OH boy. Man Terry, you really have my blood boiling up here in Ann Arbor,
and I am sure this debate has happened here before. But I am gonna bite
anyways.
On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Terry A. Smith wrote:
> This stuff confuses me, as does the idea that a "movement" evolved around
> Uncle Tupelo and Tweedy/Farrar.
I think you've got your head in the sand if you think that Uncle Tupelo
was not at the helm of the current No Depression/Alt. Country ship. This
does not mean that they are a great band or that there wasn't
non-commercial country prior to UT, (much as one would have to admit there
was brit-pop and skiffle prior to the Beatles -- or -- sexy Honky Tonk/R&B
prior to Elvis Presley). But whether or not you like them we wouldn't
have the term Alt.Country or No Depression used as it is without a few
select bands UT, Jayhawks to name a couple.
> A lot of folks, including a lot of
> "elderly" people on this list, have been listening to what's currently
> encapsuled in the alt.country category, for up to 30 years, and even
> longer.
This reminds me of a teenager trying to take owenership of his favorite
punk band or grunge band. 'I heard it first!! I heard it first". This
really isn't relevant to the UT/Tweedy posts. I am 33 years old and have
been listening to Hank WIlliams/Bill Monroe/Carters/Balfa Brothers/The
Outlaws/Marshal Tucker/The Long Riders/Green on Red/Steve Earle/Dwight
Yoakam et. al. for most of my life. Big Deal.
I think the point here is not whether the knowledgeable listener
appreciates the music, but rather simply from a marketing point of vew the
demographic is worth a commercial major label working it.
I think Tera's point was well made. The stuff that sells is
adolescent/sexy hormonal . . . and Alt. Country, whether the 40 somethings
own it or not, is not gong to sell on that level. It's not meant to
insult the "elderly" <g>.
>Nothing started with Uncle Tupelo, except for a stampede of
> non-Austin rock-n-rollers deciding to twang it up for awhile, and,
> thereby, making it a lot more difficult for people like me to pick the
> wheat from the chaff in the catalogs and record stores.
Well, I would somewhat agree with you here. But unfortunately there has
always been wheat and chaff and posers and artists. It sounds like you
resent UT in some way. Well you have that right. But you are making a
senseless generalization here in my opinion.
Whether you like UT or not they have had an influence and it is in many
ways posistive. They are clearly not a traditional band . . . but they
did turn a lot of people on to traditional music who may not have heard
it. THey combined punk roots with a love for traditional music and caught
people's attention.
There are so many loaded words in the sentence above that I don't even
want to touch it. Just remember that musicians have every right to be
influenced by other music and to play what they want. And that in many
cases there are people out there who think that it is a positive thing.
Also, I would bet that many people take great solace in the fact that they
can sort through the wheat and chaff. Some may even find it fun.
What the 'non-austin' part has to do with anything I cannot even guess.
IS Austin the only place where people can play Alt. Country?? So many
rules to learn!!
> So while there
> may be a lot of 40-year-olds gravitating toward the alt.country category,
> there's a lot of us who were hanging around listening to this stuff before
> Jeff Tweedy was out of short pants.
Uh. Well no doubt. So what?? Doesn't mean that Tweedy shouldn't play
his music does it?? Does it mean that sub 40 people should ask permission
to listen to him and/or the real alt. country??
I think you missed the point entirely, which is simply that the
demographic is not 'Hit Record' material. Alt. Country people aren't old
or over the hill -- but rather they very simply aren't teeny-bopper hit
making parents'-dollar-spending major label marketing material.
That's it.
Whether or not you like UT (I am not even a huge fan) without them I say
you don't have Alt. Country/No Depression and you may not even have the
amout of re-releases that we see today.
I also challenge the idea that Alt. Country suddenly includes Bluegrass,
Countrypolitan, Old Time, Folk, Punk-a-billy, Cowpunk, etc. Those things
existed as genres before Alt. Country and No Depression ever surfaced.
I think ultimately the reason that all of those got thrown into the mix
was to attempt (and one I would make too) to legitimize Alt. Country as a
valid programming format for radio. And we are still losing this struggle
. . . which leads back to Tera's point . . .
-jim
