I decided many years ago that I wanted to see my kids play ball grow up and attempt to raise them with my wife. I still do not have that perfected but I sing 80 dates a year, solid dates with no waste, work smarter not harder and still have time to be a Dad.
It took 18 years to figure that out!

As for the SG artists’ moral character - carnality is a problem in all walks of life these days. SG artists are as human as factory workers, airline pilots, company executives, police officers, etc. I agree that they have a responsibility to the message they sing and most take that responsibility seriously. Some may not. I ensure you, however, that the Lord is keeping score and those who dare to tread on the dangerous ground of portraying one thing and living another will be dealt with - we don’t need to be worrying our little heads about how many days they are on the road or if they are “good husbands and daddies”. I have a real problem with those who are “concerned” - most times “concerned” is another term for NOSEY!!! We need to pray for these groups. Ask for God’s protection on their ministries, their families. Stop picking apart how long their hair is or how true their “sound” is to Southern Gospel. If fans are so concerned with the fate of SG perhaps they should look at themselves first…maybe the problem lies within. We want quality SG music?? Talent attracts talent!!! Fans control how attractive this genre is going to be to those TRUE talents who are above mediocrity. Until fans refuse to accept average they will continue to get average.

As for English supposedly singing sg because he couldn’t make it in secular, Garth Brooks sang country because he couldn’t make it in pop, Michael Bolton sang whatever he did because he couldn’t make it in rock. It’s common and not limited to sg.

I actually disagree with much of the linked article. I hate mediocre art, but I just think he was dead wrong to compare bad so called Christian art to supposedly “good” non Christian art.

Thanks for your take, averyfineline. I felt your point was much more balanced and realistic.

The problem comes when we fail to distinguish between objective standards of quality and our own personal taste; at that point a thoughtful conversation becomes an irrelevant subjective dialogue. It is commonplace these days to filter everything in terms of one’s personal preferences rather than holding things to an objective standard. Is there room for personal taste? Of course. You may enjoy a piece of music that is uninspiring and simplistic (the Cathedral’s “Wedding Music” comes to mind) or lyrics that are banal, delivering truth in lowest-common-denominator fashion (remember LaVerne Tripp’s “I Know”?), but don’t call it good art.

The rabbit trails on this thread run the risk of diverting attention from the central premise which is, as I understand it, good art matters.

There are some lyricists who are gifted with the ability to fuse the pathos of the human condition with the timeless truths of the holy. In the field of Christian music, I’d suggest Gloria Gaither, Ken Medema, Sara Groves and Derek Webb to start. There are others but these individuals, each in their own way, express truth with intentionality. Their work moves you in deeper ways than do the superficial “heaven and the cross” lyrics. There’s nothing wrong with heaven and the cross but there’s so much more to life and faith than those simple concepts.

Our esteemed host mentions those moments that “become self-sustaining units of experience on their own”. Those moments then become a dynamic part of ourselves with the ability to have an impact on both conscious and subconscious levels, informing our intellect, emotions and creativity. In other words, those moments make us better.

Partly because of a lack of good examples and partly because of the generally subjective nature of society today, many people have no framework of reference to create or appreciate good art. They hypnotically ingest whatever is placed in front of them and only filter it on the narrow parameters of sensibility with which they are equipped; shades of color rather than the full spectrum, taste buds dulled by the mediocrity of fast-food blandness, ears tone deaf because of the incessant blare of white-noise mediocrity we listen to, unaware of the symphony of meaning being played just around the corner.

At the risk of sounding elitist, I’d venture that it’s not so much that the lines are blurred between good and bad as that a large and growing number of people don’t possess the skills to discern one from the other. Having a preference is not the same as understanding what makes art good or bad. And in our politically-correct, aesthetically-neutralized culture, EVERYone is creative and worthy of adulation. It starts in elementary education where “everyone’s a winner” and continues through adulthood where we are criticized if we dare dissect anyone’s efforts at anything. Everyone’s OK, we’re all equal and no one should lose. (No wonder people hate HR departments)

Then there’s the eternal conflict between art and commerce. Is it good art if is sells? Of course not. It may be, but it isn’t necessary for a creative work to aspire to and reach high standards for it to be commercially viable. There have been numerous conversations here about praise and worship music. It has had, for better or worse, a major influence recently on the CCM industry to the point where many artists who otherwise might be producing decent pop/AC music are doing the P&W thing because it’s big and it sells. Is it all inspired? No. Most writers - good writers - write to the market. That’s not to say a truly inspired song won’t break out of the mold now and then but regardless of genre, most writers and therefore most producers and artists follow the trends rather than risking setting them.

As long as the commercial aspects of ‘the bidness’ hold the influence they do over the creative process there will be a disconnect between good art and that which is merely passable, or worse, truly bad. What’s worse is that those who are willing, perhaps even called, to name bad art for what it is are characterized as thinking themselves smugly superior or lacking heart.

Art is hard. Creating it or understanding it. Good art reaches out to engage us and too often we sit back passively, waiting for “it” to do something more to entertain, inspire or motivate us. In our laziness, we have forgotten that it is an interactive experience. When we encounter it - when we engage it and allow it to move us - our response, rather than being a stream of inadequately descriptive words will be silence. True, good art will render one speechless. Perhaps that is its noblest goal and our highest compliment.

One of the real frustrations within southern gospel music is the total refusal of fans and the public at large to acknowledge that the human element invades all of us, Christian and non-Christian. None of are immune to that, and yet we tend to bury those who fall short of our expectations. It’s easy (too easy) to criticize Michael English or Kirk Talley, Sandi Patty or any number of other people because they have failed. How many failure do each of us have in our lives? Was it made public or did we hide it under the rug?

One of the great things about Christianity is the concept of forgiveness. How many singer have sung that all of our shortcomings are thrown in the deep blue sea? And we still hold on to the fact that they fell short.

It has nothing to do with quality of music, which is what we should be discussing here. I’ll let God deal with the individual sg star, but I can deal with the quality of the music. What is good is good and what is not is not. Listening to a pious artist does not make what he or she does good. Like Hovie (and I believe JD) were trying to say is simply this. Sing and sing well. Is this ministry or entertainment. Hovie said yes to both. And so it is.