> Me again: OK, let's try this again. Pretend you're composing a sound
> track
> for a movie about a lonely rural guy from Kentucky or West Virginia,
> who's
> living in Detroit making a buck in the auto factories, and who spends
> a
> lot of time pining for his old home, and wondering just what the heck
> he's
> doing in this big depressing city. Now would you use an arrangement
> that
> sounded like it employed some off-duty singers from the Comet
> commercial
> being taped in the next studio, or would you use something a bit less
> jingle-like and glossy? I fet the feeling that Chet shoe-horned
> everybody
> into his own poppy world, whether they belonged their or not.
>
[Matt Benz] But Terry, the songs aren't for a movie soundtrack,
designed to convey or pull at the emotions of a theatre audience, they
were made so that the folks in the auto factories would *want* to hear
the songs on the radio. And that sound is what sold records at the time.
Bare was working within the system, not rebelling against it.
And while I'm not saying that life in a factory is/was just a
life of grimness, I can't see how a stark and depressing arrangement
would appeal to a factory guy, even if he could identify with the song's
theme. No matter the artistic merits of such an arrangement. That's
evidently not what Bare was shooting for.
While I can sympathize with your arguments over arrangements, I
think that the flaw in your case is that you *assume* the artist would
do the arrangement you think suits the song best. You suspect that the
artist is forced to bend to Atkins musical will, and if Bare had his
way, he would of gone for a sparse arrangement.
M
