The future of Southern Gospel
john roeder
At one time, Southern Gospel was THE gospel music of the masses. Then
Contemporary Christian took over the mass market and Southern Gospel almost
disappeared. I can remember when it got to the point that the Quartet
Convention was drawing only a half full house in Nashville. Southern Gospel
has staged a comeback in the past few years.
Around Nashville, for general concerts, The Cathederals are different, the
average age of the audience is 60 or above. I do not know how that shapes up
in other parts of the country. It is a little different in smaller rural
areas.
There are two things that bother me. I personally am not seeing very much
going on that targets people in their 30s and 40s. I am not concerned with
those in their teens and early 20s. They have their Contemporary Christian
Music which our keyboard player calls "Bubble Gum Music". What can we offer
that remains true to the music to attract younger settled family people?
The other thing that bothers me is that we do not reach out to new fans as
we should. What is it about our music that would make the non-believer want
to hear it. There is power to convert in music. Herein lies a problem. I
have friends who are penticostal. I have developed a fairly close friendship
over the past few years with the guys in Heirline. If you know or have heard
Earnie, there is no mistake about his conviction. They have built up a large
following within the penticostal community. This is good to a certain extent
for their business but..........I honestly think that their style of
penticostal singing and preaching would turn off the unchurched and/or
non-believer.
Question? Has Southern Gospel become too penticostal to reach the masses of
people in the non-religious world that need to be converted?
If you have thoughts and suggestions about where the genre needs to go and
what needs to happen, share them. This is vital to the future of our
industry.
M. Elden Gaines
> we should. What is it about our music that would make the non-believer
want
> to hear it. There is power to convert in music. Herein lies a problem. I
> have friends who are penticostal. I have developed a fairly close
friendship
> over the past few years with the guys in Heirline. If you know or have
heard
> Earnie, there is no mistake about his conviction. They have built up a
large
> following within the penticostal community. This is good to a certain
extent
> for their business but..........I honestly think that their style of
> penticostal singing and preaching would turn off the unchurched and/or
> non-believer.
>
> Question? Has Southern Gospel become too penticostal to reach the masses
of
> people in the non-religious world that need to be converted?
>
Allow me to add a little perspective. If anything, southern gospel music has
become MUCH LESS Pentecostal over the last couple of decades. Of course so
have adherents that follow/attend, to a large degree. There are also many
non-Pentecostal groups/individuals in it, and there always have been
Baptists and evangelicals of other "flavors." I myself am a Pentecostal
preacher, pastored a Pentecostal church for many years in California and
presently evangelize as well as sing with a SGM quartet. I will preach or
sing wherever the doors are opened, and have done so in various Baptist,
Nazarene, Church of Christ, etc. The message, the delivery and the
methodologies of presentation have changed radically from what they used to
be. There is much more commercialism, much more worldliness, much less
concern for ministry and reaching the lost than ever before. SGM, from its
inception was intended and practiced (if you will) to reach the lost and
draw people to a closer relationship with the Lord. There was no thought of
"entertainment", or "making it big" then. I am not saying that there are
none left today with the early ideals, desires and intent to minister, but
the numbers have dwindled significantly. Has SGM become too Pentecostal to
reach the masses? Hardly!! Rather, it has, to a large degree, become so
watered down and commercial as to be known as an "industry" now, and has a
much reduced possibility of ever converting the masses. It is still by the
"foolishness of preaching," and I believe that to include preaching via
music and song, that people will be won to Jesus Christ. Evangelism was the
root cause and birthright of SGM, and it is to evangelism it must look
again, if it is to be redeemed, and to redeem. I am not alone in this
sentiment. I spoke with one of the "biggest" names in SGM today, at the
convention last evening, whose heart is burdened as mine to see us return to
our heritage and first cause. We must be true to the Lord first, and to His
cause, or all the rest is absolutely in vain.
Sorry if I seemed to go on, but this is very dear to my heart, and I never
cease being the pastor that God called me to be.
Elden
john roeder
I remember going to "singins" at church where we got together and sang for
the simple joy and pleasure of the music. This is entertainment in its
purest form. There was no intent to convert. If you have ever trad the book,
I believe it is titled Men of Song, it tells the story of the development of
the quartets. I got the book through the Singing News. Many of these young
singers, Jake Hess is a good example, nearly starved to death but continued
on anyway. Theirs was not primarily evangalisticthrust. They sang because
they loved the music.
I keep hearing the statement from the stage, "We are not here to entertain
you. If that is what we are here for then we might as well go home." I
believe that the last time I heard this was from Gerald Crabb. Oh yes! Are
you and Gerald and the others saying that there should not be good clean
Christian entertainment? Should we leave the entertainment to the movies,
(we know how Christian they are), or to the rock and rap musicians, (the
pennicles of righteousness) or to the video game producers, (now that is a
way to develop peace on earth)? If Christian entertainment is good, then
there has to be someone producing and performing it.
Music can convert. It can reach people in subtle ways that preaching cannot.
Remember the old saying, "I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day."
Our music can convert without preaching. God uses many different approaches.
If we construct it right and perform it right people will listen to our
music who would never listen to a sermon. That is why I am afraid that too
much church and preaching at concerts will drive away the very people who
need to listen.
An aside and an end to this long post. All the members of GloryLand
including our keyboard player are members of the Church of Christ. One of
our primary goals is to build bridges between believers regardless of the
name above the door.
John R
M. Elden Gaines <mega...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:7rln2s$42fq$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
KJCSmith1
>those in their teens and early 20s. They have their Contemporary Christian
Sorry but when I was a teen and in my early 20's I didn't listen to
contemporary Christian...I listened to Southern Gospel....my 10 year doesn't
listen to CCM either....he only likes SG....
SoundInvst
john roeder <john....@nashville.com> wrote in message
>
> singers, Jake Hess is a good example, nearly starved to death but
continued
> on anyway. Theirs was not primarily evangalisticthrust. They sang because
> they loved the music.
>
Which brings me to another point: A young trio from 60 miles from here was
singing at a local event. While onstage they brought attention to the fact
they had been asked to be on a "Gaither video"(no doubt to convince others
of their "success").
After the performance I was making small talk with one of the members and
asked had they sang at a particular church that was near their hometown and
had singers come in once a month. The reply was, "yes, and we won't do it
again, we lost our shirt!" Now, I've been to this church, and I know the
crowds are not "capacity", but these guys drove maybe 15 min. to get there,
they sing with tracks so they didn't have a band to pay, so what gives?
On the other side of the coin, I read a "letter to the Editor" of the
Singing News praising Squire Parsons for coming to a church with a "handful"
in the audience and "singing like it was to a huge crowd".
Don't get me wrong-I believe the worker is worthy of his hire, that there is
great gain in the "ministry" (my words) but, we must *first* learn to be
content with what we have. It seems some have yet to learn *that* lesson.
To go a step further, I feel an audience can "sense" if a performer(s) has a
*genuine* love and concern for them and will respond accordingly.
It feels good to vent sometimes,
RM
CJB
M. Elden Gaines <mega...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:7rln2s$42fq$1...@newssvr04-int.news.prodigy.com...
> concern for ministry and reaching the lost than ever before. SGM, from its
> inception was intended and practiced (if you will) to reach the lost and
> draw people to a closer relationship with the Lord. There was no thought
of
> "entertainment", or "making it big" then
I disagree I think. I can't help but think of the attitudes expressed by
the last generation. J.D. Sumner, as you well know, believed that SG should
be entertainment. I think that there is more of a ministry atmosphere now
than then. I think I've read similar comments in the Singing News in recent
years.
IMHO,
CJB
john roeder
However, in my area with the age averaging around 60 years old, you don't
jump to the teen and 20s crown. The logical step would be those in their 30s
and 40s.
While I do see teens at concerts and there are certainly fans of all ages,
teens and those in their early 20s make up a smaller percentage of the
listeners. I can understand the appeal of the better Contemporary groups
like Point of Grace, Jars of Clay, etc. to the younger folks.
I just believe that we must expand our appeal without leaving the roots of
the music.
John R
KJCSmith1 <kjcs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990914132332...@ng-co1.aol.com...
Hell...@aol.com
kjcs...@aol.com writes:
<< .my 10 year doesn't
listen to CCM either....he only likes SG.... >>
So do my 10 year old twins, Michelle and Michael!
John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hell...@aol.com
john....@nashville.com writes:
<< Question? Has Southern Gospel become too penticostal to reach the masses of
people in the non-religious world that need to be converted?
>>
This is a joke, right?
john roeder
<Hell...@aol.com> wrote in message news:41ba294....@aol.com...
> In a message dated 9/15/1999 12:54:34 AM Central Daylight Time,
> john....@nashville.com writes:
>
> << Question? Has Southern Gospel become too penticostal to reach the
masses of
> people in the non-religious world that need to be converted?
> >>
> This is a joke, right?
No. It is not a joke. I knew exactly what I intended to say but somehow it
did not come across the way I thought it would.
Let me give an example to try and clarify.
Picture a man (or woman but I will use "man" for the illustration) who is
not a Christian, doesn't think much about God or eternity and is not
interested in religion. This man gets invited to a concert and because of
being invited by a friend, he goes.
Scenario 1.
They go to the concert and listen to the music which is good quality and
carries a message about God and Jesus. During the concert, the singers make
everyone aware that they have a deep faith in this God they are singing
about. The man listens to the songs and leaves with the Seed planted in his
heart ready for the Spirit to make it grow.
Scenario 2.
They go to the concert and listen to the music which is good quality and
carries a message about God and Jesus. Same music. Then a ways into the
concert, the singers begin testifying and preaching and shouting and this is
picked up and reflected by the audience. In other words they are doing
things that would be fantastic in a penticostal church service. When this
begins to happen, the man looks around and the idea comes suddenly, "What is
going on? What have I got myself into? Are they going to come back here and
lay hands on me and try to convert me?" During the rest of the concert, he
is a little apprehensive and never able to get completely into the music.
When he leaves, he is not sure if he wants to ever get involved in anything
like this again.
When the Spirit leads a person to salvation, that person can choose the kind
of worship that best fits the newborn spark within him. My question was just
asking to make us think about if we can scare non-religious and unchurched
people away by bringing them into a charismatic experience before the word
has been planted and sprouted.
I have nothing at all against anyone expressing what they feel. If it is a
quiet reverence, fine. If it is a shouting expression, fine. We just need to
evaluate the audience, the hearers and taylor our approach, not the message,
in a way that they will be receptive.
After all our industry is Gospel. and Gospel was meant to convert the
unbeliever.
John R
A. G.
not get through. I have performed music of almost every different type
except rap ) including symphonic in both churches and in concert halls. It
seems to me that when we do well as musicians we do better serving the Lord.
I can't help remembering when the Cathedrals were on the Today show and
totally blew away the whole morning cast there. Did the Lord use that? I
don't know for sure but my guess is that He did.
I also think that the Lord can use the performances of people who are not
Christians for His work. Several years ago I was involved in the
performance of the Rachmaninoff Vespers with the Dallas Symphony Chorus.
It was an incredibly moving experience and most of the local Orthodox
priesthood was there. They were really Groovin on that music!! But!! A
great many of the musicians there were not Christian (many were) and some
were atheists.
The Lord used that performance for me. It was a worship experience that I
have continued to treasure.
Lastly as servants of Christ we must strive to give our best to the Lord. I
like SGM and don't think that it is dieing. I think that it is up to each
of us to do our best for the Lord and if it is his will then we will be
successful. However you define that.
john roeder <john....@nashville.com> wrote in message
news:rtsj7t...@corp.supernews.com...
Leslie Moore
Moore3 welcomes You.......
john roeder
into all this?
These praise songs which I classify as part of the contemporary scene, are
used for all parts of the services including the alter call.
Leslie Moore <moo...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8485-37E...@newsd-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> You wouldn`t hear a contemporary song sang for an altar call.
Doctor Lovable
dramatically over the past 10-15 years. There are a number of factors that
contribute to this and I'm not sure what the solution to the problem is.
Here are a couple of thoughts and ideas that I'd be curious to hear how many
of you disagree with. I'm sure most of you will!
1. The increase in the use of soundtracks, even among major groups, has
given the perception that S.G. is little more than "Christian Karaoke."
Combine this with the fact that there are so many groups singing that can't
sing very well and younger people have a real tendency to laugh at what is
going on up on stage like they were going to a Karaoke bar. Believe me ....
I've seen it happen! There are a lot of groups that if they had players
playing instruments as poorly as they sang, the instrumentalists would never
be good enough to play on stage! It's sad, but it never ceases to amaze me
how any idiot can grab a microphone and attempt to sing, and some other
idiot is sure to go up to them and tell them how great they are. But if a
player can't play as well as a soundtrack sounds he simply isn't good enough
to get up there.
Anyway, back to my point ......... historically, groups always used live
bands which usually consisted of players in their 20's (since they were the
only ones who would work for $125 /week!) When there are good players on
stage, it gives other younger musicians something to strive for and role
models within the industry, but when the door to the industry is slammed in
your face, most young musicians are just going to sit there and laugh at
"karaoke night at the church", find other places to play, and take their
audience with them. By seeing people on stage in their own peer group,
people in their teens and 20's were more likely to take an interest in what
was going on.
And this brings me to my next point which is ......
2. The Gaither Videos. I realize I am a minority of one on this point, but
none the less, I'll throw this thought out there for discussion. People
talk so much about the growth in S.G. because of these Gaither videos. I
would be curious to know where this "growth" is coming from? I wonder if
it's "growth" or if it's just people who have been on the fringe of S.G.
for 10-20 years getting more involved since they are retired now, and if
so, is this "growth"? Have the Gaither Videos turned S.G. into little more
than a "nostalgia act" and a "trip down memory lane"? This might be great
for those who have memories of the 60's & 70's, but for a younger crowd
isn't it kind of like turning on the "Lawrence Welk Show"? Because seniors
have more money and are more active than ever before, it's no wonder they
set attendance records at NQC and sales are up for some groups products.
Seniors want "entertainment" (oh no! .... there's that word again!)
somewhere and if they can get it in S.G. and from the Gaither videos that's
where they will spend that money.
The problem becomes that this largest portion of the S. G. audience just
wants to walk down memory lane and haven't got much interest in a new group
or somebody doing something different, unless it's marketed to them under
the Gaither umbrella, making it harder and harder for young blood to come
into the industry. I just often wonder where S. G. will be 10-15 years down
the road when all these people are gone?
These are just some thoughts........ not even "opinions" really .... just
thoughts! Anybody agree or disagree?
Doc
Doc
WReunion
1) Quality Singers
2) Quality Songs(lets sing another song about heaven again and again and again)
3)Southern Gospel Groups are made up of people who could not make it in country
music.
4) these people lack sincerity and there phonyness shows. There is little if
any ministry. How could there be.Its a way to make money for the record
companies, promoters, groups.
5)It lacks an intelligent audience. I watch the convention. All old gulible
people that think these artist are sincere. Its like wrestling.
6) Gaither is making millions he knows how to market
KJCSmith1
Kirk Talley, Squire Parsons, Ivan Parker, Kim Hopper, and many others are
quality singers.
>2) Quality Songs(lets sing another song about heaven again and again and
>again)
Sernanded by Angels, Shouting time, and many other are Qualtiy songs.
>3)Southern Gospel Groups are made up of people who could not make it in
>country
>music.
Let's see, Cathedrals, Blackwoods, Kingsmen, Goodmans, Gaithers, just to name
a few have never sang anything but gospel. So apparently you don't know the
history of these groups to be making a blanket statement like that.
>4) these people lack sincerity and there phonyness shows. There is little if
>any ministry
Sorry but wrong again......J.D. didn't lack sincerity, Rusty Goodmand, didn't,
George Younce and Glen Payne don't, Roger Bennett, Scott Fowler, Kirk Talley,
Ivan Parker, Anthony Burger, the Kingsman none of these lack sincerity.
Neither are any of these phonys. And yes they are ministries, but also these
guys only way to make a living.
>5)It lacks an intelligent audience.
Sorry wrong again!!!
>6) Gaither is making millions he knows how to market
>
Making millions???? I doubt it!!
Doctor Lovable
WReunion <wreu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990917153830...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> Southern Gospel lacks
>
> 1) Quality Singers
again)
country
> music.
if
> companies, promoters, groups.
> 5)It lacks an intelligent audience. I watch the convention. All old
gulible
> people that think these artist are sincere. Its like wrestling.
I will take exception to point # 3. Country music certainly doesn't hold
any patents on quality! IMHO, you could just as easily apply all of these
criticisms to 95% of the acts in country music too!
Doc
SoundInvst
Doctor Lovable <drlovable...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WhvE3.27608
>
> 1. The increase in the use of soundtracks, even among major groups, has
> given the perception that S.G. is little more than "Christian Karaoke."
Good one! Let me write this down.....
>
> would be curious to know where this "growth" is coming from? I wonder if
> it's "growth" or if it's just people who have been on the fringe of S.G.
From what I've seen at the retail level I'd have to agree with that. Some
people who are buying "Gaither videos" are not what I'd call true SG fans.
They're drawn by the "songs mama used to sing".
>
> The problem becomes that this largest portion of the S. G. audience just
> wants to walk down memory lane and haven't got much interest in a new
group
> or somebody doing something different, unless it's marketed to them under
> the Gaither umbrella,
And, the Gaither concert tours seem to be the only ones drawing the crowds
from the church. Folks will band together and jump on the church bus for a
two hour trip to the big city. You don't see that as much with the "annual
sings".
Maybe we should ask Bill (Gates or Gaither <g>) what the future of SG music
is.
RM
=Bob=
It seems that every genre of music has
been accused of being lower quality
than some other. The 12-tone composers
were considered outcasts by the classicists.
Blues was considered vulgar. Sometimes
referred to as "black" music. This, of course,
was at a time when the black american was
still suffering great civil inequality. Jazz and
be-bop suffered the same accusations as
did 50's and 60's rock. Of course, now they're
classic. My parents called it noise.
Saying someone in one style could not
make it in another reveals one of those
old grudges. The jazz guys weren't good
enough to play classical maybe. But
Benny Goodman was classically trained.
He wasn't the only one either. In fact, it
wasn't a rarity that someone could play
classical music and jazz and rock.
How do we discuss another person's
sincerety? I won't.
As far as audience goes, how do
you measure the intelligence of an
audience? I think you would need to
provide some statistics, (IQ, GPAs,
SAT scores, etc) before that could
be even discussed. Without which,
you are just making assumptions.
Is Gaither making millions? How do
you know? What if he is? Is that so
bad? If he does make millions, maybe
he does something with it to share with
others. I'd rather not assume.
I will agree that the record industry is
in place to make money, but so is
industry in general. That's why it's
called industry. So does that make it
wrong? Even a pastor needs to make
a living. Sure, some record companies
are not involved for the ministry, but
I think that's to be expected. So far,
I don't know of any majors that claim
they are non-profit.
I think SG has provided some of us
with great, heartfelt inspiration. Brought
us closer together and closer to God.
trite as that may be, sometimes, just
saying so is all we need to hear.
Have a great day!
=Bob=
Hell...@aol.com
john....@nashville.com writes:
<< After all our industry is Gospel. and Gospel was meant to convert the
unbeliever. >>
John,
I understand what you are saying. But, I have seen people get saved in a
concert where the people and congregation were acting "penticostal"! If the
artist is not ina pentiscostal church, perhaps they should be a little more
cautious. I believe most artists are. I have seen the McGruders in a
penticostal church and man do they ever more praise the Lord! I LOVE IT!
But, I have also seen them in a concert arena. While they still "hoop" it up
a little, they are a tiny bit more reserved. I would think that seeing
"Christians" acting like they enjoy their salvation would make an unsaved
person to want some of this salvation!
I am not a fair one to talk on this point. I am penticostal and am happy
about it. I won't respond anymore on this subject! I enjoy and love those
singers who stand and don't move an inch the whole concert as much as I love
those who cover every inch of the stage.
I hope I did not offend anyone on this subject. It is an easy subject to
offend someone. If I did, I appologize.
thanx!
John
Leslie Moore
CJB
> 1. The increase in the use of soundtracks, even among major groups, has
> given the perception that S.G. is little more than "Christian Karaoke."
ABSOLUTELY NAILED IT! Listen, I know that I'm setting myself up for pot
shots again, but I've worked extensively in the electronic media in various
stages, and am sure that Dr. Luv is absolutely right!
>
> Anyway, back to my point ......... historically, groups always used live
> bands which usually consisted of players in their 20's (since they were
the
> only ones who would work for $125 /week!) When there are good players on
> stage, it gives other younger musicians something to strive for and role
> models within the industry, but when the door to the industry is slammed
in
> your face, most young musicians are just going to sit there and laugh at
> "karaoke night at the church", find other places to play, and take their
> audience with them. By seeing people on stage in their own peer group,
> people in their teens and 20's were more likely to take an interest in
what
> was going on.
>
> And this brings me to my next point which is ......
>
> 2. The Gaither Videos. I realize I am a minority of one on this point,
but
> none the less, I'll throw this thought out there for discussion. This
might be great
> for those who have memories of the 60's & 70's, but for a younger crowd
> isn't it kind of like turning on the "Lawrence Welk Show
BINGO! I'm a collector of those old albums and those old groups, so I do
like the nostalgia and learn from it. But take the average individual, and
they're wondering what the big deal is about a bunch of old, worn out voices
from old timers with the wrinkles of a pachyderm (and some with bodies to
match!) Additionally, Bill Gaither is not fair, IMHO. He had the McKameys
a while back sing "God on the Mountain," their biggest song ever, and
recorded it. It's definitely their trademark, right. Guess what. Because
he didn't like their hillbilly twang, he didn't put it on the final release
of the video. Instead, on a video or two later, he records Lilly Fern
Weatherford singing it because he likes Lilly Fern. Now, I like Lilly Fern,
but that's a McKameys song! S.G. people loved the McKamey's doing it,
obviously. But it didn't suit Bill and that's a shame.
As to the question posed elsewhere in this newsgroup, Bill Gaither IS making
millions! I've got it from inside. He's grossing tens of millions
annually. By the way, did you know that he doesn't pay royalties to the
singers. Many groups have traveled to Indiana, signed the release that
gives all rights to Bill, and sung on the video with NO reimbursement...not
even the travel expense. Now I can understand why some would do it. The
exposure he's given some has re-started a few careers. People like Jake,
Howard and Vestal, Hovie, etc. didn't even have a bus anymore. Don't
believe me? Just check Jake's Bio. However, when a man is grossing between
30 and 40 million, he could afford to spread the wealth just a tad, don't
you think?
If Bill wanted to do something for Southern Gospel, he could. If you'll
think about it, the newer artists he features are more M.O.R. to CCM than
anything else. If they're not, he converts them. Does anyone remember the
pre-Gaither Martins? Not the same sound of today. Now, I think they've got
a good sound, but it's a stretch to call it SG. How about the folks on his
"Band." Any SG folks? Not really. You could argue that he had Michael
English, but I could also point out that Michael had "adjusted" his style
beyond the scope of SG before Bill came knocking. What about those
revolving tenors. They're good, I'll agree, but none have had a true SG
background, and none have left to sing SG elsewhere. Are you seeing a
pattern? I'm not saying Bill's a bad man, but he's not really promoting SG
IMHO. He's using SG nostalgia, attaching CCM folks and sound, and packaging
it to a broad spectrum of people.
The same thing appears to be happening in country music. The "Shania
Twain's" have definitely replaced the "George Jones'" in that industry.
Folks are having a hard time classifying some of the country acts, because
many have tried to hide under the country tent while not truly staying
country.
I'm not saying that any of the gospel music in question is bad, but why
can't we call things as they are. SG has historically been Male Quartets
and a few mixed family groups. It has been piano, bass, steel, rhythm, and
drums. It hasn't been oboes, clarinets, trombones and tubas. It's been
ballads, recitations, and singing convention songs. It hasn't been praise
and worship. I enjoy all of it, but why must we redefine things to suit
those who wish to be called by the name SG? Some of it flatly isn't
Southern Gospel.
Lastly, there has been such a glut of new groups lately that the talent pool
has been watered down I think. My "Golden Ears" (a radio/recording
engineering term) do hear off pitch tones, off rhythm playing, and
asynchronous singing -- even out of folks that have been voted awards! My
opinion is that, while some people may not be able to tell you why something
sounds bad, they pick up on it subconsciously. Clean, four-part harmony
will always have a market. However, the industry doesn't currently have a
late 80's-early 90's Gold City, or a 1980's Cathedrals. We don't have a
60's Goodmans or a 70's Hinsons or Inspirations. Now, these things can be
developed. The early Gold City stuff pales when compared to the early 90's
GC. The 70's Cathedrals were sometimes bordering on boring, but not the
Cats with Funderburke or Talley.
Sometimes good groups grow complacent, sometimes personnel changes take away
from a group while there settling into their new sound, but with some hard
work and TLC, we'll see more "Supergroups," and they always bring a new wave
of listeners.
(I)n (M)y (H)humble (O)pinion,
CJB
CJB
john roeder
WReunion <wreu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990917153830...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> Southern Gospel lacks
> 1) Quality Singers
> 2) Quality Songs(lets sing another song about heaven again and again and
again)
Do we want to get into songs in this thread or start another new post?
Well here goes anyway.
I believe that many of the Southern Gospel songs that are are recorded and
that make the charts are of very very poor quality. I mean poor quality from
the song crafting side.
We in Southern Gospel tend to accept a song with Biblical or religious
content as good when it is poorly written. Our criteria should certainly
include the content but it is shortchanging the industry to accept crap as
long as it is religious.
When we found our keyboard player, he turned out to be a writer. He
introduced me to NSAI (Nashville Songwriters Association International)
which I joined. From joining NSAI I began to study and network with some
other writers. Believe me, I learned a lot about what was wrong with what I
was writing. Most of the songs we are singing now have been rewritten and
they are much stronger now. There are valid reasons for some of the rules in
the songwriting craft. For example, a bridge in a song serves a purpose. I
had never written a bridge into a song.
One school of thought among accomplished song writers is that a song will
not reach its potential until it has been rewritten at least seven times. I
have one ready to put in our performances that I believe I have revised nine
times.
Much of what I hear as "good Southern Gospel songs" sound like first drafts.
They are awkward, the melody, thoughts and music just doesn't flow right. As
to most of the lyrics, the ideas, while sound enough from the religious
standpoint, could stand rewrites to make them stronger and more concise.
We are very sloppy in what we produce and what we are willing to accept.
One of the things that we will have to do to expand our audience is to
produce a higher quality product. One way to do that is to accept what has
been learned in larger and more successful types of music such as country or
pop.
John R
Doctor Lovable
CJB <BELLE...@inetone.net> wrote in message
news:ru644l...@corp.supernews.com...
> As to the question posed elsewhere in this newsgroup, Bill Gaither IS
making
> millions! I've got it from inside. He's grossing tens of millions
> annually. By the way, did you know that he doesn't pay royalties to the
> 30 and 40 million, he could afford to spread the wealth just a tad, don't
> you think?
I had heard in the early days of the homecoming videos, that Mr. Gaither had
set up some kind of "trust fund" for gospel music oldtimers who needed some
financial help and that the people who appeared on the videos did it for
free because all of the profits from the videos went directly to this trust
fund. I'm assuming that you're telling me I was misinformed? Does anyone
know anything about this "trust fund" and who is being helped by it, if
indeed it does exist?
Doc
David Murray (SG Fan)
john roeder wrote in message ...
>
>WReunion <wreu...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19990917153830...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
>> Southern Gospel lacks
>
>> 1) Quality Singers
>> 2) Quality Songs(lets sing another song about heaven again and again and
>again)
>I believe that many of the Southern Gospel songs that are are recorded and
>that make the charts are of very very poor quality. I mean poor quality
from
>the song crafting side.
On the other hand, some are crafted very well, yet have poor theology. I
won't name a group, but I've heard two groups already perform the same song,
which is fairly new., I think. It's hook is "We can't have church 'til the
Holy Ghost shows up."
Another tune, "My Name Is Lazarus" has good theology, I guess, but the idea
that a man who had been healed of blindness or would scoff at Jesus' ability
to heal a cripple is a bit of stretch.
>We in Southern Gospel tend to accept a song with Biblical or religious
>content as good when it is poorly written. Our criteria should certainly
>include the content but it is shortchanging the industry to accept crap as
>long as it is religious.
I agree. The better songwriters endure, though. It's that way in any style
of music.
>For example, a bridge in a song serves a purpose. I
>had never written a bridge into a song.
My understanding of bridge writing stems from the chorus. I think a chorus
should state the purpose of the song and under most circumstances include
the title. A chorus should contain the simplest language of the song. A
bridge, however, should lyrically provide a twist. It can restate the chorus
subject matter with different words, but should build in intensity near the
end, leading back to the chorus. In most cases, it should be shorter than
the chorus, usually half as long. It might be concluded with a key change to
heighten the transition back to the chorus.
The verses of the songs I write tell the story itself, and typically contain
the more complex language. If I think a song needs a bridge, I'll usually
follow the structure:
Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Bridge - Chorus - Tag
Here's a lyric I wrote a few years ago using this concept:
"He's The One Who Knows Me Best (And Yet He Loves Me)"
VERSE:
If you really knew me,
You wouldn't really love me.
For my inner mind has unappealing tragedies of thought.
But God knows me completely,
My deep and darkest secrets.
He's the one who knows me best, and yet He loves me.
CHORUS:
How can it be?
How can He love me
When I fail so many times to do what's right.
He gave me life
When I should have died.
I may never understand.
I'm such an undeserving man
He's the one who knows me best, and yet He loves me.
VERSE:
If I really know Him,
Then I will really love Him.
For He gave His Son as sacrifice to pay for all my sin.
The King of all creation
Has died for my salvation.
I will never understand just why He loves me.
REPEAT CHORUS:
BRIDGE:
I've never known such grace.
I've never seen such grace.
Christ broke the chains of sin that held my death in place.
I've never known such grace.
I've never seen such grace.
I've never lived in such grace.
REPEAT CHORUS:
TAG:
He knows me best, and yet He loves me.
He knows me best, but He loves me.
He knows me best, but He loves me.
I invite your critiques, even if they're negative. I have a pretty thick
skin about stuff like that.
The recording is available for purchase at
http://www.rfci.net/dbmurray/ssq.html or at http://mp3.com/ssq
David Murray / dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net
http://rfci.net/dbmurray
http://www.musicscribe.com
Making hay while the sun shines.
john roeder
you can be elected to public office. If you have enough money you can hire a
band and become a Southern Gospel singer or group.
We are just getting started. We make NO money from our singing. Everything
that we are paid from an engagement goes into either the equipment or
upgrading our music. Our keyboard player does get gas money occasionally
when we are several miles from home, otherwise he also gets paid nothing.
Yet, you say that unless we hire a band, we are a farce. What is everyone
supposed to do, get a second mortgage on the house? UNtil we are better
known, we cannot earn enough when we sing to pay anyone. We are in the $50
to $150 per performance phase of our effort. If anyone has ever been there
without a sugar daddy, you know what I mean.
Sure I would love to have a seven piece band, and lights, and a 16 wheeler
to carry everything in and a stage crew to set everything up. Get real.
Until a group has reached a certain level, a live band is a dream.
John R
SoundInvst <Sound...@panola.com> wrote in message
news:ru5b0q...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Doctor Lovable <drlovable...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:WhvE3.27608
> >
> > 1. The increase in the use of soundtracks, even among major groups, has
> > given the perception that S.G. is little more than "Christian Karaoke."
>
David Murray (SG Fan)
john roeder wrote in message ...
Actually, he said that you needed to HAVE a band, not hire one. I don't
necessarily agree with him since I'm in a similar situation as you.
However, if you WANT the hassle of a band, you can probably get one. You've
already got a keyboardist who'll work for nothing. If we wanted a bass
player, I can think of three or four off the top of my head who'd probably
say yes immediately. Ditto for a drummer, etc. We just don't want the setup
and mixing hassles of a live band. With five guys onstage at the amatuer
level, we don't really need it, as long as the five of us keep the audience
interested. However, when I see an extremely popular trio singing with tapes
because they can't "afford" a band, and then the Crabb family comes onstage
with 10 or 12 people, I start to wonder if they aren't just getting a little
greedy with the cash flow.
>What is everyone
>supposed to do, get a second mortgage on the house? UNtil we are better
>known, we cannot earn enough when we sing to pay anyone. We are in the $50
>to $150 per performance phase of our effort. If anyone has ever been there
>without a sugar daddy, you know what I mean.
I know exactly what you mean!
>Sure I would love to have a seven piece band, and lights, and a 16 wheeler
>to carry everything in and a stage crew to set everything up. Get real.
>Until a group has reached a certain level, a live band is a dream.
Again. Not really, if that's what you want. I've played in two different
local groups with full bands. None of us were paid. We did a few events with
a light show. The lights were home made and the operators weren't paid. It
can't be done at the level of the big guys, maybe, but it can be done at an
acceptable level if that's what you really want to do.
john roeder
don't think that you will mind a public response.
I do not claim to be an expert. There are many good books and resources on
writing. I have picked up a few pointers that I will be willing to share.
(Although I have not been involved in this group long, as you have guessed
from my posts, I do have opinions about most things. As a former teacher, I
am not shy about letting them be known. Having taught 8th grade for many
years, it would take a lot to upset me.)
David Murray (SG Fan) <dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net> wrote in message
news:O5HE3.7114$d71.2...@news4.giganews.com...
> The verses of the songs I write tell the story itself, and typically
contain
> the more complex language. If I think a song needs a bridge, I'll usually
> follow the structure:
> Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Bridge - Chorus - Tag
This is one of the standard forms.
The other form is Verse - Verse - Bridge - Verse
95 to 98 percent of the published songs in venues outside Southern Gospel
will follow one of these forms.
In Southern Gospel, we still cling to the Church Music or Hymn form of
Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Verse -
Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus - Verse - Chorus
sometimes on and on.
Of course in my brotherhood, we only sing the first, second and last verses.
:-)
It is difficult to evaluate without the music so that the meter and feel of
the song can be superimposed on the words.
However..........
There are two things that you should look at closely. In other words, I
would do a rewrite.
Look at Verse One
Point one:
There are very few songs, not never but close to it, that have any success
without a rhyme scheme. Sorry but I cannot tell what rhymes.
> If you really knew me,
> You wouldn't really love me.
> For my inner mind has unappealing tragedies of thought. (This is a natural
termination point)
> But God knows me completely,
> My deep and darkest secrets.
> He's the one who knows me best, and yet He loves me. (The ear is expecting
a rhyme with "thought" to complete the form)
Basically the same thing applies to the chorus. There is no rhyme scheme but
the ear expects one.
On the Tag, I would knock off the second:
> He knows me best, but He loves me.
It is not needed and makes the Tag a little long.
Point two:
A word cannot rhyme with itself.
Aside: Rhymes can be trickey. There are perfect rhymes, near rhymes and
rhymes on an interior syllable of the ending word.
An interesting rhyme is from "King Of The Road" by Roger Miller . I leave
you with this.
Roses are red
Violets are purple
Sugar is sweet
And so is maple syruple
John R
CJB
posted song. Noting your skills, I have a question for you (this DOES NOT
pertain to the song you critiqued). Do you think there is a major problem
with English grammar in SG songwriting?
Here's my opinion: YES! I don't have a Master's Degree in English, but I
have taught it. I find an appalling number of very common grammatical
errors in SG songs. Many have never been caught and corrected. For my
first example, I'll site a very highly respected, awarded writer and his
second most popular song ever: Squire Parsons and "The Broken Rose." In
the end of the first verse he says "...far more sweeter the fragrance of the
Broken Rose." Now, he could have said "far sweeter" and added the half beat
to the word "for." He could have said "far more sweet is..." which would
keep his rhythm, though that's not quite as grammatically correct since the
word "sweet" is monosyllabic. Instead he made a glaring, yet simple,
grammatical error. This isn't an isolated incident in SG songwriting, as
you well know.
Another major problem is one of rhyme and meter. Music is nothing without
time (the right note at the wrong time is the wrong note). Similarly, prose
isn't usually fit to be used as music lyrics because of a lack of rhyme and
meter. A poem is much like a song without music, and my opinion matches
with yours -- "a song ain't much except'n its got rhyme." (poetic license
applied liberally :-) Incidentally, it seems to me that the more poetic
elements incorporated in a song, the more "catchy" it is. People don't even
realize that most of those old Kenny and Ronny Hinson songs are chock full
of simile, metaphor, alliteration, couplet, repetition, etc. However, they
do notice subconsciously.
IMHO,
CJB
john roeder <john....@nashville.com> wrote in message
news:ru7rfj...@corp.supernews.com...
WReunion
Claude Hopper, Les Beasley, Cecil Blackwood, Ed Enock - I suppose these are
real quality - should I name more.
JD - Was in it for the money.
All these groups want to do is out do each other.
Ministers - none of these people are in one place long enough to disiple
anyone.
WReunion
john roeder
> Kirk Talley quality singer - I doubt it
> Claude Hopper, Les Beasley, Cecil Blackwood, Ed Enock - I suppose these
are
> real quality - should I name more.
Quality? Quality? Please define quality.
Is quality meeting some criteria that might come from a national school of
music and fine arts?
Is quality being recognized by one's peers and fans? i.e. Frank Sanatra
Is quality being idolized by the critics? i.e. Caruso
Is quality being recognized as a master of the craft within your chosen
field? i.e. George Jones
Could it be that a singer who is "quality" in one genre would not be quality
in another?
John R
john roeder
> Dear Mr. Roeder, I agree wholeheartedly with every comment made about the
> posted song. Noting your skills, I have a question for you (this DOES NOT
> pertain to the song you critiqued). Do you think there is a major problem
> with English grammar in SG songwriting?
This is a hard one. What about Bluegrass, not Bluegrass Gospel, just
Bluegrass. In one way, whether we like it or not, Southern Gospel is a
regional music and incorporates a southern or mountain dialect. This is only
bad when it gets to the point that it turns people off or makes people
sterotype and poke fun. (Many people believe that everyone here in Nashville
wears a cowboy hat and has a guitar on their back.)
There are some very uneducated people in Southern Gospel who murder the
language. I see the problem here as being with the managers and ones who
handle the group or individual. They should have them working with voice
coaches and others who can improve the level and quality of communication
skills. But......this costs money. Milk your cow until she dies, then find
another one.
No. I don't think there is a major problem with language. I think that there
is a major problem with the writing in Southern Gospel. As I posted
elsewhere, I am convinced that many of the songs published in Southern
Gospel are first drafts. When a song is written, the first thing put down on
paper or on a tape recorder is not the finished product. It is a FIRST draft
with many to follow. At one time, I would not have agreed with this. As I
have become able to criticize my own work and as time passes since a song
was written, I can see it in a different perspective. When I look back at my
first drafts, I can see the errors very plainly. A publisher should pick
this up and make the writer polish the song. (See the reference to cow
above. It applies here.)
Rewrites will take care of any language and grammer problems.
As to grammer, song writing is very different from any other kind of
writing. Reasonable grammer should be used but in order to make the lyrics
work, poetic liscense has to be invoked many times. The only criteria is,
"Does it work?" Our standards may be lower than some other genres but I am
not sure about that. Have you listened to any Rap lately?
As to the Mr. Roeder, unless you are one of my students and I no longer
teach, I am John or John R to differentiate me from the other John.
Please excuse the spelling errors that may creep into my typing. Having
taught 7th and 8th grade Art for many years I had some questions about my
spelling. These kids will ask a teacher anything. The question usually went,
"Mr. Roeder, how did you get through college if you couldn't spell?"
My answer was. "If you can draw, you don't have to know how to spell."
Their reply was usually. "Oh."
Of course there are times that I firmly believe that the keys on my keyboard
rearrange themselves just to confuse me. :-)
John R
john roeder
> However, when I see an extremely popular trio singing with tapes
> because they can't "afford" a band, and then the Crabb family comes
onstage
> with 10 or 12 people, I start to wonder if they aren't just getting a
little
> greedy with the cash flow.
It sure does help to have a large family and lots of kids. :-)
John R
KJCSmith1
Wrong!!!!
KJCSmith1
You remarks are only made because if seems you want to stir up people and cause
problems.
David Murray (SG Fan)
WReunion wrote in message <19990918222900...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
>these guys can't even stay in tune
>Let's start with that as a first for quality.
What guys are you talking about?
john roeder
header.
I forward the entire post.
John R
Doctor Lovable <drlovable...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1RWE3.29237$yX6.3...@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com...
>
> David Murray (SG Fan) <dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net> wrote in message
> news:W4SE3.2074$%4.5...@news6.giganews.com...
> >
> > john roeder wrote in message ...
> > >Yet, you say that unless we hire a band, we are a farce.
> >
> > Actually, he said that you needed to HAVE a band, not hire one. I don't
> > necessarily agree with him since I'm in a similar situation as you.
Gerald Crabb and his wife can have a band. (children) I would have to hire
one.
Sorry about that. That was my intrepretation of what was said. I believe the
word was karaoke. Isn't accusing performers of being nothing more than
karaoke singers the same as saying they are a farce. Isn't karaoke all about
being fake performers. Karaoke singers reherse long hours, make arrangements
of the music and book gigs? I think not.
> Well here we go again ..... somebody saying somebody else said something
> when in fact they didn't! Please show me where I said that unless you
hire
> a band you are a farce??????? I did NOT say you were a farce, and I
> specifically said, these were "thoughts for discussion" not opinions, so
> therefore you can't disagree with me. (hehehehee ) :=)) Just as a point
> of reference, the mixed quartet that I sing with uses soundtracks, so I'm
> not necessarily practicing what I'm preaching! But, since I started in S.
G.
> as a bass player, and probably wouldn't be involved in it today if I
hadn't
> been a bass player, this issue is a bit perplexing to me and I'd be
> interested in some honest sincere discussion of this points. Please, no
> "knee-jerk" reactions!
Be honest, why do you use soundtracks?
> The question on the table was the future of S.G. and how to win back a
> younger or more mainstream audience that has gone to listen to other types
> of music.
This is a statement of a belief that I also am not practicing at the moment.
In order to attract the audience that I ould like for us to reach, the
lyrics must be personal and attune to real life situations and emotions more
on the order of many Contemporary Christian lyrics. The harmony has to be
southern gospel and/or quartet harmony. The quality of the music and
recording must be to the standards of modern country. Add to this agressive
promotion some staging, any kind of staging that does not involve potted
ferns, decent lighting and performance effects and we will be on our way.
We, GloryLand, are not doing all of this. Many of my songs are pure Southern
Gospel. Why? I believe that we must establish ourselves in the genre before
stretching the envelope. In other words we have to have a fan base of
support.
> Example 1 -- I was at the fair 2 nights ago and there was a young woman,
of
> modest vocal ability, singing her country songs and I'm sure trying to get
> some exposure to further her career. She was up there with a drummer,
bass
> player and guitarist and the players were also singing backup. The fair
was
> obviously paying her to be there and there was a big banner up with her
name
> on it and to the average person at the fair, she looked like a legitimate
> music act. Across the fair there was a karaoke tent set up with people of
> equal or better vocal ability up there making fools of themselves. Nobody
> knew who they were and nobody cared because they obviously weren't serious
> about what they were doing. My question then becomes, to a mainstream
> audience, aged 15-40, which of the above does a typical S.G. group using
> soundtracks most closely resemble?
Who was backing her? Who paid her fees? Was she full time? Was she being
supported by a working husband, boy friend, lover? Did she have a sugar
daddy? A rich relative? Unless she had money or contacts, or a contract with
a promoter and/or label, the fair would not have hired her and paid enough
for the trimmings.
Even J.D and the Stamps used a soundtrack along with the keyboard. J.D.
wasn't hurting for money enough that he could not have added the other two
holy insturments. (drums and bass guitar)
> Example 2 -- There was an artical in our newspaper a couple of years ago
> about the local country music station and what they would need to have to
> play local country groups on the radio station. The program director's
> first requirement was that the group must have a cd. He said the cd lends
a
> certain air of "credibility" and "legitimacy" to the artist. He said,
> anybody can go out and run off a cassette for very little money, and some
> don't sound that bad. But when an artist does a cd it shows a commitment
to
> your work and that you will be around for awhile. Is it too big a jump to
> take this same thought to a group using tracks as opposed to having a
band?
> Now, I could go out tonight and buy a couple of soundtracks, make a couple
> of phone calls and have a "group" together to sing at church tomorrow
> morning. But how "legitimate" is that? How unlike karaoke is that? If
we
> get a band (or even a piano and bass player), it looks like we've invested
> some time in this. Somebody's had to sit down and work out our own
> arrangements and hopefully not do the songs "just like somebody else."
Our
> group now has it's own flavor and to the average listener, it looks like
> we've put some time and effort into putting this thing together, not like
> we've just gotten up there like some "karaoke" act.
I suppose that this does not apply to me. If anyone has been reading my
posts, they know that we do original songs. You can't go out and buy
commercial sound tracks for those songs. We work out the arrangements
ourselves and have the tapes made. We could have them burned on a
performance CD but have decided to wait until we can hire a quality studio
and enough musicians to get a sound that will be good enough to use on our
first fullblown CD.
> Another question is, what has changed in the past 15-20 years? David, you
> said "With five guys onstage at the amatuer level, we don't really need
it."
> 15 -20 years ago, YOU DID NEED IT! Nobody in S. G. would accept a group
at
> ANY level that wasn't travelling with live musicians. If your quartet was
5
> guys and a piano player, then that's what you performed with. The concept
> of using a soundtrack to "fill out the sound" would be "cheating"! People
> were coming to see a live performance so you gave them a LIVE performance!
> The Cathedrals, for example, sang with piano and bass player and never
used
> a track. If a group sang with just piano or piano and bass nobody
> questioned it ..... the sound was filled out with a big vocal sound.
John,
> I can assure you that you are not the first group to sing for $50 to $100.
I believe that I said that we were still at this stage, not that we were the
first ones to suffer this way if suffer is the right word. I also know that
we are in a development stage. I don't expect anyone to give us anything. We
have to earn it. We are paying our dues right now and there is nothing wrong
with that. If you believe in the work of the Spirit (there he goes on
religion), then if God wants to use us, things will happen. If not, we will
have had some fun along the way.
> Groups were singing for this 20 years ago (when $50 was still worth $50!!)
> and they still used live instruments exclusively, so the argument about
"not
> being able to afford it" just doesn't cut it! Why is the S.G. audience
the
> only audience that will accept a "live" performance where the music isn't
> "live"?
I am open to all suggestions. If someone will tell me where we can get a
free band in Nashville to play with us, I will be happy to call them. I
ain't shy. :-)
Another point that needs to be made. Most, my guess is around 99 percent, of
beginning performers play their own accompaniment. This is usually the
guitar although it may be the keyboard. Southern Gospel singers do not
usually play an instrument when they perform. I personally do not like one
menber of a group playing while they try to sing. It takes a rare talent
like the Pfeifers to do this. Please factor this into your considerations.
> I know of 2 married couples who sing with tracks and put a 3rd vocal part
on
> the track. Most other groups are appalled at this. They can't believe
any
> "legitimate" (there's that word again!) group could be allowed to put a
> vocal part on the tape! "That's ridiculous! That's ludicrous! You can't
> do that!" Well ..... unfortunately, nobody in their audience questions it
> or seems to care! Why not? Why are other singers so upset that they
would
> put a vocal part on tape, but to work with instruments on tape is
perfectly
> fine?
I know that Jim Hammel uses voices and music on the tapes he plays when
doing solo songs when he still appears with the Kingsmen. I am not sure who
else that are considered top level uses this combo.
Does anyone want to start a new post on the pros and cons of being a cover
group vs singing original compositions. Using the same arguement as above, I
could say that a group with a live band who only does songs that others have
recorded is nothing more than a live jukebox.
Jukebox, Jukebox, Jukebox, Jukebox, Jukebox, Jukebox. See I can do it too
!!!!!
Anyone else want to argue.
Seriously. If we stick to IDEAS rather than getting lost in semantics, it
might be a more profitable discussion.
It might also be a lot more dull.
John R
john roeder
> these guys can't even stay in tune
> Let's start with that as a first for quality.
Who can't stay in a tune? Are you talking about Sanatra or Caruso or Jones?
Caruso was perhaps the greatest opra singer who ever lived. Duh.......
Frank Sanatra couldn't keep a tune?
Who do you believe can stay in tune? If it involves a Rap Daddy bug off and
find another group.
Let's see your list.
Come on post it.
John R
Don Scott
>
>An interesting rhyme is from "King Of The Road" by Roger Miller . I leave
>you with this.
>
>Roses are red
>Violets are purple
>Sugar is sweet
>And so is maple syruple
>
>John R
>
Actually, the above is from "Dang Me" :-) and it is one of my favorite
rhymes.
Don
Doctor Lovable
David Murray (SG Fan) <dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net> wrote in message
news:W4SE3.2074$%4.5...@news6.giganews.com...
>
> john roeder wrote in message ...
> >Yet, you say that unless we hire a band, we are a farce.
>
> Actually, he said that you needed to HAVE a band, not hire one. I don't
> necessarily agree with him since I'm in a similar situation as you.
>
Well here we go again ..... somebody saying somebody else said something
when in fact they didn't! Please show me where I said that unless you hire
a band you are a farce??????? I did NOT say you were a farce, and I
specifically said, these were "thoughts for discussion" not opinions, so
therefore you can't disagree with me. (hehehehee ) :=)) Just as a point
of reference, the mixed quartet that I sing with uses soundtracks, so I'm
not necessarily practicing what I'm preaching! But, since I started in S. G.
as a bass player, and probably wouldn't be involved in it today if I hadn't
been a bass player, this issue is a bit perplexing to me and I'd be
interested in some honest sincere discussion of this points. Please, no
"knee-jerk" reactions!
The question on the table was the future of S.G. and how to win back a
younger or more mainstream audience that has gone to listen to other types
of music.
Example 1 -- I was at the fair 2 nights ago and there was a young woman, of
modest vocal ability, singing her country songs and I'm sure trying to get
some exposure to further her career. She was up there with a drummer, bass
player and guitarist and the players were also singing backup. The fair was
obviously paying her to be there and there was a big banner up with her name
on it and to the average person at the fair, she looked like a legitimate
music act. Across the fair there was a karaoke tent set up with people of
equal or better vocal ability up there making fools of themselves. Nobody
knew who they were and nobody cared because they obviously weren't serious
about what they were doing. My question then becomes, to a mainstream
audience, aged 15-40, which of the above does a typical S.G. group using
soundtracks most closely resemble?
Example 2 -- There was an artical in our newspaper a couple of years ago
about the local country music station and what they would need to have to
play local country groups on the radio station. The program director's
first requirement was that the group must have a cd. He said the cd lends a
certain air of "credibility" and "legitimacy" to the artist. He said,
anybody can go out and run off a cassette for very little money, and some
don't sound that bad. But when an artist does a cd it shows a commitment to
your work and that you will be around for awhile. Is it too big a jump to
take this same thought to a group using tracks as opposed to having a band?
Now, I could go out tonight and buy a couple of soundtracks, make a couple
of phone calls and have a "group" together to sing at church tomorrow
morning. But how "legitimate" is that? How unlike karaoke is that? If we
get a band (or even a piano and bass player), it looks like we've invested
some time in this. Somebody's had to sit down and work out our own
arrangements and hopefully not do the songs "just like somebody else." Our
group now has it's own flavor and to the average listener, it looks like
we've put some time and effort into putting this thing together, not like
we've just gotten up there like some "karaoke" act.
Another question is, what has changed in the past 15-20 years? David, you
said "With five guys onstage at the amatuer level, we don't really need it."
15 -20 years ago, YOU DID NEED IT! Nobody in S. G. would accept a group at
ANY level that wasn't travelling with live musicians. If your quartet was 5
guys and a piano player, then that's what you performed with. The concept
of using a soundtrack to "fill out the sound" would be "cheating"! People
were coming to see a live performance so you gave them a LIVE performance!
The Cathedrals, for example, sang with piano and bass player and never used
a track. If a group sang with just piano or piano and bass nobody
questioned it ..... the sound was filled out with a big vocal sound. John,
I can assure you that you are not the first group to sing for $50 to $100.
Groups were singing for this 20 years ago (when $50 was still worth $50!!)
and they still used live instruments exclusively, so the argument about "not
being able to afford it" just doesn't cut it! Why is the S.G. audience the
only audience that will accept a "live" performance where the music isn't
"live"?
I know of 2 married couples who sing with tracks and put a 3rd vocal part on
the track. Most other groups are appalled at this. They can't believe any
"legitimate" (there's that word again!) group could be allowed to put a
vocal part on the tape! "That's ridiculous! That's ludicrous! You can't
do that!" Well ..... unfortunately, nobody in their audience questions it
or seems to care! Why not? Why are other singers so upset that they would
put a vocal part on tape, but to work with instruments on tape is perfectly
fine?
As you can tell, I could go on this topic for some time, but I'll quit for
now.
Anybody care to jump in the shark pool with me?
Doc
WReunion
Doctor Lovable
> Anyone else want to argue.
>
> Seriously. If we stick to IDEAS rather than getting lost in semantics, it
> might be a more profitable discussion.
>
Sorry John, I don't want to argue and I'm not going to bite at getting into
a fight with you. However, I am curious about a couple of things.
First of all, what is your obsession with HIRING a band? I've played bass
with various groups for 23 years and I have NEVER been HIRED! I've been a
part of the group! I've shared in the successes and failures, pitched in
and done anything I've needed to do to help the GROUP and was (usually)
treated as part of the group. What is wrong with this? Why do you have to
HIRE a band and treat them like underlings to use as your "employees" (which
is implied in "hiring" someone)?
Secondly, although you may not agree with "The question on the table was
the future of S.G. and how to win back a
younger or more mainstream audience that has gone to listen to other types
of music," that WAS the question on the table when I posted my original
THEORY. I did not intend this to be a specific criticism of a specific
group or groups in general, as you can tell by the fact that our group uses
soundtracks. I'm very sorry if you took offense! However, amidst all of
your replies, I have yet to see you post anything that would refute this
THEORY. You told us lots about your group and about how J.D and Jim Hamill
use tracks, but does that make using tracks LOOK any less "minor league" to
a mainstream audience? Does the fact that "everybody does it" make it
right? You haven't said anything that would answer my question of "what has
changed in the past 15-20 years that have made tracks so acceptable," and
"why is the S.G. audience the only audience that will accept a LIVE
performance not being LIVE?"
As for your thoughts about groups not using original material, I think you
have a valid point to a certain extent. I believe songwriting is part gift
and part learned skill, but just because someone has that gift and skill,
doesn't mean they will be a great performer or communicator or "minister".
You will notice in almost all forms of music, lots of the big names don't
write their own material. Somebody like Frank Sinatra for example was a
natural performer, but to my knowledge, he didn't write anything he sang.
Even in the S.G. world most of the big names like the Cathedrals, Kingsmen,
Gold City write very little, if any, of their own material. By extension,
are you saying that only songwriters can make it to the top? Are all of
these groups just jukeboxes?
Doc
David Murray (SG Fan)
john roeder wrote in message ...
>Doctor Lovable <drlovable...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1RWE3.29237$yX6.3...@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com...
>>
>> David Murray (SG Fan) <dbmu...@deletethis.rfci.net> wrote in message
>> news:W4SE3.2074$%4.5...@news6.giganews.com...
>> >
>> > john roeder wrote in message ...
>> > >Yet, you say that unless we hire a band, we are a farce.
>> >
>> > Actually, he said that you needed to HAVE a band, not hire one. I don't
>> > necessarily agree with him since I'm in a similar situation as you.
>
>Gerald Crabb and his wife can have a band. (children) I would have to hire
>one.
And Gerald has to feed them too. And you wouldn't have to hire a band. We've
already been over that.
>Even J.D and the Stamps used a soundtrack along with the keyboard. J.D.
>wasn't hurting for money enough that he could not have added the other two
>holy insturments. (drums and bass guitar)
I think that's the Doc's point.
>> Another question is, what has changed in the past 15-20 years? David,
you
>> said "With five guys onstage at the amatuer level, we don't really need
>it."
1. One thing that has changed dramatically is the quality of the soundtracks
themselves.
2. Five people, playing or singing, should provide enough variety for an
audience to watch, whereas karaoke is typically either a soloist or a group
of people singing in unison.
3. We do a number of songs without any tracks. Just piano.
>I am open to all suggestions. If someone will tell me where we can get a
>free band in Nashville to play with us, I will be happy to call them. I
>ain't shy. :-)
Try high school marching band members. They'll usually play for free.
john roeder
> As for your thoughts about groups not using original material, I think you
> have a valid point to a certain extent. I believe songwriting is part gift
> and part learned skill, but just because someone has that gift and skill,
> doesn't mean they will be a great performer or communicator or "minister".
> You will notice in almost all forms of music, lots of the big names don't
> write their own material. Somebody like Frank Sinatra for example was a
> natural performer, but to my knowledge, he didn't write anything he sang.
> Even in the S.G. world most of the big names like the Cathedrals,
Kingsmen,
> Gold City write very little, if any, of their own material. By extension,
> are you saying that only songwriters can make it to the top? Are all of
> these groups just jukeboxes?
Come on now you who does not want to argue and likes to use exact quotes. I
said, and I quote:
> Using the same arguement as above, I
> could say that a group with a live band who only does songs that others
have
> recorded is nothing more than a live jukebox
I said nothing about the performers having to write their own material. I
was talking about singing what others have recorded such as going out and
buying tracks for songs in the Singing News top 80 list. Please do me the
courtesy that you ask others to do and that is to quote correctly. .....Or
at least get the concept correct........that to me is the most important
thing.
John R
john roeder
Don Scott <orp...@sedona.net> wrote in message
news:zn%E3.9915$_x1.2...@news5.giganews.com...
So it is. When you get old, the memory is the first thing to go.
I did get the song writer right. :-)
John R
john roeder
> First of all, what is your obsession with HIRING a band? I've played bass
> with various groups for 23 years and I have NEVER been HIRED! I've been a
> part of the group! I've shared in the successes and failures, pitched in
> and done anything I've needed to do to help the GROUP and was (usually)
> treated as part of the group. What is wrong with this? Why do you have
to
> HIRE a band and treat them like underlings to use as your "employees"
(which
> is implied in "hiring" someone)?
I am not interested in a confrontation. Sometimes this does arise when two
strong willed and opinionated people attempt to exchange ideas. As with most
things, it stems from a lack of total communication. I think from what I
have read that we both believe basically the same thing.
I thought I answered this about the band but will expand just a little.
I will number the points for ease of your directing your comments and/or
answers which I welcome.
1. We have tried to find band members with no success. Nashville is a city
where everyone thinks he/she is a star just waiting to be discovered and
they do not want to donate their time.
2. I feel a small amount of guilt to ask someone to come in and donate free
time with no clear timetable for when we will make a profit. Rehersals are
very critical for they can be time consuming when we are in the process of
arranging a new song.
3. When we formed GloryLand, we incorporated for business purposes. The four
of us own all the stock. We will hire a band when we are able and pay them a
performance fee. This is the way the music industry functions here. We
cannot give stock to every Tom, Dick and Judy that might play with us for a
month or two.
4. I consider it very bad business practice to have no legal organization in
what is a business venture now and may become much larger in the future. I
know that having no legal organization is the practice with weekend,
semi-professional and even some name groups. I consider this dangerous and
shortsighted.
This is the way I prefer to approach questions, with logic and reason rather
than inflamitory statements.
I believe that the Christian way is to reason together.
On the other hand, I have been involved in governmental politics, union
politics and school politics. I am not afraid of a fight but prefer to deal
with questions in a more construstive way.
I always have an opininon. I am not always right. I will change my mind
given different facts and perspectives.
By the way, I would like to hear your group but do not know when I will be
that way. Used to have friends in Port Huron but they moved to south Ohio.
John R
john roeder
> Try high school marching band members. They'll usually play for free.
Good point David. Thanks. I hadn't thought about that. They would bring a
different perspective to the music.
John R
Carol LeFevre
think he started out with the right intention but $ side tracked him.
On most of his newer videos you have to search to find true SGM,
melodies are changed and we are subjected to the hamonica blues. No
thank you. Keep telling it like it is CJB, you are not standing alone
on this one.
CL
David Murray (SG Fan)
>As for your thoughts about groups not using original material, I think you
>have a valid point to a certain extent. I believe songwriting is part gift
>and part learned skill, but just because someone has that gift and skill,
>doesn't mean they will be a great performer or communicator or "minister".
True. Not every group is Phil Cross and Poet Voices.
John's point is well taken, though, in that even the big hits in SG are
often lyrical rehashes of other SG songs.
>You will notice in almost all forms of music, lots of the big names don't
>write their own material. Somebody like Frank Sinatra for example was a
>natural performer, but to my knowledge, he didn't write anything he sang.
>Even in the S.G. world most of the big names like the Cathedrals, Kingsmen,
>Gold City write very little, if any, of their own material. By extension,
>are you saying that only songwriters can make it to the top? Are all of
>these groups just jukeboxes?
There are skills that are brought to the table. If a man can sing like
Michael English, I don't care if he writes a lick of his own music. If a man
writes great songs, I'm more forgiving about his delivery. If he can't sing
that great or write that great, I'm less likely to sit around and listen.
David Murray (SG Fan)
>
>
>
>> Try high school marching band members. They'll usually play for free.
>
>Good point David. Thanks. I hadn't thought about that. They would bring a
>different perspective to the music.
I'm not sure if you intended that sarcastically, or not, but I was in high
school band when I got my first invitation to join an amatuer gospel group.
We later found a drummer the same way, on more than one occassion. Seems
like we hooked up with a bass player the same way, IIRC.
Incidentally, I wasn't suggesting you persuade them to play their brass and
woodwind instruments. However, band members often have skills on bass,
drums, and piano that are acceptable. It's a place to start looking for
free, or very cheap musicians. Might require a bit more rehearsal time,
though. :o)
Doctor Lovable
>
> On the other hand, I have been involved in governmental politics, union
> politics and school politics. I am not afraid of a fight but prefer to
deal
> with questions in a more construstive way.
No John, I think you prefer to fight. Through this entire thread, you've
taken what I originally said and twisted it to apply it as an insult to your
own little dog and pony show so you could try to pick a fight with me. The
problem with picking a fight with me is that (just like you said) I don't
disagree with anything you've said! You've just gotten this thread so far
away from what I originally said, that I almost forget myself what I said!
Is it possible to get back to what I originally said and get some comments
on that?
What I originally ATTEMPTED to say had nothing to do with saying your group
was a farce. It was NOT MY opinion that a group that uses soundtracks is
nothing more than a karaoke act! We were talking about the future of
Southern Gospel music and why S.G. isn't bigger in the mainstream audience.
I suggested that part of the problem MAY be, that to a MAINSTREAM AUDIENCE
(secular or christian), the use of soundtracks, even by the big name acts,
makes S.G. APPEAR TO THAT MAINSTREAM AUDIENCE as nothing more than
"Christian Karaoke."
I'm not posting to this thread again, but I would appreciate hearing what
anybody has to say about THIS IDEA.
Doc
KJCSmith1
>taken what I originally said and twisted it to apply it as an insult
That seems to happen a lot on this newsgroup
SoundInvst
> the end of the first verse he says "...far more sweeter the fragrance of
the
> Broken Rose." Now, he could have said "far sweeter" and added the half
beat
> to the word "for." He could have said "far more sweet is..." which would
> keep his rhythm, though that's not quite as grammatically correct since
the
> word "sweet" is monosyllabic. Instead he made a glaring, yet simple,
> grammatical error.
I hate to bring this up since you spent so much time making your point, but
in the copy I have of the song the phrase in question is:
*For* more sweeter the fragrance of the broken rose.
Homeland Harmony Vol. I.
RM
john roeder
> I'm not sure if you intended that sarcastically, or not, but I was in high
> school band when I got my first invitation to join an amatuer gospel
group.
> We later found a drummer the same way, on more than one occassion. Seems
> like we hooked up with a bass player the same way, IIRC.
No. What I meant was that as a much younger person, their perspective on
music is different. I remember when I was a teenager. My ideas about music
was much different than my parent's ideas. This was meant to be a positive
statement.
John R
john roeder
context in which they were written.
I apologize for doing this.
John R
Doctor Lovable <drlovable...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WhvE3.27608$yX6.3...@news1.rdc1.on.wave.home.com...
> 1. The increase in the use of soundtracks, even among major groups, has
> given the perception that S.G. is little more than "Christian Karaoke."
> Combine this with the fact that there are so many groups singing that
can't
> sing very well and younger people have a real tendency to laugh at what is
> going on up on stage like they were going to a Karaoke bar. Believe me
....
> I've seen it happen! There are a lot of groups that if they had players
> playing instruments as poorly as they sang, the instrumentalists would
never
> be good enough to play on stage! It's sad, but it never ceases to amaze
me
> how any idiot can grab a microphone and attempt to sing, and some other
> idiot is sure to go up to them and tell them how great they are. But if a
> player can't play as well as a soundtrack sounds he simply isn't good
enough
> to get up there.
Hell...@aol.com
drlovable...@yahoo.com writes:
<< I just often wonder where S. G. will be 10-15 years down
the road when all these people are gone? >>
Doc,
I have wondered those same thoughts! I agree with most of this message! LOL!
thanx!
John
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Hell...@aol.com
kjcs...@aol.com writes:
<< Making millions???? I doubt it!! >>
I agreed with every response you made until this one! Sure, he's making
close to millions, anyway! That is why he is continuing to do them! I hope
he continues!
Hell...@aol.com
john....@nashville.com writes:
<< Until a group has reached a certain level, a live band is a dream. >>
Excellant points, John!
Wesley
Has Southern Gospel become too penticostal to reach the masses of people
in the non-religious world that need to be converted? I would like to
say Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Sure styles
and fashions change, but God changeth not. The Holy Ghost is still in
power to convict and draw unto salvation.
We are in the last days and the world is wanting to go their own way
with everything. The churches have become liberal and abominable for
the most part. There is no need to try to change things to draw people.
Ole time religion is what true God seeking people are looking for. In
ole time religion is a knowledge of right and wrong and holiness unto
God in every aspect of the matter. Ole time salvation is whre people
experience a new birth and become new creatures where old things have
passed away and all things become new. People who seek to live in God as
he is is ones who experience a true change. Drug addicts are delievered,
homosexuals are set free, ETC. The Bible speaks of people having a form
of religion and denying the power, and you have the nerve to ask is
gospel music become too Pentecostal. Where would the body of Christ be
without the power of Pentecost.
Too many people trying to change God's way to man's way so that
everything they want and do can be OK. May you and your MODERN WAY
followers come to know God as he is and not as he is wanted.
Wesley
Wesley
You need to get REAL!
Wesley
his priorities with God in order. How can anything be done and be
pleasing to the Lord if our hearts priority is not toworship and glorify
God as well as be a a laborer in the vineyard. How can one sit so
blatantly still and be entertained with gospel music and not as much as
lift holy hands in worship and honor unto the Lord. When a Christians
focus is on plain entertainement and being entertained, I think there is
much call for great concern for that indvidual and recommend he take an
inventory of his life as it is suppossed to be aligned with the will of
God as revelaed unto us in his Holy Word. Never read on entertainment in
the word except to entertainstrangers as they maybe angels unaware. Even
that is to reach out in love to others, even strangers and portray the
love and likeness of Christ. God ever help our "CHURCH WORLD" today!
Doug Collins
Doug Collins
has an ear to hear ..young or old. It`s not the style of music any group
uses that reaches the lost but it`s the message.No I dont beleive the
style needs to change in any way to reach unbeleivers. I pray that none
of the spirit filled groups I know change anything about hte way they
deliver the message. It`s not a game we are playing but an important
ministry. I think you have misunderstood what wins souls. it`s the power
and spirit working through the spirit filled groups. And NO! Heirlines
style is a style that will minister to anyone because they are annointed
of God. I am Baptist and can feel the power when they sing .
KJCSmith1
Hope what's a joke??? This has been asked before, but when you are responding
to a post it really helps if you quote what you are responding to otherwise no
one knows what you are talking about.
Hell...@aol.com
wreu...@aol.com writes:
<< these guys can't even stay in tune
Let's start with that as a first for quality.
>>
WHO ARE YOU REFERRING TO?
Doug Collins
SG
music become to Pentecostal to reach unbelievers.And I was responding
to HelloMr Dj when he asked "This is a joke, isn`t it''?
Cathy
KJCSmith1
That's okay...I was confused.....which isn't anything unusual for me...LOL
Kathy
Leslie Moore
Moore3 welcomes You.......
David Murray (SG Fan)
Wesley wrote in message <14790-37...@newsd-293.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>SIMPLE RESPONSE MR ROEDER:
>You need to get REAL!
I think this has been pointed out to you previously, but here goes nothing:
Wesley, you need to quote. If you don't quote the portion of text you're
responding to, your posts make no sense.
You need to get REAL about how to use usenet.
Any questions?
David Murray (SG Fan)
Leslie Moore wrote in message
<10534-37...@newsd-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net>...
>Does country actually have QUALITY SINGERS?
Vince Gill and . . . . well, Vince Gill. :o)
john roeder
Mixing past and present, how about:
The Oak Ridge Boys
The Statler Brothers
Anne Murray
Jim Reeves
Jim Ed Brown
Eddie Arnold
Kenny Rogers
Patsy Cline
These sort of rise above the perceived twangy sound of country.
Of course, quality like art is in the eye of the beholder.
John R
music2...@yahoo.com
> Where do we go from here?
>
> At one time, Southern Gospel was THE gospel music of the masses. Then
> Contemporary Christian took over the mass market and Southern Gospel almost
> disappeared. I can remember when it got to the point that the Quartet
> Convention was drawing only a half full house in Nashville. Southern Gospel
> has staged a comeback in the past few years.
>
> Around Nashville, for general concerts, The Cathederals are different, the
> average age of the audience is 60 or above. I do not know how that shapes up
> in other parts of the country. It is a little different in smaller rural
> areas.
>
> There are two things that bother me. I personally am not seeing very much
> going on that targets people in their 30s and 40s. I am not concerned with
> those in their teens and early 20s. They have their Contemporary Christian
> Music which our keyboard player calls "Bubble Gum Music". What can we offer
> that remains true to the music to attract younger settled family people?
>
> The other thing that bothers me is that we do not reach out to new fans as
> we should. What is it about our music that would make the non-believer want
> to hear it. There is power to convert in music. Herein lies a problem. I
> have friends who are penticostal. I have developed a fairly close friendship
> over the past few years with the guys in Heirline. If you know or have heard
> Earnie, there is no mistake about his conviction. They have built up a large
> following within the penticostal community. This is good to a certain extent
> for their business but..........I honestly think that their style of
> penticostal singing and preaching would turn off the unchurched and/or
> non-believer.
>
> Question? Has Southern Gospel become too penticostal to reach the masses of
>
> what needs to happen, share them. This is vital to the future of our
> industry.
I agree. I am a Christian songwriter and have realized that my songs are for Christians. I am now trying to focus my lyrics on the characteristics and love of God while avoiding "churchy" phrases, so I will have material to sing for a mixed crowd, but I have to admit that it is hard to know what a non-Christian would identify with. I guess my litmus test will be the next open-mic. I attend.
music2...@yahoo.com
> > The other thing that bothers me is that we do not reach out to new fans as
> > we should. What is it about our music that would make the non-believer
> want
> > to hear it. There is power to convert in music. Herein lies a problem. I
> > have friends who are penticostal. I have developed a fairly close
> friendship
> > over the past few years with the guys in Heirline. If you know or have
> heard
> > Earnie, there is no mistake about his conviction. They have built up a
> large
> > following within the penticostal community. This is good to a certain
> extent
> > for their business but..........I honestly think that their style of
> > penticostal singing and preaching would turn off the unchurched and/or
> > non-believer.
> >
> > Question? Has Southern Gospel become too penticostal to reach the masses
> of
> > people in the non-religious world that need to be converted?
> >
>
> become MUCH LESS Pentecostal over the last couple of decades. Of course so
> have adherents that follow/attend, to a large degree. There are also many
> non-Pentecostal groups/individuals in it, and there always have been
> Baptists and evangelicals of other "flavors." I myself am a Pentecostal
> preacher, pastored a Pentecostal church for many years in California and
> presently evangelize as well as sing with a SGM quartet. I will preach or
> sing wherever the doors are opened, and have done so in various Baptist,
> Nazarene, Church of Christ, etc. The message, the delivery and the
> methodologies of presentation have changed radically from what they used to
> be. There is much more commercialism, much more worldliness, much less
> concern for ministry and reaching the lost than ever before. SGM, from its
> inception was intended and practiced (if you will) to reach the lost and
> draw people to a closer relationship with the Lord. There was no thought of
> "entertainment", or "making it big" then. I am not saying that there are
> none left today with the early ideals, desires and intent to minister, but
> the numbers have dwindled significantly. Has SGM become too Pentecostal to
> reach the masses? Hardly!! Rather, it has, to a large degree, become so
> watered down and commercial as to be known as an "industry" now, and has a
> much reduced possibility of ever converting the masses. It is still by the
> "foolishness of preaching," and I believe that to include preaching via
> music and song, that people will be won to Jesus Christ. Evangelism was the
> root cause and birthright of SGM, and it is to evangelism it must look
> again, if it is to be redeemed, and to redeem. I am not alone in this
> sentiment. I spoke with one of the "biggest" names in SGM today, at the
> convention last evening, whose heart is burdened as mine to see us return to
> our heritage and first cause. We must be true to the Lord first, and to His
> cause, or all the rest is absolutely in vain.
>
> Sorry if I seemed to go on, but this is very dear to my heart, and I never
> cease being the pastor that God called me to be.
>
> Elden
Thanks for enlightening me on this. I can't speak for the music groups who have made it big, but I know there are some of the little guys who are also burdened for the lost. I am praying for an open door to share the music I write, and also to write the music that will open hearts. This world doesn't know it, but they need the Lord.