No I disagree with your analogy. In sports they are ALWAYS doing huge articles and TV features on important athletes that have retired, but were once important to the sport.
I garuntee you that more young sports fans know who walter payton, Jerry Rice, and the original LT are.
Exactly. Because for the most part, those athletes were at the top of their game and relevant, in a popular sense, their entire careers. They didn't sink into obscurity and languish on the bench for years. Thus my comparison of Eddie George and Barry Sanders. Think of AA like Barry Sanders, Walter Payton and Jerry Rice and Petra like Eddie George, Steve McNair, and Vinny Testaverde. Those latter three players were good in their day, but unless you follow the sport incredibly closely, you wouldn't know they still played (except for George, although he did fade into obscurity).
Go to ANY youth group and take a poll to see who knows anything about Petra, Larry Norman, REZ etc. I would bet less than 10% do. I understand they aren't still popular, but they once were, and more important these are bands who PAVED the way!
Again, exactly my point. Is it a shame that younger people (holy crap, I'm saying that and I'm 24) don't know some of the earlier Christian bands? Yes. Can fault be put on the industry for 80s bands falling off the map? Perhaps partially, but it's not really any different than most of the 80s bands that Petra was similar to who struggled to reinvent themselves with a shift in what was musically popular.
Why would CCM do a huge feature on Petra's retirement if only 10% of youth group kids know who they are? That's just asinine!
It isn't the fault of the average fan, it's CCM.
Perhaps partially, but Petra didn't help themselves by struggling to find a sound during the 90s. You can't deny that much of their work during the later decade of their career was subpar and uninspiring.
Look at the secular world. They are constantly doing induction shows, specials, Behind the Music specials about important musician/groups from the past. Genesis isn't all that popular anymore, but people know about them and give credit where credit is due.
1. Way bigger fan base. Even with a huge loss of their old fan base, they can still be moderately popular. Petra never had the opportunity to have a fan base of such a size that they could afford to lose a huge chunk.
2. Many of the older bands that are still popular (Aerosmith, U2, etc.) are able to morph their music with the time and stay relevant. Look how many bands fell off the map because they weren't able to (Poison, Def Leppard, etc.).
Look back a few years ago when CCM mag did the 100 most influential songs or albums...somethiing like that. They had the token Petra and Larry Norman album...but focused on groups that not only hadn't been around for more than five years, aren't around even today, and gave singers like amy Grant multiple spots!!
What does how long you're around have to do with being influential? Nirvana was around for about 5 years total, and they are arguably one of the most influential bands of the last 25 years!
And you have to be kidding me about Amy Grant. Whether or not you like what she's done with her personal life, she not only has the highest selling Christian album of all time, but she also proved that Christian music could be successful in the mainstream. She also managed to remain successful for a much longer period of time than Petra. Petra has zero platinum selling albums. Amy Grant has at least three. Seriously, now.
CCM seems to chase the fads created by the secular market, rather than planting firm roots and letting solid groups develop.
Yes, they do, but that's how the business works. It's sad, but you can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you have a business that promotes bands and you get crap, or you don't and you have good bands that no one knows about. It doesn't seem that making money while promoting decent music is a workable combination.
You really do have to take your fanboy glasses off and look at the situation from an objective perspective.