Re: real country
"Real" country is probably a bit different for anyone here as well as those artists who say that they wish to get back to their roots and do some "real" country. I would imagine that defining "it" would take into account an individual's preferences, exposure to different musical styles while growing up and any/all labels as assigned by the newsmedia or music historians. However, the sense that I get from performers today is that "real" country music pretty much encompasses a timeframe from the fifties through the sixties with the likes of Hank Williams, Johnny Cash, Loretta Lynn, George Jones etc; ruled the charts. At times, I have inquired what elements of that music made it "real"? I've been told for the most part that the music was simplistic in its beauty, being that it was devoid of heavy-handed commercialism which includes "lush" instrumentation, pronounced drumming with a decided rural/folk-like appeal. By that definition, I suppose we could rule out many of our lauded country greats as being "real". I just think this term is a bit different for everyone but that it seems to be generationally defined. If a person grew up liking George Jones and believes that Jones epitomized country then that will be the standard by which he/she defines all other country music. Watson has been quoted as saying that Buck Owens and Merle Haggard were some of his major influences. I suppose we could conclude that for Watson, the aforementioned two are "real" country for him. However, for brevity sake, may I add that my Grandmother (who was a bluegrass fan) once told me years ago that Merle Haggard was just another rock-n-roll upstart. Perception is a mighty sword. Tera -Original Message- From: BARNARD [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: passenger side [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Saturday, January 30, 1999 10:41 AM Subject: "real" country One clarification to my post on this thread yesterday: That is, in response to Todd's question, "What are people trying to say *today* when they contrast HNC or ND to 'real' country?," I was only trying to get at that contemporary usage of "real" country. I was not trying to define country, period, in other words, but rather that ideal of "real" country, "stone"' country, "hard" country that is in the vocabulary these days, usually as the right-thinking alternative to various unsatisfactory mixtures of country with rock and pop, etc I was thinking of the last I saw Dale Watson, when, after a song, he looked around and said, "Now ain't that *real* country??" That's the sort of usage I was thinking of... and so forth g, --junior
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
One clarification to my post on this thread yesterday: That is, in response to Todd's question, "What are people trying to say *today* when they contrast HNC or ND to 'real' country?," I was only trying to get at that contemporary usage of "real" country. I was not trying to define country, period, in other words, but rather that ideal of "real" country, "stone"' country, "hard" country that is in the vocabulary these days, usually as the right-thinking alternative to various unsatisfactory mixtures of country with rock and pop, etc I was thinking of the last I saw Dale Watson, when, after a song, he looked around and said, "Now ain't that *real* country??" That's the sort of usage I was thinking of... and so forth g, --junior
Re: real country
At 04:36 PM 1/29/1999 -0500, you wrote: At 12:25 PM 1/29/99 -0500, Todd wrote: 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*. ... 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. Here's the best explanation I've heard; Country is simply 'three chords and the truth'also the title of a GREAT book on the *real* Nashville of today. Chris Ignitors
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
I think a definition of country music--now as before--that doesn't resort to lists of what it's NOT is still relatively easy. We can then begin (did I say "begin"?) proposing who that's around fits the bill! Country music is a commercial extension of Anglo-Celt, Scots-/Irish folk music as it came to be expressed and played in the American South. The instruments and vocal styles have evolved from those available there, and the singing style from the speech patterns there. And if you're going to bother to call it country, it still oughta be like that somewhere!. That be twang. Both of the words at the end there (American...South) COUNT--so as a product of America, it's no purebred; it has inevitably gathered in and been impacted by a number of other popular commercial and folk American music types, especially Afro-American music forms from right next door or across the tracks, and Tin Pan Alley pop tunes,--plus musics of varied ethnic immigrants, (Mexican, German, French, Polish, even Hawaiian and a few Italian and Jewish guest songwriters... and a few Scots/Irish Canadians. ) . You don't have to be any of the above to play it or love it. Several Scandanavians have been known to have twangful feet and chops and apparently been misplaced, so you never know. There are certainly artists in so-called mainstream country as well as alt.country who's music can be described as above. Many of 'em are damn good. Many of 'em aren't. Whoops--just got negative. Positively country, Barry. Strange visitor from the North.
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: real country
Bob sez: Hey, Junior, I'm sure you too remember a time when any post that was *shorter* than what you sent out wasn't taken seriously... I sure do, s'matter of fact. Yessiree, even when I give David a hard time about strings and such, it doesn't elicit the historical-critical productions of yesteryear g. Now those *class* threads Dan was mentioning, perhaps those are the thing. As if Gram knew from a $1000 wedding, sheeit Waiting for Jon W. to define country, without the "realness" factor added, --junior
