Gospel Music Coalition

That didn’t take long. A website devoted solely to pushing back against whining about the Singing News’s recent changes to the charting system. Gospel Music Coalition aims to “ensure every artist and songwriter gets an equal opportunity in airplay and charting privileges.” There are a lot of assumptions embedded in there that strike me as dubious (for instance, don’t they really mean that they want to ensure every artist and songwriter gets an equal opportunity to buy airplay and charting access from as many pliable radio stations as possible and not just those that the SN designates as chart worthy?). But nevermind. I don’t gather the GMC is exactly creating a groundswell of reaction (yet?). Which is to say if you act quickly, you might be one of the first 200 visitors to the site.

Email this Post

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Coalition announced to oppose Singing News chart changes | www.southerngospelblog.com on 14 Nov 2007 at 12:20 pm

    […] Music Coalition, has been announced to complain about those changes. I agree with Musicscribe and Averyfineline that the $7 membership fee seems to be a little […]


  1. David in Florida wrote:

    I read the reasoning the coalition had for creating this “thing”. I don’t believe every gospel song recorded needs to be played on the radio. I have heard local groups that get airtime that really shouldn’t. SGM seems to be the only genre that doesn’t care about the quality of the music produced. Many of these groups use the “God called us into this ministry” excuse. God gets blamed for a lot of things and this is one of them. These groups hear people in their own church tell them they sound good and it goes from there. There should be a limit on reporting stations. Why should a SGM station that only plays SGM on Sunday afternoon have the same status as a full time SGM station that has a decent audience.

  2. JohnnyB wrote:

    Wow - and they have a theme song so must REALLY be legit!!!!! ROFL

  3. CVH wrote:

    Checked out their webpage. Hard to figure what their real motive and purpose is beyond tilting at windmills.

    In theory, every artist already has an ‘equal opportunity’ for airplay and charting. Sure, some are better promoted and it’s hard to break into the cycle, but in making programming decisions the factors we consider are lyrical and musical suitability to the format and production quality. Having a track record helps but breaking new acts isn’t unheard of; they just have to meet or exceed the bar and many do not.

    Ooh…”we will help bring to justice those that violate the equal rights of artists…” and “our push will be relentless…”. Great. Now I’ll have the crap police on my tail, trying to force me to program songs that suck? Thanks a lot. Good use of your time and resources.

    While the overall standards for many SG stations are lower than their AC/CHR counterparts (or certainly the average secular station), some of the tunes I’ve heard are nothing short of horrendous. Why anyone would support a station that plays this stuff (either advertisers on a commercial station or supporters of a non-comm) or listen to it is beyond me. Sincerity (presumed) trumps any sense of quality or professionalism. And thus we continue the downward spiral toward mediocrity. No song has a ‘right’ to be played on radio whether it’s Signature Sound, GVB or the Halfass Quartet from East Jesus, KY.

    Sorry guys. I get your point (I think) but instead of railing against the industry try working with it. Be good. Do good work. If you do, we’ll give it a fair shot. If you suck you don’t deserve three seconds on my air, let alone three minutes. And by the way, if the theme you have on the website is an indicator of what you consider a quality song that deserves airplay you’ve already proven my point.

  4. GospelMusicFan wrote:

    Poster #3 lost me by some of his choices for words.
    Poster #3 should apologize, for not what was stated but how it was stated, for putting the host of this blog in “on the edge” position regarding free speech and Christian decency.

  5. Greg wrote:

    In the age that we are in it seems to me that all of the charting information could be tallied and sent off to SN via the computer. The SN would randomly select different stations each month. Say there are 1000 stations, Divide the stations by area, coverage, listeners, (the list goes on). Say of these 1000 you come up with 5 groups of 200, each group of 200 would cover the market (US), SN selects 50% (or whatever number they decide upon)of the results from each group and compiles the data for the new chart. A station wouldn’t know if their data was used until the chart is released. This keeps the promoters doing the job they are supposed to do instead of “closing the deal” with the major stations while the majority of the others are swept under the rug. Yes the plan would need work but I think it would work.

  6. CVH wrote:


    You may not appreciate my choice of words; that’s fine. But none of us put our host in an “on the edge” position by our posts. He has the sole right to publish or not publish any comments submitted at his discretion.

  7. SM wrote:

    Re #3: The first real, honest critique of what every good radio personality trapped in the mediocre sg market has thought at one time or another. Shoot, I thought the same thing every day for several years before I got out.

    Thanks, CVH, for speaking my mind. That’s what I’ve thought ever since I saw the website. Unless they’re going to use the dues to open a quality studio to record quality music, they’re wasting the time of music directors and sg audiences and the money of their members.

  8. C.W. Griffin wrote:

    I don’t know what the problem is - if you look at the stations that were dropped, it’s not that many, and probably is a good thing. This can’t be the reason for starting what ever it is they have started.

  9. Charley wrote:

    Poster #3 is right on. His choice of a Half— quartet name could’ve been done in better taste, but he’s otherwise correct.

    How is the GMC going to police this? And, what are they going to do, sue? Maybe that’s what the $7 membership fee is for - the attorney.

    First amendment rights give junk singer the right to sing in a junk yard (if they’re invited), and radio (or anyone else for that matter) has the right not to play or listen to junk.

    Personal opionion: the SN station cuts didn’t go deep enough. Nothing against stations that qualify, but the SN needs to get really picky before they can improve what they promote.

  10. Dusty wrote:

    They must not be too picky with their gospel music, seeing as they put up a full country station!

  11. Carm wrote:

    Not being on the board must not have affected Hendrix much. I hear he got the #1 this month with Ernie Haase.

  12. TJ wrote:

    Why was Rick Hendrix not asked to be on the boards? IF he went # 1 with the new stations-this proves you dont have to be on Singing News committee to chart-right?

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked * Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.