take me away - ruminations on audio lessonover?

In August 2001 I received a piece of mail from the United Kingdom. I excitedly ripped open the packaging to find a CD I had imported, then promptly ran to my room, dropped it into my CD player, put on my headphones and experienced what was for my 16-year-old self a life-changing piece of art.

The album was Audio Lessonover? by the British Christian band delirious? [sic], and I had ordered the album from the UK because it wasn't available in the United States. I didn't realize at the time what a good decision this was, for Audio Lessonover? would never be released stateside; instead, America would have to wait until November 2002 to get Touch, a revised version of the album with several songs missing. (More on that later...)

Audio Lessonover? was a departure for the band. Their previous release, 2000's Glo, was released virtually unaltered between the US and the UK. This is probably because Glo is a collection of overtly Christian praise and worship songs. This stays close to delirious?'s roots, for the group began as "The Cutting Edge Band," a praise and worship band before "praise and worship" became a genre. In the early 1990s they released many songs that have now become overplayed classics that I rarely hear sung because they're no longer cool, late-90's youth camp staples like "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever," "Did You Feel the Mountains Tremble," "The Happy Song" and "Shout to the North." Glo added to this parthenon of contemporary hymns with "My Glorious," the only non-Cutting Edge delirious? song I've heard used in multiple worship gatherings (and one of the few delirious? songs I still hear used in worship gatherings on a fairly consistent basis). From beginning to end, the songs on Glo sound tailored to be pulled straight off the record and dropped into a church service.

delirious? then jolted their Christian fan base by following up such an overt worship album, written and engineered to be sung by churches and Christian gatherings, with a secularized collection of love anthems, featuring more songs directed toward human lovers than toward God.

Audience and critical reception was, shall we say, mixed. When most people know you for "I Could Sing of Your Love Forever," releasing an album with only passing references to God is tantamount to renouncing your faith in the ears of some more devoted Christian music aficionados. After all, one of the biggest insults a believing critic can lobby at a Christian band is the accusation that they are "going secular."

Unsurprisingly, Audio Lessonover? was met by a collective "meh" from just about everybody. Christians resented the secular vibe and mainstream music listeners had little interest in a Christian band, so the album wasn't so much disliked as it was ignored. Determined to not make the same mistake on two continents, delirious?'s label chopped up the album and turned it into Touch for American audiences, creating a watered-down, Christians-only bastard child of an album by leaving off four of the more secular-sounding songs:

- "There is an Angel," containing the offending lyric "There is an angel and she's lying next to me," since, you know Christians can't have sex.

- "Bicycle Gasoline," which feels like a rip-off of and/or homage to British drug songs from the 1960s

- "A Little Love," a mostly inconsequential love ballad

- "America," containing the offending lyric, "You don't have to believe to belong," which allegedly smacked too much of universalism for the CCM market

Filling in for these songs, Americans got "Touch," a standard love song for Jesus that had already been released stateside on the compilation album Roaring Lambs more than two years earlier. Thus, instead of a the hour-long aural exploration that British fans received, American audiences got 40 minutes of rehashed material. At least our delicate religious sensibilities could tolerate it.

Perhaps I'm being too hard on Touch. Perhaps if I'd heard it without ever hearing Audio Lessonover? (like most American listeners did) it would have blown me away. At any rate, this wasn't even the first time delirious? had walked a fine line of propriety with CCM listeners; 1999's Mezzamorphis featured the song "It's OK" with the lyric "She's as pretty as hell," words some listeners took for profanity. As a result, the American liner notes included a wordy paragraph placed by the song's lyrics explaining the intent of the song, a fate later suffered by the song "Alien" on Audio Lessonover? (Incidentally, "It's OK" would be the band's biggest success on the British pop charts, peaking at #18.)

At least three members of the band have spoken out about the confusion surrounding Audio Lessonover?, and all of them had similar things to say. Guitarist Stu Garrard set the tone:

"I think Audio Lessonover? is a brilliant piece of work. When we write and record we have to get out what’s inside and what we’re experiencing at the time. Maybe our mistake is to carve up what we do and categorize it by 'rock or worship,' 'sacred or secular,' 'congregational or performance.' It’s all one thing to us...or should be."

Frontman Martin Smith expressed a similar sentiment when asked if he regretted the album:

"No, I don't regret making that record... because there are a couple of songs on there that are our finest. [...] I think that yes, it was a bad outcome, in terms of it didn't get a great reaction from people. I think it confused people. The worst thing we did on that record was opening with 'Waiting for the Summer.' I think people just never got past that track, and rightfully so, that was a bad mistake. But because it was the single we thought, let's stick it on first. I think it wasn't us. The producer pushed it in a direction that wasn't us and there are regrets about that. But you live and learn."

Finally, bassist Jon Thatcher was also asked about his feelings on the record:

"I think it's a good album. I'm glad we made that record. I think after Mezzamorphis it was probably another step further that people weren't expecting but I think that's what good bands do. They give something to people that they didn't know they wanted. There's a lot of bands, one that's just brought a record out this week, and it sounds like you think it's going to sound. There's something great about that, but for me there's something quite sad artistically. Obviously bands get their sounds and they know how to write songs and they know what works and what their audiences want. But after a while it does become stale."

Garrard, Smith and Thatcher all have similar statements on the record: The result was unfortunate but the album stands up well (or at least individual songs do). People were expecting something different and thus audience alienation worked against them. But lyrically and especially musically, it was a necessary part of the band's evolution.

Personally, I'd rather not get into the secular/sacred debate, though I know it's still a very functional division in the lived experience of American Christianity. I appreciate it when I see creative Christians be true to what they believe and experience without regard for whether or not it's "Christian enough." I don't want to just toe the line and be comfortably Christian, but I don't want to push aside any references of my faith just to seem "cooler."

At its best, Christian art should reflect the core beliefs and experiences of the artist, without reference to how well it fits in with the Christian mainstream. I fear sometimes I veer off to being too self-aware in my faith, whether embracing its norms or rebelling against them. Instead, I just want to be true to my relationship with God.