Most controversial PSG player Poll

[b0b]

In all seriousness, I always thought that Curley Chalker and Pete Drake were the most controversial steel players - Chalker for his alleged bad attitude and Drake for his alleged lack of chops. Both are now in the Steel Guitar Hall of Fame - a controversial organization if there ever was one.

And then there's Anderson and Bradshaw, two lightning rods of controversy over the past 25 years. Garcia and RR have nothing on them!

[Twayn Williams]

I wonder if Speedy West was considered controversial back in the day, or if the steel community was so small and scattered back then that such things didn't come up. I mean, talk about a wonky, unconventional way of playing! Speedy's one of my heroes

[Ben Jones]

Isnt there actually one steel player doing life in prison?

of course thats not as controversial as a steel player who plays non-country music I realize, but still...

[Mike Perlowin]

Isnt there actually one steel player doing life in prison?

of course thats not as controversial as a steel player who plays non-country music I realize, but still...

That would be Al Petty. I believe the sentence is not actually life, but rather 50-something years, which amounts to the same thing.

A sad ending to one of our pioneers and most innovative and creative players.

[Duane Reese]

I really think it would be better to accept that there are some significant wedges between different groups of steel players, and try to find some way to talk, rather than just let it sit underground.

Let me give a more specific explanation about why I think this thread is over the top.

For me, a good thread in this regard would be one where someone would simply bring up the player, what they are doing, how they are doing it, etc. and if controversy ensues but doesn't spill over into an examination of the people involved and why they are the way they are, what's wrong with them, if it's because of their background, etc. then you have a greater potential to build understanding and clear the air. In other words, it doesn't get personal.

Conversely, when you have a thread where people are pitted against each other right off the bat, for the sake of stoking disagreement rather than understanding, it's over the top. A thread like that has no ability to reach anywhere peaceful or agreeable after running it's course, because it started off on the wrong foot.

I tend to think this kind of thing has failure built in, because it alienates people on different ends of the spectrum from each other right from the start. It assumes an us-against-them attitude, with no chance for reconciliation. Therefore (in my opinion) to scrutinize the nature of the thread itself is perfectly legitimate - and probably even more appropriate than discussing anything about the players - because the existence of this topic is a needless wedge all it's own.

I don't necessarily agree with Dom's view of what controversy is, either. Things that are innovative, original, curious, provocative, or interesting can also be controversial, but the fact that something is controversial doesn't give it any of those other qualities, necessarily. Not that the players themselves can't hold any of these qualities, but I don't think "controversial" itself is a quality per say - more of a byproduct, right or wrong.

[Tony Glassman]

......of course thats not as controversial as a steel player who plays non-country music I realize, but still...

Why do these things always get twisted into an "us vs. them" battle.

I don't think it's the fact that the above listed players are "non-country" that's the controversy, but rather, some people just do not enjoy their playing.

As far as skills are concerned, I don't think DL and JG are in the same league as RR and Susan Alcorn. The latter two are excellent steel players in their respective genres. Though neither is my "cup of tea", I can enjoy their playing and do respect their "steel guitar" talent.

Daniel Lanois and Jerry Garcia......"not so much"

[Dave Mudgett]

For me, a good thread in this regard would be one where someone would simply bring up the player, what they are doing, how they are doing it, etc. and if controversy ensues but doesn't spill over into an examination of the people involved and why they are the way they are, what's wrong with them, if it's because of their background, etc. then you have a greater potential to build understanding and clear the air. In other words, it doesn't get personal.

I dunno. Tons and tons of threads that bring up a "controversial" player wind up going way off-track and getting very personal. I think this thread was an attempt to discuss why this happens - I presume with the intent of trying to figure out how to avoid this. I really think a lot of people here - probably many newer people who came to steel from alternative directions - are completely mystified why JG, RR, DL, and so on are "controversial".

This thread started out as a simple poll on "Who are the controversial steel players", with an invitation to list the reasons if interested. After a single JG response, the next three posts denounced the thread's right to exist in a fairly personal way - I think many have questions the OP's intent. It only gets personal if someone makes it personal.

I don't necessarily agree with Dom's view of what controversy is, either. Things that are innovative, original, curious, provocative, or interesting can also be controversial, but the fact that something is controversial doesn't give it any of those other qualities, necessarily.

Dom didn't say that controversial is necessarily "innovative, original, curious, ...". Here's what he wrote:

These players are "controversial" but that's not a good or bad term! "Controversial" can also be described as: innovative, original, curious, provocative, interesting.

He is saying those qualities are possible reasons someone could be "controversial", not the only ones. I completely agree. Controversial can connote either "good" or "bad" qualities (whatever "good" and "bad" are). My question is - why have so many posters here apparently jumped to the conclusion that "bad" was implied in the original post? I didn't see it, either explicitly or implicitly. Controversial is just controversial - a topic that is subject to disagreement or debate. There is not evaluation of "good" or "bad" in it at all.

Why does any of this matter? Really, it goes right to the heart of why there is a steel guitar forum, IMHO. Are we allowed to discuss issues on which significant groups of members disagree? If not, then why are we here? To simply exchange chit-chat and stroke one another? How will we ever assess the quality of information on this forum if nobody is allowed to seriously question it? And who gets to decide if a member or thread is out of bounds?

I argue that nobody has the right to say what forum topics are in-bounds or out-of-bounds but the moderators. I see no reason to believe that any of them have any problem with this thread. Look - b0b has been posting here. I don't think this thread is controversial at all. Those of you who want it eradicated are what makes it controversial - it has nothing to do with the topic or anything the original poster said, IMHO.

Sorry - here I am again defending the right of a forum member to post and civilly discuss an obviously steel guitar related topic. It needs defense because, as usual, the arguments that the thread shouldn't be here have completely drowned out the topic. I call that a denial-of-service attack on the thread. It's one thing to disagree with something on the thread's topic. But we don't decide what topics are in and out of bounds for this forum. I think we should leave that to the moderators.

My opinions, as usual.

[Brint Hannay]

I don't think there was any implication that "controversial" equated to "bad" in the original post. Indeed, to me the subtext was, if anything, an implied criticism of the existence of "controversy".

I think Edward Meisse "got it" in the very first reply, in which he recognized the controversy about Jerry Garcia as a fact (though apparently guessing wrong about JG's "rank" in the pecking order), but those who are familiar with his points of view from other posts certainly know that he himself was not being critical of JG. (Right, EM?)

But Twayn, were you truly only hoping to watch some fireworks, or do you have a dog in this fight? (to mix my metaphors)

[Duane Reese]

I argue that nobody has the right to say what forum topics are in-bounds or out-of-bounds but the moderators.

I'm not arguing that at all, Dave. I'm just adding my 2 cents, and hopefully giving people something to think about when starting topics like these. I try to support what I say, too. People can take it or leave it.

I think this thread was an attempt to discuss why this happens - I presume with the intent of trying to figure out how to avoid this. I really think a lot of people here - probably many newer people who came to steel from alternative directions - are completely mystified why JG, RR, DL, and so on are "controversial".

This thread started out as a simple poll on "Who are the controversial steel players", with an invitation to list the reasons if interested. After a single JG response, the next three posts denounced the thread's right to exist in a fairly personal way - I think many have questions the OP's intent. It only gets personal if someone makes it personal.

It was in Twayn's second post that made the intent a little more clear, as I see it:

I've noticed in the past that there are certain players that are sure to raise the hackles of some and create ardent defenders of others:

Susan Alcorn - for her fearless approach to noise, microtonality and free time, and not playing country.

Jerry Garcia - for (apparently) daring to play the holy instrument poorly on occasion and being popular and not playing country.

Daniel Lanois - for playing with a limited palette and not like a country player.

Robert Randolph - for being so flashy and not playing country and for being popular!

But seemingly, the above players worst sin is not trying to sound like Buddy Emmons or Lloyd Green or (insert favorite country steeler here) and being successful at it. How dare they!! I'm fully outraged!!!! Call the PSG police!!!!!! Mandatory prison sentences for those who dare touch the holiest of holies without being a virtuoso!!!!! Death to the infidels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quick, more exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To me, this seems downright combative. I would have thought it was a risky topic right off the bat anyway, but this was what I think confirmed the topic to me as flame bate. Again, it's the moderators' call, but I don't think that a civil discussion was the original intent anyway.

Heck - let there be one if it's in the cards. It would be well worth conceding this point if it can turn into a viable topic.

As for the three disparaging posts following the first JG comment, those are merely opinions too, and are permitted, are they not?

[Jim Cohen]

I agree with everything that's been said so far.

(Doncha just love people who say stuff like that at a moment like this?)

[Brint Hannay]

I agree with everything that's been said so far.

(Doncha just love people who say stuff like that at a moment like this?)

It's people like you who are what's wrong with this country, er, Forum!!!

[Brint Hannay]

Hmmm...It would seem in the light of Twayn's second post quoted above, which I had forgotten, that my post a couple back was an exercise in stating the obvious.

[David Doggett]

I disagree with everything that's been said so far, except for Jim's statement.

[Dave Mudgett]

As for the three disparaging posts following the first JG comment, those are merely opinions too, and are permitted, are they not?

Those comments - that this topic is not OK to discuss on the forum - are not remotely on-topic to this thread, IMO. I don't think it would be a big deal if it didn't drown out the actual topic discussion, but look at the number and shrillness of objections to this thread. The problem is pile-on, and once it happens, the thread doesn't have a chance. This happens on a lot of threads, and I think it contributes to a sense of loss of community here, which many people have vocalized.

As for Twayne's later post - I don't think his itemized reasons why those four particular players are "controversial" are so farfetched. At the very least, they're arguable. I think the last paragraph was an attempt at humor. At least I thought it was funny, in a twisted sort of way. Perhaps it was a vain attempt to shove the topic back onto its original path. I wouldn't blame him - if I started a thread about Steel Guitar Topic X, and a bunch of people started yelling at me that I have no right to talk about Steel Guitar Topic X and get the hell out of here, I might get my dander up too. There was nothing remotely like that in the original post.

I agree with everything that's been said so far.

(Doncha just love people who say stuff like that at a moment like this?)

Jim, I knew we could count on you to jump in with something profound. Now this thread can careen down yet another completely unrelated branch.

[Edward Meisse]

Brint Hannay wrote:

.....he himself was not being critical of JG. (Right, EM?)

That's right, BH.

[Mike Perlowin]

Why is any steel player controversial? If you don't like somebody's music, just don't listen to it. Why is it necessary to put another musician down because he/she has a different musical vision than everybody else?

Are we so insecure that we can't handle the mere existence of different styles of steel playing?

[Bill Myrick]

The ghost of Julian Thorpe --

[Greg Vincent]

My problem with DL is not at all about the "style" or "genre" in which he plays, it's about his poor execution (which is couched in a rather pretentious presentation). THAT is what makes him controversial, in my view.

However, I've been told by Mr. Twayne Williams to "give it a rest, dude" regarding DL, so I'll probably have to stop here before I'm run off of yet another thread.

-GV

[b0b]

Those comments - that this topic is not OK to discuss on the forum - are not remotely on-topic to this thread, IMO. I don't think it would be a big deal if it didn't drown out the actual topic discussion, but look at the number and shrillness of objections to this thread. The problem is pile-on, and once it happens, the thread doesn't have a chance. This happens on a lot of threads, and I think it contributes to a sense of loss of community here, which many people have vocalized.

I've toyed with the idea of splitting the sub-topic into a Forum Feedback topic, but it's not a easy task with so many posts to evaluate.

[chris ivey]

being controversial is my new foible!

[Jim Cohen]

Yeah, that's your foible.

[Keith White]

Hi guys thanks for putting four names up on the poll.I can now check them out and decide for myself.I like anything that the steel can offer as it demonstrates just how fortunate we are to have so many styles of playing at our fingertips, there is so mutch talent out there to listen to or not as the case may be .Each to our own .Keith White.UK.

[Mike Perlowin]

The names Curly Chalker and Julian Tharpe were both mentioned here. But the reasons that they were controversial are not about their playing, but rather about who they were as people. Curly was to put it mildly, less than charming or diplomatic. Tharpe, if the stories are to be believed, was not an honorable man.

I have never met or had any contact with Tharpe and have no personal ax to grind, but if he truly did the things he is reputed to have done, he should not be inducted into the SGHOF, no matter how well he played.

Chalker may have been unfriendly and had a generally negative outlook on life, but as far as I know, he never did anybody wrong the way Tharpe is said to have done.

[Mike Perlowin]

Hi guys thanks for putting four names up on the poll.I can now check them out and decide for myself.I like anything that the steel can offer as it demonstrates just how fortunate we are to have so many styles of playing at our fingertips, there is so mutch talent out there to listen to or not as the case may be .Each to our own .Keith White.UK.

Well said Keith.

[Glenn Suchan]

If Susan Alcorn is a controversial player, then most PSG players can only dream of becoming controversial.

In the past, I'd been marginally familiar with her music. After watching the linked YouTube and some other vids associated with the link, I am totally in awe of her prowess! I have rarely experienced a PSG performance at such a high level of technical ability combined with highly original creativity. I'd have to say, those YouTube vids qualify as a "watershed" event for me. I'll never think about PSG the same way again and I am inspired to try some of the same ideas. No doubt, with minimal success due to my minimal talent.

Now, if you're talking about controversy which insights enflamed emotions, not even Dylan's electric-folk at Newport surpasses the premier performance of Stravinsky's ballet "Le Sacre du Printemps" (The Rite of Spring). For those not familiar with this masterpiece, it deals with prehistoric, pagan spring rituals, involving young virgin maidens. One of which dances herself to death at the end of the ballet.

The first performance, with choreography by Vaslav Nijinsky, was on May 29, 1913 at the Theater des Champs-Elysees in Paris. The following is a short synopsis of the event. (I took the liberty to cut-and-paste from an internet site):

Le Sacre's première took place at the Théâtre des Champs-Elysées on May 29, 1913. It is arguably the most famous debacle in western artistic history. Audience members found the quiet, yet active, introduction ridiculous. When the curtain rose and Nijinsky's dances began, the auditorium went into a rage, their sophistication insulted. Ravel and Debussy were both present and captivated by the music, but it was soon drowned out in the fracas. Debris was thrown, as well as punches. The work was performed in full, but only with the help of Nijinsky calling steps from atop an offstage chair.

Stravinsky had a breakdown after the première and spent weeks at a sanatorium in Neuilly to recover from typhoid fever. Le Sacre was staged in London that July and coldly received, albeit undisturbed. Negative reactions would still come ten years later, when Monteaux conducted Le Sacre with the Boston Symphony Orchestra in 1924. Yet as modernism slowly sank into western culture and the realities of grand-scale warfare emerged, Le Sacre became recognized for its contribution to the modern artistic temperament.


Keep on pickin'!
Glenn