Jon Weisberger wrote: > >OK, so these are not traditional ways of categorizing things, but I'm > >kind of confused on just what the boundaries are or why they are > important, > >although they clearly are. > > If you're confused on what they are and why they're important, maybe you > shouldn't be spending time plotting them, then. I kind of take comments > about "denatured" country music and a description of one kind of what is > generally accepted as country music as "soft and 70s rock crap" as leaning > in the direction of drawing boundaries. But unless the "70s" part of that > phrase is purely objective description - rock music made between 1970 and > 1979 - then by golly, a difference of opinion regarding what kind of rock is > better than what other kind is the, or at least a critical part of, the > underlying point. And calling Owens rock and late 60s Rolling Stones > country is just a Humpty Dumpty way of muddying the waters. Well of course it's muddying the waters, and it's rather obvious hyperbole. Although it forwards the idea that one *could* make reasonable changes in category definition. Which is, IMHO, a worthwhile thing to do since I have my doubts about the legitimacy of the "mainstream" (which is not to say it's illegitimate, but that it's constructed by things that might be worth challenging, like monopoly radio, Wal-Mart, Darth Vadar Brown and the rest of the forces of evil--<hyperbole, ok?>). As to the issue of denatured country, I addressed that elsewhere, but it seems to me that that is precisely what the conscious intent of the HNC masterminds was. Soft and 70s rock crap is a widely held--by the cognoscenti--belief about two of the paths (arena and eagles/fleetwoodmac) rock music took in the 70s, much like the similar path it took between its first outburst and the British Invasion. I'm not sure how this is leaning toward drawing boundaries, beyond being descriptive of change in style (and let me emphasize again, I took the word crap from Fulks in a hyperbolic referential sense, so if that's the objection, then let's remove that word). > > > >> there's a good deal more > >> fiddle and steel guitar to be heard from the mainstream than from the > >> alt.country side. > > > >Well I can't engage this claim without seeing a lineup of the teams and the > >exact criteria by which the players are placed in column A or column B. > > Column A(=bands w/fiddle and/or steel) Column B (bands w/o fiddle and/or > steel) > > mainstream country acts, alt.country acts, > e.g., Garth Brooks e.g., Bottlerockets Well I see a pop star and a rock band by other criteria. But the original point I was after is, how do you define mainstream, except by industry definitions: charts, radio etc.? And where do people like these (today, not yesterday) fall: Rodney Crowell, Shelby Lynn, EmmyLou Harris, Jim Lauderdale, the Derailers, John Anderson, Mike Ireland, Dale Watson, Alan Jackson, Kieran Kane, Buddy Miller, just to take the names off of the discs sitting in front of me, and on and on. One could make a case for any of these being in either column based on differening criteria. I would note that Jackson, Miller and Watson have all recently commented on how they play *real* country music, or country that's too country for mainstream radio. What *is* the criteria for mainstream anyway? Sales? Airplay? That's what I would suppose, but that takes the issue out of the realm of musical quality or content. I was at Best Buy today and was shocked at how small the country section was compared to other genres and how much of the half rack devoted to it was taken up by Garth and Shania. This is the result of particular cultures, marketing, concentrated power, the nature of country and radio, the lack of alternative arenas of knowledge/distribution when compared to rock, and Im sure many other factors. But at issue here seems to be the notion of rock underlying taste decisions when it comes to the big tent definition of country. This has a certain plausibility to it, except it strikes me that the two forms are far too intertwined historically to divide it up so simply. Phil Barnard made some interesting comments here about rockabilly etc, as did Todd Larson or Carl Wilson about the existence of some non-rock influenced country music (alas, I've lost these posts). This seems like a fruitful area of inquiry I don't think we can define the boundaries of rock or country, or soul or blues for that matter, with any precision. What's interesting is what those forms as they shift, merge, mutate, emerge, get channeled by the big money boys, etc., mean, and who they resonate with and why, and what it does, and all that good stuff. btw Jon. On your limited recommendation, I picked up the Rythym Country and Blues disc. The opening Vince Gill/Gladys Knight cut is pretty good (although her voice really makes his sound airy), the Lyle Lovett/Al Green cut is terriffic, and then its a fast handcart to hell. Peeee Yewwww. What's strikes me as sad about this record is how little country there is to it. Its bascially country singers popping in for some r and b stuff. I raise this in the country/soul discussion ongoing. Stuart rambling on and on and on > >
