The Steel Guitar Forum

Since its inception there has been many a post on this forum lamenting the passing of old country music and complaining of the new. I don’t know the average age of the typical SGF forumite, but it has to be at least 50. The bewilderment at changing times and music is understandable. But you wouldn’t expect rock and pop music to stay the same decade after decade, why would you expect country music to stand still? Expecting country radio to “stay country” is futile.

Considering that the CD buying public is young, could it be that the music has left the old-timers behind, as it does year after year? Rather than hanging on to country radio, hoping it will return to its roots only to be disappointed, why not accept that your heyday is past? Relieve yourself of the tedium of the “new country”, as there is so much of the old being re-released on CD and DVD. Satellite radio is also quite satisfying to listen to. There are many bands and young-timers that play nothing but vintage country, swing, old-timey, bluegrass, etc. Seek them out and support them. Expecting the corporate mainstream (Brittany Spears) to cater to our purist tastes (Hank Williams) is unrealistic.

All I’m saying is, look outside the mainstream to satisfy your musical urges, you may be surprised at what you find.

cheers,
Drew

------------------

<font size=1>Drew Howard - website - Fessenden guitars, 70's Fender Twin, etc.</font>


<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Drew Howard on 03 November 2005 at 08:38 AM.]</p></FONT>

Your comments, "accept that your heyday is past", "the music has left the old-timers behind", "bewilderment at changing times and music" are insulting.

I am 50 years old, making me a "bewildered" old fuddy-duddy in your mind and many more, I'm sure. I have posted too about the "new country" not being very "country", just warmed-over '70's rock and roll. That, however, is NOT "lamenting" the passing of the so-called "traditional" country. It is nothing more than NOTING THE CHANGE. This is true for many of us, only remarking on the change.

FYI, I love all kinds of music from jazz, blues, classical, country, rock, world music, only thing I don't like is heavy metal and rap/hip-hop.

True, many do lament the changing of the older style into the new. What's wrong with that? I have no problem allowing people to miss whatever they miss. Tastes are different. Some like change, some like the original style. There's room for all of it, and no need to insult anyone who prefers an older style of music, be it country, big-band, classic rock or whatever.

Someday you too might miss something from your younger days, Drew, when you're "at least 50" and "bewildered" like many of us.

The ones who don't like the change and complain about it would probably be better served however to do something more constructive than complaining, if they want to save their preferred styles, such as find a way to support and popularize it, but I'm sure it's much easier to just complain.
<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 03 November 2005 at 11:43 AM.]</p></FONT>

Not only Country, but all mainstream music is going down the crapper. Fortunately, the technology that allows big business to assemble people with little talent and ProTools together a slick package for the masses also makes it easier for non-mainstream artists to create and get themselves heard.

The future won't be about the hit artists, it will be about independent musicians who create or find a niche for themselves which allows them to do what they love.

Of course, nobody will play country as well as those who actually were active in creating and shaping the genre at its inception, but I truly believe there are great things ahead.

I'm 35.

<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by John Poston on 03 November 2005 at 10:26 AM.]</p></FONT>

John...I like the way you think! In fact, one of the (unknown) reasons for the decline in big-name CD sales is the availability of the small, independent stuff, which is often better.

Yes, there are good traditional country artists recording <u>right</u> <u>now</u>. If you like that stuff, check out Curtis Potter, Justin Trevino, Jake Hooker, or Dugg Collins. These guys do it just as well as any of the "old guard" did it 40 years ago.

I didn't take Drew's post as an insult. I took it not so much as being pointed to a particular age, but rather those who just can't get over things. Some people can't get past the fact that a lot of modern country music sucks...it does, so deal with it. There's plenty of great music out there, you sometimes just have to dig. He did mention "50," but I wonder too what the average age of the typical forumite. If I added up the ages of all the steelers I know and got an average, it would in the ballpark...I bet he's pretty close.

Things do change...it's the natural way of things. Most every generation has a hangup with the way things are going. Some people are old at 40, others are still young at 70. I don't mean to speak for Drew, but that's how I took it. <font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Mike Winter on 03 November 2005 at 12:27 PM.]</p></FONT>

Glad you weren't insulted, Mike. But you missed my point.

I'm 50. I've posted before my opinion that the "new country" is not really country, it's just '70's pop/rock with some country twang and a steel or fiddle now and then.

I never said it's all bad, in fact it's not entirely bad music, the level of musicianship is fantastic, it just resembles old rock more than what was known as country. I don't see how anyone could deny that.

It, along with all pop music, suffers from the affliction of being over-produced, homogenized and formulated to hit the pop-target of the masses, and that's what I don't care for, in any type of music.

I think it's a question of semantics or terminology more than anything else.

Example: If blues evolved into sounding exactly like 80's punk, would it still be blues even though it would still have the label due to its slow evolution? Who knows?

It would be blues for those who didn't remember or care about the "old" blues, and it would not be blues for those who remembered the old style, it would be something else masquerading under the blues label. Just like the trad country vs new country argument today. I think it's a question that can't be answered black and white for everyone. It is whatever the person considers it to be, at least for them.

It is well-known that Nashville made a deliberate, conscious effort to mold country music into a more pop-rock sound to compete with the top-40 charts. They DID change country into pop-rock.

Do I need to back that up? Does Dale Watson quitting music because the bigwigs say he's "too country" not prove it?

Yes, country music's changed.

We all have the right to like or dislike it and call it as we see it.

For myself, I don't mind letting the "new" exist, but I don't believe the "old" should have to die, there is room for all styles of music as well as any kind of art.

All styles are evolving, but more often the old labels are being slid into different categories, and that's where some of the problem is for us.

Anyone here really think Kenny G is jazz? That's what they call him now. I thought John Coltrane was a jazz saxaphonist... Kenny G would have been called "easy listening" when I was younger, or even worse, "elevator music". There's still jazz out there too, but the labels are being changed around.

Concerning the newer styles, no problem, let them live, but to think that is to say we can't still enjoy the older styles anymore because they're not as popular now....that's stupid.

The old master artists such as DaVinci, Van Gogh, Monet etc. aren't thrown away when someone invents a new way of painting. Why then do the old styles of music have to be tossed out when a new style is found?

Because the old music isn't as popular with the masses and doesn't make the billions of dollars.... That's a shame, but it's business, and money controls business, and the business controls the products that are available.

This doesn't mean to me that because popularity=money=availability, we are bound to like whatever the new thing is and dump the old.

My point; I've posted my opinion and evaluation of the music situation. I have NEVER said that all old country was great and all new country was bad. In fact, although as I posted, I like a bit of everything, there are also bits of everything I don't like. There is some classic old country that in my opinion is absolute crap, and some of it is magnificent. The same could probably be said for most types of music.

What I resent, is when people lump others together by ages, races or any other common denominator and then say that "they" are a certain way. All 50+ people are not bewildered, past their heyday, sitting in rocking chairs and wishing for Glenn Miller and Hank Williams Sr.'s return. Music styles change, but there is still good music and bad music of every type, it's always been that way.

And I don't believe anyone has the ethical right to tell anyone else what kind of music they should like or not, or that they're wrong in liking any style of music over another, including an older style. We can all like whatever we like.

I deleted my reference to trolling from my first post. I think I should've left it in. Drew has a history of posting things he intends to stir up s**t with. I'll oblige him no more.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 03 November 2005 at 02:09 PM.]</p></FONT>

Donny....add to that list Bobby Flores and Billy Mata...for Drew, my problem is not "change"...my issue is that I can't tell rock from country. Hit the seek button on your radio and you have to listen a minute or two before you can decide if you're on a rock or country station...I understand the money and the marketing aspect....after all, that's why they're getting away with it.

Good music is timeless.

Exactly, as is any good art.

Jim,

My topic wasn't addressed to you personally, so please dial down two notches.

I agree that radio country music is sonically '70's-'80's pop rock. Sounds like a bunch of LA rockers moved to Nashville after the "big hair" bands died out. I prefer the old stuff, the real stuff, like most of us here.

cheers,
Drew



------------------

<font size=1>Drew Howard - website - Fessenden guitars, 70's Fender Twin, etc.</font>

I know what you mean, Larry. Part of the problem is how we define music today. If today's "country" is more like yesterday's southern rock, then what does <u>today's</u> "southern rock" sound like? Does southern rock exist any more? Or, is it just the same as country?

Who knows?

That's my real problem with some music...not what it is, but what they ("those people"? )call it. I know some people who actually think Alison Krause is bluegrass!

Say what?!?

Sure...and E.L.O. was hard rock.

That's one of the things I was saying, Donny.

Yes Drew you addressed me personally and everyone personally who falls into the age bracket you lumped into "bewildered, heyday past", etc. Now you're posting you like the really old stuff. So what then was your point in your original post? Was there one? Or are you just trolling, as usual?<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 03 November 2005 at 04:36 PM.]</p></FONT>

When Alison Krauss & Union Station decide to play a song that is true bluegrass during a concert, of which they have several-it's as bluegrass as anything out there.

------------------
Mark

Jim,

Take a pill.

Drew

------------------

<font size=1>Drew Howard - website - Fessenden guitars, 70's Fender Twin, etc.</font>

I think what most of us lament around here is how coutry and rock have failed to evolve artistically. I'm 52, older than dirt myself. Part of it is that people around my age grew up in the '60s, when music evolved to an artistic peak, rock music anyway, IMHO. I don't think anything new has been said in rock, country, or jazz either, for that matter in decades. When you grow up in the era of Hendrix, The Beatles, Coltrane, The Byrds, etc. you keep waiting for that artistic phenom to come along and advance the art form. I haven't seen one in awhile, have you?

------------------
Marrs D-10, Webb 6-14E

Well, there's country, and then there's country, and then there's country. Each of them is thought to be the traditional form, even if the genre is only a couple of years old. When I was a kid, all we could get was "country/western", which meant people in cowboy type clothes with mother-of-toilet-seat buttons. There was also something called "folk", which meant "terrible", but it was popular anyway with some people. Then for a long time "country" meant 15 yo rock'n'roll tunes. After that the genre was taken over by what I called "truck driver music" with lots of songs about Teddy Toad and Giddyup Go and Jeremiah The Bullfrog. Next it went high class, about the same time that a couple of companies bought up all the stations and changed them to Solid Gold formats. "Solid Gold" means they won't play anything unless it's already #1 on somebody's chart.

One side effect of this process is that players are demonstrating more and better training, for whatever reason. We are seeing people playing banjos and kazoos with skills comparable to any classical orchestral musician. Folk tunes, which used to be simple and clumsily played, are now rewritten and rearranged as well as anything by Mozart or Bach. Well, almost.

But the question remains: What exactly do you mean by "country"? Is Crystal Gayle country? How about Willie Nelson? Red Sovine? Narvel Felts? If your favorite bluegrass mandolin player plays a minuet, is that country or classical?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR><SMALL>Jim,

Take a pill.

Drew</SMALL><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Drew,

Take a flying leap.<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Jim Phelps on 03 November 2005 at 07:07 PM.]</p></FONT>

I don't really see the problem with whatever might be popular at any given moment.

Stuff Smith, Jimmy Bryant, Count Basie, Faron, and Carl Perkins are all dead. Most of their contemporaries are dead or long retired.

However, they have these things called CDs now. They came out about 20 years ago. And mp3s. And Internet radio.

The music of the typical dead artist is more available to the general public than it was when they were alive. Anyone can buy 90% to 100% of the lifetime recorded output of Ernest Tubb, Charlie Christian, Elmore James, or even Warren Smith or Harry Choates in 5 minutes--you wouldn't have been able to do that 30 years ago.

Is the beef what's on the GD radio??? I turned it off at least 30 years ago. I know who Kenny Chesney is only through inference and what I might read or accidentally pass by on the tube. Why would I voluntarily assault my own sensibilites?

I don't care in the least what current material the music and mainstream radio industries are grinding out--it's no more relevant to me than the output of a shoe factory in Bulgaria. That was all decided decades ago.

Why are the complainers still tuning in?

I can understand the complaint about live music. In most parts of the country there is virtually nothing out there that I would walk across the street to see. Why would I go out to be abused? I accept that "my heyday is past" and don't really have a problem with it. I don't expect someone half my age to have my tastes. Call me square as an apple box.

I took Drew's comments more to be about acceptance of facts rather than a putdown.

What I will never understand is how a musician can stand to play music they personally detest. That apparently goes on every day. I don't see how they can regard it as "just a job" and ignore the emotional impact.

Now listening to Faron singing "Don't take your love me".

Mitch said, "I took Drew's comments more to be about acceptance of facts rather than a put down." My feelings exactly. I would say that on this forum, there is a lot of pining for yesterdays that will never come again, so I guess I'd say live with the changes and keep doing what you want to do...playing what you want to play...

There are obviously underlying issues here...history...between certain parties. I read the original post a number of times...with 51 year old eyes...and still don't see what the fuss is about. Just could be that the fuss proves the point. Tomorrow's another day...my band's playing tomorrow night and I'm a happy camper. Sleep tight.

I find that as I'm growing older I'm getting to dislike ANY music that is played on mainstream commercial radio or television, new or old. Popular music (i.e. the 'hits' on the charts) can get mind-numbing after a while, and I don't care if it's rock or country, contemporary or 'classic'.

I enjoy making my own music now, and that includes doing whatever I want to do with steel guitar or any other instrument I can get my hands on. If I want to make a PSG sound like a formula one racer, I will, and I don't care what people think. That's the nice thing about playing music for one's own enjoyment - do whatever you feel like doing and don't worry about leaving a lasting impression on any critics that might be 'out there'.

Now my take on this whole country music thing has nothing to do with age. I believe the BIG reason why these threads about the state of country music keep resurfacing is that there are some steel players out there who grew up playing country music and are worried that there are fewer and fewer gigs to be had.

In the 'older' country music there were a lot of songs that featured steel guitar - I won't dispute that notion. But I'm willing to bet that some of the forum members who complain about the state of country music play in 'cover' bands and do quite a few tunes that are or were 'hits'. Commercial radio and now country music videos provide the fodder for cover bands. After all, most cover bands end up playing tunes that people are familiar with. There's nothing like recognition to get a dance crowd or bar crowd going.

Today's country either has no steel, a diminished role for steel, or simplified steel guitar accompaniment that is used to make a song sound 'country'. Therefore, there is little or no use for steel in many contemporary country bands that do cover tunes. I've yet to see a local cover band with a steel player or even someone who doubles on steel.

So IMHO, the complaining about the 'decline' of country music has less to do with aging and more to do with being able to get out and perform.

why not accept that your heyday is past? Relieve yourself of the tedium of the “new country”,

I can see how that statement could possibly inflame some of the guys who like the older stuff.

I am only a newbie on steel guitar but what I've noticed already in playing with a band on ocasion, is that there is a real hunger for the older stuff. We do some old classic southern gospel stuff (Hank Williams and others) that people really like. There seems to be a hunger for it. I also don't think there's one thing wrong with anybody being nastalgic concerning the music of their past. how many times have each of us heard a song that we listened to when we were young that touches out hearts years down the road and magically takes us back to that place in time in our own lives?

Ain't nothing wrong with being sentimental and wishing for a simpler place in time. I'm 49 now and I listen to classic country music most of the time. Like I said it takes me back. An added bonus is that my dad played on alot of that old stuff and I always get a real kick out of hearing something he did. Romance, Sentiment, and longing for days gone by are part of why folks don't appreciate todays so called country music. I bet when I'm an old guy I'll do the same thing. Just my opinion guys and I don't do online flame wars so agree or disagree with me. Doesn't matter cause I dig the old stuff when music was real.

Rick

Bill Hatcher You are right. Good music is "Timeless" CC

<SMALL>But you wouldn’t expect rock and pop music to stay the same decade after decade. </SMALL>

Why not? Mick and Keith do... (except when they stray into experimental stuff like disco...)

I'm not a big fan of the new stuff, but we play some of it in order to work,[bar crowd wants to hear what on the box].

Biggest plus for me on the songs that have no steel,,,,,,, I don't have to try and duplicate PF, or some other hot session players signatures!! I play what I MY imagination dictates,, just because the release doesn't have steel on it, I'm not going to park mine!!

I wasn't offened by Drews post, at 57 I like some of all of it, I understand how music evolves, and changes, my gripe is how Nashville markets it!!

Larry

------------------
Emmons S/D-10, 3/5, Sessions 400 Ltd. Home Grown E/F Rack
"ROCKIN COUNTRY"


<font size="1" color="#8e236b"><p align="center">[This message was edited by Larry Strawn on 04 November 2005 at 07:15 AM.]</p></FONT>

I've always been a fan of trational country music, never been a fan of today's FM radio version of country, and never, ever been a fan of real country music standing still.

Drew's right about the commercial stuff. The powers that be--now 70's rockers-- are forever chasing the young peoples' dollars. Maybe they'll catch on that the baby boomers are still a viable market for music, but let's not hold our breath waiting for that to happen.

I appreciate the list of "real deal" country artists that have been mentioned about. The only commercial country I buy these days are Alan Jackson and George Strait, and also the throw back CD's where the artist tries to prove they know what real country music is, e.g. Mark Chesnutt's "Saving the Honky Tonks", Vince Gill's "The Key".

Sure do love Dale Watson, Jake Hooker and those other Texas guys and gals.

------------------
HagFan