A very brief thought…

I noticed that the Western Open golf tournament just underway has a corporate sponsor, like all golf tournaments do today, This one has a veeeery interesting sponsor…Cialis. I’m not kidding.



I wonder what the winner’s trophy will look like..

Words to live by…

For those who wish to bait me, for whatever reason, into argument with them…



From Rush Limbaugh:”Don’t waste your time arguing with an idiot…because if it(the argument)goes on too long, after a while, people won’t be able to tell the difference.”



In other words, I’m not following you into the sea.

Setting the record straight…one more time

I’m as tired of writing about stuff like this as you are reading about it, I assure you.

But I have no other place to express it, so once again forgive me, and bear with me.

Two entries ago(Entry L), I wondered out loud why certain individuals would put up information on gospel music sites and in books that might not be true(which was the whole point of the entry, for the unaware), and I cited a couple of examples I was familiar with to illustrate my QUESTION(as opposed to statement).

To gauge by the feedback I’ve received thus far, one would think the point of that entry was why it would be claimed that Michael English was a member of the Happy Goodmans, since his role with them(if at all)was decidedly transitional and minor.

Well, as one can see(IF one bothers to read everything here, not just certain passages that reinforce their personal prejudices), my good friend RevTabasco pointed out to me that he indeed HAD seen English perform with the Goodmans, so even though that point was tangential to my main one, it is nice to know that at least English’s publicity people were right about THAT.

But one person(who is not worthy of the publicity I would give her if I identifed her here)decided to take things a little farther…by going to a gospel music message board and asking to verify if that information was correct.

Now, that person had an ulterior motive in doing so(as I will demonstrate below), but on the surface it seemed like an innocuous enough question, and many there tried to answer her.

Obviously, this blog has more readers than even I imagine…where else would she have gotten the inspiration to ask the question?

If I may, in the past, this particular message board has been the home base for a few embittered, resentful, and malicious individuals bent upon trying to damage my credibility and exalt their own among their uninformed peers, and this appears to be one more such instance of a person unwilling to keep private concerns private, and instead try to slander my reputation in front of a sycophantic forum.

Well, John, then what are you doing bringing it up here, then, huh? I initially tried to address this person with a response, but found out this person is not accepying ANY private messages there. But since she obviously reads this blog, she can read my response to her here.

Her question was partially answered by the people on the board who tried to be helpful to her, but not categorically…as it was here ultimately. She then concluded with a typically puerile “shot”…”I should have known the source in question was unreliable from previous experience”.

The obvious question then is, if I’m so unreliable, why put such weight on my observations? Why not let me fester in my ignorance?

Well,the answer is, I’m not that unreliable…and she knows it. I usually get more things right than I do wrong…I try anyway! And my past record is out there, and speaks for itself..it doesn’t need defending against some resentful young person whose sole aim is to discredit me anyway!

So, John, why are you doing it, then?

Because I’ve had prior experience with this person…we used to dialogue at another such board, where she would delight in pointing out my occasional errors there. No problem…I made them…and I corrected them, and actually enjoyed the brio this person showed for a time. I even thanked her for keeping me on my toes.

But, as sometimes happens, things got misunderstood. This person got the idea that my friendliness was disingenuous…and consequently got more hostile in her comments toward me.

Finally, I tried to make peace with this person, and was sharply rebuffed for my trouble. C’est la vie, these things happen…life went on.

But after a sabbatical she took from this other board, she returned today, with her question, ostensibly to discredit me once again. I have no place else to address this…since I’ve been denied the opportunity to.

So there you are…my side of the story, and my explanation of why I wasted so much bandwidth here addresing it.

I hope it stops here. There is no more need for this sort of exchange. And no, anticipating a series of flames from either her, or other representatives of that board, I am NOT focused on myself, nor am I trying to play the role of the “victim”…the title of this entry explains what I’m trying to do.

So if anyone feels led to take issue with what I’ve said, there is a place for comments here…please go to WalMart, buy a spine, and post them there. But don’t take “sniper shots” from behind your so-called “friends” at a message board…that is really unfair and unbecoming.

As Rush Limbaugh speaks of the “drive-by” media, there are apparently “drive-by” message boards as well.

That is all I intend to say about this subject in this lifetime…back tomorrow to your regularly scheduled blog.

It’s not FOR me…

I haven’t heard it yet, but I’m sure that once certain people read my opinions on certain gospel music performers, they will charge me with being unfair and close-minded as far as my musical preferences are concerned. That’s their right, and I understand that. And yes, my own preferences DO fall within certain boundaries, as do everyone else’s.



To a certain extent, we’re all “prejudiced” in our own ways…we like what we like because we like it! But if someone’s tastes happen to be a bit different, it’s not enough to simply disagree with them. They MUST be branded as “biased”, “antiprogressive”, or other similar calumnies.



Last week, I was listening to a sports talk show which focused on the World Cup of soccer, comparing it to other spectator sports. One of the hosts seemed to have a real problem with the notion that soccer seems to be popular with so many around the world…after all, we in America think it’s boring, said the one host.



Then the other host had an inspiration…some things are just not FOR us…it’s not that they’re devoid of their own intrinsic value, it’s just that it doesn’t appeal to our senses, that’s all…it’s just not FOR us.



Similarly, Signature Sound has talent. They can sing, and now and again have some compelling musical arrangements. It’s just that for me, I admit I can’t get past their self-consciously trendy appearance and frankly goofy stage approach. But that’s OK…they’re just not FOR me. Perhaps someday I will feel differently, but for now, they’re just a good group that I have a hard time enjoying. They’re just not FOR me.



And this blog may not be FOR everybody, either….and that’s fine. I offer this blog to share with you, and it’s your right to accept or reject what I write.



But you’re all invited to stop by anytime.

Entry L…

Can you believe it? This is my 50th entry in this humble little corner of the web! Refreshments, anyone?

As most of you who know me well know, one of my very favorite gospel recordings of all-time is the Couriers’ classic 1963 album “Nothing…But The Gospel Truth”. Kind of an ironic title when one considers the amount of embellishment and apocrypha so prevalent in gospel music.

What do I mean? Well, take for example, Michael English (you take him…vocally, he’s not exactly my cup of tea). I have read on message boards off and on(and in the book “This Is My Story”, a book with nice original artwork but an all too obvious promotional tool for the ubiquitous Gaither Homecoming team)that English sang with, among others, the Happy Goodmans, the Couriers, the Singing Americans, landing with the Gaither Vocal Band before finally going solo.

So what’s wrong with that picture?

Before I elaborate, let me assert unequivocally that English is one of the most charismatic(I’m not talking theology here)singers in gospel music…he can really move an audience. I don’t deny that he is a unique talent.

Having said that, to all the English fans reading this, don’t flame me for the following.

I am quite aware of the Happy Goodmans, and especially the Couriers. I never saw English perform with either group. It’s possible I could’ve missed him with the Goodmans, but I doubt it. And I had NEVER heard about him with the Couriers.

But since I’m planning a brand new article on the Couriers(there, the cat’s out of the bag! I’ll let you all know when it’s ready!), I decided to double-check in case there was something I missed. After all, not living in the PA area, it’s theoretically possible that he might have slipped in there for a time or two.

So I asked my dear friend and Courier mainstay Neil Enloe if English had ever been a member of the Couriers. Neil told me English was never a member of the group. In fact, Neil further told me he has yet to meet Michael English!(How about that, Neil Enloe and I having something in common involving gospel music! I know now that miracles do occur!)

But then, the question remains, why do people assert such things, especially when there are people around that can demonstrate that they are false? You got me…but that’s not the only “gospel apocrypha” out there!

I have also read on gospel message boards that JD Sumner was alleged to have had surgery to enlarge his vocal cords, which presumably would explain why he hit notes that no other bass singer had hit before him. JD DID have throat surgery in 1967, but that was to remove some potentially cancerous polyps in his throat, NOT to enlarge his voice box.

JD was able to sing those notes because (1)he had a very low voice…and (2)he constantly worked and practiced to sing lower and lower(this can be done, I’m living proof of it). Eventually, by 1965, JD was able to consistently sing below low C and in the area between the A below that and what is known as “double low C” anytime he wanted. The consistency and quality of those notes he produced amazed people to the point where they were convinced that JD must be doing SOMETHING to produce those seemingly unproducable notes. However, as his successors have shown, they CAN be produced if one practices and has the equipment to make it happen.

It’s just as in Babe Ruth’s day…people were astonished when he started hitting 50-60 home runs a season(this when most players considered it a feat to hit 10-12)because he was showing what could be done with the right amount of determinayiom, effort, and talent. Soon, other major league sluggers were htting 40-50 home runs a year…but in a sense, it took someone like the Babe to show them the way to do things that people at first thought could not be done.

But why the embellishment tendency in gospel music? Maybe it starts innocently enough with an assertion in conversation such as, “Boy, that Michael English can sing, can’t he?” “He sure can.” “Wouldn’t he have done well with say, the Goodmans…or the Couriers?” “Oh, no question…”…and then you’ve got a “story” that Michael English actually SANG with these groups of people he had never even met.

Michael English is a fine singer who has accomplished a lot in gospel music. It doesn’t help his career to look greater by claiming he did things he never did, or sang with people that he never worked with. And JD Sumner sang lower than anyone in his era did…it doesn’t help to explain how he did it to say he did things he never did.

Can we just cool it a bit with the hyperbole…and just give credit to people for what they do(or did)…and appreciate them for who they really are…and not so much what we wish they were or what we wish happened?

Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2