Posted: 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 <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Stephan Franck on 27 May 2005 at 09:18 AM.]</p></font><font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Stephan Franck on 27 May 2005 at 09:21 AM.]</p></FONT>
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 <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Stephan Franck on 27 May 2005 at 09:18 AM.]</p></font><font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Stephan Franck on 27 May 2005 at 09:21 AM.]</p></FONT>