In Another Land

Larry Norman is no longer visiting this planet. The original Jesus rocker died Sunday of heart failure in Oregon. He was 60.

By the time I saw Norman play in the late '80s, his best work was behind him. He had become addled and erratic, prone to venting obliquely about the bridges he'd burned with so many of the people he'd worked with over the years. Yet still there were glimpses of the talent that had written so many weirdly beautiful songs.

He was, always, a long-haired, Son-worshipping Jesus Freak. A hippie -- with all of the unsustainable idealism and naivete that entails. For Norman, that hippie naivete merged with Hal Lindsay's premillennial dispensationalism -- setting him up for major disappointment and disillusionment when the 1980s arrived and neither the rapture nor the revolution seemed to be at hand. I can't help but wonder if the long downward spiral of Norman's later decades wasn't in part a result of his simple Jesus Freak idealism spoiling on the vine.

Norman's Solid Rock Records, founded in 1975, helped launch the careers of several artists who surpassed him. They're part of his legacy as well -- the children of his dysfunctional family.

And then, of course, there are his songs. Some are brilliant, some beautiful, some fatally flawed, some infuriating. Many, like Norman himself, all of those at once. Here's a sampling via YouTube:

• "The Outlaw"
• "Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?"
• "The Tune"
• "Sweet, Sweet Song of Salvation"
• "The Great American Novel"
• "Only Visiting This Planet/God Part III"

Download LarryNorman_TheOutlaw.mp3

Comments

[Lee Ratner]

Many years ago, the New York Times magazine had a very interesting
article on Christian rock and it had a rather detailed history of its origins, where it mentioned Larry Norman and others. I was shocked to learn that Christian rock really had such radical origins, I always associated it with the pop music rather than rock music. The corporatization and conservatization of Christian rock was the prominent
theme of the article.

Most religious pop music is dreck regardless of the religion in question. For religious pop music to be good it needs to handle deep themes and it can not be repeditious praise of God or Jesus or Buddha. The best religious pop is done by muscians willing to handle difficult topics like theodicy. The best religious pop is done by bands who perform songs on secular topics. U2 produces some great religious rock in addition to there secular songs.

[Caravelle]

Ah ! So Fred did survive the bachelor chow ! ^^

[treeandleaf]

Runrig are another case in point: they wrote songs about all kinds of things, including quite a lot of political stuff, but some of their songs, such as 'Healer in Your Heart' and 'News from Heaven' seem to me to be fairly clearly Christian, and there's another subset where it's difficult to decide what kind of love they're about.

... I think the religious/ secular division is often a false dichotomy which tends to produce bad music.

[Monkay]

Good music . . . you can't have a light without a dark to put it in . . . also, the more candles you light, the more shadows you make . . .

[Geds]

Good music . . . you can't have a light without a dark to put it in . . . also, the more candles you light, the more shadows you make . . .

I had to read that twice to put it together, but that's a brilliant sentiment. I can't hear that concept without hearing all of the Christian propaganda I heard more times than I care to count in church, but I've never heard anybody point out that the light isn't necessarily going to illuminate everything.

Of course, I've since learned that the "dark" isn't so bad (or dark) as others would like me to believe. I had a friend who expressed sadness to me not long after I'd given up the whole Christian thing by saying that I was, "So lost." My response was something to the general effect of, "No. I'm exploring." (But it was far less pithy at the time, I've ironed out the details in case I have to deal with that sentiment again in the future.)

[josh]

He was both frighteningly perceptive and frighteningly neurotic, and will be missed. RIP Larry.

[Froborr]

There is a difference between rock that handles Christian themes with rock's tools and cramming a rock song full of Christian references without any depth of thought or understanding of how those references interact with each other or with rock's natural tendencies and associations. It is the musical equivalent of the difference between Tolkien and Lewis.

Also, I completely agree with both the original statement and the following mod: Most religious pop music is dreck regardless of the religion in question. For religious pop music to be good it needs to handle deep themes and it can not be repetitious praise of God or Jesus or Buddha. The best religious pop is done by muscians willing to handle difficult topics.

[Spalanzani]

Froborr: "It is the musical equivalent of the difference between Tolkien and Lewis."

So which author do you see as doing what?

[Froborr]

I would think that would be obvious, but, Tolkien is the one that uses Christian themes and values without hammering you over the head with explicitly Christian allegory (well, except for the whole resurrection-of-Gandalf-and-Frodo-multiple-times thing, and some of the things Eru Iluvatar says in his brief appearances in The Silmarillion, but nobody's perfect). His goal was very obviously to write a good fantasy, and it was influenced by his sincere Christian beliefs, possibly without his conscious awareness.

Lewis, on the other hand, is pushing an agenda first and weaving a tale second, and using explicit symbols regularly while often missing the underlying thematic points. His fiction is clumsy and pedantic*, and the Narnia books in particular suffer from a severe case of Kitchen Sink Syndrome.

*Though I have to admit, the references to Perelandra made Niven's Rainbow Mars ten billion times better, and couldn't have happened without Lewis' crappy series.

[Monkay]

Geds said: a brilliant sentiment
Thank you; now I must credit Arlo Guthrie (among others) for it.

[Spalanzani]

Froborr: That is what I figured, but there are always a few people who argue that Lewis's fiction isn't as...didactic as people say, so I wanted to check. Personally, the first Narnia book is the only one of his (fiction) books that I've been able to get through. Although I don't really like Tolkien either, but that's a whole nother can of worms.

[Lee Ratner]

At least some good Christian pop music exists. Everypiece of Jewish pop music seems to be as a bad as the worst of Jewish pop music. Matisyahu is a good musician but his lyrics are not deep. They mainly consist of praises to God. Other Jewish pop tends to even lack technical skill.

I think Christianity beats all other religions in the music department.

[walden]

I remember some of these Larry Norman songs -- they came out when there was not much other Christian music of a rock/pop genre to be heard. (I mean, really, the Gaithers passed for contemporary. Bleaahh. The Talbot Brothers were pretty good, but then they had been a real rock band before taking a U-turn into early Christian rock -- Terry was better than John Michael). As for Larry Norman, "The Outlaw" is still one of the best theological statements out there....and I keep shifting my own perspective on Jesus from verse to verse throughout my own life. I like it particularly because it doesn't say any of the perspectives on Jesus are wrong....Norman just says, "that's who I believe he was, cuz that's who I believe."

His "I wish we'd all been ready" on the other hand was a pretty spooky working out of the themes that were done so much worse by Jenkins & LaHaye decades later. Is the demise of Larry Norman to be taken as this week's episode of Left Behind?

[Monty]

I too saw Larry back in the early 80's. I agree that his music could be frustrating but at times wonderful. He sat at the piano with that long straight blond hair and this voice that was beautiful and melancholy. He was an icon, flawed and human, but a true icon. I have a live album from the 70's that has some awesome rockin parts, the best of which was Soul on Fire. Saddens me to think that he is gone.

[Izzy]

Lewis is...odd. I didn't grow up particularly Christian, so I don't even notice some of the references in six of the Narnia books unless I'm actually looking for them. And then, alas, there's "The Last Battle." Gah.

[hapax]

*sigh* The success of the Narnia books -- which were written for children, not adults, btw -- has not done Lewis's reputation one bit of good. His theology was a good deal more complex and nuanced than that, and (like for most of us) it evolved a good bit over his life. And for all the constant carping and moaning about how "preachy" the Narnia books are, most children -- Christian and non-Christian -- at whom the books are aimed seemed to miss the Christian parallels unless they are explicitly pointed out to them. It's sort of like explicit sex; I read tons of Philip Roth before I was twelve (mainly because my mother kept them on the top shelf where I theoretically couldn't get at them) and all the sexual references just flew over my head. (It made some of the books extremely confusing, however. I did like the short stories, IIRC...)

Lewis's best stuff is his non-fiction essays (I go back to A GRIEF OBSERVED most often, but MERE CHRISTIANITY is a good starting place, even though it is pretty simplistic, and SURPRISED BY JOY is also a good one) but if you must judge him on his fiction, go for something like TILL WE HAVE FACES (brilliant except for the very last scene, where Lewis has a failure of nerve and I want to smack his God across the face HARD) or THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS (yeah, it's didactic, but quite funny and the characterization is both so subtle and so accurate that you don't even realize it's there).

[Izzy]

Hapax: Mere Christianity is pretty awesome. As is at least the first book in the scifi series; it's been too damn long since I read the others. For the most part, I tend to like Lewis--and the points I disagree with him on are often "...well, yes, but you grew up at the turn of the century, of *course* you think that."

That said, as a kid, I found TLB weird and preachy in a way that none of Lewis's other books were. I think a large part of it is that, if you're not familiar with a very specific Christian take on the afterlife (namely, that this life sucks in comparison), the ending is this bizarre unsatisfying thing. "They're all...dead. And that's a good thing? What the huh?" was pretty much my reaction there.

It's a very strange departure from the previous books.

[Monty]

I will run too with the Lewis theme, I loved The Silver Chair and a Horse and His Boy, cannot agree more about the abysmal Last Battle, gah x2! Till We Have Faces is wonderful, my highest recommendation. Surprised by Joy is a very enjoyable human book. Mere Christianity is potent stuff, converted an athesist friend of mine, nuff said.

[Jeff]

Everypiece of Jewish pop music seems to be as a bad as the worst of Jewish pop music. ... Other Jewish pop tends to even lack technical skill.

Would you include klezmer in that? If not, why not? If so, how does it lack "technical skill"? To me, klezmer (played well) requires amazing skills. (I'm a BIG fan, especially of the newer klezmar bands. Some of the older ones have gotten a bit stodgey in my opinion.)

[Lee Ratner]

I would not include klezmer or Sephardic romanzas as Jewish pop music. By Jewish pop music I meant that Jewish version of Christian contemporary not
Jewish folk music. Klezmer is Jewish jazz.

[Reynard]

"Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?"

In theory, he shouldn't. Plenty of Classical composers wrote wonderful music for the Church. (Masses, Requiems, Te Deums, Stabat Maters, Motets, Hymns, etc.) Sure, there were certain textual and stylistic rules that composers tended to follow; depending on both the era in which they lived and local resources and demands/needs; but the music tended to be quite imaginative even within those parameters.

The main problem with Christian "Rock" is that the writers are trying to pull it, "creatively", in opposite directions: On the one hand, they want to write something rousing enough to get the blood pumping and the Spirit flowing through their audience so that they'll go home feeling like they've gotten their money's worth. On the other hand, they're pretty much trapped by the conventions of their religion into having to write "safe" material that won't offend the more Fundamentalist-minded segment of their audience that sees the Devil in anything faster than "Amazing Grace" or whatever else is being sung in the local churches.

Creativity vs. Dogma. Who's gonna win that one, I wonder...

[Caravelle]

"Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?"

In theory, he shouldn't.

Well, he in practice he does. Except for Elgar and Liszt.
(it's in Good Omens, so it's true)

[Froborr]

I will concede that Screwtape Letters was quite good. His apologetics, however, are utter bunk, as any attempt to reason one's way to faith must necessarily be.

[hapax]

anything faster than "Amazing Grace" or whatever else is being sung in the local churches.

We have a local Babtist choir that sings "Amazing Grace" to the tune of "I'd like to teach the world to sing" -- you know, the old Coke commercial?

It turns a truly beautiful expression of anguish and astonished joy into... um... a Coke commercial.

[Nina]

I have to agree with hapax about the Christian references in Narnia. I read Narnia when I was a kid and didn't catch ANY of the references. Someone years later pointed out that they were a big Christian allegory and I had a serious "oh, duh" moment. I mean, really, Aslan as the lamb at the end of "Voyage of the Dawn Treader"? How could I have missed that? Of course, in the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I was not raised in a particularly Christian household...but on the the other hand, my husband, who was raised Catholic, also completely missed it as a kid.

Also, I must admit I hated "Til We Have Faces." I read it at a particularly anti-Christian time in my life and was infuriated by the ending. Maybe I should reread it now...

[McJulie]

I have to agree with hapax about the Christian references in Narnia.

I'll go you one better -- I borrowed the books *out of our CHURCH library* and still somehow missed most of the Christian references.

Except for The Last Battle -- which was the only Narnia book I didn't particularly like. There's something dishonest and contrived about it. Just the faintest unpleasant whiff of the cesspool stink that Left Behind wallows in so unapologetically...

[paulf]

I loved Larry Norman growing up, saw him in concert in NYC in the mid-70s with Randy Stonehill, and then again in Nebraska when I was in college a couple of years later, they were both great. His records were pure genius, and he showed that you didn't have to be boring to be a Christian.

SOmething snapped in him, unfortunately. I saw him 15 years ago or so in Pennsylvania and he spent most of the concert ranting about paranoid fantasies. His doctors tried to kill him and so on. After three hours of this, and very little song, I walked out after he was warning about the government machine-gunning citizens.

RIP Larry.

[Tonio]

most children -- Christian and non-Christian -- at whom the books are aimed seemed to miss the Christian parallels unless they are explicitly pointed out to them.

While you may be correct, all the Narnia readers I've met were either fundamentalist Christians or had fundamentalist parents. I suspect many of those parents buy Narnia for their children with the deliberate intention of promoting belief. There may be plenty of people who came to the books simply as fans of fantasy without any prior knowledge of the Christian parallels. I just haven't met any or heard of any.

[Nina]

Well, Tonio, now you'll have to say you've only heard of one, because I came to the Narnia books simply because I loved fantasy. Neither I nor my parents are fundamentalists.

[Nina]

P.S.-Not that I disagree that many parents buy them for their children to promote belief. On the other hand, if most children are missing the parallels, it isn't a very successful attempt, is it?

[Izzy]

Tonio: Other than McJulie, Monty, and myself, I take it. ;)

Admittedly, I did get introduced to the series via my mom listening to it on audiotape. But Mom's a seriously lapsed Catholic (mostly, as far as I can tell, she believes in arts and crafts these days) and I doubt she had any religious agenda: mostly, she just wanted something to play in the car so my sister and I wouldn't kill each other on the way to the supermarket.

[Tonio]

Thanks, Nina. Perhaps I have not met readers such as yourself because almost all my genre reading is in science fiction rather than fantasy. The fantasy fans I've met were into Tolkien and McCaffrey, and a Christian once told me she found McCaffrey incompatible with her own beliefs.

[coffeedryad]

hapax: Try "Amazing Grace" to the tune of "House of the Rising Sun".

[Nina]

I think the Narnia books are like a gateway drug for fantasy. You read them when you're younger, they whet your appetite for fantasy (if you liked them), so you go out and read more sophisticated stuff. I returned to the Narnia books when the movie came out in the States and was struck by how simplistic they are. I don't mean that in a bad way - I mean, they're for kids - but they are much more event-driven than character-driven, something I hadn't noticed when I read them as a kid.

In terms of your Christian acquaintance, it's probably because McCaffrey doesn't have a lot of religion in her books (at least not in the Pern series, where between guilds, weyrs, and holds, she doesn't manage to have any social structure resembling a church). Wouldn't you think, though, that absence of religion is better than an offensive religion?

[Chris]

I'm another one. My dad bought the books for me, but that's because he liked them himself (he is an atheist, and he also later told me that he found the insistent Christian message annoying). I loved them (and the BBC series) when I was a kid. Like Nina, I never got the Christian references until someone else pointed them out for me, and within hindsight I find this fascinating. Sure, I grew up in an atheist home, but I was hardly ignorant about Christianity, I knew the Gospel story and had seen Christian art and things... and yet, all of it passed me by. A virtuous individual willingly sacrificing himself and returning to life? Aslan as a lamb, telling the children that they will know him by a different name in their own world?

Something pertinent to the LB discussions, that I haven't seen yet on this blog: any thoughts on Lewis' depiction of The Antichrist And All in "The Last Battle"? It is so different from the "mainstream" ideas of the Antichrist that I've heard that it almost seems like Lewis was making a point against them. Puzzle is a completely sympathetic (as far as I recall), misled victim, whose impersonation of Aslan is orchestrated by Shift. Is Shift the False Prophet, or did Lewis decide to split up the main concept of the Antichrist into two people, a dupe and the mastermind manipulating him? Times like this, I really wish I knew more.

Shift and Puzzle still make for a more convincing Antichrist (team?) than Count Nicula, funny as he is.

[Tonio]

Try "Amazing Grace" to the tune of "House of the Rising Sun".

Bob Rivers once set "O Little Town of Bethlehem" to the Animals song. The Christmas song could also be sung to the tune of the Coca-Cola song.

[Spalanzani]

"Why Should the Devil Have All the Good Music?"

I'd suggest that he doesn't. I think it works like the followers of Aslan and Tash (OK, I never read The Last Battle, but I've seen this bit brought up in countless religious discussions): those who make good music, no matter what their intentions may be, are making their music for God. Meanwhile, all the crap muscicians, Christian rock bands included, are tools of the Devil.

[Lee Ratner]

The devil gets all the good music "because you have to get really bad to get really."

[Tonio]

In terms of your Christian acquaintance, it's probably because McCaffrey doesn't have a lot of religion in her books (at least not in the Pern series, where between guilds, weyrs, and holds, she doesn't manage to have any social structure resembling a church). Wouldn't you think, though, that absence of religion is better than an offensive religion?

I would agree. This person was equating Pern with sexual amorality and witchcraft. I couldn't respond since I don't know the books.

[Izzy]

Re: McCaffrey, another possible cause of fundie freakout time could be the fact that homosexuality is kindasorta accepted on Pern. Sort of. McCaffrey's beliefs on the subject aren't even in the same universe as "sane," let alone "logical," but they're not "GAY=BAD" either, so that could be a contributing factor.
(The sexual morality of the Pern books is actually pretty damn conservative, and ye freakin' gods do the first three books do the virgin/whore dichotomy in a big and annoying way.)

Witchcraft...um. There are psychics? I guess if you look at it sideways and squint, and you're Carrie's mom, that's kinda like witchcraft.

[Tonio]

There are psychics? I guess if you look at it sideways and squint, and you're Carrie's mom, that's kinda like witchcraft.

That may have been what she meant. I've heard other fundamentalists use that word to describe New Age and paranormal stuff.

[Caravelle]

This person was equating Pern with sexual amorality and witchcraft. I couldn't respond since I don't know the books.

I don't see where they get the witchcraft, other than "there are dragons in the book and they teleport". Oh, and they bond to humans, I guess I can see the link to familiars there.
Sexual amorality on the other hand is definitely present from a fundie perspective. The dragonriders are pro-free love, pro-homosexuality*, pro-contraception/abortion, do not marry, and this is unambiguously portrayed as a good thing when they are contrasted with other, more conservative segments of Pernese society.

(They are also anti-rape**, pro-healthy romantic relationships, pro-raising children in healthy environments, and apparently GGG all around. So from a non-fundy perspective I'd say it's quite sexually moral.)

*Though I've seen McCaffrey quoted as having... strange views on male homosexuality.
**Hmmm, on reflection I can think of at least one scene that might raise Jesu's hackles. I still think it's meant well though.

[Caravelle]

Re: McCaffrey, another possible cause of fundie freakout time could be the fact that homosexuality is kindasorta accepted on Pern. Sort of.

I don't know, as far as dragonriders are concerned it seems to be totally accepted to me. I'm thinking of scenes where two men are matter-of-factly shown to be lovers without any particular point being made of it. Also, in one of the prequels I think male homosexuality is actually encouraged (women have this nasty tendency to get pregnant, you see).

The sexual morality of the Pern books is actually pretty damn conservative, and ye freakin' gods do the first three books do the virgin/whore dichotomy in a big and annoying way.

That is true, I had forgotten about that.

[Izzy]

Caravelle: Oh, there's no particular "hey, sleeping with other men is bad and wrong" thing that I saw. However, there *is* a fairly significant undercurrent of "sleeping with other men is not Manly and Awesome"--our Noble Bronzeriding (and Brownriding) Heroes aren't ever shown with other guys, and the homosexual lovers who appear in Dragonquest are bitchy and unstable, especially the greenrider.

Plus, no lesbians that I can recall. But then, considering that McCaffrey's view of female sexuality (as expressed in the initial trilogy, anyhow; the Menolly-Robinton-Sebell thing was actually progress for her) is that it's something you direct at the one man in all the world who is your true love, because otherwise you're an evil harlot who deserves to end her life in a vegetative state, this is not a big surprise.

So sort of kind of acceptance, but not really.

[Lauren]

McCaffrey is closer to sci-fi than it is to fantasy, anyway. Pretty much all her novels are about putting fantasy tropes into sci-fi settings (Dragons, with science! Giants, with science! Unicorns, with science! Selkies, with science!). The only thing magic-y are the psychics, which is more than enough to scare off your Christian fundamentalists.

I read Narnia without noticing that it was a Christian allegory, either. But really, if you look hard enough, you can find parallels to the Christ story in anything. It's only the little details that are distinctly Christian, and if you don't know the little details, it is easy enough to think the books are more generically religious than specifically Christian.

I mean, obviously there are a lot of Christians out there who don't think that people who do good works in the name of Tash are accepted as followers of Aslan. I think my thought upon reading The Last Battle was, "Wouldn't it be nice if the major Earth religions felt that way?"

It would be kind of fun to do a page-by-page treatment of Narnia like Fred is doing of Left Behind.

[howard]

I used to get a real kick out of Larry Norman when I was younger, and I'd honestly forgotten all about him since, until I read this post the other day. Then just this afternoon on NPR's Day to Day, they ran a couple minutes noting his passing. It was a nice little piece that I completely wasn't expecting.

[Caravelle]

Oh, there's no particular "hey, sleeping with other men is bad and wrong" thing that I saw. However, there *is* a fairly significant undercurrent of "sleeping with other men is not Manly and Awesome"--our Noble Bronzeriding (and Brownriding) Heroes aren't ever shown with other guys, and the homosexual lovers who appear in Dragonquest are bitchy and unstable, especially the greenrider.

I don't know. I don't remember homosexuals being particularily bitchy, other than in that first scene of Dragonquest which is what I guess you mean. I wouldn't make a rule out of it though, I'd have to re-read the books. And most bronze and brown riders aren't homosexuals but then they wouldn't be, given how uncommon gay people are in the first place and how many greens there are.

You're absolutely right about the lesbians, I've always wondered why there was no woman riding a male dragon, even in the later books and the prequels where society is more egalitarian. But you know, I think this is more sexism (which the whole dragon color system reeks of*) than sort-of-homophobia.

However, having not read the books in a long time and given a lot of the later ones I read only once an even longer time ago I don't think I could get into an in-depth argument on this ^^

*I find it funny how this is lampshaded in Dragonsdawn. So... did she think up the system because she thought it was cool, and then thought "hey, this is awfully unfair to women !" ? Is the whole system a critique of sexist societies ? WTF ???

[Izzy]

The first trilogy, in all fairness, was absolutely the worst of the lot in terms of societal attitudes. (Huzzah "forced seduction" scenes for everyone! Huzzah "women who want non-procreative sex=vain, selfish, and bitchy"! Shut up, Anne.)

I was under the impression that bronze and brownriders at least regularly participated in situational homosexuality, since both dragons occasionally mated with greens for fun and mating flights had the usual effect on people. But, like you, I haven't read the novels in a while, so could be wrong.

My guess re: DD is that enough fans had gone "Dude, WTFSEXISM" that she felt it necessary to provide some sort of justification--witness the fact that Kit Ping is presented as overwhelmingly positive in all other ways, and the whole hey-queens-can't-chew-firestone scene gets played for "hur hur funny girls overreacting don't kill us," so. But I have no information one way or the other.

[Caravelle]

I was under the impression that bronze and brownriders at least regularly participated in situational homosexuality, since both dragons occasionally mated with greens for fun and mating flights had the usual effect on people.

I definitely remember a scene where a girl is slightly worried that a dragon ridden by a gay guy is likely to fly her green, and another girl tells her it's no problem, she can ask someone she likes to "sleep" with her while the other guy does the same on his side, and everybody's happy.
So situational homosexuality wouldn't be necessary if one really didn't want it.
That said I wouldn't be surprised to see some "experimenting" going on :p

My guess re: DD is that enough fans had gone "Dude, WTFSEXISM" that she felt it necessary to provide some sort of justification
That makes a lot of sense.

[Izzy]

Caravelle:

I have vague memories of that myself--and certainly it was RP-Canon back when I used to MUSH. That said, it sort of makes the whole Brekke/F'nor Angsty McAngstPants deal in DQuest seem dumb. I mean, dumber.