Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 13:01:40 -0500 From: "Jon Weisberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > - Who decides who becomes a member of the Opry and who doesn't? "Opry management" decides who becomes a member; if you manage to pierce that veil, let us know. Ahha! So that's why they can snub Jimmy Martin and no one person gets held accountable. Even more interesting considering that the hierarchy of members and guests is mentioned so frequently during the show, or at least on this one. > Not intending to stir up a > hornet's nest, but how do I resolve these performers' > much-less-than-perfect vocal skills (admitted degraded skills) with > the argument that country is medium/genre in which performance skills > are central? Well, there's a two-part answer to that, the first part of which is that there are a lot of people in and around country music who complain regularly about the degraded skills of some performers; see, for instance, periodic discussion on bgrass-l (let me observe, too, that a number of the performers - John Conlee being a good example - have their good days and their bad; I have heard him absolutely kill some stuff in the last year or two, and heard some pretty bad performances as well). The second part is that there are some outstanding musicians in the bands, including the house band. Overall, though, I'd say that going to the Opry, or going to see some of these stars, has a lot to do with - well, I'm in a rush, so this bad phrase will have to do - nostalgia, not with the musical quality of all the acts. Hmmm. Can we talk about this one a bit more? (maybe I am entering into more of an discussion than I wanted to?) If I make an admittedly over-simplified summary of some of the debates we've had here in the past, one of arguments has seemed to be: musical proficiency is central to country, especially to a *country* audience (as opposed to say a punk audience). However, here are some folks, enjoying country music -- I don't think anyone would want to argue that the Opry isn't country and the audience a country audience ? -- but that music isn't performed (or at least sung -- I'd agree 100% that the anonymous musicians on stage were crackerkjack) with anything close to perfection. I would readily agree that there might be two country audiences -- an *old* country audience and a *new* country audience, with different expectations from a performance. Or maybe just an Opry country audience? But these differentitions seem to create more problems than they solve? Especially since those audience expectations have evidently evolved over time? I agree with the notion that a large segment of the audience and ther performers are all participating in a form of nostalgia -- that's what makes seeing old men like Porter Wagoner and Bill Anderson so painful as they try to project a long-gone sexual aura (IMHO) -- but it does cut at the heart of the argument that one of the essential expectations of a country audience is near-perfect musicianship. Or am I missing the boat here? -- maybe there are many more people complaining about the performers than were evident after the show Friday? > - Do the regular performers keep repeating the same songs and same > jokes? Some do, some don't. Watch or listen a few times and you'll figure out which; when you can identify the subject of the "Willie Nelson after taxes" line, you'll be there <g>. Little Jimmy Dickens. That's one of the lines my neighbor blurted out while Little Jimmy was pausing for comedic effect :) Bob
