Talk:Jesus music

Quotation

The quote about the devil and the best tunes, isn't that normally attributet to William Booth rather than Luther? // Habj 11:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

See also Salvationarmy.org - Why Should The Devil Have All The Best Tunes? Tubaist 22:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Petra

Umm why is there NOTHING related to Petra? I guess I'll put something in.24.64.223.203 08:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)HappyBoy

Mostly because Petra wasn't early enough. 1976 was really the end of the Jesus music era and the start of CCM. They were more a part of the CCM industry than pioneers of Jesus music. --Walter Görlitz 00:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Norman Greenbaum

Wasn't he considered part of this scene at least in the beginning? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Curefreak (talk • contribs) 17:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Norman was not considered as part of Jesus music. He wrote songs that seemed Christian, but as Larry Norman commented in the liner notes to "Stream of White Light In Darkened Corners", many artists simply used Jesus or spirituality as a way to sell records. I removed references to him in the article. --Walter Görlitz 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is Larry Norman not mentioned or at least included in the list of names and his link?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Norman

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.69.48 (talk) 11:29, August 2, 2007

Hello,

It appears as if the user at IP address 71.237.162.156 deleted all references to Larry Norman. I have reverted the page to the revision before 71.237.162.156 began editing. It appears as if the user also has blanked the Larry Norman page on more than one occasion (see Special:Contributions/71.237.162.156).

You should now see references to Larry Norman.

I'm not sure if the link is showing; but you're welcome to add it if you want to.

Jamie L.^talk 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Forget the Archers

While they were around in 1971, they were a Gospel group, not a Jesus music group. Despite having good musicians, they were not ever considered or sold as Jesus music. --Walter Görlitz 00:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The "Jesus music" artists for the most part were people who were outside of the established Church..or at least trying to have the "appearance" of being outside while the Archers were clearly a group working within the church.GBrady (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Notable artists?

Should we limit the list of notable artists only to those who have Wikipedia articles? Currently the following do not have articles:

• Agape
• Aslan
• Children of the Light
• Mustard Seed Faith
• The Road Home
• The Talbot Brothers
• Terry Talbot

The Mustard Seed Faith article was created and then deleted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As per the notice, I removed the artist list and merged the missing artists into the article. I also removed some bands/artists that pointed to the wrong articles such as Selah. If there are other notable artists, they should be added to the correct location in article.--Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Further to this, does anyone know why there is no article about Terry Talbot, as he was certainly an influential figure in the Genre, as can be seen from his involvement with Keith Green, Bary McGuire, 2nd Chapter of Acts and Sparrow Records. --Mykuhl —Preceding undated comment added 06:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

Other things to add

We should also mention some of the early labels. Both Maranatha! Music and Myrrh Records should be discussed. There are others, but these were the two big ones. Ideally, we may also want to discuss some of the early, influential albums such as Upon this Rock.

We should discuss coffeehouses, early concerts, and other live performances. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Mind Garage?

I am starting to become increasingly suspicious of the Mind Garage entries. Mark Allan Powell's Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music makes no mention of them. In discussions with the Yahoo! groups Jesus Music list, no one remembers them being important. I don't know how to emphasize that in the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

References

Suspicious User Prejudice Against the Mind Garage ??

The Mind Garage is not to blame for faulty, incomplete research, and can hardly be at fault for not being remembered by people who have been fed erroneous information. The plain facts are there for anyone who bothers to do actual research instead of trying to maintain "expert" status as a Christian rock historian by ignoring the GLARING evidence and presence of the Mind Garage as the earliest working Christian rock band. There is no other Christian rock band before the Mind Garage that can produce earlier news clippings, AP stories, church bulletins, posters, or proof of appearances on local or national TV playing Christian rock. And that's a fact ! 74.233.149.54 (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's neither suspicious nor prejudice. The research may be incomplete, but it's just not there. The research that Mind Garage offers is their own. Until the "experts" recognize Mind Garage, the band's own, self-published material doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria and I think we should continue to hold them in suspicion. There are many Christian rock bands from the same era. Get an account so we can discuss this correctly. I own a Mind Garage album. I also think that you should have responded to my earlier post rather than starting a new heading. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Justifying the bands who are listed

Assuming that the Jesus music era was from the late 1960s through to around 1977. Points to consider:

• Maranatha! Music was started by Chuck Smith (pastor) and members of Children of the Day. First album was 1971 and they switched to "praise music" by 1977.
• Some bands may have been active in the music scene for years but were unable to secure record contracts during those years. Jesus music was not about recordings, but about spreading the Gospel. (see Randy Matthews' Now Do You Understand and others for references to this).
• CCM Magazine was publishing by July 1978. That was a definite bookmark to end the era of Jesus music.

Justification for the inclusion of the following bands.

• Barry McGuire - recorded first Jesus music album in 1973 for Myrrh records.
• Love Song - part of the first main expansion at Calvary chapel. First album released in 1972. Performed at Explo 1972.
• Second Chapter of Acts - toured Barry McGuire. First albums on Myrrh release in 1974 and 1975.
• Larry Norman - First solo album released in 1969. Performed at Explo 1972. Released three follow-up albums by 1976 with major distribution. Two more with minor distribution.
• Randy Stonehill - debut album in limited release in 1971. Song contributed to Time to Run, Original Motion Picture Soundtrack, 1973. Welcome to Paradise released in 1976
• Randy Matthews - Five albums for Myrrh records between 1971 and 1975. Performed at Explo 1972.
• Keith Green - First Christian album released May 20, 1977. Contributed song to Phil Keaggy and 2nd Chapter of Acts albums before that.
• Children of the Day - Helped found Maranatha! Music and recorded four albums between 1971 and 1976.
• Paul Clark - First album released in 1971. Toured and recorded extensively with Phil Keaggy.
• John Fischer - Five albums released between 1969 and 1976.
• Nancy Honeytree - Three albums released for Myrrh records between 1973 and 1975.
• Mark Heard - First albums released with his Trio Infinity+3 in 1970 and 1972. First solo album released in 1975.
• Phil Keaggy - First solo album released in 1973. Was a touring guitarist for Love Song. Love Broke Thru released in 1976.
• Pat Terry - First album released 1974. Two additional albums for Myrrh released 1975 and 1976.
• Chuck Girard - Leader and co-founder of Love Song. First two solo albums released in 1975 and 1976.
• Tom Howard - key member of the Solid Rock crew. Arranger for all of the early albums on that label. First album 1977.
• Salvation Air Force - Representative of Jesus Music in the Pacific Northwest. Founded in 1972. First album for Myrrh in 1977.
• Mustard Seed Faith - Key Calvary Chapel band. First album 1975 for Maranatha!.
• Andraé Crouch (and the Disciples) - First album for Light Records in 1969. Six additional albums released by 1976. Fused pop with Gospel.
• Sweet Comfort Band - Late Calvary Chapel band. Mainstay of the Calvary Chapel New Year's Eve concerts up to 1977. Debut album for Maranatha! was one of the label's last non-praise recordings.
• The Way - Appeared on the The Everlastin' Living Jesus Music Concert (1971), Maranatha 2 (1972), and Maranatha 4 (1974). Released two albums for Maranatha!.
• Daniel Amos - Recorded a song in 1975 for a Maranatha! compilation after renaming to avoid confusion. Released two albums on Maranatha! and recorded a third before the label stopped releasing Jesus music.
• The Talbot Brothers - Released a Christian album in 1974 for Warner Bros. after leaving Mason Proffit.
• John Michael Talbot - Two albums for Sparrow in 1976 and 1977.
• Terry Talbot - Also released two albums for Sparrow in 1976 and 1977.
• Bethlehem - Calvary Chapel band. First album released in 1977.
• Gentle Faith - Changed name in 1975 and released first album on Maranatha! in 1976 with contributions to Maranatha! compilations prior to that.
• Resurrection Band - Founded in 1972 as part of Jesus People USA. First self-produced albums were in 1974. First album released on Star Song in 1978.
• Agape - Two albums released: 1971 and 1972.
• Servant - Founded in 1976 by an offshoot of Jesus People USA. First album released in 1979.
• Petra - Founded in 1972. First albums released by Myrrh in 1974 and 1977.
• The All Saved Freak Band - Founded in 1968. Released three albums between 1973 and 1976.

All references from Wikipedia, and Powell, Mark Allan (August 2002). Encyclopedia of Contemporary Christian Music. Paebody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. pp. 1–1088. ISBN 1-56563-679-1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

This list is by no means to be exhaustive and may be too large, but it would be good to add new additions, and reasons for inclusion here. It would also be good to add reasons for excluding bands to this list as well. The best reasons that I can think of are that they don't have articles in Wikipedia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

About the paragraph that starts The music was quite often both

Jesus Music would rarely deviate from the reiteration of a single theme; the experience of God through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ

All one has to do is listen to the mainstream music of the time and then comparable Jesus music artists to realize that the lyrics were more simple and the theology was also overly simple.

The following illustrates the controversy between the church and the Jesus musicians.

Jesus Music provoked controversy from its inception. Traditional churchgoers made no distinctions between long-haired Christian rocker Larry Norman or guitar icon Jimi Hendrix. The established church remained convinced that anything born out of rebellion would only beget further rebellion. Hippies extolling the virtues of Jesus to a frenzied backbeat of "worldly music" was nothing more than spiritual compromise. Jesus musicians responded by offering defenses for their creative endeavours, many of them arguing that rock music's origins evolved from a complex stream of influences that included strong spiritual undercurrents. The sentiments of these hippie Christian musicians echoed the thoughts of sixteenth century reformer Martin Luther when he wondered "why should the devil have all the best tunes." Despite this stiff opposition against the use of contemporary culture, Christian minstrels continued to plot their own course trying to counteract the destructive themes inherent in much of the mainstream rock music.

You may also want to investigate the following Jesus music web site.

References

Peer reviewed

The original article was almost verbatim from Dave Di Sabatino book, which is mirrored, in part, on the One-Way.org site.

The peers who reviewed this are the members of the Yahoo! Groups Jesus Music discussion list. One additional group of peers were the writer and DJ (two different people) of the Full Circle Jesus MusicShow and podcast. In the pilot episode, they slightly edited the section on the bands for use on-air. I'd say that was a glowing endorsement of the article's content from someone who lived through the era and was a major contributor to its reach. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's great, Walter. However, your statement was, "The page has been edited and reviewed by many experts". So which is it? Are they "many experts" (as you previously claimed) or are they "peers" (as you are now claiming)? If they are "experts", then I would like to know exactly which experts they are and how their expert knowledge of Jesus music came to be. If they are "peers", then I'd be interested in knowing whose "peers" they are. Are they peers of yours? If so, then how are *peers of yours* important enough and knowledgable enough to sway me (or anyone) in regard to the content of this article? Further, you do know what the true definition of "peer" is, don't you Walter? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is done by experts. This is in contradiction to your claims that "you were there" and that's why your deletion and redaction of large portion are correct. Please cite facts in your edits. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, peer review is supposed to be done by experts, however, that's not what you said. You said (and I quote, here), "the page has been edited and reviewed by many experts" and then, "The peers who reviewed this..." and then, "One additional group of peers were..." not that there was an actual peer review that took place. Words count and what you conveyed with your own words has now changed several times, and each time the changes have reflected a new picture being painted by you, in fact. But now, you have another expert on board (someone who was there and has actually met and worked with a number of the artists you have listed, in fact) and I can tell you from my expert viewpoint that the article including a number of the artists and bands you have listed as being influential *specifically* to Jesus music (rather than Contemporary Christian Music) is in error. So, here's an expert on the subject who doesn't concur with what you and your "experts" have agreed to insofar as accuracy in the article. Oh, and BTW...there was no contradiction on my part. Nice try at attempting to wave a red-herring, though. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And you are no expert. Reverting, again. Cite your sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious...on what do you base *your* self-proclaimed expertise in Christian music? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have cited documents. You have cited yourself. What documentation do you have to back your opinion? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood the question - I asked you on what do you base *your* self-proclaimed expertise in Christian music. IOW, what makes you the expert you seem to believe yourself to be? Certainly, you aren't suggesting that citing documents makes you an expert, are you? SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

No I understood it just fine. I simply decided not to follow your misdirection. I have offered documented proof. That is Wikipedia policy. You have offered your opinion. That is POV. Please cite any future changes to this article. I will do the same. Thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. By your inability to actually answer the question asked of you, you have answered far more than you intended. You have no actual expertise - just braggadocio, posturing, posing, and pretending while relying on citing others' work and words to give the appearance of expertise. No wonder you're so heavy-handed and unyielding when it comes to the articles you have contributed to on this subject - apparently it's your only claim-to-fame in a field you are only a wannabe in. Oh well - you can't always get what you want and you can't always be that which you dream of being - for some it's a given, natural destiny, others such as yourself have to force it to happen. Sad, that. <shrug> SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that this has cooled down a bit, you didn't address my issues so I don't feel the need to address yours. I have plenty of reliable source material that I use as reference. You have your experience, which may be valid for table discussions, isn't considered appropriate for Wikipedia. To directly address your concerns, the group of experts are the ones in the Jesus music discussion group. Many have come here and reviewed the article. This is known as a peer review. Some of these peers are authors, others are documentary film makers on the topic (such as David Di Sabitino), others are voracious readers, while others are members of Jesus music-era bands, not just groupies or friends of band members. They approved of the content, and some made changes and additions. That's what I call peer review. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

CCM was actually coined by one person

The phrase wasn't just floating around. John Fischer used it to describe the new industry that was emerging. It's important to use that phrase. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. Ron Moore was the one who coined the phrase, but it was still one person. Jerry Bryant makes this claim in several of his podcasts. Certainly in episode 121. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Lyrically and musically simple as well as theologically immature

This is not POV. It is fact.

The lyrics were intentionally simple. See Di Sabatino's book.

The music was simple. Usually three or four chord songs, with simple chords. Compare this to the Gospel music with jazz chording and intricate rhythms and complicated melody lines.

It was theologically immature as much of the music focused on God's love for us, Christ's return, and interacting with other Christians. Again, see Di Sabatino's book and the Encyclopedia of CCM.

While it may seem POV, it's all taken from reliable sources.

Suggesting that it was restricted to "pastors, theologians, traditional church musicians" and to conservative and fundamentalist churches is also incorrect. It was embraced only by churches that had large numbers of youth. Again, see Di Sabatino's book.

It is POV to suggest anything else. Please stop the edit war. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Saying the music was theologically immature is a personal point of view, period. To say the music was simple is factual, as music has specific parameters like a mathematical equation. To say the lyrics were simple is personal point of view - a listener's/reader's simple is the writer's deep thought.

Wikipedia is meant to be a collaboration of thousands upon thousands of editors, however, it is clear you feel you have ownership of this article. This is evidenced by your immature behavior today and your Wikipedia history of having temper tantrums and reacting out of spite and anger regarding changes to articles you have contributed heavily to. I'm asking you kindly to step back and look at your behavior over this article from an objective viewpoint as well as from the standpoint of one who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. If you are able to do so honestly, then ask yourself for whose glory are you seeking to make your point and win here at all costs: yours or the One whose name graces the title of the article itself. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

and I ask you to do the same thing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Already been there and done that, Walt. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have problems with key words in the paragraph and are adding unnecessary connotation to them. If you don't like the word simple then please remove it from the Shaker furniture article, and others as well. It does not mean naive or without understanding. In an artistic framework it means lacking complexity and without excessive ornamentation. You also don't like the phrase theologically immature, but to suggest that the lyrics were equivalent to the works of Augustine when in large part, as I described above, "much of the music [should have read lyrics] focused on God's love for us, Christ's return, and interacting with other Christians". However in the light of eternity, I'll let you have it your way and get on with other tasks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

As per SkagitRiverQueen's revert comment. I was not content to leave it for a couple of months, I was doing so to placate you and avoid further edit wars. Apparently, that is not possible. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are admitting you *didn't* do as I requested a couple of months ago ("I'm asking you kindly to step back and look at your behavior over this article from an objective viewpoint as well as from the standpoint of one who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ. If you are able to do so honestly, then ask yourself for whose glory are you seeking to make your point and win here at all costs: yours or the One whose name graces the title of the article itself") and were more interested in "placating" rather than doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's now also apparent you are really more interested in doing what you want and winning at all cost. Whatever...you're the one who has to answer for your actions in the end, not me. In that case, carry on as you are led (by whomever leads you), MacDuff. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Nor did you do what I asked: THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO YOUR DRIVEL. Take a look at YOUR actions in light of your claims of being a follower of Jesus Christ and Wikipedia's verifiablity guidelines. Since you say that I should carry on as I am led, I am deleting your trash. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to wonder why you're shouting and being so rude and nasty - apparently the only thing leading you here is anger and ego. <shrug> Oh, and next time you choose intentionally to behave like the accuser/father of lies, please don't use the name of the Lord when doing so. It's really not a very good advertisement for Him. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am shouting because when I write properly you don't listen. You are the one who, when presenting words without any information to back them up, are lying. In doing so, you should not use the name of my Lord in vain. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You can excuse your behavior all you like by turning around and putting the blame on me, however, it's easy for anyone to see you were having nothing more than a childish tantrum (and have had on more than one occasion since I made my first edit to the article in question). On top of all that, suddenly the Lord Jesus Christ is only *your* Lord? And all of this is over a Wikipedia article? Methinks there is something else at work here and it doesn't have anything to do with the article... SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misconstruing the events, and my behaviour toward it. I accept your interpretation as yours, but it does not bear scrutiny. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I realize more and more that SkagitRiverQueen's version is non verifiable, while mine is, but that doesn't appear to matter in articles that are not well-travelled. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted correctly now based on SkagitRiverQueen's comments above. Thanks for suggesting it and understanding. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

One thing further SkagitRiverQueen, before you just revert the first paragraph, realize that someone else made edits to it and if you want to incorporate your changes, you should do it thoughtfully and carefully. This person was from a Jesus music-era band and also has some insight that your wholesale reversion destroyed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New Ref/Orig Research Tag

The new tag on the article page is certainly interesting... --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering how easy it is to find articles in Google I'm not sure why this articles is referenced from one source. It took me about 2 minutes to find several Billboard articles published in the 70's on the topic. I sense a lot of bickering rather actual article improvement. Ridernyc (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Anytime someone tries to improve this article (and others Mr. Gorlitz has claimed ownership of), they get chased away. After a while, the "bickering" just ain't worth it any more. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already had a run in with him at Christian_rock which is how I found my way here. I've been tagging and working on pretty much every genre article for 3-4 years now and have recently started being way more bold since no seems to care about improving them. I'm sure he will freak out here also and remove the tags. Ridernyc (talk) 08:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a run-in. You added {{original research|date=November 2009}}, {{refimprove|date=November 2009}} and inline citation requests, the last after I requested it for clarification. I don't know that all three are necessary. I simply removed the {{original research|date=November 2009}}. Not worth arguing over it though, and certainly not on the talk page of a different article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good then you can strike your above comment since you agree it should not be discussed here. Ridernyc (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

No. You have started the same process here. I didn't realize that when I wrote that. It is appropriate in both locations. I apologize for saying it wasn't appropriate here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Mind Garage Redux

Mind Garage was not a significant part of the Jesus Movement, nor an important contributor to Jesus Music. Why are they here, when there is no photo, say, of Larry Norman or Mylon LeFevre? Paul Race (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, although the Mylon album wasn't really a sustained effort. One album, then he drifted back into mainstream music and he didn't come back into CCM until the 80s. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that Mylon himself was not a sustaining influence on Jesus Music. But his album inspired a lot of young Christians to try something similar. Unlike, say Mind Garage, whose efforts had no lasting influence of any kind.Paul Race (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Theologically Immature lyrics redux

If Jesus music was theologically immature because it hammered on a few basic themes, so are half the hymns in the hymnbook, including "What a Friend We Have in Jesus," "Nothing But the Blood of Jesus," "Power in the Blood," and "I Come to the Garden Alone" (which, while beautiful, is no more theologically profound, say, than the Children of the Day's "Come to the Water.") I think you could say "theologically straightforward, but often lyrically complex, as it attempted to express the value of a Christ-centered spiritual experience through metaphor, storytelling, allegory, and complex imagery, while avoiding anything that would evoke the trappings of ecclesiastical religion - especially since "the church" (Calvary Chapel notwithstanding) generally opposed expressions of Christianity that did not conform to their cultural preconceptions."

Paul Race (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we have a link to a stub for the band Jesus Music?

I don't have much information but I do have the cd 3-D -- see http://www.allmusic.com/artist/jesus-music-mn0001736683/biography and https://www.amazon.com/3-D-Jesus-Music/dp/B000003TLZ/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1491536769&sr=8-2&keywords=jesus+music+3-d

It would be nice to at least have a pointer from here to the music group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.64.44 (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. A WP:STUB is a specific concept on Wikipedia. Neither the band nor the album appear to be notable, at least not from the links you provided. You might have more success if you start at Wikipedia:Articles for creation Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

They're not a big band, but if you look for Jesus Music in Wikipedia you only get the movement with no reference to the band. It is possible/probable that "stub" was not correct. I don't know the wikipedia terminology. I just know that sometimes when I search for something it will take me to the article for what is probably the biggest usage of the search term, but at the top will be a little blurb saying if I'm looking for the such-and-such (smaller use of the term) then go here with a link to the other such-and-such. The band Jesus Music was not big enough to need a disambiguation page, but I've seen other pages that do have references to the "other" use of whatever search term. (I can't think of examples at this time.) That's all I was trying to ask. I guess I should make a small page with a little info about the band first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.64.44 (talk) 13:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The word for the blurb at the top is, "hatnote". Hatnotes point to other articles. They don't have an article. If they do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND then they do not require an article and they don't need a hatnote or even a mention in an article that has nothing to do with them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)