The Steel Guitar Forum

Posted: **20 Mar 2010 5:56 pm**

Pedals scare the hell out of the average guitarist, and they should; the pedal steel guitar is by far the most difficult instrument anyone will ever encounter. Add to that that it's so damned expensive.

The average guitarist might want to experiment with a cheap lap steel, but he's not going to spend a fortune buying an instrument he doubts he will ever be able to master.
For that reason, non-pedal steel players will always outnumber pedal steel players. But I doubt you'll encounter the majority of lap steel players on this Forum. This is a Forum for enthusiasts, not casual players. For instance, I play the mandolin but I would never dream of participating in a Mandolin Forum, if one exists.

Posted: **20 Mar 2010 6:39 pm**

Alan Brookes wrote:Pedals scare the hell out of the average guitarist, and they should; the pedal steel guitar is by far the most difficult instrument anyone will ever encounter.

The insanity that is the modern orchestral harp totally aside (the average harpist, also saddled with constantly changing pedals, would sympathize with the steeler's plight!), the bassoon and French horn are both a heckuva lot more difficult from what little I've seen.

Actually, in one sense the E9th neck is even easier to "learn" than the lowly guitar. Any moron can be shown to hit strings 3-5 and mash the A&B pedals. On the guitar, it would take the average novice about 1-3 hours to learn the E and A chords and be able to switch between them with any degree of fluidity. So like a harmonica, you can figure out how to make a couple of "pretty sounds" very quickly on (an already-tuned) steel, but learning how to do the stuff beyond *that* is the tricky bit. This is, of course, also true of the most popular lap steel tunings.

Alan Brookes wrote:Add to that that it's so damned expensive.

Again, bassoon and French horn (to say nothing of orchestral-quality violins / cellos / etc.)... but you're right, this is another reason why the likelihood of real innovation on the non-pedal steel is much higher. The barrier to entry is far lower, and the fear of damaging a cheaper, simpler instrument from "abuse" is also much lower, correspondingly.

*However,* steel in general has a problem with expense if we're talking ease of crossover. Vintage lap steels are becoming more expensive (seems like ten years ago I could have had my pick for $100!) and the new market is beginning to resemble pedal steels: a few pretty shoddy toys in the sub-$200 range, and a whole lot of expensive, handmade boutique stuff, with not much really in between for the serious / curious guitar player. This is a problem for enticing good guitarists in; at present, there are scads of very playable $300 guitars in the market, but almost no playable new $300 lap steels, and even good used $300 laps are becoming a pain to acquire. You can get a good new lap steel much cheaper than a good new pedal steel, but it's still pretty expensive considering what you're actually buying, mechanically speaking.

Alan Brookes wrote:This is a Forum for enthusiasts, not casual players. For instance, I play the mandolin but I would never dream of participating in a Mandolin Forum, if one exists.

Why not? I know I wouldn't have gotten as interested as I did if not for the existence of the forum, even knowing going in that my musical interests weren't exactly shared by a lot of folks here.

Posted: **20 Mar 2010 7:26 pm**

Alan, you should definitely check out The Mandolin Cafe - they have a lively and vibrant forum covering all sorts of mandolin music.

RD, I would agree that the songs being played during the jam sessions were definitely what I would refer to as jazz standard songs, nothing from later than the period you mentioned. I think that has been true of most jams I've attended, though.

The "standards" are standard songs for a reason - everyone knows of them, and most people know how they go. When you have people from New York, California, Texas, England, and Washington getting together for the first time, they're going to try to play songs everyone knows.

I think Mike Neer's version of "Mercy Mercy Mercy" was the newest song I heard in the non-pedal room. That, or my attempt at "The Lonely Bull".

As far as affordable steels go, the Rondo SX lap steel is currently $115. The Recording King lap steel is $149. Either of these lap steels is more than good enough for a beginner. Even the Fender FS-52 can be found for under $400 with a bit of searching.

Posted: **20 Mar 2010 7:33 pm**

Just back from another successful gig promoting the steel guitar, albeit in a cross genre way.
Anything from as far afield as Chopin's Nocturne Op.9 #2 in Eb Major, to Ave Maria, (the Beyonce song.),and a smattering of swing, Hawaiian Irish trad and down home "Blue Riband Beer" country. 60's 70's and 80's material is also featured in our set list.

The gig was an Annual "Lyons" meeting in Bedford, and our music was appreciated by all and sundry, young and old. The end of the night was spent explaining to some youngsters about the pedal steel and the Weissenborn style "Bristolian", and discussing Felix Mendelssohn with some of the almost octogenarians.

Glad to see the thread has gone on to posting examples of the more modern styles, I will remain firmly entrenched in my own opinions of what constitutes a good steel player, notwithstanding that point of view, I of course accept that others see it differently, if it was not so we'd all be driving black Fords and living in the same size and shape houses. we don't, and I for one thank God that variety is the spice of life.

I MUST play some of the examples of more modern styles posted above and maybe offer my slant and critique, if for no other reason that to pose my own personal view.
But that's for later today, right now I'm "Knackered"..and off to the "Four Poster"

Personally I don't think it's an accurate assumption to dismiss my work in promoting the Lap/Pedal/acoustic steel guitar as old fashioned, outdated and in need of modernising, I know for sure that I'm the best Basil Henriques (Steel player from the UK) in the whole world. There may be another Basil elsewhere but he's NOT from this house in this town so I can feel sure of my assertion..

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 12:13 am**

Brad Bechtel wrote:RD, I would agree that the songs being played during the jam sessions were definitely what I would refer to as jazz standard songs, nothing from later than the period you mentioned. I think that has been true of most jams I've attended, though.

The "standards" are standard songs for a reason - everyone knows of them, and most people know how they go. When you have people from New York, California, Texas, England, and Washington getting together for the first time, they're going to try to play songs everyone knows.

I'm sorry to say I didn't get to catch your set, and I also missed several others I deeply regret missing... aside from one of the jam sessions, which I don't count, the few non-pedal sets I did manage to catch were sets where most of the players on the stage were already used to working with each other going in (Girl Howdy, Carco Clave "and friends"). The "conservatism" I mention wasn't an adherence to jazz standards; it was more a passionate interest in / insistence on old-school Ernest Tubb-era country, and one that was visibly shared with the audience.

And I'm not saying I didn't enjoy those sets-- I really loved them, actually. But I do think it's skirting the larger issue to claim "this is just what people / strangers have to play when they get together." It's not. A group of folks who play together regularly, as in these particular cases, could have chosen whatever repertory they darn well pleased. A looping artist with a lap steel and a laptop (and I'm aware of at least a couple out there) doesn't need anyone else to back them up. No such artists were in attendance that I am aware of, nor were they invited.

That's probably just the musical culture of the Jamboree and similar shows, and that's fine. No one says that fringe artists have to be invited or accommodated. But the original point of this thread was to inquire as to whether steelers are too conservative / backward-looking in their musical preferences, so I think this definitely bears pointing out in context.

Brad Bechtel wrote:As far as affordable steels go, the Rondo SX lap steel is currently $115. The Recording King lap steel is $149. Either of these lap steels is more than good enough for a beginner.

This might be true in the same sense that the average $150-new guitar from Guitar Center is "good enough for a beginner." The average 10-year-plus guitar player is unlikely to be satisfied with the same instrument, and let's face it, that's who we're talking about here-- experienced players wanting to tinker with a marginally-related instrument. Most people getting into steels in this day and age are probably not approaching it as a first instrument and they will have some minimum requirements, quality-wise.

Take the SX (which is really more like $140 shipped). I got the same warped / twisted neck that half the forum complains about, truly shoddy finish work, terrible tuners, and-- the real dealbreaker-- a pickup so poor, anemic and hum-prone that I couldn't even apply mild overdrive.

I have heard similar scathing complaints about the Recording King, and I've seen the Morrell in person several times; it's a real joke. By the time you upgrade these things to where an experienced player could accept their shortcomings, they're going to be a lot more than $150.

I got lucky in stumbling across Bob Allen, who was able to build me a really nice instrument for a price not a whole lot higher than a fully-decked-out SX. Otherwise I probably would have just called the whole steel thing a wash. The mass market models all seem to be a real joke to me, especially at the Fender / Gretsch prices... and since it was really just a "side interest," I wasn't willing to invest the 600+ that most decent builders seem to require even for their six-string models. Heck, I'm hardly willing to invest $600 in *guitars* at this point.

As an aside, in general, for all the longstanding Internet hype on Rondo instruments, I've felt they were ultimately questionable values every single time. I've owned three Agiles and three SXes, all of them easily bettered by secondhand Peaveys or Yamahas I could buy for the same price or far less-- even brand new, in many cases. By the time you get all the needed upgrades in on a Rondo axe to make it playable, I don't know why anyone bothers.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:13 am**

IMHO we need not worry wether the slide is bottle-neck style or lap-style. Fresh approaches to playing like Martin Simpson's original bottle-neck instrumentals or takes on irish airs or Derek Trucks's personal sound mixing blues/sacred steel/jazz and indian stylings are, to me, as interesting as anything in the 'lapsteel' world. Cheers, Joel

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

JD,

I don't think you were posting when I used to post here regularly a few years ago, but I'm really enjoying your posts and point of view. Thank you for contributing to this thread.

"Personally I don't think it's an accurate assumption to dismiss my work in promoting the Lap/Pedal/acoustic steel guitar as old fashioned, outdated and in need of modernising,"

If anyone dismissed your work Baz, I didn't read it here.

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

If anyone dismissed your work Baz, I didn't read it here.

Yes it's probably the TransAtlantic Syndrome again, differing interpretation of phraseology and colloquialisms, some wise member here on the SGF quoted George Bernard Shaw, "two countries separated by a common language."

It's so easy to misinterpret intentions and meanings when just using text as a medium, and even then, word usage and meaning varies, EVEN within English language usage in Europe.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 6:30 am**

"the pedal steel guitar is by far the most difficult instrument anyone will ever encounter."

Try playing the Uilleann Pipes some day.

Any double reed instrument is incredibly difficult. Imagine not being able to play your instrument when the humidity goes below 60%.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 6:42 am**

I like to have fun when I play. Also, I don't believe there is any protocol as to how one should begin their study of steel guitar. For me, i've always felt a connection with the more traditional stuff, so that's what I play.
Others find enjoyment, and expression playing different styles, that's great!
Just because the electric lap/console steel guitar is mainly known for the traditional styles, doesn't mean that it will keep younger players away from learning the instrument.
I think that anyone finding expression through playing steel is nothing but postive, whatever music they play.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 6:45 am**

Alan Brookes wrote: This is a Forum for enthusiasts, not casual players.

No one's more casual than me, Alan!

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 11:23 am**

I know there are plenty of difficult instruments to play, as people have pointed out; not to mention the lute, whose multiple gut strings, tuned with friction pegs, have to be slackened off every night to prevent the cold tearing the bridge off; but how many instruments actually have their tuning changed in the process of being played? The pedal harp does, but most people don't depress the pedals while the string is sounding.

Imagine a typewriter, which has pedals that move individual rows of keys left and right, and columns up and down: now imagine typing even the simplest few sentences on it.

I guess different people will find different instruments easier or harder than others.

Brad Bechtel wrote:Alan, you should definitely check out The Mandolin Cafe - they have a lively and vibrant forum covering all sorts of mandolin music.
...

Thanks Brad. I'll check that out. By the way, the link doesn't work any more. It seems that they've moved their site to Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/mandocafe

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 11:43 am**

Alan Brookes wrote: Thanks Brad. I'll check that out. By the way, the link doesn't work any more. It seems that they've moved their site to Facebook.
http://www.facebook.com/mandocafe

And their Facebook site has this link to their website:
http://www.mandolincafe.com/

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 11:47 am**

There is also a mandolin discussion group called CoMando. Good friend of mine who was a mandolin player swore by that list. http://www.mandolincafe.com/lists.html

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 2:09 pm**

Brad Bechtel wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:I watched all the youtube stuff and listened to the examples posted here. I found none of it to be very "contemporary" or any cutting edge to it at all.
Could you provide an example of what type of music you consider "contemporary" or "cutting edge"? Without knowing what you're referring to internally, it's hard for me to figure out what your point is, exactly.

Webster's defines "contemporary" as the following:
1 : happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time
2 a : simultaneous b : marked by characteristics of the present period : modern, current

So if none of the above fits that definition, what is "contemporary" to you?

#1 Websters example. Today...John Adams, Philip Glass etc. In their day, and at there own period of time..Stravinsky, Satie, Debussy, Beethoven, etc.

Artists/painters are the same way, in that each had their period that they were considered "contemporary". Now looking back they have become part of the established classics, but at one time they were totally modern and innovative and new.

John Coltrane....players are still trying to play up to his creations which when they were newly recorded were stunning in contemporary jazz.

#2 Websters.. How can you listen to any non pedal player playing old established licks, C6 sounding tunings, blues, rock and consider them contemporary. That is not possible. The inclusion of the pedal guitar in a pop group playing the same pop music as the rest of the group....what is cool about that? That is just coming late to the party as far as I am concerned.

If someone can direct me to a non pedal player on youtube playing a Ravel piece or playing something from Coltranes' Love Supreme or playing a Sun Ra tune or something that is just totally out and modern then I might be able to equate that with either the attempt at introducing post contemporary music to the non pedal guitar or in the case of someone who is playing some free form improv then that might verging on contemporary.

This is a good thread.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 2:13 pm**

I enjoyed this thread, I can understand the points of view expressed here. I think what gets to most people is the Unknown who seems to come from nowhere, learns a few single note slides, features this one song in the middle of a 3 hour set and is proclaimed the new Messiah by fans who are totally unaware there are an awful lot of others out there who can really play the instrument.

Has anyone mentioned Ronnie Wood yet, this "cutting edge" lot are playing to packed Stadiums, its enough to make Basil retire.
http://thecountryclassics.com/jukebox/m ... l-the-king

James.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 2:30 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:
#1 Websters example. Today...John Adams, Philip Glass etc. In their day, and at there own period of time..Stravinsky, Satie, Debussy, Beethoven, etc.

Artists/painters are the same way, in that each had their period that they were considered "contemporary". Now looking back they have become part of the established classics, but at one time they were totally modern and innovative and new.

John Coltrane....players are still trying to play up to his creations which when they were newly recorded were stunning in contemporary jazz.

#2 Websters.. How can you listen to any non pedal player playing old established licks, C6 sounding tunings, blues, rock and consider them contemporary. That is not possible. The inclusion of the pedal guitar in a pop group playing the same pop music as the rest of the group....what is cool about that? That is just coming late to the party as far as I am concerned.

If someone can direct me to a non pedal player on youtube playing a Ravel piece or playing something from Coltranes' Love Supreme or playing a Sun Ra tune or something that is just totally out and modern then I might be able to equate that with either the attempt at introducing post contemporary music to the non pedal guitar or in the case of someone who is playing some free form improv then that might verging on contemporary.

What you're looking for I wouldn't call "contemporary", but "avantgarde", "modern", or "experimental" - "contemporary" literally means "of our time" - so, anything made today (no matter whether it uses styles and elements of, say 18th c. classical, 1930s Hawaiian, or 1960s pop music) is "contemporary"...

Me, I'm not interested in "experimental/avantgarde" music, I'm also not interested in music that particularly features the lap steel (or any other instrument) as a (virtuoso) "solo" instrument - I love great SONGS, and I'm interested how instruments like the lap steel (but all others, too) can be used to enhance the qualities of a song, to support the singer, to fill out the sound - the SONG is what's important first and foremost, everything else are just afterthoughts...
I'd rather listen to an average player pick two slow notes to make a great song work even better, rather than some virtuoso breaking the barriers of "modern" playing (and not only on the lap steel, but on any instrument).

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 2:50 pm**

Bill Hatcher wrote:each had their period that they were considered "contemporary". Now looking back they have become part of the established classics, but at one time they were totally modern and innovative and new.

...The inclusion of the pedal guitar in a pop group playing the same pop music as the rest of the group....what is cool about that? That is just coming late to the party as far as I am concerned.

...If someone can direct me to a non pedal player on youtube playing a Ravel piece or playing something from Coltranes' Love Supreme...

Bill, and totally in the spirit of friendly, (hopefully) interesting, intellect-stretching discourse, it seems your own definition of "contemporary" contains its fair share of contradictions.

On one hand you say you'd like to see a steeler tackling challenging lit that you acknowledge has entered the established canon, long ago, via someone else's instrument(s). I can see how that would be interesting from a *technical* standpoint, but I don't see what would be truly new and interesting and contemporary about that from a *musical* standpoint.

Case in point: Debashish Bhattacharya, who I was lucky enough to also catch in Dallas last fall. For anyone who plays steel, or with even a basic understanding of musically-applied physics and/or human motor-system limitations, his playing is positively mind-blowing, and should be experienced by anyone interested in music, in my humble opinion.

Now, in the greater context of Indian classical music, is what he plays by any stretch of your original definition "contemporary?" I am a pretty poor excuse for an ethnomusicologist, but the sounds he produces seem quite normative in the greater scheme of Indian classical music, at least to me. He is using a genuinely remarkable idiom and talent to reconstruct / replicate musical constructs that have established traditions going back centuries. In other words, he might be more appreciated in some sense for his technical playing prowess than his creativity or greater contributions to music.

Historically, it seems to me that very few musicians in general get to have it both ways in their legacy, going down as both technical monsters and genre game-changers. Jazz has a higher percentage of these folks than classical idioms, simply because of the deeper direct connection between performance and composition than we find in either Western or Indian styles of classical music (never mind that Indian music is deeply rooted in guided improvisation as well!).

But even then, there aren't that many double-edged swords in the jazz world compared to the sheer number of players / composers that have existed in the genre's history. Coltrane's almost certainly one of these folks.

We can pretty quickly end up from this point straight to the "nothing new under the sun" postmodernist conclusion / sandbox. Is a lap steel player hanging out with a death metal band, trying to play detuned Locrian riffs and possibly even eke his way through unrelenting 32nd-note hammer-on solos accompanied by nonstop double kick drum, really doing something less than credible or interesting because he's aping what other instruments have done before him? I fail to see why this would be somehow less interesting or "contemporary" than someone trying to come up with a neat one-man console-steel arrangement of "The Sunken Cathedral." They're both taking the *instrument* to places it has never been, even if they are not necessarily taking *music* to places heretofore unexplored.

Food for thought? Gosh, I honestly have no idea.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 2:59 pm**

I'll say one thing for this group: you certainly are an articulate bunch.

Bill, how would you place what Kiki King is doing with lap steel? Certainly contemporary, I would say. Also innovative. In fact, despite whether you like her or not, she represents the kind of exploration on the instrument that I think we are discussing here. There was a post a while back with a clip of her playing. I can dig it up unless someone else has the clip handy.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:03 pm**

RD Bennett wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:each had their period that they were considered "contemporary". Now looking back they have become part of the established classics, but at one time they were totally modern and innovative and new.

...The inclusion of the pedal guitar in a pop group playing the same pop music as the rest of the group....what is cool about that? That is just coming late to the party as far as I am concerned.

...If someone can direct me to a non pedal player on youtube playing a Ravel piece or playing something from Coltranes' Love Supreme...
Bill, and totally in the spirit of friendly, (hopefully) interesting, intellect-stretching discourse, it seems your own definition of "contemporary" contains its fair share of contradictions.

On one hand you say you'd like to see a steeler tackling challenging lit that you acknowledge has entered the established canon, long ago, via someone else's instrument(s). I can see how that would be interesting from a *technical* standpoint, but I don't see what would be truly new and interesting and contemporary about that from a *musical* standpoint.

Case in point: Debashish Bhattacharya, who I was lucky enough to also catch in Dallas last fall. For anyone who plays steel, or with even a basic understanding of musically-applied physics and/or human motor-system limitations, his playing is positively mind-blowing, and should be experienced by anyone interested in music, in my humble opinion.

Now, in the greater context of Indian classical music, is what he plays by any stretch of your original definition "contemporary?" I am a pretty poor excuse for an ethnomusicologist, but the sounds he produces seem quite normative in the greater scheme of Indian classical music, at least to me. He is using a genuinely remarkable idiom and talent to reconstruct / replicate musical constructs that have established traditions going back centuries. In other words, he might be more appreciated in some sense for his technical playing prowess than his creativity or greater contributions to music.

Historically, it seems to me that very few musicians in general get to have it both ways in their legacy, going down as both technical monsters and genre game-changers. Jazz has a higher percentage of these folks than classical idioms, simply because of the deeper direct connection between performance and composition than we find in either Western or Indian styles of classical music (never mind that Indian music is deeply rooted in guided improvisation as well!).

But even then, there aren't that many double-edged swords in the jazz world compared to the sheer number of players / composers that have existed in the genre's history. Coltrane's almost certainly one of these folks.

We can pretty quickly end up from this point straight to the "nothing new under the sun" postmodernist conclusion / sandbox. Is a lap steel player hanging out with a death metal band, trying to play detuned Locrian riffs and possibly even eke his way through unrelenting 32nd-note hammer-on solos accompanied by nonstop double kick drum, really doing something less than credible or interesting because he's aping what other instruments have done before him? I fail to see why this would be somehow less interesting or "contemporary" than someone trying to come up with a neat one-man console-steel arrangement of "The Sunken Cathedral." They're both taking the *instrument* to places it has never been, even if they are not necessarily taking *music* to places heretofore unexplored.

Food for thought? Gosh, I honestly have no idea.

You are right about that Indian guy. His playing is spectacular, but this can be balanced by the fact that he is playing within his Indian framework. Is he changing that framework with unheard new things that go totally contrary to the Indian school?? That would make him contemporary. Just playing the standard fare Indian teachings on a different instrument is not so contemporary.

What I said about the steeler playing post contemporary is that the playing of the post contemporary music would in itself be more interesting and more viable than the playing of just Bb ordinary pop music in a different setting than the steel is used to being heard in.

Example....RR is playing the steel in settings that the steel is not used to being in. Is his music contemporary according to the Webster def. No. He is playing all the licks that the steelers in that Church have played for years. He is just playing the same stuff with different grooves and players and gear.

Are any of those steel players on Youtube playing anything that is really modern sounding in regards to new tonalities, rhythms, forms etc. No. They are playing some nice pop music is settings that are just Bb normal for a sax player or a keyboard player, but some here think that something new and innovative is being done musically. It is not.

New under the sun....the notes are the same. Sure have been a lot of innovative things done with those same notes. There is a chance.

Thanks for your ideas.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:07 pm**

Roman Sonnleitner wrote:
Bill Hatcher wrote:

What you're looking for I wouldn't call "contemporary", but "avantgarde", "modern", or "experimental" - "contemporary" literally means "of our time" - so, anything made today (no matter whether it uses styles and elements of, say 18th c. classical, 1930s Hawaiian, or 1960s pop music) is "contemporary"...

.
Your probably right Roman. There used to be a time when a "contemporary" musician was expected to be much more "modern/experimental/avantgarde". Now contemporary seems to be equated with just pop, which I cannot quite give the same credence to in regards to being interesting and cutting edge and forward.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:08 pm**

Bill McCloskey wrote:I'll say one thing for this group: you certainly are an articulate bunch.

Bill, how would you place what Kiki King is doing with lap steel? Certainly contemporary, I would say. Also innovative. In fact, despite whether you like her or not, she represents the kind of exploration on the instrument that I think we are discussing here. There was a post a while back with a clip of her playing. I can dig it up unless someone else has the clip handy.

Let me go find a video of this KiKi King and see what is going on. I will edit a reply in a minute.

Checked her out. She is using the looping thing to set up layers of very shallow improv. I watched several videos of her playing the same song...virtually all the songs used the same motifs. How can you call that improv if you are playing the same thing over and over night after night on the same song. Nothing contemporary here. Just very shallow ditties looped and layered. It seemed to be of more interest to her fans, who would probably like ANYTHING she played.

There has to be something deeper to interest me.

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:14 pm**

That's not really what I meant - "contemporary" does not mean "just pop" - it's just an adjective that describes that something was made in the same time/age we are living in (nothing more, nothing less - you could argue whether that means the same week, year, decade, lifespan, etc., though - but it is exclusively a TEMPORAL quality, not a STYLISTIC one) - no matter whether it's pop, cutting edge experimental music, jazz, classical, Hawaiian, whatever - as long as it was recorded/performed at about the same time we live in, it is "contemporary"...

Oh, and what's "interesting" is 100% a matter of personal taste, totally subjective - to me, most "cutting edge" music is totally un-interesting noise - for me, "interesting" means that the music has a nice melody, a nice rhythm, or great lyrics...
There are no "objective" criteria why something is "interesting", has "credence", or is "cutting edge"!

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:17 pm**

Roman Sonnleitner wrote:That's not really what I meant - "contemporary" does not mean "just pop" - !

In the context of THIS thread..it does.

The webster def alludes to much more than just "today".

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

Posted: **21 Mar 2010 3:18 pm**

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

The Steel Guitar Forum

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