Todd poses a lot of good questions in a thoughtful post. Ultimately
leading to the "what is "real" country anyway?" question at the
end....
No one has definitive answers, but I will throw in my two bits
here and there. Mostly, my response revolves around my feeling that
there are still types of country that don't primarily reference rock;
thus, for me, the choice between "No Depression" (as a
90srock-country hybrid) and HNC (as a 70srock-country-soft pop
hybrid) doesn't cover all the bases--and particularly the bases I
like the most! <g>.
> So, I wonder, with the "alt" stuff that I do really like, are they actually
> performing a "truer" version of country music, or do I just like their
> brand of rock better? And are they basically doing the *same* thing as the
> HNC folks when it comes to the country side of their sound, only w/ a
> different type of rock blended in?
To some degree, I'd argue this is true if you're juxtaposing HNC and
the Tupelo-derived brand of alt.rock (that's what I think of as "No
Depression). HNC is Eagles-derived ( to overgeneralize) just as ND
is Tupelo-derived (to overgeneralize). Either way, the country
roots often play second fiddle to the rock / pop roots.
> The bigger question that begs itself is whether "country" is, at this
> point, just a set of superficial stylistic options that mark your specific
> style of rock as "country" -- the inclusion of a steel or a fiddle, a
> twangy tele, a shuffle or train drum beat, alternating 5ths on the bass,
> etc. Is there a such thing as real country music, or only country-flavored
> rock?
Surely there is not any one thing that is country music (as you point
out, every definition is contested and contestable), since country
itself is an amalgam of disparate styles, including honky-tonk,
bluegrass, western swing, "outlaw," countrypolitan, what have you,
most of which themselves are historically hybrids that once connected
essentially with other styles, etc.
BUT: I *would* say, on the other hand, that there is a *set* of
stylistic possibilities (honky-tonk, bgrass, wstrn swing, etc.) that
today mark music as "country" AND that are not connected with rock.
Your comments, in fact, make me think that what qualifies as "real"
country now may just be the totality of those "country" styles that
are *not* derived from rock ("rock" meaning rock n' roll after
the Beatles). I've never thought of it this way, but that might just
be an accurate way to define current notions of "country" without
resorting to ye olde authenticty fallacy....
> I'd be interested to hear country defined in the positive --
> <g>.) My guess is that for every supposed criterion there are too many
> examples of country songs that *don't* include it to get anything on the
> list. And perhaps it would explode some of the
> poseur/carpetbagger/mistrelsy charges that float around here all too often.
As a poser of long standing and lifelong opponent of
authenticity concepts myself, I would never accuse anyone of
inauthenticity <g>. Inauthenticity is wonderful cultural resource we
should accept, value, and use creatively!! <g>. Vogue, baby!!!
Nevertheless, following on the above, I'd venture the rough
definition I just mentioned: that what counts as "real" country now
is all the stylistic references that make up classic forms of country
and that don't reference rock n' roll after the Beatles (i.e Sun
and rockabilly are ok <g>).
Thus Don Walser is "real" (as opposed to HNC) country. Dale and
Derailers are "real" country.
Whatever, but that's what current talk about "real" country seems to
mean to my ears....
Real schmeal!!! <g>,
--junior
PS. Apologies for such a long post. Issues like the ones Todd
brings up are difficult to discuss in a few sentences, however....
