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite .phil.'s recent changes I still think that these edits show that we may still need to work on this as a seprate article. Also I still prefer the title Ties to Christian Rock (on the basis that the question mark (?) is really ugly) --T-rex 04:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why it shouldn't be fine now that I've made a few edits and it sounds neutral, lays down the facts and lets the reader decide. I would hope you guys would be content to drop the issue, cuz it can be an unending debate, so its best to just lay down the facts and not sound tilted towards either opinion (as it is now). I didn't mention that they accepted the Dove Awards, because its already mentioned in a coupla places in the article, so it becomes redundant and would sound a bit like pushing one side of the argument. As for the title of the paragraph, if you really feel so t-rex, go ahead and change it, though somehow I don't find it ugly.. I'm not passionately holding on to "Christian rock?" as title or anything, I just thought it appropriate because it doesn't assume anything or come to conclusions beforehand, but just introduces the reader to the debate. And props to you for digging out those references. In the name of Switchfoot love, keep up the good work guys. Peace. --.phil. 05:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it over?

Okay, it seems like T-Rex and Walter have both vented enough, and phil has done a good job of resolving the conflict. Now that everyone's views are reflected in the rather well written paragraph of Switchfoot and Christianity, can we just say this issue is resolved and move on? —Akrabbim 15:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I vote 'yes'. --.phil. 16:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I am ok with what is there, but this is a wiki so it will forever be changing --T-rex 17:19, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

No. I am still waiting for T-Rex to add some additional information that he thinks is appropriate discussing their background in the CCM industry. Their invovlement had little to do with the smaller California Christian music scene and much more to do with the whole CCM machine based in Nashville. --Walter Görlitz 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

So, doesn't the mention of Sparrow and the Dove awards say enough about their involvement with the "CCM machine based in Nashville"? You're making it sound as if they shifted their homes to Nashville and pioneered the CCM movement there. I mean, c'mon! All they had to do with the "CCM machine" is that their records were put out by Sparrow! And because of that, they got Dove Awards. And we've mentioned both facts in the article! I don't think its important enough to discuss their CCM background in any more detail (if there is any excluded detail!) unless we add their detailed history spanning through the years and over 5 albums (like U2 or Coldplay's pages). Already, we have one paragraph devoted to their Christian connection, which is almost as long as the "Band History" section...and if we add any more detail regarding this, it would become an imbalanced article. Please don't lose perspective over your Switchfoot-is-CCM obsession.. the band is about more than a prejudice-inducing industry that's at the root of a Christian sub-culture that's unChristlike in many respects.. Christians are called to be out there, rather than boxed inside our own little industry. So, to cut it short: I don't see what else needs to be mentioned besides the fact that SF were part of the Christian rock scene in their early days, and that their albums have always been distributed to Christian audiences by a Christian label. Anything more would be misrepresenting the band, and irrelevant information, making the article imbalanced and not proportionate. Their CCM background is just 10% of who they are, I would hate to see an article that blows up that 10%, driving people away from remaining glorious 90% of the what the band is. So, keep it in proportion. I feel the current 'Switchfoot and Christianity' paragraph does a very good job in introducing readers to the band's Christian background, so I don't understand what your problem is. Anyway, I'll wait to see what you guys come up with. --.phil. 11:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well ideally the article wil get bigger like coldplay and U2, although U2 has been around awhile. But the sections that need to be expanded most are their first three albums, which was when their ties to the christian music scene was closest anyways. I've added a line about sparrow directly to the christianity paragrph, but I like you said .phil., I don't see to much more that could be added --T-rex 05:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed your line ", and their deal with Sparrow records during their early years." for two reasons: (a) they still have a deal with Sparrow records, so that makes the sentence a bit inaccurate. (b) we've mentioned their deal with Sparrow in the last line of the paragraph anyway, making it clear that the deal dates back to their "indie days". More than the mere words "Sparrow Records" which is just a record company's name, I think what's significant is that the band is being distributed to Christian stores, and that's mentioned in the last line, while I ensured that the word "distributed" is wiki-linked to the Sparrow Records page, just as the words "major label" are wiki-linked to Columbia Records page. I think that should suffice, unless you disagree. I'm sorry I'm being too particular about not having redundant lines and words that don't contain much substance (waffle)...we're taught to judge text like that in my English course at university. Besides, I believe we should try and keep the article as neutral as possible, (and as balanced in focus and breadth as possible i.e. not having 40% of the article devoted to their Christian background, etc.) except when it comes to quotes from the band or respectable critics like Rolling Stone or Billboard, which are subjective by nature. On those counts, considering the current length of the article, I wouldn't advise adding any more lines to the Christianity paragraph, and if we absolutely must, it should be tight (to the point; relevant; no repetition elsewhere in the article; in the least number of words possible... you know what I mean.) As for Walter, I'm not worried about him calling in arbitration--its plain to see we haven't hidden anything about the band, and we've backed up our position with logic and evidence. Moving on from the Christianity thing, I think we should start looking at expanding the other areas of the article, like doing a detailed write-up of their history, their indie days, how their sound has developed, etc.. now that would be more beneficial. I'm planning to start writing up on that once my summer break hits, which is 20 days away. You guys could get started collecting ideas/facts/web-links/whatever will be useful.. or writing. As for me, now, its exams... later, peace, .phil. 09:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Intelligent

T-rex, "intelligent" is a qualitative descriptor, and thus use of it without attribution to another source is POV, even though I agree with your opinion. I am again reverting it. Jpers36 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see what you have against the word Intelligent appearing in the artical. It is not POV in any way at all. I'll give you a chance to respond before I add it back in again, but I really don't see where you are going with this. Inteligent is simply an adjective that does a good job of describing their lyrics... --T-rex 19:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Intelligent" is a qualitiative descriptor and thus a simple investigation will show that their lyrics are more intelligent than many other bands. It's not POV, it's fact. Several reviewers have made similar statements. Shall we come up with referecnes to satisfy your POV policing? --Walter Görlitz 18:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is Your Life

I just heard bits of this song on a commercial for CBS's new show The Unit. Is it the theme song, or just being used for the commercial? Anyway, I think it should be worth mentioning. Akrabbim 18:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it is really that significant, but I don't actually know anything about the show --T-rex 18:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I think its significant, considering it is their song, and may become a theme song, so I added it. if you dont think its nessessary, talk. Akrabbim 18:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Well their songs have been used in tons of TV shows and ads and the sort. This one dosen't really look to be all the special --T-rex 00:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Really? I never heard them anywhere besides that, so I thought it was relevant. What else have they been used for? Akrabbim 02:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Recentlly they have been in some promos for the Olympics, I know they have also had their songs used in Dawson's Creek, Smallville, A Ring Of Endless Light, A Walk To Remember, America's Next Top Model, Charmed, and probably alot more. --T-rex 18:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's not significant, so I'll remove the reference from this page, then. I already added it to the song page, so it's not unnoticed. Akrabbim 01:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I heard This is your life being used for a different show, I forget what it was though. Howabout1 16:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

actually I don't think that it was ever released, I could be wrong --T-rex 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

Switchfoot has been critisized by many in the Christian community for allowing one of their songs: "Adding to the Noise" (from The Beautiful Letdown) to be used in a Victoria Secret commercial. Although the band has not yet released a public statement regarding their song's involvment in the ad, it is quite possible that Switchfoot's record label (Columbia Records) took the liberty of selling the song out to the lingerie company without the group's approval.

'Teenwriter' added the above paragraph (thanks for the contribution). I wasn't sure how relevant it is to the article/band, so I moved it here. Maybe we could club this with the copy-protection issue which was also controversial (including Tim's response) and make a "Controversies" section, or we could add this bit to the 'Nothing is Sound' sub-section in "Band History". Or maybe its not relevant enough to be on the article at all? (which band isn't caught up in minor controversies?) Discuss away... --.phil. 04:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is was only a controversy in the christian only side of switchfoot, which I think is only a very small percent of their fans. I don't think it is worthy of inclusion (the band nor the label ever bothered to address the issue). It is almost certain that Columbia sold the right to use the song for the commercial (i don't even see why the band would be expected to be involved in minor business stuff like that). Also adding to the noise was part of The Beautiful Letdown so It wouldn't fit in Nothing is sound. maybe this should be mentioned on the album page instead? --T-rex 04:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you under-estimate the number in their Christian fan-base. I don't know what it says on your copy of BLD but on mine it says © 2005 Sony Music Entertainment Inc. which means that Sony has the rights to sell it, not Columbia driectly. I can't imagine, however, that the label would do anything without consulting with the band, or at least their lawyers. Hey T-Rex, don't you have some edits to be working on for me. Friday I will be requesting arbitration if there's nothing there. --Walter Görlitz 07:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: Teenwritter has now readded this information(slightlly different wording) to the Beautiful Letdown article --T-rex 05:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Top Contemporary Christian

Akrabbim has put the album positions in a chart. As a result you can see that under all circumstances you would expect that Nothing is Sound would have charted somewhere on the Tom Contemporary Christian chart, so figuring that we were just missing the information I googled it. Found nothing except wikipedia mirror pages, so I then just tried to find the charts so i could possibly check some full histroy of them. Again I found nothing. I'm starting to think these charts don't exsist... --T-rex 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. All I did was put the information that was there (in list form) into a table. I have no idea where they came from. You could check the history page, maybe? —Akrabbim 16:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats been on the page as long as I can remember, but I never looked into it until now --T-rex 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Deep into the annals of Switchfoot WikiHistory: 6:10, September 14, 2004. This is when the section is written, by Beau99. Maybe someone could ask him. —Akrabbim 01:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

There's no such Billboard chart, you can be sure. Its probably some chart by a Christian company somewhere... since its not referenced, I think its safe to remove it. And why have it when you have Billboard's Christian chart, which is the more respected one? --.phil. 03:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it was there as Akrabbim pointed out since 2004, and there was no reason to assume that there was anything wrong with it until I got suspecious as to why Nothing is Sound didn't make it onto the charts (I guess we're deleting it then) --T-rex 05:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm deleting it then. -phil 24.86.149.11 14:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)