Merle Haggard lives, Garth Brooks is long gone

[Dave Mudgett]

You know Dave, this is a discussion forum. Thats why it was created. Its not about "bitchin".

Then why is there so much bitchin'? It would be pointless to quote examples - just read any thread about "country music" and it's palpable.

Also, taking one metric as an example and making it my basis of a whole point is not fair.

You put that metric out, not me. I think it's irrelevant - that's my point. I could quote plenty of metrics that would argue the other direction. Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't accept them any more than you. In fact, it's easy to quote metrics in either direction. My point is that those metrics are quite arbitrary - it's a person's value system that defines what they like or don't. No matter what metrics you use, there are going to be people who agree on their relevance, and plenty of others who disagree.

The minute you try to quantify this and say "So and so is better than so and so, I have the metrics that prove it.", you're beat. If you just say "I prefer this.", no problem. But of course, that doesn't have the visceral self-righteousness of "That stuff is garbage, my preferred music is better, these other people are losers (or worse)." Sorry, but I don't think I'm exaagerating the tone of many comments on this forum. Again - can you imagine the outrage if a steel player into other genres came on here and talked about Merle Haggard the way many people here talk about Toby Keith, Kenny Chesney, and Garth Brooks? Do you think someone doesn't have a right to hold that opinion? I don't buy the double standard. {In this paragraph, my use of the word "you" is editorial - not directly specifically at anybody in particular.}

BTW - Garth's KISS stage act bores me to tears. I saw him about 10 years ago - some of the music was good, but the trapeze wires - YAWN. So what? Most of the crowd loved it. But I thought we were talking about music here.

[Ray Minich]

Listen to the guitar work backing up Merle in "Sing Me Back Home", it's complex, intricate, and fabulous. It grabs me by the ear and I can hear every little nuance.

None of Garth's work compares...

There are those music listeners to whom this doesn't matter.

[Earnest Bovine]

I thought everybody liked Garth Brooks's music, until I read these recent posts!

[Barry Blackwood]

Dave Mudgett wrote

If that ain't apples and oranges, I don't know what is.

Both Horowitz and Cramer are popular keyboard artists, no? In that respect, I say apples to apples. Where are the oranges? That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

[Steinar Gregertsen]

I've never understood this need to compare artists and players, what's the point?
Was Chet Atkins a better guitarist than Keith Richards? No doubt about that, but he would never have filled Richards' shoes in the Stones.
So - this whole "better" this or that is a complete waste of time, life's too short, enjoy the music you enjoy and don't worry about the rest.

Well, that's how I see it on a rainy Friday night up here in the north anyway.....

[Barry Blackwood]

Was Chet Atkins a better guitarist than Keith Richards? No doubt about that

So - this whole "better" this or that is a complete waste of time

My apologies, but these statements appear, on the surface at least, to be contradictory.

[Steinar Gregertsen]

My apologies, but these statements appear, on the surface at least, to be contradictory.

Yeah, I can see that, but what I meant to say is that while Atkins was a better guitarist in terms of skills and musical knowledge, Richards was still a better guitarist for the Stones - which is where he works and lives, musically. So - they're both "better", in their own way, and comparing them is really pointless.. I tried to point that out in the second half of the "Atkins quote" you left out.

Not that anyone has compared them earlier on in this thread, they're just a random example in an attempt to make a point... Or whatever...

[Barry Blackwood]

what I meant to say is... ...Atkins was a better guitarist in terms of skills and musical knowledge...

I understand you completely, Steinar, and that is exactly what I have been trying to say about Emmons vs. Drake. Strictly in terms of "skills and musical knowledge," it's Emmons hands down, any other factors not considered.

[Steinar Gregertsen]

I hear you, and my basic point is - so what? I mean, good for Emmons, but the bottom line for me is to just enjoy the actual music being played. These "X is better than Y" discussions is the stuff I remember from being a teenager when it was really important for me to point out that Hendrix was better than Clapton, etc etc...

[Barry Blackwood]

You're right Steinar, so what?

[Theresa Galbraith]

It's all subjective.

[Terry Edwards]

But ...Hendrix was better than Clapton!
...or was it Page

Music is art and technical knowledge and complexity have little to do with how well a song or solo works.

Please don't make me bring up the intro to a certain CS&N song!! You know, that simple memorable tasteful intro by that person that did not consider himself a professional steel player.

John Lennon was reluctant to introduce "Tomorrow Never Knows" to George Martin because the song contained only one chord!

Sometimes simple is genius.

The most amazing guitar playing ever by any human being on this planet was "Machine Gun" - Jimi Hendrix live.

At least I think he was on this planet.

T
(I like Buddy Emmons too...along with many others)

[Tony Prior]

And Keith wrote some of the best CLASSIC rock songs known to mankind !

Merles recordings were great, he used great players . some were in his band and others were some of the best studio guys around ,aka Reggie Young. The players played the SONGS, just as the players on Garths songs did. I'm sure Bruce is scratching his head right about now. He played great with Ricky and Garth..how can that be ?

Not sure why there is any sort of comparison other than..

they played different styles ?? Is that it ?

Dave Davies was better than Gerry of the Pacemakers

Beck was better than both of those other guys..at the time...I think he's still better than one of them

T too

[Dave Mudgett]

Both Horowitz and Cramer are popular keyboard artists, no? In that respect, I say apples to apples. Where are the oranges? That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. Razz

Horowitz was a conservatory-trained master classical pianist, one of the greatest in that style of the 20th century. Apple.

Cramer was a self-taught master country pianist, one of the greatest in that style of the 20th century. Orange.

I like both apples and oranges equally well. Each reached the pinnacle of his art. One is not "better" than another - UNLESS you insist on setting a metric that favors one style or the other. For example, if you insist that technical virtuosity to handle fast and complex passages is the metric, Horowitz wins. But if you argue that the ability to tastefully play the country music that you love is the metric, Cramer wins.

Your value system determines your metric. I infer from your conclusion that you adopt something closer to the first metric. Fine, but that is purely your subjective opinion about what is most important in pianists.

Who's a better guitar player: Yngvie Malmsteen or B.B. King? Based on your previous analysis, I expect that you should choose Yngvie, who can play rings around B.B. on technically difficult material. Whatever. Apples and oranges again, and some people rate it completely differently.

Feel free to do it whatever way you want. But don't think it isn't completely subjective and arbitrary. IMHO.

[Barry Blackwood]

One is not "better" than another

By your yardstick then, there is no "best" to which to aspire, no "bar" to be raised, and Pete and Buddy are equal across the board. Supposedly we are all created equal - after that, all bets are off. IMO, of course.

[Kevin Hatton]

The point is that Garth Brooks will stop touring again when he has replenished his bank account. Merle Haggard will stop creating and touring when he can't hold a guitar in his hands anymore. Merle Haggard IS country music.

[Stephen Gambrell]

The point is that Garth Brooks will stop touring again when he has replenished his bank account. Merle Haggard will stop creating and touring when he can't hold a guitar in his hands anymore. Merle Haggard IS country music.

I doubt if Garth's bank account is the reason he's touring, or recording, again. Not unless he wants MORE money for his "grandchildren's grandchildren" to spend. You ever think that maybe, just MAYBE, he LIKES what he's doing? That he ENJOYS being screamed at by thousands of his fans in a sold-out arena?
Honestly, the things people get themselves worked up about...

[Dave Mudgett]

By your yardstick then, there is no "best" to which to aspire, no "bar" to be raised, and Pete and Buddy are equal across the board.

Not exactly, but I do think that there is no "absolute best" to aspire to. I'm simply saying that if one insists on ordering objects in a set, then one must be able to define an ordering relation to construct what is mathematically called a partial order - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_theory - and that the way one does this is really quite arbitary. You seem to say there's an "absolute yardstick". I disagree.

There are some pretty abstract ways to look at partial orders, but most any normal human being I know interested in doing this objectively would have some type of consistent "quality" metric - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_%28mathematics%29 - to apply to all the elements in the set, and then use the normal real-number relation ≤ (less than or equal to) to order the elements.

I personally don't see the benefit of this, since I don't know how to set up a consistent metric that would give me an ordering that would accurately reflect my preferences in music. My preferences are determined by sometimes conflicting musical features. In some music, complexity and virtuosity are important to me. In other music, those features are completely irrelevant if not actually counter to the feeling I want from the music. To me, music is basically an emotional expression, and my emotions are often conflicted. I think that's true for most people, but I can only speak authoritatively for me.

So, to me, the very concept of rigorously ordering music, or art in general, is fraught with problems. This doesn't mean that I don't have preferences - I definitely do. But I completely concede that my preferences are just that - my preferences. YMMV, and it probably does. Further, I can't ever remember talking to another person whose take on music was not, in some way, unique. To me, that is prima facie evidence that humans perceive music differently.

One final point. Why does ordering music like this matter at all? What is it that makes people want to do this? Why is it not possible to just appreciate the music one likes and let others do the same? I really don't get it. These are not rhetorical questions.

[Barry Blackwood]

I do think that there is no "absolute best"

You seem to say there's an "absolute yardstick"

David, you're putting words in my mouth. We are talking "better than" as in a comparison. I suppose there could be an "absolute" best but it would only last until something or someone came along to top it.

One is not "better" than another

A Lexus and a Hundai are both automobiles. Is one better than another? If not, then why the huge price difference? Is a LeGrande III better than a Maverick? In the human realm, is the Olympic gold medal winner better than the silver and bronze winners? I view these comparisons as apples to apples, be it cars, guitars, or stars.This is what I'm driving at - personal preferences be damned.

[Dave Mudgett]

David, you're putting words in my mouth.

I don't think so. I was responding to your words - "best". Here's what you said:

By your yardstick then, there is no "best" to which to aspire, ...

Further, I'm arguing that any standard for "better" or "worse" is arbitrary.

A Lexus and a Hundai are both automobiles. Is one better than another? If not, then why the huge price difference?

Do you really believe that price always sets quality? I'll bet there are people who prefer Hyundai to Lexus. I know I prefer my Honda to any Lexus any day of the week, and it's a helluvalot less expensive.

In the human realm, is the Olympic gold medal winner better than the silver and bronze winners?

It depends on how you measure. Sometimes, if you look at the long record, the silver or bronze medal winner is the stronger athlete, but just had a bad day, or the gold medal winner had a lucky day.

I view these comparisons as apples to apples, be it cars, guitars, or stars.This is what I'm driving at - personal preferences be damned.

There - you said it - "I view". That is your personal preference to view it that way. That's fine, but it's not the way everybody views it. You are making my point precisely.

[chris ivey]

garth is a great marketer...merle has soul!

[Barry Blackwood]

David, you're putting words in my mouth.

At no time did I use the word "absolute," unless by saying "best," it was automatically inferred.

I'll bet there are people who prefer Hyundai to Lexus. I know I prefer my Honda to any Lexus any day of the week, and it's a helluvalot less expensive.

Yes, I prefer my Honda to a Lexus as well, but it's a personal preference, and that's not what we're supposed to be talking about here. Is there any question that the Lexus is a vastly superior automobile, no matter which one we personally happen to like better?

It depends on how you measure. Sometimes, if you look at the long record, the silver or bronze medal winner is the stronger athlete, but just had a bad day, or the gold medal winner had a lucky day.

Oh come on Dave, really. You're grabbing at straws on this one.

Cars to cars - apples to apples. Guitars to guitars - apples to apples. People to people - apples to apples. Fact, yes or no? If some things weren't better than others in this world, everything would be the same. How awful. At least we both like Hondas ....

[Kevin Hatton]

Why do people order music????? Why do they order anything? Why not just close the Forum down then we won't have any opinions. Some things are the real deal, and some things are short term fakes. Not getting worked up, just making an observation about commercialism vs. legend. If you don't think Garth Brooks is not money consious, Ive got a bridge I want to sell you.

[Stephen Gambrell]

Why do people order music????? Why do they order anything? Why not just close the Forum down then we won't have any opinions. Some things are the real deal, and some things are short term fakes. Not getting worked up, just making an observation about commercialism vs. legend. If you don't think Garth Brooks is not money consious, Ive got a bridge I want to sell you.

Kevin, ol' pal, YOU started this thread. I agree that Merle Haggard is, or WAS a genius the likes of whom we'll never hear again, it's ALL about opinions. Garth's "The Thunder Rolls" is a great song. But read what you wrote, above. Makes no sense, dude. You been drinking?

[Earnest Bovine]

. Makes no sense, dude. You been drinking?

I think Kevin was trying, at least in his first posts, to find something disrespectful to say about Garth Brooks.