Talk:Traditional black gospel

External links

Both the links provided in the External links section do not appear to be notable enough to be included in this article. Can someone with a deeper knowledge of the subject check them out and see? WP:EL might help. aJCfreak yAk 09:35, 26 June 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) 14:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Notable Artists section

I removed the section on notable artists. This list contained some POV statements and some questionable entries. It is also a duplicate since a link to the List of gospel musicians is in the "See Also" section. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Major revisions on 15 January

I temporarily removed the origin and influence sections until a source for the information can be found. Please see the Gospel music article's discussion page regarding the controversy regarding the development of Gospel music. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of external links

I removed the links from the article because they all seem to be in violation of the WP:LINKS: "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:

1. Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors."

None of the lyric sites were on the "Recommend sources" list (see here). See WP:LYRICS for additional information on this topic. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I know close to nothing about urban contemporary gospel or gospel at all and wouldnt be much help in adding a new intro, but as of now, the introduction is basically exactly the same as the intro for Gospel music. I'm pretty sure that needs to be changed. Glassbreaker5791 (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Black Gospel

I have put a link to in several articles about traditional black gospel radio stations. I don't think it should be redirecting to an article called "urban contemporary gospel". As a matter of fact, most of the information in this article is about traditional black gospel, not the contemporary variety. I think the name of the article should be changed to black gospel.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I've requested a page move (it can't be done by mere mortals). It's really silly to label something "contemporary" when its Golden Age was in the 1940s and 1950s. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What is this crap?! All of a sudden the name is changed to "black gospel"? How can this not be controversial? Are we going back to the days of segregation—now we're categorizing music genres by skin color? You don't have to be a black person to sing or play this kind of music. I think it should be called "urban gospel" to distinguish it from southern/country gospel. NARAS (Grammys) originally called it "soul gospel" (which I liked). Now they call it "Pop/Contemporary Gospel." For the Gospel Music Association, originally it was "contemporary black gospel" and "traditional black gospel", then in the '80s they changed it to "contemporary gospel" and "traditional gospel." We've come too far in bridging the gap to just revert back to the old ways. Please change it. Musdan77 (talk) 01:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the term used by scholarly sources, e.g., the major archival project at Baylor University and about a thousand other sources. "Urban gospel" (and similar race-hiding labels) is basically never used for any music before the 1980s. This is largely because the musical style really was a specifically African-American genre in a segregated society until about 1970, and partly because the modern term is understood as referring only to the most recent descendants of black gospel (like hip hop gospel, reggae gospel, and holy hip hop), not to what Dorsey wrote, or Mahalia Jackson sang. There is nothing either "urban" or "contemporary" about the oldest black gospel songs: they were written nearly a century ago by people born and raised in impoverished rural areas.

Now, if you can find some high-quality sources that say Thomas A. Dorsey wrote "urban rather than "black gospel" (he, himself, called it just plain "gospel", but now we need a way to separate it from Southern Gospel's highly traditional barbershop harmonies), I'm all ears -- but I haven't seen any such sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What you're talking about is now (and has been for decades) called "traditional gospel." Dorsey was called "the father of contemporary gospel," but now is considered traditional gospel. Your "scholarly source" is talking about "traditional gospel" and erroneously using the racial term that was used at that time -- and yes there are some others that still use that term, but most credible sources no longer use that term. This article is mostly about traditional gospel, so if you want to change the name to "Traditional gospel" then we can make an article on Contemporary gospel. But, come on, let's get away from this racially divisive term, and enter the 21st Century. Musdan77 (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Southern gospel is also traditional gospel, but Southern gospel is (1) not Black gospel and (2) not within the scope of this article. Consequently, changing the title to "Traditional gospel" would confuse and mislead readers. (Wikipedia already has a plain Gospel article to cover other styles.)

I disagree with your opinion that directly acknowledging the race of the people who developed this is "racially divisive". I believe that using this term is exactly as neutral as Celtic music, Hawaiian music, Indigenous Australian music, Arabic music, and so forth. In fact, an insistence on hiding the well-documented ethnic origins of this music seems rather like whitewashing to me.

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, when hundreds of high-quality sources, like university professors and scholarly journals, choose one term, and very, very, very few sources choose another term, then the first term is the one we should use. It's not a case of 'most credible sources': There are very few high-quality sources that use your preferred term.

For example, Dorsey is considered the "father of contemporary gospel" by such lousy sources as eHow.com and "ezinearticles.com", and by books written forty (or more) years ago. When you look at better and more recent sources, that title is more commonly assigned to Andrae Crouch (ISBN 9781602664111, p 25) or Edwin Hawkins (ISBN 9781425944742, p 2).

I recognize that you personally are uncomfortable with the name that thousands of sources have chosen for this subject. However, Wikipedia needs to follow the lead of high-quality sources here, not your personal preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Southern gospel is never called traditional gospel. Some southern gospel is sometimes called "traditional southern gospel", but there is only one type of music that is named "traditional gospel"—and only one named "contemporary gospel" (urban). Anyone who doesn't understand that, would figure it out by reading the lead. And incidentally, there is a subgenre called "progressive gospel" (urban), and one called "progressive southern gospel." The parent genre for all these I've mentioned is Gospel music.

The title shouldn't be based on who started the genre—that should be mentioned in the article. The term is not equal to ethnic/regional based genres. Those aren't named after a skin color.

You are wrong when you say "There are very few high-quality sources that use your preferred term." Just do a search using the very search engines you mentioned, and you'll see. Most of those that use your term are talking about the history, and using the term that was used then. And yes, there are some still today that use it when talking about Gospel music in general, but that doesn't mean they're right. There are good reasons why the GMA stopped using that term back in the '80s—and NARAS never did (and I can't think of any better sources than these, made up of scholars and average musicians who always try their best to honor the past but keep up with the changing trends in music—and who would know more about Gospel music than The Gospel Music Association?) One reason was because: you can't call a genre "black" when there are white people on the charts or winning awards under that category. The other reason is that it tends to be exclusive (rather than inclusive)—and that's not what the true meaning of The Gospel is all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musdan77 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You've made a lot of unfounded assertions, but I see no sources in any of your complaints.

For example, you say that GMA 'quit using the term in the 1980s', which is simply wrong: there are about two dozen pages on their website that use this precise name for this subgenre, including highly visible pages like About us. In particular, they cite Nielsen Media Research to report that in terms of gospel album sales by genre, "The most popular styles of Christian/Gospel music were Pop/Adult Contemporary (23%), Black Gospel (20%) and Rock (16%)" in 2008.[1] Its market share dropped to 18% in 2009.[2] Presumably you were unaware of this indisputable fact.

Similarly, NARAS isn't shy of the phrase: "the Winans...were pioneers in the field of contemporary gospel, updating the sound and style of traditional black gospel vocal groups for the modern urban age."[3] "Black gospel" really does seem to be the accepted term in the music industry.

In case you've had a sudden change of heart about industry sources (now that you've learned that they disagree with your personal opinion), here's a sampling of some non-industry sources:

• Baylor University's Black Gospel Music Restoration Project[4] is the biggest effort ever undertaken to collect recordings from the golden age of black gospel.
• Zhang Jiefu and Zhou Kai, (2008). "On Secularization of Western Choral Music". Canadian Social Science, Vol.4 No.2 : "Black Gospel, as the important representational form of the secularization of contemporary western chorus, is the products of a combination of African Black music culture and American social culture as well as the combination of Black music and religion. It retained many complicated rhythms which is specific to Africa..."
• Burdick, John Samuel (2009). "Collective Identity and Racial Thought in São Paulo’s Black Gospel Music Scene." Music and Arts in Action, Vol 1, No 2.[5]
• Franklin, Tanga J. (2010). "A qualitative study of Black gospel music and spirituality in relapse prevention of cocaine dependence in urban African American women"
• Miller, T. (2009). A Myth in the Making: Willie Ruff, Black Gospel and an Imagined Gaelic Scottish Origin. Ethnomusicology Forum, 18(2), 243-259. doi:10.1080/17411910903141908
• Bob Darden (2004). People get ready!: a new history of Black gospel music. London: Continuum. ISBN 0-8264-1436-2.
• Min Wang, (2006). "American Black Gospel Music: Its Roots and Its Religious and Secular Characteristics" Huangzhong (Journal of Wuhan Conservatory of Music, China)[6].
• Ramsey, Guthrie P.; Guthrie, Jr Ramsey (2004). Race music: black cultures from behop to hip-hop. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-24333-1. [Pearl] William-Jones's catalog of the specific techniques, requirements, and typologies of black gospel singing is invaluable..."{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Jackson, Jerma A. (2004). Singing in My Soul: Black Gospel Music in a Secular Age. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 0-8078-5530-8.
• Wilson-Dickson, Andrew (2003). The Story of Christian Music: from Gregorian Chant to Black Gospel, an authoritative illustrated guide to all the major traditions of music for worship. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. ISBN 0-8006-3474-8.
• Encyclopedia of Alabama, entry for "Alabama": "Music flourished as well, particularly folk traditions. In the north Alabama mountains Appalachian ballads, sacred harp/shape note music, white gospel, and spirited fiddle songs predominated. In the Black Belt, African American spirituals, black gospel, blues, jazz, ragtime, and rhythm and blues thrived..."

IMO this is a wide variety of recent and reliable sources, including sources that you endorsed as ideal before you learned that they disagree with you. So if you really believe that GMA is the arbiter of gospel music, can we then agree to use the term that the GMA uses for this style of music? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not aware of those GMA pages. I will be sending an e-mail about that (I was a member at one time), because they are not being consistent. I do know that for the Dove Awards, they stopped using that term in the '80s—and that was what I was referring to. The link you give for NARAS doesn't apply, as well as the others, because for every source you give that use your term, I can give at least one that doesn't (but gives a proper name). We could go back and forth doing that, but that would be for naught. It seems that you are set in your belief (and I in mine). I just don't understand why you (or anyone else) when given a choice, would choose a controversial term based on color. Did you know that "rhythm and blues" was originally called "race music"? I think it's well past time for Christian music to realize the error of their ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musdan77 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps your personal experiences lie more towards some of the urban subgenres that are notable for having an attenuated racial identity (e.g., gospel rap in Brazil, according to the source named above).

BTW, I don't think that an e-mail message to GMA will have any impact. For one thing, one of the prominent uses is in the Nielsen media market reports, and GMA really isn't in a position to tell Nielsen how to do its marketing reports. But if you want to make that effort to change the way the reliable sources talk about this genre, that's okay with me. If you're successful, then we'll eventually be moving the page. In the meantime, it sounds like you agree that (however unhappy you are about it) the best sources are currently using this name for this type of music, so we should stick with the title that the sources are undoubtedly using. Once you've convinced all these sources to use your favorite term, then I'd be happy to have Wikipedia follow suit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Page movement/redirect from Urban contemporary gospel

Please note that the decision to redirect this article was made quite a while back as an effort by the Gospel Music Wikiproject to accurately reflect the subgenre. Because the term Black gospel is simply a legacy marketing label it was decided to move to the currently used term. Because this is not a "noncontroversial" move I will be requesting that the redirect be undone until the issue can be fully discussed and resolved by the Christian Music Wikiproject. Feel free to move the discussion there. -- Absolon S. Kent ^(chat), 15:44, Thursday December 17, 2009 (UTC)

WP:Consensus can change is a key policy on Wikipedia.

More importantly, your facts are wrong -- Black gospel is not the same style of music as Urban/Contemporary gospel -- and this page is actually about Black gospel, not Urban/contemporary gospel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

---

Urban contemporary gospel → Black gospel — (see previous message) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Previous discussion was held on this issue and the consensus was to use the currently used term "urban contemporary gospel" over the legacy term "Black gospel." A redirect was created to the urban contemporary gospel article from Black gospel." -- Absolon S. Kent ^(chat), 15:44, Thursday December 17, 2009 (UTC)
• Support I can't believe that after providing a long list of sources above, someone is still trying to claim that the music from the 1930s and 1940s is either "urban" or "contemporary". "Urban contemporary gospel" is overlaps with Christian hip hop, not the choir music and quartets from the Great Depression, WWII, and post-war era.
  If you would please actually look at the contents of this page, you will see that this article is about Charles Tindley (who died seventy-seven (77) years ago), TA Dorsey, and Mahalia Jackson -- not the musical style that Edwin Hawkins pioneered. The songs on this page include Dorsey's 1937 Peace in the Valley, or Tindley's 1901 I Shall Overcome -- not Kirk Franklin's 2005 "Imagine Me". Every single one of the "representative artists" was born before World War II, and all but one is dead: Calling them "contemporary" artists is an unconscionable stretch of the term. Black gospel is the name that the Nielsen ratings and the Gospel Music Association call this style of music, which represents 20% of all gospel album sales. There is a different style of music that they call urban/contemporary gospel, but except for a little (now-unsupported) bit in the lead, it's not actually discussed in this article.
  Let me be clear: There is room on Wikipedia for an article about urban contemporary gospel. That article would feature artists like Kirk Franklin, TobyMac, the Winans, Edwin Hawkins, Da TRUTH, and Mary Mary. The fact remains, however, that this page's contents are about what the sources and the industry call black gospel, not what they call urban/contemporary gospel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I see that Absolon removed several sources from the lead, all of which opposed his/her unverifiable opinion. Just one -- Encyclopedia Brittanica's description of urban contemporary music -- should be sufficient and simple proof that music from the Great Depression isn't "urban contemporary gospel". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you review Staying cool when the editing gets hot. I reverted the article to the version that was in before the page move. If you wish to readd cited items feel free to do so. -- -- Absolon S. Kent ^(chat), 15:44, Thursday December 17, 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - I oppose the use of the term "Black gospel" as an article name. However, what is mostly currently on this article would be called "Traditional Gospel"—by most people who truly understand these terms. Another article could be created called "Contemporary gospel." I would not be opposed to calling this article simply "Urban gospel"—but "black gospel" is out-of-date and just too controversial. Musdan77 (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • This article actually contains information about traditional black gospel. If we change the subject to Traditional gospel, are you willing to help expand the article to include information about Traditional Mountain Gospel and Traditional Southern Gospel, which are (1) traditional gospel and (2) currently not represented in the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • As I've tried to explain before: There is "Traditional gospel" (urban or black), and there is "Traditional southern gospel." There is "progressive gospel" (urban), and there is "progressive southern gospel." They are separate (and not to be confused with each other) subgenres (or sub-subgenres) of Gospel music. Now when I say "separate" I'm talking about in definition. Genres can be—and many times are—combined in performance. Musdan77 (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • And your source for this assertion that traditional mountain gospel is not traditional gospel is....what exactly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Mountain Gospel is basically what is typically today called traditional bluegrass Gospel. Before it was called mountain Gospel, it was called "hillbilly music." So ya see, names of genres change with the times. Musdan77 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Your source says, "MOUNTAIN GOSPEL Click on this link to sample some of the world's best [traditional] Bluegrass Gospel music CD's:". That's a direct quotation, including the "[traditional]". As support for your contention that traditional mountain gospel is not traditional gospel music, I'd say it deserves a {{failed verification}} tag. (It might support a claim that "traditional mountain gospel" is the same genre as "traditional bluegrass gospel" -- a point not being disputed -- but it simply does not say that "traditional mountain gospel" is not a subgenre of traditional gospel music, which is the point being discussed.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm fully aware of what the source says. Show me on the page where it mentions "Traditional Gospel." It doesn't, because it doesn't have anything to do with that. How can "mountain gospel" (predominately white) be a subgenre of "Traditional Gospel" (predominately black)? Just about any older genre can be described as "traditional" but there is only one named "Traditional Gospel" (and one named "contemporary gospel"). Musdan77 (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mountain gospel isn't a subgenre of black gospel; they're both subtypes of traditional gospel, as is Southern gospel. Traditional gospel is any gospel style that isn't progressive or contemporary. It is not merely the forms of gospel that descended from the African-Americans mentioned in this article. Consider these sources, all of which are about white Americans playing traditional bluegrass/mountain or Southern/country gospel:

• "All of my great-uncles could pick the guitar in the Travis style, and all of them sang traditional gospel in the Chuck Wagon Gang style," [Andy Gray Edmonds] says.[7]
• "The Mount Airy-based Easter Brothers play traditional gospel music with overtones of country and bluegrass instrumentation."[8]
• "Butch Baldassari MANDOLIN HYMNS 15 traditional gospel songs, showcasing a variety of mandolin styles. With guests Aubrey Haynie, Stuart Duncan, Dennis Crouch and others. Includes "Down To The River To Pray," "Morning Has Broken," "Simple Gifts" and more."[9]
• "Though best known to rock and country fans for their work with Elvis Presley throughout his career, the Jordanaires have maintained a long and steadfast career as a traditional gospel vocal quartet since 1948."[10]
• [The Oak Ridge Boys] tested the limits of tolerance of traditional gospel lovers. They wore long hair and mustaches and fancy costumes at a time when most other white gospel performers continued to dress and behave in a fairly traditional manner... ISBN 9780813190556, p 120

If "traditional gospel" exclusively means artists following in Tindley's and Dorsey's footsteps, then what's all this in the sources about white people, mandolins, shape notes, and the Oaks?

Now, it's true that "traditional gospel" has recently been employed by certain groups as a euphemism for "traditional black gospel". I grant that some people use that term sometimes. However, their choice of term doesn't mean that it's the only possible definition of the term, or even an appropriate one. Consider this (from Billboard magazine): "Additionally, the traditional black gospel recorded song and album categories became simply traditional gospel album and recorded song...When the Dove Awards began in 1969, everything was referred to as gospel. In 1977, the awards for what is now known as Southern gospel music were renamed traditional gospel....'Traditional gospel' is used to designate one of the formerly black gospel categories. If you'll recall, it was just a few years ago that the Dove Award for traditional gospel album of the year and traditional gospel song of the year represented what we recognize today as the Southern gospel album and song categories... It would be better for the GMA to retire the term 'traditional gospel' entirely than to change its meaning completely from its previous use.[11]

Also, I'd like to say that I'm finding this style of conversation to be a little frustrating. I say, "Here's a half-dozen sources to support my statement," and you seem to reply, "Yeah, well, I don't have any sources, and I don't care what any of them say, because IKNOWIT, and that's all that matters." It would be really helpful if you could produce even one reliable source that says that traditional bluegrass gospel and traditional Southern gospel aren't traditional gospel music. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Just look at what you wrote—the examples you gave. Every time the word "traditional" is used with a lowercase 't', it is not talking about urban/black gospel.

Re: The Billboard article: A very interesting article, but it was written 14 years ago, and the article itself reveals that we can't go by what names were used years ago.

So, now you're putting words in my mouth? (I assume you're talking to me) You quote as saying something I never said—and I would never say. I did give a reliable source. What was wrong with that one? All you have to do is do a search on "Traditional gospel" (using quotes and capitalized) and about 95% is about urban/soul gospel. I don't know how much clearer it can be. That is the name that is being used today in the industry. Musdan77 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if you have supplied a source that says Traditional Gospel is different from traditional gospel, I'm unable to find it on this page. Could you repeat the name of the source? WhatamIdoing (talk)

Clarification Request - The original item was a request for discussion on moving the urban contemporary gospel article to Black gospel. Right now the discussion seems to be moving towards creating seperate articles for the traditional development of the various subgeneres of Gospel music (or at least addressing each historical development on each subgenere's pages). If that is the case then the Christian Music Wikiproject can assist in this effort. -- -- Absolon S. Kent ^(chat), 15:44, Thursday December 17, 2009 (UTC)

• Comment To an outsider, the way you Americans get hung up on segmenting music, particularly on racial lines, seems utterly unbelievable! As does the way you change the terms every ten years! Skinsmoke (talk) 11:15, 16 July 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.