The Steel Guitar Forum

The Bon Jovi thread stirred up feelings re: the "that's not country" mentality so rather than pollute Joseph's thread further, I elected to post another topic on the subject.

If I may qualify my remarks, I consider myself a musician that likes and plays most styles of music. I express my musical thoughts via steel guitar, dobro, slide, reg 6 string guitar and, when I'm feeling particulary eloquent, even the drawbar organ.

I work with some bands that play 70's rock, country rock, hard rock, country, bluegrass et al.

What bothers me about the current classifcation of country music is that it's become the sewer dump for other styles of music that have lost favor or otherwise have no current definition. The thinking seems to be that if you ain't got noplace else to go, "sure we'd love to have you in the country classification."

Got no problem with the music. I like and play a lot of it myself.

I see the problem as greed from the suits who sign artists and produce the music. It is my opinion that they don't have the cajones to classify the music and are willing to accept all comers.

As much as I like playing other styles of music with bands that do this homogenized mix, I would never insult the true blue by calling it country and I think that is what p.o.'s so many of us.

It's not the music so much that is the problem, it's the fact the spineless marketers think it's OK to try and pass it off as genuine country music.

It's not the fault of the upcoming artists...can't blame them for trying to make a living. Love to hear steel guitar on the records as well...pickers gotta make a living too and the music is way better with it than without.

I have way more thoughts on this but I won't try and state them all here lest it becomes a dissertation and waste of valuable space.

I'm just thinking of how traditional players, enthusiasts view, say jazz, or classical styles and how they would see a similar intrusion en masse of lost direction heaped upon their beloved art.

I'm a player whose tastes run to the musical smorgasbord. With the exception of Opera (which I for the most part don't get) and Rap (which the "I'm a tough young dude" attitude of most of the lyrics just turn me off), I find something to like about most styles of music.

BTW Jerry, I agree with most of what you're saying except this:

...the suits ... they don't have the cajones to classify the music

I think they're actually the opposite. They pigeon-hole everything (even though the overall "mainstream" sound is homogenous) because it's all about marketing. If they can't name it, they don't know who they can sell it to, so they'd rather not touch it because they're not going to sell a billion copies. The irony is the "next best thing" is likely to come from the fringes. That's where most of the interesting things are.

I feel music can't always be easily categorized. Folk, bluegrass, blues, rock, and jazz share common roots. They've also cross pollinated each other like crazy. Yes, there are songs that you can listen to and say "that's (whatever style here)", but then you get country swing, zydeco, fusion, rockabilly and country rock. There's more, of course

Don't get me wrong. It's good that there are traditionalist out there who keep the original strain of music going for those who remember and potential new fans. But I don't think it's bad that there's artists who aren't afraid to tinker with the recipe just to see what it's going to taste like.

Richard, I think I we're saying the same thing.

My comment about the suits was implying that the industry is not brave enough to make the distinction between genuine country and everything else that has a hint or 2 of and the occasional cliche thrown in to make it passable.

I absolutely agree that musical freedom without restriction is essential.

As stated earlier, perhaps not clearly, it's not the diversity that troubles me, it's the labeling or the lack thereof that is disrespectful to the tradition.

I think many of us who play out are doing the same material Rock, Roll, Country and Western...and Blues..

I think the big picture is what is disturbing, I happen to like Bon Jovi, I think he is a pretty good singer..blah blah blah all that..

But the issue to me is that when a Bon Jovi gets recognition , TV time and Air Play time as a NEW COUNTRY artist it detracts from a traditional artist who is still playing Country Music. It kinda smothers them into oblivion. He pulls a new generation of listeners HIS direction and he redefines the music.

I'm not saying he shouldn't go out and make a few records , he should, but the problem to me is that the striving Buck Owens of the world with a Tele and a Steel are getting pidgeon holed , as Bill Anderson would say.."Too Country"...

Now if Bon Jove did a few tunes with a Tele ace and a Speed Picker...he could actually change the climate....He is Bon Jovi and he does have a voice in the matter.

it seems there is no more room left for the Country pickers....

I said this the other day on the Bon Jovi thread - this has the effect of rewriting history. After a while, people forget that "Lost Highway" - the important one - was written by Leon Payne and sung by Hank Williams. So it is with all country music these days, to the point where traditional country music needs to get called something else. Maybe that's one answer. There are people out there - not just in the deep south - who love the real thing, and that goes for blues, jazz, bluegrass, and many other styles.

I sort of laugh even when I turn on the "Traditional Country" cable music network here. A large chunk of this is more like easy-listening or light disco. How Olivia Newton-John gets on there is beyond me - that was the last straw for me. When it came on, I just shut it off for the last time. They clearly don't get it.

Another issue is that those of us who love this music really need to focus on just what it is we love and why. To my mind, popular music is just that - it's about popularity and sales, and absolutely not about stylistic purity. So, IMO, we should make our own stylistic identification and stop worrying about how commercially successful it is. The blues and bluegrass communities figured this out a long time ago, and they are thriving. "Music first - money second", or "Make it real and they will come." No, not millions and millions, but I think enough to function.

I think many niches form a reasonable market, but the trend has been to try to force homogenization to make for more effective business management. Why pursue a niche market of a few percent of the population when you can go for the big soft underbelly of the mainstream? I think I understand the business school mentality, but I think they leave an awful lot of green grass go to weeds because the lot is too small to worry about.

I think what they're missing is that, taken together, a large chunk of the music-buying public is heavily niched - jazz, blues, old-school rock, Latino, the various niches in heavy metal and hard rock, country, classical, and so on. But the suits beat their brains out getting to the easy big market. True corporate group-think, IMO. Then, they wring their hands about what is happening to their sales.

BTW - I also like it all. I started out on blues, then turned also to rock and rockabilly, jazz, funk, country, bluegrass, folk, and so on. Musical diversity is good. Nor do I care all that much about labels - but there are limits. I really get annoyed going to a blues show and hearing what amounts to a hard rock band, even though I like both.

You can change the name of an old song, rearrange it and make it swing. The blues will swing, if you swing it. Gypsy Jazz, Western Swing, Traditional Jazz, East Coast Swing. I find that really only the broadest categories have any meaning. Everything I've listed above is really the same. The difference is in instrumentation and perhaps flavor. But it's all essentially the same. The same with blues, country and roots rock. And all three of those can fit into the first category as well. Maybe it's not about cajones.

Phil Vassar is a perfect example. He's great. He's just NOT country. Strictly rock.

Yeah Jerry, you've got it right. All of us who were
country when country wasn't cool resent them dumping
their trash and calling it country. I too, like and
play a lot of kinds of music, but I'm provincial
when it comes to the definition of country. It even
bothers me that all these AM so called "classic
country" stations are just playing stuff that was
crap 20 years ago. Excuse me, but country didn't start with Johnny Lee, Razzy Bailey and Sylvia
(legitimate as they might be). Where's Ray Price,
Buck, Wynn, etc. They could get a little air time
so newer listeners might know a little bit what it
sounds like.

Times change. I think the problem here really is that we are in one of those periods where the lines between genres are very seriously blurred. Many of us, including me, are not always sure what to call something except when it expresses the archetypal form of a particular genre. It's confusing. But it'll sort itself out. Don't worry. Be happy.

Change can be good, sure....but how many times have you heard someone say "I like country music, but not that whiny, cry in your beer stuff "

I think the industry is taking a free ride on the traditional bus calling the stuff country so that now the young people who buy the lion's share of CD's, etc., think that it is the standard.

Don't get me wrong, I like Trace and Toby, but c'mon...

That's like saying, "I like jazz, but not that instrumentally improvised jamming stuff." Or classical music, "just not that crap from the olden days."

There's blues....Memphis, Delta, Texas, Chicago, etc....each respectful of the other and at the same time, having definition. How many blues enthusiasts do you know who aren't aware of B.B. King? Nosirree, they still play him on the radio.

Bet you can't say the same about young people's awareness of say Wynn Stewart or Sonewall Jackson F.I..

Don't misunderstand, I realize there is going to be change. I'd just like to see the industry pay it's dutiful respects to the tradition by calling this other style say.....country pop, f.i., or some such other name that more clearly separates it....have a format for that and tradtional as well in the same way that radio has a golden oldies format and a classic rock format. And don't tell me there's not a market for it....too many boomers and tradtionalists around for it not to be successful. I just think they don't want to play it.

I feel this way about other styles as well.

It'd be like someone saying, "man I heard this terrific jazz musician the other day. That Kenny G is the greatest~! "

Perhaps I think too much....take the matter too seriously. I mean, music is just supposed to be entertainment and diversion. It ain't life or death. It just bothers me sometimes that the lack of proper homage goes unpaid to the pioneers and legends. JMO

I reiterate lest I miss my point...it's not the music I'm carping about, it's the labeling, riding in on the coattails of the established m.o. and lack of respect to the tradtion that bothers many of us.

Actually, I think that Bob Wills, Hank Sr., and the other country artists you refer to are being refered to as Americana these days. Am I wrong? That's the section I seem to remember finding them under at Elderly instruments anyway. The other big category (of which I believe Americana is a subcategory) is Roots. This appears to be an attempt to give older music more legitimacy and (not incidently) selling power. There are many modern artists, even young ones, playing in those styles. Here in Sonoma County, Ca., there are at lest two radio stations with shows dedicated at least in part to playing Americana both new and old. KPFA 94.1 FM-and KRCB 90.9 FM. Various societies put on Festivals here in Northern California including both the Western Swing Society and the Gypsy Jazz society. In fact a weekend or two ago the Jug Band Music Society put on a weekend show in Golden Gate Park. The Traditional Jazz Society is strong out here as well. And some of their bands work fairly often. And thank god for festivals like Strawbery and Kate Wolf and Live Oak where this stuff gets played. But you're right, it is fringe music. I think that's what makes it so great! Big money absolutely MUST cater to the lowest common denominator. The best stuff is always going to found on the fringes.

All the music you love is itself the result of mixing. There is no "pure" anything, anywhere... everything grew out of a combination of other styles. The supposedly pure country of the 60's grew out of a mish-mash of hillbilly and folk, with a dash of rock and roll, gospel, and new-fangled pedal steel sounds thrown in. And probably some other styles too (help me out, folks!).

Older people in 1960 were upset that the "pure" hillbilly style had been corrupted by the new sounds.

It's always been this way and always will: new forms are frequently derived by combining pre-existing elements in new ways, rather than some genius creating something truly new. Look at the history of, well, anything. Art, music, culture... it's a living, breathing, changing thing. Whether we like the results or not, it can't NOT change over time. People will forever be mixing ideas to try to come up with something that seems new.

Same as it ever was. Better to accept that change is inevitable and move on, because you can't turn back the clock.

Yes! And at the same time there will be people who are sufficiently passionate about older forms that they will keep them alive. And then the new forms will be remixed into the older forms to get still MORE variations.

I agree, Edward. There will always be people keeping certain older styles alive. It's a good thing!

And emerging styles can be interesting too. Everything that's come along that we love is the result of some innovative mixing. It's a win-win, as far as I'm concerned.

What I am opposed to is the notion that certain styles are pure, when in fact, ALL art is a mixture of things that came before.

Given that, the idea that mixing is bad or to be discouraged is irrelevant; mixing is the way of the world, for better or worse. It's inevitable, like the sun rising in the east. Why complain about the natural way the creative process works over time when it can't (and shouldn't) be changed?

Classic Country (at least in the exact style we've known it) is never going to reign supreme again in Radioland. Neither is Ragtime, Swing, or Rockabilly. Time moves on, updated versions emerge.

Maybe....and hopefully they'll have the good sense to pay some sort of tribute to the pioneers.
It's the lowest all right, Ed
IMO, this whole thing began with the "talent" contests around the country. The producers and judges whose lithmus test was that you had to sound like Aretha [an incredible and inimitable talent, BTW.] to be in the running, no matter what style of music you were offering.

Bending a note seventeen different ways from hades and screaming at the top of one's lungs elicited oohs and aahs from the crowds.

What happened to delivering a soul felt ballad in the vein of Tammy Wynette's sophisticated rendering?...or Don Williams? When did it happen that the standard changed from a smooth, listenable performance to a raw, aggressive one with sexual overtones with an attitude? And whose idea was it that what was good enough for pop and rock had to be incorporated into country music? I just think the country music industry sold out to the highest bidder.

Not my desire or intent to try and save country music from itself. That's someone else's job.

As stated earlier, I enjoy nearly all styles of music. I've made it my business to be able to play most all of it too. Either on steel or guitar. Whatever the situation calls for, if possible. I just think it's a shame that those in power lack the integrity to properly align the content.

Oh yeah...and traditional country music didn't die in the 80's..it's still out there in spades. You have to dig it out of the pile though, 'cause you're not likely to hear it on today's country radio.

I wish now that I had titled this topic: "Country??:...close enough"

Well of course American popular music has had sexual overtones at least since the turn of the 20th century. "Maybe I'll sigh, maybe I'll cry. But if I die, I'm going to try four or five times." I have a recording of that song from 1917. And from Europe, what do you think,, "Coming through the Rye," and "Did you ever see a Lassie," are about? I think sexual overtones have been with us a long time. "A kiss to build a dream on," is about masturbation for gosh sakes.
But the anger does seem to be a modern thing. I think that it has to do with the fact that young people are so angry these days. What they are angry about is definitely way off topic. So I don't want to go into it. But they are angry. That's where I think the screaming and yelling and acting out come from. Since I don't share their feelings or their orientation, I can't relate to their music either. But I can see where it comes from. Their music is actually quite good if you consider that part of the function of music is to express emotion. It certainly does that.

The great Ray Charles did a lot of country songs, but I wouldn't ever classify them as "country music". They were more like country songs done with an R&B/pop flavor.

If you aren't willing to draw the line somewhere, then there's no such thing as distinct genres of music. I hope we never reach the point where we're afraid that simply classifying someone's music (for comparison purposes) will draw criticism.

"If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything."

Well said Donny. There is a purposeful effort out of N.Y. and L.A. to destroy country music and replace it with it with rock music. CMT and the CMA head the effort. They hate real country music and the people who play it.

Maybe this is really a semantic discussion about labeling, and why we do it. Some of us use the labels as descriptives or platonic "idea types" to just help us understand that there are different genres and styles, and that they change, cross-pollinate, merge, split, morph.... Others use the labels as marketing tools to increase the sales of whatever they're pushing by associating it with something already successful.

For the sake of discussion, what does it matter what we call the music we like amongst ourselves? I've already pretty much tossed the labels of "rock" and "country" from my own vocabulary when I'm talking to anyone outside of my musical circle, because I know we won't understand the same thing by the use of the term. I can't use the term rock since I don't like most modern R'n'R, so I describe it more precisely as "rockabilly" or "blues" or "acoustic with a backbeat". Likewise I can't use the term "country" because most people will understand that as Garth Brooks, who I can't stand. So I try things like "Americana", "western swing", "honky tonk", "roots", etc.

Let's face it, someone else owns the term "country" these days. What we do is something different.

As far as the marketing uses of terms, I don't have a printable opinion.

-eric

I'm not facing anything Eric except the truth. I KNOW what real country music is and so so the people who purchase it. Dale Watson is country. Phil Vassar is rock. Bobby Flores is country. Rascal Fats is rock. Fight the liars. It matters because its purposeful cultural genocide perpetrated by the media powers.

My music is definitely rock, not country.

Well, the topic is about country music Leslie, so I don't get your point, I guess. I'm happy for you though, that you know what you like and don't.

I like lots of styles, but I'm careful to try and understand the roots and not categorize it as something it just is not.

....it matters a lot. It matters that if you go to a performance or buy a CD from a bin that you get what you are expecting to hear. It matters because it's important for the artists and musicians who shaped the music to get their just due... whatever the style. [I'm doing my best to avoid using the "g" word because I think it would be pretentious for me.]

It matters because when you hear the offerings of J.S Bach, or Beverly Sills or Robert Johnson or George Jones that you pay them back for the work they did so that you can play music.

Terms I would use to describe most of the modern music proffered by the stations and producers... mediocre, temporary....pc...trendy.

People buy into it though, because they just generally "ain't got time" to worry about it.

It's good enough, I guess:\

Kevin Hatton wrote:I'm not facing anything Eric except the truth. I KNOW what real country music is and so so the people who purchase it. Dale Watson is country. Phil Vassar is rock. Bobby Flores is country. Rascal Fats is rock. Fight the liars. It matters because its purposeful cultural genocide perpetrated by the media powers.

In principle, I couldn't agree more, Kevin. I'm just afraid the quest for integrity in music these days is futile. (reference another thread I started about a Tom Russell song). I'm on your side.

-eric

Y'know this same sort of confusion of terms has gone on in the past. The only difference between, "Jazz," and "Western Swing," at one time was that one was played on horns and the other on strings. You can add Gypsy jazz to that if you just remove the steel guitar from the western swing band. In the 50's if Chuck Berry played it, it was rythm and blues. But if Jerry Lee Lewis played it, it was rockabilly. If I remember my history right, country was included under, "Folk," until some time in the 50's. I think it has always had to do with marketing and the politics of identity. And I think the two arise together and play on each other. I don't often quote the bible. And I can't claim this is exact. But in Ecclesiastes or 1st Ecclesiastes if you're Catholic, "What has always been is what now is. What now is, is what will be. There is nothing new under the sun."

Alot of very valid thoughts here. My biggest complaint has always been that sometime in the very late 70's, the country music industry decided to quit marketing to and making records for the sole country music audience. Dont get me wrong, there were some fine country records made during the 80's, but the "purity" of the business was gone. A few here have mentioned that these changes have happened throughout country music history, the uproar from the purists if you will. But, really if you think about it, from Uncle Dave Macon and The Skillet Lickers, to Hank Williams and ET, to Ray Price, Jim Reeves, Patsy, Tammy,up to even, dare I say it, Kenny Roger's first Nashville cuts, these records were made by country people, marketed to country people, and sold to country people. Different styles of country, but still all country. It was mentioned earlier that country is like blues and jazz, its a niche style meant to appeal to a certain group of people. I truly believe that John Travolta and his plug-in bucking bull was the start of our downfall!