Grand Ole Gospel Reunion
David Murray (SG Fan)
10). It was my first visit to the Peace Center, which is a pretty posh
auditorium. The program was pretty good. The promoter Charlie Waller likes
to keep the acts trotting thru there. I sat in the balcony, but they had a
big video screen which I ended up watching most of the time. This was
despite the fact that the video was very blue. Two words: "white balance."
Unfortunately, the lobby wasn't designed for 20 tables to be set up. It got
pretty crowded before the doors opened and during intermission. I managed to
snag The Masters V, _Live At The Joyful Noise_ that I've been wanting for so
long. I also got a copy of the new tape by The Dove Brothers, which they
were selling for just $5. It's pretty good
As for the program itself, the soloists managed to hold their own against
the big groups for one main reason: whoever was running sound didn't have a
clue about Southern Gospel and how it should be mixed. Two letters: "EQ."
There comes a point when you're boosting the highs for more clarity that it
starts to sound like a screech, especially when there are tracks, piano and
four vocalists. This caused any group who got on stage to sound like mud
whereas with the soloists you could understand what they were singing. The
Booth Brothers were about the best thing going. They have three singers and
no pianist, so the so called "sound man" didn't have as much trouble.
The Toney Brothers were visibly upset when they left the stage and who could
blame them? They only got to sing two songs. The first one started up in the
middle of the song and had to be restarted. Then on the second one, their
tracks were abruptly cut off right in the middle of it. The bass singer
said, "We're scheduled to sing again on the jam session. Come to that and
maybe you'll get to actually hear us sing." And they stalked off the stage.
All this to say, if you're thinking of going into the promotion business,
get a sound crew that has a clue.
Two memorable moments: Eva Mae Lefevre is pure class. Despite being on the
verge of pneumonia, she performed like a trooper and exchanged good natured
jibes with Waller. Also, the second half of the program began with a "This
Is Your Life" feature, and the person honored was Jack Toney of The
Statesmen. The sound crew showed their inept butts again during this when
they couldn't get Jake Hess connected via phone link for about 10 minutes,
but Toney and Waller kept us laughing so hard about it that we didn't mind.
After meeting Toney's pastor who led him to the Lord, one of his childhood
friends, and his family along with several Southern Gospel names, the
feature was concluded with Toney joined by a quartet he sang tenor with when
he was a teenager doing a song Toney wrote that was recorded by The Kingsmen
"I Will Rise Up From The Grave." Very cool stuff.
--
David Bruce Murray / dbmu...@deletethisrfci.net
http://rfci.net/dbmurray/
http://www.musicscribe.com/
Making hay while the sun shines!
Doctor Lovable
"David Murray (SG Fan)" <dbmu...@deletethisrfci.net> wrote in message
news:pW0l5.463879$MB.70...@news6.giganews.com...
> I attended the Grand Ole Gospel Reunion in Greenville, SC last night
(Thur.
> big video screen which I ended up watching most of the time. This was
> despite the fact that the video was very blue. Two words: "white balance."
>
I'm still undecided about the video screens at concerts. I"ve been to
several concerts with this setup and while I appreciate the fact that it
makes the concert "close up" and more visible for ppl sitting far away,
honestly, if I wanted to watch a video, I'd just stay home! I find it's
actually a bit distracting and, like you, I find myself watching the video
monitor as much as, if not more than, the live event. The one event I was
at that it worked very well for was a drummer's clinic with Greg Bissonette
...... an excellent idea for that type of learning environment!
> I managed to
> snag The Masters V, _Live At The Joyful Noise_
Were the Masters V singing at this concert? If so, what was their lineup?
>
> whoever was running sound didn't have a
> clue about Southern Gospel and how it should be mixed.
What is it about SG and bad sound? Even at that NQC event in Hamilton 2
weeks ago, with Dean Hopper running the board, there were lots of times the
sound was not great. Last time I saw Gold City live, their PA was
Horrendous!!! No other word for it! Not even necessarily loud. I can take
loud ....... (God knows I've played with enough drummers who think "soft"
means they've got to try to drown out a train wreck.) But I find so many
gospel groups run their PA with a ton of top end and a terrible mix of the
vocals. I know a lot of groups like to use separate monitor and house
mixes, but if they haven't got a soundman in the house, that's a ridiculous
idea because they have no clue what is going on out in the house. Last time
I saw the Anchormen, they left the pianist to do a solo while the vocalists
went out for a smoke-break. Problem was, the piano mike wasn't even on in
the house, so it was five minutes of only bass and drums and they had no
clue there was even a problem.
>
> The Toney Brothers were visibly upset when they left the stage and who
could
> blame them? They only got to sing two songs.
What's the deal with only giving a group 2 songs? Sheesh .... what's the
point of showing up to sing if you've only got 2 songs to sing?
>
> Two memorable moments: Eva Mae Lefevre is pure class. ........ doing a
song Toney wrote that was recorded by The Kingsmen
> "I Will Rise Up From The Grave." Very cool stuff.
>
Sounds like you had a good time! I for one, would love to see more concert
reports like this? Anybody else?
Doc
--
email drlo...@YOURPANTSyahoo.com
but you'll have to drop YOUR PANTS
David Murray (SG Fan)
Doctor Lovable <drlo...@YOURPANTSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6wql5.16445$c5.7...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
> I'm still undecided about the video screens at concerts. I"ve been to
> several concerts with this setup and while I appreciate the fact that it
> makes the concert "close up" and more visible for ppl sitting far away,
> honestly, if I wanted to watch a video, I'd just stay home! I find it's
> actually a bit distracting and, like you, I find myself watching the video
> monitor as much as, if not more than, the live event.
Well, as far away as I was, I appreciated it. This one was very tasteful in
that it was mounted up so high that people with good seats wouldn't be
distracted by it (unless they spent the whole show with their heads at a
weird angle). From the balcony, it was very natural to watch the screen, and
I'd have loved it if it hadn't been blue.
> > I managed to
> > snag The Masters V, _Live At The Joyful Noise_
>
> Were the Masters V singing at this concert? If so, what was their lineup?
They weren't singing.
> > The Toney Brothers were visibly upset when they left the stage and who
> could
> > blame them? They only got to sing two songs.
>
> What's the deal with only giving a group 2 songs? Sheesh .... what's the
> point of showing up to sing if you've only got 2 songs to sing?
You aren't thinking in "event" terms. The Toney Brothers were singing all
three nights, I think, plus during the "jam session" that took place at a
separate time from the evening shows. You'd have liked this: They had a
bunch of soloists, but several of them only did one song each. We're talking
a four hour program (three if you subtract intermission and the "This Is
Your Life" segment), and there were at least twenty separate acts on the
stage, so they had to keep trotting thru. The focus is on the old timers,
most of whom are too tired to do more than a ten minute stand anyway. And
the idea of the average fan is to see a bunch of old timers on stage. I was
dissappointed that there weren't more group reunions, like the old Palmetto
State Quartet, but it was still good.
Also for the two "main attraction" type younger groups, they had individual
concerts called "Up Close and Personal" where The Dove Brothers and The
Booth Brothers were featured for full length concerts in the afternoons. I
had intended to stay for those on Friday afternoon, but I got so little
sleep Thursday in a strange hotel that I just came on home.
BTW, the old Palmetto State Quartet was excellent. Jack Bagwell sounds a lot
better now than he did three years ago. He did a solo that had power I never
expected from him.
dstu...@hotmail.com
"Doctor Lovable" <drlo...@YOURPANTSyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Last time
> I saw the Anchormen, they left the pianist to do a solo while the
vocalists
> went out for a smoke-break. Problem was, the piano mike wasn't even
on in
> the house, so it was five minutes of only bass and drums and they had
no
> clue there was even a problem.
When was that?? I realize your comment was about sound equipment, but
I'm close friends with one of the Anchormen and they've not even had a
drummer for about three years, so your critical comment isn't much of a
reflection on their current group. There were two members that smoked
when they last had a drummer, so it's hard to believe that the "whole
group" was on a smoke break.
Oh, and yes, they've had personnel changes. But, it's amazing that
Tony Gore can lose his entire group, Greater Vision loses an owner,
Phil Cross has to keep an attendance record, and Gold City had a major
turmoil awhile back....and yet during that same time period, the
Anchormen had the same bass, tenor, lead singer, pianist and bass
player. Looks like someone's speaking out of habit and not out of
fact. Meanwhile, they're one of the few groups who've been around for
over 20 years, are still going. That's more than can be said of many
of the "fly by nighters" that have come and gone.
I'm not going to apologize for my defense of The Anchormen. Their
current group is ministry-minded, good living, dedicated group of men
who know what they're about. That's more than I can say about many of
the groups talked about on this list.
Dan Sturben
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Outside the Loop
>current group is ministry-minded, good living, dedicated group of men
>who know what they're about. That's more than I can say about many of
>the groups talked about on this list.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!
I have friends in the industry as well. The Anchormen were one of those groups
who were great on stage but lead other lives behind the scenes (this was a few
years back) This same group that I heard so much stuff about in the past
proved my suspicions wrong! They were at my church to do a concert with a
promoter and I am the sound engineer at my church. The Anchormen ran a line
into my board to use my center cluster. I had the opportunity to work pretty
closely with them. At the end of the night, I had the opportunity to eat
dinner with them and I have to say they are not one bit phony or fake. Ron
Rice has an incredible testimony about his parents that really touched me.
This group LOVES GOD and IS CONCERNED with people entering HEAVEN!
And YES that is a WHOLE LOT more than some of the groups that are on the road
today and thank God for them!
David Murray (SG Fan)
<dstu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8nc7j1$hk0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <6wql5.16445$c5.7...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> "Doctor Lovable" <drlo...@YOURPANTSyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Last time
> > I saw the Anchormen, they left the pianist to do a solo while the
> vocalists
> > went out for a smoke-break. Problem was, the piano mike wasn't even
> on in
> > the house, so it was five minutes of only bass and drums and they had
> no
> > clue there was even a problem.
>
>
> When was that?? I realize your comment was about sound equipment, but
> I'm close friends with one of the Anchormen and they've not even had a
> drummer for about three years, so your critical comment isn't much of a
> reflection on their current group. There were two members that smoked
> when they last had a drummer, so it's hard to believe that the "whole
> group" was on a smoke break.
He never said it was a "live" drummer. Just because he was hearing "only
bass and drums" doesn't mean there was actually someone onstage playing bass
and drums. Lots of pianists perform with tracks. But then, Doc lives in
Canada, while the Anchormen are based out of NC, I think, so it certainly
could have been over three years since he'd seen them in concert.
"Smoke break" is a tongue-in-cheek reference that is made any time a whole
group of performers leaves the stage while the show is still going on. It
doesn't literally mean that every single member of the group was smoking, or
even that any of them were. I realize you were probably being deliberately
obtuse in order to demonstrate your immense knowledge about all the personal
habits of the Anchorman, but come on. It was just a (very obvious) JOKE.
dstu...@my-deja.com
"David Murray (SG Fan)" <dbmu...@deletethisrfci.net> wrote:
>
> But then, Doc lives in
> Canada, while the Anchormen are based out of NC, I think, so it
certainly
> could have been over three years since he'd seen them in concert.
>
> "Smoke break" is a tongue-in-cheek reference that is made any time a
whole
> group of performers leaves the stage while the show is still going
on. It
> doesn't literally mean that every single member of the group was
smoking, or
> even that any of them were. I realize you were probably being
deliberately
> obtuse in order to demonstrate your immense knowledge about all the
personal
> habits of the Anchorman, but come on. It was just a (very obvious)
JOKE.
Well, if someone one was going to be that critical of a group, you'd
think the post would be a bit more accurate and a little more up-to-
date. Unless there are special circumstances, I'm sure I AM much more
informed of the Anchormen than someone else on this list. But that's
not the point. It costs you nothing to make snide remarks - it costs
whatever unfortunate group that's being written about a character
smudge. I would've thought a "SG Fan" would be more aware of that.
Dan
=Bob=
Doc. He was talking about the sound. These days, it's rather
common for the sound to be less than acceptable. In
reference to the Anchormen, he was talking about groups
not having a sound engineer and not being able to know
what it sounds like to the audience. I too have to deal
with this dilemma with my little band. We can't afford a
sound person, I have to do it myself from the stage, and
I've had to deal with being told that the sound wasn't so hot.
There was no character smudge, at least I could see none.
Have a grand and wonderful day!
=Bob=
<dstu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ne0c8$gpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[Deleted previous article for brevity]
: Well, if someone one was going to be that critical of a group, you'd
David Murray (SG Fan)
> Well, if someone one was going to be that critical of a group, you'd
> think the post would be a bit more accurate and a little more up-to-
> date.
It wasn't out of date. You made literal assumptions about a remark Doc made
that was clearly jokes. It had nothing to do with whether any of the
Anchormen actually smoke cigarettes or not, nor whether any of them used to
smoke or whether they smoke currently.
> It costs you nothing to make snide remarks - it costs
> whatever unfortunate group that's being written about a character
> smudge.
If the Anchormen have such thin characters that a mild joke can smudge
it...ah...forget it...why even bother...this is like trying to explain music
theory to a fog horn.
> I would've thought a "SG Fan" would be more aware of that.
I'm one of those very unique SG Fans who is also equipped with a sense of
humor. It's true that there's only a few of us, but beware, our numbers are
increasing steadily.
dstu...@my-deja.com
"David Murray (SG Fan)" <dbmu...@deletethisrfci.net> wrote:
> that was clearly jokes. It had nothing to do with whether any of the
> Anchormen actually smoke cigarettes or not, nor whether any of them
used to
> smoke or whether they smoke currently.
>
Oh, pardon me. I guess I'm in the majority of people
who think a smoke break is when someone takes a break
to go smoke. Silly me.
> > It costs you nothing to make snide remarks - it costs
> > whatever unfortunate group that's being written about a character
> > smudge.
>
> If the Anchormen have such thin characters that a mild joke can smudge
> it...ah...forget it...why even bother...this is like trying to
explain music
> theory to a fog horn.
Oh, I'm sure you and I have spent more time worrying about this
than any of them would if they were aware of the conversation. The
point is that some people really do "write a group" off for having
habits like smoking. I would've thought that was understood in a
business where a huge portion of the fans are very conservative
Christians. Would it be any different if someone casually mentioned
that two un-related people in a famous mixed group are romantically
involved? If I called their name and the word got out, it could
definitely "smudge" their character. It's not about having "thin"
character - it's about being responsible in what we say.
Have a good day,
David Murray (SG Fan)
<dstu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nf9ee$3fg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8yDm5.252986$t91.2...@news4.giganews.com>,
> Oh, pardon me. I guess I'm in the majority of people
> who think a smoke break is when someone takes a break
> to go smoke. Silly me.
If the topic had been office workers, yes. But a group of singers leaving
the stage while one performer carries on the show is a different situation.
It's called context.
> The
> point is that some people really do "write a group" off for having
> habits like smoking.
That might be relevant if he'd implied they were actually smoking. He
didn't.
> I would've thought that was understood in a
> business where a huge portion of the fans are very conservative
> Christians.
It is understood. It just doesn't apply in this situation. The criticism was
against the sound mix at one show.
> Would it be any different if someone casually mentioned
> that two un-related people in a famous mixed group are romantically
> involved? If I called their name and the word got out, it could
> definitely "smudge" their character. It's not about having "thin"
> character - it's about being responsible in what we say.
It all depends on the context.
I'll continue with two possible ways your example might come up. If someone
wrote that "X lead singer is running around on his wife while he's out on
the road," it would certainly damage the reputation of the group and the
singer personally. Furthermore, to write such a thing with no factual basis
would be downright malicious and certainly irresponsible.
On the other hand, there might be a conversation about how in somebody's
opinion, "X" lead singer isn't all that good looking, and someone might
respond by saying, "I'll bet he's got lots of ladies at his beck and call."
I'd personally just chuckle reading that. I certainly wouldn't assume he's
REALLY running around with many different women. In fact, I'd think people
who DID take that comment seriously were the ones with the problem (i.e..
serious lack of humor genes), not the person who wrote it and certainly not
"X."
Doctor Lovable
<dstu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ne0c8$gpb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <jKom5.43333$wX5.6...@news5.giganews.com>,
>
> Well, if someone one was going to be that critical of a group, you'd
> think the post would be a bit more accurate and a little more up-to-
> informed of the Anchormen than someone else on this list. But that's
> whatever unfortunate group that's being written about a character
> smudge.
Dan, I'm really sorry if you or any of the Anchormen took personal offense
to my remarks about the Anchormen. I certainly didn't intend any harm. I
don't know why you thought I was being so critical of them? My comments
were intended solely about their P.A. on one particular nite, and in fact, I
could have used any of several group's names. I've seen this same type of
thing happen before with other groups. That nite with the Anchormen was
just one example.
You are correct that the particular nite was several years ago. I should
have said, the last time the Anchormen "were here", not the last time "I saw
them". In fact, the last time I saw them was 2 weeks ago at NQC in
Hamilton, Ontario, and they sounded great, although I understand their bass
singer was just filling in for them until they find a replacement for Jeff
Chapman. The nite I wrote about was within a year or so of Brian Routh
being replaced by their current tenor singer, if that's of any help to you
in placing exactly when this took place. I won't go into all the details,
but let's just say that their P.A. was truly dreadful that nite and they
will never be back here again because of it! Sad to say, but the sins of
the past do truly haunt the people of the future.
I like the Anchormen. If you've read any of my previous posts you'd know I
think very highly of their current tenor although I can never remember his
name. He has a very Brian Free type of sound to his voice with excellent
range and control. Jeff Chapman was/is one of my favorite young basses to
come along in a while, and I was sorry to see that he has left them a couple
months back. They've always had such a high energy sound that reminds me of
the old Kingsmen, and I love it!
My comment regarding the "smoke-break" was just a figure of speech. I had
no clue whether anybody in the group actually smoked until YOU mentioned
that 2 of them used to. If I'd said they were on a coffee-break, would you
be so upset? The negative health effects of caffeine are pretty well known,
so that could be infered to be a pretty critical comment too!
"Coffee-break" would also just be a figure of speech, because how would I
know which of them drinks coffee, and how could they brew a whole pot of
coffee and drink it, in the time it takes to perform a piano solo? Perhaps
I should have just said they were out for a 5 minute homosexual orgy on the
bus! At least then, you may have clued in that this was just a
tongue-in-cheek expression. Or perhaps you know something about 2 of their
former members that you'd like to share with us ?????
I didn't make any mention whatsoever about personel changes in this post. I
know I have mentioned the Anchormen's revolving door in the past, but why
did you throw that into this thread? If it bothered you so much, why did
you wait until I was talking about something totally unrelated to bring this
up? Just curious? It seems like maybe this reputation that they've
garnered for themselves about personel changes has become quite a sore spot
for them. They may have been rather stable in the personel department for
the past couple of years, (at least relative to 10-12 years ago) but I
believe they are in the midst of a bass singer search as we speak and it
wasn't that long ago since they were shuffling the lead/baritone slots too.
If I'm not mistaken, their tenor singer is their longevity-leader and he's
only been there about 5 years, so the evidence would suggest that they are
still having trouble hanging on to talent, but perhaps that's just my
perception. You'd likely know better than me.
At any rate, they've always managed to put together a great sounding quartet
regardless who was on stage with them, and that is an unusual thing to be
able to do. I'm glad to hear reports of their desire and ability to
minister to an audience, because ultimately that's what really counts!
Will
> obtuse in order to demonstrate your immense knowledge about all the
personal
> habits of the Anchorman, but come on. It was just a (very obvious)
JOKE.
I was one who did not take it as a joke. Just say they were taking a
break. Of course it is between them and the Lord if they choose to
smoke, but being from a Pentecostal church, many do not take "smoke
break" as a light joke.
Just IMHO.
Will
Doctor Lovable
<dstu...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nf9ee$3fg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8yDm5.252986$t91.2...@news4.giganews.com>,
> point is that some people really do "write a group" off for having
> habits like smoking
Well now I'm really curious about this. If you're such great personal
friends with the Anchormen and are really concerned about somebody "writing
off a group" for smoking, then why would you come right out in one of your
posts and say .........
<dstu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8nc7j1$hk0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <6wql5.16445$c5.7...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com>,
> There were two members that smoked
> when they last had a drummer,
>
See, I just used a figure-of-speech, or a tongue-in-cheek expression to say
that the vocalists were off stage while the pianist carried the show for a
couple of minutes. Anybody who has been around this ng for more than a week
knows my writing style, knows exactly what I meant and realized it was a
JOKE.
You however, came right along, spilled the beans as a "good personal
friend", and stated FOR A FACT that these guys did smoke! Then you try to
Smack me because I may have IMPLIED they smoked, which I did not!!
So rather than slamming me around any more for implying some possible
wrongdoing, pat yourself on the back for giving solid ammunition to those
who chose to write a group off for smoking!
dstu...@hotmail.com
leaving
> the stage while one performer carries on the show is a different
situation.
> It's called context.
>
My my, you go to great lengths to justify your poor communication.
Let me clear up something for you: when you say that a group took a
smoke break, the context is IRRELEVANT. What I hear is that a group of
guys took a break to go smoke.
Honestly! Do you really expect that someone would take it another way
based on your "context"?? Since you apparently suffer from the notion
that you're always right, would you mind doing a scientific poll and
letting us know how it turns out?
Dan
dstu...@hotmail.com
"Doctor Lovable" <drlo...@YOURPANTSyahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> My comment regarding the "smoke-break" was just a figure of speech.
I had
> no clue whether anybody in the group actually smoked until YOU
mentioned
> that 2 of them used to. If I'd said they were on a coffee-break,
would you
> be so upset? The negative health effects of caffeine are pretty well
known,
> so that could be infered to be a pretty critical comment too!
> "Coffee-break" would also just be a figure of speech, because how
would I
> know which of them drinks coffee, and how could they brew a whole pot
of
> coffee and drink it, in the time it takes to perform a piano solo?
Perhaps
> I should have just said they were out for a 5 minute homosexual orgy
on the
> bus! At least then, you may have clued in that this was just a
> tongue-in-cheek expression. Or perhaps you know something about 2 of
their
> former members that you'd like to share with us ?????
>
Well, gospel audiences don't tend to look down on groups for drinking
coffee, do they? While coffee, or gluttony can be just as bad, I've
seen plenty of people get in a 'twist' over finding out that someone in
a group smokes. To my knowledge, none of the Anchormen smoke.
Bottom line, email is vague - if someone is going to be sarcastic, then
try to make it evident. It looked like a snide comment.
Concerning my mention of the personnel changes, I'm new to the list and
had just read several messages that seemed overly critical of the group
and it seemed unwarranted. The comment about the smoke break wouldn't
probably have offended me so much had I read it as an isolated message,
but looking back through the group, it appears that the Anchormene were
portrayed as an unstable group, with poor sound equipment, a busful of
smokers and a good bass singer. That's hardly an accurate
description. It's just funny that you don't hear a group like Tony
Gore even remotely criticized as much as The Anchormen although there
is certainly more there to be critical of.
Thanks for a clear response.
Dan
dstu...@hotmail.com
Will <wil...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I realize you were probably being deliberately
> > obtuse in order to demonstrate your immense knowledge about all the
> personal
> > habits of the Anchorman, but come on. It was just a (very obvious)
> JOKE.
>
> I was one who did not take it as a joke. Just say they were taking a
> break. Of course it is between them and the Lord if they choose to
> smoke, but being from a Pentecostal church, many do not take "smoke
> break" as a light joke.
> Just IMHO.
>
> Will
Thanks, Will. Like you, I think a smoke break is a smoke break. "SG
Fan" appears to think it means any kind of break.
Dan
Doctor Lovable
"Will" <wil...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8nfi8l$d7h$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I realize you were probably being deliberately
> > obtuse in order to demonstrate your immense knowledge about all the
> personal
> > habits of the Anchorman, but come on. It was just a (very obvious)
> JOKE.
>
>
> I was one who did not take it as a joke. Just say they were taking a
> break. Of course it is between them and the Lord if they choose to
> smoke, but being from a Pentecostal church, many do not take "smoke
> break" as a light joke.
> Just IMHO.
>
> Will
>
So you seriously thought when you first read that post, that the Anchormen
went off stage while the piano player soloed and had some cigarettes? Did
you think they did this back stage, or did they go outside so the air would
clear? How did they get away from all the other people who typically hang
around backstage at concerts?
Since I was listening to the house mix and NOT the monitors, it's very clear
that I was not backstage. What makes you think I would have any clue what
went on backstage for those 3 minutes? Why would you believe me even if you
did think I was serious? Would I have any credibility on the subject of
what those guys did backstage that night?
Do you seriously think they'd have time enough to get off stage, get outside
away from anybody else backstage, light up a cigarette and smoke it, then
get back on stage by the end of the solo? And if you think that the
Anchormen were stupid enough to actually try to get away with something like
that, then you already have a very low opinion of them and nothing I could
say or imply would make that opinion any worse!
C'mon ...... you can't seriously think "smoke-break" in the context it was
used had any meaning other than a tongue-in-cheek expression and a JOKE!?!
steph...@webtv.net
I've ever heard it as just a tongue in cheek comment.Common sense will
tell you that a smoke break means you are taking a break to smoke.I know
alotof people who smoke and they take smoke breaks.I drink coffee so I
take coffee breaks.I also take lunch breaks.Why wouldn't someone think a
smoke break is for smoking.It really wouldn't bother me if they did
smoke.They are still great singers.Not my favorite,but still very good.I
honestly feel that the majority would think a smoke break is actually
smoking.Thanks,stephen
David Murray (SG Fan)
<dstu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8nfk9v$feu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <1JHm5.481797$MB.73...@news6.giganews.com>,
> "David Murray (SG Fan)" <dbmu...@deletethisrfci.net> wrote:
> > > If the topic had been office workers, yes. But a group of singers
> leaving
> > the stage while one performer carries on the show is a different
> situation.
> > It's called context.
> >
>
> My my, you go to great lengths to justify your poor communication.
Speaking of context, it wasn't my communication. It was Doc's.
The only reason I defended what he wrote is because I got what he was
saying. You didn't.
No. I'm not always right, and I'll admit it readily when that's the case.
But Doc, who DID write the original statement has already explained that it
was a joke. It's one thing for you to not to get it. It's understandable
that you may not have heard "smoke break" used as a joke. I've been hearing
it in that context since 1983. However, it's another thing to belabor the
"but I thought he meant" part of it. Doc explained what he meant. I
explained what he meant. He's not trying to damage the reputation of The
Anchormen.
David Murray (SG Fan)
>
> Thanks, Will. Like you, I think a smoke break is a smoke break. "SG
> Fan" appears to think it means any kind of break.
Looks like I don't need to do that poll, since you're keeping count. :o)
For some reason, I can remember vividly the first time I ever heard the
expression "smoke break" used as a joke. I was a member of my high school's
marching band. We attended many competitions. At most of them, before each
band performed, the announcer would ask "Are the judges ready?" and one of
the judges on the field would give an affirmative gesture to the press box.
At this particular competition, when the question was asked, one of the
judges responded by shaking his head from side to side to indicate, "No. We
aren't ready." At that point my cousin leaned over to me and said, "Smoke
break." And of course, everyone who heard him was amused.
I'm not surprised the expression isn't immediately recognized by everyone as
a joke, but it must be more widespread than you think. Doc lives in Canada,
after all, and I'm in NC. I just can't understand why you'd bellyache about
"poor communication" skills etc. AFTER it's been explained to be a joke.
Believe it or not, there have actually been occasions when people have told
jokes that I didn't understand. But when they take the time and effort to
EXPLAIN it to me, I tend to go "Oh, I see," rather than criticizing their
communication skills.
Will
> C'mon ...... you can't seriously think "smoke-break" in the context
it was
> used had any meaning other than a tongue-in-cheek expression and a
JOKE!?!
>
> Doc
I honestly was not sure how to take it. That is why I questioned it.
Knowing what I know about the Anchormen today, I can hardly see a smoke
break happening. These are good guys. The Bible says to obstain from
all appeances of evil, and a little remark like that could hurt
someone. Not meaning to do so. You may not have meant it like that,
but someone could take it totally out of context. Like I said before,
you could have just said taking a break. I am not flaming anyone, I
can look back and say..."Oh...OK" but not everyone is like that. We
gotta be careful.
James Bober
Will wrote in message <8ni67v$e62$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Before you buy.
I know from an experience that I had, sombody saying something
falsely about a quartet can make trouble for them. It happened
several years ago when I was with another quartet. We had a
concert up in Intenational Falls, Minn. and our car broke down.
Two of us stayed at the pastor's house in the basement for a few
hours of sleep. The next day the pastor found a couple of cig.
butts and spread the story we had been smoking in his home.
The truth was he was having some remodeling done in the
basement and the plumbers were the smokers. It still was
too late cause that quartet was never invited back.
Jim
Tony Rush
that things here appear to be a bit heated on a topic that is
actually pretty commonplace.
Sound in Southern Gospel Music is, and will likely always be
a problem. Most major concerts involve several groups trying
to get ONE sound system to meet all their needs instead of
just setting up their own. It creates problems and when things
fall through the cracks, it sometimes looks like people aren't
"on top of the situation". This past weekend, we got to a
concert in Pennsylvania and found that the three other groups
expected us to provide and run sound for them as well as
ourselves. Needless to say, the idea of getting everyone sounding
the way they like is nearly impossible.
The issue of the smoke break is, I guess, a matter of opinion. There
have been members of the group who smoked, but we don't have
any smokers in the group, now. If someone on here said that Gold
City was taking a "smoke break", I would assume that they meant
that the group was outside smoking cigarettes. That's just my
opinion, but whomever suggested that questionable comments
can make groups look bad was correct. A brown IBC root beer
bottle started some terrible rumors about a very popular group
several years ago and no one likes to think they're favorite singer
is battling a nicotine addiction. :)
Overall, I see the points made and just wanted to let you hear from
the group on a topic that was about us.
Have a great and prosperous day!
Tony Rush
--
---------------------------------------------
The Anchormen
http://www.theanchormen.com
<dstu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8nfkmf$fpr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...