Terry says:
> This also makes sense, though I'd add that there's a continuum on this
> line -- how much do I compromise in order to get listened to -- that's a
> matter of degree. Some people compromise everything; some less; some don't
> have to. But you've gotta admit that there's a point that you get to where
> any more compromise is just going to ruin what you're trying to do. I edit
> a small-town paper, and try to hold the line against conceding too much
> territory to the bottom line.
But making a record isn't the same as editing a newspaper, and it's a lot
harder to find the kind of clear choices and increments that you have in
editing. "Run this suck-up story or not" isn't the same kind of decision as
"let's put a few glockenspiel notes in here." I mean, yeah, there's a
continuum of some sort, I guess - I'm not bucking for a namesake rule here
<g> - but it has its own kind of logic and experience.
> Where does Bobby Bare come into play? Nowhere. I just didn't like Chet's
> production on a few of his songs, and stand by my reasons,
> notwithstanding the looney notion that a rural, working-class
> tune might work just dandy with the Cleveland Orchestra providing the
sonic
> backdrop, and the Vienna Boys Choir doing the doo-waps. I don't find that
a distressing
> judgment, just common sense.
Terry, you've got to make up your mind: does the background on these
Atkins-produced numbers sound like the Cleveland Symphony and the Vienna
Boys Choir or your mom and her bridge club <g>?Not that those records sound
much like any of them, at least to my ear; they *scream* Nashville (or, more
precisely, RCA).
Besides, what's behind that "work" there? Work for who? You? Me? Bare?
Everyone?
Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
