Opry Members Fuming Over Changes

Janice Brooks · Post by **Janice Brooks** » 29 Sep 2002 9:10 am

Veteran Opry members fuming over changes

By PETER COOPER
Staff Writer

The membership of the Grand Ole Opry has historically been viewed as a family, a like-minded coalition of country stars who work in symbiosis with Opry management to put on the greatest country music show on earth each Friday and Saturday evening.

But if the Opry is still a family, it's a family in transition. And with transition comes dissension.

Efforts to broaden the show's audience and reach a younger demographic have caused hurt feelings and angry verbiage among some of the 77-year-old show's cast members. Opry General Manager Pete Fisher has done away with what he calls a ''members-only'' approach to booking, and three Opry members — Del Reeves, Stonewall Jackson and Country Music Hall of Famer Charlie Louvin — are livid over the show's direction.

The artists say Fisher's scheduling of a bevy of contemporary acts minimizes the visibility of longstanding, even legendary, favorites.

''People don't drive from Des Moines to Nashville to be surprised at the Grand Ole Opry,'' Louvin said. ''There's nothing wrong with putting some of those people in — and some of them are really good — but only after you have scheduled the people responsible for putting the building up.''

At today's Opry, artists without hit records or widespread popularity are sometimes offered performance slots while longtime members sit idly at home.

''In the past, if you came to the Opry one year and then came again 12 months later, you might see basically the same show,'' said Lyric Street Records President Randy Goodman. ''Now, you don't know who's going to be there. It could be Brad Paisley, Vince Gill, Sara Evans or Porter Wagoner.''

Or it could be little-known, critically acclaimed singer-songwriter Mike Ireland, traditional-sounding Warner Bros. debut act Elizabeth Cook, or lush-voiced indie act Mandy Barnett, or pop-country vocal trio SHeDAISY. With a finite number of slots available (normally, 16 or 17 acts perform in a 2½-hour show), the open-door policy toward guests means some members spend the weekend at home.

''I used to be on the Opry every time the curtain opened,'' said Louvin, who joined in 1955 as half of sibling harmony act The Louvin Brothers. ''My brother (Ira) and I came here when you had to make 26 Saturday nights a year just to remain a member.

''The Opry paid $6 for me and $9 for my brother, so together we made $15 a show,'' he said.

To Louvin, Jackson and Reeves, that commitment to the radio program made career sense even if it escaped fiscal logic. The artists were pleased to take advantage of the Opry's popularity with country fans, and they say they were told that if they remained loyal to the Opry, then the Opry would remain loyal to them. To the artists, the performances were like a loyalty deposit, one that would surely be reimbursed in later years.

''Unfortunately, we've lost the people who knew about the deposit,'' Louvin said. ''Just this year, I've missed 27 Saturday nights and 29 Friday nights. They do two shows each Saturday, so that makes for a total of 83 shows.

''I've missed as many shows already this year as I missed last year, and my brother and I were elected to the Country Music Hall of Fame last year. Pete (Fisher) may not want me in his world, but I helped build Pete's world.''

The venom in Louvin's comments may be seen as the outgrowth of a naturally contentious relationship. Fisher programs the show and — although he answers to Steve Buchanan, Gaylord Entertainment Co. senior vice president of media and entertainment, and ultimately to stockholders who want the show to help Gaylord turn a profit — the general manager is likely to receive the same scrutiny and criticism from Opry artists that a construction foreman would receive from his hammer-wielding charges.

A look at the history books offers evidence that Opry management has sometimes made hard and unpopular decisions, using some performers more than others, firing members (most famously, the unfortunate dismissals of Hank Williams and harmonica legend DeFord Bailey), and even contracting four string-band acts into two string-band acts in the late 1950s.

In Frye Gaillard's 1978 book Watermelon Wine: The Spirit of Country Music, Crook Brothers leader Herman Crook (then in his late 70s) complained that Opry management was ''waiting for us to die off'' and likened his treatment at the Opry to a man whose children turn against him.

''Fellows like us oughta be right in there,'' Crook told Gaillard. ''We were the backbone of the Opry.''

So, Opry artists' aversion to change is nothing new.

Yet the enduring music and numerous hits of Louvin (My Baby's Gone, If I Could Only Win Your Love), Reeves (Girl on the Billboard, Looking at the World Through a Windshield) and Jackson (Don't Be Angry, Waterloo) make their stances notable. As well, the men's proclamations seem particularly personal and decidedly public, and they back their opinions with what they see as evidence.

In an interview at the Ernest Tubb Record Store's Texas Troubadour Theater, Louvin pulled out his date book and showed the dates he had been left off the schedule, while Jackson offered to take a lie-detector test in defending an ''open letter'' that accuses Fisher of disrespect.

''(Fisher) said he would work as hard as possible until no gray hair was in the audience or on the stage,'' Jackson wrote in his letter, given to The Tennessean. ''He said 'Stonewall, you are too old and too country to fit in anymore.' ''

Reeves said he was hurt when Fisher spoke to him harshly after he went over his allotted performance time.

''He said, 'You went over your time,' '' Reeves said. ''I said, 'A minute and a half of that was applause. That's what I call entertaining.' He said, 'I don't care about your entertaining. I just want you to do your song and get off.' ''

Each man said the Opry had suffered since the Buchanan/Fisher regime began in 1999.

For his part, Fisher refuses to go tit-for-tat in a public forum. Rather than deny or defend particulars of his interactions with performers, he spoke of the Opry's programming initiatives and asked that his words be repeated without editing.

''We want to present a balanced mix of music: The legacy, the hits of today and some of the most promising artists of tomorrow,'' he said. ''Not only do we feel that philosophy presents an entertaining event, it also broadens the Opry's audiences. Broadening the audience is good for all of the artists, for tourism and for the future of the Opry. I believe we're delivering on our commitment to broadening the audience.

''At the same time, we greatly respect the contributions and the values that the legends provide to the Opry,'' Fisher said. ''The programming challenges we face are not unusual for an institution like the Opry, with a 77-year history.''

Fisher did speak recently to two specific artist complaints, each related to perceived cost-cutting measures on the show.

Louvin, Reeves and Jackson no longer perform on the Opry with their own fully staffed bands because Fisher has lessened the number of supporting musicians they are allowed. And Louvin said his Opry performances were cut drastically after he joined the Hall of Fame, in part because his Hall of Fame designation allowed him to take home $421 per appearance instead of his previous $221.

''Every performer is given the opportunity to present their music in the way that serves their music well, but at the same time, any given Opry show has in excess of 80 musicians on it,'' Fisher said. As for Louvin's Hall of Fame claim, he said, ''The programming of any artist on the Opry is not related to the scale payment they receive.''

Louvin, Reeves and Jackson each express love for the traditions of the Opry, and to a man say they would not want to be featured on the show if they could not sing on pitch, play with fervor and please audiences. The three old-time country stars say they routinely hear from fans who want to know why they are not on the Opry more, and they say it is difficult to answer them.

No immediate resolution seems imminent. The Opry's live attendance figures fluctuate based on Nashville tourism, so the fans' mandate cannot be accurately assessed. (The Opry won't release official attendance numbers.) Opry management remains committed to the audience-broadening measures that were instituted in 1999, and the ''I said, Pete said'' nature of some of the artists' complaints makes them impossible to corroborate.

But it is clear that the Grand Ole Opry of today has changed in the past half-decade from a nostalgia-based program to a blend of sounds and ages. And it is clear that the program is still viable enough to spur heated argument.

''I think that, for Pete, the challenge is, how do you revitalize? How do you target some of the younger demographics so that when a certain generation isn't here, that's not the end of the Opry?'' said Goodman.

''In a lot of ways, it's good that new people are coming along because it's important to maintain that tradition.''

Yet for Jackson, the programming arguments underscore the notion that the Opry is no more than the sum of its parts. ''We have a ... wonderful building now,'' he said. ''But without the artists and the comedians and the musicians, it's not the Grand Ole Opry.''

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 29 Sep 2002 10:03 am

You just can't please everybody. I've seen some older acts on the Opry that still give me chills, and I've seen some new ones on there that I would be ashamed to have playing at a backyard barbeque. And vice-versa, of course.

Why don't they just have two shows? A prime-time show with all the young sex-appeal "hat and belly-button" acts (that obviously haven't "paid their dues"..but sell the most CD's and bring in the young demographic), and then a later (time-shifted) show (televised after midnight?) that features the "Legends of the Opry"...the people that made it great, and the people...by the way...that still fill the Opry house.

Two different shows...two different audiences

GOD! It's not rocket science. You're just never gonna get junior and grandpa to be happy with one show.

Keep the old music, and the new music. Just keep 'em separate.

Let the audiences decide what they want. No more "posturing", no more fighting, no more insulted Hall-Of-Famers or corporate executives. Just one big happy family...because they don't have to live in the same rooms with each other.

chas smith · Post by **chas smith** » 29 Sep 2002 11:28 am

Don't go to the House of Blues and expect to hear blues.

John Bechtel · Post by **John Bechtel** » 29 Sep 2002 9:42 pm

The O'pry could be the O'pry again, if it got out of reach and as far away from Gaylord as possible! They've got a strangle hold on this town, and someone smarter needs to even the score! There's got to be someone somewhere capable of making things right! Some of these new "artists" need to start there own show, called by another name, not "The Grand Ole O'pry"! I guess after these statements, I'll never get to work the greatest country music show again! Unless changes are made! ("The Grand Ole O'pry") "Big John" Bechtel

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 30 Sep 2002 9:52 am

I think there is something to be said for two separate shows. The gap has never been wider, given what passes for country music today vs. just 10 years ago, let along back in the old days. I do wonder why they don't recognize this chasm as an opportunity to segment the country music market. It seems that they've thrown the baby out with the bath water.

Having said that, there are some 2-hit wonders that milked The Opry gig for far longer than most would have considered possible. I won't mention any names, but everyone has a list of 'em and some on mine are in the Country Music HoF.

------------------
HagFan

Chris Forbes · Post by **Chris Forbes** » 30 Sep 2002 10:32 am

A two-hit wonder in the Hall Of Fame? Are you sure about that?

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 30 Sep 2002 11:33 am

Okay, maybe 2-Hit Wonder is a little harsh, but I believe there are some who are famous because of their Opry presence as opposed to their recording careers and long list of hit records.

I like seeing some of the newer talent on The Opry, but I much prefer that they perform some semblence of traditional country music. However, I would never bump Dale Watson for Billy Gillman, as Pete has done. Of course, I ain't running the show, he is.

------------------
HagFan

[This message was edited by Ron Page on 30 September 2002 at 12:33 PM.]

Andy Alford · Post by **Andy Alford** » 30 Sep 2002 5:17 pm

Nothing stays the same.Many things can remain in our hearts, if they are not there in the physicaL world.We can remember the days of Hank Snow,E.T.,Acuff and so many others but they are gone from the stage.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 30 Sep 2002 5:56 pm

A two-hit wonder in the Hall Of Fame? Are you sure about that?

Yes, I'm sure!

(And, some with less than that.)

Chris Forbes · Post by **Chris Forbes** » 1 Oct 2002 2:57 am

Wow! that's surprising. I guess they either had some really good press people or they could talk a snake out of it's fangs. I've only played on songs that have sold well under a million copies, but I want in too!!

Dave Burr · Post by **Dave Burr** » 1 Oct 2002 7:38 am

Here is a link that shows all of the Hall of Fame members and what year they were elected.
http://www.halloffame.org/hall/

------------------
<marquee><H1>Dave Burr
Remington Sustainmaster SD-10 3x4</marquee>

Janice Brooks · Post by **Janice Brooks** » 1 Oct 2002 7:31 pm

http://www.petitiononline.com/OPMN1002/petition.html

From the folks who brought you keep the opry on WSM.

------------------
Janice "Busgal" Brooks
ICQ 44729047

Kevin Hatton · Post by **Kevin Hatton** » 1 Oct 2002 8:15 pm

Again, Donny is right. Two shows would probably be smart. That being said someone should tell Ira Louvin and Del Reeves that their time is long past and they should move over and let younger and better performers have their chances. There are more than a few two hit wonders who havr hogged the Opry and taken time away from more deserving younger performers. Elizabeth Cooke is a prime example of one of the younger performers. She blew me away with traditional country the last time I was at the Opry. I had never heard of her and never would have if she wasn't given her chance to excel. Prize fighters and musicians always think they have one more fight left in them until they get knocked on their a$$eS. I find the old timers attitudes a little self serving and selfish.

Smiley Roberts · Post by **Smiley Roberts** » 2 Oct 2002 11:17 am

Sorry Janice,
Didn't see your posting,before I "hit the key". I apologize.

------------------
<pre> ~ ~
©¿© It don't mean a thang,
mm if it ain't got that twang.
www.ntsga.com</pre>

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 2 Oct 2002 11:32 am

It's kinda like the add in the Wall Street Journal:

Wanted: Young Executives . 25 years experience required.

I can't help but comment though that some of the Opry acts, and I'll be cautious, young and old, wouldn't cut it at the Pageland SC American Legion Hall where I gig regularly.

In defense of the Opry programming, when the acts are bad I change the channel like everyone else, and the problem is, they know it and need to do something about it before they loose sponsors then everyone looses. I think all concerned should use more tender language though. It sounds like a Senate floor debate.

I don't have any records ( never did ) by Stonewall, Del or Charlie, so I guess I don't know what I'm missing with them being absent.

tp

Michael Holland · Post by **Michael Holland** » 2 Oct 2002 1:03 pm

It's about tradition, not 'who can sing better than who' and we should hang onto it as long as we possibly can. The Opry members have paid their dues and they deserve our respect. It'll be gone all too soon.

Jim Florence · Post by **Jim Florence** » 2 Oct 2002 5:05 pm

Just last night I listened to an old reel to reel tape of the Grand Ole Opry. don't know the date , some of these tapes I have , I've had 40 years. This tape had Flat & Scruggs, Texas Ruby, Leon Payne, I could go on and on, Oh yeah [Minnie Uthers], with T. Tommy Cutrer, as one of the M.C.s It was a nostalgic event for my wife and me. Some of the musicianship was terrible, BTW I've had all these tapes stored since 1973. This one is at least 2 full hours. Like Michael said it's about tradition, and I loved it.
Jim

Billy Johnson · Post by **Billy Johnson** » 2 Oct 2002 6:00 pm

Hey Kevin,
Ira has already decided to hang it up. I guess you win.[This message was edited by Billy Johnson on 02 October 2002 at 07:04 PM.]

Dave Robbins · Post by **Dave Robbins** » 2 Oct 2002 9:14 pm

Billy Johnson,
right on!

Dave

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 3 Oct 2002 2:38 am

Perhaps my comments above may have been taken at task.I hope not. I am not saying that this is a good thing. Tradition? yes of course, I fully support it. Those that built the Opry with sweat and labor for hardly any pay are to be held in high esteem.

My only point would be that from the business end, going forward to maintain profitablilty and to also widen the focus of
attendance and viewership there would have to be some compromise between tradition and whats happening today in 2002.

I was at the Opry not all that long ago for the saturday night TV portion show and quite honestly I enjoyed the whole show, it was a good mix. I am not necessarily a fan of every "Traditional" artist and I clearly am not a fan of a many of the new artists which are sort of leaning R+R, but evidently someone is as they are selling lots of records and appear to be very popular with the "Younger" Country generation.

I think the folks in charge should be more cautious in the language they use and the comments directed to an audience they may be offending. The Opry probably cannot survive long term without both the traditional acts as well as the newer acts in harmony.

Firing staff musicians for new younger talent is ludicrous, what could they be thinking ? Perhaps the young guitar gun with those leather pants has more experience than Jimmy Capps ? I think not....

This is really no different now than a large corporation bringing in a new top exec who really has no clue about the history of the business and the bigger issue is, he or she has no interest in learning and understanding the history of the company. that in itself is a receipe for failure.

This is happening everyday in the business world now, it's more common than uncommon.

We have many instances where we compare yesterdays standards to todays standards, and they really can't be compared. They are very different society's. One should compliment the other but unfortunately that probably won't happen with the bottom lines being reported monthly now rather than yearly.

Many of us are playing Steels with multiple knee levers and are comfortable with those configurations. Try going to the next gig with an old Sho-Bud with maybe zero or 1 knee lever...cold...no rehearsal or practice time...we would do it , but...two different worlds colliding...

tp

tp[This message was edited by Tony Prior on 03 October 2002 at 05:31 AM.]

George Kimery · Post by **George Kimery** » 3 Oct 2002 4:04 am

I too wish the Opry would stay the same, but here is an observation I made the last time I attended. The average age of the people attending seemed to be in their 60's! Maybe it was just a fluke that there were so many seniors there that night, but the thought occurred to me that night, that in 10 or 15 years, who will be attending? They need to do something to get a younger crowd. So, if you were the management of the Opry, and this is a trend that you have been noticing, what would you do? I think I would bring the acts in that are on the air waves and that the younger people are supporting by buying their CD's, but I sure would have a hard time booking some of the acts that simply have no resemblance to country. And, unfortunately, there aren't that many that are country any more. Quite a dilemma. I am glad I am not having to make those kind of decisions.

Smiley Roberts · Post by **Smiley Roberts** » 3 Oct 2002 10:07 am

Received this from a friend of mine. Comments??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<< the Opry's Artists, should look at this as a blessing. they should come together, they should buy their own building, they should buy their own radio station. the Opry's Artists, are the "GRAND OLE OPRY" not pete fisher, not steve buchanan, not Opry management, not the stockholders, and most of all not gaylord. he only owns the name, "Grand Ole Opry", the Building, the Radio station, all the audio and video they make every week, (how many times will that play without pay to the Artists) Opry Artists, come together, you can do this.you are the "Real Grand Ole Opry"
pete & steve & gaylord can be the,
"grand ole opry BALL TEAM" "grand ole opry shopping mall" "grand ole opry entertainment failure" check it out gaylord hasn't made a profit in years, everything they touch turns to POOP !! great minds ? >>

------------------
<pre> ~ ~
©¿© It don't mean a thang,
mm if it ain't got that twang.
www.ntsga.com</pre>

Dave Birkett · Post by **Dave Birkett** » 3 Oct 2002 11:13 am

Has anybody else noticed that since Madison Avenue has turned towards a younger demographic that the Dow has gone sideways?

Jim Florence · Post by **Jim Florence** » 3 Oct 2002 2:58 pm

Good point. When Buck Owens was at his peak, he bought radio stations ETC, Those who can't get Air Play. should have been buying radio stations. Maybe it's not too late yet, if they have any of that money left from when
they were selling lots of records. Johnny Cash for example.