> >>>> zzzzzzz.
> > What makes Randall, Stockton, Harling and the Divide "new faces"? Seems
> > they've been around a while. Or is iyt that because radio doesn't pay
> > attention that they are still "new"?
>
> >All of them except Randall are on their first albums, or at least first
> >major-label releases. Kind of the way the Dixie Chicks were counted as
> "New
> >Faces" last year. I'm not sure why that's such an irritation.
>
> Some of those first albums have been out a while haven't they? Sounds like
> radio's waggin the dog again.
Since the dog in this case is a showcase for country radio personnel at the
Country Radio Seminar, it doesn't seem that out of line. I suppose the
organizers could call it the "Old Faces You Were Too Stupid To Play The
First Time," but that would probably have a downside to it.
>If the labels think any of those "new faces" are gonna cause their problems
to
>go away, they are more delusional then I thought.
Why would you think that they think that, and why would you think I care
about whether the labels think their problems are going to be solved anyway?
>Sounds like more of the same, when they should be going with something just
>a little bit different.
I dunno, I guess it depends on whether you're looking at it generically or
whether it's, you know, the music. There are some decent and a couple of
good acts in there, and a pretty fair dose of twang; I'd take hearing
nothing but those folks over what I hear when I tune in my local AAA station
any day. What are you looking for in the way of a little bit different?
Some alt-country refugees? Seems to me that the way things are going, that
would probably make for an even less country-sounding show. And if the
answer is something along the lines of Don Walser or Dale Watson, well, see
your point about "new" <g>.
Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
