Does an SGM artist "deserve" to sing?
Tony Rush
sparked some wonderful questions in my mind about whether or not
someone should be supported in SGM by other Christians if they're
having financial difficulty.
I won't bother to bore anyone with quoting from the debate (which was
under the thread "Ernie Haase gets an endorsement deal"). But, there
is one issue that Dr. Schmidt put forth that I wanted to address.
It's his repeated notion that "Christians are obligated to support
fulltime SGM artists who cannot pay their bills and who are in danger
of losing assets or bookings."
(Before continuing, I'll admit that's not a direct quote and Dr.
Schmidt might want to correct me if he doesn't believe that way. His
comments seem to bear that out, though.)
He mentioned an artist by name who I'll just call C.J. His comments
were that it was the CHURCH'S responsibility to keep C.J. on the road
even though she apparently hasn't been able to make enough to pay her
expenses. And that, if her bus and/or RV were repossessed and if she
would be forced to seek other means of income, it would be the fault
of CHRISTIANS who did not support her.
I guess the only response I wanted to make on this startling belief is
this:
God never promised anyone that they would be able to travel in a
$500,000 custom coach and earn enough money to be able to sing
fulltime with no other income.
If an artist believes that he/she has a talent and that they're
supposed to use it for God, does that necessarily mean that they have
to be fulltime?
Is it possible that C.J. isn't supposed to be fulltime?
If an artist cuts back on dates for financial reasons but still
continues to impact souls for Christ, how is that necessarily a bad
thing that we should be blaming the Church for?
Does God really care if C.J. is fulltime if she's using her talent for
Him?
Does that imply that part-time artists who sing only 100 dates a year
are less important than artists who sing 200 days a year?
Now, keep in mind, I'm not passing judgment on C.J. I don't know her,
have never met her, and have never heard her sing. I hope things work
out so she can get out of her situation. And perhaps using her as an
example will be considered as tactless as my recent mention of obesity
on a thread about Howard Goodman. If so, I apologize in advance --
that's not my intention.
I'm just wondering where we get the idea that fulltime SGM artists are
to be the object of Christian charity if/when they don't exercise good
financial judgment.
Also, aren't we all guilty sometimes of mistaking a nudging from God
for a spiritual attack? Haven't many Christians had situations where
God was leading us to do something we thought we didn't want to do and
we told our friends, "Y'all really pray for me...the devil sure is
fighting me hard..." Sure...none of us are perfect when it comes to
spiritual discernment.
With that in mind, how can we say that Heavenbound disbanding wasn't
something that God wanted them to do? Or that C.J.'s problems might
be God putting her in a different ministry? Or that the members of
Perfect Heart were needed elsewhere in the kingdom so God led them to
quit singing? Isn't it interesting that we always perceive
"negatives" as being the work of the devil when they might actually be
positives from another perspective?
But, I'm getting offtopic. Back to the attitude of Christian charity
toward broke SGM artists:
why is this attitude reserved for only SGM artists? If I can't pay my
car payment, should I hold the CHURCH responsible for my financial
plight?
Just wondering...
Tony
David Ching
I do not believe Mikey (I will call him that, because that is the way he
signs his posts) is saying what you think he is saying. First, your post
assumes that C.J. is in financial difficulty because he or she overextended
credit or otherwise spent more than her talent allowed her to earn. This is
not what Mikey claims happened to C.J. He says she was extorted by another
party, and through no fault of her own, was put in this situation of
financial desperation. Whether or not you believe this is what actually
happened doesn't affect how Mikey perceives the situation.
Second, I don't believe Mikey ever used the word "obligation", as in
Christians are OBLIGATED to help someone in that situation. He said we
should rally around her and otherwise support her, perhaps akin to how the
Biblical Dorcas was not obligated to help the poor, but nonetheless did so
because she thought it was what God would want. There is a difference
between helping someone because we HAVE to and doing it because we were
CALLED to.
Third, I think Mikey was speaking to Christians in general, but had a
special message to other artists. He views such extortion, as happened to
CJ by the big company, could happen to ANY artist, and as such, artists need
to band together (i.e. like forming a union) to support each other and fight
such injustice. While the artists are banding together, they can also unite
to stop the common practice of performing for such low payment that the
artist invariably goes into the hole.
This is what I think he is saying. It is quite a bit different than what
you are saying.
Personally, I think you are both right. You are right that Christians are
not obligated to help each other out, especially when we feel they abused
their fiscal responsibility to themselves. Mikey is right that God has
called Christians to help each other (and even non-Christians) during
extraordinary circumstances (and I would call extortion of an individual by
a big company one of these). Now, having tried to please you both, I've
probably succeeded in pleasing neither of you, but that's par for the course
these days! :-)
-- David
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.02070...@posting.google.com...
Dave Lee
Sounds like Mikey has another "Olga" to help out.
CJB
CJ Brown
Tony Rush <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.02070...@posting.google.com...
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
CJB
God called them to do that. My opinion is that God gets blamed for a lot of
things he has nothing to do with. How many times have you heard somebody
come to a SG artist, give them a song, and tell them that God gave it to
them and wants them to sing it. "God gave me this song just for you!" The
song may be precious to them, but no one else on earth would be interested.
Doctor Lovable mentioned in a post not long ago about people who complement
terrible singers. I think it's a shame that there are so many people who
think they're top quality singers who can't stay on pitch, much less sing a
harmony part; and they've had their egos so stroked that they think they're
the second coming of __________ (fill in the blank.) Men who think that
they can sing bass because they can sing the lead part and sound like
they're belching at the same time! All because some well meaning Christian
LIED to them.
CJB
Tony Rush <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.02070...@posting.google.com...
ruth
|
With God, ALL things are possible. Mark
10:27
|
THE Old Man
story. I didn't find anything about reposessions, financial problems and
requests to send money. Did I miss something? Where is this problem
documented ... other than the MESsenger?
David Ching
should leave her alone to pay it back as she sees fit.
But let's say for the sake of Tony's theory that an artist needed financial
assistance without any fiscal missteps. The artist needs money but didn't
make any bad business decisions to get to that state. What is God calling
us as Christians do, if anything? What about other Christian artists?
Should we advocate changes to the system to make the situation less likely
in the future?
-- David
"ruth" <Ruthfro...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3740-3D2...@storefull-2337.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Forgive me if I step on anyone's toes here, but if someone exhorts me to
buy a bus and I do that without having the finances to pay for it, I
would be showing bad judgement and making a bad choice. Choices have
consequences. If my choices put me in a financial bind, it is not the
responsibility of the church or anyone else to take care of the problem.
It would be my responsibility. Doesn't matter if I was a singer or
teacher or preacher......I am responsible for my choices. Shouldn't
this singer also be responsible for hers?
David Ching said:
Here we go again, but maybe it will be clearer this time. <g>
I do not believe Mikey (I will call him that, because that is the way he
signs his posts) is saying what you think he is saying. First, your post
assumes that C.J. is in financial difficulty because he or she
overextended credit or otherwise spent more than her talent allowed her
to earn. This is not what Mikey claims happened to C.J. He says she was
extorted by another party, and through no fault of her own, was put in
this situation of financial desperation. Whether or not you believe this
is what actually happened doesn't affect how Mikey perceives the
situation.
Tony Rush
an error message from Google when I tried to send it...it's likely
floating around in the "ether" somewhere.
Rather than try to write it again, I'll just answer Ruth's and
hopefully respond some to yours, too....
Comments below...
Ruthfro...@webtv.net (ruth) wrote in message news:<3740-3D2...@storefull-2337.public.lawson.webtv.net>...
> Forgive me if I step on anyone's toes here, but if someone exhorts me to
> buy a bus and I do that without having the finances to pay for it, I
> would be showing bad judgement and making a bad choice. Choices have
> consequences. If my choices put me in a financial bind, it is not the
> responsibility of the church or anyone else to take care of the problem.
> It would be my responsibility. Doesn't matter if I was a singer or
> teacher or preacher......I am responsible for my choices. Shouldn't
> this singer also be responsible for hers?
David's comments were that Dr. Schmidt was using CJ as an instance of
"extortion". As he said, whatever I think happened won't change what
Dr. Schimdt thinks happened. But, I think my original question still
stands regardless of whether an artist simply made bad decisions or
was "coerced" into it as Dr. Schimdt thinks is the case.
I agree with Ruth. I can take the credit or blame for my own
financial condition. If I was taken advantage of by someone else,
obviously that's not directly my fault; but who made the choice to do
business with that person?
In other words, CJ, Dr. Schmidt, me, everyone can all look in the
mirror and see the person who is responsible for who and what they are
in life.
It's not someone else's fault. And besides, if the problem is "out
there", how can you begin solving it? It's only when you realize that
YOU are the problem that you can learn how to become the solution.
So, with that in mind, CJ is ultimately responsible for her career.
If she cannot afford to be on the road fulltime, she needs to
re-evaluate her finances and cut back on expenses.
As far as the "extortion" by Eddie Crook goes, that's absurd. Eddie
Crook is in the recording business. Whether his artists travel by
horseback or bus is of no consequence to the record company. They
have absolutely nothing to gain in "pressuring" their artist to buy a
bus.
But, David's post made me wonder if I shouldn't have posed a different
question to Dr. Schimdt: "what do you consider to be extortion"?
The definition of "extortion" is the "crime of obtaining money where
none is due" or "using a threat of harm in order to take more than is
due".
Will you allow me another minute to look at this in a small bit of
detail?
- A record company's purpose is to make recordings. In fulltime SGM,
they usually pay for the cost of the project up front and recover
their money (plus a profit) by selling the artist copies of their
recording at a wholesale cost until the project is paid for. The cost
to the artist is usually $3-$4 per unit and then the artist sells them
for $10-$15 per unit.
Where is the extortion?
- A booking agent's job is to make sure that the artist gets fair
compensation for their demand and handles the contracts, negotiating,
scheduling, handling of contracts, etc. This is of enormous benefit
to the artist since they don't have to be burdened with those details.
Per industry standard, the agent keeps 15% of the flat.
Where is the extortion?
- The Singing News is a capitalist publication whose role it is to
provide their advertisers with an audience. Their interest is in
increasing subscribership and readership, thus increasing the
awareness and audience of Southern Gospel Music. Any artist who wants
to advertise in the Singing News can request their Media Kit and find
the prices listed. Based on how many times you plan to advertise, you
will always pay the same price as someone else in the industry.
So, where is the extortion?
I cannot say what has occurred behind closed doors, but Dr. Schimdt
has publicly called Eddie Crook an extortionist. Is that any less
harmful than calling a certain male soloist a homosexual?
I think that, since Dr. Schimidt has allegedly been taken advantage of
by someone in the recording industry, it's understandable that he
might be a bit cautious of people who make their money by providing
products and services to SGM artists.
But, I also think that Dr. Schimidt considers "extortion" and
"capitalism" to be the same thing when they're not.
So, to come full circle, I agree with Ruth. I cannot see how an
artist's financial condition can be anyone's responsibility but their
own.
Tony
>
> David=A0Ching said:
> Here we go again, but maybe it will be clearer this time. <g>
> I do not believe Mikey (I will call him that, because that is the way he
> signs his posts) is saying what you think he is saying. First, your post
> assumes that C.J. is in financial difficulty because he or she
> overextended credit or otherwise spent more than her talent allowed her
> to earn. This is not what Mikey claims happened to C.J. He says she was
> extorted by another party, and through no fault of her own, was put in
> this situation of financial desperation. Whether or not you believe this
> is what actually happened doesn't affect how Mikey perceives the
> situation.
>
>
>
> --
David Ching
> an error message from Google when I tried to send it...it's likely
> floating around in the "ether" somewhere.
>
That's really too bad. I would have liked to have read it! Maybe it will
show up yet. If you use a regular newsreader, it will save a copy of all
your posts, which is handy.
> I agree with Ruth. I can take the credit or blame for my own
> financial condition. If I was taken advantage of by someone else,
> obviously that's not directly my fault; but who made the choice to do
> business with that person?
>
> In other words, CJ, Dr. Schmidt, me, everyone can all look in the
> mirror and see the person who is responsible for who and what they are
> in life.
>
Yes, everyone is responsible for their own financial condition. Does this
mean it is wrong to help those in need, like Dorcas helped those in the New
Testament? The poor she helped were still responsible for their financial
condition, weren't they? Yet we record Dorcas' actions as something good.
Why? Could there be a similar role of compassion and generousity from other
Christians and artists for artists experiencing hardship?
> But, I also think that Dr. Schimidt considers "extortion" and
> "capitalism" to be the same thing when they're not.
>
The reason we talk about extortion and capitalism in the same sentence is:
capitalism breeds sharks, and sharks extort unsuspecting victims. Each
person is ultimately responsible for his or her safety not be get "eaten" or
"extorted". But as long as there are sharks, there will be extortees. Now,
as Christians, should we observe this roadkill and praise the capitalistic
system that fostered this mess, or should we help the victims recover? What
would God want?
> So, to come full circle, I agree with Ruth. I cannot see how an
> artist's financial condition can be anyone's responsibility but their
> own.
>
As I said in my original post, there is a difference between
"responsibility/obligation" and "called by God". I agree we have no
responsibility/obligation. But we have been called by God to help out. Did
you comment on this in your post that got lost?
In my business of software, there are many genres of software, like there
are many genres of music. I've noticed that some software genres foster
communities that are more professional, more supportive, and have higher
integrity than other genres. The same may be true of music. And I would
hope that with its Christian backbone, SGM would be THE genre to set the
standard of professionalism, support, and integrity. Sadly, that does not
seem to be the case. Mikey's posts always ask, "Is there anything we can do
to improve that?" The answer must be "Yes" but we seem to disagree on how.
Thanks,
David
CJB
medicine. <g>
CJB
CJB <belle...@citynet.net> wrote in message
news:3d23a...@corp.newsgroups.com...
The New & Improved Dr. Lovable
"David Ching" <d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ui8t02q...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
> news:b0293ff3.02070...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > In other words, CJ, Dr. Schmidt, me, everyone can all look in the
> > mirror and see the person who is responsible for who and what they are
> > in life.
> >
>
> Yes, everyone is responsible for their own financial condition. Does this
> mean it is wrong to help those in need, like Dorcas helped those in the
New
> Testament? The poor she helped were still responsible for their financial
> condition, weren't they? Yet we record Dorcas' actions as something good.
> Why? Could there be a similar role of compassion and generousity from
other
> Christians and artists for artists experiencing hardship?
I'm having a bit of a problem when examples are taken to the extreme. I
would agree that everyone is responsible for their own financial
responsibilities. BUT ..... There is such a thing as christian charity.
All this talk about "ministry" in SG, yet the only time the bible defines
"ministry" is to take care of the widows and orphans. Am I supposed to just
shrug my shoulders and say, "I'm sorry your husband died ma'am, but I can't
help you out because you were too stupid to buy life insurance and now
you're sitting at home with no job and 6 kids. Tony says you're responsible
for your own financial situation, so I can't help you out."
Somehow there needs to be a balance in this. Christians get into financial
problems for a variety of reasons. Even situations that appear to be "no
fault of my own" could be logically reasoned out to be my own fault. For
example, if I lose my job, you could say it's no fault of my own, but if I
had gotten a better education when I was younger perhaps I could find a
better job now. So, should christians help out someone who loses their job
or just walk away?
I would like to think the balance is individual discernment, but unfortunate
ly that just leads to the Mikey's of the world who stand around with their
hand out EXPECTING someone to help them. I'm afraid I don't have any
answers, but honestly, I don't think it's fair to scold "ministries" who
fall on hard times because they didn't do things the way we would have
liked.
>
> The reason we talk about extortion and capitalism in the same sentence is:
> capitalism breeds sharks, and sharks extort unsuspecting victims.
Don't kid yourself! Human nature is what breeds sharks. Capitalism,
socialism, communism ..... they ALL have sharks.
Doc
The New & Improved Dr. Lovable
"CJB" <belle...@citynet.net> wrote in message
news:3d23a...@corp.newsgroups.com...
> Of course not! So many people talk about how God told them to do this, or
> God called them to do that. My opinion is that God gets blamed for a lot
of
> things he has nothing to do with. How many times have you heard somebody
> come to a SG artist, give them a song, and tell them that God gave it to
> them and wants them to sing it. "God gave me this song just for you!"
The
> song may be precious to them, but no one else on earth would be
interested.
>
You are absolutely correct. Christian music is no different that world
history. It's amazing how much God gets blamed for that is nothing but
human ego-building.
Doc
--
email drlovable...@yahoo.com,
but you'll have to drop YOURPANTS
Tony Rush
> That's really too bad. I would have liked to have read it!
> Maybe it will show up yet. If you use a regular
> newsreader, it will save a copy of all your posts, which is
> handy.
David, I agree. Unfortunately, my local ISP is having trouble with
their news service: I can download messages but cannot post any.
Thus, I have the annoying necessity of using Google.
>
> Yes, everyone is responsible for their own financial
> condition. Does this mean it is wrong to help those in
> need, like Dorcas helped those in the New Testament? The
> poor she helped were still responsible for their financial
> condition, weren't they? Yet we record Dorcas' actions as
> something good. Why? Could there be a similar role of
> compassion and generousity from other Christians and
> artists for artists experiencing hardship?
David, I don't disagree that we cannot help those in need. But, we
cannot help them all. Thus, we have to choose where to put our money
where it will do the most good.
Dr. Schmidt seemed to be saying that it was the Church's
responsibility to help someone like CJ. I disagree.
Can CJ get a job during the week and perform on Saturdays and Sundays?
If so, - Poof! -- now she's financially viable and still using her
talent for the Lord.
Thus, wouldn't the Church's money be better spent if we give it to
someone who doesn't have the option of where to work?
In other words, singing SGM probably isn't CJ's only option. Some
people have no options and it is to THEM that I think we can give our
charity to. I see no reason to have a "keep the artist on the road"
fund. That's what the law of supply and demand is for.
> The reason we talk about extortion and capitalism in the
> same sentence is: capitalism breeds sharks, and sharks
> extort unsuspecting victims.
I disagree. Capitalism doesn't create sharks. Poor human nature
creates sharks. If someone tries to get something for nothing, that
is a reflection of their own character....not a criticism of true
capitalism.
Capitalism is basically "capital in the hands of the people; not the
State". It's the economic/goverment model that allows people to make
their own living based on the laws of supply and demand. Now, is it
true that such an environment will often have people who want to
short-circuit the system? Sure. But that's not the fault of the
system. That's the fault of the person.
> Each person is ultimately
> responsible for his or her safety not be get "eaten" or
> "extorted". But as long as there are sharks, there will be
> extortees.
I agree to some extent. But, the above statement doesn't account for
the responsibility of each person to use common business sense such as
due diligence, fair and equitable contracts, mediation/arbitration,
etc. The statement seems to imply that people will always be taken
advantage of when a shark is near. Clearly, that's not true since we
don't see business savvy groups falling prey to them. Thus, the
problem isn't just the existence of sharks -- it's the ignorance or
negligence that makes people fall prey to them.
Here's an example: when the Hinson came from California to Nashville,
they wanted to sing SGM so badly that they signed a lifetime recording
contract with Dr. Nelson Parkeson of Calvary Records.
Over the years, the Hinsons tried (unsuccessfully) to get out of the
contract, to modify it, to make other arrangements. They were locked
in.
Question: is Dr. Nelson Parkeson a shark? Or were the Hinsons
negligent in their business affairs? Unless Dr. Parkeson put a gun to
their head, I cannot see how one can blame him for upholding his end
of a mutual agreement.
I'm not defending his attitude or actions because I think each party
would've been more successful if they could've found a win-win
arrangement that would've made both parties happier. But, that aside,
how can someone blame Parkeson for something that the Hinsons
willingly asked him to do?
> Now, as Christians, should we observe this
> roadkill and praise the capitalistic system that fostered
> this mess, or should we help the victims recover? What
> would God want?
David, where do you get the notion that capitalism is the "cause of
this mess"? What other system would you prefer?
As far as "helping the victims recover", I still don't know what you
mean. Victims of what? Their own ignorance?
Let me give you an example: there is a group right now who owes three
different booking agents over $20,000 apiece. Why? Plain and simple:
because they didn't pay their bill. And they are on the verge of
getting booted by their present booking agent for the exact same
problem.
You can look further and see that this group is in a VERY bad
financial situation. Are they "victims of capitalism"?
No. They're idiots who don't know how to manage their money.
Being a Christian doesn't make you smart. Nor does an SGM career
automatically mean that any hardship you endure is the result of
someone else not "giving you a chance".
Fact: sometimes groups foul their own careers up. But, it's
convenient to blame everyone else so they never have to acknowledge "I
didn't know what I was doing". "It's so and so's fault that I can't
pay my bills". The group I just mentioned is very lucky that the
"sharks" don't exercise their legal rights otherwise a very prominent
group would be missing from the SGM scene, bankrupt.
Yet, I'm sure that somebody, somewhere is thinking about the exact
same situation and thinking, "Why those evil booking agents...they
ought to just wipe that debt clean." Yeah, right.
I was on a 10-day trip with a group once and, on returning home, the
manager of the group (who did not go on the trip) called the road
manager and demanded to know why the money bag was over $600 short.
It wasn't embezzled. It wasn't misspent. It was just an example of
someone not keeping good books on the road.
Clearly, being an SGM artist doesn't mean you can add and subtract,
either.
It's been said that one very popular tenor singer built his house by
tapping the till for an extra few hundred dollars every week. One
conversation I had with the other group members seems to bear that
out. The group is enormously popular and had sales large enough that
no one would miss a few twenty-dollar bills every night.
Figure it up: just $120 into the pocket when no one is looking adds
up to about $25,000 a year in tax-free income. Do that for a few
years into an interest-bearing account and you can have a nice
down-payment.
Clearly, being an SGM artist doesn't make you honest, either. Not all
the sharks are sitting at desks...some are riding buses.
Capitalism is the greatest economic model that's ever existed. It's
only when stupid or dishonest people get involved that someone can
mistakenly claim that it was the system that failed.
Before we can pass judgment on true capitalism, I think it's
reasonable that we rule out stupidity, ignorance, negligence,
dishonesty, foolishness, and lack of judgment. :)
> As I said in my original post, there is a difference
> between "responsibility/obligation" and "called by God". I
> agree we have no responsibility/obligation. But we have
> been called by God to help out. Did you comment on this in
> your post that got lost?
No, I don't think I did. A friend of mine had his van broken into and
lost some of his sound equipment. It was NOT a tragedy because of
good business sense: everything was insured and, other than the
inconvenience of having to perform with his commercial soundtracks
instead of his minidisc, he never lost a dime.
Now, am I saying that no one should've given him charity if his van
had not been insured? Of course not. I think giving in those
instances is something that God will bless.
But, in the absence of any tragedy or emergency, what is to be gained
by giving money to an artist who simply cannot pay their regular
bills?
If they can't manage the money they've already got, won't they be in
the same trouble next month? It reminds me of the government: they
want to improve the school system by pouring more money into it
without addressing the fact that the appropriation of that money is
part of the problem to begin with.
Now, obviously, we can't address every possible situation here. But,
since this started with CJ, let's just ask: is CJ in dire straits
because of an accident, a burglary, etc?
Or does she just not make enough money to pay the road expenses?
If the latter is the case, giving her money is likely only going to
postpone the inevitable. If it's something unforeseen that she
couldn't have helped, I wouldn't have any problem in helping.
So, back to the question in this subject line: if an artist cannot
earn enough money to pay fulltime road expenses, they need to be
part-time until they work on their business plan.
Too many artists are just hopping on the road with no regard for
business skills and getting their tail caught in crack. Then, they
need charity to keep going....or GOD FORBID! They might have to go
back home and get an actual JOB!
It's not an issue of spiritual warfare. It's a matter of being able
to pay your bills.
Tony
David Ching
posts to make each of us re-examine how we can help in our own little
corners, and maybe some good will come out of all this. As for creating a
Fund for Artists Down On Their Luck Through No Fault Of Their Own, or
creating institutions, foundations, etc. I'm not much good at that. I think
Mikey was advocating creating these things, but his message got obscured,
and anyway, it takes someone whom most everyone respects to start something
like this.
I LOVE CAPITALISM!! HAPPY 4TH OF JULY!!! I hear you about the sharks being
in every economic system ever devised.
-- David
"The New & Improved Dr. Lovable" <drlo...@YOURPANTSyahoo.com> wrote in
message news:dZ_U8.16519$zGH....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
David Ching
supernews. There are others too.
I appreciate your insider's knowledge of sharks on all sides, not just
promoters or record companies, but also the artists themselves, and even
managers within the groups. And the evil that sharks do is made worse by
naivity and poor business skills. I understand sharks are not CAUSED BY
capitalism. I will say it again: Capitalism is the best economic system
invented by man, HAPPY 4TH OF JULY!!! Nevertheless, sharks are a BYPRODUCT
of capitalism (and yes Doc, of socialism, communism, and all other economic
systems too). The opinions here are that sharks provide motivation to be at
the top of your game, to thrive in this competitive environment. Still,
capitalism is sometimes a zero sum game. Where there are winners, there are
losers. What we are discussing here is how we as Christians should treat
the losers.
We seem to agree that we should help out, but only if the additional money
will not be lost just as it was before. It seems everyone else here thinks
C.J. would lose any additional money and therefore should not be helped. I
haven't understood Mickey clearly enough to know exactly what happened...
and then that is only what HE thinks happened, not necessarily what actually
happened - that we may never know. I was using C.J. as just one example.
CJB (not C.J.) has mentioned artists who think they are the cat's meow yet
can't sing a lick, but some big industry hotshot told them they could. When
they miserably fail, perhaps they are examples of prime candidates to be
helped. They should have gotten the message they can't do it full time; how
about some help finding part time gigs and ways to supplement their incomes?
If they truly need some financial assistance and cannot get it from
tradditional channels like family and friends, perhaps some money would be
appropriate to help them get back on their feet. Be sure: no person or
church organization is OBLIGATED to do this, nor is it anyone's
RESPONSIBILITY. But it may be the Christian thing to do.
Wishing you all great BBQ! I'm jealous, your BBQ is so much better in the
south than what we get out here in CA!!
-- David
"Tony Rush" <to...@therushs.net> wrote in message
news:b0293ff3.02070...@posting.google.com...
TommyDale
> Forgive me if I step on anyone's toes here, but if someone exhorts me to
> buy a bus and I do that without having the finances to pay for it, I
> would be showing bad judgement and making a bad choice. Choices have
> consequences. If my choices put me in a financial bind, it is not the
> responsibility of the church or anyone else to take care of the problem.
> It would be my responsibility. Doesn't matter if I was a singer or
> teacher or preacher......I am responsible for my choices. Shouldn't
> this singer also be responsible for hers?
This reminds me of a certain singer/writer in the early 70's ... A
close family friend responded to this singer's appeal to get a bus for
his newly formed group. Our friend was a dealer, and offered to help
him find a bus, a really nice used one, to start. The individual
responded "USED bus? USED bus? We don't want no USED bus! We want a
NEW bus!" The singer/songwriter: Andrae Crouch. Lost a lot of fans
there that night.
RayDunakin
custom coach and earn enough money to be able to sing fulltime with no other
income. >>
Very true. And there are plenty of good, Christian ministers who need a "day
job" to pay the bills, and/or are barely getting by. Why should a singer get a
free ride when even a pastor can't?
David Bruce Murray
"David Ching" <d...@remove-this.dcsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ui93heo...@news.supernews.com...
>
> Wishing you all great BBQ! I'm jealous, your BBQ is so much better in the
> south than what we get out here in CA!!
I pity anyone who lives in an area of the country where you say "barbeque,"
and they think you're talking about grilling hotdogs and hamburgers
outdoors. God bless NC!
Hey, have you heard of liver mush? :o)
It sounds nasty, but it's quite a treat. The PA Dutch folks have a similar
dish and I think they use a more appealing word to describe it: scrapple.
--
David Bruce Murray / dmurray...@rfci.net
www.musicscribe.com / www.rfci.net/dbmurray
www.mp3.com/ssq / www.mp3.com/virtualvirtuoso
--- Making hay while the sun shines ---
David Ching
what you are eating! ;)
-- David
"David Bruce Murray" <dmurray...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:w3pV8.288364$_j6.14...@bin3.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
David Bruce Murray
> Liver Mush - Chinese cuisine is not the only one where it pays not to ask
> what you are eating! ;)
There is actually only a little bit of liver for flavoring. The "mush" part
is corn meal based. It's formed into brick shaped chunks, which you then
slice off and fry. I like to eat mine on a sandwich. It is forevermore good!
CJB
CJB
David Bruce Murray <dmurray...@rfci.net> wrote in message
news:UtqV8.136318$Ca2.7...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
CJB
his first bus? WoW. Next thing you know someone will tell me that Bill
Gaither is owned by the mafia.
<g>
CJB
TommyDale <stormtr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bf14c408.02070...@posting.google.com...
Dr. Wayne Rowen lll
> The recent bickering match between I and Dr. Michael Scmidt has
> sparked some wonderful questions in my mind about whether or not
> someone should be supported in SGM by other Christians if they're
> having financial difficulty.
>
> I won't bother to bore anyone with quoting from the debate (which was
> under the thread "Ernie Haase gets an endorsement deal"). But, there
> is one issue that Dr. Schmidt put forth that I wanted to address.
> It's his repeated notion that "Christians are obligated to support
> fulltime SGM artists who cannot pay their bills and who are in danger
> of losing assets or bookings."
dude tony dude you do not follow the king james bible 1611 man if you
read it mikey gave you verses from the real king james authorized
bible that teach the real bibles views of christian community dude man
if you would stop supporting the usage of these false demonic inspired
translation dude then more people would follow what that mikey trumpet
dude taught tony dude because he taught that the real bible the king
james 1611 bible teaches community spirit support and giving but if it
were up to you dude anyone out there serving the lord who does not
kiss up to the singin news to become a big star ought to starve dude
even if rude church people go to their concerts but dont pay them a
fair wage of buy the dudes c.d.'s you think all groups except big
stars like the anchormen should starve dude
wayne rowen
Tony Rush
wrote in
> dude tony dude you do not follow the king james bible 1611
> man if you read it mikey gave you verses from the real king
> james authorized bible that teach the real bibles views of
> christian community dude man if you would stop supporting
> the usage of these false demonic inspired translation dude
> then more people would follow what that mikey trumpet dude
> taught tony dude because he taught that the real bible the
> king james 1611 bible teaches community spirit support and
> giving but if it were up to you dude anyone out there
> serving the lord who does not kiss up to the singin news to
> become a big star ought to starve dude even if rude church
> people go to their concerts but dont pay them a fair wage
> of buy the dudes c.d.'s you think all groups except big
> stars like the anchormen should starve dude wayne rowen
Firstly, I use a KJV.
Secondly, you need some education. You write like a 2nd grader
Thirdly, I don't have a problem with helping people who might need
help. But, the Bible (KJV) does not teach that it's my responsibility
to keep an artist on the road who is incapable of creating enough
demand for their talent to pay their bills.
If a group cannot afford to be on the road, they need to go home and
get a regular job. If that's too blunt for you, deal with it.
Tony
Dr. Wayne Rowen lll
> news:ui8t02q...@news.supernews.com:
>
> > That's really too bad. I would have liked to have read it!
> > Maybe it will show up yet. If you use a regular
> > newsreader, it will save a copy of all your posts, which is
> > handy.
>
> David, I agree. Unfortunately, my local ISP is having trouble with
> their news service: I can download messages but cannot post any.
> Thus, I have the annoying necessity of using Google.
>
> >
> > Yes, everyone is responsible for their own financial
> > condition. Does this mean it is wrong to help those in
> > need, like Dorcas helped those in the New Testament? The
> > poor she helped were still responsible for their financial
> > condition, weren't they? Yet we record Dorcas' actions as
> > something good. Why? Could there be a similar role of
> > compassion and generousity from other Christians and
> > artists for artists experiencing hardship?
>
> David, I don't disagree that we cannot help those in need. But, we
> cannot help them all. Thus, we have to choose where to put our money
> where it will do the most good.
>
> Dr. Schmidt seemed to be saying that it was the Church's
> responsibility to help someone like CJ. I disagree.
dude you do not want to help the needy but 2 corinthians 8 and 9 in
the king james 1611 teaches that we are to help out the needy, not
just support the greedy southern gospel stars dude
>
> Can CJ get a job during the week and perform on Saturdays and Sundays?
> If so, - Poof! -- now she's financially viable and still using her
> talent for the Lord.
>
> Thus, wouldn't the Church's money be better spent if we give it to
> someone who doesn't have the option of where to work?
>
> In other words, singing SGM probably isn't CJ's only option. Some
> people have no options and it is to THEM that I think we can give our
> charity to. I see no reason to have a "keep the artist on the road"
> fund. That's what the law of supply and demand is for.
>
> > The reason we talk about extortion and capitalism in the
> > same sentence is: capitalism breeds sharks, and sharks
> > extort unsuspecting victims.
>
> I disagree. Capitalism doesn't create sharks.
dude you need to take a look at some of these southern gospel stars
tech riders dude man these greedy selfish pigs want to perform and
sing all of the time man they want it all they are capitalists but
they are no minister a minister ministers to not gets worshiped dude
worship jesus not require worship dude let everyone get a chance to
sing man these dudes aint nothin but sharks dude they are jaws and
money is what they fight for not ministry dude the real honest artists
get pushed to the side, bumped or dont even make it to the program at
all because the stars managers are big fat sharks that do not use the
real 1611 bible dude the little guy gets no time and a booth stuck in
the corner
Poor human nature
> creates sharks. If someone tries to get something for nothing, that
> is a reflection of their own character....not a criticism of true
> capitalism.
>
> Capitalism is basically "capital in the hands of the people; not the
> State". It's the economic/goverment model that allows people to make
> their own living based on the laws of supply and demand. Now, is it
> true that such an environment will often have people who want to
> short-circuit the system? Sure. But that's not the fault of the
> system. That's the fault of the person.
sure but this is not what the king james 1611 teaches in corinthians
dude
>
> > Each person is ultimately
> > responsible for his or her safety not be get "eaten" or
> > "extorted". But as long as there are sharks, there will be
> > extortees.
>
> I agree to some extent. But, the above statement doesn't account for
> the responsibility of each person to use common business sense such as
> due diligence, fair and equitable contracts, mediation/arbitration,
> etc. The statement seems to imply that people will always be taken
> advantage of when a shark is near. Clearly, that's not true since we
> don't see business savvy groups falling prey to them. Thus, the
> problem isn't just the existence of sharks -- it's the ignorance or
> negligence that makes people fall prey to them.
>
> Here's an example: when the Hinson came from California to Nashville,
> they wanted to sing SGM so badly that they signed a lifetime recording
> contract with Dr. Nelson Parkeson of Calvary Records.
>
> Over the years, the Hinsons tried (unsuccessfully) to get out of the
> contract, to modify it, to make other arrangements. They were locked
> in.
>
> Question: is Dr. Nelson Parkeson a shark? Or were the Hinsons
> negligent in their business affairs? Unless Dr. Parkeson put a gun to
> their head, I cannot see how one can blame him for upholding his end
> of a mutual agreement.
> parkeson is a shark dude
no dude christian community according to 2 corinthians chapter 8 is,
but your model does not follow the 1611 dude
tony dude god commanded for his people to take care of his ministers
and his needy dude man you can not cut it out of the 1611 king james
bible dude it is there man
>
> Tony