RE: Dixie Chicks (was Re: www.lyrics.ch)
Still seems to me they are working hard to low profile the original sound which begs the question, WHY. It's not like the CD's were horrible or something. Just a different sound. Are they afraid the current audience will find out they know how to play bluegrass and traditional country? If that's what they're afraid of, I think they'd drop the banjer, fiddle and dobro, eh? Maybe they will, but so far they haven't. I think it's more accurate to say that they're not working hard to highlight the original sound, original members, etc., which isn't, or shouldn't be, too surprising. This isn't exactly uncommon, and it's not restricted to bands jumping to major labels from minor ones or self-release. Rebel doesn't feature Charlie Sizemore's pre-Rebel records, Sugar Hill doesn't highlight the Seldom Scene's earlier albums on Rebel, Rounder doesn't make much mention of J. D. Crowe's earlier albums on Rebel and Starday, Sugar Hill doesn't profile Doyle Lawson's albums on Brentwood, Asylum said little or nothing about the Cox Family's Rounder recordings (but Rounder had little to say about their pre-Rounder recordings), etc. I know of one major bluegrass band that has left an entire album out of all their official materials and discography. The troublesome part of this story, as far as I'm concerned, is that a pretty solid case can be made that posting short (30 second) clips from earlier, out-of-print releases in the context of a "complete" history of the act and its recordings *does* fall under the fair use provision of copyright law. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
16 RPM (was RE: www.lyrics.ch)
Speaking of which, I remember a trick that an old guitar teacher showed me way back, where you could play (I hope I'm remembering this right) album at 17, or whatever that low setting was on old record players, and get the solo in key, but half as fast and an octave lower. [Matt Benz] That the old 78 speed, isn't it? No, young man. The correct speed was 16 rpm. Has anybody ever seen an actual 16rpm record? I heard that the Highway HiFi offered as an option on some old Chrysler automobiles played these, but was never able to verify it. Twang content: the original Dukes of Hazzard car was a 1958 Chrysler 300. -- Geff King (who doesn't need to play 16rpm to sound half fast)
RE: 16 RPM (was RE: www.lyrics.ch)
Ah yeh: 78's play faster, don't they? Duh me, Matt No, young man. The correct speed was 16 rpm. Has anybody ever seen an actual 16rpm record? I heard that the Highway HiFi offered as an option on some old Chrysler automobiles played these, but was never able to verify it.
Re: 16 RPM (was RE: www.lyrics.ch)
Geffry King writes: Has anybody ever seen an actual 16rpm record? I heard that the Highway HiFi offered as an option on some old Chrysler automobiles played these, but was never able to verify it. Yeah, it's true. It was an option on certain Chrysler models in the late '50s. Actually, I think I have something about this on one of my computers and will post it if I can remember what I did with it. Chrysler had a deal with Columbia to produce 16rpm records for the auto market. I can't remember exactly why the whole thing fizzled, but it was pretty much kaput by 1960, if memory serves. I recall actually seeing 16rpm records that were made for classroom use when I was a kid; basically children's stories and stuff like that. --Jon Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wollaston, Massachusetts
RE: Dixie Chicks (was Re: www.lyrics.ch)
On Mon, 25 Jan 1999, Jon Weisberger wrote: Are they really trying to tell their fans that the earlier configuration of the band didn't exist? or is this something the record suits thought up. How about neither. The bio on their page on Sony's website (http://www.sonymusic.com/labels/nashville/DixieChicks/Bio.html) discusses earlier configurations of the band. That isn't much of a test; one wouldn't expect a corporate site devoted to the Dixie Chicks' current incarnation to do much more, and as someone else pointed out, it doesn't "discuss" earlier configurations, it barely mentions them. Laura Lynch used to hang around after the shows the group did at Johnny D's and was quite open about Robin leaving because she felt the band was taking too commercial a turn. Even then, given the information on some of the sites, that's a bit of a gloss. "Rewriting history" may be too strong a phrase to use under the circumstances, but I think they're very tightly controlling their marketing and image right now. (And as others have said, that's fine if that's what the current members want, but it's a shame that the contributions of Lynch and Macy are swept under in the process and that new fans of the group will miss out on the three better albums.) Bob
Re: Dixie Chicks (was Re: www.lyrics.ch)
Would their new fans would enjoy the previous records? Doubt it. My listener interaction tells me that the freshness of the current sound is the appeal of the Chicks, particularly the banjo and fiddle playing, so maybe they would appreciate the older material. Personally, I haven't heard but just a few clips of the older material (and I liked them) but do have 2 CD's enroute and hope to grab a copy of the third one soon. Expect plenty of play on TwangCast, if for nothing else, a little rage against the machineg! NOW ONLINE, 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
Re: Dixie Chicks (was Re: www.lyrics.ch)
My listeners were real impressed by the Dixie Chicks previous albums. Most of them did not know. I feel, as well as my listeners, the Dixie Chicks, old and new have a GREAT variety for all. RW WDVR-FM -Original Message- From: JP Riedie [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: passenger side [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, January 25, 1999 8:48 PM Subject: RE: Dixie Chicks (was Re: www.lyrics.ch) "Rewriting history" may be too strong a phrase to use under the circumstances, but I think they're very tightly controlling their marketing and image right now. As Charlie Robison (who's engaged to the single one, Emily, I think) told me last week, the label is consciously trying to erase the band's past. Check their current wardrobe and hair against the early years. Nashville doesn't think that anything remotely hokey (or, "country") can break big these days. (And as others have said, that's fine if that's what the current members want, but it's a shame that the contributions of Lynch and Macy are swept under in the process and that new fans of the group will miss out on the three better albums.) Would their new fans would enjoy the previous records? Doubt it.
