Merle Haggard lives, Garth Brooks is long gone

Theresa Galbraith · Post by **Theresa Galbraith** » 5 Aug 2008 3:11 pm

WOW! 5000 is big compared to what Garth draws.

Henry Nagle · Post by **Henry Nagle** » 5 Aug 2008 4:39 pm

Theresa Galbraith wrote:WOW! 5000 is big compared to what Garth draws.

Is that schoolyard sarcasm?

I think it's silly to compare Garth to Merle. I mean no ill will towards Garth, but as a singer and a songwriter, to me, it's obvious that they are not peers. Likewise, Garth is much better at having explosions and light shows! And selling tickets and cds.

Commercial and critical success are seldom realized simultaneously by any artist.

I think the Madonna/Ella Fitzgerald analogy is pretty apt. Madonna has certainly had an amazing career, and I imagine that she's worked very hard to be the all around "star" that she is. I wish her the best. I feel that her singing has always been secondary, at best.

Ella Fitzgerald was a brilliant singer. Amazing.

Theresa Galbraith · Post by **Theresa Galbraith** » 5 Aug 2008 4:46 pm

Probably!

Mark Durante · Post by **Mark Durante** » 5 Aug 2008 5:17 pm

It's a shame when all these millions of people hear singers like George Jones and Garth Brooks that they can't tell the difference between who is good and who isn't.

Terry Edwards · Post by **Terry Edwards** » 5 Aug 2008 6:03 pm

Garth is someone you pay to see.

Merle is someone you pay to listen to.

Madonna.. watch.

Ella ...listen.

see a pattern..

Bob Dylan...well, there are exceptions to everything,

T

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 5 Aug 2008 6:25 pm

Interesting analogy Terry. The visual presentation vs. the musicly talented.

Mitch Ellis · Post by **Mitch Ellis** » 5 Aug 2008 6:40 pm

Garth Brooks is a good singer. He has sold million's of cd's. He has thousands and thousands of fans. He can fill a stadium. But he ain't no Merle Haggard.

Mitch

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 5 Aug 2008 6:54 pm

NOT EVEN CLOSE.DYKBC.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 5 Aug 2008 7:32 pm

I agree with Dave's comment other than "Not Music"!
Garth has and still makes good music today.

Actually, my comment about "not music" was about the music biz, not Garth. Whether or not one thinks Garth makes "good music" is a judgement value - I wouldn't even begin to argue one way or the other - I have my preferences and so does everybody. I argue that Garth is a professional country singer. I routinely hear arguments to the contrary, and I disagree.

But I don't think the reason he is so big is about music. I honestly doubt the people that make those marketing decisions care very much about the music - it's about how he has played to a particular demographic set and raked in millions and millions of dollars. I honestly think that if those marketeers thought they could market Dale Watson like that, they'd do it. As Vito said "It ain't personal, it's bidness."

It's a shame when all these millions of people hear singers like George Jones and Garth Brooks that they can't tell the difference between who is good and who isn't.

Is it so far beyond the pale of your experience that you can't accept that different people truly prefer different styles of music and singing?

I know lots of very discerning music listeners who just don't like old country music. These people are not morons, nor are they tone deaf. Many are fine musicians. In fact, just the kinds of things many of us - including me - love about George are just what they don't like.

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 6 Aug 2008 7:53 am

So did we agree that I am right, or not yet?

I have to say one thing in Garth's defense. I think he is a good singer-- not in Haggard's class, but good.

As I said, I only have his first 2 CD's, but my daughter has plenty more. (Ironically, she keeps putting the grip on my early Garth CDs.) He didn't stop being a good singer when he when commercial. His music and persona changes,big time, but I bet he can still sing "Much To Young" just fine.

To echo what Terry stated so well, with Garth it stopped being about the music some time ago when all the reviews talked about were the theatrics--fireworks, swinging trapezes, smashing guitars, etc.

Mark Durante · Post by **Mark Durante** » 7 Aug 2008 2:52 am

Alright Dave, you got me going now

Garth vs Jones
Big E vs Pete Drake
Hendrix vs Mayer
Some are just plain better than others regardless of popularity

( I really hate smiley faces)

Theresa Galbraith · Post by **Theresa Galbraith** » 7 Aug 2008 4:14 am

Ron,
When Garth smashed a guitar it really upset me, all the other stuff was entertaining. Didn't he receive many Entertainer Awards? Audiences today want to be entertained.

I love Merle's early material. I have many favorite songs, he's lost appeal with me since he doesn't use steel anymore.

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 7 Aug 2008 8:11 am

T,

The last Hag CDs that I really loved are the two Live at Billy Bob's CDs. Loads of Norm Hamlet's steel on those tracks--far more than the orginals.

Believe it or not, I think I saw Garth's smash job in the Country Music Hall of Fame years ago. Pretty insulting to anyone who has ever scraped together their pennies to buy a guitar, or any instrument. Guess he had to solidify the rock star personna.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 7 Aug 2008 8:41 am

Alright Dave, you got me going now

Don't get mad, Mark. People have a right to their tastes, regardless of how far off you - or I, for that matter - think they are. BTW, my comment was that Garth was a country singer, not that I prefer him to Merle Haggard. Anybody that really knows me knows full well that would be complete heresy.

Garth vs Jones
Big E vs Pete Drake
Hendrix vs Mayer
Some are just plain better than others regardless of popularity

I really want to know what metric one uses to make these comparisons. This stuff is strictly a matter of personal taste.

Believe it or not, I think I saw Garth's smash job in the Country Music Hall of Fame years ago. Pretty insulting to anyone who has ever scraped together their pennies to buy a guitar, or any instrument.

I don't like smashed guitars any more than you do, but I still liked The Who. Jimi even smashed some guitars, but still was one of the most important guitar players of the 20th century.

My question is, why does this kinda' stuff engender this kind of anger? Wouldn't it be better to just channel that into our own creative work and expect others to do the same. We cannot control other people, and it's pointless trying.

Mark Durante · Post by **Mark Durante** » 7 Aug 2008 8:59 am

Dave, I was just being funny with the smiley faces and all. Yes, my taste is different than most and I don't begrudge any one else for their taste, but I do think that popularity has little to do with talent sometimes and I think it's a shame when lesser talents have more success than greater talents. Van Gogh sold one painting during his life. You can't say it was because all the other painters were better. Some people are obviously more talented than others regardless of popular taste. Maybe the people that like Garth don't care about anything but superficial entertainment and there's nothing wrong with that...............

Henry Nagle · Post by **Henry Nagle** » 7 Aug 2008 9:29 am

Theresa Galbraith wrote:Ron,

I love Merle's early material. I have many favorite songs, he's lost appeal with me since he doesn't use steel anymore.

Norm Hamlett is still playing with Merle Haggard. I just saw him a few months ago.

Theresa Galbraith · Post by **Theresa Galbraith** » 7 Aug 2008 11:16 am

I stand corrected then.

I thought a few cd's back, he didn't use steel.

Ron ! · Post by **Ron !** » 7 Aug 2008 1:25 pm

Van Gogh sold one painting during his life.

Where did you get that at?Definitely not out of your history book.

IMHO Garth and Merle cannot be compared in any category.Garth is the idol for this era's country and western fan.The same as Merle was for ours.
I don't see where we can compare these artists.

I really want to know what metric one uses to make these comparisons. This stuff is strictly a matter of personal taste.

I do not agree with Dave a lot but this time he hits the nail straight on the head.

Ron

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 7 Aug 2008 1:49 pm

Dave, I'll give you one metric. As far as I know Merle Haggard never took nine years off to spend his money. He was a constant artist.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 7 Aug 2008 2:33 pm

Dave, I'll give you one metric. As far as I know Merle Haggard never took nine years off to spend his money. He was a constant artist.

So, let me understand this correctly. The true measure of accomplishment in a field of endeavor is that one never takes a break from that field?

Lots of people - especially artists - take breaks in their work. Some just take a break. Some do something else. It doesn't change whatever it is they achieved. The examples are numerous. Elvis went into the Army, came back and made bad movies, and then reinvented himself musically. Sneaky Pete had years where he focused on his graphical art. We can all probably come up with examples. None of this denigrates past achievements.

Frankly - sometimes a recharge of the batteries is a real good idea. Maybe some of the tragic losses we've had in the music biz would have gone differently if the artists had realized they were burned out and needed a break.

This stuff is all just personal preference. Look, I'm with you on that particular preference - I feel the same way you do, I think. The only difference is that I think it's destructive - not to them, but to me - to bitterly denigrate other people. Believe me - there are times when stuff bugs me too. But to me, the first step in dealing with things that I don't like is to reaffirm what I do positively. Comparisons are strictly apples and oranges.

My opinions, of course.

Mark Durante · Post by **Mark Durante** » 7 Aug 2008 3:11 pm

Hey Ron I've been learning "Song for Sara" and just about got it but need to practice it a lot more, thanks. (Paul Franklin, now there is a talent).
Actually I did get that out of the history book.
Van Gogh died July 29 1890 at age 37. Out of his entire production of about 870 paintings,(and 1,050 drawings) he sold just one during his lifetime, a painting called "The Red Vinyard".
Dave, look I agree with "to each his own" and I agree that saying this guy is better than that guy is childish. Everyone has their own special talent to offer the world. And alot of this really is apples and oranges.

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 7 Aug 2008 3:35 pm

Dave Mudgett wrote:

This stuff is strictly a matter of personal taste.

It's asking a lot from me to accept the difference between E and Drake as mere personal preference. No disrespect, but IMHO it's like comparing Vladimir Horowitz to Floyd Kramer. To quote Mark, "Some are just plain better than others regardless of popularity."

Terry Edwards · Post by **Terry Edwards** » 7 Aug 2008 5:02 pm

The thing about personal taste is
it's always changing.
That is ...if you try new things.

The more new things you try
the more you discover
that comparing one good thing to another
is pointless.

Is the best cheeseburger you ever had
better than than the best burrito or gyro?

Many of the same ingredients in both.
I'm glad I didn't just stick to cheeseburgers!

Music is much the same way for me.
A steady diet of anything is the only bad thing.

So who is the best musician of all time??

time...

...funny how it keeps changing everything.

(anyway, it's Danny Gatton ...at the moment)

T

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 7 Aug 2008 7:30 pm

The more new things you try
the more you discover
that comparing one good thing to another
is pointless.

Bingo.

Mark, I agree. I know you were, at least, in part in jest.

It's asking a lot from me to accept the difference between E and Drake as mere personal preference. No disrespect, but IMHO it's like comparing Vladimir Horowitz to Floyd Kramer.

If that ain't apples and oranges, I don't know what is. But you can do it any way you want. I love to listen to both Horowitz and Cramer - it's purely apples and oranges to me. BTW, you 'been watchin' Seinfeld too long - Kramer?

Let me say one other thing. I don't mean to rain on anybody's parade too much here. Sometimes it's good to just let it out. But my concern here is the sheer volume of bitchin' about this same ole' same ole' on this forum, and the constant one-sided nature of it. I argue that, at a certain point, it's unhealthy. That's not my choice, carry on if that's what you want to do. But the amount of ruffled feathers I see when I, and a few others, interject does concern me.

I wonder what would happen if someone from a non trad-country point of view came on here and constantly bitched like this about trad country artists that we love. Ya' know, the pedal steel guitar is emphatically NOT just a country instrument. There may be members out there seething at the kind of disrespect shown to the things that are near and dear to them. Ever think about that?

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 7 Aug 2008 9:12 pm

You know Dave, this is a discussion forum. Thats why it was created. Its not about "bitchin". Its about people discussing topics. Also, taking one metric as an example and making it my basis of a whole point is not fair. I could give you a half dozen "metrics" comparing Garth Brooks and Merle Haggard, and I believe that Merle Haggard would be the winner as far as a long term country music career would go. Actually Garth Brook's run only lasted about ten years. Haggard's about fourty, and he is still actively creating. I don't recall any rock bands covering Brook's material in tribute. Haggard's
has. I think Brooks ripped off Chris Ledoux's whole stage act. Are you aware of that? Thats where he got his stage act from.