The function of religious-music criticism

Regular reader CVH nails it:

You can’t have a blog about an industry, even an industry that is based on religious music and its related culture, unless you look at it from a critical point of view. The people here who immediately take a thread and hyperspiritualize it miss the point. We’re not in a masters level hermeneutics class. We’re a collection of fans, industry types, wannabes and oddballs who bring our collective biases, preferences and experiences into a common space. My hope is to learn things, have interesting dialogues and be amused by the conversation. But so often I’m amazed at the inability of so many to have constructive interaction. An argument or position isn’t discussed for its own merits - it’s debated and often trashed because those who can’t just discuss Ernie’s quasi-metrosexuality or The Perry’s lastest record or an informed critique of a concert have to resort to spiritualizing the conversation as a means of putting down the person making the original point.

[snip]

Part of the reason the industy is languishing right now is because there’s been a lack of realness in many aspects of the business. And while SG will always be a niche within a niche, it needs to be critically examined and evaluated and discussed in order to be made better. The comments offered here are probably a fair representation of what the body of Christ is all about. And as one person who is somewhere on that contiuum of faith, I appreciate those who question, who debate, who struggle and who honestly express their thoughts (as our esteemed host did in his original post) much more than those who stridently insist that the doubters and questioners don’t “get it”.

The whole thing is worth your time.

Email this Post

Comments

  1. SGfan wrote:

    “You can’t have a blog about an industry, even an industry that is based on religious music and its related culture, unless you look at it from a critical point of view.”

    You can’t really examine anything critically (especially religious music) unless you examine the principles and foundations of the music.

    I agree that there is a lot of music in SG that just isn’t up to par in quality and that can definitely be improved. We need to look at all aspects of SG, industry and musicality included. However, we can not and should not discuss such and ignore the spiritual aspect that actually defines the music. SG (Christian music) is defined more by content than by style. The content contained is scripturally based, therefore any real critical discussion about the music will eventually turn to spiritual and Biblical context. Otherwise, the critical point of view is rather shallow. I “get it” very well and welcome the discussion of pitch, performance, effectiveness of publicity and promotion, etc. I think we need to discuss how to make SG music better, but how to communicate the message within the music better should be the intent and center of that discussion. If not for the message, we don’t have Southern Gospel music. We just have Southern music.

  2. Casual Observer wrote:

    To the spiritual, all things are spiritual. I understand where CVH and SGfan are both coming from. This blog illustrates the diversity that exists within the body of Christ. We provide our own “checks and balances.” One leans toward the justice side of the boat while the other leans toward the mercy side - and the boat sails on because of it.

  3. Irishlad wrote:

    CVH like myself et al is a free thinker,therefore,any discussion will ultimately end in a free thinker v’s conservative/fundamenetalist(who are never wrong)senario.

  4. Harry Peters wrote:

    Old Harry Peters is reading that novel that has drawn so much attention, “The Shack.” One of the points it makes is that God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) loves creation and wants the best for it–including humankind. Harry Peters is continuing to increasingly accept by faith that God is much more bent on redeeming creation than judging and damning it. Case in point, Jesus sent to earth and willingly giving his life. I think my friend Irish Lad might especially enjoy this book. It would just go over the heads of many.

    Back to Southern Gospel Music, the purpose of the blog. Harry Peters thoroughly enjoys those discussions–those that are complimentary and those that are more critical and even negatively biased. It is interesting to see how others view the music, the industry and the groups and the individual artists.

    It’s no surprise to anyone who has read Harry Peters’ posts that I thought the Cats were the ideal group of all time–both stylistically, musically and spiritually. Likewise, you no doubt know my very low opinion of EH & SSQ and GVB5 for the absence of the aforementioned.

    With that said, it is the expressions, perceptions and observations of others that old Harry Peters finds most endearing about this site.

  5. Gospel Has Been wrote:

    It all comes back to the fact that you have to answer for one person and that is yourself and let everyone else live as they choose and let them answer for themselves someday. The world is falling in around us so get ready. It is probably sooner than any of us know.Singers live what you sing. Posters live as you tell everyone else they should live and hopefully everything will come out just fine.

  6. JW wrote:

    “4, Harry Peters, “Harry Peters is continuing to increasingly accept by faith that God is much more bent on redeeming creation than judging and damning it.”

    Why does anyone need redemption?

    What are we being redeemed from?

    “Case in point, Jesus sent to earth and willingly giving his life. ”

    Why?

    I guess I’m confused. I haven’t killed anyone, am pretty nice to everyone, don’t lie or cheat (well, not much!). I’m straight, too!

    Where did you get these rules?

  7. Shan wrote:

    Harry Peters - Once you’re through reading “the Shack” you should pick up a book called “So You Don’t Want to go to Church Anymore” by Jake Colsen. Talk about an eye-opener. It’s published by the same company that published “The Shack.” Both of these books have really made me think and re-evaluate my own theology. There is a website for “So You Don’t…” - www.jakecolsen.com. Check it out.

  8. Robert wrote:

    I don’t always agree with everything said on SG blogs. I don’t expect to. I do think that all discussion about SG should be critical to a point. We should give credit where credit is due (most of the time I believe Avery does this). To a point it is all subjective. I believe we need to discuss less subjective areas more often. Instead of who did a great job in concert on a certain night or who left one group for another and why, maybe we should talk about the economics of SG and other more factual subjects. Just an idea?

  9. Harry Peters wrote:

    Thanks Shan! I will definitely read “So You Don’t Want to Go to Church Anymore.” Thank you for the recommendation. I had actually seen the provacative title in the back of “The Shack,” but a recommendation is worth a thousand advertisements.

    This is turning out to be a very nice thread. I hope we can keep it going.

    JW: You ask very good questions and I won’t dismiss them flippantly. Yet, your satisfaction with my feeble attempts to answer them will surely depend on whether you are truly seeking answers.

    To believe that anyone needs redemption, one must first believe that there is a higher power (God) is perfect and who created humankind in God’s image for the purpose of having relationship with them.

    If you believe that, whether you believe in humankind’s fall from perfection in the garden of Eden, or believe that is just a camp fire story, it is pretty easy to see that somewhere along the line, human beings broke that relationship with God. One look at the history of crime and the horrible things human beings do to each other and we can see for a fact that it broke down somewhere along the way.

    If that relationship was broken, there is nothing a human being could do to cure that. Yet God wanted to reach out and sent a son, Jesus to come and live as a human being and voluntarily offer himself a sacrifice to restore our relationship with God. The only way that Jesus’ life and sacrifice could make a difference at all is that he was fully God and became fully human and lived without sin. With that, the voluntary, sacrificial sacrifice of an innocent could redeem humankind and restore that broken relationship.

    Although my theology is grounded in Judeo Christian history and the bible, it is interesting that almost every major religion has similar creation and fall from grace stories. You may have heard it called “original sin.”

    I feel quite sure that you are probably a good person and doubt that you have killed anyone, are pretty nice to everyone, haven’t robbed and pillaged any of your neighbors or raped their daughters. However, by your own admission, I “don’t lie or cheat (well, not much!)” you are admitting that you have lied and/or cheated. That alone, is enough to break that relationship with God.

    Your questions deserve far better answers than I have given you and also deserve more attention than I can give them on a blog.

    What I can leave you with is this. I don’t have all of the answers. I’m taking one step forward in faith myself day by day. However, I challenge you to do this. Every day for 30 days, look in the mirror and say with an open mind, “God, if you are real, show yourself to me.” If you can take that small step in faith, I strongly believe that God will meet you, even in your unbelief and you cannot comprehend what will happen in your life.

  10. Irishlad wrote:

    Harry old pal, your prayers have already been answered. The Shack was digested quite a while back,and, whilst talkng up the spirit of the “Missy project” my copy has most certainaly done the rounds,and,i trust for the greater good.

  11. Harry Peters wrote:

    Irishlad,

    Old Harry Peters isn’t sure he digested it completely. Some parts of it may have gone over my head; however, it has the ring of truth to Old Harry Peters and so much of the hatred, judgment and vitriole of the society, the church and individuals would be greatly diminished if we concentrated on living with God “IN RELATIONSHIP.” In the spirit of the “Missy Project,” old Harry Peters has sent his copy to Fonda Peters mother. Maybe it will open the door to more free thinking on her part. Old Harry Peters is honored to have irishlad as an “old pal.” :-)

  12. jake wrote:

    There is plenty of room for honest differences of opinion with regard to SG music. We all have opinions and tastes, and sometimes our differences simply come down to “likes” or “dislikes.” We need to all be open to one another’s opinions in this regard. Another person’s opinions count as much as mine.

    However, the middle name of Southern Gospel Music is “Gospel” — i.e. God’s plan of redemption as provided in the Bible. It is fair that if we are going to deal with “Gospel” then the Bible is an important and integral part of such discussion.

    I get bothered by those who seem to get upset every time someone quotes the Bible, or uses Scripture to back up their point. What is the “Gospel” if we throw out the Bible? Of course Scripture will enter into the topic. And it should! How could we have an intelligent discussion of “Southern Gospel Music” without it?

    Those who have a more liberal or casual view toward the Bible’s teachings and precepts need to consider that those of us who believe the Bible is God’s infallible Word, and that it is the sole source for determining what the “Gospel” even is, cannot divorce our Biblical views from our opinions of what is and what isn’t acceptable with Southern Gospel Music. We may be narrowminded — but so are those who choose to minimize or reject the Biblical mandates and instructions.

  13. Wade wrote:

    Jake if you read the other post the last few days you will see that SGFan & dr. joe blow has already worn us out with the G is for Gospel. Keep up… we want to talk about music with out being preached AT!!

  14. SGfan wrote:

    Wade,

    I am sure there are plenty of discussion boards that allow you to talk about music without being “preached at”. However, anytime you talk about Christian music in any setting, it will eventually be discussed in relation to Biblical context. If you feel you are being “preached at”, maybe what you are feeling is conviction. After all, the only time I have written to you directly (in the last several threads) is when you called me out or solicited a response.

    I will extend this invitation though. Choose any song or artist in Christian music and I will be happy to have a discussion about the musicality and effectiveness of their music. Oh wait, we may have to exclude effectiveness because that again is tied to and will lead to Biblical context. We’ll discuss the musicality only. That means the discussion is not going to be too critical or deep. It will actually be pretty shallow (this is sharp, this is flat,etc).

  15. Harry Peters wrote:

    SG Fan,

    There is nothing sharp about your post to Wade and among the things that are flat is your assumption that God has given you the ability to judge others and to interpret scripture for everyone. Oh…and incidentally, “Gospel” means “Good News”…something the dogmatic fundamentalists are not too good at presenting. Almost everyone in the United States has heard the Gospel and most of us are trying to recover from the way people like you present it.

  16. SGfan wrote:

    Hary Peters,

    I welcome you to show me where I have been wrong. You can not because everything thing that I have said in relation to scripture has been Biblically sound. I don’t read where I have been judgemental (oh yeah, you are one of those that believes presenting the truth is being judgemental) and I would love for you to tell me how I present the Gospel. There are ways to put window dressing on it, but the bottom line is that Jesus died so that we might be saved. He did so that we might more fully be able to reflect or be a more complete reflection of the image of God (the image we were created in and that sin distorted). He does that by not just forgiving, but transforming our lives. What about that is wrong? Where do you disagree? I know very well that “Gospel” means “Good News”, but what good news is that referring to. It sure aint the economy. Gospel is referring to the concepts I just laid out for you. The good news is that God loves us so much that He will reach down where we are and pull us out of the mess that we have gotten ourselves in. Again, you don’t have to clean up to get God, but when you get God you’ll clean up. He loves you too much to leave you as He found you. Please tell me where I am wrong. I would love to hear the rational that supports any other view.

  17. Wade wrote:

    Old Harry Peters… Don’t waste your time with SGFan… he will never get it… put him in the dr joe blow category…they know it ALL and EVERYBODY else is wrong and they are right!!!

    WHAT YA GONNA DO???

    My head has enough bloody flat spots!!

    There are about 100 ppl on here that do get it… you are always going to have a few NO IT ALL… I KNOW BEST FOR YOU Types!!!

  18. SGfan wrote:

    Wade,

    I don’t know everything, but I do know the phrase is “KNOW IT ALL” and not “NO IT ALL”. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say it was a typo. What is it that I will never get? You have yet to put something out there that is worth getting. I think it would be fun to have this conversation with someone who actually has more to fall back on than cheap name calling and personal attack references while falling back on the argument of victimization. You see, I have invited you (just as I did Harry Peters) time and time again to show me where I am wrong instead of just yelling I am wrong. It seems as though you have nothing on which to base the accusation that my points are flawed . If you had real ammunition or real substance to base your accusations on, you would not have nearly as many “bloody flat spots” on your head. Is it possible that you are the one that doesn’t “get it”? It is beginning to look more and more like that is the situation.

  19. SGfan wrote:

    Oh, by the way Wade, Harry, and anyone else who has accused my posts of being flawed. I’ll be away for a few days so don’t expect any responses from me until next week. Here is your chance. I challenge you. Take some time and present a real argument since you take issue with everything I post. Try to refrain from name calling and accusations about what “type” I am and present an argument that has substance and in some way has a chance to show where I am flawed in my thinking. Hey, that is real critical thought. I think that is what you guys have said you want on here. Now prove it.

  20. Wade wrote:

    SGFan… I did that to see what anal retentive person would call it first…

    CONGRATS… YOU WIN!!!

  21. Harry Peters wrote:

    SGfanatic,

    Old Harry Peters owes you an apology and correction on his post number 15. I had your post confused with Jake’s number 12. Jake, the infallible bible authority. Jake, the bible may or may not be infallible; however, assuming you are correct that there are no errors for sake of argument, who gives you the authority to interpret what the infallible message is?

  22. Wade wrote:

    Ahhh I hate it SGFan will be away for a couple of days!! I do not know if I will survive with out some one telling me what to think!!!lol

  23. Lisa wrote:

    umm…I’m new to this blog, but I have a question. As an English major (and soon-to-be teacher), criticism in my vocabulary means to look at a given work and examine it…not in a harsh/judgmental manner, but in a “what is he/she trying to SAY” manner. We pick up and turn over expressions, ideas, and word choices. This is the manner in which I think EVERY genre of music–not just Southern Gospel–needs to be examined.

    There DOES seem to be a problem though, in doing this to Christian music…because of the varying interpretations of Scripture. This thread is engaging, but I worry about it turning into “I’m right and YOU are WRONG.”

  24. Wade wrote:

    # 23… Hi Lisa… WELCOME!!…there are a FEW ppl on here sure you figured out who they are who are ALWAYS right and have a very OLD TESTAMENT leaning to their VIEWS!!!

    Just pray for them!!!

    God Love their Hearts!!!

    So LISA…who are your fav groups and SGM STARS???

  25. Harry Peters wrote:

    Lisa,

    You are going to be a fine teacher and your intuition is spot on. Once you follow this thread for a period of time, you will learn that it is very much a “I’m right and YOU are WRONG” kind of blog. Bloggers names will appear and you will know before reading it that your worry is a reality. Here. Since I won’t stoop to giving you the bad guys names, they will soon become apparent. Fear not. There are also come good bloggers that make this blog worth your time.

  26. Lisa wrote:

    #24, Hi back :)
    One of my favorites (and I had him and a couple others in mind when I said this–) is Michael English. I am from NC, as he is, and came up hearing him sing before the GVB. ( I also have an opinion on his present singing ability, too.)

    My all-time favorites are GVB and the Cathedrals, although Signature Sound is coming up strong. I use these guys as a marker, but I will listen to any of them–at least once. I’m still learning Southern Gospel…I come out of 1970’s head-banging rock & roll. Give me time, I’ll get better.

  27. Lisa wrote:

    #24–thanks for the vote of confidence.

    I’m not a spring chicken, this is a mid life (I’m 44) career change. I decided that I could help what I was seeing around me.

    I do not care who the “bad guys” are. I’ll deal with everyone as they present themselves to me. However—that may mean that one of these days, you see me un-varnish a comment, but I’ll never try to be deliberately hurtful.

  28. Wade wrote:

    Hi Lisa… will be glad to help you with SGM growth!!! Maybe we could have our own SMALL GROUP to study the influences of Gospel Music!!!

    If you have facebook click on my name above and become my friend!!!

    Grigs and a few others are friends on myspace or facebook.

    Sound like you have a pretty good start deciding who is a Good Act.

    Good Monday to ya…

  29. SGfan wrote:

    Wade,

    I hope my being away 4 days wasn’t too painful for ya. I see you were still unable to present anything worth getting after telling me time and time again that I just don’t “get it”. I am glad I won your little contest though. I am still praying that oneday you actually come up with something funny (since you consider yourself a comedian). Keep trying, oneday you’ll get there.

    Harry Peters,

    Thanks for the apology, I think. I kind of get the feeling it was more of a redirect to avoid having to back up your words than it was an admittance of wrong on your part. In either case, apology accepted.

    Wade and Harry,

    I think after four days, my point has been proven. Still no substance therefore no critical thought.

    Lisa,

    I have never presented a “I’m right and your wrong” type of argument without backing it up with scripture. I have always left plenty of room for discussion. Our friend Wade here just has no knowledge of scripture to fall back on and is not willing to actually dig into it to gain that knowledge. Most of what I have stated on here is based on scriptures in the New Testament. Maybe someone (maybe you can get it through to him) needs to inform him that everything from Matthew to Revelation (where most of my references are pointing to) in the Bible is New Testament. Therefor, the thinking based on such can not really be called Old Testament leaning. My mother went back to school and became an English teacher later in life. We need more good teachers like her. Good luck. Teaching can be a very rewarding career.

  30. Harry Peters wrote:

    SGFAN (29):

    Apology was sincere in regard to blasting you for something Jake said. However, if you hold his beliefs, my reply is the same to you as well and is not mis-directed but squarely leveled at you, too.

  31. SGfan wrote:

    #30 Harry Peters,

    Actually, I think I agree with what Jake presented in his post. I too believe the Bible is “God’s infallible Word”. Do you believe the Bible is God’s word? If so, do you believe God is perfect? If you believe the Bible is God’s Word and that God is perfect, then you can’t believe the Bible is flawed in any way. To believe that is to believe that either A: God is not perfect, or B: the Bible is not His Word. If you believe God is not perfect, then why would you trust Him and decide to be a Christian? What seperates Him from Budah, Muhammad or Alah for you? If you believe the Bible is not perfect, then what do you base your Christianity on? Do you base it on a feeling of what just feels right to you? I would sincerely love to hear your answers to those questions. It will make for some interesting conversation. Level what you want at me. I can take it.

  32. Wade wrote:

    SGFan… Buddy I have no desire to have a scripture discussion with you. That is not why I come here. I can see you have had some good sales training in needling ppl. You were gone 4 days and amazingly enough the blog comments went right on just fine.

    I do not know what you are attempting by needling ppl into a scripture discussion with you.

    That’s about like me needling you to come be in the contest I produce looking for funny ppl in Chattanooga. First the contest is full for next Tuesday Night and 2 your not funny…so that would not be nice would it???

    If your only tract of conversation is quoting scripture and attempting to beat ppl up with it then there are MANY blogs out there that do that so take off!!!

  33. SGfan wrote:

    Wade,

    You have no desire to have a “scripture discussion” with me (yet you continually respond to my posts in a manner to negate them and by doing so invites the discussion) because you are illiterate in that area. I was gone 4 days and comments kept coming. But in those 4 days, no comments from a “critical point of view” were presented from you or Harry Peters. All that has been presented is the same tired old shallow stuff you have been presenting for the past couple of years.

    As far as the contest you produce is concerned, it would be nice if the producer was actually funny himself. That way he would have some basis to judge the comedic potential of the contestants in the contest. No offense, but I don’t have time for a second rate comedy club in a small town like Chattanooga (no offense to Chattanooga). I have some great friends from there, but last time I checked, Chattanooga was no where near being to comedy what Nashville is to music.

    I have not come on here quoting scripture constantly. Everything I have posted in reference to morality can be backed up with scripture, but I have not quoted the first scripture in this entire thread. It seems that even mentioning the Bible causes you to feel uncomfortable. I can’t help it if the mere thought of scripture causes you to feel convicted.

    I appreciate your invitation to the comedy club. From reading what you consider to be funny, I could easily hold my own if I needed to. However, I don’t have anything to prove to you when it comes to comedy. I have proved the soundness of my scriptural references time and time again. I have done it every time without “beating” people up with it. Unless you can actually present something of substance when you respond to my posts, you are just wasting your time. Your arguments have no merit on their own when you are commenting on issues that deal with morality.

    To Everyone:

    I have had a lot of fun with this site, however I have a lot of work to do. Plus, I have made sure the truth was represented. Now I am going to take a break from this site. I would not want anyone to think my presence here is an endorsement of the views in any way of the creator of this site or of the views of Wade and Harry Peters. There is “such a thing” as absolute truth. We find it when we look at the Bible. There will always be those who refuse it, and they will have to pay the consequences of their own decisions to reject that truth. I have done my part of trying to reveal the truth. What those that have read it do with it, well that is between them and God. To everyone,

    God Bless!

  34. Wade wrote:

    GAWD… SGFan… I divorced a wife like you. I was always glad when she FINALLY got to the last word too!! See ya… we know you will be here almost everyday. Just like your Daddy dr. joe blow who has also made this same threat to leave for over a year now…PLEASE JUST DO IT!!! GO AWAY!!

    BTW… I was not inviting you please read what I write.

    So you are like the kid in the corner of the room and they get their permission to ACT OUT… because you look at them!!

    If you feel like writing go to any of a number of other blogs where the contributors are mostly silent and you can write there to your hearts content.

    Because I recently went on tour to a few of those sites and was amazed that if a thread had 10 comments half of them where by the Original Contributor!!

    BTW… you and dr. joe blow should start your own blog and you guys could agree with each other and see how many hits you get!!!

    Totally ignore what I just wrote… YOU GOT THE LAST WORD!!! THANK GAWD!!!

  35. Harry Peters wrote:

    Wade! AMEN! (So be it)!

  36. Wade wrote:

    Sad thing Harry is they will both be back. SGFan & His Daddy have been on here as far back as I can go in the archives. I bet I read 10x where his Daddy was GOING AWAY!!! But they can’t.

    The reason they use the scriptures so much is that is the only way they know to have a conversation.

    And OH yeah since this is a blog about SGM with the G standing for gospel they need to pontificate and tell us that OVER & OVER & OVER…they have not really had a NEW THOUGHT in the entire time I have read this blog since last summer.

    Belittling every one and knowing it ALL!!!

    GAWD help ya if you don’t agree with them!! OR if you do not want to get in a Bible Verse Match with them.

    Irish Laddy… Yes many groups in the 60’s & early 70’s crossed over and flirted with some secular songs.

    Of course the Oaks had many and they saved fairly positive in ALL their music.

    Baptism of Jesse Taylor was one of my all time favorites and got the Oaks in trouble only to have it covered years later by GVB!!

    The one that caused so much trouble coming the other way was Larry Gatlins, If There’s No Mogan David in Heaven… I think Larry wrote this in his coke years. You could tell he was crying out…

    I saw the Gatlin’s in concert once and Larry told the crowd his time released meds must have JUST RELEASED and he was feeling better than EVERYBODY!!!

    But the coke also makes you VERY irritable. Later in the same concert when ppl began to yell they could not understand the words, while he was trying to talk… he became angry and said OK..we are going to sing this next sumbitch as LOUD as WE F–king can.

    Which brings me to the ask the contributors… what is the funniest thing you have seen happen in concert situations from professionals???

  37. Lisa wrote:

    #29:SGFan…
    I have never presented a “I’m right and your wrong” type of argument without backing it up with scripture. I have always left plenty of room for discussion (quote from post #29)

    I was not aiming at you. I have read this blog for a LONG time, and had not posted.

    I’m simply making the observation that it can deteriorate to that, because even between mainline denominations it can get heated…( I know, ’cause I am the offspring of a Lutheran and a fundie independent Baptist!) Never mind a debate between other species! … (just kidding, please.)

  38. Harry Peters wrote:

    Wade…one of the funniest things old Harry Peters has seen was with SSQ during their first concert tour…yes…the one with the bad blue suits, the pink shirts an Ernie’s matching eye shadow…but the funny thing happened to one of the two SSQ members that old Harry Peters actually liked. Funny, both of them are gone now. Garry Jones boom mike kept drooping while he was playing the piano. Old Harry Peters had enough and went up on stage and tightened it for him and bent down and whispered in his ear that someone ought to slip that boom a viagra. He laughed so hard that he almost fell off the piano stool and of course EH gave him a (go to where the the guy in the red suit with horns and a pitch fork lives) look.

    I guess it was interfering with one of EH’s more “spiritual,” pious moments during “O What a Savior.” You know…the same one he does at the same place in the song every time he sings it.

    And you all thought old Harry Peters didn’t have a sense of humor. Hey did y’all like the post old Harry Peters made on the other thread about what to call BG’s Face Book immitation. Old Harry Peters has the perfect poster boy for advertising it. Sorry that old Harry Peters misspelle a word. He always did confuse whether one of the words in the post was spelled with an “o” or a “u.”

  39. Lisa wrote:

    (quote from post 36) But the coke also makes you VERY irritable. Later in the same concert when ppl began to yell they could not understand the words, while he was trying to talk… he became angry and said OK..we are going to sing this next sumbitch as LOUD as WE F–king can.

    I must have seen him about the same time.
    There was a pair of guys behind me bellowing for the lovely female opening act. Mr Gatlin walked to the edge of the stage directly in front of them (and me) pointed his finger out to the audience and said: “These folks paid money to hear ME, not you *&^%$# dumb *&^%$es. SHUT UP, AND SIT DOWN or I will have your ^&%##%@!-ing miserable selves dragged out of here.

    I felt bad for all three. I knew the guys, knew they were–ahem!–tipsy, and knew that Larry Gatlin was well beyond toasted. He checked into rehab the following month.
    (It WAS funny to watch at the time though)

  40. Wade wrote:

    Lisa … it is called feeling guilty on SGFan part… he often reads things into what other ppl say so he can rant and quote the bible!!!

  41. Wade wrote:

    Lisa… yeah going to see the Gatlin Bros used to be as much fun as going to see George Jones…except thy did show up most of the time.

    So you were at a concert w/ 3 drunk guys huh??? Surprised larry did not try to take you away from them!!

    Did you ever see Hank Jr or George around this same time as well???

    Thanks for finally chiming in!!

    Wished we had 20 more kinda like ya!!!

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.

*

*