OK, folks, it’s time to put another push-pin on the maps on our walls. This time – surprise! – it’s Mexican food.
Let’s begin with the salsas. Aside from the fact that the bowls are too small, which is a ubiquitous failing of most great places, the two salsas are to die for. Neither the green, jalapeno-based and pleasantly savory green salsa, nor the roasted and slightly bitter red chile salsa, has any tomato in it; the taste in each case is authentic chile, chile, and more chile. The tortilla chips are prepared and fried in-house, and they’re still piping hot when they get to the table.
qb had the chile colorado, a dark reddish-brown stew of lean chunks of pork, with frijoles and arroz. The resulting “goop” (see below) was off the charts, especially when fortified with a couple of spoonfuls of each salsa. Iced tea was as it should be: tall, icy, and brewed, with limes on the side. My lunch companions had the menudo, which looked and smelled heavenly, with plenty of posole and fire, and the machaca plate, a huge mound of spicy, shredded beef with the frijoles and arroz.
This place is a definite keeper if you’re in Phoenix, AZ, and need a fix. Service was friendly, fast, and ethnically genuine.
Rosita’s Place
2310 E. McDowell Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85006-2452
qb
P. S. Here’s the salient excerpt from Epinions.com, representing qb’s 15 minutes of Internet fame:
But the real genius of chili gravy– it’s metaphysical raison d’etre if you’re one of those high-fallutin’ pinky-in-the-air types who likes to “parlez-vous” at every opportunity– is to serve as the basis for one of God’s Great Gifts to Texans– “Goop”. Hell, the reason that so many Texans order enchiladas in the first place is just to wind up with a plate of rice, refried beans, chili gravy and cheese after the enchiladas are cleared away. Any one of the four subcomponents to goop is yummy-licious in and of itself, but swirl them all together and you’ve now engaged in a bit of alchemy so profoundly perfect that the trivial act of transmuting lead into gold seems little more than a cheap parlor stunt by comparison. At a restaurant called Los Norteños in Bryan, Texas, you can actually order a plate of goop right off the menu, sans enchiladas. This item (the “Brent Averman Special,” for anyone sincerely curious) exemplifies the sort of forward thinking that has kept that fine establishment busy and popular for some 30-plus years.
You’ve got to be kidding me.
Those of you with links to the now-immolated Paramount Terrace Christian Church (PTCC) will recognize one of the megachurches to which this article refers. Must be pretty heady stuff to make the FoxNews home page. Here’s a quote from a staff member at that church:
“We live in a day and age and a culture where people go to school online, bank online, date online and do other things online,” said Kurt Ervin, who oversees the Internet campus for Central Christian Church, based in Henderson, Nev. “Why not create a platform for them to go to church online?”
Why not, he asks?
Shall we start with A, or Z?
qb
From Frederic Bastiat’s The Law:
The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.
As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.
But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed — then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.
Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.
We have lost the national capacity to understand these things. But we still have time to ponder them before 1,990 pages of indisputable injustice are foisted upon a nation of good-hearted but naive subjects.
qb
First, let’s be clear: this article is a product of the Associated Press wire service, not FoxNews.
Second, though, and more to the substance of the thing: the fire-breathing left just roasted President Bush for his ostensible “unilateralism” in foreign affairs.
Admittedly, Bush never really got the eunuchs at the U. N. to climb aboard, but he did get Poland, the UK, the Italians and Aussies and Spanish for a while…in other words, it’s not quite fair to say Bush acted “unilaterally.” But even if he had…
…now we have the current administration hedging its own bets and leaving the door open for actual unilateralism:
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration planning.
“We have to be prepared to act and we are not going to let this drag out forever,” said one administration official.
Officials stress that they do not want the administration to act alone and would far prefer to have any new sanctions be adopted by the U.N. Security Council.
Indeed.
*chuckle*
qb
May our shameless, ignorant Congress and executive branch take heed:
That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen
by Frederic Bastiat, 1850
In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause – it is seen. The others unfold in succession – they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen. Between a good and a bad economist this constitutes the whole difference – the one takes account of the visible effect; the other takes account both of the effects which are seen, and also of those which it is necessary to foresee. Now this difference is enormous, for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favourable, the ultimate consequences are fatal, and the converse. Hence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good, which will be followed by a great evil to come, while the true economist pursues a great good to come, – at the risk of a small present evil.
In fact, it is the same in the science of health, arts, and in that of morals. It often happens, that the sweeter the first fruit of a habit is, the more bitter are the consequences. Take, for example, debauchery, idleness, prodigality. When, therefore, a man absorbed in the effect which is seen has not yet learned to discern those which are not seen, he gives way to fatal habits, not only by inclination, but by calculation.
This explains the fatally grievous condition of mankind. Ignorance surrounds its cradle: then its actions are determined by their first consequences, the only ones which, in its first stage, it can see. It is only in the long run that it learns to take account of the others. It has to learn this lesson from two very different masters – experience and foresight. Experience teaches effectually, but brutally. It makes us acquainted with all the effects of an action, by causing us to feel them; and we cannot fail to finish by knowing that fire burns, if we have burned ourselves. For this rough teacher, I should like, if possible, to substitute a more gentle one. I mean Foresight. For this purpose I shall examine the consequences of certain economical phenomena, by placing in opposition to each other those which are seen, and those which are not seen.
I. THE BROKEN WINDOW
Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James B., when his careless son happened to break a square of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact, that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – “It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?”
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier’s trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, “Stop there! your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen.”
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.
Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier’s trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker’s trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.
And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.
Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.
In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.
Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.
When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: “Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;” and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end – To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, “destruction is not profit.”
What will you say, Monsieur Industriel — what will you say, disciples of good M. F. Chamans, who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning of Paris, from the number of houses it would be necessary to rebuild?
I am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations, as far as their spirit has been introduced into our legislation; but I beg him to begin them again, by taking into the account that which is not seen, and placing it alongside of that which is seen. The reader must take care to remember that there are not two persons only, but three concerned in the little scene which I have submitted to his attention. One of them, James B., represents the consumer, reduced, by an act of destruction, to one enjoyment instead of two. Another under the title of the glazier, shows us the producer, whose trade is encouraged by the accident. The third is the shoemaker (or some other tradesman), whose labour suffers proportionably by the same cause. It is this third person who is always kept in the shade, and who, personating that which is not seen, is a necessary element of the problem. It is he who shows us how absurd it is to think we see a profit in an act of destruction. It is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a profit in a restriction, which is, after all, nothing else than a partial destruction. Therefore, if you will only go to the root of all the arguments which are adduced in its favour, all you will find will be the paraphrase of this vulgar saying – What would become of the glaziers, if nobody ever broke windows?
Congratulations to Coaches Rick Zimmer and Darren Mooneyham and the whole De Zavala Middle School 5th grade boys’ football team (Kids, Incorporated), who wrapped up an 8-0 season with a 40-0 thrashing of Greenways #2 this past Sunday.
De Zavala Wolves, 5th grade, 8-0, Fall 2009
Silas enjoying his turn with the trophy, which is now in the school's trophy case.
Coaches Mooneyham (L) and Zimmer (R) were proud of the boys' effort.
Silas started at left defensive end and played second-team tight end.
On Greenways’ second play from scrimmage, qb’s son Silas (#80, R) sprinted in from left defensive end and planted his face mask right in the quarterback’s chest, sacking him and causing a fumble that led to our first score, a 50-yard counter by (#7) Josiah.
Readers well acquainted with qb may wish to note that the Wolves ran their record to 5-0 two weekends ago with a 6-0 nail-biter over our arch-nemesis, Canyon Middle School, who had beaten us in 4th-grade tackle and 3rd-grade flag football. As sporting events go, there is little that is more satisfying to qb than beating the Kool-Aid-drinking Canyon Eagles fans. (That’s a sentiment shared by many Amarilloans, but qb has apparently honed it to a comparatively fine edge!)
—–
One day, after the statute of limitations has expired on his antics, I’ll have to tell y’all about the insanely competitive head coach for that particular team of Canyon Eagles. He’s quite an…well, let’s just say he’s a piece of work.
—–
Congratulations also to Coaches Jimmy Clark, Jason Head, and Andrew Hallum, and the De Zavala 8th grade Silver football team, who punished Fannin Middle School 34-12 in a cold rain on October 20 to go 8-0 for the regular season. City playoffs began this week with a 19-6 win on October 28 against a big, tough, classy, and superbly coached Bowie Middle School team. Once our offensive line dialed in on Bowie’s defensive tactics, uber-tailback Beau Gray kept pounding the ball off-tackle, eating up the clock, and moving the chains, and a pair of sticky-fingered receivers (Slater Johnson and Ethan Weirick) hauled in a couple of Samuel’s passes for TDs. Then Beau got loose one more time, as he inevitably does, and hammered home the final nail from 40 yards out.
The city championship game vs. the Crockett Middle School Pioneers was at 4pm on Tuesday, November 3rd, on the artificial turf at Dick Bivins Stadium. The Wolves started slowly and had a rough first half, but in the end the Pioneers were overmatched and De Zavala cruised to a 37-7 victory. Over the last two years, this happy bunch of great kids went 20-0 and put two straight city-champs trophies in the case.
—–
Classy coaches make for a wonderful experience as a dad. I’m really grateful my boys have had a chance to play for these five men. In Samuel’s case, I can’t believe we’re already to Samuel’s last football game with Coach Clark; seems like just yesterday I was shaking his hand for the first time at preseason workouts for the incoming 7th graders. I hope these coaches stick around long enough to coach Silas as well, starting in fall 2011.
—–
Texas A&M 52, Texas Tech 30 at Jones Stadium. Who saw that coming? As a wise man once said, even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again.
qb
Here’s an interesting article by a European macroeconomist on the sub-surface, long-term, depressive effect that the Nanny State approach to governance on the ability of market economies to pay for their so-called social “safety net.” The upshot: safety nets turn into cots, and cots into bunk beds, and bunk beds into hotels for those who do not exhibit a strong work ethic and sense of personal responsibility and who pass on to their children a similar, though inevitably intensified, laziness.
The further upshot: creeping socialism is self-defeating at many levels and is therefore unsustainable.
qb
It seemed appropriate, in light of comments on previous posts, to provide our dear readers – both of them – with a transcript of Lincoln’s second inaugural address. On an occasion that might have justified even the most modest, messianic pretensions, instead we find our collective gaze fixed on the right hand of Providence and the mystery of His will. Enjoy.
—–
Fellow countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it– all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war– seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered–that of neither has been answered fully.
The Almighty has his own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope–fervently do we pray–that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, “The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan–to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.
—–
Peggy Noonan sometimes drives a conservative crazy, but she can always be counted on for a thoughtful column. Here, strangely enough, she casts the most recent Illinoisian president as the “anti-Lincoln:”
Which gets us to the commander in chief, who directs the secretary of defense, who runs the Pentagon. The president, as almost all have noted—and for once, almost all are correct—has not distinguished himself in this matter. Afghanistan is a necessary war or not, we’ll see. He famously talked to Gen. McChrystal only once in the latter’s first 70 days in Afghanistan. He is meeting with advisers, considering options. Would that he’d begun earlier.
At the moment he seems a sort of anti-Lincoln. President Lincoln was early on damaged by Gen. George McClellan’s leaking to his friends in the press, but Lincoln every day was focused on one thing, the war, and took no offense. He knew what was urgent. For Mr. Obama, many things are urgent. But when many things are urgent, nothing really is urgent.
Mr. Obama reportedly began intensive meetings on the future of Afghanistan in the past few weeks. Lincoln used to go to McClellan’s house down the street from the White House and wait in the parlor for a chance at deliberations. One night when McClellan wasn’t in the mood, he came home from a party and sent a servant to say the general was too tired. Lincoln, being Lincoln, laughed, and left. He’d take anything from someone who might win. And when he concluded McClellan couldn’t win, he removed him, with no malice and complete coldness.
One senses Afghanistan has been waiting in the president’s parlor. Now that’s he’s focused, and deliberating, why not include the public?
The question of a presidential legacy takes on the shades of a chicken/egg debate: which comes first, the legacy or the substance of achievement? At this piont, it would appear that the current president is bent on fulfilling the legacy of his own imaginative fancy rather than the legacy of an unwelcome duty. It’s not quite a year since we elected him, and he’s already bored and irritated with his most solemn duty, that most inconvenient duty, that of sending our boys and girls into battle, and then giving the generals the guidance they must have to prosecute our policy objectives.
In days gone by, the media darlings on the left disingenuously clamored for an “exit strategy.” In the present case, how about even an “engagement strategy,” at the very least?
—–
This is not what I meant by “engagement.” Pardon me while I go and vomit.
qb
From Edmund Phelps (Nobel Economics Laureate, 2006):
Both the unreasoning rejection of capitalism by some and the baseless triumphalism of others are ridiculous. They are not grounded in a full look at the upsides and the downsides of the system over the past 200 years…
…most observers now acknowledge that capitalism, even in the midst of the 1930s depression, has long been creating unprecedented, unimagined levels of productivity and wage rates—for the rest of the world as well as for the handful of capitalist economies themselves. Now, however, some philosophers and social critics are suggesting that even capitalism has outlived its usefulness—that pursuit of new goals requires another system.
It must be clear by now that this analysis overlooks what has been the key dimension of capitalism from its first functioning early in the nineteenth century. This dimension is what capitalism’s dynamism offers to human experience and human benefit—the true moral dimension of economics, in other words. Well-functioning capitalism, where it is attainable, is of undimmed value because it allows human beings to realize their true nature as creators and innovators.
—–
In contrast, however, an unapologetic redistributionist – whose only real accomplishment has been so thoroughly to snow the American people that they would elect him to the highest office in the land – has been extended another “absurd” gratuity on par with Phelps’, an award that will only add shimmer to the mirage. Surely this emperor cannot get any more naked, nor his court any more shamelessly obsequious.
His spokesman says that the president is “humbled” by the award. Would that it were so; that would be progress.
—–
POSTSCRIPT: In today’s New York Times, the estimable columnist Thomas Friedman (The Lexus and the Olive Tree, From Beirut to Jerusalem) has provided the president with the text of an acceptance address that would certainly be a step forward in asserting the United States’ essential leadership in global beneficence while affirming the need for military might as long as the true enemies of peace – President Bush famously called them out with the accurate but bracing phrase, “Axis of Evil” – try to assert their character.
—–
Normally a pretty reasoned voice, Peggy Noonan had this to say in relation to this “wicked and ignorant award:”
How to redeem this? That is a hard question, but here is one idea. The president will deliver a big speech in Oslo Dec. 10: white tie and tails, a formal, bound statement. The world, as they say, will be watching. He should deflect the limelight. (Can he?) He should make his subject bigger than himself. (Is there a subject bigger than himself?)
It would appear that Ms. Noonan is not persuaded of the president’s humility, either.
—–
And this TV snippet hit the Web today:
But Bob Schieffer, host of CBS’ “Face the Nation,” said in his brief editorial commentary Sunday that the committee may have done Obama a disservice.
“I would guess no one at the White House was praying for the president to win the Nobel just yet, not because they’re selfless humble souls whose only goal is to help humanity but because they are very good professional politicians who would know better than most of us that an undeserved accolade has a high probability of backfire,” he said. “I generally agree with the president’s approach on foreign policy, but the Nobel Committee did him no favors by giving him the award before he had anything to show for his efforts. … What the Nobel Committee has managed to change — and I am sorry to say it — is the way we look on the prize.”
No, Mr. Schieffer, it hasn’t changed it; it has confirmed it.
qb
It’s inelegant and crass, but before we go in the direction we need to go, qb needs to establish his Church of Christ bona fides.
—–
Born in Dallas, taught the Scriptures from an early age by my parents, and raised through 6th grade at Waterview CoC in Richardson, TX, under the tutelage of R. K. Oglesby, W. Wilkerson, and J. P. Blankenship. Memorized Bible verses out the wazoo in order to lengthen our construction-paper “chains” across the classroom, but – alas – my memory-verse chain came in second in our class behind, well, let’s call her “Paige.” Then we moved…
…to Albuquerque and Montgomery Blvd. CoC, where I learned to preach and lead singing under B. Hise (youth) and H. Porter (pulpit). Some of the best years of my life, going to Encounter at LCC as well as every CoC youth rally within 3 hours’ drive of the Duke City. Sang bass with Singing Albuquerque Youth (SAY) under the direction of W. Sharp at Netherwood Park CoC; sang in a gospel sextet “New Life” with B. Boverie, R. Hise, and other senior classmates. Graduated from HS, then off to…
…Lubbock for a year at Texas Tech and Sunset CoC, where G. Luft was the college minister at the time, and H. Paden was one of the elders. But the maroon blood was too thick, and I moved…
…to College Station for 9 wonderful years at the A&M CoC, preaching, leading singing, singing in weddings, teaching class, AFC weekends, weeklongs, and overseas. Here my primary biblical influences were K. Wilkey, J. Woodroof, Bob D., and K. Reed – but at this piont, I began to read the seditious writings of Cecil Hook, which laid the groundwork for a later change. Married, and before too long, off on an adventure…
…to Ft. Collins, CO, and the Meadowlark CoC under the ministry of one of those Pape boys. Led singing occasionally there, too. But the seeds of freedom had sprouted, the straw of legalism broke the camel’s back, and before 18 months were out, we moved to an independent Christian church in search of liberty of conscience. We stayed in the ICC strain of the Restoration Movement churches from 1993 until 2007, when we left Hillside Christian Church in Amarillo – no longer recognizable as a Restoration Movement church, in case you’re wondering – and began our present wanderings, eating manna when we can find it but starving otherwise.
Does that qualify qb to say a word or two about music in the CoC?
—–
In desperation to find a church home, we visited a nearby CoC here in Amarillo this past Sunday. Secretly, I loved it. The preaching was solid and timely (from an OT text, in Leviticus of all places!), the reception was warm and genuine, a familiar smile from our Aggies for Christ days greeted us in the foyer, and ordinary lay-folks were doing a lot of the heavy lifting instead of a bunch of paid professionals who know so much better than the rest of us. (Pardon my bitterness.)
But can we talk, please?
Most of the “praise music” used today – as distinct from the hymnody that I grew up with – originates in one of the instrumental traditions. In fact, most of it is adaptations of songs recorded by commercial Christian artists who actually have percussionists and bass guitars to lay down the rhythmic lines. This music does not translate well to unaccompanied, a cappella singing. In fact, it sounds downright [anemic]. Look, syncopated lines don’t work well if there’s not a solid rhythm being carried through the rests as a piont of reference. Fannie J. Crosby apparently knew that, as did the many other famous composers in the shape-note hymnals on which the CoC has always relied. There’s a good, aesthetic reason we basses have so many lead lines in the great two-page choruses like that of “The Great Redeemer” – we stand in for the bass guitar and the drums so that the tenors and sopranos can syncopate to their hearts’ delight without losing their places and without creating awkward uncertainties about note-attacks, cutoffs, and all the rest that make for quality singing.
Unaccompanied music needs to be written for unaccompanied singing. These adaptations of modern praise choruses, by and large, just don’t get ‘er done. Would that we had room in our tradition for instruments when we need them, while laying them down when we don’t. Meanwhile, there’s plenty of well constructed a cappella music out there for us if we tire of #728b or #533 (as I certainly have)…we just have to expand our musical horizons a little bit. Why don’t we sing Maxine Posegate’s “Holy, Lord of Hosts” (SSAATTBB), for the love of Pete?
As it stands, perhaps we’d be better off looking to Taize’ than to K-Love for most of our inspiration. (I hope that will help to quash any charges of high-falootin’, musical snobbery on qb’s part.)
qb
