: Howard Goodman
BuddD0g
I received this in my email this morning.
: Howard Goodman
Last night at the concert Sue Dodge (who's daughter is married to Howard and
Vestals grandson), told us that just this week Howard had turned a corner, and
improvement had begun, weaning off the ventilator was starting, and things were
looking up for the first time since he was admitted 6 weeks ago. She said he
still has a long haul, but the doctors are encouraged by this weeks progress.
Let's keep him n our prayers for continued healing.
Yaderp
heard of this. Please someone fill me in!!!
--
Yaderp
Everyone has a photographic memory.Some just don't have film.
BuddD0g <bud...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020624120508...@mb-mq.aol.com...
Tony Rush
Ok, no offense at Howard's health problems but let me take this topic
to ask a question that has always bugged me:
Why is it that no one mentions enormous people like the Goodmans when
talking about SGM artists with long hair or SGM artists that smoke? I
mean, glutton is fairly well addressed in the Bible and yet there are
a few artists who are immune from criticism on this issue.
Wonder why?
Tony
Royce Alverson
Royce
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.02062...@posting.google.com...
David Ching
dares to criticize any aspect, including physical form. For me, physical
appearance, whether it be long hair or obesity, doesn't distract from my
appreciation of the music. So, I love Guy Penrod's vocal power, long hair
or not. Sandi Patty could stand to lose a few pounds too, but I could
listen to her for hours.
As for any of the Goodman's, I just don't appreciate their music at all.
They may have been great in their day, but from the first Gaither video that
was produced, I haven't seen anything about their singing to admire. So,
the fact that they are also fat makes me wonder about their success even
more. In fact, I have thought it unfair that they get the overstuffed
chairs at the Gaither tapings, when the other singers are jammed into chairs
so close together, they can hardly move. But I don't like to be cynical, I
just fast forward the tape when they (Goodmans) are featured.
Hey Tony, I guess you could say the global acceptance of the Goodman's is
like an artist's bills not guaranteed to be paid: it may not be utopia, but
it's the way it is! ;)
-- David
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.02062...@posting.google.com...
> bud...@aol.com (BuddD0g) wrote in message
news:<20020624120508...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
>
garydw
I love to here Vestal sing, and to see Howard play the piano.
And my point in all of this is :
Looks are not what is important, it is the message.
"David Ching" <d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uhnqpdg...@news.supernews.com...
David Ching
news:3d1c5052$1...@nopics.sjc...
> The chairs are due to health problems not related to size.
>
I'm not sure this is the case. For years, Vestal got a chair along with
Howard, and she looked healthy enough. In addition, what kind of health
problems require an overstuffed chair? The only conditions I can think of
are claustrophobia and attention deficeit disorder, and we're not talking
about that.
> I love to here Vestal sing, and to see Howard play the piano.
>
> And my point in all of this is :
>
> Looks are not what is important, it is the message.
>
You are right, of course. But I am only human: I can listen around the
weight problems if I really like the artist, but if not, the weight is just
another thing against them. And when it appears the overweight people are
actually getting benefits for it (like overstuffed chairs), my opinion of
them lowers even more. I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.
In any case, I wish Howard the best in his recovery.
-- David
Yaderp
discussion.
God, speaking to Samuel when Samuel questioned His choice of David for King:
"I do not look on men as you look on men, but I look upon their hearts."
--
Yaderp
Everyone has a photographic memory.Some just don't have film.
David Ching <d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uhol9l6...@news.supernews.com...
Just Allan
1. Overweight people are gluttons.
2. Overweight people are so, because they over-eat.
3. Most lean people eat healthy - since they aren't overweight.
4. Few lean people are gluttons.
This post reaks of anti-christian predjudice. As such the question
doesn't deserve a civil answer.
Allan.
Tony Rush
I think you hit the nail on the head. Some people are immune from
criticism. Like Jake Hess. I might've been good at one time but
those wobbly vocal scoops of his make me switch stations or fast
forward a tape. And, see, it's probably considered sacrilege for me
to say something like that about a legend like Jake Hess.
I feel exactly the way you do about the Goodmans. Forty years ago
they probably had a huge impact on SGM. Today, I just don't see the
appeal. The fact that they're enormous and it's never mentioned among
critical fans is amazing to me. A critical fan would crucify an SGM
singer if he admitted to smoking a pack of Marlboros a day....but,
it's ok to be enormous. Go figure. :)
David, you're right -- it's not utopia, but it's the way it is. LOL
Tony
"David Ching" <d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message news:<uhnqpdg...@news.supernews.com>...
KJCSmith1
>Howard, and she looked healthy enough.
I am sure this is the case. Vestal's health although better than Howards...she
has not been in good health for years.
>n addition, what kind of health
>problems require an overstuffed chair?
Several, back problems, hip problems, knee problems, my sister has bad back and
can not sit in a folding chair or even a dining room chair for long because of
it.
>And when it appears the overweight people are
>actually getting benefits for it (like overstuffed chairs),
Let's see I have seen Jake sit in chairs just like them, George, J.D., Hovie,
James Blackwood and none of them are/were overweight so there goes that theory
that is just because they are overweight.
>I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.
I suspect your in the minorty.
David Ching
"KJCSmith1" <kjcs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020628103820...@mb-me.aol.com...
It may not be solely because they are overweight, but it may not be for the
back, hip, or other problems you mention either. It's probably a
combination that they are not well off physically, as well as the fact that
they are icons and look good sitting in front on their "thrones".
> >I suspect I'm not the only one who feels this way.
>
> I suspect your in the minorty.
>
I wouldn't be so sure. Many SG lovers know good music when they hear it,
and whatever talent the Goodmans may have once had is simply not in evidence
today. Tony has pointed out their financial demands to perform are very
high, so they must still be wanted by some, but that doesn't mean people who
don't go back 50 years in the scene appreciate them.
-- David
David Ching
there is a chance it could be genetic or otherwise out of their control. If
it's out of their control, the criticism is off limits. Whereas, if the
criticism involves behavior that can be changed, such as wearing long hair
or smoking, then it's a fair target.
I believe I've seen early pictures of the Goodmans, and they did not have
weight problems when they were young. So the fact that they do now seems to
me that it is behavior related and can be changed. This should mean it's
legitimate to question their girth. But wait! These are the Goodmans.
Since they are legends, it is NOT OK, according to some. Personally, I
think if they are going to continue to perform, as opposed to being
enshrined in some Hall of Fame, then they should be judged on their current
level of performance, not what they may have done 40 or 50 years ago. In
that regard, they just don't measure up. However, in the SG community where
the fans are older, they tend to honor (and protect, as we are seeing here)
the legends a lot more than we are used to in other areas.
INUBITWII (It's Not Utopia, But It's The Way It Is) <g>
-- David
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.02062...@posting.google.com...
The New & Improved Dr. Lovable
"Royce Alverson" <roy...@cwis.net> wrote in message
news:8YQS8.420302$Gs.31...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> oh come on... we can do alot better than this for a topic.
>
Sadly, I'm not sure that we can. :o)
The New & Improved Dr. Lovable
>
> I think you hit the nail on the head. Some people are immune from
> criticism. Like Jake Hess. I might've been good at one time but
> those wobbly vocal scoops of his make me switch stations or fast
> forward a tape. And, see, it's probably considered sacrilege for me
> to say something like that about a legend like Jake Hess.
>
I'm almost afraid to admit it, but I never saw the appeal of Jake Hess
either, although the Statesmen remain one of my all-time favorite quartets.
> I feel exactly the way you do about the Goodmans. Forty years ago
> they probably had a huge impact on SGM. Today, I just don't see the
appeal.
I enjoy the old Happy Goodmans, but when Howard and Vestal went on their
own they sort of changed direction and I haven't enjoyed them all that much.
I thought the Goodmans with Rusty, Tanya & Michael English did more to carry
on what the Happy Goodmans were than Howard and Vestal have. (Just my
opinion.)
> The fact that they're enormous and it's never mentioned among
> critical fans is amazing to me. A critical fan would crucify an SGM
> singer if he admitted to smoking a pack of Marlboros a day....but,
> it's ok to be enormous. Go figure. :)
>
I don't think society was so hung up on fat back in the 60's and 70's when
they made their splash. In fact, I think it became a selling point. Fat
people are supposed to be jolly, like Santa Claus, so instead of becoming
the "Fat Goodman family" they called themselved the "Happy Goodman family."
Were they ever really any "happier" than the Speers or the Lefevres?
Eldridge Fox once told me about the Kingsmen, "I built this group on fat."
They were singing in a little church in Alabama and he overheard a woman
say, "I like the way those fat boys sing." He figured he could turn it into
a selling point, went out the next day and hired a 400 lb drummer and thus
was born the "Ton of Fun." The "fat factor" became a hook, something to
remember them by. However, as society's values changed, the Kingsmen hired
good looking "pretty boys", not 400 lb tubs of goo!
Also, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. The American media
has almost everyone believing they are overweight, so how can any of us
point a finger at someone else for their overweight transgressions? I
realize there is a difference between 20 lbs overweight, and 200 lbs
overweight, but I think that may have something to do with it.
I"m not going to get dragged into the pack of Marlboro's with you Tony. The
last time I joked about the Anchormen going out for a "smoke break" during
their piano player's solo I was beaten like a mexican mule and burnt at the
stake by people on this ng, so I choose to leave the smoking issue alone.
:o)
Doc
email drlovable...@yahoo.com,
but you'll have to drop YOURPANTS
KJCSmith1
>me that it is behavior related and can be changed
Not in all cases. My mother didn't start having weight problems until she
started having health problems.
KJCSmith1
>don't go back 50 years in the scene appreciate them.
>
IT doesn't mean that they dont either. I don't go back 50 years (I ain't that
old). I like them better when it was Rusty, Tanya, and Mike English was with
them. But I also know Howard and Vestal personally and know what kind of
people they are and that is the main reason I like them, not because they are
"icons".
David Ching
performance ability....
-- David
"KJCSmith1" <kjcs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020628173347...@mb-me.aol.com...
Yaderp
he's fat. So What? What is wrong with him now?
--
Yaderp
Everyone has a photographic memory.Some just don't have film.
The New & Improved Dr. Lovable <drlo...@YOURPANTSyahoo.com> wrote in
message news:7a2T8.1374$YlV1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Tony Rush
the vast majority of people who are overweight are in that condition
because of their eating habits. I find it amusing that, whenever
someone mentions that "so and so" is overweight, someone else will
invariably pop up and say something like, "Well, it might be a medical
condition, you know!"
On the contrary, being overweight or obese is almost entirely
lifestyle based. Sixty one percent of the U.S. population is
overweight and a staggering 27% are clinically OBESE (such as the
Goodmans). And the alarming thing is that BOTH of these figures have
increased 10% in just the last five years. Obesity has DOUBLED since
the 1970's.
Further comments below....
Just Allan <just...@COLDhotmail.com> wrote in message news:<oapohu8ni7vnq97i8...@4ax.com>...
> Here we have the insightful assumption that:
>
> 1. Overweight people are gluttons.
I'm sorry if I gave that impression. But, the fact is that most
people that are overweight are in that condition because of their
eating habits. Whether it's QUANTITY of food or QUALITY of food,
there's no excuse for someone as large as the Goodmans to be that
huge.
> 2. Overweight people are so, because they over-eat.
This is usually the case. See above.
> 3. Most lean people eat healthy - since they aren't overweight.
I never said any such thing. But, I will offer this as a response:
People who ARE the correct weight may not be healthy.
But, people who are obese are NEVER healthy.
> 4. Few lean people are gluttons.
Don't put words in my mouth. I have enough if there as it is. :)
There are lots of "lean people" who eat too much. But, this topic is
about the Goodmans, thus I wasn't talking about "lean people". I was
talking about obese people. And, like it or not, most overweight
people are overweight because they eat too much and eat incorrectly.
> This post reaks of anti-christian predjudice. As such the question
> doesn't deserve a civil answer.
> Allan.
"Anti-Christian prejudice". What an interesting phrase. And how is
such a phrase relevent in a conversation about people who are
overweight?
Tony
Yaderp
--
Yaderp
Everyone has a photographic memory.Some just don't have film.
Tony Rush <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.02062...@posting.google.com...
Yaderp
--
Yaderp
Everyone has a photographic memory.Some just don't have film.
garydw <no.spam...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3d1ceabb$1...@nopics.sjc...
> I am not sure what to call it the best I can describe it is like this.
>
> my mom has the same problem, when she shits in a hard chair, metal, etc,
her
> legs will go very numb, and then it takes a very long time before she can
> get the control or function of them again.
>
> Something to do with circulation.
>
>
> "David Ching" <d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:uhol9l6...@news.supernews.com...
Norman Graham
immune from
criticism. Like Jake Hess. It might've been good at one time but hose
wobbly vocal scoops of his make me switch stations or fast forward a tape."
Tony and everyone else is entitled to their opinions but my view is that
when someone is a legend in their field he is entitled to a little slack. I
was listening to the 1950s Statesmen in the car today and am still amazed at
what Jake did. No wonder he influenced so
many singers. In Peter Guralnick's definitive two-volume biography on Elvis
he wrote of
when Jake and the Imperials backed Elvis on "Where No One Stands Alone" one
of
Jake's most challenging showpieces. He wrote: "Elvis was reduced to a kind
of inelegant bellowing to push out a sound that appears to have been
effortless for Jake Hess." And Elvis was a good singer with a terrific
range. Jake was a stylist and what I think happens with
stylists as they age is that they become a bit of a parody of their earlier
self -- consider George Jones, Elvis, Sinatra and Bob Dylan. But what these
giants become towards the end of their career should never take away from
their achievements and influence at their peak. Probably most if not all of
us will not be as good at age 70 as we were at age 30. But the different
between us and the giants in any field is at age 30 they were among the best
in the world at what they did and we shouldn't forget it. I'm so happy for
Jake that he
still has a chance to perform. He's more than earned it. And if you don't
like his current performances then dig out those old Statesmen and Imperial
records and let Jake blow you away.
Norm
Norman Graham
some are
nice people and some are mean or jackasses; some have long hair and others
have brushcuts; some are smart and some not so smart; some have opinions I
don't agree with and some I would not want to have as friends.. So what
would they have to be like to get me to buy their recordings or pay to see
them in concert? They would have to produce music that
I like. I own recordings by hundreds of artists and never once did a buy a
record only because of someone's apperance or personality.
Norm
CJB
> I"m not going to get dragged into the pack of Marlboro's with you Tony.
The
> last time I joked about the Anchormen going out for a "smoke break" during
> their piano player's solo I was beaten like a mexican mule and burnt at
the
> stake by people on this ng, so I choose to leave the smoking issue alone.
> :o)
>
> Doc
ROFLOL
That has to be one of the funniest things I've ever read in this NG.
CJB
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Royce Alverson
i think i'm gonna quit coming to this ng because of the silly posts and
responses that are given.
We should probably ignore such silly posts as the one that Tony has sent to
this ng because I think he just wants to get us fired up and mad over his
comments. We all have opinions, just some of us in this ng have stronger
ones that others.
I say this because saying hurtful things about others, whether it be the
Goodmans, Jake Hess, The Anchormen, or whomever in SG music or anywhere else
for that matter, doesn't accomplish anything. If you feel so strongly about
a person's physical appearance, go to the Father with your concern and pray
for the individual(s).
Just thought I'd say what's in my heart. It troubles me that folks can be
so hurtful.
Royce Alverson
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.02062...@posting.google.com...
David Ching
do not understand why you are so riled up. I don't think Tony's posts are
silly at all. In fact, I think his posts are well thought out and push us
to think. You make it sound like Tony out of the blue just started
badgering the Goodmans about their obesity. What he was questioning is, why
is obesity ignored when things like long hair and smoking are slammed down
(sometimes in a very unchristian way... Mexican mules included! <g>). That
seems to me to be a very good question, and it made me examine whether I was
being inconsistent, and if so why. How can this be a bad thing?
I was the one who first said I didn't appreciate the Goodman's lack of
talent in recent years. And despite all defenses of the Goodmans, few have
said they do indeed have talent today. Instead we get stories about how
nice they are in person, or what they did 40 years ago. I think it is a
very legitimate question as to why the industry continues to feature them at
the expense of artists in their prime who are clearly better. BTW, for all
those who think that the industry is doing the legends a service by
continuing to feature them, long after they are past their prime, I believe
are mistaken. It only soils the reputation of what they once were, IMHO.
Tony then applied the same reasoning to Jake Hess. Many, including me,
agree with him; Jake is not that talented anymore.
And all this ties in nicely with the Trumpet debate, which is really about
how the system judges Christian music performers. As I just posted in
another thread, a music performance can be a ministering event, or it can be
an entertaining event, but not both. These legends are clearly in it for
the entertainment, so why shouldn't we as fans subject them to the laws of
supply and demand and critique their recent performances in that light? As
I pointed out, capitalism has some Unchristian things in it, and these
"harsh" reviews of personal appearance and lack of talent are all part of
it.
At least that's what I think. If someone can come up with a way to inject
some more Christian attitude while not shying away from obvious (though
cold) facts, then I would be the first to start using them.
Best,
David
"Royce Alverson" <roy...@cwis.net> wrote in message
news:tJcT8.184173$_j6.9...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Norman Graham
didn't appreciate the Goodman's lack of talent in recent years. . . I
think it is a very legitimate question as to why the industry continues to
feature them at the expense of artists in their prime who are clearly
better. BTW, for all those who think that the industry is doing the
legends a service by continuing to feature them, long after they are past
their prime, I believe
You are entitled to your opinion that the Goodmans and Jake no longer should
be featured but obviously there are a large number of people who completely
disagree with you. These artists have a large following not only because of
their legendary status over the years but also because of their changing
interpretations of their material. People are willing to pay money to see
them on video and in person. If Bill Gaither only used people in their
prime on his videos I believe he would lose a good portion of his audience.
Gaither started the videos to thank the SGM legends who inspired him. But
there are lots of places and videos where the SGM audience, if it wants, can
see groups in their prime. In fact, there is nothing stopping someone from
making videos such as Gaithers but with only artists in their prime. I
think two others things are being overlooked in this discussion. Firstly in
every field of music legends continue to perform and draw an audience
although they are no longer the same artists they were 30 or so years ago,
consider BB King, Mick Jagger, Paul McCartney and Ralph Stanley. Before
their deaths, Frank Sinatra, Bill Monroe and Roy Acuff were still being
"featured." Secondly, while an older singer might no longer be able to
perform the way he did in his prime he can often bring something new to a
performance based on his experience and do songs that would seem silly if a
younger person tried them. JD Sumner's final Stamps album is one of his
best although his voice is weak. His version of "Old Man Death" is
haunting. Jake brings a lot to the song "Death is no big deal." Similarly,
Johnny Cash revived his career in his late 60s with a series of acoustic
albums different from what he ever sang before. And Ralph Stanley is a
bigger star than ever thanks to the song O, Death on the Oh Brother
soundtrack. If no one was willing to pay to see such legends, they would
not be performing, it's as simple as that.
KJCSmith1
I sure hope that is what they meant...LOL
KJCSmith1
>people that are overweight are in that condition because of their
>eating habits.
So what if you are eating only 800 calories a day and still can't lose weight.
The doctors won't let you go below that and stay under their care.
>there's no excuse for someone as large as the Goodmans to be that
>huge.
In your view.
>> 2. Overweight people are so, because they over-eat.
>
>This is usually the case. See above
No it isn't.
>But, people who are obese are NEVER healthy.
Wanna bet. I have been overweight all my life and the only time I am not
healthy is during the winter when I get bronchitis. And you know that it has
nothing to do with my weight. It has to do with growing up in a smokey bowling
alley and breathing second hand smoke.
>There are lots of "lean people" who eat too much.
I agree with that. My niece is a size 4 and eat all the time and I don't mean
healthy food.
> And, like it or not, most overweight
>people are overweight because they eat too much and eat incorrectly.
>
Again not always the case, or at least not in mine.
>"Anti-Christian prejudice". What an interesting phrase. And how is
>such a phrase relevent in a conversation about people who are
>overweight?
I was wondering the same thing.
KJCSmith1
>another thread, a music performance can be a ministering event, or it can be
>an entertaining event, but not both.
Why can't it be both?
>These legends are clearly in it for
>the entertainment,
It is nice to know that you know their true movations.
Norm Brown
David Ching
the "oldies but goodies," don't get me wrong. It is nostalgic and brings
back memories. Some of the legends have techniques that no contemporary
does, and these can still be enjoyed. So, I don't mean to imply that a
performer should be banished the moment he or she moves past his or her
prime. They should be given their due.
But, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. I remember a performance
by the Speers at the GWQC about 6 years ago. It may have been one of their
last, with Ben, Brock, and the two ladies; I'm not a Speers fan so am a
little unclear what they did after that. But the performance was incredibly
bad. One of the ladies had little control of her voice, and there was no
blend to speak of. That was the only time I got to see the Speers. What do
you think is my opinion of them? Do you think they would have been better
served if they had just let history enshrine them at their peak?
Turning specifically to Gaither videos, I laughed when you said, "Gaither
started the videos to thank the SGM legends." Respectfully, Gaither didn't
start the videos to thank anyone. He started them to make money. The fact
that he got to thank the legends in the process is a bonus. You say it
yourself: "If no one was willing to pay to see such legends, they would not
be performing."
You say people still pay to hear them perform, but we really don't know
that. It would be interesting if the Gaither videos were available to
purchase on a per-track basis. How many people would purchase the tracks
featuring these past-their-prime performers? If people could view the track
before purchase so they know what they are getting, and are not buying on
name alone, I suspect we wouldn't see a many sales.
But actually, I think the tapes ARE enhanced by the presence of these
legends. If they can still perform well, put 'em on! I enjoyed Glen Payne
for many years, and only at the very, very end did his voice suffer (for
example, I wish I hadn't bought his solo album just before he died; this was
not worthy of him.) But if their current level of talent is embarassingly
bad, then it would be better to just interview them, or show clips of them
in their peak, or of them interacting with the contemporary performers.
They should not be featured on tape after tape, sullying their reputations
(or establishing bad ones for fans who have never seen them before) like the
Speers did to me at the GWQC, or the Goodmans and Jake Hess continue to do
on the videos.
Thanks,
David
"Norman Graham" <ngra...@home.com> wrote in message
news:2NhT8.62984$op.62...@read2.cgocable.net...
David Ching
> >s I just posted in
> >another thread, a music performance can be a ministering event, or it can
be
> >an entertaining event, but not both.
>
> Why can't it be both?
>
It cannot be both because only one goal can be #1. When you try to say both
goals are equally important you get the kind of conflicting practices that
we've been debating these last weeks.
> >These legends are clearly in it for
> >the entertainment,
>
> It is nice to know that you know their true movations.
>
<sigh> I never said I knew what was in their hearts, and I think you know
that. Quoting me out of context puts me on the defensive.
If a performer earns his or her living from it, then that is their
motivation. That makes them entertainers. Period. They need to structure
their business practices to make money and put up with the unchristian part
of capitalism. They need to enter the business machine that Doc so
graphically describes. They can try to win as many souls as possible, but
that is a bonus.
-- David
David Stuart
their "past their prime" point! I have all their "later" albums,
"Always", "Joy for the Journey", "Set Your Sails", "50 Years", and "The
Final Stand", and i love every one of those! I just love listening to
them, and wish that there would be more, but i think they have released
their last ones. I also have Vestels two project s Vestel and Friends 1
and 2.
David
KJCSmith1
But it can be both...you can be entertained and ministered to at the same time.
Take a Mark Lowery concert....he is there to entertain, but he also ministers
to the audience. There have been several concerts I have been to all my life
that I was both entertained and misitered to. Those generally who say you
can't have never been.
Norman Graham
I also enjoy seeing and hearing some of the "oldies but goodies," don't
a good thing can be a bad thing. I remember a performance by the Speers at
the GWQC about 6 years ago. It may have been one of their last, with Ben,
but the performance was incredibly bad.
Thanks David for your thoughtful response. I agree with you about the Speer
ladies but that situation is to me quite different from Jake and the
Goodmans. Firstly, I think the Speers hit their peak after the sisters left
the group (in the 60s I believe) so I never considered the sisters legends.
They hadn't performed for about 30 years when they started to do occasional
concerts with their brothers. Brock and Ben had continued to perform
regularly over the years and still were quite good in the 90s. I saw Ben
last year do an exciting duet of Didn't It Rain with McCray Dove. Hess and
the Goodmans were trend-setters who influenced various artists who followed
them and I doubt that could be said of the sisters. I've been to the Grand
Ole Gospel Reunion a few times and some of those who performed were pretty
bad but frankly some of them had not been that good in their prime. People
like Jake and Vestal can still sing amazingly well for people their age.
That's one reason I believe Gaither features them so much. You might have
noticed Gaither stopped featuring James Blackwood very much after his
strokes because his singing was not close to his unusual standards. I still
love to see Jake (I was never that big of fan of the Goodmans other than
Rusty). Gaither runs a variety show and tries to appeal to as wide an
audience as possible with young and old performers, black and white ones,
traditional, contemporary, bluegrass and country artists. To me, although I
don't like everything on the videos, the best thing is the sense of
Christian community created so picking out just the artists I like and
eliminating others would, to me, be defeating the overall effect. I like
the videos but when I listen to music most of the time it is the older
artists in their prime and some of the newer groups. It's wonderful to be
able to put all my old Statesmen records and other old gospel material onto
CDs.
TomFooleryinFL
>started the videos to thank the SGM legends." Respectfully, Gaither didn't
>start the videos to thank anyone. He started them to make money.
According to the Homecoming book, Gaither brought back some of his heroes to do
one song as the GVB's farewell: Where Could I Go But to the Lord. He then
kept the left over videotape from their informal singing and edited it together
as a memento. After a copy of it aired on 700 club, he was inundated with
requests to buy it. If true, it seems there was no intent to start a video
series; it happened as a fluke.
- Tom
David Ching
ministry. I have been blessed at such performances many times, and that is
why I am a fan.
But what I am saying is that an artist can have only one primary mission.
And if money is a concern, then the primary mission is entertainment. Why?
Because entertainment is capitalistic by nature, and capitalism has aspects
that are unchristian, that are in conflict with a true ministry.
Now, once Mark Lowery or anyone else accepts that he really is an
entertainer, he can throw in as much spirituality as he likes to increase
his demand. Therefore, his performances may well have ministerial aspects
to them (i.e. the audience is ministered to). But this doesn't negate the
fact that he is an entertainer, subject to the rules of capitalism, and,
unfortunately, the sometimes unchristian methods of judging his appearance,
performance etc. that goes along with that.
BTW, I would hope than on a Christian ng such as this one, the judging would
be as uplifting and supportive as possible, but sometimes there is no "nice"
way of saying a performer sucks. Some here think that we then should say
nothing at all, but see my opinions on "Jerry Kirkey's Singing News
Editorial" to see what happens when we fail to offer criticism of any kind.
To sum it up: we stagnate.
-- David
"KJCSmith1" <kjcs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020629114459...@mb-fd.aol.com...
Paul Slopak Jr.
A couple of years ago I was at my highest weight ever in my life (235). I
went on a moderate diet and lost 25 pounds in about 6 months. After I got
down to 210 I went for a physical and for the first time in my life I was
told my blood sugar was high. After several more tests to confirm this I was
found to have type 2 diabetes. Never had that problem when I was fat!\
Everyone is different. Anyway who is going to tell Howard he is fat? I once
saw him jokinglly pick up a 195 pound man with one hand and handle him like
a ragdoll. If you are going to tell Howard, do it from more than an arm's
length away or else you might get the same treatment.
Tony Rush
perogative. But, you didn't give a reason for why you thought they
were silly. Did you have any reason for thinking that? Or did you
just not want me giving my opinion on the matter?
Also, are you referring to my comments about the Goodmans being
overweight? I don't think my comments were hurtful - they know
they're overweight and Sam made big fun out of reminding them.
Giving opinions and discussing topics is what chat lists, chat rooms,
bulletin boards and newsgroups are for. It's easy to say, "you
shouldn't talk about that but pray about it instead". That's a given.
But, if we're not supposed to talk about anything, why are we here?
:)
Either way, I respect your opinion.
Tony
"Royce Alverson" <roy...@cwis.net> wrote in message news:<tJcT8.184173$_j6.95...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...
Clarence Grigsby
> bud...@aol.com (BuddD0g) wrote in message news:<20020624120508...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
> > I received this in my email this morning.
> >
> >
> > : Howard Goodman
> >
> > Last night at the concert Sue Dodge (who's daughter is married to Howard and
> > Vestals grandson), told us that just this week Howard had turned a corner, and
> > improvement had begun, weaning off the ventilator was starting, and things were
> > looking up for the first time since he was admitted 6 weeks ago. She said he
> > still has a long haul, but the doctors are encouraged by this weeks progress.
> > Let's keep him n our prayers for continued healing.
>
> Ok, no offense at Howard's health problems but let me take this topic
> to ask a question that has always bugged me:
>
> Why is it that no one mentions enormous people like the Goodmans when
> talking about SGM artists with long hair or SGM artists that smoke? I
> mean, glutton is fairly well addressed in the Bible and yet there are
> a few artists who are immune from criticism on this issue.
>
> Wonder why?
>
> Tony
Nice. Somebody asks for prayer for an SG legend and you hijack the
thread to get on your soapbox.
Tony, you are a class act.
Tony Rush
offer a few responses anyway.
kjcs...@aol.com (KJCSmith1) wrote in message news:<20020629100510...@mb-cp.aol.com>...
> >But, the fact is that most
> >people that are overweight are in that condition because of their
> >eating habits.
>
> So what if you are eating only 800 calories a day and still can't lose weight.
> The doctors won't let you go below that and stay under their care.
Caloric intake is only one part of losing weight. If a person is
eating "empty calories", it doesn't matter how much you limit them.
Eight hundred calories that comes from fast food, Twinkies and
softdrinks isn't going to help many people lose weight.
And I DO understand your point and that my response was dramatically
extreme. I know that you didn't mean "800 calories of Twinkies". I
was just illustrating that there's more to it than the number of
calories. :)
> >there's no excuse for someone as large as the Goodmans to be that
> >huge.
>
> In your view.
In anyone's view! Ask any doctor in America if a person should be
that big! Are we getting so politically correct that we're not even
going to accept common medical knowledge any more? If you're obese,
you're going to DIE sooner! You're going to be unhealthy. And you're
probably going to have the exact kind of problems that Howard is
having.
>
> >> 2. Overweight people are so, because they over-eat.
> >
> >This is usually the case. See above
>
> No it isn't.
You took me slightly out of context although my response could have
been more accurate. The "see above" that you quoted was referring to
a previous statement that you didn't quote: that it's not just about
QUANTITY of food but about QUALITY of food.
> >But, people who are obese are NEVER healthy.
>
> Wanna bet. I have been overweight all my life and the only time I am not
> healthy is during the winter when I get bronchitis. And you know that it has
> nothing to do with my weight. It has to do with growing up in a smokey bowling
> alley and breathing second hand smoke.
Good for you. I wouldn't presume to tell you what you need to do
about your own health, but since you used your own weight as an
example, let me say this: you are basically saying that "no disease"
is equal to "being healthy". That's not necessarily true. Have you
considered that you could be MORE healthy than you are? How long was
Howard Goodman obese before he started having serious health problems?
The evangelist Billy Kelly used to eat like a pig and was
healthy....until he wasn't.
> >There are lots of "lean people" who eat too much.
>
> I agree with that. My niece is a size 4 and eat all the time and I don't mean
> healthy food.
>
> > And, like it or not, most overweight
> >people are overweight because they eat too much and eat incorrectly.
> >
>
> Again not always the case, or at least not in mine.
I don't know you or your situation so I couldn't say. Isn't it likely
that you could be MORE healthy than you are now, though?
> >"Anti-Christian prejudice". What an interesting phrase. And how is
> >such a phrase relevent in a conversation about people who are
> >overweight?
>
> I was wondering the same thing.
Good! I thought I was the only one who thought this was out of place.
Please don't misunderstand my points on this. When I brought this
topic up, it wasn't about obesity specifically....it was about how
certain artists seem immune from certain comments; even from critical
fans.
How many times have we heard that it's a sin for a man to wear long
hair? And yet, I'm amazed at how many conservative Christians will be
in their seats during Gaither's stand at NQC and have no problem
whatsoever with Guy Penrod's hair.
Don't get me wrong! I see this as a sign of advancement over the
usual attitude! LOL.
But, again, my comments were about how people like the Goodmans seem
to be as immune about their weight problems as Guy Penrod is about his
hair. Just an observation. I wouldn't purport to be an expert on
weight loss and health. But, I don't think any doctor will disagree
that being overweight and obese is a recipe for health problems.
Tony
David Ching
wonderful series that has brought back old favorites such as Evie and Doug
Oldham, and introduced me to new artists like Lynda Randle. As Norman said
elsewhere, it's great to see such disparate artists gathering together to
produce some great sound. So I appreciate all that.
OTOH, there's no denying that it has grown into a well oiled machine of
profits for Bill. No doubt, he's out to maximize profits, and if he has to
cut artists or feature some more than others, then that is what he is going
to do. For me, the videos haven't been the same since he started showing
them on TNN. They've gotten more commercial since then, less intimate, less
like just a group of friends enjoying the moment, and more of a show. But
hey, it brings in more money, and so we can't begrudge Bill that.
-- David
"TomFooleryinFL" <tomfool...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020629123309...@mb-ml.aol.com...
Clarence Grigsby
I wouldn't want a CD of just Jake Hess singing, but he does a good job
with Old Friends. As long as he feels like singing and people pay to
hear him, let him sing!
David Ching
Goodmans or Jake in their prime either, so now that they are past their
prime, I for sure don't enjoy them! Maybe I judge them too quickly, and I
see more people now posting that they like these artists. Still, hindsight
being 20-20, I think some of the performances should have been edited out,
as they damaged the artist's reputation more than enhancing it, IMHO.
Also, since these videos have such a wide-range of audience, I think Bill
should recognize that even if all the performers are in their prime, the
audience just won't like all of them, so featuring legends who are not in
their prime will result in the audience being even harsher, yes, even
commenting on physical appearance, especially if they don't understand the
legend's historical impact. So, he needs to be careful of exposing the
legends to harsh judgement and take steps to protect them. I'm glad that he
has done so for James Blackwood, as you point out. Whether he does so
enough is another question... it is a slippery slope.
Best,
David
"Norman Graham" <ngra...@home.com> wrote in message
news:5klT8.62992$op.62...@read2.cgocable.net...
Niven
garydw <no.spam...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3d1ceabb$1...@nopics.sjc...
> I am not sure what to call it the best I can describe it is like this.
>
> my mom has the same problem, when she shits in a hard chair, metal, etc,
her
> legs will go very numb, and then it takes a very long time before she can
> get the control or function of them again.
>
> Something to do with circulation.
>
>
> "David Ching" <d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message
Ruth Lee
Jake Hess and Hovie Lister, etc. is the same reason I enjoy listening
the the Beach Boys and the DooWop groups of the 50s and 60s...they
bring up memories for me of a time when life was less complicated.
They are happy memories of high school and college and a fairly simple
time. Music is a tremendous memory trigger. One of the joys of early
Sunday morning was to watch "Gospel Jubilee" while getting ready for
church.
"David Ching" <d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message news:<uhrhtch...@news.supernews.com>...
ROY P
all time. More of our young vocalists of today would do well to study
this great man and his tremendous vocal stylings.
TONY RUSH, who are you to criticize this legendary performer? I realize
that you were at one time an adequate piano player. But you yourself
could have learned much from greats such as WALLY VARNER, HOVIE LISTER,
and DERREL STEWART!
ROY P
that you're talking about! THE FIRST FAMILY OF GOSPEL MUSIC! The SPEER
SISTERS, with their proper vocal technique, pleasant expression, and
correct diction can still outsing 90 per cent of the so called female
vocalists out there! People like SHERI EASTER and PEG MCKAMEY BEAN would
do well to study these ladies! BEN SPEER is one of our greatest
vocalists ever! When I hear the likes of JASON CRABB straining his lungs
out, oh, how I long for the days of BEN SPEER and his ilk! DAD, MOM, and
BROCK sadly are no longer here to show such posers as the MARTINS and
the BISHOPS the true meaning of classic family harmony!
David Ching
BTW, I would not call you or anyone else "buster" no matter how much I
disagreed with their point of view.
If you had heard the same performance I did, you would not be praising the
Speers. I think you are living in the past and commenting on what they used
to be able to do. Which is exactly my point: legends that are so far past
their prime as to deliver awful performances should NOT be featured (and
subject to analysis of their inadequate performances).
-- David
"ROY P" <jakebl...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26257-3D...@storefull-2136.public.lawson.webtv.net...
KJCSmith1
>:)
And if we all agreed about everything it would be a pretty boring newsgroup.
KJCSmith1
>profits for Bill. No doubt, he's out to maximize profits,
You mean like any business man would.
KJCSmith1
Take a chill pill buster!
KJCSmith1
>that are unchristian, that are in conflict with a true ministry.
I am confused...so you are saying that they are unchristian if they do it for
entertainment?
David Ching
any CHRISTIAN business man would! :-)
"KJCSmith1" <kjcs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020629164840...@mb-me.aol.com...
David Ching
business is capitalistic, and capitalism has aspects that are unchristian.
A Christian businessman needs to deal with those, but once those are taken
care of, he is free to entertain and minister - this is what all commercial
groups in SG do.
-- David
"KJCSmith1" <kjcs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020629165227...@mb-me.aol.com...
Tony Rush
>
> Nice. Somebody asks for prayer for an SG legend and you hijack the
> thread to get on your soapbox.
> Tony, you are a class act.
Clarence, the thread was titled "Howard Goodman" and my comments were
about the Goodmans, in general -- not the content of the original
post.
Thank you for the compliment, though. :)
Tony Rush
The New & Improved Dr. Lovable
message news:3t2T8.2711$UJ21...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
>
> Eldridge Fox once told me about the Kingsmen, "I built this group on fat."
> They were singing in a little church in Alabama and he overheard a woman
> say, "I like the way those fat boys sing." (... snip )
Dear AMGS friends,
I just wanted to make an apology for a rude remark that I'd made in a
previous post where I refered to large people with an uncalled for phrase.
My friends often jokingly refer to me with this phrase as I am a little bit
portly myself, but I realized after I posted this that it could be very
hurtful to some people. Please be assured I did not mean anything hurtful
or insulting by it. It was simply a rude joke that I should not have said.
My apologies to anyone that may have been offended.
Doc
--
email drlovable...@yahoo.com,
but you'll have to drop YOURPANTS
KJCSmith1
>business is capitalistic, and capitalism has aspects that are unchristian.
>A Christian businessman needs to deal with those, but once those are taken
>care of, he is free to entertain and minister - this is what all commercial
Okay....I understand now.....what can I say...I am a blond....LOL
CJB
CJB
ROY P <jakebl...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26257-3D...@storefull-2136.public.lawson.webtv.net...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
CJB
Let it never be said that you're not opinionated. I'm loving this.
CJB
ROY P <jakebl...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:26257-3D...@storefull-2136.public.lawson.webtv.net...
CJB
be a rotten person and be a capitalist, an imperialist, a communist, a
socialist, etc. The problem is not so much the system as it is the person.
CJB
David Ching <d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message
news:uhs99po...@news.supernews.com...
CJB
and Tony Rush at the same time!
CJB
KJCSmith1 <kjcs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020629164314...@mb-me.aol.com...
CJB
CJB
Tony Rush <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.02062...@posting.google.com...
CJB
I like you, and I understand your point of view. Here's a little different
perspective for you to mull over, though.
Unmoderated NGs are sort of mini democracies. Posters are voting for or
against the ideas in a thread every time they post. You may not like the
subset issue of this thread, but looks like you're in the minority. There
are far more posts about the sub-issue than there were for the original one.
Would it have made you feel better if there had been a new thread started to
address these issues? In practial terms it would have made no difference,
but at least it wouldn't have been under this thread.
Don't get me wrong. I know that there are some issues discussed here that
I'm uncomfortable with and some that I disagree with the majority on. But I
don't think that these are to the detriment of the NG. Every post on this
NG right now is at least marginally on topic. Obesity is a classic SG
problem. The sedentary lifestyles of the traveling groups have brought
health problems to many people. Even the financial themed threads below
have been very helpful to folks who may not understand how this industry
operates. I'm not saying that the current flavor of this NG is my favorite,
but it's not the end of the world either. Sooner or later it will die out
and we'll be back to slow and booring around here again.
CJB
Clarence Grigsby <Clarenc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8ee83561.02062...@posting.google.com...
RayDunakin
That's a generalization, and not a very accurate one. I've known plenty of
heavy people who lived into their 80's. I've also known thin or even athletic
people who died much sooner. Look at that baseball player who died recently. A
healthy, athletic young guy who died in his sleep at age 33!
<< Are we getting so politically correct that we're not even going to accept
common medical knowledge any more? >>
I don't think that's the problem. The problem is that too often these days,
people have a very cruel and uncompassionate attitude toward anyone who is
overweight. Furthermore, there is way too much emphasis in this country on
physical appearance and trying to make people conform to one standard of
beauty. The health factor is just used as an excuse to denigrate people who
don't fit that standard.
What's more, I find it interesting that people are so quick to tell others how
"unhealthy" their alleged eating habits are, yet people engage in many other
potentially hazardous activities which aren't the subject of the same kind of
unsolicited "advice".
thetrumpetofthelord
Roy( or Jake?)
I once had the pleasure of opening for the Speer family back when the
"Joyful Noise" was still open in East Point, Ga.
They are a great family to be around and I enjoyed being back stage
with them, and eating dinner with them ,and talking to them.
The Speer family had a lot of very nice things to say about my trumpet
playing, and my style is nothing at all like the Speer Family style
is.
Just a thought.
Mikey Schmidt
The Trumpet of the Lord
Athens TN
423-507-9970
KJCSmith1
>and Tony Rush at the same time
I know....scarey isn't it......LOL
THE Old Man
KJCSmith1
>> playing, and my style is nothing at all like the Speer Family style
>> is.
HMMMM....maybe I should dig out their e-mail address and ask Ben.
thetrumpetofthelord
> all time.
The "greatest lead singer of all time is":
Nat King Cole
2nd place goes to:
Freddy Mercury
Greatest female:
Karen Carpenter
Michael Schmidt
***
*** More of our young vocalists of today would do well to study
thetrumpetofthelord
> > bud...@aol.com (BuddD0g) wrote in message news:<20020624120508...@mb-mq.aol.com>...
> > > I received this in my email this morning.
> > >
> > >
> > > : Howard Goodman
> > >
> > > Last night at the concert Sue Dodge (who's daughter is married to Howard and
> > > Vestals grandson), told us that just this week Howard had turned a corner, and
> > > improvement had begun, weaning off the ventilator was starting, and things were
> > > looking up for the first time since he was admitted 6 weeks ago. She said he
> > > still has a long haul, but the doctors are encouraged by this weeks progress.
> > > Let's keep him n our prayers for continued healing.
> >
> > Ok, no offense at Howard's health problems but let me take this topic
> > to ask a question that has always bugged me:
> >
> > Why is it that no one mentions enormous people like the Goodmans when
> > talking about SGM artists with long hair or SGM artists that smoke? I
> > mean, glutton is fairly well addressed in the Bible and yet there are
> > a few artists who are immune from criticism on this issue.
> >
> > Wonder why?
> >
> > Tony
>
> Nice. Somebody asks for prayer for an SG legend and you hijack the
> thread to get on your soapbox.
> Tony, you are a class act.
But Howard Goodman does not button his coat as professionally as Tony Rush does.
heh...
THE Old Man
"how I long for the days of BEN SPEER and his ilk!" ??? ILK???
CJB
period, he worked harder on his singing because he knew that was the only
way people would like him. In fact, at one point his ilk was so bad the
rest of the family wouldn't let him out in public because of the
embarassment. He practiced his singing until he was so good they had no
choice but to let him sing with them. However, once he was cured, he grew
lazy and relied more on his good looks, so his singing suffered.
CJB
THE Old Man <dda...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AlKT8.4480$uT4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "how I long for the days of BEN SPEER and his ilk!" ??? ILK???
>
>
Clarence Grigsby
> Clarence,
>
> I like you, and I understand your point of view. Here's a little different
> perspective for you to mull over, though.
>
> Unmoderated NGs are sort of mini democracies. Posters are voting for or
> against the ideas in a thread every time they post. You may not like the
> subset issue of this thread, but looks like you're in the minority. There
> are far more posts about the sub-issue than there were for the original one.
> Would it have made you feel better if there had been a new thread started to
> address these issues? In practial terms it would have made no difference,
> but at least it wouldn't have been under this thread.
That's exactly what Tony should have done. Why not start a thread
"Obesity In SG"? The question that he asked wasn't bad and the topic
of discussion isn't entirely inappropriate. Bringing it up on a thread
about Howard's health just struck me as kicking a man while he's down.
Plus isn't this the same Tony Rush who wrote a long essay on legalism
a while back?
> Don't get me wrong. I know that there are some issues discussed here that
> I'm uncomfortable with and some that I disagree with the majority on. But I
> don't think that these are to the detriment of the NG. Every post on this
> NG right now is at least marginally on topic. Obesity is a classic SG
> problem. The sedentary lifestyles of the traveling groups have brought
> health problems to many people. Even the financial themed threads below
> have been very helpful to folks who may not understand how this industry
> operates. I'm not saying that the current flavor of this NG is my favorite,
> but it's not the end of the world either. Sooner or later it will die out
> and we'll be back to slow and booring around here again.
>
> CJB
I'm just a fan of the music, not the industry. I'm the kind of guy
that wishes that they would keep Barry Bonds' salary off the sports
page and discuss his team's last game instead. I find the discussion
of group finances boring for the most part, quite frankly.
Clarence Grigsby
You're welcome.
David Ching
am very interested in how artists get started and sustain a living because I
am in a similar situation myself. OTOH, I couldn't care less which artists
where toupees, but I don't complain about other people who want to discuss
it here. I think everyone should feel free to participate in whichever
threads they want, and quietly ignore the ones they're not interested in.
If you feel so strongly about the title of the Howard Goodman thread, you
are free to post a message to that thread and rename the subject to
something you think is more appropriate. Personally, I think you are making
a mountain over a molehill. And I don't know what you have against Tony,
but so what if he gave us his thoughts on legalism awhile back? I, for one,
appreciated Tony's thoughts, which made me question my own beliefs to make
sure they were consistent. Again, if you are not interested, just ignore
the thread. And ultimately, you could always start your own moderated
newsgroup called alt.music.gospel.southern.according.to.clarence.grigsby.
:-)
Best,
David
"Clarence Grigsby" <Clarenc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8ee83561.02063...@posting.google.com...
Tony Rush
> JAKE HESS was, is, and forevermore shall be the greatest lead singer of
> this great man and his tremendous vocal stylings.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree. I cannot even IMAGINE Jake
Hess doing a powerful ballad solo like "I Bowed on My Knees" or
"Midnight Cry".
I can see him doing his particular style of interpretation on a verse
or two. But, I don't think he's ever been capable of producing the
sheer power that Michael English, David Hill, Ivan Parker, Guy Penrod,
Rodney Propes, Ron Rice, Parker Jonathan and many others can.
> TONY RUSH, who are you to criticize this legendary performer? I realize
> that you were at one time an adequate piano player. But you yourself
> could have learned much from greats such as WALLY VARNER, HOVIE LISTER,
> and DERREL STEWART!
Again, this is the land of opinions. I chose to learn my piano style
from men like Gary Prim, Garry Jones, Earl Brewer, Billy Joel, Harry
Connick, Jr., etc. I never cared for the style of Wally Varner. I'm
sure Hovie was a great pianist in his day but I can't say that I've
ever heard him do much live playing during the time that I was
developing my style.
I remember when Bill Gaither put The Statesmen back together back in
the late 80's or early 90's. I was a bit amused to see a legend like
Lister pantomining his piano playing and playing rhythm while the
audience listened to Anthony Burger's fast licks coming off the sound
track. I always thought that was a bit insulting to Hovie. Legend
that he was, why would you force a man like Hovie Lister to sit at a
piano and not let him play it?
NO disrespect intended to Hovie, but quite simply, the SGM industry
passed him by. In a industry where pianists have to learn and
maintain a mental library of licks and fills to be dropped into the
pockets left by vocalists, I don't think Hovie ever adapted to the
current method of playing. If there's only a piano and some vocalists
on stage, I imagine he's more than capable of dazzling an audience and
giving good solid rhythm and accompaniment. But, I've always thought
that Hovie never really adapted to what today's pianists have to do on
stage and in studio.
Again, no disrespect to Hovie's talent -- he's a far better pianist
than I. But, if you put Hovie's talent in another body with another
name, I don't believe he would be likely to get a job playing for any
fulltime SGM group or studio today. Unless they specialized in the
sounds of the 50s.
If you love Hovie...if you're friends with him....if you aren't a
musician...if you have a special reverence for the "old timers" and
not much use for today's players....I'm sure the comments above
offended you. I didn't write this to be deliberately disrespectful or
purposely abrasive. It's my honest opinion about musicians in SGM
today.
Some people instinctively think that anything "old fashioned" is good
and anything that's "modern" or "up to date" is bad. I think we
condition ourselves to think this way when we talk about "give me that
old time religion" or "back when I was young...".
As a result, the terms "old time", "the way it used to be", "good old
days", "modern", "up to date", "new", etc. have become LOADED terms.
If you want to get someone's hackles up, just criticize "how it used
to be". Or tell someone that the "new and improved way" is better
than "the old fashioned way".
Again, no offense intended, but if you're conditioned that way, I'm
sure my comments about Jake Hess, Howard Goodman, Hovie Lister, etc.
have nearly put you into some sort of attack. Again, that wasn't my
intention.
I just think that it's possible to maintain respect for the founders
and legends of our industry while still acknowledging that the changes
that have been made are, in many cases, for the better.
Then again, I guess we could go back to out-of-tune pianos and one mic
on stage. Just don't ask me to use an outhouse or go to the creek to
get water.
I'll take today's pianists and hot/cold running water over the "good
old days" any day.
Flame away,
Tony
David Bruce Murray
> ROY P <jakebl...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:26257-3D...@storefull-2136.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> > JAKE HESS was, is, and forevermore shall be the greatest lead singer of
> > all time.
>
> Roy Pauley snuck in here! WoW!
>
> CJB
Hmm . . . I'm not entirely convinced that was Pauley. The webtv account . .
. the webtv email address . . . hmm . . . but I'm not accusing David Stuart
of anything yet. :o)
--
David Bruce Murray / dmurray...@rfci.net
www.musicscribe.com / www.rfci.net/dbmurray
www.mp3.com/ssq / www.mp3.com/virtualvirtuoso
--- Making hay while the sun shines ---
CJB
for a while.
CJB
David Bruce Murray <dmurray...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:TJOT8.544063$Oa1.35...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
David Bruce Murray
> Clarenc...@webtv.net (Clarence Grigsby) wrote in message
news:<8ee83561.02062...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
> > Nice. Somebody asks for prayer for an SG legend and you hijack the
> > thread to get on your soapbox.
> > Tony, you are a class act.
>
> Clarence, the thread was titled "Howard Goodman" and my comments were
> about the Goodmans, in general -- not the content of the original
> post.
Well, at the risk of offending some of you, including Tony, I guess . . .
I agree completely with Clarence's point of view on this one. I know that
one person will often start a discussion on one thing and then the next post
will take it in an entirely different direction. That's the nature of
Usenet. At the same time, though, it would have been a more tasteful for
Tony to start a seperate thread about obesity, IMO, rather than re-quoting
the prayer request and then taking a different, controversial direction.
Let me clarify: I'm FINE with controversial topics, but I do think it was
out of place in direct response to a clear request for prayer.
I don't think any of us would have replied to KJC's prayer request about her
date's health problems in the same manner. When Peg McKamey was sick, no one
criticized her singing style in those threads, etc. Can we agree to leave
prayer request/health report threads on a conciliatory nature? I don't think
that's asking a great deal.
David Bruce Murray
> Well, we are all interested in different things, Clarence.
Variety is fine. The complaint was regarding taste, not content.
> If you feel so strongly about the title of the Howard Goodman thread, you
> are free to post a message to that thread and rename the subject to
> something you think is more appropriate. Personally, I think you are
making
> a mountain over a molehill.
I don't. I think it could be compared to pointing out to someone that they
have something stuck in their teeth.
Now . . . it might have been better for Clarence to point it out by private
email, but I think all of us regulars have pretty thick skin about this
stuff most of the time. I don't mind being challenged in public when someone
thinks I'm out of line, and sometimes I've changed my point of view as a
result.
> And I don't know what you have against Tony,
> but so what if he gave us his thoughts on legalism awhile back? I, for
one,
> appreciated Tony's thoughts, which made me question my own beliefs to make
> sure they were consistent. Again, if you are not interested, just ignore
> the thread.
Well, obviously, Clarence IS interested, so there's no reason he should
ignore the thread.
CJB
I don't have any problem cleaning up our posting system. I think the whole
point, though, is a little bit parlamentary, rather than substantive. The
same messages would have been posted either way. The argument that Clarence
made, or at least my perception of his comments, was that it was
inappropriate to discuss Howard's weight at the same time we're praying for
his health. That argument would apply whether the two issues were in the
same thread or not.
For future reference, I'll try to start a new thread when my post ventures
from the original topic. However, I see similar situations in NG's all the
time, and no one seems to get mad about it. Particularly in busy NGs. It
can be hard to follow a conversation if the participants are constantly
starting new threads that you don't know are extentions of their previous
posts in a different thread.
CJB
David Bruce Murray <dmurray...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:y6PT8.64475$Ca2.3...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
CJB
CJB
David Bruce Murray <dmurray...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:y6PT8.64475$Ca2.3...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
David Bruce Murray
"David Stuart" <Blig...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10428-3D...@storefull-2331.public.lawson.webtv.net...
> All i can say about the Goodmans is that i love their sound , even in
> their "past their prime" point! I have all their "later" albums,
> "Always", "Joy for the Journey", "Set Your Sails", "50 Years", and "The
> Final Stand", and i love every one of those! I just love listening to
> them, and wish that there would be more, but i think they have released
> their last ones. I also have Vestels two project s Vestel and Friends 1
> and 2.
I liked those last few Goodman CDs as well. I didn't like _Vestal and Friend
Vol. 2_ very much, but Vol. 1 was OK.
I've always thought it was a bit odd that I enjoy the Goodmans, yet don't
care for other groups I consider "twangy" like the McKameys or the
Inspirations as much. In a lot of ways, the two groups are similar. Peg has
the shoes she kicks off and Vestal has the hanky for a prop, etc. Both put a
southern drawl into their songs prominently.
I've never been able to explain to myself in a "music theory" type of way
why I enjoy the Goodmans and don't enjoy the McKameys. Weird. Maybe some of
you can point out a reason why that could be.
thetrumpetofthelord
> Tony Rush wrote: "I think you hit the nail on the head. Some people are
> immune from
> criticism. Like Jake Hess. It might've been good at one time but hose
> wobbly vocal scoops of his make me switch stations or fast forward a tape."
>
> Tony and everyone else is entitled to their opinions but my view is that
> when someone is a legend in their field he is entitled to a little slack. I
> was listening to the 1950s Statesmen in the car today and am still amazed at
> what Jake did. No wonder he influenced so
> many singers. In Peter Guralnick's definitive two-volume biography on Elvis
> he wrote of
> when Jake and the Imperials backed Elvis on "Where No One Stands Alone" one
> of
> Jake's most challenging showpieces. He wrote: "Elvis was reduced to a kind
> of inelegant bellowing to push out a sound that appears to have been
> effortless for Jake Hess." And Elvis was a good singer with a terrific
> range. Jake was a stylist and what I think happens with
> stylists as they age is that they become a bit of a parody of their earlier
> self -- consider George Jones, Elvis, Sinatra and Bob Dylan.
Re:
Bob Dylan in 2002 a parody of his earlier self, no way .Who are you
talking about? Not Bob Dylan , Bob has barely changed at all in the
past 50 years.
Mikey Schmidt
***
But what these
> giants become towards the end of their career should never take away from
> their achievements and influence at their peak. Probably most if not all of
> us will not be as good at age 70 as we were at age 30. But the different
> between us and the giants in any field is at age 30 they were among the best
> in the world at what they did and we shouldn't forget it. I'm so happy for
> Jake that he
> still has a chance to perform. He's more than earned it. And if you don't
> like his current performances then dig out those old Statesmen and Imperial
> records and let Jake blow you away.
>
> Norm
David Bruce Murray
> I'm relatively sure it's not Pauley, but it would be fun to have him here
> for a while.
No kidding!
I know that some well known writers/artists/etc. probably read this group
from time to time, but I can understand why they'd avoid posting under their
real names. Fans of well known people tend to gush over them in an
artificial sort of way while people who dis-like them tend to be overly
harsh for no real reason.
David Ching
subjects don't relate to actual content, and saying it's OK to question a
poster's intent based on something he posted ages ago. Why is everyone so
irritable? Because I think this newsgroup is the most vibrant it has been
in a long time, and I'm loving it.
Would you or someone else please explain to me what is the core problem that
you see?
Thanks,
David
"David Bruce Murray" <dmurray...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:yePT8.488330$%y.337...@bin4.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
David Bruce Murray
>
> I don't have any problem cleaning up our posting system. I think the
whole
> point, though, is a little bit parlamentary, rather than substantive.
I agree, it was definitely a parlamentary complaint.
> The
> same messages would have been posted either way. The argument that
Clarence
> made, or at least my perception of his comments, was that it was
> inappropriate to discuss Howard's weight at the same time we're praying
for
> his health.
I can't speak for Clarence, but I took exception to it being a direct
response to the prayer request. The prayer request was even quoted. That
just came across as tacky. I don't see any problem discussing obesity in SG
at the the same time we are asked to pray for the health of a performer who
happens to be obese.
> For future reference, I'll try to start a new thread when my post ventures
> from the original topic.
I don't think that has to be a hard and fast rule. As I mentioned in my
earlier post, topics are going to drift and even shift direction. My only
complaint was that this was a request for prayer, and that request was used
as a springboard to criticize the lifestyle of the person the request was
about.
Should the lifestyle be criticized? Sure, Tony made some very valid,
excellent points. There is a double standard in the industry on this.
> However, I see similar situations in NG's all the
> time, and no one seems to get mad about it. Particularly in busy NGs. It
> can be hard to follow a conversation if the participants are constantly
> starting new threads that you don't know are extentions of their previous
> posts in a different thread.
And I'm not encouraging that. I just think prayer requests should get this
sort of special treatment, because a prayer request is usually a very
personal thing about a specific individual.
Again, I intend no offense to Tony or you or anyone else who defended him.
That's just the way I see it.
David Bruce Murray
Yes, but we're quoting as we go . . . at least, I am. :o)
David Stuart
wouldnt be old Roy Pauley!!!!! LOL.
David
David Bruce Murray
> What is going on here? First Tyler leaves,
> now you are upset on how thread
> subjects don't relate to actual content,
No, I did mean for it to sound like that. If you'll re-read what I wrote,
you'll note that I said it's inevitable that topics are going to drift and
change direction. I was talking about one particular response to one
particular message (a prayer request), not about maintaining thread titles
that are always changing with the subject. You'll note that I have not
changed the subject line of this thread, but I'm not quoting the original
message either.
> and saying it's OK to question a
> poster's intent based on something he posted ages ago.
Actually, I didn't defend Clarence for that at all. I quoted you as saying
he should ignore a thread if he isn't interested in it, and I responded that
he obviously is interested in it. I was just trying to say in a polite way
that your suggestion for him to ignore the thread is irrelevant. He is
interested in it.
> Why is everyone so irritable?
I'm merely agreeing with Clarence on something that you disagree with him
about. "Irritable" hasn't entered into it for me.
> Because I think this newsgroup is the most vibrant it has been
> in a long time, and I'm loving it.
That's good to hear. Really. And I'd have to agree with you on that.
> Would you or someone else please explain to me what is the core problem
that
> you see?
The only "core problem" I see for this group right now is the troll. I don't
think of the issue with Tony taking the Goodman prayer request and
responding with a controversial topic as a core problem. I just think it was
in poor taste. And hey, you can probably search Google and find examples of
me doing something similar. I'm not trying to put myself on any sort of
pedestal.
David Bruce Murray
>
Oops. That word should have been spelled "parliamentary." I knew it didn't
look quite right, but CJB talked me into it when I posted earlier! :o)
David Bruce Murray
> DBM, No, if i were gonna impersonate anybody on this group, it sure
> wouldnt be old Roy Pauley!!!!! LOL.
I know. I just hadn't done any Webtv digs lately, and this allowed me to do
one that wasn't too mean sounding! :o)
David Ching
post of the day "the whole newsgroup goes to pot", coupled with one of your
next posts relating to a parliamentary procedure of Tony's, and also Tyler's
leaving, also citing Tony, as symptoms that there was something major wrong
here that I haven't seen.
So it is a relief to see you are concerned pretty much over one thing. The
troll. But to tell you the truth, I value his input. You may not agree
with his assessment of his performance abilities, his business methods, or
what he reveals about others, but he did make legitimate points about how
cruel the system is. I feel his heart is in the right place, even if he
doesn't always express it very clearly.
I'm glad we seem to agree about Tony. I really do feel Tony is a valued
poster here, not only for his industry experience, but also because he is
not afraid to raise controversial questions and to critique performers in a
negative way. He is seeming to get a bum rap because people think raising
these questions and saying negative things is not Christian behavior. Well,
it is not Christian behavior in a Singing News fashion, but it is Christian
behavior in my book. I consider it one of the unsavory parts of capitalism,
a system that everyone here embraces.
As for the specific incident of asking the weight question on the prayer
request thread, I now understand what you are saying. Thanks for the
clarification. I agree with 20/20 hindsight, that it was a small error of
insensitivity. I also think that debating such a small error in this amount
of detail is even more of an error than the original error itself,
especially when it would have been tremendously easy for anyone offended to
start a new thread or rename the existing one. But anyway, enough about
this small error.
And finally, ignoring topics or not. I am not saying someone should ignore
a topic which he or she is interested in. Indeed, everyone's participation
is valuable. But people take themselves out of threads or killfile people
all the time, sometimes because they have TOO MUCH interest. There is no
other choice on an uncensored newsgroup.
BTW, I mentioned valued posters above, and I would like to say I very much
value your well-reasoned statements and even keel demeanor.
Regards,
David
"David Bruce Murray" <dmurray...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:ILQT8.65554$Ca2.3...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
The New & Improved Dr. Lovable
"David Bruce Murray" <dmurray...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:0XPT8.64918$Ca2.3...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> "CJB" <belle...@citynet.net> wrote in message
> news:3d1fb...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> > I'm relatively sure it's not Pauley, but it would be fun to have him
here
> > for a while.
>
Maybe for a very very short while.
> Fans of well known people tend to gush over them in an
> artificial sort of way while people who dis-like them tend to be overly
> harsh for no real reason.
>
Aww, c'mon David, who would ever dislike Roy Pauley's opinions? :o)
Doc
--
email drlovable...@yahoo.com,
but you'll have to drop YOURPANTS
The New & Improved Dr. Lovable
"thetrumpetofthelord" <trumpeto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:71c9fa99.02063...@posting.google.com...
> The "greatest lead singer of all time is":
> Nat King Cole
> 2nd place goes to:
> Freddy Mercury
> Greatest female:
> Karen Carpenter
>
> Michael Schmidt
Karen Carpenter and Michael Schmidt are the 2 greatest female lead singers
of all time??? I thought Mikey was a trumpeter????
The New & Improved Dr. Lovable
"THE Old Man" <dda...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AlKT8.4480$uT4....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "how I long for the days of BEN SPEER and his ilk!" ??? ILK???
>
>
Man, don't you redneck hillbillies know nuthin'?
ilk -(adjective) same; like (noun) Of the same type or kind
a misunderstanding of the original scottish phrase meaning "of the same
name"
Wake the kids -- tell the neighbors! AMGS is not only fun ---- it's
educational!
Doc
email drlo...@YOURPANTSyahoo.com
Bolster
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote
>
> (KJCSmith1) wrote
> > >But, the fact is that most
> > >people that are overweight are in that condition because of their
> > >eating habits.
> >
> > So what if you are eating only 800 calories a day and still can't lose
weight.
> > The doctors won't let you go below that and stay under their care.
>
> Caloric intake is only one part of losing weight.
It's unreal how many people argue against this point. Amazing. It's
like walking into a bar full of drunken sailors, preaching against the evils
of cursing, and having them all stand up and say "But, it's not my fault! I
have Tourette's Syndrome!"
> If a person is
> eating "empty calories", it doesn't matter how much you limit them.
The difference between "good" calories and "empty" calories are
negligent in terms of weight loss. They matter as far as health goes, but
not so much for weight by itself. The amount is mostly all that matters for
weight, not the quality.
> And I DO understand your point and that my response was dramatically
> extreme. I know that you didn't mean "800 calories of Twinkies". I
> was just illustrating that there's more to it than the number of
> calories.
Actually, there's not much more to it at all.
> > >there's no excuse for someone as large as the Goodmans to be that
> > >huge.
> >
> > In your view.
>
> In anyone's view!
How can people argue you on this one? Unbelievable.
> > >> 2. Overweight people are so, because they over-eat.
> > >
> > >This is usually the case. See above
> >
> > No it isn't.
I suppose that depends on what your definition of "isn't" is. <sigh>
> How many times have we heard that it's a sin for a man to wear long
> hair?
Especially since having long hair isn't detrimental to the body. (How
much you wanna bet someone doesn't start yelling "Oh Yeah?! Well, what
about Absolom?! Huh, huh!?)
> But, I don't think any doctor will disagree
> that being overweight and obese is a recipe for health problems.
No, but lots of overweight people will.