Living In The Past

Bruce Meyer · Post by **Bruce Meyer** » 13 Nov 2009 10:03 pm

I feel there must be something seriously wrong with me. I'm approaching 60 and I'm not offended by most of the new country and actually like some of it. Please someone help me.

Roger Prigmore · Post by **Roger Prigmore** » 13 Nov 2009 10:40 pm

Interesting topic and no doubt one that gets ressurectred from time to time as some people become aware of certain dynamics in the [circular] evolution of music.....especially traditional country music. Of all the music genres of our nations history, predating the beginning of the 60's and 70's social revolution, "traditional" country remains ever so popular worldwide and out sells anything of the revolution and current era music.

Traditional music that feeds ones soul in search of harmony will always live on while revolutionary [message] music will always eventually die on the vine. Fear not...good ole traditional country will be around for a very long time either on the peaks of mountains or occasionally in the valley.....just seek and ye shall find!

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 13 Nov 2009 11:20 pm

It's just a matter of how elusive the meaning of labels is. What makes a given example of music belong to this or that category?

What common thread puts Mozart and Schoenberg under the same "classical" label? What common thread puts "Rock Around the Clock", "Strawberry Fields Forever", and [insert death metal title--I don't know any] under the "rock" label? What common thread puts Louis Armstrong and Mahavishnu Orchestra under the "jazz" label?

Herb Steiner · Post by **Herb Steiner** » 14 Nov 2009 5:55 am

Brint
Wide stylistic variation within each musical genre, fer sure.

1. Erudite, composed music played by orchestral instruments;

2. "Rebellious" music with initial acceptance by adolescents/teenagers;

3. Predominantly improvised music.

Bill Bassett · Post by **Bill Bassett** » 14 Nov 2009 6:18 am

I know everyone loves to rant about the sorry state of country music these days but consider this:
The product coming out of Nashville these days still features many of our musical heros. The session players are still doing there thing better than anyone else in the world. Just like they have always done right through trends and fashions and styles etc.

BDBassett
Rimrock AZ

Lee Baucum · Post by **Lee Baucum** » 14 Nov 2009 7:04 am

Herb - Thanks for bringing up "Games People Play". I had completely forgotten about that book. "Ain't It Awful" describes the situation perfectly!

Lee

Jeff Evans · Post by **Jeff Evans** » 14 Nov 2009 11:10 am

Dirty Filthy Mugs

Songs about stained coffee cups are classic.

Bob Simons · Post by **Bob Simons** » 14 Nov 2009 4:28 pm

I wonder if there's a sax forum somewhere so old folks can complain endlessly because rock and roll no longer employs sax players since the invention of the distorted electric guitar.

The attitude of you old fellas are just about as boringly repetitious, low-brow, and indistinguishably common as the music you are constantly bragging about. OF course there were many good tunes and good performances in the last 60 years of country music, but for the most part, it is endlessly the same and rubbish, to my ear.

The idea of a classic country fan faulting anyone for singing or playing out of tune is so hypocritical it's beyond laughable! I thought you had to have an adenoidal problem, a ham fist, and a tin ear to qualify as a country singer in the first place.

I just loaded 10 CD's of "classic country" hits 40's to 70's on my ipod. It seems like most of them were "novelty" tunes of one sort or another, and frankly, across the board, there wasn't that high a percentage of steel guitar riffs featured.

Your memory is growing rather selective fellas...and by the way, everybody was perfectly happy with Jimmy Rogers, Roy Acuff, and a few others....who decided we needed them fancy new fake country singers like Ray Price or Tammy Wynette and the whole herd of girls who look like linebackers and whine about their trampy alcoholic marriages all day.

Time marches on! I'd rather listen to Chopin and Bach to tell you the truth....

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 15 Nov 2009 8:20 am

I'd rather listen to Chopin and Bach to tell you the truth....

Bob, now that's really being stuck in the past!

Rick Campbell · Post by **Rick Campbell** » 15 Nov 2009 1:20 pm

The people living in the past are the ones that have been convinced that 70's and 80's rock and roll has any business on the country charts.

I'm all for the new country artist, Justin Trevino, Amber Digby, Bobby Flores, etc.... but they don't get any major market airplay because the old rock has taken over the country stations. They would sound out of place on a major FM station.

If this is what country has evolved to, then it has evolved backwards. Nothing new here. Just the same music that played out in one genre finding a home in another.

Ron Whitfield · Post by **Ron Whitfield** » 16 Nov 2009 10:51 am

Today's popular Country music has taken on a decidedly 'rock' styling, but NOT 'ROCK n ROLL'.
Rock n Roll is a distinct brand of good music, true lovers know when it's played right, whereas 'rock' covers an immense amount of ground and in that will be a lot of crap.
I havn't heard any current pop country that isn't at least verging on crap.

Joachim Kettner · Post by **Joachim Kettner** » 16 Nov 2009 12:22 pm

Rock'n'Roll: Eddie Cochran,Buddy Holly, Elvis etc.
Folk- Rock: The Byrds, Lovin' Spooonful etc,
Singer, Songwriters: Tim Hardin,Kenny Rankin
70's Rock: Little Feat, Doobie Brothers
and so on...
They were all amazing and good and have very little to do with this discussion about R'n R' being the New Country.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 17 Nov 2009 8:34 am

Herb Steiner wrote:Brint
Wide stylistic variation within each musical genre, fer sure.

1.[classical] Erudite, composed music played by orchestral instruments;

2.[rock] "Rebellious" music with initial acceptance by adolescents/teenagers;

3.[jazz] Predominantly improvised music.

Herb, good "definitions" for the genres I mentioned.

I would describe your definitions as representing the "inclusive" point of view. But within at least a couple of those genres, there are people who will "disallow" some of the examples I cited. Some jazz "purists" would say Mahavishnu isn't jazz, some classical purists would say Schoenberg is just noise. ("Rock" as a category seems least affected by these distinctions--people distinguish between "good" and "bad" rock, or rock they like or don't like, but don't tend to say "That ain't rock" about what they don't like.)

And of course, music presented as "country" seems to be subjected to these "that ain't country" discriminations more than any other genre. (except maybe bluegrass!)

As has frequently been pointed out, well before the era of the current Nashville product that is so richly disliked here (I don't like it either), there was a wide variation in music that was called "country". Carter Family, Buck Owens, Ray Price "For the Good Times" with string orchestra, Hank Williams Jr....

So if one were to attempt to make a similar inclusive definition of the "country" genre, what would it be?

Not that it matters!

Rick Campbell · Post by **Rick Campbell** » 17 Nov 2009 2:37 pm

I believe if one has to consult "Webster's" for a definiation of country music, then they'll never understand what we are discussing here. I don't think you can define the emotion that a singer can transfer to a listener that causes goose bumps. Either you feel it or you don't.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 17 Nov 2009 3:31 pm

Do you believe that's a different kind of goosebumps from what lovers of other genres of music feel?

"I don't think you can define the emotion that a singer [I would add "or player"] can transfer to a listener that causes goose bumps. Either you feel it or you don't."

That would be a good definition of "good" music. It doesn't have anything to do with what is or isn't "country" music.

And my point is exactly that all that matters is the distinction between "good" and "bad" music, and that distinction is personal to each individual.

Clete Ritta · Post by **Clete Ritta** » 18 Nov 2009 3:02 am

In my teens, I loved rock music: Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Zeppelin.
In my twenties, I loved fusion music: Dixie Dregs, Return to Forever, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Steps Ahead, Brecker Brothers and most heavy metal bands.
In my thirties, I loved jazz and classical music: Bill Evans, Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Mike Stern, Mozart, Beethoven, Bach.
In my forties now, I still love all the same music, and have added country music to the list. It took a long time, but it's why I got hooked on steel guitar! Luckily there are still some mainstream country artists who utilize steel guitar prominently (and all those great classic country records Im hearing for the first time!).
As I've delved into the instrument itself, I've discovered so many aspects of music it has inspired that once again, my musical horizons have broadened.

Radio is built on repetition and what young people buy. Thats just business.
Its not just todays country music that suffers, but literally all forms of good music. There are so many different great forms of music, and to me its more about being turned on to something new (or old) thats not on the radio.
When I watch TV, I usually mute the commercials.
Listening to songs on radio today is almost like listening to a commercial.
If a hit song isnt in a commercial, it may be bought and in one soon.
Just like movies, songs are like little stories. Theres a shortage of good screenwriters in Hollywood too. Yea they dont write em like that anymore, but every once in a while, something valid comes down the pike.
Just gotta keep your ear to the ground.
Clete

Ben Lawson · Post by **Ben Lawson** » 18 Nov 2009 3:54 am

Leslie does that mean responsibility and a good work ethic are not important today? I'm not trying to be argumentative, I guess I just don't understand what you meant. I'm not always the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree.

David Mason · Post by **David Mason** » 18 Nov 2009 5:54 am

It's helpful to understand that mainstream radio, the major record labels, television and "the music press" are all connected in a symbiotic relationship. When a USA Today reporter is looking for a story about "the music biz" he contacts a... major radio exec, or a major record company. What's on the radio is what's on TV, but it's a minor part of what people under the age of 35 actually care about.

What's happening today is largely outside of the information stream that shows up on TV or radio. For example, CD sales are THRIVING - 75% of all music sales are in CD's. They're just not Sony, BMG, Warner's CD's. CD Baby is thriving, CD Universe is thriving, Amazon is thriving... Discmakers is thriving. iTunes may be the only tie-in between the big labels and what people are listening to, and if you look at their big sellers, I've never heard of most of them. P2P, peer-to-peer, is the new market model. The people who are making the record deals with Best Buy, Target & Wal-Mart are the washed-up oldies - KISS, Journey, Garth Brooks, Lynryd Skynyrd. I don't buy anything retro-nostalgia nonsense like that, and I am old. The new KISS record?!?

Look at it this way - the inmates are running the asylum, but the guards are still locked up in the tower, telling lies to their private press corps and wondering how in the world they're going to keep skimming money off the talent, now that the talent doesn't NEED them any more. The tower is falling. Whee.

The Steel Guitar Forum

Living In The Past

You Might Want To Consider...

Let's be clear...