Fine. Whatever. For its own reasons, Gold City has decided that Wilburn’s excitability works with their revamped look and sound. I’ve never been very sure of that calculus. Wilburn’s antics made more sense 1)when he was 10 years younger and 2)when he was pretending to misbehave in the presence of the older Tim Riley. But now that a younger Riley is running the show, now that the group has traded its older vocalists in for newer, younger, hipper models, and now that Wilburn is the oldest guy on stage by some years, his cut-up routine doesn’t feel like it’s aging that well (compared, to say, the grumpy old man thing that Glen Payne perfected and complemented with his little hops and jumps and other physical affectations). Instead, the sort of stuff he’s got to do to sell a song like “I’m Rich” on stage just feel a little down in the teeth, drawing attention to his aging and very limited repertoire as a vocalist and showman as much as it gets an audience on its feet.

Of course, the majority of Gold City’s fans love (love!) Wilburn and the Rileys would be foolish to trade him in even if his odometer is starting to lap and his paint is thinning. In addition to his vocal role, Wilburn serves a sentimental function on stage, linking the old and new Gold Citys (or is it Cities?) to one another in fans’ eyes and minds. That sort of linkage is an invaluable asset for a group of relatively young artists still establishing their reputations and proving themselves - famous name notwithstanding. In that context, though it’s a weak radio single – tunes of such lyrical shallowness really require the kind of improvisational expertise that’s most commonly found and cultivated in the black gospel tradition – it’s smart bidness to single “I’m Rich” (it’s nearing the top ten on the SN chart). The more Wilburn can be Wilburn, the more chances he has to create a sense of his own legendary status as the perpetual class clown of gospel music.

How many ways can you avoid using the words “Gold City” while simultaneously milking the reputation of the organization for every ounce of publicity it’s worth?

[snip]

I fully understand why a press release such as this would avoid refering to the event as a “Gold City Reunion.” It isn’t an official Gold City reunion, obviously…just an event where three former members of the group will be appearing. What I don’t get is the tiptoeing around any direct use of the name.

“These three friends toured extensively together throughout the 80’s (sic) and early 90’s (sic)”

Now, what would be wrong with adding “as members of the award winning group, Gold City” to that sentence? Nothing at all. It’s a simple statement of fact. Maybe they’re trying to avoid upsetting the current owners of Gold City, but there’s little argument to be made with merely stating what we all know to be true.

I wonder if the reluctance to use the Gold City name has anything to do with the experience that former Cats members not named Younce or Haase had when they used the Cathedral name in the PR for their “reunion.” If so – and if the reason the Cathedral name disappeared from the Cats tribute concerts was the result of lawyerly strong-arming – that’s a shame. I don’t know trademark law very well, but I’d be surprised if there’s an actionable offense in either usage. Hate to see plain ole factual reality shouldered under this way by greed, pettiness, or whatever else motivates people to bicker over who should benefit from what part of a shared past.

Anyway, you gotta admire the audacity of these former Gold City guys … Brian Free, Ivan Parker, and Garry Jones … I mean, they’re essentially staging a memorial concert for Gold City’s “golden” years, even while the group is still on the road and trying to refoot itself. It’s been all down hill for Gold City ever since us, this event seems to say. Is there a Diamond Award for most chutzpah?

But they will make a pretty decent trio, don’t you think?

I mean, I know Wilburn and Ladd are trying to be funny and “just joshin with Ole Ernie … we love i’m.” But don’t you think some of the other guys seem a bit uncomfortable (look at Daniel Riley, for instance)? And with good reason. I’d be uncomfortable too if I were on camera and Jonathan Wilburn was speaking on my behalf. There’s something about this schtick … a not-entirely-joking quality, or a thread of contempt to the aggressiveness of the humor. Something that makes this hard to watch. But then I don’t find Wilburn to be a very funny guy in the first place. So maybe it’s just me.

Post Script: I honestly can’t tell if this was intended for mass consumption or not. It looks like an out-take, which could mean they thought it’d get edited out. But surely no performers in the age of the internet are unaware that anything recorded can end up online. Surely?

Update: Commenter dd helps out with some context:

it has been out for little bit and it’s actually on their myspace site. But boy Danny does look miffed and uncomfortable at the same time. But probably if he didn’t want it on there it would not have been posted. At the same time these guys see each other all the time and have known each other forever. I’m glad Jonathan can sing……

Later update: Commenter Big Ken turns up the volume on the clip and notices something I’d missed the first time round:

It’s obvious that Ladd and Wilburn have watched a lot of professional “wrasslin’” from the way they challenged Haase and his crew to a steel cage match in Madison Square Garden. What really cracked me up, though, was Aaron McCune’s almost inaudible comment at the end. After Wilburn said that he loved Ernie, Aaron said, “I don’t.” Priceless.

Even later update: Jonathan Wilburn writes:

Hey everybody! Ernie is a friend of mine. Has been for many years. There are friends I can cut up with and they know it is just good ole fun. I had no ill will in my heart for this great bunch of guys. Do any of you remember when George and JD went back and forth? Man the memories we would have missed if they had kept all that private! As far as what I do on stage. NOT GOING TO CHANGE!

I think some people are missing the bigger picture here. The choice for McCune is not for his ability to sing the “hits of old.” But for their future. I think GC recognizes it’s either progress or get out of the way. Let’s see….hire the two Michaels to produce, get rid of your old bass singer, hire one with maybe more vocal abilility, stage presence and youth. Even though he’s not as low as Tim or Bill. New record company, booking. Cut the band, buy a new sound system….etc, etc. I don’t think these are all negative things. In fact these are smart moves. However, I think some fans are not going to like the new project. I think it will be very different. Which is what they need. I think once the new album comes out, you’ll see the live sets change considerably, for good. I don’t know, just food for thought.

That, plus did anyone else notice the absence of the juvenile “TEX” from McCune’s name in the press releases about the move? Another change for the better, I’d say.