1091:@User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing: You asked, "Do you believe that progressive Southern Gospel is now less popular than it used to be, or that it is only approximately the same amount of popular than it used to be?" It has grown in popularity in lock step with regular Southern Gospel. I believe that progressive Southern Gospel IS regular Southern Gospel, a distinction between the two has never been clearly defined since the birthing of the genre. I have pointed out audio evidence of this fact, sharing links to musical recordings around 65 years old. Even quartets known as traditional, retro, nostalgia acts have often broken with their own dogma to produce several mainstream radio singles, to the dismay of some vocal critics. I believe it is clear to the longtime listener, (provided they have an ear for music,) that the progressive element within Southern Gospel has been an inescapable part of its unique identity since the earliest days. I have not found a published literary study (online) stating it in those exact words, to add as a reference, but I would like to point out again that the other user has not been told to provide a published source as a reference for his remarks about the development, or popularity of "Progressive" Southern Gospel, and the inference that the two elements constitute separate and distinct types of Southern Gospel music. Can any published work help him establish this as anything other than opinion? This is the inherent trouble with the section, as written. As you yourself said, "All that matters for a Knowledge article is what the published reliable sources say, not what you or I or any other editor believe we hear in a recording." The other editor has not supported his opinions on "progressive Southern Gospel, those who sing it, the process whereby they sing it, how the classical traditionalist Gospel singers sing in a more classical way, or how the progressive Southern Gospel singers "push" their voices to give them an edge, why the "classical purists" don't want/need an edge, how one should sing to avoid any edges, etc, etc." Is he a vocal instructor? Does he have a published work from a vocal instructor he can reference? Again, why do I have the burden of proof, to be responsible to prove the other editor wrong, when even-handed application of Knowledge standards on BOTH sides would eradicate the statements I suggested need a clarifying rewrite anyway?
1061:
Southern Gospel itself, I could recommend recordings all day long...) This need not even be a discussion. It began due to someone else's bias and personal viewpoint, which I had to work around or within. I find it somewhat distasteful to allow rhetorical statements, inserted into the article, conveying the notion that 1979's fan choice group of the year was 'traditional,' and sang songs in a 'singing style that was a more classical quartet style, not pushing their voices to sound more edgey,' (whatever that is supposed to mean.) The bias of the writer clearly leans toward a style that went with the wind in the late 1940's, only experiencing brief, periodical upswings in popularity. The bias the writer expresses is insulting to the memory and legacy of several
Southern Gospel Music Pioneers, songwriters, musicians, and producers, some who literally gave their lives to this wonderful musical genre, (not to mention their fans and supporters.) I can understand how someone disinterested in this genre, and can't tell the difference can remain detached. If it were an article on soccer in the country of Lithuania, I'd find it hard to become emotionally invested myself. The writer of this section has slanted the facts in a direction that dismisses even artists mentioned in the section above, and I thought I might be able to make it more coherent by suggesting a minor change, (either admitting that Southern Gospel has been evolving more since the 70s, or just being honest about the progressive element that has existed since its inception.) It appears that useful and helpful suggestions are pretty much discouraged, even when an article has been nearly abandoned since 2009. All it took to bring the defenses up was to try to make it more factual as well as readable. I was embarrassed, when as a person with considerable background in Southern Gospel Music, I saw an article that looked as if it had been vandalized by someone who resents any changes in Gospel Music since they were a youngster, and disparages any singer, song, or musical arrangement they deem "not classical enough to be considered worthy by the PURISTS." That is how it appears to every passerby. I was just trying to turn the negative vibe aside, by presenting a more objective, (not to mention, honest) POV. Thanks Anyway.
884:
style is called
Progressive Southern Gospel and is characterized by a blend of traditional Southern Gospel, Bluegrass, modern country, contemporary Christian and pop music elements. Progressive Southern Gospel generally features artists who push their voices to produce a sound with an edge to it. The traditional style Southern Gospel singers employ a more classical singing style." Over the last decade? Like, since 2001, or 2003? I know it is hard to believe, but groups like the Hinsons came out over 30 years ago, incorporating all these 'new' progressive Southern Gospel styles the writer has mentioned. If we ignore the contributions made by the Gaither Vocal Band, (even starting since 1985 or so,) The Hemphills, (even beginning about 1976,) we still must acknowledge The Crabb Family, influenced by the Hinsons, who achieved their first #1 song in 1996, and that is still more than a decade ago. I am not speaking as a fan of "progressive" gospel here, but I suggest the statement that, supposedly "Progressive Southern Gospel generally features artists who push their voices to produce a sound with an edge to it, The traditional style Southern Gospel singers employ a more classical singing style" reflects a merely a narrow opinion of an individual, and also quite a limited scope of Southern Gospel knowledge. The Southern Gospel of the last 30 years may be distasteful to the author of this section, but it still exists, and is mainstream. The traditional style, as described here, has not disappeared, but it is not in the majority on the popularity charts, and well known groups with a bluesy, country, contemporary, pop style have existed for a much longer time than 10 years.
974:, etc... I'm sure he, or she might come to the same conclusion I have, (that there is nothing new under the sun,) and the contributor is probably convinced a musical genius would discover the thrilling "newness" of "Progressive Southern Gospel Music." However, since our Music genius professor/author/Southern Gospel aficionado person does not exist yet, I do not believe anyone's personal opinion should be stated, regarding a "new version of Southern Gospel Music developing within the last decade," unless Knowledge will allow the contributor to present proof of this "new" development, (via an uploaded recording, perhaps? or a youtube link?) or perhaps cite an expert's written work on the subject. Once again, thanks for listening. I will keep searching for a source to cite that will allow me to change a statement that should not be included anyway. The burden of proof should be on the individual who originally made an unsourced claim which some agree with, while others disagree... i also think it is a matter of his personal bias that he feels "Progressive Southern Gospel generally features artists who push their voices to produce a sound with an edge to it." What exactly does that mean? What is his/her source for this info? If it is his ear alone, we are both equally qualified. The next sentence should be discarded anyway, as it is only a personal opinion, (and even if it were true, results may vary from song to song, and depend on which harmony part is being sung, and by whom,) but check this out "The traditional STYLE Southern Gospel singers employ a more classical singing STYLE." Just sayin'
868:, Southern Gospel lyrics are typically more overt in the presentation of the "Gospel" message, as referenced in the name of the genre itself. The "Gospel," which has been defined as "an account of the ministry, crucifixion, and resurrection of Christ," is the central theme in the majority of songs written under the Southern Gospel umbrella. By contrast, Contemporary Christian music (CCM) has often utilized more ambiguous lyrical choices, (as well as less gender-specific wording,) and broader subject matter, which could be interpreted as being either about a devout love for God, or a romantic love directed toward a man or woman. As a result of this lyrical ambiguity, it is more common for Contemporary Christian music artists to achieve crossover success on mainstream, or secular radio charts, when their song (perceived as "Christian" by CCM listeners,) is reinterpreted as a love song, and embraced by a wider audience." (This revision would remove the sexual reference, help convey better what I believe is the original writer's true intent.) Please consider this a good faith effort to convey the very same thought, without an odd connotation.
954:
on my ability to hear a beat, see the same musical grooves down through time, using my own ears & eyes, but still limited by my personal perception and subjective experience, forming the conclusion that "progressive gospel music" has always existed alongside the alleged 'traditional,' often being recorded on the same quartet album, record, cassette, or CD next to someone else's favorite "classical quartet number," then neither can the contributor who claims that "Progressive
Southern Gospel" is a new phenomenon that has developed in the past 10 years! I have not yet found a written work to reference, but an individual can hear the commonality in arrangements, rhythm, beat, even how the modern vocal interpretations of a "traditional song" has evolved naturally. The thing is, since this is a personal opinion pertaining to musical knowledge or taste, the contributor can cite no more scholarly work than I can, because it would take a musical professor of some sort, writing the definitive work, after comparing
569:
864:
usually referring to sex." The Oxford
English Dictionary describes a double entendre as being used to "a word or phrase open to two interpretations, one of which is usually risqué or indecent.". American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines "double entendre" as: "A word or phrase having a double meaning, especially when the second meaning is risqué." The "unsourced" statement made is already highly critical of another Christian musical genre, but to use an expression such as "double-entendre" takes it from "critical" to "slanderous," if someone were to take the statement with its most commonly understood connotations. I humbly suggest the paragraph be rewritten in this way: "When compared to those of
1076:"All that matters for a Knowledge article is what the published reliable sources say, not what you or I or any other editor believe we hear in a recording." Ummm... The section we are discussing contains absolutely no references to published reliable sources. That section is totally devoid of any source of reference, which is why I am assuming what the writer said is all in his head. My suggestion was to reword the part that included personal opinion, and simply stick with the relevant facts concerning the genre of music the page says it is about.
727:"All that matters for a Knowledge article is what the published reliable sources say, not what you or I or any other editor believe we hear in a recording." Ummm... The section we are discussing contains absolutely no references to published reliable sources. That section is totally devoid of any source of reference, which is why I am assuming what the writer said is all in his head. My suggestion was to reword the part that included personal opinion, and simply stick with the relevant facts concerning the genre of music the page says it is about.
1099:) 09:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC) I would also like to humbly reopen the subject of use of the expression "double entendre." I provided 3 references to 3 different mainstream English Dictionaries, Merriam-Webster, Oxford Dictionary, and American Heritage Dictionary, , all three of which ascribe a sexual, or indecent, or risque meaning to the expression "double entendre." Surely, the word "ambiguous" would be a less volatile substitute, and could help convey the intended point of the writer, am I correct in that hope?
371:
344:
171:
150:
381:
71:
53:
260:
239:
270:
1383:
22:
765:
474:
526:
486:
81:
1484:
I am no expert on this genre but I think this sentence: "Sumner also was instrumental in creating the
National Quartet Convention, an annual music festival where many groups, both known and well known perform for a week." is probably SUPPOSED to say "UNKNOWN and well known" meaning the convention has
883:
Not trying to be too bold. I am absolutely new at wikipedia. I only signed up because I was concerned about the direction some
Knowledge articles seem to have gone. I would like to call into question this wording. "Over the last decade, a newer version of Southern Gospel has grown in popularity. This
825:
Since that sentence still had not been rewritten, I took the liberty of editing it. I don't THINK I have presented the
Southern Gospel opinion on lyric content vs. contemporary Christian music's take (in general) vis-a-vis the Gospel message but I'd welcome anyone to take a look and further refine if
645:
No, he is not typically identified with
Southern Gospel, defining Southern Gospel as a genre of musicians who trace their musical heritage back to the shaped-notes publishers. Barrows traced his musical heritage back to the 1800s hymn writers like Phillip Bliss, Fanny Crosby, and William Kirkpatrick.
953:
I want to thank you for taking the time to respond to my suggestion, by the way. I am not suggesting that all the information I have cited should be in the article. I do not know if there are written works on this subject that one could cite. My contention is that if I cannot submit my opinion based
1336:
I checked a variety of sources through books.google.com, and most did not capitalize "gospel" in their text. Some did; one even capitalized "music", to produce "Southern Gospel Music". I was surprised to see some using lowercase entirely, as in "southern gospel". I believe that "Southern gospel"
918:
seem to say that the style started in the late 1960s or 1970s, and it seems logical to me that progressive
Southern Gospel would develop around the same time as all the others. But the important thing is that the sentence isn't saying "progressive Southern Gospel was invented in the last decade".
810:
it's unclear what the meaning is. I believe the author is attempting to state that
Southern Gospel fans typically dislike CCM tunes which do not have clearly evangelistic lyrics unlike Praise and Worship songs which are usually written with a clear orientation towards God, but if that's the intent,
863:
With all due respect, I do realize the choice of words in this section has been questioned since at least 2009: According to the dictionary, "double entendre" is most often used in a sexual sense, Merriam Webster says: "a word or expression that can be understood in two different ways with one way
783:
John From Idegon: I was responding to a comment directed to me from another user, in which I added their words in quotations, then a comment of my own on the subject on which they addressed me first. None of it was as you say, "uncivil." For some reason, my computer saved the comment in the wrong
1060:
Splitting of hairs here is only necessary due to the obvious bias the writer unveils by his subjective wording. My original desire was to incorporate the writer's intent, but to lengthen the amount of time to at least the last 30 years, (even though there has always been a progressive element in
1455:
Um, first of all, I didn't know about this discussion before, but yes, "gospel" should be in lower case. That's what the discussion was about. There was no discussion about the word "southern" here or there. I had considered that before and came to the conclusion, from what I could see, that it
805:
On the other hand, Southern Gospel lyrics are rarely vague about the Christian message, which is a complaint many Southern Gospel fans have about non-P&W, but otherwise accept "Contemporary Christian music" (CCM), especially when those CCM songs "cross over" and receive recognition through
906:
Welcome to Knowledge. I don't know much about it, but I just listened to a YouTube video of one of those, and the vocal technique sounded pretty classical to me, if a bit breathy and inclined to the clip words short, and not at all "edgy". But my opinion isn't worth much, because
711:
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.
1007:
say that progressive Southern Gospel is new. It only says that if you compare the popularity of progressive Southern Gospel in, say, 1990, to the popularity of Southern Gospel in, say, 2010, you will find the progressive Southern Gospel is more popular in 2010 than it was in the
692:
pages recently and would like get the input of anyone interested in Southern Gospel. In particular his discography and an indication of which of his works are most significant, as well as links to back that up (as pages about living people are very big on cites). Any volunteers?
633:
Great...now some nitwit has deleted all the external links and replaced them with one link to a site that doesn't include many of the links that were here originally. This is what I despise about Knowledge, and why I refuse to waste my time contributing to it any further.
919:
It says that it "has grown in popularity" in the last decade. That could be true even if it existed since the 1970s and even if it were fairly popular in the previous decade (so long as you can claim that it's
745:
Do you realize that you are responding (rather uncivilly) to a 6 year old comment about a discussion that has been over for 6 years? It's kinda like arguing with the poster on the wall at the train station.
112:
108:
1597:
1041:
Do you disagree with that? Do you believe that progressive Southern Gospel is now less popular than it used to be, or that it is only approximately the same amount of popular than it used to be?
585:
1485:
both "New Artist showcases" and performances by groups already well-known among Southern Gospel fandom. Would someone knowledgeable about the event correct that if it is indeed what was intended?
843:
GBrady, I agree with your rewrite, however in any instance this needs to be properly sourced. This ws one of the reasons that I did not rewrite it some time ago. So, I think we need to find some
1572:
411:
99:
58:
1403:
Although the word gospel is usually used in a lower case fashion, it is not used as often in lower case when being used as a proper name. I will support the move however.--
428:
221:
1537:
211:
1582:
504:
1567:
464:
454:
1552:
1547:
326:
316:
930:
that talks about the characteristics of the style and its popularity over time. Do you think you could find one, maybe in a magazine or at books.google.com?
1587:
1592:
418:
988:
All that matters for a Knowledge article is what the published reliable sources say, not what you or I or any other editor believe we hear in a recording.
1557:
773:
187:
1532:
1527:
560:
1577:
423:
1562:
292:
1542:
1522:
178:
155:
908:
499:
354:
1499:
To be more specific, the sentence for which I am suggesting an edit might be needed is in the "Early Performers" section of the article.
1274:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
617:
394:
349:
777:
642:
Is Cliff Barrows really a "Southern gospel" artist? I don't think so, but will defer to someone who knows more than I do. Italo Svevo
406:
283:
244:
1011:
If you compare the popularity between any two points in time, there are only three options: progressive Southern Gospel could be
680:
So we're denying the existence of blogs now? Dozens of Southern Gospel artists have blogs they use to communicate with their fans.
554:
116:
601:
I wonder why these people who sing it are ao emotional sometimes hey begin to cry! ist it why the so hardly believe in god?
402:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
1034:
This sentence says that it is "more" popular. It does not say that it is a brand-new idea. It only says that now, it is
550:
784:
section, so it appeared up here by mistake. My apologies. I am somewhat surprised that this offends you in some way. ;-)
663:
1358:
865:
33:
1323:
1309:
1235:
1136:
751:
546:
1437:
1265:
927:
1108:
1070:
983:
893:
877:
835:
820:
1370:
613:
1461:
1342:
1319:
1305:
1158:
1104:
1096:
1081:
1066:
1046:
979:
959:
935:
889:
873:
789:
769:
732:
1427:
1354:
1275:
747:
662:
No, there hasn't been one created for the Martins yet. When one is created, it should be listed here:
573:
39:
1213:
1100:
1092:
1077:
1062:
975:
900:
885:
869:
785:
728:
1404:
852:
605:
386:
21:
1436:
Per the evidence cited above, I also changed southern to lower case in the text, and also adjusted
955:
275:
291:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
186:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1469:
1445:
1391:
1366:
971:
609:
370:
343:
1338:
1224:
1125:
1042:
931:
915:
717:
666:
1504:
1490:
1202:
1191:
967:
831:
816:
844:
1301:
1297:
183:
93:
1246:
1147:
170:
149:
689:
1516:
1465:
1441:
1387:
1288:
1169:
399:
1318:
The article is currently at Southern Gospel and should be moved to Southern gospel.
654:
The link to the Martins didn't lead where it was supposed to. It went to this page (
1417:
995:"Over the last decade, a newer version of Southern Gospel has grown in popularity."
713:
708:
658:) instead. I don't think there is a page on the musical group yet. Daniel J. Mount
491:
288:
86:
780:, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. Thank you.
70:
52:
994:
1500:
1486:
1236:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/double-entendre
1137:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/double-entendre
963:
827:
812:
104:
1180:
1426:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
481:
376:
265:
259:
238:
76:
707:
There is currently a discussion regarding the origins of gospel music on the
694:
269:
851:
that will help us to better state and understand the sentence in question.
398:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
1365:
What % of Google Book sources for in line use such as capitalize the G?
1508:
1494:
1473:
1449:
1407:
1395:
1374:
1346:
1327:
1313:
1291:
1085:
1050:
939:
855:
793:
764:
755:
736:
721:
697:
669:
621:
1337:
is likely to be the one most consistent with the sources I looked at.
1159:
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gospel
848:
655:
473:
577:
1214:
http://sogospel.com/2011/11/04/editorial-musically-losing-their-way/
991:
But I want you to think about the sentence. Here's what it says:
826:
needed. At any rate, the original wording was far too unclear.
111:
page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us
520:
15:
524:
472:
1460:
be capitalized -- because it is based on the region of the
1225:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double%20entendre
1126:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/double%20entendre
1203:
http://www.singingnews.com/southern-gospel-news/11593587/
1192:
http://www.singingnews.com/southern-gospel-news/11593564/
1264:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
1247:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double-entendre
1148:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double-entendre
1416:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
798:
1598:
Knowledge requested photographs in the United States
553:. Please replace this template with a more specific
287:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
182:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
103:, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize
1278:. No further edits should be made to this section.
125:
Knowledge:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force
107:articles on Knowledge. Please visit the task force
1430:. No further edits should be made to this section.
1170:http://cashwww.sghistory.com/index.php?n=H.Hinsons
911:, and so my opinion doesn't belong in the article.
128:Template:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force
1573:C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
1003:say it "developed in the last decade. It does
799:Today's Southern Gospel- clarification needed
8:
1181:http://sghistory.com/index.php?n=H.Hemphills
100:Music genres task force of the Music project
768:I noticed the message you recently left to
338:
233:
144:
47:
1386:, southern also lower case in the text.
1283:The result of the move request was: page
576:may be able to locate suitable images on
1538:Top-importance Christian music articles
1118:
340:
235:
146:
49:
19:
1583:Low-importance American music articles
1568:Low-importance United States articles
196:Knowledge:WikiProject Christian music
7:
1553:Mid-importance Christianity articles
1548:WikiProject Christian music articles
1038:popular than it was a decade before.
1029:amount of popular at the later time.
926:What would be most useful is a good
392:This article is within the scope of
281:This article is within the scope of
199:Template:WikiProject Christian music
176:This article is within the scope of
1588:WikiProject American music articles
664:The Martins (Southern Gospel group)
439:Knowledge:WikiProject United States
38:It is of interest to the following
1593:WikiProject United States articles
1361:don't seem to be very consistent.
946:to user: WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing
442:Template:WikiProject United States
301:Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity
14:
1558:WikiProject Christianity articles
914:Most of the other articles about
574:Openverse Creative Commons Search
304:Template:WikiProject Christianity
1533:C-Class Christian music articles
1528:Music genres task force articles
763:
561:Wikipedians in the United States
484:
379:
369:
342:
268:
258:
237:
169:
148:
79:
69:
51:
20:
1578:C-Class American music articles
459:This article has been rated as
321:This article has been rated as
216:This article has been rated as
1563:C-Class United States articles
703:Attention Gospel music experts
670:07:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
1:
1543:C-Class Christianity articles
1023:popular at the later time, or
909:WP:I am not a reliable source
698:17:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
688:Hi, I've been working on the
622:18:52, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
497:This article is supported by
295:and see a list of open tasks.
190:and see a list of open tasks.
122:Music/Music genres task force
59:Music/Music genres task force
1523:C-Class music genre articles
1359:Category:Gospel music genres
1304:– Correcting capitalization
866:Contemporary Christian music
806:airplay on mainstream radio.
776:. If you see someone make a
722:14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
1438:Progressive southern gospel
1109:10:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
1086:22:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
1071:22:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
1051:21:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
984:21:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
940:17:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
894:15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
878:14:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
811:it needs to be re-written.
794:02:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
756:23:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
737:22:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
179:WikiProject Christian music
97:is within the scope of the
1614:
1017:popular at the later time,
821:17:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
500:WikiProject American music
465:project's importance scale
327:project's importance scale
222:project's importance scale
1474:19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
1450:04:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
1408:00:25, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
1396:22:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
1375:03:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
1347:15:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
1328:14:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
1314:14:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
1292:12:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
856:21:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
836:13:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
774:not to bite the newcomers
638:Southern vs. white gospel
480:
458:
395:WikiProject United States
364:
320:
253:
215:
164:
64:
46:
1509:17:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
1495:17:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
1423:Please do not modify it.
1271:Please do not modify it.
533:It is requested that an
400:United States of America
284:WikiProject Christianity
202:Christian music articles
1462:Southern United States
960:The Blackwood Brothers
676:Blog Reference Deleted
570:Free Image Search Tool
555:media request template
529:
477:
445:United States articles
28:This article is rated
1355:Category:Music genres
564:may be able to help!
528:
476:
307:Christianity articles
580:and other web sites.
387:United States portal
131:music genre articles
966:, Jason Crabb, and
650:Link to the Martins
551:improve its quality
549:in this article to
413:Articles Requested!
276:Christianity portal
117:good article status
972:Gaither Vocal Band
928:WP:reliable source
803:For this section:
772:. Please remember
530:
478:
115:genre articles to
113:assess and improve
34:content assessment
962:, Elvis Presley,
916:progressive music
646:Daniel J. Mount
625:
608:comment added by
594:
593:
581:
519:
518:
515:
514:
511:
510:
337:
336:
333:
332:
232:
231:
228:
227:
143:
142:
139:
138:
1605:
1425:
1273:
1249:
1244:
1238:
1233:
1227:
1222:
1216:
1211:
1205:
1200:
1194:
1189:
1183:
1178:
1172:
1167:
1161:
1156:
1150:
1145:
1139:
1134:
1128:
1123:
996:
968:The Crabb Family
767:
748:John from Idegon
624:
602:
590:
588:
567:
557:where possible.
527:
521:
494:
489:
488:
487:
447:
446:
443:
440:
437:
389:
384:
383:
382:
373:
366:
365:
360:
357:
346:
339:
309:
308:
305:
302:
299:
278:
273:
272:
262:
255:
254:
249:
241:
234:
204:
203:
200:
197:
194:
173:
166:
165:
160:
152:
145:
133:
132:
129:
126:
123:
89:
84:
83:
82:
73:
66:
65:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1613:
1612:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1513:
1512:
1482:
1434:
1421:
1405:Canyouhearmenow
1302:Southern gospel
1298:Southern Gospel
1269:
1259:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1245:
1241:
1234:
1230:
1223:
1219:
1212:
1208:
1201:
1197:
1190:
1186:
1179:
1175:
1168:
1164:
1157:
1153:
1146:
1142:
1135:
1131:
1124:
1120:
853:Canyouhearmenow
801:
714:Absolon S. Kent
705:
686:
678:
652:
640:
631:
603:
599:
586:
584:
543:Southern gospel
525:
490:
485:
483:
444:
441:
438:
435:
434:
433:
419:Become a Member
385:
380:
378:
358:
352:
306:
303:
300:
297:
296:
274:
267:
247:
201:
198:
195:
193:Christian music
192:
191:
184:Christian music
158:
156:Christian music
130:
127:
124:
121:
120:
94:Southern gospel
85:
80:
78:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1611:
1609:
1601:
1600:
1595:
1590:
1585:
1580:
1575:
1570:
1565:
1560:
1555:
1550:
1545:
1540:
1535:
1530:
1525:
1515:
1514:
1481:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1433:
1432:
1418:requested move
1412:
1411:
1410:
1398:
1377:
1349:
1320:Walter Görlitz
1306:Walter Görlitz
1295:
1281:
1280:
1266:requested move
1260:
1258:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1239:
1228:
1217:
1206:
1195:
1184:
1173:
1162:
1151:
1140:
1129:
1117:
1116:
1112:
1089:
1088:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1039:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1024:
1018:
1009:
997:
992:
989:
943:
942:
924:
912:
904:
882:
861:
860:
859:
858:
800:
797:
778:common mistake
761:
760:
759:
758:
740:
739:
704:
701:
690:Jimmy Swaggart
685:
684:Jimmy Swaggart
682:
677:
674:
673:
672:
651:
648:
639:
636:
630:
629:Links Deletion
627:
598:
595:
592:
591:
582:
566:
531:
517:
516:
513:
512:
509:
508:
505:Low-importance
496:
495:
479:
469:
468:
461:Low-importance
457:
451:
450:
448:
432:
431:
426:
421:
416:
409:
407:Template Usage
403:
391:
390:
374:
362:
361:
359:Low‑importance
347:
335:
334:
331:
330:
323:Mid-importance
319:
313:
312:
310:
293:the discussion
280:
279:
263:
251:
250:
248:Mid‑importance
242:
230:
229:
226:
225:
218:Top-importance
214:
208:
207:
205:
188:the discussion
174:
162:
161:
159:Top‑importance
153:
141:
140:
137:
136:
134:
91:
90:
74:
62:
61:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1610:
1599:
1596:
1594:
1591:
1589:
1586:
1584:
1581:
1579:
1576:
1574:
1571:
1569:
1566:
1564:
1561:
1559:
1556:
1554:
1551:
1549:
1546:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1531:
1529:
1526:
1524:
1521:
1520:
1518:
1511:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1497:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1431:
1429:
1424:
1419:
1414:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1402:
1399:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1384:books n-grams
1381:
1378:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1367:In ictu oculi
1364:
1360:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1335:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1316:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1294:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1279:
1277:
1272:
1267:
1262:
1261:
1257:Proposed move
1256:
1248:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1232:
1229:
1226:
1221:
1218:
1215:
1210:
1207:
1204:
1199:
1196:
1193:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1166:
1163:
1160:
1155:
1152:
1149:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1133:
1130:
1127:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1033:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
990:
987:
986:
985:
981:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
956:The Statesmen
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
941:
937:
933:
929:
925:
923:popular now).
922:
917:
913:
910:
905:
902:
898:
897:
896:
895:
891:
887:
880:
879:
875:
871:
867:
857:
854:
850:
846:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
833:
829:
823:
822:
818:
814:
808:
807:
796:
795:
791:
787:
781:
779:
775:
771:
766:
757:
753:
749:
744:
743:
742:
741:
738:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
723:
719:
715:
710:
702:
700:
699:
696:
691:
683:
681:
675:
671:
668:
665:
661:
660:
659:
657:
649:
647:
643:
637:
635:
628:
626:
623:
619:
615:
611:
610:Saludacymbals
607:
596:
589:
583:
579:
575:
571:
565:
563:
562:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
523:
522:
506:
503:(assessed as
502:
501:
493:
482:
475:
471:
470:
466:
462:
456:
453:
452:
449:
436:United States
430:
427:
425:
422:
420:
417:
415:
414:
410:
408:
405:
404:
401:
397:
396:
388:
377:
375:
372:
368:
367:
363:
356:
351:
350:United States
348:
345:
341:
328:
324:
318:
315:
314:
311:
294:
290:
286:
285:
277:
271:
266:
264:
261:
257:
256:
252:
246:
243:
240:
236:
223:
219:
213:
210:
209:
206:
189:
185:
181:
180:
175:
172:
168:
167:
163:
157:
154:
151:
147:
135:
118:
114:
110:
106:
102:
101:
96:
95:
88:
77:
75:
72:
68:
67:
63:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1498:
1483:
1480:Edit needed?
1457:
1435:
1422:
1415:
1401:Weak Support
1400:
1379:
1362:
1351:
1339:WhatamIdoing
1333:
1317:
1296:
1284:
1282:
1270:
1263:
1242:
1231:
1220:
1209:
1198:
1187:
1176:
1165:
1154:
1143:
1132:
1121:
1113:
1101:UsefulTrivia
1093:UsefulTrivia
1090:
1078:UsefulTrivia
1063:UsefulTrivia
1059:
1043:WhatamIdoing
1035:
1026:
1020:
1014:
1004:
1000:
976:UsefulTrivia
945:
944:
932:WhatamIdoing
920:
901:UsefulTrivia
886:UsefulTrivia
881:
870:UsefulTrivia
862:
824:
809:
804:
802:
786:UsefulTrivia
782:
770:UsefulTrivia
762:
729:UsefulTrivia
709:Gospel music
706:
687:
679:
653:
644:
641:
632:
604:— Preceding
600:
559:
558:
542:
538:
534:
498:
492:Music portal
460:
424:Project Talk
412:
393:
322:
298:Christianity
289:Christianity
282:
245:Christianity
217:
177:
98:
92:
87:Music portal
40:WikiProjects
1428:move review
1276:move review
964:The Hinsons
105:music genre
1517:Categories
1382:– and per
1114:References
539:photograph
109:guidelines
1363:Question:
1466:Musdan77
1442:Dicklyon
1388:Dicklyon
1289:Armbrust
1027:the same
999:It does
667:T. White
618:contribs
606:unsigned
597:Emotions
547:included
1380:Support
1352:Comment
1334:Support
849:sources
656:Martins
463:on the
325:on the
220:on the
30:C-class
1501:GBrady
1487:GBrady
1458:should
1008:1990s.
970:, The
828:GBrady
813:GBrady
587:Upload
578:Flickr
429:Alerts
36:scale.
1285:moved
845:cites
535:image
355:Music
1505:talk
1491:talk
1470:talk
1464:. --
1446:talk
1392:talk
1371:talk
1357:and
1343:talk
1324:talk
1310:talk
1105:talk
1097:talk
1082:talk
1067:talk
1047:talk
1036:more
1021:less
1015:more
980:talk
936:talk
921:more
890:talk
874:talk
847:and
832:talk
817:talk
790:talk
752:talk
733:talk
718:talk
695:Artw
614:talk
568:The
1420:.
1005:not
1001:not
899:Hi
572:or
545:be
541:of
537:or
455:Low
317:Mid
212:Top
1519::
1507:)
1493:)
1472:)
1448:)
1440:.
1394:)
1373:)
1345:)
1326:)
1312:)
1300:→
1287:.
1268:.
1107:)
1084:)
1069:)
1049:)
982:)
958:,
938:)
892:)
876:)
834:)
819:)
792:)
754:)
735:)
720:)
620:)
616:•
507:).
353::
1503:(
1489:(
1468:(
1444:(
1390:(
1369:(
1341:(
1322:(
1308:(
1103:(
1095:(
1080:(
1065:(
1045:(
978:(
934:(
903:,
888:(
872:(
830:(
815:(
788:(
750:(
731:(
716:(
612:(
467:.
329:.
224:.
119:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
