>>> Todd Larson writes:
>Worth mentioning in all this is that "sparce" and "basic" and >"plain" are in many
>ways cuturally (and commercially)
>contructed choices just like "pop," "lush," and "polished."
Exactly.
>Seems pretty sketchy to suggest that a stripped-down, bare->bones aesthetic is
>necessarily a more natural (speaking
>of cultural constructs) way to express a particular rural (or >working class) subject
>matter than snazzy string arrangements >and commercially-associated background
>singers.
Except for the fact that those snazzy string arrangements and (totally unnecessary)
background singers were NOT added for artistic reasons, nor were they added to grab
the attention of the working class and rural audiences who already listened to country
music. In every article/interview I've read about Atkins/Bradley, etc., they've made
it very clear that those elements were added for one reason - to make country music
more palatable to middle class urban and suburban audiences and by extension to
broaden record sales. This tactic obviously met with some financial success (Chet
Atkins became a vice president at RCA), provided a lot of work for groups like the
Jordanaires and the Anita Kerr Singers, and helped to advance the careers of certain
artists (Eddy Arnold, Jim Reeves, etc.), but I'd bet a few other artists (and
listeners) were resistant to the idea. Please don't tell me that the "Nashville
sound" was some kind of artistic advancement in country music.
Jim Nelson
