Re: real country [was re: old 97s in Toronto]
Jon Weisberger wrote: let me commend to your attention the fine essay on "Country Music As Music" by Bill Evans, "So where is the 'country' in country music? To borrow a well-worn advertising phrase, it might be more a state of mind than any specific set of unique musical characteristics. Country musicians seem to share certain assumptions about melody, harmony, form, and performance technique that together help to shape ideas about the nature of the country sound, its boundaries and its possibilities." Interesting, but it how does one get to be called a country musician? And how does one differentiate between specific set of unique musical characteristics on one hand, and certain shared assumptions about melody, etc., on the other. Likewise the pairing of boundaries and possibilities is curious. It all seems sort of circular to me. One thing I like about that is that it nudges the reader in the direction of considering not only what those "certain assumptions" are, but how they're transmitted. And who is in authority to name what is and what is not country. But I don't quite understand this transmission thing. Especially in the age of mass media. Care to elucidate?
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: real country [was re: old 97s in Toronto]
Boy, I'd sure like to take on this thread, and I hope to later on, but I am just getting my eyebrows over this backlog of work that's piled up... In the meantime, let me commend to your attention the fine essay on "Country Music As Music" by Bill Evans, the banjerpicking ethnomusicologist; it appears in that Country Music Hall Of Fame Encyclopedia Of Country Music that came out not too long ago. It's a good starting point for getting a handle on the stylistic contours of country music (note, please, that I say nothing about "real" g). Here's a taste: "So where is the 'country' in country music? To borrow a well-worn advertising phrase, it might be more a state of mind than any specific set of unique musical characteristics. Country musicians seem to share certain assumptions about melody, harmony, form, and performance technique that together help to shape ideas about the nature of the country sound, its boundaries and its possibilities." One thing I like about that is that it nudges the reader in the direction of considering not only what those "certain assumptions" are, but how they're transmitted. Jon Weisberger Kenton County, KY [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://home.fuse.net/jonweisberger/
re: old 97s in Toronto
A few thoughts vaguely related to some current threads... So the great mystery of the O97s is now cleared up -- after hearing only a couple of tracks on comps here and there, I now actually know what they truly sound and look like and what the hype is about, after their show last night at The Horseshoe in Toronto (which I attended against my more responsible judgment). Damn if they aren't an impressively energizing live band, as most of y'all know. I won't detail the set, since I'm behind the curve here, but I'm surprised, with Rhett's cute-boy charisma (I assume the fact that the six or seven most attractive women in the room lined up directly in front of centre stage was not a one-time-only phenom?) and the ridiculous hookiness of the songs, that they haven't broken a little bigger. The non-twanginess of the upcoming album seems a little overhyped, judging by what they played from it last night, incidentally. But while I was thinking how country a couple of the songs were (the West Texas tributes had the most roots-soul, though as much Mexican as 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. I know it's been said many times, many ways but: The punk/new-wave aspect of the Old97s is as vital to their sound as Journey and the Eagles are to Garth's - yet both obviously know their trad country too (the cover last night was "Mama Tried"). I'd defend my Nick Lowe/Replacements/Clash preferences over 70s MOR rock any day - and it's not just my particular brand of nostalgia, though it's *also* my particular brand of nostalgia - but I really do think it's ridiculous to do it in terms of relative country-ness. There's a relevant argument to be made about the importance of Glen Campbell 70s country vs. outlaw 70s country to each of the two streams, too, but again "realness" does in fact seem a foolish substitute for defining taste, yardsticks of quality - I was real fond of the Old97s lyrics, for the wordplay and humour, which in most of the HNC I've heard is overly reliant on one reiterated dumb pun, tho that in fact might be more country kidding, kidding - and so on. 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. Or at least that's what I was thinkin' last night. I had had a couple of beers, mind you. Hm. I'm late for a dinner party. No time for second thoughts... Carl W.
Re: old 97s in Toronto
lance davis wrote: .At the risk of sounding like a moron, what is "HNC?" Hot New Country. i.e. "not your parents old twangy country" Promo slogan for denatured country music designed to appeal to a particular primo demographic. Soft and 70s rock crap with a fiddle buried way way back. And do I need to wash my hands after using it? It's better to just not use it, hear?.
