The Petra Zone

Petra is known primarily through two line-ups:

Volz, Hartman, Slick, Kelly, Weaver

and

Schlitt, Hartman, Lawry, Cates, Weaver

Those are the only two line-ups that stuck around long enough to really make an impact. Most of the post-Wake Up Call members weren't around long enough for anybody but the diehards to notice let alone remember. Greg Baily is possibly the exception, but even then I doubt anybody but the diehards even know about him.

So I guess the question is, what makes Petra, Petra? Is it just a name?

I think he did what he wanted to do.

First of all, Ronny Cates wished me a happy birthday today. Yay!

Second, I totally forgot what this thread was about, and I'm the one who started it. I think I was just trying to find out any info about CPR because, from what I've read over the years, some of you have the inside scoop. I'm excited to see Volz working with the likes of Cates, Weaver, and Lawry and bringing in Henderson. I want to hear what they have to offer against the current wave of music.

brent wrote:

Thief wrote:

curt wrote:The logic is quite simple. None of those guys were a part of the history of the iconic Petra. They were not a part of creating the brand. Most people had an interest in Petra because of what they had been. John was the link to the historical Petra along with Louie. John hired and fired the other members. Some of them left by themselves. That is part of the reason as to why you can call it John's band. If some of the guys had stayed for a longer period perhaps they would have been associated with the band to a higher degree. But I don't believe there are many Petra fans who are here because of what Lichens, Orta, Quinton Gibson or some other temporary guy i haven't heard of have done.

You could ask yourself if you would have considered the guys on God Fixation to be Petra if they had continued without John. I mean it was apperantly Petra without Harman to you.

Of course it was Petra, even if Hartman wasn't touring or on the album pictures. For those that say it wasn't, I would ask if during those years you kept listening to Petra's music without ever seeing them live, what would be the difference? John was singing, Bob was playing, Louie was drumming.

But even if someone left the band, as was the case with Louie, it would continue to be Petra as long as its members considered it to be Petra. Did Petra stopped being Petra when Greg Volz left? When founders Hough and DeGroff left?

I suppose it's all subjective, but that's how I see it. As subjective as asking what is the "iconic Petra"? Who defines it? What is the Petra "brand"? The answer might be different depending on when you started listening. I just find some people's dismissal of certain "periods" and/or "members" of the band as foreign or "not Petra" to be odd, especially considering we're talking about a 40+ years band that has had 20+ members through its duration. It's not like we're talking about Rush that has had the same 3 members for the last 40 years.

With all due respect to the guys who lived the worst years of the band, and laid the ground work, nobody really cares or knows about that version of the band because Petra really began, as far as the industry and the success is concerned, with NSD and MPTY band. The big success of Journey, Rush, Foreigner, Van Halen, Def Lepard, etc did not include all of the founding members (and most people don't know who they are).

Are you sure that NOBODY cares or knows about the 70's Petra? or the late 90's Petra? Does a band live and die along with its "success"? Who in the CCM industry (or music industry in general) do you know that will completely disregard the earlier years of Petra (or Rush, Def Leppard, Foreigner, etc.) like you say?

Anyway, at the end of the day, each person perceives the band in their own way, and anybody can cherish or disregard the periods/albums/members of its liking, and that's each person's subjective prerogative. I just find it odd when people assume everybody thinks the same way.

Well, there are even fewer fans of those first couple of albums now than there were when they were released. There were so few fans buying them, that Bob was eating the cost of making the records and was about to quit as a result. If Bob was going to quit, because things sucked so bad, yeah....I think it is safe to say that relatively few care(d). Take those numbers and put them against MPTY. MPTY did more in sales than all previous albums combined, and they lost track of how many albums that sold.

brent wrote:Well, there are even fewer fans of those first couple of albums now than there were when they were released. There were so few fans buying them, that Bob was eating the cost of making the records and was about to quit as a result. If Bob was going to quit, because things sucked so bad, yeah....I think it is safe to say that relatively few care(d). Take those numbers and put them against MPTY. MPTY did more in sales than all previous albums combined, and they lost track of how many albums that sold.

"Nobody" turned to "relatively few". Now we're talking. I never argued the lack of popularity of their first albums or the hardships of the early years, but rather the absolutes in your previous statement. I, for one, like those albums quite a bit.

Mountain Man wrote:
So I guess the question is, what makes Petra, Petra? Is it just a name?

I think both Hartman and Schlitt have answered a similar question in separate occasions.

Hartman has said: "It is always hard to change personnel but Petra is different from just a music group. It is a ministry that the members feel called to as a way of serving the Lord with their talents. I think many of our fans have recognized this, and for them the true test is, 'do they still make good music?' and 'do they still minister?'"

Schlitt said in another interview: "Ministry has lasted longer than any band Petra has put together. The Christian band has changed for the ministry, whereas if it was another scenario if the ministry changed for the Christian band - then you'd start depending on man, and you'd start depending on yourself, and there will come a time when you'd fail. God never fails; He knows what He wants to do."

So it has never been about specific band members, and I doubt it has been about a specific style considering all the musical evolution they've had through the years. It has been mostly about doing what God tells them, regardless of who, when, or where.

John Boy wrote:First of all, Ronny Cates wished me a happy birthday today. Yay!

Second, I totally forgot what this thread was about, and I'm the one who started it. I think I was just trying to find out any info about CPR because, from what I've read over the years, some of you have the inside scoop. I'm excited to see Volz working with the likes of Cates, Weaver, and Lawry and bringing in Henderson. I want to hear what they have to offer against the current wave of music.

I'm curious to see what they bring out. I became a Petra fan listening to Schlitt, but as time went by and I listened to Volz, I became a fan of him as well. I really like Volz' voice and I love his albums.

Mountain Man wrote:Petra is known primarily through two line-ups:

Volz, Hartman, Slick, Kelly, Weaver

and

Schlitt, Hartman, Lawry, Cates, Weaver

Those are the only two line-ups that stuck around long enough to really make an impact. Most of the post-Wake Up Call members weren't around long enough for anybody but the diehards to notice let alone remember. Greg Baily is possibly the exception, but even then I doubt anybody but the diehards even know about him.

So I guess the question is, what makes Petra, Petra? Is it just a name?

I would probably add, at least for casual fans, the line-up of

Hartman, Hough, DeGroff, Glover

I've always been interested in the history of bands and their membership through time, which is probably evident But I've always found very interesting the way the membership changed passing through two main times of crisis (late 70's and late 90's from which they really didn't recover). In both instances, they were dealing with two different issues. In the 70's, they were dealing with the taboo of what was Christian rock back then, while in the late 90's, they were dealing with the shifting trends in the musical industry, something that almost every rock group was facing. I've always thought that, ups and downs, its amazing how they withstood both periods. Even if they ended up retiring, they went out on a high note IMO.

Don't we have documentation somewhere that at some point in the mid to late 90's Bob H. said that he actually turned over control of the day-to-day running of the band to John Schlitt? I thought I had read that somewhere....I could be wrong....anyone else remember something similar? Also, I first heard Petra in 1987, and have been a fan ever since, but that first hearing wasn't "This Means War", It was a mix-tape my then-girl friend now wife made me of NSD,MPTY and NOTW. As much as I love John Elefante's voice and song writing (Mastedon plug!!!) I did not like his production method for Petra. But still loved them best right up thru Unseen Power....after WUC I didn't feel like I HAD to hear the new Petra records...Til BTTR.

Thief wrote:

Mountain Man wrote:
So I guess the question is, what makes Petra, Petra? Is it just a name?

I think both Hartman and Schlitt have answered a similar question in separate occasions.

Hartman has said: "It is always hard to change personnel but Petra is different from just a music group. It is a ministry that the members feel called to as a way of serving the Lord with their talents. I think many of our fans have recognized this, and for them the true test is, 'do they still make good music?' and 'do they still minister?'"

Schlitt said in another interview: "Ministry has lasted longer than any band Petra has put together. The Christian band has changed for the ministry, whereas if it was another scenario if the ministry changed for the Christian band - then you'd start depending on man, and you'd start depending on yourself, and there will come a time when you'd fail. God never fails; He knows what He wants to do."

So it has never been about specific band members, and I doubt it has been about a specific style considering all the musical evolution they've had through the years. It has been mostly about doing what God tells them, regardless of who, when, or where.

As Rich Mullins once said, Christian concerts are for entertainment; church is for ministry. To claim that Petra is somehow above simple concerns like who the band members are is idealistic but unrealistic.

I think for me, any incarnation of Petra without Bob Hartman isn't the real deal as far as I'm concerned. He's been there since the beginning and is the heart and soul of the band. The only reason I accept No Doubt through Double Take as real Petra is because Bob was still actively writing the music and playing in the studio. So in my opinion, Bob Hartman is what makes Petra, Petra. No Bob, no Petra.

Rusty wrote:Don't we have documentation somewhere that at some point in the mid to late 90's Bob H. said that he actually turned over control of the day-to-day running of the band to John Schlitt? I thought I had read that somewhere....I could be wrong....anyone else remember something similar?

I remember that. I'm not sure when it was, but I think I read somewhere that Hartman remained in charge of everything musical and artistic, while Schlitt was in charge of more administrative/managerial decisions. I could be wrong, though.

Mountain Man wrote:

Thief wrote:

Mountain Man wrote:
So I guess the question is, what makes Petra, Petra? Is it just a name?

I think both Hartman and Schlitt have answered a similar question in separate occasions.

Hartman has said: "It is always hard to change personnel but Petra is different from just a music group. It is a ministry that the members feel called to as a way of serving the Lord with their talents. I think many of our fans have recognized this, and for them the true test is, 'do they still make good music?' and 'do they still minister?'"

Schlitt said in another interview: "Ministry has lasted longer than any band Petra has put together. The Christian band has changed for the ministry, whereas if it was another scenario if the ministry changed for the Christian band - then you'd start depending on man, and you'd start depending on yourself, and there will come a time when you'd fail. God never fails; He knows what He wants to do."

So it has never been about specific band members, and I doubt it has been about a specific style considering all the musical evolution they've had through the years. It has been mostly about doing what God tells them, regardless of who, when, or where.

As Rich Mullins once said, Christian concerts are for entertainment; church is for ministry. To claim that Petra is somehow above simple concerns like who the band members are is idealistic but unrealistic.

I think for me, any incarnation of Petra without Bob Hartman isn't the real deal as far as I'm concerned. He's been there since the beginning and is the heart and soul of the band. The only reason I accept No Doubt through Double Take as real Petra is because Bob was still actively writing the music and playing in the studio. So in my opinion, Bob Hartman is what makes Petra, Petra. No Bob, no Petra.

I don't necessarily agree with Mullins. I mean, I don't think ministry and entertainment are mutually exclusive. You can be ministered at a concert and you can be entertained at church.

But anyway, to be honest, I'm not sure how I would feel about a Petra incarnation where Hartman wasn't at all involved. I mean, No Doubt and God Fixation are Hartman's songwriting and playing, so I don't see how someone wouldn't consider it to be Petra. But if Hartman ever separated itself from anything having to do with the band, even songwriting, I'm not sure how I would feel about that.

If you're going to church to be entertained then you're going for the wrong reasons.

Mountain Man wrote:If you're going to church to be entertained then you're going for the wrong reasons.

That's not what I said.