Why should groups drop out of existence? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Fun] >> Southern Gospel



Message

MidActsBibleBeliever -> Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 4:08:42 PM)

I have seen on here a couple threads about which groups wouldnt be around in X amount of years, and who would be here in X number of years.
I'd like everyone's take on this in a different way. Why should any groups fall out of existence? With good management, and keeping a good lineup, you'd think older groups could just go on till Jesus comes back.
There was really no reason for the Cathedrals to disappear. You have one of the founding members sons-in-law still in the group, why not just replace the 2 parts that were not there. No matter how good a particular singer is, they are not greater than the legacy of a group.
Look at Gold City ,they are doing fine in a second generation group, and The Kingsmen are doing ok without Hamill and Foxy.
I guess I am just a traditional kind of guy who'd like to see the legacies of these groups not be relegated to memory and stories in magazines and books, but see them on stage carrying on what their predecessors started.



tafkam -> RE: Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 5:15:51 PM)

If a group is called of God to do what they do, then they drop out of existence when God says their time is up.

I've been porforming for eighteen years, and I ask God every day if I'm to continue or quit. I don't need to be in this one second beyond what He wants me to do....



danielmount -> RE: Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 6:01:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MidActsBibleBeliever
Why should any groups fall out of existence?


(1) If a group cannot make enough money to meet its bills, it might not be a bad idea to retire.

(2) If a manager is getting ready to retire and does not know anyone he can trust to carry on the legacy at the same level, I can understand how he'd rather retire the legacy than see a weak imitation bear the name.

****

This really isn't connected to #2, since EHSS is good but different, but let's take your case in point: Suppose Ernie Haase had been given George Younce's share of the Cathedrals name and purchased Roger Bennett's. Furthermore, suppose he was doing the same choreography he's doing now, but was taking the stage as the Cathedrals.

If you think the controversy can get thick now, this is nothing compared to what that would be.



Amerigrandpa -> RE: Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 6:38:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: danielmount

quote:

ORIGINAL: MidActsBibleBeliever
Why should any groups fall out of existence?


(1) If a group cannot make enough money to meet its bills, it might not be a bad idea to retire.

(2) If a manager is getting ready to retire and does not know anyone he can trust to carry on the legacy at the same level, I can understand how he'd rather retire the legacy than see a weak imitation bear the name.



That's a good point. Of course, if #1 is the case, drop the bus first.



Amerigrandpa -> RE: Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 6:43:39 PM)

Actually on second thought dont drop the bus, sell it. You'll be better off financialy.[8D]



dbmurray -> RE: Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 7:17:28 PM)

When the appeal of a particular combination of group members becomes greater than the appeal of the group's legacy, then it's best to retire the name when those members retire. If a name persists for a number of years with a reduced level of appeal, there is a constant sense of disappointment on the part of the fans.

Even the mighty Gaither Vocal Band isn't immune. The departures of Mark Lowry and David Phelps left a huge hole. Of course, they still have a fantastic group...but when you hear "Gaither Vocal Band," there's a wish in the hearts of most fans for a return to the Lowry/Phelps days. I'm not saying the GVB should retire. As long as Bill has his health and money to put a group on the road, they should continue. I'm just saying you can see a crack in the armor.

This has nothing to do with talent, by the way. The Imperials sounded fantastic the last time I heard them in 2007. The 2003-2007 line-up was the best I'd heard from the Imperials since the early 1990s. (I haven't heard them since their two recent changes.) I know they made a lot of believers out of fans who took the time to hear them, especially after they released Back To The Roots. Still, they continue to fight an uphill battle as long as they carry on the Imperials name. Imagine if the same group had been introduced to the world with a new name in 2003 when Armond retired. Would a comparable number of fans be speaking of them in the same breath as Ernie Haase & Signature Sound now that it's five years later? It's possible, but we'll never know.

If I want to re-experience certain qualities that I remember hearing from the Statesmen Quartet, I'd much rather seek out Ben Harris' group than some group billed as the Statesmen and not pulling it off.

A group should continue as long as the group members who took the group to the highest level are able and willing to continue. After that, retire.

The exception, of course, is Gold City. They always seem to have a rabbit in their hat that redefines the group whenever a significant change is made.



robinashley -> RE: Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 7:50:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: danielmount

If you think the controversy can get thick now, this is nothing compared to what that would be.


I think that's an excellent point. As much as I agree that there are certain groups that I was sad to see retire, I think there are an equal amount of "diehard" fans that aren't so open to change. I think groups realize this and decide to retire the name before it's tarnished with bickering amongst fans.



armydude -> RE: Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 7:52:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MidActsBibleBeliever

I have seen on here a couple threads about which groups wouldnt be around in X amount of years, and who would be here in X number of years.
I'd like everyone's take on this in a different way. Why should any groups fall out of existence? With good management, and keeping a good lineup, you'd think older groups could just go on till Jesus comes back.
(Emphasis mine)
I wanted to point this out and say that the answer to your question may lie in the question. You said "with good management." And I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, but as I'm learning about management, I'm learning how tough it is in traditional organizations, and IMHO a gospel group (or any musical group) is anything but traditional, making things even tougher on the manager. What makes a "good manager" is different. So the managers may be doing the best they can, but in the face of rising gas prices, the need for higher salaries, the risk of low sales, and the simple fact that a great deal of concertgoers just don't want to part with their money, I can understand how groups would go out of business. They can't make ends meet, much less get along.



U376977 -> RE: Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 10:03:43 PM)

It is all the label folks. If a group or member of a group wants out--the only way is to retire the group, close the company and retool and come back with another company and new contract with a new label. Example: Jason Crabb. Now we have the New Crabbs and Jason going solo.
If a label cant make it and the co. folds. Guess what is happening to the group. They will probably fold and have to sign with another label.
It all goes to the bottom line $$. If the CDs don't sell then the group will not survive. I was told the Easters used to be worth 150K to 200K a project. When they went below 100K in sales per project...not enough $$ for staying power. When SG becomes popular again the groups will come back.



DJSfromCleveland -> RE: Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 10:13:25 PM)

Now in the case of the Kingsmen, i was thrilled when they brought the name back, from being the Carolina Boys. As long as they still had Ray Reese with them, they were still the Kingsmen to me. Now if he had retired and none of the other mainstays like Surrett, or Hutson, or anyone like that were gonna be in the group, then i would say, they should have retired the Kingsmen name for sure. But i'm glad they didn't .



dixiebass1 -> RE: Why should groups drop out of existence? (9/2/2008 10:41:21 PM)

I have to disagree with the GVB statement. I was and still am a HUGE David Phelps fan, but we have to admit thaqt Wes is a better Quartet man than Phelps any day. I think the group sounds as good today as they ever did with mark and David. And Marshall wipes the floor with Lowry with room to spare. NO COMPARRISON! in the words of J.D. I Can't Wait.



Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI