Check out what this bogus website says about Petra

[finnyguy]

I dont believe the issue about rock music should be about the message, or the devotion to ministry of the artist. There are many quality artists that speak the truth in their lyrics. The bible tells us not to be like the world. If it is not blatantly obvious to a casuall observer that an artist is different then are they really different.

[gman]

I guess if their music stinks, they'll certainly get noticed a lot.
Personally, I'll take stinky music from a ministry minded band, rather than good music from a band that doesn't give two craps about the people it plays for, as far as the spiritual aspect is concerned.
Then again, I'l definitely take band like Petra that is neither stinky, nor lacking in concern for its audience.

[gman]

about being in the world, but not of it...
When Paul made that statement, the world of his day was, in many ways, different from the world today. He did plenty to try and be culturally relevent with his message, and to use methods which would work at that time. I personally believe that music can be a great way to be culturally relevent. What is going to set a band apart and cause people to realize they are different, is if that band shows love towards others, love for god, brings them the gospel, etc. A band with weak or very ambiguous lyrics, that attempts to mask the fact that they are Christians or once claimed to be a christian band, and doesn't share Christ in any way, in my opinion they could be considered of the world. Because their lyrics, actions, attitude, etc, don't show them to be any different from anyone else.
This doesn't mean that absolutely anything goes; in the name of being relevant. Obviously there are lines not to cross as far as how one acts on stage, how one dresses, how one speaks, etc.

I guess I tend to see being culturally relevant and being set apart as two different things. We can be one or the other, both, or neither. Hopefully we are both.

[Gzsrulz]

Hello All,

that website...blah, blah, blah so on and soforth, someone whom has no clue of the realistic nature of Christ, he mentions something about 75,000 payment to Sandi Patti to play a concert, well if you look at the nature of production, thats a drop in the bucket for the talent in the overall scheme of things.

but convieniently forgets that Carman lays out several million to pay out of his own pocket for a major concert and does not charge at the door, plus takes only love offerings now THATS faith.

onto God Gave Rock and Roll To You, ok there is the deal it is of no matter whom wrote it, Petra owns the rights to it, so they can use the music as they see fit, no one can use it without permission of the copyright holder, which is Petra.

now KISS decided to take on a Christian band, and lost, Petra took KISS to court for copyright infringement and Petra Won, KISS had to lay out millions over stealing that song, pretty much what they earned on that album, the song KISS did was an exact copy of Petra's version if you listen to both you can tell KISS made no attempt to change anything, except the sound of the instruments is about it, but KISS looked at it this way, i recall the lead singer, Gene Simmons, saying "Hey it is free advertising, now we have a whole new group of people to listen to our music" so was there something subversive going on when that happened with KISS, i do believe so

[Shell]

Nope, the person who wrote that song has the copyright to it; Petra had to get permission to record that song. I hadn't heard the story about Petra taking KISS to court, but if anyone took them to court for breaking copyright law it would be the person who wrote the song. Petra couldn't do anything about KISS recording the song as long as they got permission from the person who wrote it.

It's kind of old history anyway; that happened a long time ago.

[finnyguy]

One point for sure. Even if he is right, he is grasping desperately for any dirt possible to back up his case. Most of which does not tell the whole story. Thats my biggest problem with it. I can live with someone apposed to rock music. I'm not completely convinced their wrong.

[Gzsrulz]

Shell,

i am pretty sure it was Petra that took them to court i can be wrong, but i remember CCM doing a big article about it, to be sure, it is not the writer who controls the copyright it is the copyright holder, whom can be anyone at this point, but to be sure KISS did NOT get permission to record the song, let alone permission to put it on a record, and got nailed for it.

as an example..
you are the most popular british singers in the 60's, you sell your entire library to a well known pop singer, even though THEY wrote the songs, they no longer hold the rights to them, it is the well known pop singer as it is stipulated in the contract, so in essence said songs are no longer generating revenue for the british singers, but the well known pop singer

[Michael]

Gzsrulz, if you can find that CCM article I'd like to see it. I feel pretty certain that I would have known about that if it had happened, because I was a major Petra fan at that time. I don't think Petra bought any rights to God Gave Rock & Roll To You from the guy in Argent who wrote it; that would be very unusual, for a songwriter to give up the rights to a hit song to anyone. Now, since the verses of the Petra version are completely different there may be some co-copyright thing in there, but I don't recall anything like that... and as a teenager I was a pretty ardent reader of cassette liner notes.

As to the whole KISS thing... I have no idea why anyone would want to sue KISS for the Bill & Ted's version of the song. The verses are completely different; really nothing of the Petra version is present in the KISS version. KISS just did a version of an old classic rock song, making it modern with the guitar tones and such, and then even rewrote the lyrics themselves (the KISS verses are different from the Petra lyrics and the Argent lyrics; the only things in common between the three are the melody and the chorus). If there was ever going to be a lawsuit between Petra and KISS, it would be because of the unintentional ripoff of Heaven's On Fire that Petra recorded as Seen And Not Heard.

I personally think Petra pretty much flew under KISS's radar. But if you actually have evidence to the contrary, I (and lots of others here, too, I'll bet) would be interested to find out more.

[brent]

Shell,

i am pretty sure it was Petra that took them to court i can be wrong, but i remember CCM doing a big article about it, to be sure, it is not the writer who controls the copyright it is the copyright holder, whom can be anyone at this point, but to be sure KISS did NOT get permission to record the song, let alone permission to put it on a record, and got nailed for it.

Petra does not have the copyrights to the tune, therefore they could not have "taken anyone to court." This is another one of those rumors that gets blown into a huge rumor. Just like the rumor that Eddie Van Halen said that Phil Keaggy was the best guitar player on earth, etc. It never happened.

Petra changed the lyrics from the original folks. If it was a normal deal, Petra had to get permission, pay royalties for it, etc, just as KISS and/or the producers of the movie soundtrack did. I think that everyone should let it rest.

[brent]

As to the whole KISS thing...
I personally think Petra pretty much flew under KISS's radar. But if you actually have evidence to the contrary, I (and lots of others here, too, I'll bet) would be interested to find out more.

Hey Josh, I am quoting myself from your site, which has a similar thread:

Bob Hartman was asked via e-mail, by me, about this song. He said that they had never heard the song (Heaven's On Fire), nor would they borrow from it. The legal implications would be costly. Obviously KISS has not heard it, or the attorneys would be on Bob's door.

The thing to consider is that the recording process is not done at the same time as the song writing, nor by the same people all of the time. When other people are introduced into the process, they are going to bring ideas (licks, hooks, sounds) from outside influences.

But....consider the uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh stuff at the beginning of PP II's "Be of Good Cheer". Man that is right off of AC/DC's "Thunderstruck". Listen to it. Pete Orta was a devout AC?DC fan and/or borrower of licks. I was doing sound at a Petra show the year that came out. While they were soundchecking, Pete was doing some AC/DC stuff, and John looked over, smiled and said "Stop That!" in a funny way.

Anyway, the Elefonte's had Kansas in their vains, that came out in the records a bit. People borrow styles, licks, etc because it is stuff that they would like to play or listen to. In the case of KISS, who knows? Maybe it was an engineer who said "Try this!" Just a thought.

[Gzsrulz]

Shell,

i will dig though my too many years worth of CCM's and find it, to be honest i might have seen it elsewhere in another mag, i do apologize if i came off and "know it all" but i will search for it

Brent,

thanks for the input on the copyrite issue, but i do have a question, in the 80's who knew that a particular song would be so popular?? back then no one really knew and many, upon many copyrights were signed away unknowingly, and/or unwittingly, in the 80's especially in secular music...they were signing bands left and right whom had a heartbeat, let alone a hit song, plus hooks and licks are limited there are so many things you can do with so many notes.

FinnyGuy,

totally agreeed, i listen to secular music, but mostly Christian music, by favorite is P&W currently, because a song does not particularly state God, ot Jesus does not mean it is a bad song or should not be in the Christian arena.

[brent]

I do not know the true lingo of it, but the multi-platinum people that I have mixed for have always told me that they had would have to pay royalties if any part of a recorded song contains a part of another song, and it is obviously recognizable. That's as best as I can say it.

Junior Brown, this guitar player that I mixed for two years, had a song that he did live. It was called Freedom Machine. It is about a car of his youth. The solo is the combination of ten to twelve recognizable licks from great Jazz records/artists. While nobody at the show knows it, he is paying tribute to these great players. We were going to do a live record, and the royalties would have dwarfed any "recoupable expenses" of the label. So we couldn't. So much of what he does is playing in the style, the likeness of others, that he would be broke.

There is only so much that can be done, and it all has been done, and nothing great can ever be done now, without it resembling something heard before. But, you cannot use the same notes, the same chord progression, with the same timing, the style, etc. The Petra thing is pretty spot on IMO.