Talk:Southern gospel

Emotions

I wonder why these people who sing it are ao emotional sometimes hey begin to cry! ist it why the so hardly believe in god? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saludacymbals (talk • contribs) 18:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Links Deletion

Great...now some nitwit has deleted all the external links and replaced them with one link to a site that doesn't include many of the links that were here originally. This is what I despise about Wikipedia, and why I refuse to waste my time contributing to it any further.

Southern vs. white gospel

Is Cliff Barrows really a "Southern gospel" artist? I don't think so, but will defer to someone who knows more than I do. Italo Svevo

No, he is not typically identified with Southern Gospel, defining Southern Gospel as a genre of musicians who trace their musical heritage back to the shaped-notes publishers. Barrows traced his musical heritage back to the 1800s hymn writers like Phillip Bliss, Fanny Crosby, and William Kirkpatrick. Daniel J. Mount

Link to the Martins

The link to the Martins didn't lead where it was supposed to. It went to this page (Martins) instead. I don't think there is a page on the musical group yet. Daniel J. Mount

No, there hasn't been one created for the Martins yet. When one is created, it should be listed here: The Martins (Southern Gospel group)T. White 07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Blog Reference Deleted

So we're denying the existence of blogs now? Dozens of Southern Gospel artists have blogs they use to communicate with their fans.

Jimmy Swaggart

Hi, I've been working on the Jimmy Swaggart pages recently and would like get the input of anyone interested in Southern Gospel. In particular his discography and an indication of which of his works are most significant, as well as links to back that up (as pages about living people are very big on cites). Any volunteers? Artw 17:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Attention Gospel music experts

There is currently a discussion regarding the origins of gospel music on the Gospel music article's talk page. We are looking for any individuals with knowledge regarding the development of Gospel music (all forms including urban contemporary, Southern Gospel, traditional, etc.) to join the discussion. The resulting conversation will result in a rewrite of the article. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"All that matters for a Wikipedia article is what the published reliable sources say, not what you or I or any other editor believe we hear in a recording." Ummm... The section we are discussing contains absolutely no references to published reliable sources. That section is totally devoid of any source of reference, which is why I am assuming what the writer said is all in his head. My suggestion was to reword the part that included personal opinion, and simply stick with the relevant facts concerning the genre of music the page says it is about.UsefulTrivia (talk) 22:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you realize that you are responding (rather uncivilly) to a 6 year old comment about a discussion that has been over for 6 years? It's kinda like arguing with the poster on the wall at the train station. John from Idegon (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the message you recently left to UsefulTrivia. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.

John From Idegon: I was responding to a comment directed to me from another user, in which I added their words in quotations, then a comment of my own on the subject on which they addressed me first. None of it was as you say, "uncivil." For some reason, my computer saved the comment in the wrong section, so it appeared up here by mistake. My apologies. I am somewhat surprised that this offends you in some way. ;-) UsefulTrivia (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Today's Southern Gospel- clarification needed

For this section: On the other hand, Southern Gospel lyrics are rarely vague about the Christian message, which is a complaint many Southern Gospel fans have about non-P&W, but otherwise accept "Contemporary Christian music" (CCM), especially when those CCM songs "cross over" and receive recognition through airplay on mainstream radio.

it's unclear what the meaning is. I believe the author is attempting to state that Southern Gospel fans typically dislike CCM tunes which do not have clearly evangelistic lyrics unlike Praise and Worship songs which are usually written with a clear orientation towards God, but if that's the intent, it needs to be re-written. GBrady (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Since that sentence still had not been rewritten, I took the liberty of editing it. I don't THINK I have presented the Southern Gospel opinion on lyric content vs. contemporary Christian music's take (in general) vis-a-vis the Gospel message but I'd welcome anyone to take a look and further refine if needed. At any rate, the original wording was far too unclear. GBrady (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

GBrady, I agree with your rewrite, however in any instance this needs to be properly sourced. This ws one of the reasons that I did not rewrite it some time ago. So, I think we need to find some cites and sources that will help us to better state and understand the sentence in question. Canyouhearmenow 21:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do realize the choice of words in this section has been questioned since at least 2009: According to the dictionary, "double entendre" is most often used in a sexual sense, Merriam Webster says: "a word or expression that can be understood in two different ways with one way usually referring to sex." The Oxford English Dictionary describes a double entendre as being used to "a word or phrase open to two interpretations, one of which is usually risqué or indecent.". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "double entendre" as: "A word or phrase having a double meaning, especially when the second meaning is risqué." The "unsourced" statement made is already highly critical of another Christian musical genre, but to use an expression such as "double-entendre" takes it from "critical" to "slanderous," if someone were to take the statement with its most commonly understood connotations. I humbly suggest the paragraph be rewritten in this way: "When compared to those of Contemporary Christian music, Southern Gospel lyrics are typically more overt in the presentation of the "Gospel" message, as referenced in the name of the genre itself. The "Gospel," which has been defined as "an account of the ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ," is the central theme in the majority of songs written under the Southern Gospel umbrella. By contrast, Contemporary Christian music (CCM) has often utilized more ambiguous lyrical choices, (as well as less gender-specific wording,) and broader subject matter, which could be interpreted as being either about a devout love for God, or a romantic love directed toward a man or woman. As a result of this lyrical ambiguity, it is more common for Contemporary Christian music artists to achieve crossover success on mainstream, or secular radio charts, when their song (perceived as "Christian" by CCM listeners,) is reinterpreted as a love song, and embraced by a wider audience." (This revision would remove the sexual reference, help convey better what I believe is the original writer's true intent.) Please consider this a good faith effort to convey the very same thought, without an odd connotation. UsefulTrivia (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not trying to be too bold. I am absolutely new at wikipedia. I only signed up because I was concerned about the direction some Wikipedia articles seem to have gone. I would like to call into question this wording. "Over the last decade, a newer version of Southern Gospel has grown in popularity. This style is called Progressive Southern Gospel and is characterized by a blend of traditional Southern Gospel, Bluegrass, modern country, contemporary Christian and pop music elements. Progressive Southern Gospel generally features artists who push their voices to produce a sound with an edge to it. The traditional style Southern Gospel singers employ a more classical singing style." Over the last decade? Like, since 2001, or 2003? I know it is hard to believe, but groups like the Hinsons came out over 30 years ago, incorporating all these 'new' progressive Southern Gospel styles the writer has mentioned. If we ignore the contributions made by the Gaither Vocal Band, (even starting since 1985 or so,) The Hemphills, (even beginning about 1976,) we still must acknowledge The Crabb Family, influenced by the Hinsons, who achieved their first #1 song in 1996, and that is still more than a decade ago. I am not speaking as a fan of "progressive" gospel here, but I suggest the statement that, supposedly "Progressive Southern Gospel generally features artists who push their voices to produce a sound with an edge to it, The traditional style Southern Gospel singers employ a more classical singing style" reflects a merely a narrow opinion of an individual, and also quite a limited scope of Southern Gospel knowledge. The Southern Gospel of the last 30 years may be distasteful to the author of this section, but it still exists, and is mainstream. The traditional style, as described here, has not disappeared, but it is not in the majority on the popularity charts, and well known groups with a bluesy, country, contemporary, pop style have existed for a much longer time than 10 years.UsefulTrivia (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi UsefulTrivia,

Welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know much about it, but I just listened to a YouTube video of one of those, and the vocal technique sounded pretty classical to me, if a bit breathy and inclined to the clip words short, and not at all "edgy". But my opinion isn't worth much, because WP:I am not a reliable source, and so my opinion doesn't belong in the article.

Most of the other articles about progressive music seem to say that the style started in the late 1960s or 1970s, and it seems logical to me that progressive Southern Gospel would develop around the same time as all the others. But the important thing is that the sentence isn't saying "progressive Southern Gospel was invented in the last decade". It says that it "has grown in popularity" in the last decade. That could be true even if it existed since the 1970s and even if it were fairly popular in the previous decade (so long as you can claim that it's more popular now).

What would be most useful is a good WP:reliable source that talks about the characteristics of the style and its popularity over time. Do you think you could find one, maybe in a magazine or at books.google.com? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

to user: WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing

I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my suggestion, by the way. I am not suggesting that all the information I have cited should be in the article. I do not know if there are written works on this subject that one could cite. My contention is that if I cannot submit my opinion based on my ability to hear a beat, see the same musical grooves down through time, using my own ears & eyes, but still limited by my personal perception and subjective experience, forming the conclusion that "progressive gospel music" has always existed alongside the alleged 'traditional,' often being recorded on the same quartet album, record, cassette, or CD next to someone else's favorite "classical quartet number," then neither can the contributor who claims that "Progressive Southern Gospel" is a new phenomenon that has developed in the past 10 years! I have not yet found a written work to reference, but an individual can hear the commonality in arrangements, rhythm, beat, even how the modern vocal interpretations of a "traditional song" has evolved naturally. The thing is, since this is a personal opinion pertaining to musical knowledge or taste, the contributor can cite no more scholarly work than I can, because it would take a musical professor of some sort, writing the definitive work, after comparing The Statesmen, The Blackwood Brothers, Elvis Presley, The Hinsons, Jason Crabb, and The Crabb Family, The Gaither Vocal Band, etc... I'm sure he, or she might come to the same conclusion I have, (that there is nothing new under the sun,) and the contributor is probably convinced a musical genius would discover the thrilling "newness" of "Progressive Southern Gospel Music." However, since our Music genius professor/author/Southern Gospel aficionado person does not exist yet, I do not believe anyone's personal opinion should be stated, regarding a "new version of Southern Gospel Music developing within the last decade," unless Wikipedia will allow the contributor to present proof of this "new" development, (via an uploaded recording, perhaps? or a youtube link?) or perhaps cite an expert's written work on the subject. Once again, thanks for listening. I will keep searching for a source to cite that will allow me to change a statement that should not be included anyway. The burden of proof should be on the individual who originally made an unsourced claim which some agree with, while others disagree... i also think it is a matter of his personal bias that he feels "Progressive Southern Gospel generally features artists who push their voices to produce a sound with an edge to it." What exactly does that mean? What is his/her source for this info? If it is his ear alone, we are both equally qualified. The next sentence should be discarded anyway, as it is only a personal opinion, (and even if it were true, results may vary from song to song, and depend on which harmony part is being sung, and by whom,) but check this out "The traditional STYLE Southern Gospel singers employ a more classical singing STYLE." Just sayin' UsefulTrivia (talk) 21:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

All that matters for a Wikipedia article is what the published reliable sources say, not what you or I or any other editor believe we hear in a recording.

But I want you to think about the sentence. Here's what it says:

"Over the last decade, a newer version of Southern Gospel has grown in popularity."

It does not say it "developed in the last decade. It does not say that progressive Southern Gospel is new. It only says that if you compare the popularity of progressive Southern Gospel in, say, 1990, to the popularity of Southern Gospel in, say, 2010, you will find the progressive Southern Gospel is more popular in 2010 than it was in the 1990s.

If you compare the popularity between any two points in time, there are only three options: progressive Southern Gospel could be

1. more popular at the later time,
2. less popular at the later time, or
3. the same amount of popular at the later time.

This sentence says that it is "more" popular. It does not say that it is a brand-new idea. It only says that now, it is more popular than it was a decade before.

Do you disagree with that? Do you believe that progressive Southern Gospel is now less popular than it used to be, or that it is only approximately the same amount of popular than it used to be? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Splitting of hairs here is only necessary due to the obvious bias the writer unveils by his subjective wording. My original desire was to incorporate the writer's intent, but to lengthen the amount of time to at least the last 30 years, (even though there has always been a progressive element in Southern Gospel itself, I could recommend recordings all day long...) This need not even be a discussion. It began due to someone else's bias and personal viewpoint, which I had to work around or within. I find it somewhat distasteful to allow rhetorical statements, inserted into the article, conveying the notion that 1979's fan choice group of the year was 'traditional,' and sang songs in a 'singing style that was a more classical quartet style, not pushing their voices to sound more edgey,' (whatever that is supposed to mean.) The bias of the writer clearly leans toward a style that went with the wind in the late 1940's, only experiencing brief, periodical upswings in popularity. The bias the writer expresses is insulting to the memory and legacy of several Southern Gospel Music Pioneers, songwriters, musicians, and producers, some who literally gave their lives to this wonderful musical genre, (not to mention their fans and supporters.) I can understand how someone disinterested in this genre, and can't tell the difference can remain detached. If it were an article on soccer in the country of Lithuania, I'd find it hard to become emotionally invested myself. The writer of this section has slanted the facts in a direction that dismisses even artists mentioned in the section above, and I thought I might be able to make it more coherent by suggesting a minor change, (either admitting that Southern Gospel has been evolving more since the 70s, or just being honest about the progressive element that has existed since its inception.) It appears that useful and helpful suggestions are pretty much discouraged, even when an article has been nearly abandoned since 2009. All it took to bring the defenses up was to try to make it more factual as well as readable. I was embarrassed, when as a person with considerable background in Southern Gospel Music, I saw an article that looked as if it had been vandalized by someone who resents any changes in Gospel Music since they were a youngster, and disparages any singer, song, or musical arrangement they deem "not classical enough to be considered worthy by the PURISTS." That is how it appears to every passerby. I was just trying to turn the negative vibe aside, by presenting a more objective, (not to mention, honest) POV. Thanks Anyway. UsefulTrivia (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

"All that matters for a Wikipedia article is what the published reliable sources say, not what you or I or any other editor believe we hear in a recording." Ummm... The section we are discussing contains absolutely no references to published reliable sources. That section is totally devoid of any source of reference, which is why I am assuming what the writer said is all in his head. My suggestion was to reword the part that included personal opinion, and simply stick with the relevant facts concerning the genre of music the page says it is about. UsefulTrivia (talk) 22:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing: You asked, "Do you believe that progressive Southern Gospel is now less popular than it used to be, or that it is only approximately the same amount of popular than it used to be?" It has grown in popularity in lock step with regular Southern Gospel. I believe that progressive Southern Gospel IS regular Southern Gospel, a distinction between the two has never been clearly defined since the birthing of the genre. I have pointed out audio evidence of this fact, sharing links to musical recordings around 65 years old. Even quartets known as traditional, retro, nostalgia acts have often broken with their own dogma to produce several mainstream radio singles, to the dismay of some vocal critics. I believe it is clear to the longtime listener, (provided they have an ear for music,) that the progressive element within Southern Gospel has been an inescapable part of its unique identity since the earliest days. I have not found a published literary study (online) stating it in those exact words, to add as a reference, but I would like to point out again that the other user has not been told to provide a published source as a reference for his remarks about the development, or popularity of "Progressive" Southern Gospel, and the inference that the two elements constitute separate and distinct types of Southern Gospel music. Can any published work help him establish this as anything other than opinion? This is the inherent trouble with the section, as written. As you yourself said, "All that matters for a Wikipedia article is what the published reliable sources say, not what you or I or any other editor believe we hear in a recording." The other editor has not supported his opinions on "progressive Southern Gospel, those who sing it, the process whereby they sing it, how the classical traditionalist Gospel singers sing in a more classical way, or how the progressive Southern Gospel singers "push" their voices to give them an edge, why the "classical purists" don't want/need an edge, how one should sing to avoid any edges, etc, etc." Is he a vocal instructor? Does he have a published work from a vocal instructor he can reference? Again, why do I have the burden of proof, to be responsible to prove the other editor wrong, when even-handed application of Wikipedia standards on BOTH sides would eradicate the statements I suggested need a clarifying rewrite anyway? UsefulTrivia (talk) 09:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I would also like to humbly reopen the subject of use of the expression "double entendre." I provided 3 references to 3 different mainstream English Dictionaries, Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionary, and American Heritage Dictionary, , all three of which ascribe a sexual, or indecent, or risque meaning to the expression "double entendre." Surely, the word "ambiguous" would be a less volatile substitute, and could help convey the intended point of the writer, am I correct in that hope? UsefulTrivia (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

References

Proposed move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Southern Gospel → Southern gospel – Correcting capitalization Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is currently at Southern Gospel and should be moved to Southern gospel. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support I checked a variety of sources through books.google.com, and most did not capitalize "gospel" in their text. Some did; one even capitalized "music", to produce "Southern Gospel Music". I was surprised to see some using lowercase entirely, as in "southern gospel". I believe that "Southern gospel" is likely to be the one most consistent with the sources I looked at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Category:Music genres and Category:Gospel music genres don't seem to be very consistent. Question: What % of Google Book sources for in line use such as [Southern Gospel is] [of Southern Gospel] capitalize the G? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support – and per books n-grams, southern also lower case in the text. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Support Although the word gospel is usually used in a lower case fashion, it is not used as often in lower case when being used as a proper name. I will support the move however.--Canyouhearmenow 00:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Per the evidence cited above, I also changed southern to lower case in the text, and also adjusted Progressive southern gospel. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, first of all, I didn't know about this discussion before, but yes, "gospel" should be in lower case. That's what the discussion was about. There was no discussion about the word "southern" here or there. I had considered that before and came to the conclusion, from what I could see, that it should be capitalized -- because it is based on the region of the Southern United States. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit needed?

I am no expert on this genre but I think this sentence: "Sumner also was instrumental in creating the National Quartet Convention, an annual music festival where many groups, both known and well known perform for a week." is probably SUPPOSED to say "UNKNOWN and well known" meaning the convention has both "New Artist showcases" and performances by groups already well-known among Southern Gospel fandom. Would someone knowledgeable about the event correct that if it is indeed what was intended? GBrady (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To be more specific, the sentence for which I am suggesting an edit might be needed is in the "Early Performers" section of the article. GBrady (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)