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 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.
Nick,
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.
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].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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,
I'll try to jump in here with the auto analogy.
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.
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.
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?
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
hey quartet man,
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.
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.
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.
Good job, Nick!
Page 1 of 1 Comment Pages
