The Steel Guitar Forum

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:21 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:
If the contemporary players are playing old stuff...how can the contemporary have any real meaning or value?

Because if something old is still played today, it means that there are at least a few people that are still interested in it - consequently, it is still relevant today (at least for those people).

Also, I'd be VERY careful throwing around "big" words like "real meaning"/"value" - who is going to be the arbiter about what has "real meaning"/"value"? By what criteria is he going to judge"

I can simply state mine: music should make you feel good - that's the ONLY, EXCLUSIVE criteria for me that gives music "real meaning" or "value" - and it's very subjective again, because everybody will have a different opinion about what music makes them feel good.
Me, I'd take any old Rockabilly tune, any Motown soul track that makes you shake your booty, any singer-songwriter song with clever/witty lyrics that make you smile, any rock/pop tune that has some nice guitar tones over any "cutting edge" Phillip Glass/Karlheinz Stockhausen/Arvo Pärt-"noise", because the simply have more "real meaning"/"value" - at least for ME!

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:23 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote: Are any of those steel players on Youtube playing anything that is really modern sounding in regards to new tonalities, rhythms, forms etc. No.

So,- using the steel in musical settings or in ways that hasn't been heard much before isn't enough, players will have to come up with a totally new musical language, including never before heard scales, rhythms and forms to be called "contemporary steel players", is that what you're saying? Isn't that a very narrow definition?

There's obviously several ways to look at this, here's how The Archive of Contemporary Music defines themselves and their mission ("bolds" by me):

The ARChive of Contemporary Music is a not-for-profit archive, music library and research center located in New York City. The ARChive collects, preserves and provides information on the popular music of all cultures and races throughout the world from 1950 to the present. Since the ARChive's founding in 1985 our holdings have grown to over 2 million sound recordings, making the ARChive the largest popular music collection in the United States. And we are growing daily as hundreds of record companies, publishers, distributors and artists from around the world donate new materials to the ARChive. In addition to sound recordings and publications, the ARChive actively collects all books, magazines, videos, films, photographs, press kits, newspapers clippings, memorabilia and ephemera relating to the history of popular music--over three million items. We also maintain an electronic database of 35,000 people working in the music industry and 500,000 sound recordings catalogued at the ARChive.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:30 pm**

Roman Sonnleitner wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:

The webster def alludes to much more than just "today".
...not in the first meaning: 1 : happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time

OK.. then NOTHING those guys are playing to me is contemporary, because none of it came into being at this period of time. The bulk of it has been played before in other eras. ie, blues licks, C6 stuff, single melody played by the steel player, some distorted rock licks.....they are just playing old stuff in a new setting.

That is why contemporary used to mean something deeper and more innovative at one time.

Pop music does not equal "contemporary" to me. It is just what it is...what is "popular" right now. Leon Redbone was Pop at one time, not contemporary.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:31 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:It seemed to be of more interest to her fans, who would probably like ANYTHING she played.

I'm sure the same thing could be said about Philip Glass (and no, I am not a Kaki King fan..

)

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:34 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:
Roman Sonnleitner wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:

OK.. then NOTHING those guys are playing to me is contemporary, because none of it came into being at this period of time. The bulk of it has been played before in other eras. ie, blues licks, C6 stuff, single melody played by the steel player, some distorted rock licks.....they are just playing old stuff in a new setting.

"coming into existance"= "time of perfomance/recording" - so, yes, those guys ARE contemporary!

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:36 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:.....they are just playing old stuff in a new setting.

Exactly! And I don't see anything wrong with it. That's how "popular music" of all styles has evolved for generations, be it Hawaiian, bluegrass, C&W, soul, funk, rock, jazz.... you name it.

It's an evolution, not a revolution (which I suspect is what you are demanding).

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:38 pm**

Steinar Gregertsen wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:
So,- using the steel in musical settings or in ways that hasn't been heard much before isn't enough, players will have to come up with a totally new musical language, including never before heard scales, rhythms and forms to be called "contemporary steel players", is that what you're saying? Isn't that a very narrow definition?

Using the steel in those new settings, and it playing the same schlock that you hear it playing in the old settings is not enough.

No you don't have to come up with a whole new language. No instrument has been required to do that..why should the steel?

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:38 pm**

Too tired to write more, but just wanted to say I love the turn this thread has taken. Making me think a lot.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:41 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:
Pop music does not equal "contemporary" to me. It is just what it is...what is "popular" right now. Leon Redbone was Pop at one time, not contemporary.

So, just to make sure I'm getting you right - do you mean that "popular" and "contemporary" are mutually exclusive terms?

Well, than you are throwing the whole canon of classical music out of the window, because "cutting edge" guys like Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Strauß, etc. made nothing but "popular" music at the ages when they were "contemporary"...

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:43 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote: Using the steel in those new settings, and it playing the same schlock that you hear it playing in the old settings is not enough.

What are your criteria for "schlock"?

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:58 pm**

Roman Sonnleitner wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:

So, just to make sure I'm getting you right - do you mean that "popular" and "contemporary" are exclusive terms?

You can even say that I equate the two with a measure of complexity and substance.

Popular music is generally considered just stuff that sells which in the vast majority of cases is very simple, shallow, and marketable.

Contemporary music usually is more compelling, thought provoking and less marketable. It is musical expression that is not on the butt level conscience of the Popular listener.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:58 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:
No you don't have to come up with a whole new language. No instrument has been required to do that..why should the steel?

Well, you asked for

modern sounding in regards to new tonalities, rhythms, forms etc.

I believe you are asking for something ala Norway's Ultima - Oslo Contemporary Music Festival (check it out, much of interest there), and if so then at least I understand what you're asking for.

It's just that I think that's a much too narrow definition of "contemporary" to be of any value in this discussion,- the steel guitar, in all its shape and forms, has always been a part of popular music and culture, and I believe we should use the wider definition of "contemporary" to get any further in this discussion.

Or we could all agree that "Nope, nobody's doing any contemporary music, according to Bill's definition' these days" and end the discussion right now. How fun is that?

Don't let us get caught up in a discussion over how to define the definition of what we're talking about, right? We're dealing with an instrument and musicians who's operating within the framework of popular music.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:03 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote: Popular music is generally considered just stuff that sells which in the vast majority of cases is very simple, shallow, and marketable.

Contemporary music usually is more compelling, thought provoking and less marketable. It is musical expression that is not on the butt level conscience of the Popular listener.

So when Don Rooke is playing his version of Charlie Mingus' "Goodbye Porkpie Hat" in the video posted earlier, it's "simple, shallow and marketable"? Or is it "more compelling, thought provoking and less marketable"?

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:04 pm**

Roman Sonnleitner wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote: Using the steel in those new settings, and it playing the same schlock that you hear it playing in the old settings is not enough.

What are your criteria for "schlock"?

Predictable ordinary stuff.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:09 pm**

Steinar Gregertsen wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote: Popular music is generally considered just stuff that sells which in the vast majority of cases is very simple, shallow, and marketable.

Contemporary music usually is more compelling, thought provoking and less marketable. It is musical expression that is not on the butt level conscience of the Popular listener.
So when Don Rooke is playing his version of Charlie Mingus' "Goodbye Porkpie Hat" in the video posted earlier, it's...... "simple, shallow and marketable" or "compelling, thought provoking" and "not on the butt level conscience of the Popular listener"?

I remember when I heard that...if you read though all the posts on that original thread, I bet I wrote something that expressed my enjoyment of hearing that!

As I said earlier. A player that was trying to use the steel to cop some of the material that is POST contemporary would get a nod from me. I would rather hear someone like that fellow playing the Mingus tune which at one time was considered very contemporary jazz, than someone who is playing old blues licks in a so called "new" musical setting that now is only interesting because the steel has not been associated with it.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:12 pm**

Steinar Gregertsen wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:
No you don't have to come up with a whole new language. No instrument has been required to do that..why should the steel?
Well, you asked for

modern sounding in regards to new tonalities, rhythms, forms etc.
I believe you are asking for something ala Norway's Ultima - Oslo Contemporary Music Festival (check it out, much of interest there), and if so then at least I understand what you're asking for.

It's just that I think that's a much too narrow definition of "contemporary" to be of any value in this discussion,- the steel guitar, in all its shape and forms, has always been a part of popular music and culture, and I believe we should use the wider definition of "contemporary" to get any further in this discussion.

Or we could all agree that "Nope, nobody's doing any contemporary music, according to Bill's definition' these days" and end the discussion right now. How fun is that?

Don't let us get caught up in a discussion over how to define the definition of what we're talking about, right? We're dealing with an instrument and musicians who's operating within the framework of popular music.

It looks like that Contemporary festival is something that would interest me and satisfy what I would expect to hear. I wish there were MP3 examples on the site to hear the composers compositions.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:14 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:
Roman Sonnleitner wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:

So, just to make sure I'm getting you right - do you mean that "popular" and "contemporary" are exclusive terms?

You can even say that I equate the two with a measure of complexity and substance.

Popular music is generally considered just stuff that sells which in the vast majority of cases is very simple, shallow, and marketable.

Contemporary music usually is more compelling, thought provoking and less marketable. It is musical expression that is not on the butt level conscience of the Popular listener.
Well, fine definiton - as long as you realise that this is just your own personal subjective way of categorizing/judging music, and NOT an absolute, objetive truth!

I couldn't disagree more - to me, your "contemporary" (again - I see this as a total misuse of the term, I'd call it "avantgarde" - as it is AHEAD of the times (or else it would be "popular"), not OF the times!) is usually just a lot of un-enjoyable noise, and music that is GREAT means music that is enjoyable, that gives you a good feeling, that makes you shake your booty ("butt level") - and, yes, that quite often is structurally much more simple...
Complexity is NOT a valid criterion for musical quality in my book, quite to the contrary, GREAT music is usually charaterized by simple, singable melodies and groovy rhythms that make you tap your feet...

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:19 pm**

Roman Sonnleitner wrote: you a good feeling, that makes you shake your booty ("butt level") -

That is not what I mean by butt level conscience.

I mean that instead of thinking with the upper levels of the brain, the listener is thinking with the lower levels of the intelligence in his butt.....basically not thinking at all.

I have not enjoyed a discussion here on this forum so much in a long time.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:22 pm**

Can someone send me a link to a contemporary, advant garde/modern/out/non pedal/strange/eclectic/original/non butt level steel mp3 anywhere on the net so I can listen to it.

Where is one?!?!?!?

PS. I am going over to a fishing forum I monitor to learn some tactics for catching Northern Pike in a South Georgia swamp lake I fished last week. I will check back to see what links are offered.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:25 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:
I mean that instead of thinking with the upper levels of the brain, the listener is thinking with the lower levels of the intelligence in his butt.....basically not thinking at all.

As somebody with a couple of semesters of psychology on my CV I'm struggling with what you mean by this - "abstract thought" vs. "emotions", maybe? Isn't music (like all forms of art) mainly a method of expressing emotions?

Sorry, way past my bedtime (1:30 AM over here), gotta leave that thread for tonight....

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:27 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:I would rather hear someone like that fellow playing the Mingus tune which at one time was considered very contemporary jazz, than someone who is playing old blues licks in a so called "new" musical setting that now is only interesting because the steel has not been associated with it.

Nothing wrong with that, and I can follow you part of the way (even if I fall into your "blues licks" category

) - but you obviously place the bar for what can be considered "contemporary" quite a bit higher than most of the rest of us. Nothing wrong with that either, but if this discussion is supposed to go anywhere perhaps we should agree on what the hell we're discussing here.... The definition of "contemporary" or simply the place/evolution/use of the lap steel in todays "popular music"?
BTW - I don't agree that all popular music is "shallow", far from it. Hopefully we won't have to start a new discussion about the definition of "popular music".......

Logging off, early day tomorrow.....

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:27 pm**

Steinar Gregertsen wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:It seemed to be of more interest to her fans, who would probably like ANYTHING she played.
I'm sure the same thing could be said about Philip Glass (and no, I am not a Kaki King fan.. )

Glass is considered to be a very legit composer as is evidenced by major orchestras around the world playing his compositions.

I don't know of one orchestra playing a Kaki King composition, thus I confer a much higher opinion of the music of Mr. Glass.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:29 pm**

Whew! I am glad you Europeans are off to bed. Ya'll have worked me like a rented mule.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:31 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:Can someone send me a link to a contemporary, advant garde/modern/out/non pedal/strange/eclectic/original/non butt level steel mp3 anywhere on the net so I can listen to it.

Where is one?!?!?!?

I can make you one next weekend, don't have time this week.....

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 4:36 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:
Steinar Gregertsen wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:It seemed to be of more interest to her fans, who would probably like ANYTHING she played.
I'm sure the same thing could be said about Philip Glass (and no, I am not a Kaki King fan.. )
Glass is considered to be a very legit composer as is evidenced by major orchestras around the world playing his compositions.

Sure, but his music is still "of more interest to his fans". I haven't heard anything by him that I liked..

The Steel Guitar Forum

Does our focus on the past limit the appeal of Lap Steel