Okay, here we go!
I read (and continue to read) the June 15 thread by Bill Hankey entitled "Will True Country Music Make A Comeback Without Deviations?" with both fascination and bewilderment. The $64,000 question seems to be how one would define the term "True Country."
This list could be never-ending, but in the spirit of brevity I will limit it to the following half-dozen old, familiar tunes. My question: Do these songs qualify as "True Country?" Or not "Country" at all.
Can a song be made country by adding pedal steel?
Or other instruments?
Sierra S10, Stage One, Gibson BR4, Framus, Guya 6&8, Hofner lap, Custom mandolins, Keilwerth sax.
Roland Cube 80XL, Peavey112-Valve King and Special, Marshall 100VS.
I'll take #3 only as country. Nothing else there fits the true genre. Jimmie Rogers was more folk/hillbilly ("Country Music" didn't exist back then) and the Roger Miller song has "Countrypolitan" (popified country) written all over it, so it's more pop music. The rest couldn't really be discussed as "country", unless it was jokingly.
Jimmie Rodgers is The Father of Country Music. he qualifies.
Roger Miller will always be more country than pop.
how about when Willie Nelson took a handful of his early classics and recorded them in a reggae style. are those songs no longer country?
Buck Owens referred to Chuck Berry as country music, and it's tough to argue with that considering his background and upbringing. Elvis got his start as a country artist.
"Country" is just a label after all. created to appeal to a certain demographic and sell more records. don't let it define or decide what's good and what isn't.
To the general public, the country sound is defined by tonal characteristics, rhythm, lyrics, and vocal qualities. The definition changes over time - it is different today from what it was just 20 years ago. But there's also a large cultural element, which is usually evident in the vocal delivery.
All of the 6 songs mentioned could be played by a country cover band, and the audience would hear them as country. So I would say that the songs are country today. But the country music audience of the time did not accept the even-numbered recordings (2, 4 and 6) for cultural reasons. The cultural anomaly is apparent in the vocal delivery: Charlie Patton sounds black, Ringo isn't a good singer, and Janis improvises way too much. Also, everyone knew that they weren't country artists. In all 3 cases, you could take the same music with a different, more acceptable singer and it would be "true country".
Today, Jack White plays excellent country music, but his country songs won't get airplay next to Brad Paisley. The reason has little to do with chords, melody, rhythm, lyrics or instrumentation. His appearance and vocal style are alien to the country music audience. It's cultural.
We musicians are focused on instrumentation and form. That's our job. We hear "country" in a very technical way. The audience isn't listening the same way we are. Once we get them in the door and play a somewhat recognizable country style, it's up to singer to deliver the goods. If the country audience can't relate to the singer, it's not country music.
Last edited by b0b on 4 Jul 2014 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
But Ringo Starr and the Beatles recording of Act Naturally is an interesting novelty song for them... but calling that a Country recording is a stretch, because of who the ...
That's shattering my worldview, Doug.
For me Country songs by the Beatles were:
Eight Days A Week
I Don't want To Spoil The Party
I've Just Seen A Face
Don't Pass Me By
The Ballad Of John And Yoko
Fender Kingman, Sierra Crown D-10, Evans Amplifier, Soup Cube.
Once again, you musicians are focused on the form and instrumentation. I tell you, none of that matters. Country is defined by the audience, not by the music. If the country music audience can't relate to the singer, the music is not country. Period.
The Beatles may have sounded country at times, but they never made real country music.
The Beatles may have sounded country at times, but they never made real country music.
Yes, that's what I was trying to say...
Nothing the Beatles ever recorded could be called "Country Music" IMO. It was an imitation of country music, almost a parody... and believe me, I was a huge Beatles fan back in the 60s. I'm just sayin'... It takes more than the song, the groove, the lyrics, etc. The Artist has to Live the music and Live the message in the music to be "authentic" and to be accepted in that genre.
Consider Frank Sinatra's great 1949 recording of "Sunflower", recorded with a live country band and featuring a steel guitar solo ... As wonderful as the song sounds, IMO it's not "Country Music" simply because it's Sinatra. There was not an ounce of "country" in Sinatra's image, his voice, his demeanor. The public will always see him as a crooner, a swinger, The Chairman of the Board, but certainly not Country! Here's a link to Sunflower ----> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4Wqi-P8TGs&feature=kp
Redline Resophonic
MSA Superslide 12-string Reece Anderson tuning, dropped down to B
MSA “The Universal†in Reece Andersons Bb universal tuning, raised to B
TomKat Amp how I earn a living
Country Music is about human animal-bar-life of Drinking,Dancing & cheating on the one you love. Than you add the Trains,Trucks and hot rides into the woods by the river & wake up at the moon. After that you add drugs that helps Musicians play better notes in their mind they can't seem to get out without it. I think there's more to it but you need to live it to know or be clear & clean about it to make folks respect you for not understanding what drum beats & bass Guitar patterns in that rhythms is that the instrumental blue ribbon cut is. Who really cares about all of this anyway but me? Music is Music & life is life so keep on trucking. Uncle Leo J Eiffert Jr & the Pigeons -facebook.
then i guess faron young was still country even when he sounded like dean martin.
and dean martin was country when he sang little ol wine drinker me because he sounded drunk. or because he sounded like faron young?
great thread.. oh lord.. it's so subjective.. Beggars Banquet, Sweetheart of the Rodeo... Dylan for the most part.. even some Pink Floyd..Grateful Dead. I hear country... I turn on the local country station now??? is this really country? Just because they tell me it is..?
Fun to rant.. doesn't mean a thing.. love what you love, why label it?
There is no unique answer to the question, "Is a particular song country?" or any other style - blues, jazz, folk, rock, rock and roll, classical, whatever. These labels were originally developed for, and are still primarily for, marketing the music. IMO, they really have little musicological significance. So I think these discussions of "Precisely what is country/blues/jazz/etc." are pretty delusional.
I think the bigger issues are
1. Artistic intent
2. Audience self-identity and perception
To my way of thinking - if an artist says to me, "Here's a country song for you.", then I, as an audience member, at least initially evaluate it in those terms. I may conclude that I agree or don't agree with the artist's assessment, and I may further decide whether or not I like it. Who the hell cares? Maybe the artist cares, maybe not. But why should anybody else care what I think, except perhaps if there are some marketeers trying to scam some $$$ off it.
The part about audience self-identity is also pretty much impossible. Who gets to decide who is a "country audience", a "blues audience", a "jazz audience", or a "rock audience"? I say each person decides this for him or herself. The other thing is that many, if not most, people are not hung up on one style only. And each of these people will perceive things differently.
So this stuff if strictly relativistic to me. I know there are a lot of absolutists out there, and I'm sure they will completely disagree with me on this. No problem. From a practical point of view, non-relativism works in some situations, but can't be extrapolated beyond those situations. That's true in physics also. But my take is that a non-relativistic view is just a special case - a projection onto a narrower frame of reference - of the wider relativistic view. If there's only country music in your world view, and you have a particular idea what country music is, always was, and must always be - well, that's a pretty limited frame of reference. It may be valid for you, but don't expect everybody else to see it this way.
On "Act Naturally" - I think The Beatles' version is as much a country song as Buck's version is a rockin' song, and I think Buck Owens rocked as good as anybody out there when he wanted to. Those two-steps rock to me - the big beat, that's what rock and roll was always about from the beginning.
Dave Mudgett wrote:
1. Artistic intent
2. Audience self-identity and perception
3. Artistic ineptitude may be more important. An "artist" (in the broad, commercial sense of the term) is often ridiculed as inauthentic if he is capable of playing more than one specialized kind of music.
Uncle Leo J Eiffert Jr & the Pigeons -facebook.
