Posted: 10 Dec 2001 7:08 pm
Real music is made by people who are really making it?
The concept of what is real music is just too weird to even go into. The fact that we buy something that is pieced together as a song is in itself a recreation of a moment that actually did not exist, so what's so real about that.
Someone who records a song directly is a way of getting aroud this scenario, but for one it relies on everyone being able to get it right which is costly and generally doesn't always allow for the best studio sound. This of course is where taste comes into it, plus some music is near impossible to produce live in the studio. Electronic musin is made by people, so it's real, but can't always be replicate live, does this make it less real.
Then, if someone who has a live act adds a bell, siren, keyboard fill or a filtering effect than they cannot reproduce live, then is that a rip-off for anyone seeing the band live?
Modern country is really not my cup of tea, although there are some good ideas and soungs out there and I do really like Wayne Hancock and Dale Watson, those guys are retro-twangers. They're working on a sound from the past, whether or not they have modernised a bit is a matter of opinion, updating an older sound might actually be betraying it to some people.
Think of Bluegrass msuic, it's still going fairly strong, and when we consider that it's general sound was defined in the 1945-1948 period then re-defined in the mid 1950s by Flatt & Scruggs (they added a dobro to the classic guitar/fiddle/string bass/banjo/mandolin format); and later by a series of group in the 1960s and 1970s, although the latter met with a lot less commercial success, so the 1940s and 1950s sounds which was pretty much commercially dead by 1962 is still the classic sound.
We have in effect a time machine of sorts, a society of fans and pickers who have constructed a time bubble away from modern music and the evolution of musical genres.
A modern bluegrass band is often constructed within thos defined style parameters and rarely strays outside those defined boundries. If they dso, they may no longer be considered a bluegrass band as such.
The concept of "pure country" is a relative one, some may consider it Bluegrass (although with all the folks who despise banjo on this forum, I don't think they'd number too highly here), others might say Ernest Tubb (but which era?), the 1950s (some might lean towards rockabilly, others towards Webb Pierce, Left Frizzell, etc.. but what of the Nashville Sound?), then there's the 1960s, (but.. West Coast, Nashville Pop, country-rock?)... then waht about the old timey crowd, or the people who like Jimmie Rogers, the Cowboy stuff, or even Woody Guthrie. I think it's safe to say that most country fans despise Guthrie!
One thing I have to say about modern country is that they are trying to sell records, which is exactly what Bill Monroe, the Carter Family, Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, roy Acuff, Buck Owens, Merle Haggard, George Jones, Jean Shepard, Cal Smith, Dave Dudley and a lot of others were trying to do, despite the fact that they were replacing an older style of music that went before them.
Mind you, I do find that line-dancing seems to be a way of surrendering one's individual nature while also taking away the whole point of having an actual live band. How can you enjoy something that you need to be just a certain style so you can co-ordinate a series of moves in time with everyone else?
Of course... none of you have seen me do the 'Funky Chicken'.. now that's an experience.
The concept of what is real music is just too weird to even go into. The fact that we buy something that is pieced together as a song is in itself a recreation of a moment that actually did not exist, so what's so real about that.
Someone who records a song directly is a way of getting aroud this scenario, but for one it relies on everyone being able to get it right which is costly and generally doesn't always allow for the best studio sound. This of course is where taste comes into it, plus some music is near impossible to produce live in the studio. Electronic musin is made by people, so it's real, but can't always be replicate live, does this make it less real.
Then, if someone who has a live act adds a bell, siren, keyboard fill or a filtering effect than they cannot reproduce live, then is that a rip-off for anyone seeing the band live?
Modern country is really not my cup of tea, although there are some good ideas and soungs out there and I do really like Wayne Hancock and Dale Watson, those guys are retro-twangers. They're working on a sound from the past, whether or not they have modernised a bit is a matter of opinion, updating an older sound might actually be betraying it to some people.
Think of Bluegrass msuic, it's still going fairly strong, and when we consider that it's general sound was defined in the 1945-1948 period then re-defined in the mid 1950s by Flatt & Scruggs (they added a dobro to the classic guitar/fiddle/string bass/banjo/mandolin format); and later by a series of group in the 1960s and 1970s, although the latter met with a lot less commercial success, so the 1940s and 1950s sounds which was pretty much commercially dead by 1962 is still the classic sound.
We have in effect a time machine of sorts, a society of fans and pickers who have constructed a time bubble away from modern music and the evolution of musical genres.
A modern bluegrass band is often constructed within thos defined style parameters and rarely strays outside those defined boundries. If they dso, they may no longer be considered a bluegrass band as such.
The concept of "pure country" is a relative one, some may consider it Bluegrass (although with all the folks who despise banjo on this forum, I don't think they'd number too highly here), others might say Ernest Tubb (but which era?), the 1950s (some might lean towards rockabilly, others towards Webb Pierce, Left Frizzell, etc.. but what of the Nashville Sound?), then there's the 1960s, (but.. West Coast, Nashville Pop, country-rock?)... then waht about the old timey crowd, or the people who like Jimmie Rogers, the Cowboy stuff, or even Woody Guthrie. I think it's safe to say that most country fans despise Guthrie!
One thing I have to say about modern country is that they are trying to sell records, which is exactly what Bill Monroe, the Carter Family, Johnny Cash, Waylon Jennings, roy Acuff, Buck Owens, Merle Haggard, George Jones, Jean Shepard, Cal Smith, Dave Dudley and a lot of others were trying to do, despite the fact that they were replacing an older style of music that went before them.
Mind you, I do find that line-dancing seems to be a way of surrendering one's individual nature while also taking away the whole point of having an actual live band. How can you enjoy something that you need to be just a certain style so you can co-ordinate a series of moves in time with everyone else?
Of course... none of you have seen me do the 'Funky Chicken'.. now that's an experience.
)
That's OK...at least he has an opinion. It doesn't offend me (I've been called a lot worse by a lot better). The point is, and Herb touched on this, that different people like different things. I could care less what anybody likes, but I would like to see them to do it with passion, with emotion, with feeling, and with conviction. Don't be namby-pamby and say "It's all equal, it's all good, everything is wonderful!" <b>Bullhockey!!!</i> Music is an art form...it's just like painting. Not an artist, or a critic, or a art teacher in the world will tell you "All art is good"!