What player on 'Our Last Date'?

Stephan Franck · Post by **Stephan Franck** » 27 May 2005 8:17 am

Kenny, I share your feelings about the steel guitar exactly. But also, keep in mind that everyone on this forum has spent his hard earned $$$ buying a steel, spent countless hours trying to play it, and spend their precious little free time talking to perfect strangers about it (I'm late for work as we speak). We're all on the same side here. No one hates the steel on this forum.

Well, Dave, I think you misunderstood me. I'm sorry if my point wasn't clear, so I'll rephrase it here.

I never said that PF was a "deeper player" than, say, Culry Chalker, or BE, or whoever. All the guys that you mentionned are virtuosos, and you know as well as I do that on a typical Nashville session, these guys are only allowed to use maybe 10% of what they can really do on the instrument, due to what the artists, the producer, and the audience want to hear. in other words, due to the conventions of the genre.

And that's what this thread has been about from the start. It's not about not liking the steel guitar, criticizing players, or denying their place in history. It's about taking a look at how the musical conventions in country music have changed over the years.

And yes, each generation of players benefits from what the previous generation accomplished and has an opportunity to build on it. All things being equal, when Einstein was told that he was a scientific giant, he said he was only a dwarf standing on the shoulder of giants. Now don't get upset, I'm not calling any player a dwarf, but you get my point.

If you compare the big twangy guitar on a Johnny Horton record to the big twangy guitar on an Alan Jackson CD and you tell me that BM didn't take the same idea and pushed it to the next level, then, we'll have to agree to disagree.

That doesn't take anything away from the Johnny Horton track, which is great in its own right, but if you deny me that, then you imply that country music as an art form has peaked 50 years ago, and that would be a sad statement to make.

Again, it has nothing to do with the talent or skills or depth of the players themselves, it has to do with how a given genre or a family of ideas are being mined by musicians over the years, who manage to always find new things to do with the same three chord songs, and make the music sounding contemporary and relevant to the ears of the audience with every new decade--which obviously implies a change over time.

About the movies, you're comparing apples and oranges when you're comparing the master pieces of yesterday with the B movies of today. Every period has it's masterpiece and it's hack jobs. But this is a steel forum, so I won't go there.

Now I'll give you the sideburns, but what about that orange shirt with brown polka dots?

Asbestos underwear--check
Tin Foil helmet--check
doused in fire retardant--check

Flame away if you must

[This message was edited by Stephan Franck on 27 May 2005 at 09:18 AM.][This message was edited by Stephan Franck on 27 May 2005 at 09:21 AM.]

Charles Curtis · Post by **Charles Curtis** » 27 May 2005 1:13 pm

I wonder just how did John figure all this stuff out? I don't think that I've ever heard better steel in my life; maybe some of you that know "theory" can more aptly describe the style or the construction of his music. John, if you're reading this I know that there are more like me that thank God that you came along with this talent; and also are willing to share it.

Lem Smith · Post by **Lem Smith** » 28 May 2005 6:34 am

I'm not at all familiar with John's other work with Conway Twitty since he wasn't a singer I followed.

Bill, you really owe it to yourself to look a little deeper into some of the GREAT music John played with Conway. What John played on some of those tunes is nothing short of pure musical genius!

Also, like Ricky said, John is a monster player on styles other than "crying steel". I was only familiar with his playing with Conway, Vince, Loretta, etc... and when I first heard him play at a steel show in Amory MS, I was totally awed by his C6th playing.

Another thing that made that show one of THE BIGGEST highlights of my life was that I got to actually play in the jam session portion with two of my hero's... Mr. Hughey and Mr. Little Roy Wiggins. Two of the nicest folks I have ever met.

Lem

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 28 May 2005 9:27 am

Stephan - no flames here. We can mix it up with a civil tongue.

I wasn't sure I had your meaning straight on the 'deeper' thing (I made that caveat), I think I now understand what you meant. Of course, new generations in any discipline stand on the shoulders of earlier generations. But this isn't scientific inquiry, where there is a more-or-less cumulative progression of knowledge. Knowledge is part of playing technique, but it's not the only thing and each player's technique must be developed from scratch. Overall, there has been technical development among players of most modern instruments like guitar and pedal steel. But if we're talking about playing technique, comparing Johnny Horton and Alan Jackson tracks is not the issue. Compare solo records by Hank Garland and Brent Mason. They're both great, and I'd be hard-pressed to say which is 'better'. They're two of the greatest country guitar players ever, but their ability far transcends the genre.

As you say, the issue always goes to how that technique is used, which you correctly point out is not always up to the player. This is strictly a matter of taste, and de gustibus non disputandum is the key idea, IMO. So I hope you'll understand that some people actually do believe that country music hit its peak as an art form some time ago. There is an elegance in simplicity, and many prefer the simpler form. I'm not going to argue this line, there's always been good music and bad, and there's plenty of good now also. 

On the movie thing, I'll only argue that the mainstream big-screen 50-60 years ago were movies like I mentioned, and the mainstream big-screen today feels like overblown versions of that period's "B" movies, IMHO. That was my point, and I don't think I'm mixing apples and oranges. Compare the big 'blockbusters' from the 'classic' era to those today.

I think this applies to a lot of popular art, unfortunately. These days, there's a huge emphasis on huge production and technical things. IMO, the production values often emphasize this over what many view as the 'artistic' aspects. Again, this is a matter of personal taste, but it's hard to deny that a lot of people feel like this. Read jazz articles/books, the same argument rages over there. This rift is widespread, which is why I think the film analogy is relevant (and I'm glad you brought it up).