On Mon, 8 Mar 1999, Terry A. Smith wrote:
> Reading the day's P-2 stuff late, and amazed how a few folks' simple
> challenge of UT's status as godheads of alternative country is being seen
> as heresy. A bloody explosion of defensiveness. I didn't really even see
> anybody criticize the music; it was mainly just a few expressions of
> annoyance at the notion that UT started alt.country, when, as Todd
> correctly (if ironically) described it, they represent a ripple -- OK, a small
> mountain-range -- in the continuum of country-rock and
> alternative-to-commercial country music. That annoyance doesn't arise from
> any dislike of UT, Wilco or SV -- at least not from me. As I said, I've
> got great fondness for UT's non-hard rock stuff, as well as SV and to a
> lesser extent Wilco. The irritation for me stems from the
> implied trivialization of all the great alt.country acts that came before
> UT -- or which were playing their asses off at the same time. God,
> nobody's even mentioned Neil Young in all this. (This debate arises from
> differences in defining alt.country, rather than differences in
> appreciation of UT, I'd guess. If we stipulated those definitions, we'd
> probably all have a group hug.)
Well maybe. I certainly don't see today's posts as 'defensiveness',
rather a reaction to a tone of arrogance and condescension on the part of
some P2'ers towards the UT fans. Kinda like "We listened to the REAL
stuff and we did it first so UT is an annoyance to us." So Todd's
antidote is something like "WHAT ABOUT THE MUSIC!! I LIKE IT!."
Also, Terry, you were on record as saying that (I am paraphrasing) all UT
started was a bunch of former rock/punkers starting to twang-it-up which
has made it harder for you to seperate the wheat from the chaff, etc.
And this statement could easily be construed as aggresiveness towards the
UT fan, which flies in the face of your statements above.
> As for over-intellectualizing the music, um, if we stop talking about
> music on this list -- and WHY we like it or don't like it -- then I guess
> it's back to comparing notes on peanutbutter, mayonaisse and banana
> sandwiches or somesuch nonsense. Even tossing out a term like
> "over-intellectualize" is a Stalinist-type conversation-stopper. Send
> those damn professors out to the fields. Now.
Well again, there is a middle ground between talking potato-salad recipes,
trading set UT lists, and some of the attitude that gets slung around
here. I understand why Todd got frustrated. But if you can't see it I
don't know if my explaining it will help. <g>
But I suspect that (while no-one will admit it) there is a certain status
that A FEW people desire when part of a small cultish phenomenon like P2
that involves members wanting to prove that they are not part of the TREND
but rather have a deeper affiliation with (in this case) the music. Thus
the UT/Tweedy backlash.
WHich is not to say that certain people just generally don't like UT or
haven't heard them. But the difference lies in the
attitude/condescension. That's what Todd was reacting to in my opinion.
There is a UT backlash and it doesn't really seem necessary . . . kind of
biting our own hands that we feed ourselves with. We can deny the
importance of the Postcard/Postcard2/No Depression namesakes and speculate
that it would have happened anyway, but to that I say: SCOREBOARD!! It
didn't happen that way, why not be grateful to UT spinoffs ultimately
creating an electronic venue where we all can talk about country music,
etc.
It seems to me that the majority of P2 is based on community building,
collective music information shared, radio play lists, weasel info, tour
dates, gathering/planning, reviewers/critics home, and yes hearty debate.
And that is why I stay subscribed, but it is hard at times to deal with
the intellectual pedantry with regard to such a passionate art-form.
Thus (again): Todd's rant. Not defensiveness . . . but more like opening
a window for a bit.
P2 is a good place, but sometimes it gets a little stuffy and thank God
for Todd (and windows).
-jim
