Skip to main content
When Taylor Swift first arrived with her hit, "Tim McGraw," I heard her on the radio describing why she gave Tim McGraw (in Single-Man Envy Land we call him "Mr. Faith Hill") such a shout-out, and she said something like, "For people my age, Tim McGraw is a legend." I laughed at that, no disrespect to Tim. His highs are really high; I love the guy; he knows himself, and knows his audience. I always thought that what I'd heard of his albums (most of them) was a bit inconsistent. This dude is a singles artist to me, and that's not a slur. But then I thought about it, the phrase, "knows himself, and knows his audience." Maybe that's what a music legend is: he or she understands what he/she brings to the table, and doesn't do anything contrary to those shared musical experiences. This is my favorite Tim McGraw song. [Geez, you're haunted by ghosts.--ed.] Very likely. But seriously, the reason I love this tune is that it explains why I love R&B and country in the same song. Tim has sung approvingly of bending genres before, and even accomplished it a time or two. Perhaps my other favorite is this one. It's so packed with metaphors and similes that you say, "Hmmm, I gotta think about that one." [Every song you like is about women.--ed.] Hey, any idiot who's ever written a song will tell you: love songs are the easiest to write. [Noone says that but you.--ed.] OK. The reason I mention all this is that I woke up with "She's My Kind Of Rain" in my head. I don't know why. Next thought: "What a bloody great song." Thought After That: "Why didn't I write that?" [Because you don't play any instruments, and can barely carry a tune.--ed.] I don't sing that bad. There are worse with record contracts, I reckon.

Comments

Love songs and poetry are the dominant genre. I'll agree from the literati point of view.

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un