Thursday, August 24, 2006

Lost - please help!

Thirty-something male and his five friends are looking for a lost treasure. They have looked near and far, high and low, but to no avail.

The treasure: good, clean, danceable commercial rock and roll of the current variety.

As the band tries to find newer songs to play, we are facing a dilemma: hip hop, or postmodern rock? Hip hop does not really fit our talents. Postmodern rock is not really dance floor material, and its lyrics exceed my vulgarity threshold.

We excel at finding songs 15+ years old (Go Gos, Romantics, Ramones, Wild Cherry), and are relatively successful finding songs 8-15 years old (early No Doubt, Blink 182, Sheryl Crow) . Songs by bands like Franz Ferdinand are remembered by the younger crowd, but aren't danceable. Conversely, we are not geared toward sampling and scratching, so radio-playable songs by Outkast and Rihanna don't fit for us.

If you know of any songs that are a little newer, and would fit a lily-white, suburban rock & roll band that attracts the same types at their shows, please pass them along. Or, if you don't, ask your teenage and college-aged kids or your baby-sitters. (The qualification was necessary: I could see suggestions for songs from the big, purple one, the Wiggles, Bear in the Big Blue House, and Veggie Tales.)



Scott said...

Land of Confusion a la Disturbed.

Perry Mason, by Ozzy!

Feel Good Inc. -


Quipper said...

#1 - no
#2 - no
#3 - worth a shot

Mr. Scott knows that I like the heavier music, but it's not what the band plays. So he is giving me somewhat of a hard time. ;-)

Emily said...

How 'bout Christina Agulera's new song, "Ain't No Other Man"?
Its pretty danceable and I actually like it... =)

um... and then um... How 'bout "its time to dance" by panic! at the disco?
I dunno

Emily said...

"Nobody Move, Nobody gets hurt" by The Scientists...
They're pretty cool, look them up =)

Favorite Apron said...

Green Day.
Got anybody that does a good Creed voice?

Des_Moines_Girl said...

How about "The Middle" by Jimmy Eat World. It's a toe tapper, up beat, believe in yourself kind of song.

Or you could just sing the, "Lumber Jack" song of Monty Python fame.

Jonathan said...

I'm kinda gun shy on recommending any music...

Jonathan said...


Jonathan said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Jonathan said...

Promise not to laugh...

1. Run DMC - Walk This Way
2. Young MC - Bust A Move
3. Wild Cherry - Play that Funky Music
4. AC/DC or ? - She Shook Me All Night Long (dance remix)
5. Will Smith - Gettin' Jiggy Wit It

Jonathan said...

6. Steve Winwood - Roll With It

Barb the Evil Genius said...

Jonathan, they already play "Play that Funky Music" so I think you are at least on the right track. "You Shook Me All Night Long," well, as long as the couple is married it's cool :) but I don't think all the lyrics in that one are quite, um....

Quipper said...

Emily - I'll have to look up those songs.

Favorite Apron - we could get away with Green Day. Do I have to listen to the politically charged lyrics? :-) We all think Coldplay is too pouty. Creed isn't dance enough, and Scott Stapp has kind of made a joke out of himself.

DMG - we do "The Middle" - great tune. I'll have to find the "Lumberjack Song".

Jonathan - I like practically all those songs, but they are all in the 1980s, where we are already overflowing with songs.

Barb - "Shook Me All Night Long" is no worse than "My Sharona".

Keep 'em coming.

plainandsimple said...

The White Stripes - Fell in Love With a Girl
Anything by The Coral
Pulp - Common People
Blur - Park Life, Song 2?
18th Day of May - The Highest Tree

We think Coldplay are too pouty too...

plainandsimple said...

Oh, I would also say the Kaiser Chiefs, a fatter jollier version of Franz Ferdinand and therefore more dancable. But don't tell the DH as he HATES them!

Favorite Apron said...

Well, I haven't been dancing much in the last 15 yrs!

At the last wedding reception in which I busted a move, the hip hop tunes were packing the dance floor ( this was a crowd of later 20yos and many 40 and 50yos) and it was totally empty for You Shook Me All Night Long ( except for Caleb and Zane).

LuvGlock said...

As The Deer?

Jonathan said...

OK, you did say 90's...sorry.
Are you excluding anything from so-called Christian artists? Does it need to be dance-able and recognized / popular or just dance-able?

Jonathan said...

Check this link out...

Quipper said...

Glock - you will pay "deerly". Just you wait. >:{

Quipper said...

J - Recognizable is important. We're playing bars and taverns, 10:00pm-2:00am, adult beverages flowing...I'll let you answer the CCM question. :-)

Favorite Apron said...

Caleb suggests:
Brown Eyed Girl -Van Morrison
Monkey Wrench - Foo Fighters
Learn to Fly - Foo Fighters
any Matchbox 20

Quipper said...

Polly, we do Brown Eyed Girl now. Some places say the song is too old, but it always gets folks dancing, no matter what their age.

I like the Foo Fighters. Have to look into those tunes. What if we did their version of Darling Nikki? (Just kidding.)

Good point on Matchbox 20, too. I keep forgetting about them.

Found a cool Everclear song on Sunday. We already play AM Radio, and I heard Santa Monica on Sunday driving home the Artist's tae kwon do tournament. Santa Monica is a foot-tapping good tune; it start off light, but builds and has a great groove.

Jonathan said...

OK Rick - I know you may not have been thinking about 'new music ideas' for a while, but since I believe you have an active band, I thought I'd share a few ideas with you:

Unwritten by Natasha Bedingfield

Mysterious Ways by U2

Now, I don't know if you have 'girl' back-up singers or a female lead singer, but even if you don't, Unwritten might still sound good for your band.

In any case, the 90's crowd (and later) should like these AND should be able to dance to them, even without 'adult beverages'. ;-D

Also, I know that this is one of those so-called 'Christian' songs, but I think it is written in such a way that it might be 'safe' to play in your Friday-night band settings - tell me what you think:

Click Here to Listen

Talk to ya,


Jonathan said...

It appears the the 'click here to listen' on my last comment didn't work...

Try clicking here instead

Tell me if it doesn't work...

Quipper said...


The link - it works

The song - it does not work. But that will be part of the blog-scussion that we have in the near future.

Jonathan said...

What? Now there is something wrong with this song too?

Anyway, never mind the last link (Closer - I figured you probably wouldn't like it)...but, what about Unwritten or Mysterious Ways?

Quipper said...


Yep. :-)

Closer: The music is okay, the lyrics are not. If you've ever seen The Music Man, recall that one of the characters is regularly saying "watch your phraseology". While I understand the point of the song, there is too much of the singer saying, to God, "I give you control". That makes the singer god (small "g"), if it is he who delegates control to God. Again, I understand the point, but we are not in control, ever, even when claim to be. Bad sin, claiming godship for ourselves. I think that breaks the first commandment, however subtle it may be.

On the other tunes, I like Mysterious Ways by U2, but Natasha's link didn't work for me.

Jonathan said...

I think you're 'playing' with me, but I'll be fool enough to take the bait...

Aren't we 'acting' as our own 'gods' (powerless and lost, of course) unless we surrender / submit to God?

In any case, I translate 'give you control' to mean 'to submit'. Isn't that scriptural? This song is just some fellow Christian brother's song of surrender / submission and devotion, similar to what we read throughout Psalms, just in today's lingo.
Please think this next one through... and be honest with me: When we get up every morning to start our day or are faced with a temptation or moral choice, whether we voice our submission to Christ into audible words or not, aren't we either submitting or keeping control (spirit vs flesh)?

Quipper said...

Jonathan, I would never toy with anyone on this stuff. If I say something, I mean it, and say it intentionally. For non-religious stuff, like politics, sports and music, I will play around a bit.

If I give you control, then I originally had it. If I submit to you, then I recognize that you are in control. Big difference.

To put this another way, relative to my vocation: I am a project manager. When I delegate control of project tasks, I am still ultimately responsible for the success or failure of a venture. When I submit, then I am under the authority of someone else and report to them. I cannot delegate to God.

Also, we confessional Lutherans don't marginalize or excuse anything by saying "just". We understand that words mean things, which is why we take pains to differentiate between "submit" and "give".

Please don't be so quick to push aside subtleties. That's where the devil lies in wait. If he can get us to marginalize stuff like this, it only takes time for us to rationalize that other, more significant differences, are really insignificant.

Jonathan said...

Try this for Unwritten.

Or this.

Anonymous said...

#1. "Unwritten" is Teh sux. Sorry.

#2. You both need to knock of the submit, give control, surrender junk. There's nothing to surrender or submit or give. You ain't in control, period. You may hopefully come to the point where you realize this, but there's nothing to give.

You are at the bottom. Plain and simple.

We all are always acting as our own gods, whether "we" submit, give control, etc, or don't.

You're both using "I" too much. If *I* surrender, if *I* submit, blah blah blah. Stop staring at your belly buttons, guys.

Now...regarding the song...Cool music. The words are good and bad. I don't know how we can be "closer than we are" since I ate Jesus yesterday. That's pretty close. :-)

Jonathan said...

NEWS FLASH: The Lutherans I am blogging with have achieved perfection in this world! They may be the only ones right.

This adament position of absolutely 'no doing' once you are born again is not supported by scripture. BTW, I am not speaking of working for salvation. I'm talking about what we do AFTER we are His - what we do with His help and power, what He does through us, what we do out of gratitude, as imperfect an offering as it is, what we do in obedience to the Holy Spirit who dwells in us...

Anyway, I want to honestly say that I am frustrated and disappointed at the tone and attitudes I am sensing in many of your responses to my comments or to my blog posts. Really guys, sit in my seat - your pastor was right - 'ambush' is how he described it. Also, I notice you guys are never wrong, never acknowledge another viewpoint as equal or being possibly better - if you did, it seems condescending. On one hand - 'grace, grace, grace' and then on the other hand being stricter than a Pentecostal legalistic fundamentalist - for example, tearing apart a song (over one questionable word) by a fellow Christian brother. But then having NO PROBLEM with enjoying or singing the music, songs and heart-cries of the lost / unsaved, some of it chock full of stuff we know is sinful or inappropriate. It appears hypocritical.

So, where am I at? Well, I don't get the feeling that these discussions are being helpful for anybody (you know, 'iron sharpens iron') It is not easy (or fun) to reason when the logic or previous arguments used are then rejected at random for convenience. God forbid I try to to base my reason in scripture!

And please tell me how submission is 'junk'?

Quipper said...

J - you gonna take your ball and go home again? You asked me to comment, so I did. Scott reads my blog, and chose to comment, so he did. I think that's the way the blogosphere works.

Re: your last question in your post - Scott answered it in his last response, so what's the purpose of re-asking the question?

If I read Scott's last comment correctly, he rebuked me, too. (So much for Lutherans being perfect.) And you must have missed Scott's post - either here or on his own blog - about the three functions of the law, where he indicates that "do" is not always incorrect, but when preached "out of order" (i.e. law to show our sin, gospel to comfort us, then law again after gospel.), it is incorrect.

If you don't want to participate, you don't have too. No one is stopping you from not reading. Conversely, who said you had to go it alone?

Now for the 'Lutherans are Perfect' thing: grow up! One loving, Christian, party to this discussion is not keeping things civil. It ain't Scott or me.

So, wazzup?

Anonymous said...


I thought dialogue would be good. Guess I was right to be skeptical, or wrong to enter in to the fray.

Ad Hominem attacks do not become us.

We never said or thought or acted or suggested or hinted that we were perfect.

And the "tone and attitudes." Jonathan, I have tried my hardest to be sure that I am not presenting a hostile "tone or attitude" since there is really no way to determine these things in textual communications. Guess we're both wrong.

So is this where we both retreat to our dark closets and shout into our pillows. I was reticent to ever begin this ...

Good night gracie. Rick, I'm kickin you in the groin later. Get ready.

Jonathan said...

Rick, since Scott may not be wanting to check back on this post, I kindly request that you ask him to read this one last comment and apology. Thanks, Jonathan.

Rick and Scott,

Try not to take notice of the 2x4 in my eye while I fail at identifying the 'splinter in your eye'.

Boy, am I stooopid or what?!

I was actually thinking about what I said well AFTER hitting the send button at 3 AM and knew that I was over-reacting, being over-dramatic and I said some very sharp and mean things. I knew I'd 'get in trouble' over it.

No, I really do not want to 'take my ball and go home'.

And I'd really like to continue discussing, chatting, reasoning, laughing and yes, even arguing with you guys.

I am sorry.



Scott, please do not kick Rick in the groin on account of me.

Quipper said...

J -

Hey, we all have our moments of weakness. Mine are roughly 00:00-24:00. :-)

Apology accepted. I usually gnash my teeth over 2-3 versions of a response, even at work. Scott knows that I still offer some pretty spunky replies even after simmering down a bit, especially as it relates to "those crazy lutherans". (Yes, lower case "l" intended.)

And I'm sure Scott has other unknown reasons to kick me...or I will give him some if I don't record the bible study and sermon correctly this Sunday. :-o