We’re all familiar with the famous quote, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” It originated in the play “Romeo and Juliet,” written by William Shakespeare.
The meaning is clear and simple. You can call a rose a banana, a cucumber, a daisy, or any other name you can think of, but the rose will still be what it is.
At first glance the rose bush is beautiful, but hidden among the pretty flowers are thorns…nasty thorns that will hurt you. It is generally believed that the purpose of the thorns is to repel animals that would make a meal of the roses.
The same analogy applies to the thorn…you can call it anything you want to but it is, and will always be, a thorn.
THE ROSE
To me, Southern Gospel Music is the “rose,” exquisite in its beauty and fragrance. There is no other music on earth as enjoyable to me as good SGM. I will admit I’m partial to male quartets. That’s what SGM was when I started in 1963, mostly male quartets. There were a few mixed groups, The Speer Family, The LeFevres, The Chuck Wagon Gang, The Weatherford Quartet, to name a few, but SGM was predominantly an industry of male quartets. Our industry today has many mixed groups and I enjoy listening to them all, trios, family groups, duets, whatever. As long as they are singing SGM, and singing it well, they’re singing my song.
THE THORNS
Just as in the rose bush, SGM has its thorns. Some are right out there where you can see them and some are hidden way back, behind the scenes, so to speak. They WILL hurt you and they are, in fact, hurting SGM.
THE MUSIC ROW CROWD
In Washington they are called “The Inside The Beltway Crowd.” These are the people who are so caught up with each other that they are oblivious to the rest of the country. The only thing that matters to them is appearing to be important to the rest of the “in” crowd, or as so aptly described in the song by The Eagles, they are “too busy being fabulous.”
We have a similar group in SGM. I call them the “Music Row Crowd.” They don’t all live and work in Nashville, but they all belong to the club. They are Southern Gospel label executives, radio promoters, talent agents, marketing and design people, promoters, trade executives, and some artists.
These folks rub shoulders with their secular music and contemporary Christian music counterparts on a daily basis. They desperately want to be accepted and to be treated as equals, but many of them are ashamed of our heritage and embarrassed by our music, and so they willingly compromise our art form to be accepted by the “in” crowd. It is beneath them to accept Southern Gospel Music as it is, or as it should be, so they are always trying to change it into something else… always with the same phony-baloney story about reaching more young people by changing the music. To which I say… A THORN BY ANY OTHER NAME IS STILL A THORN!
THORNS BEGET THORNS
Of course any time a group shows up on the doorstep of SGM that is anything but SGM the “Music Row Crowd” begins salivating. The longhaired, un-shaven, un-pressed, hole-in-blue jeans, gravely voiced rocker is music to their ears. They go running to their secular counterparts with CD and press kit in hand, “See, see, this is what we are. This is what Southern Gospel Music is now. Can we join your club now, can we, can we? Oh please, please?”
The “Music Row Crowd” also likes to play the “Name Game.” If an artist doesn’t fit into the mold of traditional Southern Gospel they just call it “Something Southern Gospel” you know like, Bluegrass Southern Gospel, or Christian Country Southern Gospel or my favorite…Progressive Southern Gospel.
They also think that by changing the name of SGM to “American Gospel Music,” or “Chinese Gospel Music,” that more people will want to hear it. They believe that the name Southern Gospel Music turns people off.
It’s not the name that turns people off…it’s the poor performance of many SGM artists that turns people off.
This fact, combined with the presence of artists that don’t perform true SGM, is why SGM is viewed as inferior. We have lost our identity. We have abandoned our true heritage.
SGM, when performed by a top notch SGM artist, is loved by everyone. If you don’t believe me ask The Perrys, Ernie Haase and Signature Sound, The McKameys, The Booth Brothers, The Inspirations, Legacy Five and the other truly fine, professional groups (I don’t have room to name them all) who are doing quite well.
THERE IS ENOUGH AUDIENCE, YOUNG AND OLD, TO SUPPORT OUR MUSIC IF THEY WILL STOP TRYING TO MAKE IT INTO SOMETHING ELSE.
My good friend and partner, Bob Jones, told me about a night in 1986 during the Dove Awards week when Southern Gospel Music really shined. At the time Bob was the President of Zondervan Music Group, which also included the Benson Company. Their labels were Impact, Powerdisc, Riversong, Heartwartming and also Enigma. The artist repertoire of those labels included Sandi Patti, Larnelle Harris, Degarmo and Key, Stryper and The Cathedral Quartet, among others.
The Benson Company was given one night to feature their artists and it was decided that the theme would be to showcase the variety within the company. You can imagine the broad range of music that appeared on that stage that night, from Sandi Patti to Stryper, but Bob said the biggest hit of the night was the Cathedrals. The crowd loved them and showed their appreciation with a standing ovation. In fact, they got the biggest response of any artist the entire weekend. Of all the artists and bands that appeared on that stage that week, four gentlemen with a piano player and a bass guitar stole the show.
In all the years I enjoyed the Cathedral Quartet I can’t ever remember them singing anything but pure Southern Gospel Music. As a matter of fact, in trying to define Southern Gospel Music, I would have to say, “Listen to the Cathedral Quartet. Do that and you’ll be doing what I believe is the finest example of Southern Gospel Music.”
SGM is an art form that originated in the South and, it has been argued, stands alongside jazz, blues, and country music as the fourth great genre of grass roots music and the fourth major type of southern music. It has a distinctive sound. Other genres of music also have a sound that is unique to that genre. To alter or distort a genre’s sound and try to make it sound like something else is, in my opinion, a cardinal sin.
For example, have you ever heard of a barbershop duet? I doubt it, because barbershop music is designed to function as a quartet. There are lots of people who love that art form and probably many more who don’t, but you never hear of the barbershop quartet industry changing their music to reach more people. They remain true to their heritage. You either like it or you don’t…that’s it.
How about George Jones with a big band… Or Frank Sinatra with a steel guitar? I think you get my point.
A ROSE IS STILL A ROSE
My friends, Southern Gospel Music can stand on its own merits. It is designed by its very chemistry to be performed by four voices, much like barbershop quartet music. Please understand me here. I’m not suggesting that we dismiss every group that is not a quartet. I am merely trying to point out that our art form, Southern Gospel Music, is by its nature, Quartet Music. The name of our biggest event is The National QUARTET Convention. That is our heritage. Just like the rose, you can call it anything you want to but it will never change what it is.
WHAT IT IS NOT IS COUNTRY, BLUEGRASS, MOR, PRAISE AND WORSHIP ROCK AND ROLL OR PROGRESSIVE.
I disagree with those who proclaim that there is a place for everyone in SGM. There is only a place for those who are committed to the art form, and the art form is clearly defined by listening to groups like the Cathedral Quartet. If you want to sing music like that, whether you are a quartet, or a trio, or a mixed group, then you are welcome.
If you and the “Music Row Crowd” insist on making this beautiful rose bush into a bush of thorns then you are most certainly not welcome.
I, for one, have had my fill of the blue jeans, long hair and country music “wannabees,” singing music that is not SGM pretending to be a rose, and I don’t believe I’m alone on this.
I say, “Bring back the red suits, short haircuts, shined shoes, and tried and true Southern Gospel Music.”
As Always, I Welcome Your Comments.
God Bless You,
Nick Bruno
http://www.nickbruno.com
Author: Nick Bruno
| Author's Website: http://www.nickbruno.com/
Written: 06/02/2009
| 
Category: Monthly Articles
Comments: 56
RSS Feed
| (What's an RSS feed?)
Ads Sponsored by Southern Spin
I agree with you! We have just recently gone to Ernie Haase & Signature Sound and the Booth Brothers concerts (return visits to both)and I am always thrilled to see the young people at the concerts really enjoying true Southern Gospel! Changing the music to draw in new listeners is a waste of time and talent. There are other genres of Christian music and if a person like them, fine - go to it, but why change a music that ministers to many already. We just don't have to have millions at every concert. That one person that goes and has their life changed forever is a more worthy endeavor.
Is SoGospelNews.com part of the music row crowd? Even in their own 2008 SGN Music Awards there were categories and awards for PROGRESSIVE SOUTHERN SONG OF THE YEAR and PROGRESSIVE SOUTHERN ALBUM OF THE YEAR. I enjoy reading some of the updates on this site, but I've always wondered what "progressive southern" is. I've heard what I would call progressive southern gospel, but it is nothing that I would encourage or promote by handing out awards for it.
Progressive Southern would be defined by artists like the Talley Trio, Karen Peck & New River, Brian Free & Assurance, Crabb Revival, Three Bridges, The Nelons, and the Booth Brothers (a group that Nick champions in this article) - as well choice songs by groups like Gold City, Gaither Vocal Band, Ernie Haase & Signature Sound, The Hoppers, Mike & Kelly Bowling, and others - all extremely popular and successful groups in this industry.
Most of the time I agree with Nick's article - but I found myself disagreeing with much of what this article says this month...
Nick also made a comment about Barber Shop music not changing and staying tried and true to their roots. It should also be noted that Barber Shop Quartet music is even more of a dying breed than Southern Gospel music.
Nick needs to go back in the old photo album and look at pics of some of the groups that were popular in the 70's. The Oak Ridge Boys, The Imperials, The Downings, just to name a few, had hair styles and clothes that reflected the times. Some of the guys in these groups had somewhat long hair and "Elvis" style sideburns. Shirts with the large collars and worn open were in style as well. I agree with Nick that I'm tired of seeing all these new groups with the messed up hair styles, t-shirts hanging out, and blue jeans. I recently heard a group that has a name very close to "Gold City". They try to dress like the Crabb Family but they can't sing their way out of a brown paper sack!
Amen & Amen! Great piece!
God is good all the time & all the time God is good.
Elaine Harcourt
Nick,
I believe this to be one of the best articles ever written by you or anyone else. If the look sloppy on stage with shirt out then they will sound sloppy before their program is half over. Many times the sloppy ones write sloppy songs which are songs that rhyme. They are usually trying to make a name for themselves. Many of the incrowd goups of today are loose on stage and are told by the in crowd to be loose on stage, talk to each other and practically ignore the crowd in front of them. I know some of the young ones who are taught to do that by a group that used to be hot and then moved to the progressive label and are now so progressive that they are out of the business. There are too many class groups out there like the Booths, Greater Vision Legacy V and others. We lovers of gospel music do not have to put up with the cool look on stage. The younger ones who disagree with you in this article are still wannabes.
I really don't see much benefit in polarizing people who enjoy southern gospel music, whether it's country, bluegrass, shirt in, shirt out, hair standing on end or slicked down with Dapper Dan or FOP.
The message, people...the message.
Nick,
Love your articles, I sing in a part time SGQ,
we have a member in his early 30's and is wanting to do modern hyms and so on, it gets frustrating at times since all we do is the old style SG 4guys and a piano and not bad for what we do. We will continue with the tried and true SG music.
Michbasssinger
I agree with Chris on this one. I've enjoyed many of Nick's articles, but totally disagree with him on this one. I want to move forward with the music, not backward. Matching suits and ties went out a long time ago. There is nothing wrong with hairstyles and clothing that is young, as long as it is modest. I'm a firm believer that the attitudes toward outward appearance rather than the heart of the artists is the main reason SG music is dying. Trendy clothing does not mean sloppy vocals or lack of talent. Some of the most talented people in this genre of music are those that are the most progressive. Short-sightedness and narrow-mindedness toward outward appearance is killing us. Please focus on the results of the ministry. When I go to concerts with progressive groups, wearing young, trendy clothes, and feel the Spirit and see the altars lined, I know that God is working through them...and their hair!
First of all, I'd like to say that congratulations are in order for Nick.. because whether you agree with him or not... his column consistently gets the most response of any other on this website. The mark of a good writer is making people think. The mark of an excellent writer is making people respond.
First, I cannot believe anyone cannot see the "humor" and the "tongue-in-cheek" attitude behind the red suits comment.
Secondly, I think that most of the comments that disagree with him are kind of missing his point.
Just because a person doesn't WANT SGM to return to the days of the red suits doesn't mean that Nick is incorrect when he reminds us that the reason there IS a form of music called SGM is because there was a day of red suits and short haircuts.
I think his point is that the music form that is referred to as "Southern Gospel Music" was started as a quartet style of music. This, in his opinion, is what the pure form of Southern Gospel Music. He is entitled to his opinion.. and is simply expressing it in HIS column.
Secondly..he LOVES that kind of music. He loves the Quartet music. And in HIS OPINION the reason it is the industry is dying is NOT BECAUSE it doesn't appeal to a general audience, but because the audience is becoming confused because this art form is being "watered down" by groups that are not Southern Gospel. And he is frustrated to see other forms of music coming in to the field of SGM and "calling itself" Southern Gospel.. when in reality it is not Southern Gospel.
He seems to feel that the quartet music - the music that STARTED SGM - is good enough music to sustain an industry if it was being done in it's purest form.
While younger people may enjoy the various forms of music they are hearing at SGM venues....it doesn't mean that Nick is incorrect when he says that SGM in it's PURE form is quartet music.
The industry that exists that supports this very website was created by the Red Suits. Personally, SGM is not my favorite music style.. but I understand his point is that it is such a UNIQUE style of music that for that reason alone it should be carefully preserved.
One thing is obvious about him - he loves SGM and wants to be sure it's here for future generations.
You can like the newer music. He prefers it the way it was and thinks it's good enough music to stand on it's own merit. This is his opinion and I applaud him for stating it.
I find myself agreeing with both sides of this issue to a certian degree. Meaning, I for one love the sounds that SG music has to offer with it's vocal arrangements as well as melodic structure however, as an evangelist/artist myself I see alot of young people throughout the course of the year and I have ask them this question. What is it that you like and dislike about SG music? And almost always you will hear them respond like this....well the thing I like about it is seeing a guy that sings like a woman and a man that can rumble my chest cavity is pretty cool but, the music itself seems dated for young people and doesn't really appeal to our generation any more.(the ages are between 15 and 21) So I think that the industry as a whole has to do something to appeal to not only people like us that love this music but also to the generation that will carry on long after we are all dead and gone.So if you have to change your look a little I think that's fine as long as you never lose your class. Simply put,that is one of the foundations this great music was built upon CLASS..just my opinion from a little guys point of view.
The things that seemed to set Southern Gospel Music apart in its Glory Years were far more than appearance. They included remarkable harmonies, quality voices, wonderful arrangements, obvious rehearsal and professionalism. By the way, it was Southern but NOT Country. These groups did not have to adapt to any other sound or take a backseat to any other performers.
I dont think Nick said anything about beards. Good thing because I've seen some full bearded pictures of Nick from the past & his outfit was pretty hip too.
I'm with Nick on this one all the way! Perhaps there is an "age thing" going on here with our preferences? Some of my favorite groups are -- THE DOVE BROTHERS, BOOTH BROTHERS, DIXIE MELODY BOYS, THE HOPPERS. To me, these groups have the sound, the look, and the passion for the message of their ministry. The message unfortunately is too often forgotten by some wannabees who think the "show" is about them in their American Idol mentality. [I watched the show once and that was enough for me]. I personally believe that when we have an opportunity to minister for our Lord, and call ourself a southern gospel music artist -- we need to sing our very best, play musical instruments [our very best], and look the very best we can, in representing the King of Kings. As has been stated at other times by other people -- I don't want to go to a gospel concert to look at someone who appears to have slept in their clothes for a week and are missing 5 buttons on their shirt/blouse. Maybe I'm getting old, but I think I may be in some good company also? I could say a lot more here but the paranoia in me says the hate mail of other opinions is on it's way; but that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
Just a side note...I'm over 50 and still disagree. We can't live in the past. It's killing us! The ministry is what is important. If you see the fruits, then God gets the glory and He approves, whether we do or not. Just because someone's outward appearance doesn't suit your taste does not mean they are not talented.
As was stated by a previous post "We can't live in the past" -- this IS true. As I made my post earlier, I did not intend to suggest that idea. However, [in my opinion] there are some things I WISH could be ABSOLUTES. The FREEMANS recorded a song years ago called "GOING BACK" [great song].
This song talks about "going back to the absolutes". Most all of us agree that the message of the cross should never be changed, though the method of delivering the message will change.
Jerry Kirksey wrote an article a few years ago concerning sgm integrity and message. The point I got from that article was -- southern gospel needs to keep it's identity! I for one am sick to death of hearing "souther gospel music is dying". Having made those couple comments, all I'm saying is -- I think SGM should have some ABSOLUTES --- STOP TRYING SO HARD TO COPY COUNTRY, CONTEMPORARY, HIP HOP, RAP [Satanic], etc. Why can't we have our own brand that is easily identified as SOUTHERN GOSPLE MUSIC. What's wrong with that ABSOLUTE? I'm going to do my best to sing what can readily be understood as southern gospel -- not a mix of variations of music. I guess I'm a "die-hard" southern gospel music person, and that's my abolute. Everyone else can have their opinion and their absolutes.
Hey I must say I usually like Nicks' articles too, but I must disagree with his opinion on this one. There is no way the 13 to 21 year old generation of today as a whole will be attracted to barber shop style singing. However they love the country style and there is nothing wrong with incorporating that into today's southern gospel genre. By the way if we take a look back into the days of old to some groups such as J.D. Sumner we may find that they were progressive in their day. Did'nt J.D. sing back up for Elvis Presley? If I'm not mistaken Elvis was a little progressive in his time wasn't he? Oh and by the way Elvis was singing Rock-n-Roll with J.D. as his back up. We need a youthful sound in order for this industry to continue. We need our young people to get involved with southern gospel music. We need quality groups recording and being promoted, rather than every mom and pop recording company signing groups that cannot sing their way out of wet paper bags. We need to incoporate the old and the new without loosing what southern gospel is known for " THE MESSAGE"! Something that contemporary music is lacking. Well that's my 2 cents worth. Wow, I was able to stretch my pennies huh?
"Many times the sloppy ones write sloppy songs which are songs that rhyme." Interesting logic. Flawed, but interesting.
First of all, proving my point in that Nick's articles make people think and speak. Lots of posts.
Some of the reasoning here is so flawed, in my humble opinion. Where is it written that 13-21 year olds are the ones who must dictate what is called SGM? There's nothing wrong with wanting to appeal to and minister to teenagers??? But why do we have to CHANGE Southern Gospel Music's UNIQUE sound in order to do so.
It may be true that SGM and quartet singing may not appeal to a WIDE audience of teennagers.. but.. dare I say it, "So what?" All over the world every other type of music keeps itself PURE to it's own art form - all except SGM. Do you think up and coming concert pianists refuse to play MOZART and BEETHOVEN because it will not appeal to 13-21 year olds? Where would classical music be today if it adopted the "DEAR GOD MAKE SURE THE YOUNG PEOPLE LIKE OUR MUSIC" mantra?
Is it only me who gets what Nick is saying??? Evidently.. yes. He's saying, "we are going to lose this style of music if we keep allowing what is NOT southern gospel to be called southern gospel." He isn't ant-anything, but pro SGM.
Further more, the groups he mentioned were so EXCELLENT - now and in the past - that they appealed to a vast audience... Ed Sullivan show, etc. And one more furthermore.. groups nowadays who ARE singing the classical SGM are not fading away, but are singing to HEALTHY sized audiences.
SOME young people will like SGM.. and they WILL carry on the art form after people like Nick are gone... unless.. of course.. the whole style of music called Southern Gospel disappears..
I think Chris and Fireproofed miss the point. There is nothing wrong with progressive contemporary Christian music. Just do not call it or confuse it with Southern Gospel. When or if the NQC draws a large young audience or one that is populated with more people under 45 than over 45, we can agree that "progressive" style has overtaken the "traditional" style of Gospel music. As far as dressing alike is concerned, it is actually making a comeback because our audience, which is still mature folks, think it looks neat and professional. Quartets or groups that dress differently look like a "local church quartet". What would it look like if the New York Yankees told their players to wear whatever was comfortable? Let's be careful not to exclude anyone who is sincere in performing Gospel Music but let's not let Contemporay Christian Music smother traditional Southern Gospel four part harmony quartets and trios.
I might agree with some of you here if I could see a clear and precise definition of "southern gospel music," a term which was not used originally when this music began. In all of my 50+ years I have not seen a definition that was inclusive of each style that began our music. Instead every effort to define the music has instead divided it yet again.
I submit that if you truly study the beginnings of the music you will see that:
1. It was contemporary to it's day
2. It contained different stylings
This music became associated with quartets because quartets were used to "sell" the music (songbooks).
I do agree that excellence should be the defining factor, but style? No need to exclude country, country has always been a part of this music as has mountain/bluegrass.
Let's not go back to the mentality that drove us away from The Gospel Music Association/Dove Awards. We are only shooting ourselves in the foot.
Embracing the country/bluegrass/mountain style with the traditional quartet stylings still keeps us a unique and seperate genre without losing our identity.
Susan Unthank
http://susan.sogospelnews.com/
http://mostlyorganized.com/
http://twitter.com/sunthank
http://twitter.com/sogospelnews
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Susan I totally agree. I think we can incoporate country and southern together.
Well, I know these kinds of discussions rarely end in everyone coming to complete agreement but I guess I have to show my age and give a history lesson. "Southern Gospel Music" was a term that evolved to differentiate what music publishers and performers used to call "Stamps-Baxter" music from traditional church music. Originally, it was the Vaughn Music Company that began publishing and printing songbooks that were written in four part harmony and notated in "shape notes" This was so the masses of people could learn to read and sing the new songs they published in their songbooks. It was a "southern regional style" that was looked down on by the traditional publishers of hymnals and more classical choral and organ music used in church services. VO Stamps was the agent for Vaughn out in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. While the Vaughn Quartets were popular and exciting, it was VO Stamps that created a "franchise" of sorts for quartets. Many of them were called "Stamps Melody Boys", "Stamps All-Stars" or in my Dad's case "Bob Jones and the Stamps Harmony Boys." These quartets, trios, etc. never considered Bluegrass, Country,or any other genre of music "Southern Gospel". When the Blackwood Bros. and Statesmen Quartets appeared on Arthur Godfrey's National Television Show, "The Talent Scouts", they moved Southen Gospel music from the local singing conventions, where the Stamps Quartets were popular, to the major auditoriums of Southern and a few Northern cities. Through the 1940s, 50's,and 60's the popularity of Southern Gospel Music exploded. Everyone wanted in on the experience. In the 70's,80's and 90's Contemporary Christian Music began to draw the younger audiences away with their slightly Rock and Roll influence. In the 90's and currently too many people want to integrate the technology and sounds of Contemporary Christian Music but not give up the warmth and message of Southern Gospel. I think Nick's point is let them "do their thing". If they want to do Christian Rock, like the Crabb's are now doing, or Country or Bluegrass, that's OK. Just do not insist on calling it Southern Gospel.
The Crabbs do not and have never played "rock" music...
I think Matt Felts has done a great job of juxtaposing Nick's article this month.
Check it out:
http://sogospelnews.com/index/content/articles/would-you-buy-a-1949-fordtoday/
Mr Jones,
Do you have a definition of "southern gospel music"? Your statement, "too many people want to integrate the technology and sounds of Contemporary Christian Music but not give up the warmth and message of Southern Gospel," sounds like the same argument that was used when drums and electric guitars entered the scene.
I agree with much of your "history lesson," but I believe it is seen through your own filter. The songs in the song books were not written for quartets only. Quartets were simply the vehicle to sell the songs. The songs were written for the church and were sung and performed by more than quartets, and many had a country/mountain/bluegrass style.
Even history can't be defined in a way that satisfies everyone.
I simply do not see a reason to limit a genre/style that clearly was never intended to be limited.
Saving our music won't be accomplished by closing ranks, but rather by insisting on excellence in delivery. On this, I believe Nick and I agree unanimously.
Susan Unthank
http://susan.sogospelnews.com/
http://mostlyorganized.com/
http://twitter.com/sunthank
http://twitter.com/sogospelnews
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Chris, if you do not think the Crabb's are a Christian Rock group then you need to adjust your hearning aid.
Chris stated: "The Crabbs do not and have never played "rock" music..."
Absolutely true, and therein lies much of the problem. Most of those who complain of the infiltration of 'comtemporary/rock' have no real understanding of what /contemporary/rock' music is today.
Susan Unthank
http://susan.sogospelnews.com/
http://mostlyorganized.com/
http://twitter.com/sunthank
http://twitter.com/sogospelnews
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Mr. Jones - I do hope that you take this in the manner that it is presented and do not take offense to the following statement because I mean no disrespect in what I am about to say.
I think you are showing your age when you make comments about the Crabbs being rock music.
I think you need to go to iTunes and listen to some clips of bands that are at the top of the Christian rock arena (like Red, Skillet, Decyfer Down, Underoath, Emery, Disciple, Anberlin, Switchfoot, Flyleaf, Relient K, or Thousand Foot Krutch) and then go listen to Crabb Revival or Aaron & Amanda Crabb and tell me if they are even remotely in the same class.
None of the Crabb entities have had any luck being played on Inspirational radio (where even acts like Sandi Patty, Steve Green, and Twila Paris are having problems charting), let alone Christian AC, CHR or ROCK.
Well, I did read Matt Felts article and it is also very well written, and makes an excellent point. But I don't agree that it is a counter-point to what Nick is saying.
Using the Ford Auto analogy...I believe Nick's point would be heard liked this:
"Years ago Ford decided to create a Ford Pick Up Truck. A pick up truck is unique in it's design and function. There is a certain type of customer who loves to own a pick up truck. Some, because of it's useful function and others, because they simply like to drive a pick up truck. Although you can buy a 1949 pick up truck, why would you? Ford is continuing to make NEW pick up trucks to this day. There are vast improvements in performance and motor function - but when a customer walks on to the auto lot - he sees what he identifies as a pick up truck. And he buys a pick up truck.
Some people will NEVER buy a pick up truck, but Ford hasn't changed the basic styling of it's pick up trucks because some people prefer the newer SUV's. Nope... a pick up truck remains a pick up truck.
It's true that Ford makes many different models.. but it doesn't try to sell someone a sports car and call it a pick-up truck.
It doesn't try to sell someone a four-door sedan and call it a pick-up truck.
It doesn't try to sell someone a motorcycle and call it a pick-up truck.
It isn't the AGE of the truck or when it was PRODUCED that I'm concerned about.(Nick speaking.) I am not telling everyone they need to buy a pick up truck that was produced in 1949. I'm telling the industry that is producing the vehicles that a pick up truck is a pick up truck so don't try to change what a pick up truck IS just because there are some people selling four door sedans who have the money to be part of your conventions, etc.."
I am consistently amazed at how the chip on everyone's shoulder keeps them from reading what someone is REALLY saying. Nick is saying that THE INDUSTRY is trying to include music that is not, IN HIS OPINION, southern gospel music.
It is true that other forms of music might be more popular and might bring in more money to people in SGM who want and need it.
A pick up truck is still a pick up truck...whether it was built in 1949 or 2009. I think Nick would tell everyone to buy a new pick up if they can... as long as it's really a pick up truck.
Obviously we all are southen gospel music fans with varied taste within this wonderful style of music. One could be offended by statements of "your are showing your age" though. When I consider this is a young person speaking [as I once thought anyone past 30 was old] we take that all in stride.
Most of us who comment on these sites are fans and participants of SGM with a very wide age variation. Because of the age differences, our taste will naturally cover a whole lot of territory. What kind of SGM is correct? That depends on each individual's perception. I like traditional smooth harmony, dress alike, SG. Does that make me an ancient dinasour? I don't think so, and I resent being catagorized as being in that box. Each one of us will attend SGM concerts that will include live bands, tracks, people dressed in suits, dressed in sweats, etc. but the bottom line needs to be -- AN ACCEPTANCE/APPRECIATION OF THE MESSAGE OF JESUS CHRIST! I'm so glad that we all still have the privilage to be differnt in our varied forms of SGM. Let us be respectful of one another.
MD's comments are most pertinent, and I think he/she senses the point of Nick's article much better than a good deal of some of the reaction to it here.
I'd like to add(strictly for the sake of discussion)...
Is it possible that quartets were created BY THE PUBLISHING COMPANIES that published the songbooks that were originally the impetus behind the gospel music industry in the Southeast United States because the music in them was written for four-part vocal groups(i.e. quartets)?
In those SONGbooks there are no charts for guitars, basses, violins(aka "fiddles" to some), or drums. Was this because those publishers had an aversion to instruments?
Maybe some of them did, I don't know. But I submit they wrote those arrangements because that was the style of music they wanted them presented in.
Susan is correct...there was no such thing as "southern gospel" when that genre was birthed. In fact, that term did not exist as an official(or quasi-official)designation for the music until the 1980s.
Prior to that, the genre that arose from the Southeast in the early 20th century was usually referred to as "gospel music"...and what is so imprecise about that name?
As the Gospel Music Channel promos point out, ALL the styles of music used in the general field of gospel music are valid..."...it's all good, it's all gospel."
And Nick is not for one moment suggesting otherwise in his article.
He is simply concerned that the music that has come to be known as "southern gospel"(whose roots I described above)does not lose its' identity in the midst of all this syncretistic stylistic amalgamation that is taking place nowadays.
I am, too...and that's why I appreciated Nick's article. I also appreciate the point of Matt Felts' response to it, although I think his observations are largely beside Mick's point.
Surely there can be something for everybody that wants to hear good Christian music...to paraphrase Paul Baker's book of years ago, there's no reason the devil should have it all!
I just hope we can stop being so obsessed with "The Name Game" that Nick describes.
Morning glory and evening grace,
Giving the world a smile each day,
john.sogospelnews.com
MD~"Some people will NEVER buy a pick up truck, but Ford hasn't changed the basic styling of it's pick up trucks because some people prefer the newer SUV's. Nope... a pick up truck remains a pick up truck."
Sorry, MD, but I can't resist...Have you seen the new Ford Sport Trac or the older Ford Explorers? They are Ford SUV's which also convert into pick up trucks for the people who want both. Ford also makes sports cars, vans, etc., to reach all of their customers with something they may like. Oh, and they are all under the name Ford.
That is how SG music is. There are plenty of quartets out there, doing the same thing that was done with the Stamps and Statesmen, back in the 50's and 60's. They are the pick up trucks you spoke of that do not change much in style. They keep the basics going for the people who still want the pick up.
However, Ford is wise enough to see that there are younger people coming up, who didn't grow up when the Ford pick up was first produced. Even though some of those young people may still love and want a pick up, Ford sees that there are others who also enjoy the look and feel of an SUV, which they also produce. Then, someone at Ford said, "Why can't we just all get along? Our whole company doesn't have to be pick ups. We don't have to criticize every other vehicle or SUV that doesn't look or feel like a pick up. We see good in both. We could probably make much more money if we produced many different styles, and even let some styles be a combination of both pick ups and SUV. Then, instead of alienating our other customers, or trying to make them all like or fit into a pick up, we can provide product to fit everyone's taste.
Now it would be of no benefit for Ford to say, "Our SUV's do not wear suits and ties...er, uh... have the sleek style of the long bed pick ups. They just don't look right, so let's tell the world about that and shoot ourselves in the foot. Let's show them how we, a part of our own company, do not like or appreciate those SUV's, and try to discourage other people from listening to...er, uh...accepting them. Let's be so narrow in our opinions that we want to show outsiders just how wrong our own production team is for even designing or thinking about actually promoting something as different from a truck as an SUV. For Pete's sake, please don't even think about acting like you like those conversion things that can have such variety that they can sing both...er, uh...be both a pick up and an SUV. Who in the world would want to come up with something like that to reach a wider age range/fan base...er, uh...customer for our Ford products and possibly get our message...er, uh...product out to many more people and even increase our capital and popularity???" Hmmmm...
Concerning the "name game" I have dealt with "up and coming" artists like that. They recorded a new song by "so and so", their new project was produced by "so and so", "so and so" sang backup on their new project. It might have been excitement over these people being involved, I don't know. To me it sort of reeked of name dropping. 
Then reading press releases from some can be a real hoot. One in particular made it sound like the person was much more great and accomplished than they were (but then many do that.) It didn't help that it was written by a relative. LOL.
I can agree with points on both sides regarding the other things. I will make a few comments now. First, SG (or gospel music) HAS changed since it started. Some like the old fashioned style of the fifties or before. I prefer the late sixties to present for the most part. Even then, it depends. The Oaks came into their own starting the late sixties. I prefer that HeartWarming stuff and later Columbia etc. to the Skylite stuff and the first few albums on HeartWarming. One of my favorite times of the Stamps was the late sixties to the early to mid seventies. That HeartWarming stuff had some great stuff on it as did the Oaks. I prefer the Cathedrals stuff starting in the eighties for the most part. I do like some prior in each of these groups though. Gold City has had great stuff from the eighties on. The Singing Americans had some great stuff with Funderburk, Parker, English and Strickland at different times. The Sound's first album was really good. The Gaither Vocal Band has gone from more white bread music in the beginning to contemporary, to inspirational, to SG, to country and all over the map.
The Cathedrals did use country instrumentation. Most, if not all of the Goin' In Style album had a more country flavor. They had selected songs elsewhere.
The point is, music evolves (for the most part.) Country and rock are different now than they were in the sixties. So is SG. That isn't to say we should totally rework it, redefine it or push out the traditional, but there is room for all I think. Yes, I realize that in ways it waters it down, but in other ways it can get more people to listen if you offer more flavors. I think having progressive and other labels can help let you know which flavor you are getting. Otherwise someone might hear the Cathedrals and say I love SG. Then they hear the Inspirations or McKameys and wonder what happened. The latter two are way different. the Isaacs appeal to a different group mostly than the Cathedrals or Gold City. I remember reading from a promoter who said putting certain groups together worked better than others just for that reason.
As far as the dress issue, that has gone around for a long time too. The Oaks, Imperials, even Cathedrals and others dressed in different styles. The Cathedrals not so much, but some. The Cathedrals didn't always dress in suits either, but it didn't affect their singing at all. Now, I don't like some of the styles today. The droopy pants is totally stupid. Not as much for style as it is in function. I certainly don't want that in SG, but even if there are other styles I don't particularly care for, what is the harm? They sing the same. If they are modest, who cares?
Dear Fireproofed..(nice name)
Nice reply also.. However, I don't think your point is well taken because Ford is STILL PRODUCING the BASIC pick up trucks.
The fact that they are broadening their appeal to another market has not affected the fact that they are still making the same kind of pick up truck they've been making for decades. WHY?
Because there is STILL a customer base of regular pick up truck buyers, that's why!
Your analogy would be an accurate portrayal of what Nick is concerned about if you were to say that because Ford decided to make products like the Sport Trac and SUV's they stopped making the standard pick up truck.
He doesn't have a problem with Sport Trac's and SUV's... does he? No. He has a problem with a car salesman trying to tell you that an SUV is a PICK UP TRUCK. If Ford took this approach, eventually, they would stop making pick up trucks.
They would tell their audience.. "This SUV is almost exactly like your pick up truck". And truth is, even though they're old fashioned-ish, and been around for decades.. LOTS OF PEOPLE STILL WANT TO BUY PICK UP TRUCKS.
LOTS OF PEOPLE STILL WANT TO HEAR THE KIND OF MUSIC THAT PEOPLE IDENTIFY AS SGM. We can split hairs over what is and what isn't SGM. But people know what you're talking about when you say those words.
It's wonderful.. exciting.. amazing... spectacular... stupendous.. to think that OTHER KINDS OF MUSIC are drawing people to Christianity.. to Christ.. to Church.... HOORAY! and HALLELJAH!
But some people, like Nick, still like the old "pick up" truck called Southen Gospel.
Nick is concerned that because OTHER FORMS of music are being IDENTIFIED as Southern Gospel (or Gospel Music as the music historian John pointed out) when they are NOT SGM.. that eventually SGM will be lost from the music scene.
AM I THE ONLY ONE GETTING HIS POINT???
He is not saying:
YOUNG PEOPLE SHOULD BE IGNORED
or
NOTHING SHOULD EVER CHANGE.
He is saying... SGM is a unique form of music. Let's not lose it.
And by the way.. I think it is extremely disrespectful for any young person to take a shot at an older person's age. extremely.
MD...since you addressed your comment to me personally, please re-read:
"That is how SG music is. There are plenty of quartets out there, doing the same thing that was done with the Stamps and Statesmen, back in the 50's and 60's. They are the pick up trucks you spoke of that do not change much in style. They keep the basics going for the people who still want the pick up.
However, Ford is wise enough to see that there are younger people coming up, who didn't grow up when the Ford pick up was first produced. Even though some of those young people may still love and want a pick up, Ford sees that there are others who also enjoy the look and feel of an SUV, which they also produce. Then, someone at Ford said, "Why can't we just all get along? Our whole company doesn't have to be pick ups. We don't have to criticize every other vehicle or SUV that doesn't look or feel like a pick up. We see good in both. We could probably make much more money if we produced many different styles, and even let some styles be a combination of both pick ups and SUV. Then, instead of alienating our other customers, or trying to make them all like or fit into a pick up, we can provide product to fit everyone's taste."
I'm still not sure where you got that I was "extremely disrespectful to any young person to take a shot at an older person's age. extremely." If you had read my previous comments, you would know that I am well over 50 and NOT a young person, but thanks for the compliment. I don't recall disrespecting anyone.
Let's take the Ford truck analogy that was offered. Yes, indeed Ford still makes a truck. But, he doesn't still make the original 1949 truck. He now offers thee 2009 Truck. This new model, though still a truck, now includes more features, and yes, even has a few different styles to it. Today's truck includes an option to have a 2-door or 4-door model. You can even include or exclude certain features that the original model didn't hqve. Things like air conditioning, automatic transmissions, electric door locks, and the list goes on.
You have a choice between different truck models (styles) such as the F150, F250, F350, the Ford Ranger, and more (I won't even say that Ford includes Vans in their truck lineup). Now Ford didn't start with all these models and options but he saw that to give the public what they wanted he needed to offer more options. What a smart business man. He didn't stop making the truck he just started keeping up with the times and offering more options.
Now there are those who would still say, give me that original 1949 pickup truck, because I don't want all these new-fangled contraptions on my perfectly useable, original 1949 model. But guess what? It isn't 1949 anymore and Ford can't stay in business by only offering the 1949 model.
Let's take the rose/thorn analogy that Nick introduced. Would it surprise you to know that there are more than 1 rose breeds/styles? Yes, there is more than just that original red rose. Rose breeders still come up with new styles even today. The world is offered more options for roses than that simple beautiful red rose that most people associate with the word.
So, yes a rose is still a rose, but you get to choose your style, whether it be a Tea rose, a Floribunda rose, or a David Austin rose, you still get a rose. Take your pick.
As long as there is southern gospel there will be choices as well, whether it be traditional 4-part quartet style, or a little bit country or a little bluegrass or a little mountain. It's still southern gospel music.
And I for one say, "Thank you Jesus!"
Susan Unthank
http://susan.sogospelnews.com/
http://mostlyorganized.com/
http://twitter.com/sunthank
http://twitter.com/sogospelnews
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Fireproofed,
Sorry, I wasn't referring to you being disrespectful... though I didn't make that clear.
I did re-read your reply. Again, I don't think there is a problem in anyone's mind - including Nick's - with people performing and/or enjoying a wide variety of music. I think that's what your post is trying to infer.
He isn't saying anything MORE than - let's be sure we don't blur the lines SO MUCH that we LOSE SGM all together. Let's not CALL something SGM that isn't SGM?
Isn't he?
Baseball isn't softball, softball isn't basketball and basketball isn't tennis.
The baseball commissioner doesn't try to convince people that softball is baseball.....though they are similar. If every baseball game started to include softball.. then eventually it would all be softball.. and baseball would disappear.
OK.. I've said it 97 different ways.
I've always been someone who finds it perplexing when people don't get someone else's obvious point.
I'll try to jump in here with the auto analogy.
Autos = Music
Ford = Music business
pickup truck = SG
Sports car = contemporary
The pickup truck (SG) doesn't have as large a market share as some others. There are still plenty who like them. However, in pickups (SG) (some prefer certain options and not others. Some want full size, some not. Some want shells, some not. Some want four wheel drive, some not. Some want auto, some not. They are all still pickups, but appeal to different people. The person who wants to only haul things may have different needs than those who have a family, or who goes mudding, or who wants a shiny one to show off, or to go camping, or to take a long trip. Some like the old SG that was around back in the fifties. These people might want the old basic truck without all the new gadgets like an mp3 player etc. Others might want one with all the current options, fully loaded. They might not like the old boxy look of the tried and true.
The fact remains is that SG HAS changed some since the twenties. We have tons more instruments strings, drums and the like) higher production values, much more equipment and technology etc. Compare a 78 from the thirties or whenever to a CD and tell me they are the same. Even if you compared traditional groups, there will be SOME difference. Admittedly, the traditionalists have changed less, but I am not sure there is anyone out there who sounds the same. Maybe someone like the ChuckWagon Gang has kept a lot of what they did, but I am not sure.
Nonetheless, I am not saying we should call a Porsche a pickup truck and totally get away from everything that makes SG SG, but that doesn't mean we can't have pickups with air conditioning, power steering etc. to those who want them.
By the way, I realize the point about a rose is still a rose no matter what you call it, but by the same token there are different colors of roses. Red is the primary one, but some prefer others. Progressive SG is a different color of rose. It is still a rose, but is different enough to warrant an explanation so people know what they are getting instead of ordering roses to be delivered and being disappointed.
I don't think, Susan, that Nick is inferring that people should scour the Goodwill stores in their neighborhoods trying to find some old Statesmen records and never listen to anything produced after 1961.
His comments are painting with a broader brush because he is saying (dear Lord)...."If we IDENTIFY other forms of music as Southern Gospel when if fact it is NOT.. we will eventually LOSE that unique style called SGM."
Evidently, he feels there is a danger that this will happen. To paint him in a caricature light as someone who is stuck in the past is missing the point of someone who is making a very valid point.
MD,
With all due respect, perhaps you should check your reading glasses. (And I am old enough to refer to your age)
Nick did say, "There is only a place for those who are committed to the art form, and the art form is clearly defined by listening to groups like the Cathedral Quartet. If you want to sing music like that, whether you are a quartet, or a trio, or a mixed group, then you are welcome."
I don't have any problem interpreting that statement.
I would like to know where on a piece of sheet music is it written what style the song should be sung in? Does it say quartets only, no country, no bluegrass, no mountain! Does it say, 4 men, matching suits and piano only?
Susan Unthank
http://susan.sogospelnews.com/
http://mostlyorganized.com/
http://twitter.com/sunthank
http://twitter.com/sogospelnews
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
Let me be perfectly clear (even though I went out of my way to make sure Mr. Jones knew that I was not trying to be disrespectful) - the reason I said "you're showing your age" is because Mr. Jones himself made the statement earlier in this course of this discussion:
"I guess I have to show my age and give a history lesson".
Again - it was not meant to be disrespectful. Mr. Jones and I have talked before in person and this is not the first issue that we have disagreed on. However, I have a great amount of respect for him as he is one of the great businessmen in this genre.
I was discussing this very analogy (rose/thorns) today with another person, and she brought up a very strong point.
Why is the thorn being discussed as a bad thing for the rose? The thorn is not meant to be a hindrance to the rose - rather it is a form of protection - a way to keep the rose a beautiful part of the whole bush.
That - to me - is what other fringe parts of SG are. They are a way that we can keep (i.e. protect) the heritage of SG so that it can survive, thrive, and remain a beautiful part of this industry and remain the "core" part of what makes this music so great.
There are going to be some people who don't like the thorns - but lovers of roses will know that the thorns are necessary in order for the rose to survive.
Well first of all, truth be told Susan, I don't own a pair of reading glasses, nor do I recall mentioning my age.
I do not disagree with anything being said by any postings, including yours, your son's and others who disagree with Nick. That's what a forum is about - discussion. Sometimes discussion includes disagreeing with someone's opinion.
If you will read my postings, with or without YOUR reading glasses, you will see that the thing that is frustrating me isn't that people are disagreeing with Nick, but missing his point.
MISSING HIS POINT. Sing whatever music you enjoy... he is saying.. but if you want to keep this style of music we are calling southern gospel... don't dilute it. Is it so difficult to see what he is saying??? Or is there some other reason?
Nick did say, "There is only a place for those who are committed to the art form, and the art form is clearly defined by listening to groups like the Cathedral Quartet. If you want to sing music like that, whether you are a quartet, or a trio, or a mixed group, then you are welcome."
What part of that am I missing? That's exactly what he said, and exactly what I have been saying that he said.
If you, or anyone you know, is performing music that is on the "fringe" or may not be exactly described as SGM....of course his words would sting.
I don't believe he is saying people should ONLY PERFORM SOUTHERN GOSPEL MUSIC THAT SOUNDS LIKE THE CATHEDRALS... is HE???? No.
I believe (sigh..) he is simply saying...that this is the style of music that gave this industry it's beginning... and he believes that because OTHER STYLES OF MUSIC are being LABELED Southern Gospel.. eventually it will bring an end to music like The Cathedrals... the music that started this industry.
I, personally, don't care who sings what or where they sing it. But I feel bad when people misinterpret what someone is actually saying. It's ok to disagree, but disagree with what HE ACTUALLY SAID.. not what you think he said.
Contrast this article to Matt's 1949 Ford article. Seems like he and Nick are saying just the opposite. Was that the intent? Two views on the same subject?
Anyway, I agree more with Matt and not so much with Nick. SGM needs to be a big tent. It has traditionally been just that.
I remind Nick of a few Cathedral songs & ablums. Like:
- The Cathedral Quartet WITH STRINGS album
- The Cathedral Quartet WITH BRASS album
- Their marvelous hit song "YESTERDAY" which featured Roy Tremble and George Younce which is beautiful music but sounds like something the Beattles wrote more than it does something George Younce wrote.
- Their very successful "MEXICO" song with latin beat.
Like the Statesmen and the Oak Ridge Quartet, the Cathedrals blurred the lines whenever they wanted to but they also knew how to nail a traditional southern gospel song and to set the standard that others would follow. Ernie Haas and Scott Fowler have walked the same line for they learned from the masters and they have developed strong quartets that honor the tradition while blurring the lines when it suited them. God love them. I do.
Cheers,
Tony
Tony Partigianoni
http://www.ksgm.com/images/gospel.gif
Pure SGM & Quartet-Style Singing
http://www.ksgm.com
MD, I think you are missing part of the point too. Nick also complained about calling music such as Progressive Southern Gospel because he said
"If an artist doesn’t fit into the mold of traditional Southern Gospel they just call it “Something Southern Gospel” you know like, Bluegrass Southern Gospel, or Christian Country Southern Gospel or my favorite…Progressive Southern Gospel.
See, he is acting like that shouldn't be done and yet he doesn't want it called Southern Gospel either if it doesn't fit the mold. That is done in lots of genres. You have traditional country, urban country, rock, classic rock, grunge rock etc. To me giving it that extra description makes it easier to know which type of SG one likes. It is like different flavors of Ice Cream. They are all Ice Cream, but when you get into more detail, you get the flavors. What if someone said Vanilla Ice Cream was the only one that could be called Ice Cream? Once again McKameys and Inspirations are called SG. Nick even did so. Yet compare them to the Cathedrals, Gold City, the Stamps, Gaither Vocal Band etc. and you see a big difference. Don't get me wrong, the last four groups are some of my favorites. I also like the Greenes, Hoppers, Talleys, Perrys, Legacy Five, Signature Sound and others. I don't always like every song or style by these groups, but they have things I like. I also like some songs by the Crabbs (Please Forgive Me, Through The Fire, The Cross etc.) which may or may not fit the definition above for Southern Gospel. My problem isn't with a lot of groups he calls Southern Gospel and I tend to prefer many of them. I just disagree with a lot of the article.
hey quartet man,
You disagree with most of Nick's article. That's ok.
I don't believe he is saying that everyone should eat ONLY vanilla ice cream. I think he is saying "Don't call frozen yogurt ice cream. Don't call sherbert ice cream. Just because they're all cold doesn't mean they're the same thing".
And once again, I think his point is ONLY ONE THING.."If SGM isn't careful, it will lose the kind of music that got it started" To Nick, this seems to be a major point.
If you interpret what he is saying as "No one should ever sing one song that is not exactly like the Cathedrals sang in 1964" then I believe you are missing his point. He sees that style of music being REPLACED by the other forms.
He doesn't want that music REPLACED by what others are "calling" SGM. That's his opinion.
Everyone is talking about INCLUDING other music, but his main point seems to be that he sees a trend that willcause that original type of music to be REPLACED.
And concerning Matt Felts article, I don't think it gets Nick's point at all...even though it was posted days after Nick's article appeared and Matt could have possibly (?) read Nick's article before writing his own.
Well MD, I am not sure which he meant. I used the example that he doesn't seem to want Progressive SG to be called SG at all (it sounded like) or Progressive either because he said people wanted to separate themselves from the SG label. So which is it? Does he want them to not be called SG anything if they aren't the traditional style (even if it is qualified with Bluegrass, Progressive or what have you? I certainly don't want the other groups replaced. Like I said, I tend to like many that qualify as SG (mentioned above) better than many that doesn't. We can agree on that. Maybe he will have to explain himself so we can see if we all agree from different angles.
Truth be told though, it does seem that traditional style has been pushed out at times. Even then though, there are different degrees. The Melody Boys are different than the Cathedrals were. The Inspirations and McKameys certainly are different yet he mentioned them all together. I don't know if people only want things called SG that are ones they like or not. 
I certainly understand the confusion and there are groups under the SG umbrella that aren't to my liking and that I question are SG, at least in my definition. Sometimes these groups have used other titles with SG maybe not so much because they are ashamed of SG (though maybe the are), but to further explain what type of SG they are.
Right on Nick, I totally agree with your article. So simple to understand.
Amazing how many read into your article what you don't say, and misinterpret what you do say.
Why does all the groups out there singing today think that they are all 'southern gospel'. Seems they have a fear of getting away from the label of wanting to be considered 'southern gospel'.
Keep Southern Gospel what it is, and if you want to be Progressive Gospel, Rock Gospel, Alternative Gospel then so be it.......but don't think you have to associate the word of 'southern' with the other adjectives used to describe your music.
I'd much prefer a better description of the type music you perform before I spend my time to go hear you in concert somewhere, in hopes that I can hear some good ole southern gospel music but find something quite foreign and so far from traditional southern gospel that I can't even describe it.
Though the 'age factor' is thrown around quite abit here, do many of the groups singing today fear that if they drop the 'southern' description from their so-called style of music mean that they won't get as many people out to hear them as they'd wish. Sounds like too many groups out there using 'southern' as a crutch.
I think the artists, labels, promoters, and SG radio should research what the SG audience actually wants, for it is dead certain the industry has not a clue. The hottest SG group today is a quartet doing basic traditional quartet music with their own flair. The hottest group of the 80's and 90's was also a quartet with very traditional fare, the hottest SG group of the 70's was likewise a traditional quartet. As a matter of fact, this tradition has been going on since 1948 when the Statesmen came on the scene. Anyone see a pattern here? The one huge difference between what is considered traditional and what others wish to call progressive, is the professionalism, music arrangements, dedication to the art form, and the ability to actually sing correctly. A sense of history and where we have come from would be a good place to begin. Lessons in how to read music would likewise be well advised. Ask any audience member you wish, at any SG concert anywhere, what they prefer. The answer will astound you in the audience percentage that still prefers traditional quartet music. The audience is dwindling not because we are not progressive or hip enough, but because we have forsaken our roots and it no longer resembles what the audience wants to hear. This is the unbridled truth, very much like the 800lb gorilla in the room, and the industry as a whole, is ignoring that one undisputed fact. Right on Nick!
Nick, great article, awesome response going on here. The Tennesseans just recently performed at a church in Dayton,Tn where 90% of the audience were probably in their 20's and early 30's. We had an icredible service with many "young adults" in the alter having prayer. The Tennesseans sing traditional quartet music just as my father, grandfather, great grandfather, and great, great grandfather did, three of which worked for James D. Vaughn and taught singing schools all across the great state of Tennessee. We will continue to preserve the art form of singing Southern Gospel Quartet Music, which has and will stand the test of time.
Nick this is a nice artice that has apparently fanned the flames of a few.
It's somewhat "FRUITLESS" to argue this point, as there is always someone who will argue until there blue-in-the-face for the other side of the fence.
Obviously God has given variey to all genres of GOSPEL MUSIC. I beieve Nick is trying to express his definition of what he considers "SOUTHERN" gospel music to be; Bob Jones did an outstanding job of defining the historical aspects of this.
There is no doubt that most folks who appreciate gospel music enjoy many different styles and incoporate them into their compiled collections. For example, Bev Lowery wrote "I Thurst" as sung by the Cathederal Quartet in 1993. You can not listen to this song, and not say it doesn't have a country flair !
Listen to the words of a popular work by the Cathedrals . . ."Gospel songs today have a lot to say, they lift you up when your fealing down. Some have a country flavor, some have a modern sound. THEY ALL SERVE A NEED OF PLANTING SEED so I know they can't go wrong, but there's none so dear, as when I hear an old "Convention" song.
- As sang by the late great George Younce - I believe that sayes it all !
Good job, Nick!
Page 1 of 1 Comment Pages
