RE: Cold Mt. Music NPR
from Dempsey Young of the Lost Found. Sure, they had to leave folks out, but he's every bit at the level of the guys who are on there, including Jesse McReynolds and Bobby Osborne, and is the best under-appreciated mandolin player around. Wait, I thought we agreed that it was Hootie...g Todd (really writing just to ask Dave Purcell whether he happened to watching NBC between 5:30 and 8:00 yesterday...say it with me again: MVP)
RE: Updates
Which pretty much echoes something that Bill Emerson, banjoist extraordinaire, told Bluegrass Unlimited a few years ago (I'm hunting for that Crowe rant): "The problem with bluegrass is that there's too much unprofessional bluegrass. It's a type of music that anybody can play anywhere. You don't have to have an amplifier or an AC power outletThat's not to say that anyone who's doing it is ready to make records and compete for the jobs at the bluegrass festivals. Anyone with a few thousand dollars can produce a recording and send it to radio stations. Program directors, recording executives and promoters should be careful about who they're putting out there to represent the bluegrass idiom. To help it grow we have to concentrate on the *best* music we have." Yeah, damn shame how advances in recording technology have made it possible for people to make records without the financing -- or blessing -- of some media conglomerate more concerned with cash than quality or a group of gatekeepers who get to decide what's "professional" or not. This quote is so ludicrous it would be laughable, if it weren't for the fact that the opinions expressed are apparently shared by others. I guess I should just delete this crap before I let it get to me...
RE: Updates
Lousy music is a drag, but since when has sucky music stopped talented musicians from making great music? It hasn't, but it can make it harder for them to get heard, both because of the turn-off factor already mentioned - "Yeesh, those guys couldn't carry a tune in a paper bag. If that's what bluegrass/alt.country/blues is, I don't like it." - and because it's often the case, at least in my experience, that lousy bands will play for next to nothing. Or nothing. Jon Weisberger, Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger You know, this sort of musical Gresham's Law -- that bad music represents a threat to the good -- has been discussed here before (we talked about it in relationship to Split Lip Rayfield, if I recall), and I still just don't buy it. "Boy if weren't for those damn Moonshine Cousinfuckers (insert "sucky" alt.country act of your choice here) misleading everyone about alt.country, they'd all be listening to Dale Watson and Hayseed." This kind of thinking smacks of an elitism that I can't tolerate -- as if the "sucky" bands are doing something they shouldn't be allowed to do, or are actually harming the bands a certain cogniscenti deem to be "real" (read, band with chops, bands that are sincere, bands that write "good" songs, etc. ) If you think a band sucks, fine, but don't blame them for turning off audiences from stuff you happen to like better. Now as for the major-label marketing machine, which tends to push the bland crap least offensive to the broadest swath of the mass audience at the expense of edgier acts, that's another story(and not, I think, what was being talked about at SXSW). Todd
RE: Updates
Wildcat apologist Dave wrote: But given most people's busy schedules and abundant entertainment choices, there's a good chance a lousy band (and it's not solely a matter of chops or a lack thereof) *would* turn them off to roots music for good. How many of us have gone back to a restaurant we hated the first time around? But did that stop you from going to restaurants altogether? I really doubt that people go to see bands as representatives of a genre, as if the gig is a trial for a style of music, especially one as loosely defined as al.country. Seems more likely that they'd just write off the particular band -- it might not win them over, or get them to delve further into the genre, but I doubt that they'd carry a bias against the genre based on one of its practicioners...and if that's the only chance you get to introduce them to the music, then shame on you for taking them to something that sucks..g Anyway, as I said, the real problem I have w/ your scenario above is when some kind of *blame* is placed on the sucky band, like they're failing to withhold the standards of the club and thus ruining it for the rest of the members. That's the subtext of these discussions, I think.
RE: Updates
The thread started out from Mr. Anonymous's point that sucky music is hurting "the roots music movement," which would probably g include some of the stuff Greg's listed. Think for a minute about how different kinds of music get exposure. Rock, pop, country - these are mass genres, and anyone with even a mild interest (or even no interest at all) gets exposed to a fair amount of their stuff willy-nilly or with the most minimal kinds of effort, like turning on the radio and dialing around for about 30 seconds; fringier stuff gets corresponding less exposure, meaning that a sucky performance almost certainly forms a higher percentage of a newbie's total exposure to the style. Leaving aside for the moment the important question of what constitutes quality in a given style, even if the percentage of sucksters is the same across the board, the likelihood is that it will form a higher percentage of the total exposure someone new gets to a style in the crucial first contact stages, when s/he's least able to evaluate its place in that style. But Jon, isn't your example here different than the original comments, which were directed at alt.country bands playing at SXSW? Seems that there's a big difference between the bland, middle-of-the-road stuff marketed by major labels and played on the radio (in which case I think the villians are the marketers/consultants/et. al perpetrating the mass audience, least-common-denominator suckage), versus the smaller-label "insurgents" (the "fringier stuff") that a person would likely hear only if they're already in-the-know to some degree. If you're talking about these smaller bands, I don't think their suckage really hurts anyone or constitutes any threat to the so-called "roots music movement." There are always going to be lots of bands that suck, in any genre, but the fault lies not with those bands, but with the labels and marketers who elevate them over more worthy acts in an effort chase $$... Of course, as Terry suggests, this discussion would be easier if we knew what acts are being singled out.
Re: Updates
Of course not. Nobody's saying a lousy band will make people abandon *music*. But if someone goes to, say, their first Malaysian restaurant (to choose something fringey), and the food is overcooked and greasy and makes them practically retch, the next time someone suggests a Malaysian restaurant, they may well say, "No, I tried Malaysian food and I don't like it." This is, of course, ridiculous - they just don't like *bad* Malaysian food. But not having inside knowledge of the kitchen or any exposure to *good* Malaysian food, they may well steer clear of anyplace serving Nasi Goreng thence forwards. Carl W. Well, this restaurant metaphor's a little silly to start with, but I would say that your explanation points out why, Carl. People going to a "Malaysian restaurant" for the first time are likely going there to try out Malaysian cooking -- I mean, the particular restaurant is subsumed by its category. If the restaurant sucks, they'll probably shy away from that style afterward. No big surprise here. But I don't think neophytes go to see, say, Moonshine Willy, to "try out" alt.country in the same way as a style of food. When their pals at some later date ask them to go see Robbie Fulks, I seriously doubt people are gonna say -- "Oh, no, I tried that alt.country stuff once, and it sucked, and I'm not gonna do it again." I guess what it comes down to is the degree to which a given band is known and marketed as representative of a certain genre, and the degree to which people associate their particular experience of the band with the entire genre. But the larger point for me, to say it one more time, is the notion of blame. The conversations here (and Mr. Anonymous' assertion that sucky bands are a threat to the roots music movement) is like a bunch of restaurant critics suggesting that the sucky Malaysian restaurant should shut down before they ruin everyone's taste for the good stuff... BTW -- have any of you popsters out there seen Jason Faulkner? Thinking about checking it out tonight, and hoping it won't turn me off from pop altogether
RE: Updates
Hopefully my last post on this one This is where you lose me, Todd, because I haven't suggested, nor do I think Mr. Anonymous suggested, that some external authority ought to shut anyone down. Yes, perhaps "shut down" is too strongly worded, and I certainly don't think anyone is suggesting an "external authority" should put bands out of business (although it's an intriguing idea -- suckage police...) What I'm reacting to, pretty simply, is the tone of some of these conversations -- the ire that is aimed at certain bands who are getting attention (supposedly) at the expense of others. Direct it at the labels that sign them, the programmers that play them, the consultants that push them, the promoters that lump them together for alt.country showcases, etc. I do think - and I'm speaking for myself, obviously, and not Mr. Anonymous, who may be making a different argument - that this is a fairly specific issue related to how these styles are perceived on first encounter. It's worth noting that the International Bluegrass Music Association's mission statement speaks explicitly about promoting higher standards of professionalism, and the phenomenon that we've been talking about is a big part of the reason why - not just with regard to the music itself, but with all aspects of the field, like sound reinforcement, recording quality, art work, venues, etc. - but the organization doesn't suggest kicking anybody out of the business g. I'll leave open the question of the extent to which those are issues relevant to alt.country. True -- I suppose it's a bit different with bluegrass, where bands are so clearly identified as being a part of a genre which has, as you point out, an actual association involved with setting "standards" for the style and festivals arranged around that style, etc.
Re: Updates
so my advice to you is to avoid eating Malaysian food at that terrible place I've heard about, though I wouldn't counsel you to avoid that kind of food altogether. g I'll keep that in mind, Bill, and stick with pizza. Have a great weekend everybody...and Jon, make sure to crack the whip tonight on that slacker Purcell. If you don't keep an eye on him he'll be pulling a Warner Hodges and playing the guitar behind his back or with his teeth... Todd
Re: Swingin' Doors 4/1/99
The first hour of last night's show is once again already up on the KCMU web page, thanks to the speedy KCMU webmaster. Check it out at: http://www.kcmu.org/listen.htm You'll hear new songs from the Old 97s, the Pinetops, Dwight Yoakam, Sheri Barr Walker and others, along with some cool old stuff. Don, is the new Dwight from a new album or from a soundtrack or something?
Re: Swingin' Doors 4/1/99
I wrote: http://www.kcmu.org/listen.htm You'll hear new songs from the Old 97s, the Pinetops, Dwight Yoakam, Sheri Barr Walker and others, along with some cool old stuff. Don, is the new Dwight from a new album or from a soundtrack or something? Never mind -- guess I should have listened to the show before asking the question... TL
Re: your worst fears realized
Everything evil you've ever believed about the record biz is true, according to this, at least. Yeah, so much so you wonder whether the piece is legit TL
Lloyd Cole (was RE: ISO digital Todd Snider Blue Mt. trades)
once it becomes available anyway (the few boots I have are in addition to owning entire available catalog - Lloyd Cole, the Replacements, etc...) There's a name I don't believe I've seen show up here before (or at least not in a long time)anyone know what Lloyd Cole is up to these days? TL (ob. twang content: he mentions George Jones in a song on his self-titled album.)
Re: Tweedy @ Salon
From a Salon interview with Jeff Tweedy. Joshua Green is the writer. Who is he and why is he such a dick? Q: I was thinking specifically of the No Depression purists who are kind of militantly pro-twang, you know what I mean? A: I really have no concern for them. It's great that they have plenty of music to like. I think it's interesting that they still talk about us. It's like something for them to talk about that this band continues to let them down. I think there are a certain group of people that are really purist about it, but somehow they can't find it in their hearts to just let us alone and get on with their lives. Militantly pro-Scorcher, Dave Do these writers all hang out together? The whole "escape from alt.country" thing is getting as used-up as the "phoenix rising from the ashes of Uncle Tupelo" lines... To wit, Joel Reese's take on Joe Henry: "It's not that Henry shouldn't be applauded for pushing his own musical envelope on "Fuse." There's nothing wrong with moving on from the confining alt.country scene. This movement is known for its zealous fans, quick to accuse a band of selling out if it doesn't meet their exacting purist standards. (Just ask The Jayhawks and * Wilco, which have both evolved from their country-rock roots.)" Zealous, accusatory and exacting, TL (BTW, I loved this quote from Henry: "People have a tendency to treat an acoustic guitar like it's the basket that floated the infant Moses down the river," he says. "There's nothing pure or natural about any of this, I don't care who you are. This idea that doing things with acoustic instruments is somehow more pure and more real - I don't have any interest in that as a notion.")
Re: Clip: The state of country radio
Often in these P2 discussions of radio, I'm surprised at the notion that people could actually make a change in it. I'm much more of the opinion that the music industry *manufactures* mass taste and the need for its products. Very pessimistic on that point. I know it's not a simple equation, but the music and radio companies have all the cards. Popular taste is not formed before industry dreck gets heard, it's formed *in and by* industry dreck. When did T.W. Adorno sneak on to the list? Anyway, right on Junior. Unfortunately, it's hard not to be pessimistic in this cultural climate, and to wonder whether anything meaningful can even get through to people when their tastes, as you suggest, are so thoroughly mediated by commercial interests and industry drecksometimes I wonder whether all you can hope for as a musician is to try to give people a few moments of pleasure and count your blessings if you're able to achieve at least that, however illusory it might be (as opposed to actually believing that you can encourage real "change" of any kind). Todd
Re: Tweedy quote/alt.country
In one respect, I'd add, Postcard 2 works as a sort of backlash receptacle for many people who are shit-sick of hearing about UT, Wilco, etc. Frankly, I'm shit -sick of hearing that my appreciation for UT, Wilco, etc. is just some youthful infatuation that I'll get over when I grow up and realize that alt.country was around before 1990. I can call my parents when I need to be patronized. I'm shit-sick of the implication that rabid fans of UT, Wilco, etc. lack "perspective" on the history of country-rock and its periodic resurgences (as if that really is necessary), that their love of these bands is faulty if not broadened by an understanding of country-music history (and alternative-country history). I'm shit-sick of the way reaction against the media-hype surrounding these bands slides so effortlessly into nasty backlash against the bands themselves. While I'm at it, I'm also shit-sick of the suggestion that these bands' popularity was purely a media creation, and that they had no merit on their own beyond the myopic adulation of the music press. And I'm shit-sick of people blaming these bands for the lack of attention paid to earlier alt.country performers. Uncle Tupelo causing other acts to be "'disappeared' from rock/country history" (to use Cheryl's phrase)? Please. Todd (Joined Postcard in 1994 as an Uncle Tupelo fan. Knew pretty much nothing else about country music or alt.country music. Spent the last five years trying to learn. Spends all money buying CD's recommended by Don Y. and Jon W. Still thinks Uncle Tupelo is among the best two or three bands ever. Someday may grow up and know better.)
Re: Tweedy quote/alt.country
Great passionate post from Todd "Touch me, I'm shit-sick" Larson, although I don't remember anyone blaming UT *or* their fans for anything. FWIW, I placed all my blame on writers who can't seem to do anything but regurgitate press releases, and I thought Terry, etc., were also blaming the hype machine, and no one else.= In terms of blaming UT, I was reacting primarily to Cheryl Cline's assertion: "No Depression-UT focused attention on the music, true; but it focuses attention *away* from a large chunk of alternative country music as well. It's being "disappeared" from country/rock history even as we speak." I read this, perhaps incorrectly, as not only an indictment of the hype, but also of the band. It's tough not to read in the sentence the accusation that UT was somehow complicit, if only by their presence, in the disappearance of other/previous alt. country music. You know, like they did something *wrong.* (I'm also not sure that "attention" is a zero-sum game -- that other alt.country would have received it if UT did not. Any actual evidence of who is being "disappeared"?) On a broader level, I was struck by the smugness of some of the posts which reduce UT and the current alt.country phase to just another "ripple" in the alt.country pond which we UT fans could see if we' d get our head out of our asses and look at the big picture. Even if intended to introduce perspective, the effect of these posts is to dismiss the genuine affection people feel for these bands as immature, short-sighted and misguided. At least as I read it. I admit I may be a bit oversensitive or defensive to this because I happen to have entered the (alt) country fold via UT, but it does seem to me that backlash against the No Depression hype too often results in a dismissal of the hyped bands themselves, as if they were *only* a media creation and had nothing of real value to offer. (This obviously goes way beyond this genre.) If people think UT has no value, that's fine w/ me, but it's a shame if that distaste stems not from the music but from reguritated press releases or frat-boys screaming for "Drown" at the concert . Todd Hoping his Twangpin team shirt isn't embroidered with "shit-sick"
Re[2]: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
Terry wrote: To me, production is like makeup on women; when it draws attention to itself, then it's not working. Actually I think most people view production not as makeup (which can enhance if applied tastefully) but as a window -- a seemingly transparent view of the performance on the other side. Under this metaphor, the production really can't do anything to enhance the music, but only get out of the way; the best it can hope for is that it remains free of specks and streaks which might obscure our vision of the performance. I suspect that at the time, the Nashville-sound strings would have been understood and accepted by listeners as a part of the performance, not part of the production. (Yes I know that technically everything is "part" of the production, but I'm thinking more about the average radio listener who doesn't really think about -- or want to think about -- the fact that what he/she's listening to is "produced".) 30 years later, in a different aesthetic climate, those strings and backup singers jump out as "production," a spot on the window which intereferes with what we now view (differently) as the performance -- the gritty basics of vocal, guitar, bass, drums, or whatever. While extremely critical and musically-educated folks like ourselves may spend half our day corresponding and debating this stuff (and appreciate production values), your average listener just doesn't want the medium to interfere with the content. And it's not just that they don't want to be challenged, but that our culture thrives under the (very romantic) illusion that we can gain unmediated access to "real" people through art, without technology or commercial considerations coloring that access. So yeah, the grittier and more real the better. (Something philosophical on the assurance of subjectivity in the face of postmodern alienation would probably fit here, but I'll save that for the Derrida list...) It's a culturally-determined way of listening, but one that's become "natural" nonetheless. When it comes down to it, it's how I listen as well. As much as I like to think about and talk about music, the greatest moments are when I can just escape into it -- not analyze it, not think about it, and, most of all, not have some element of the "production" remind me that the performance I'm listening to has been strategically and commercially constructed. (I imagine the allure of the live performance relates to this desire as well.) I guess what I'm getting at is that the notion of gritty, bare-bones reality in music may be a myth, but it's a myth we live by.
Re: That overproduced Dwight Yoakam (was Re: Hyper produced BobbyBare)
Bill S. said:
It's just sort of tangentially related to this thread Terry, but last week you
were seemingly displeased by the "overproduction" on Dwight's A LONG WAY HOME
record. I was listening to it the other day, and it struck me how well done
("overproduced") the tune "These Arms" is. The song starts out a pretty
straight up shuffle, but transforms into a string-laded, soaring knockout.I'm
with you and many anound here, string-phobic to a degree and much preferring a
"stripped-down" approach. But when it's done right, (a value-loaded word to be
sure) like on "These Arms", well, string me up.
What'd you think of the tune?
I know you were asking Terry, Bill, but this is absolutely my favorite song
of 1998, and it seems that some others on the list have at least hinted at
a similar sentiment. And your description nails a lot of what's so great
about the song.
Incidentally, I was reading an interview w/ Dwight in the
late-but-not-lamented Musician Magazine, and he claimed that Pete tried to
get him to change the bridge in the middle of the song (the big
string-heavy D-A-E/ E - G- A part) to something more "standard," but Dwight
resisted
RE: Hyper produced Bobby Bare
And while I'm not saying that life in a factory is/was just a life of grimness, I can't see how a stark and depressing arrangement would appeal to a factory guy, even if he could identify with the song's theme. No matter the artistic merits of such an arrangement. That's evidently not what Bare was shooting for. Worth mentioning in all this is that "sparce" and "basic" and "plain" are in many ways cuturally (and commercially) contructed choices just like "pop," "lush," and "polished." Seems pretty sketchy to suggest that a stripped-down, bare-bones aesthetic is necessarily a more natural (speaking of cultural constructs) way to express a particular rural (or working class) subject matter than snazzy string arrangements and commercially-associated background singers. BTW, I've been listening this afternoon to the Classic Country channel at spinner.com. In the last hour, they've played Tammy Wynette, the Louvins, Hank Thompson, Grandpa Jones, Merle Haggard, Merle Travis, and a few other gems. They also list the song title, album title and performer for each song they play, which many of these net providers don't do. np: Mel Tillis, Tall Drink of Water
Re: SXSW - band pay
My point is this. Like any cattle call, the bands put all thier hopes and dreams and wishes into it. They pull together gas money to drive from bum fuck to attend if they are accepted, and SOMEONE is making a pile of dough on thier dreams. The least any band can ask if they play anywhere, CATLLE CALL or GIG, is to have a warm, safe place to stay for the night (even if it is being hosted by a local band, on the living room floor), food to fill them up, and enough gas money to get them to and from the gig without taking food from the mouths of their loving supporting families back home in bum fuck. Ahh, but THAT would be a perfect world huh, or a Lucinda Williams song. We went into SXSW with the rather naive assumption that the festival was the place for unsigned, unheralded bands to get their shot playing for people who actually could sign them on the spot, give them their big break -- you know the legend. Fueled by the personal experience of two bands who are friends and who signed deals after the '96 and '97 festivals, we headed for TX with high hopes. Needless to say, we were a bit dismayed when we realized that 80% of the bands playing were already signed, that label showcases dominated the high-profile clubs and time slots, and that most of the gigs seemed to be already-signed (and in many cases well-known) bands showing off their latest material either as a tuneup for a tour, as a press schmooze, as an attempt to get their stuff in front of radio programmers, etc. As for the unsigned bands, unless they showed up w/ some industry buzz already swirling, there wasn't a chance in hell of anyone "discovering" them. Dollarwise, our day jobs and vacation time made it impractical to drive from Philadelphia, so we shelled out over a grand in plane tix just to get us there. Unable to cart a full drum set and all our amps on the plane (without paying hundreds of dollars in extra baggage charges), we also had to pay to rent equipment. When we first attempted to work through the festival office to try to do this, we were told that the backline charge was $500, just for a couple freakin' guitar amps and a basic drum kit. We ended up working out a deal w/ John Strohm (who played after us) to use their equipment, which cost us another couple hundred dollars. Add in food and drink and lodging for four, and that $175 payment is pretty insignficant -- especially considering the fact that we took the wristbands so we could actually see some music while we were there (the badge, which gets you into the panels and things like that, is basically a wash -- they only give you one, so unless you want to leave your bandmates in the hotel room while you go have fun, it's worthless. Cool, one badge. Gee, thanks guys). I figure it cost us about $65 for every minute we were on stage "showcasing" for our big breakand we'd probably do it all over again.
No Electric Guitars
Someone asked about this a few weeks back. Taken from this week's Philadelphia Weekly at: http://www.phillyweekly.com/weekly98/ae/artbeat.html F E B R U A R Y 3 - F E B R U A R Y 2 7 , 1 9 9 9 Artsbeat: Local Musicians Experience Power-Outage The idea was simple and not particularly original: assemble some of Philadelphia's most talented songwriters, yank the chords on their axes and let them have at it. But Neil Drucker, CEO of the Bala Cynwyd-based Record Cellar label, is proud to claim the premise as his own. And his musician pals were more than happy to oblige his whim, responding with some of the most intimate, playful and outright weird music of their careers. Dave Bielanko (Marah), Mike Brenner (The Low Road, John Train), Frank Brown (Flight of Mavis, Buzz Zeemer), Richard Kaufmann (Electric Love Muffin, Rolling Hayseeds) and Gerry McGoldrick (Napalm Sunday, Emily Valentine) donated three songs each to the 15-song No Electric Guitars CD. Highlights include Bielanko's riveting, claustrophobic "Long Hot Summer" and wry, romping interpretation of Bruce Springsteen's "Streets of Philadelphia," as well as Brenner's surprisingly true-to-the-original version of "Pet Sounds." In no way is the collection's overall format solely acoustic, but the low-key implications are evident -- if not always dominant. "It's just a hook," says Drucker of the unplugged slant. "All of the tracks are independent; the guys don't play with each other. [The idea was] to get them out there in between band projects." No Electric Guitars is in stores this week, with an official CD release party slated for March 6 at the Pontiac Grille. -- Hobart Rowland
Re: TwangCast for Macs
Owen writes: I guess I should mention that the file comes in to your PC compressed and does need to be opened. You also may have to reboot. I don't know enough about Macs. The info I sent was from my tech guru, who thinks we should all know as much as he does.g NOW ONLINE, http://www.TwangCast.com TM RealCountry netcast 24 X 7 Please Visit Then let us know what you think! Mike Hays www.MikeHays.RealCountry.net For the best country artist web hosting, www.RealCountry.net If anyone (Owen?) actually gets this working on a Mac, I'd love to know how. I've got the media player downloaded, but my browser will not activate it when I call up the TwangCast page. Mike: is your "tech guru" accessible? Off-list is cool, unless other Mac users are having the same difficulties. Todd
Re: HNC
Agreed, though Nashville sports a larger central infrastructure of players (and money to pay those players), which bands working in other cities don't have access to, regardless of their tastes. I know of several bands that would love to play live with a steel player but can't afford or find one. Pittsburgh, for example, doesn't have dozens of steel players available, nor I would guess do most towns not named Nashville or perhaps Austin. This might be the launching point for a thread amongst themusicians on the list. Are there instruments you'd like to use either live or in the studio that you are unable to use due to cost or lack of interested players? It's hard as hell just to find a guitar player with any decent country chops here in Philadelphia, much less a pedal steel player (though as Barry mentioned in another post, we've been lucky enough to latch on to one). From what I can tell, there are only 2 or 3 guys playing the pedal steel regularly in bands in the greater Philadelphia area, and maybe a handful more playing some lap steel. The situation's only moderately better w/ fiddle players. (Add in to the equation the fact that you may actually want them to play along w/ a guitar with, gasp, distortion, and 2 of the 3 run out the door to begin with.) So yes, it seems, at least here, more a question of supply than taste, and I think Carl's probably correct that it's the same in most other places. I can't think of an countryish band in town that isn't searching for that elusive "utility" man, a la Jim (Dave?) Boquist, who can add some banjo/fiddle/steel into the mix without having to carry an individual player for each instrument. (Overheard at a recent show of ours: Young woman: What is he playing? Her Date, with confidence: It's called a floor guitar, sweetheart. Young woman: Oh, I want to learn to play the floor guitar.) For what it's worth, the inclusion of a pedal steel or a fiddle doesn't seem, to me, to be a very fruitful point of (qualitative) differentiation between the HNC and "alt" country crowds. Too much of it on both sides of the fence to be different except by degree...
real country [was re: old 97s in Toronto]
country) I thought back to the usual P2 debates, and wuz struck by how right Jon's been in the past to point out that the altcountry vs. HNC battles often aren't, emotionally, so much about which is "real" country so much as a difference in taste about the type of rock involved in each case. [snip] I am coming round to thinking that what we're seeing is the fact that rock in one form or another has overtaken country so much in the culture that it feels like "roots" music to a broad demographic that includes a lot of the former core country audience, so that stone-traditional country is very marginal to all the commercially partway viable versions. Carl W. This really resonates with me. My kneejerk reaction upon hearing HNC stuff is usually to claim that "it's not real country," or something like "Oh, that's just bland AC pop/rock with a steel guitar and a fiddle thrown in." In light of Carl's comments, however, it does seem that my aversion is less the lack of "realness" of the country elements than my disdain for the particular type of rock that seems to be forming the basis of the song. Shania's easy slide into Celine Dion/Mariah Carey/Diva territory only adds to fuel to this fire. So, I wonder, with the "alt" stuff that I do really like, are they actually performing a "truer" version of country music, or do I just like their brand of rock better? And are they basically doing the *same* thing as the HNC folks when it comes to the country side of their sound, only w/ a different type of rock blended in? The bigger question that begs itself is whether "country" is, at this point, just a set of superficial stylistic options that mark your specific style of rock as "country" -- the inclusion of a steel or a fiddle, a twangy tele, a shuffle or train drum beat, alternating 5ths on the bass, etc. Is there a such thing as real country music, or only country-flavored rock? Playing in a band, I struggle with this all the time. Are we playing country? Or are we just pop/rock band copping a country flouish here and there? How the hell do you tell the difference? What is that essence, that musical/lyrical core that puts you in the first camp rather than the second? (I also wonder whether it really matters, but reading 150 P2 messages a day certainly makes one sensitive to such questions g.) The problem is, identifying country is a bit like identifying obscenity -- you can't define it, but you know it when you hear/see it. Much of the time you end up at a point where the criteria is essentially that someone -- radio stations identified as country, a record company, critics, people on p2 -- *says* you're country. Or you fall back to an invocation of ratified country greats that exemplify country and see how a given band compares. Many times it seems that country "realness" is defined in relation to the lack of identifiable rock/pop elements in the sound. The "P1" bands (Tupelo, W-town, Old 97s) get slighted quite often, I think, because their rock elements are so strong that somehow, the logic suggests, they can't be real country, or they're only country in a superficial sense. What's interesting about these conversations is how often they work backward to a point before the advent of rock-n-roll, with "real" country exemplified by artists from the 30s and 40s, before the fall from grace. (It should come as no surprise, I think, that the icon and apotheosis of country music, Hank Williams, died literally on the eve of the rock-n-roll era.) Of course even a cursory study of these earlier periods shows that "country" was just as contested a term then, and that many critics then were looking back to the 20s and earlier for "real" country music. I'd be interested to hear country defined in the positive -- that is by actually naming the musical elements that make something country rather than by saying what it's *not*. While I'm quite sure we'd never get to a definition, nor would we necessarily want to, it would be illuminating to see the battles over which elements are crucial, which are expendable, and so on (I wonder where "working class background" would fall on the list g.) My guess is that for every supposed criterion there are too many examples of country songs that *don't* include it to get anything on the list. And perhaps it would explode some of the poseur/carpetbagger/mistrelsy charges that float around here all too often. Just some thoughts...
RE: Swingin' Doors, 1/28/99
Unfortunately, our webmaster is too squeezed for time to archive the shows. The archived shows were meant to be a stopgap measure until we went live on the web. He's been overworking himself, in the hopes that the ops folks here would get us live on the web, as promised. The live webcasting keeps getting delayed, however, and it doesn't look like that's gonna happen until we move into our new space in July/August. Since I've been pushing to get us live on the web for, oh, about four years now, needless to say I'm more than a little peeved. I've been raisin' a little hell about all this bs recently, and hopefully *something* will be done sometime soon. Grr.--don Just some food for thought from a new webcast listener -- I actually prefer sites where the shows are archived, as it give me much greater freedom in which programs I choose to listen to. Just as an example, I'll never hear "Swingin Doors" if KCMU goes live, because I listen from my computer at work and Don's on at night. If I tune in during the day (at least to a site w/ multi-format programming), chances are I'm going to get a show that I'm a lot less interested in. Currently, I can go to archived sites and get the show I want when I want it. Any chance of having archives as well as the live feed?
Re: VCR Alert
9p EST TNN - HELLO DARLIN': A TRIBUTE TO CONWAY TWITTY - Vince Gill; Travis Tritt; Kathy Mattea; Sam Moore; K.T. Oslin; Michael Bolton; Reba McEntire; Wynonna; Joe Diffie; Mark Chesnutt; Sammy Kershaw; James Bonamy.(CC)(TVG) I don't know if this is a rebroadcast. There are likely to be some good performances there, most likely not including Michael Bolton's. One more for the VCR watch: AE's country entertainers week will conclude w/ a live Vince Gill concert this Saturday night at 8:00.
tv bands
Damn, thought that last one was off to the fluff channel -- sorry to broadcast the Saturday morning kids'-tv lyrics on the grown-up list Todd (who also remembers a cast band or two on "Saved By the Bell")
Outlaw Blues
The movie "Outlaw Blues" has been on cable this month, and I've got a question about the theme song that maybe someone here can answer. Who wrote it? I'm wondering because the music credits at the end of the film list John Oates. Is this the John Oates of Hall and Oates fame? (For those who haven't seen this 1977 film, it stars Peter Fonda and Susan Saint James. Fonda is an ex-con attempting to get payback from a big country star named Garland Dupree who stole his song "Outlaw Blues" while he was locked up at Huntsville. Pretty entertaining stuff, and much of it was filmed in Austin.)
