I have heard a lot of debate over the last few years about whether Southern Gospel should use that name or something else such as American Christian music. The argument goes that the term Southern Gospel has a poor reputation and carries with it baggage. It infers the music is poor quality or campy. They say that many churches when hearing that a group is from this genre, refuse to book them stating that they prefer a contemporary style instead. I’ve had a few groups ask if they should simply call themselves “Christian” or “Gospel” artists. I’ve decided to discuss this knowing that I’m going to make a few of you upset.
Let’s start with why people have a poor image of what SG is. If you turn on the radio, you will hear a few songs whose quality merits its place on public air. Unfortunately, between the good songs are numerous songs by artists who can’t afford to record professionally. The sound is sub-par and shouldn’t be on the radio. There may be a few people who enjoy it but the mass audience we are trying to reach hears and it and is turned off from the whole genre. Groups across the board have to strive for excellence. Radio stations should also. It should be hard to get onto radio. It should be very hard to get on the charts. This is a reflection of our entire industry. Quality should matter.
Another reason we have a poor reputation is that many of our groups lack a professional image. When you sing at your local church its OK to be this way but when you throw yourself onto the national scene you need to be prepared. Many groups put little effort into ensuring what they deliver on stage is top quality. They spend little time rehearsing and come across campy. They tell old recycled jokes they heard someone else tell. If George Younce and Gerald Wolfe received royalties from their jokes, they’d be rich. If you call yourself a professional, be one. Luckily there are some out there trying to teach this such as Allison Durham Speer at her Elijah Conference, a must for any artist. You not only hurt yourself but every group that comes after you.
If a church doesn’t like Southern Gospel, calling yourself something else wont change their opinion of you. You will leave the listener confused when you title yourself “progressive” and then put on concert right out of the Southern Gospel handbook. Dressing modern on your CD cover or poster only works if you are actually that way in concert. You disconnect with your listener. You can call a hamburger a steak but I’ll know as soon as I bite into it and then I’ll never trust you again. The same goes for a pastor. In essence they are buying a product when they book you, don’t mislead them.
Ok, so here’s my point. If we start a trend by calling ourselves something else without correcting the problems that ruined our previous name then all we will accomplish is ruining the new term. The solution to our dilemma is to step up as a industry and produce better quality. Let’s embrace our heritage and our name and strive to be the quality that groups like the Statesmen and others were. Luckily we do have some great ambassadors right now showing people that SG can be incredible. Jason Crabb winning a Grammy and Signature Sound's mass appeal proves that when done well, people respond. Its not the name, it’s the product that counts. We have the ability to change the perception we have but it starts one group, one CD, one concert at a time. It’s in your hands.
Matt Felts
Beyond Measure Marketing
http://www.beyondmeasuremarketing.com
Author: Matt Felts
| Author's Website: http://www.beyondmeasuremarketing.com/
Written: 02/02/2010
| 
Category: Marketing 101 - Matt Felts
Comments: 3
RSS Feed
| (What's an RSS feed?)
Ads Sponsored by Southern Spin
QUALITY IS STILL QUALITY and JUNK IS STILL JUNK!
SoundMan
You're right; this topic has been discussed many times. Before re-hashing the issue, it would have been helpful if you had presented a summary both sides best arguments fairly. Why raise the issue if you cannot at least add something new to the debate?
Argument #1 demands SGM be held to a higher standard than any other genre of music. In every genre, lots of people write songs and lots of people (new and old) record songs. Artists, producers, promoters, recording companies, disc jockies and ultimately listeners decide what they like. Many enter the arena; few succeed at the song and artist level. That doesn't mean one cannot and should not try. IMHO opinion I think we can be proud of SGM and our artists. The music changes hearts and it encourages those who love this style of gospel music. It doesn't move anyone but neither does any other genre. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We need to look at music from the fan's standpoint not the critics standpoint, and more importantly, we need to look at music from God's perspective and from what I can ascertain, God must like variety. What more can be asked of any genre?
Argument #2 fails because it says different people have different opinions and since SGM is not the most popular genre in the gospel field, our artists and promoters must be doing something wrong. Good water has no taste but it refreshes. It's not coke or sweet tea and it shouldn't try to be. Unlike the most "popular" flavors, the sugary substances will not quench the thirst when it's hot and dry. SGM is good for the soul; who in this audience would debate that notion? Our music for the most part is wholesome, entertaining, effectively communicates the RIGHT message. The style may not please everyone but for its fans nothing else quite satisfies. Beautiful maybe beautiful music but if I can't stomach it very long, I won't buy it and it'll set on the shelf even if it was free. If others don't like it, tough luck; buy and listen to something else, but ... this is not addressed to the author of this article but to the SGM critic ... just don't tell me my music is no good because "you" don't like it. That will fall on deaf ears.
Argument #3 is fails because it only says that being a pastor or some other mucky-muck may make someone feel "god-like" but it may also mean one is a block-head if the only criteria for selecting an artist is what I like and rejecting one group because of how some other group performed in the past. The better approach would be to bring in groups that speak to the needs of the church and its many members. The "in" group may like CCM but that doesn't mean that everyone else in the church does. And, the fact that vanilla and chocolate are the most popular flavors doesn't mean one cannot serve other flavors and toppings. Most people listen to the style of music they like best but that doesn't mean they cannot be moved by a gospel group on fire for the LORD and who have come ready to worship and to lead in worship God's people.
Basically, you have said people like what they like and if one is going to perform; do as good a job as possible. That realy would be a good idea since everything we do should be FOR THE LORD. Just because the local church soloist might not win American Idol or get a $50 million contract, doesn't mean that s/he doesn't move lives in Dearborn, Pokipsee or Kalamazoo and other communities. There's room for books that don't make it to the NY Times Top Ten list, and there's room for songs and music that don't make the Billboard Top 100. Our artists should be about serving God and believers and not making a "cool" million. George and Glen were great but they never made the Billboard Top 100, anymore than Elvis ever got an emmy for any of his rmegahit ock' n roll songs.
Tony Partigianoni
http://www.ksgm.com/images/gospel.gif
Pure SGM & Quartet-Style Singing
http://www.ksgm.com
Matt I actually agree with you whole heartedly. Radio is one of our beiggest problems, and the other is labels and single promoters willing to promote anyone or any thing for a buck. Contrary to the previous comment, I do disagree that "we" expect SG to be held to a higer degree of quality than any other genre. On the contrary, we need to be held to the same. Great music, performed as flawlessly as humanly possible, with a spirit of Christ. Anyone of those elements fail, and I personally lose interest quickly. Go over and read Jancie Crows recent article.....she is right on the money!
Page 1 of 1 Comment Pages
