The cultural gap and Sneaky Pete

Alex Piazza · Post by **Alex Piazza** » 17 Sep 2007 2:22 pm

Its interesting that this topic brings up so much controversy. especially because, other than steel guitar players, nobody gives a rats ass. most people in the crowd love the sound of the steel guitar, and thats where it ends. nobody knows the difference between c6th, e9th, sacred steel, loyd green, sneakey pete, ralph mooney. nobody but us lonley steelers.
however, if youve ever seen robert randolph live, hes always got hot college girls on stage dancing around him. Its become a fad. every time I play in our college town at some point in the night im surrounded by hot 21 year old sorority girls in skimpy clothes dancing and spilling beers on my gear. And i love every minute of it. I dont play like RR, Im not even much of a fan, but they dont know that. They just see a steel and think its cool. Ive actually gotten laid because of what hes done with the steel guitar. a little change can be good!!!

Ben Jones · Post by **Ben Jones** » 17 Sep 2007 2:47 pm

Ive actually gotten laid because of what hes done with the steel guitar.

-I think for this comment alone, a quintuple post is justified

Duane Reese · Post by **Duane Reese** » 17 Sep 2007 3:42 pm

I think it should end, for steel players as well, at some point short of obsessing about a "cultural divide". I hear you, Alex

We live in a world of choices... Some want to take steel to exciting new places, some want to stick with the country tradition; those with "the vision thing" go ahead, those "traditional country players" stay behind, happily. This creates what some are calling a "divide", and I just don't see what the problem is.

I really don't think the fact that pedal steel is proven useful in more than one genre of music is the root cause of a spelling error on Sneaky Pete's plaque, for crying out loud.

This forum is a great community, but I think some are starting to get an overly-cohesive vision of it.

Geeze - it's a free-standing, gaget-filled wooden box with strings on it, and we're talking about ethnic and cultural strife?

Jeremy Threlfall · Post by **Jeremy Threlfall** » 17 Sep 2007 4:08 pm

right on, Duane.

and more to the point, Alex got laid despite the spelling error on Sneaky's plaque.

All is well in the world.......

Dave Zirbel · Post by **Dave Zirbel** » 17 Sep 2007 4:25 pm

....and all this time I thought steel guitars were the center of the universe.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 17 Sep 2007 6:03 pm

Well I think they are the center for Alex now...and I can see why. Um, how do I get my band booked in Arkansas, Alex?

Gary C. Dygert · Post by **Gary C. Dygert** » 17 Sep 2007 6:26 pm

This has been an interesting and enthusiastic discussion! Here's my two cents: could part of the separation so many of us have felt from non-country music be because of the disparaging remarks we were subjected to for listening to unfashionable hillbilly music? Being known as a teenage country music lover in the 60s was just asking for verbal abuse, even in the rural area where I grew up. The kids could hardly wait to get away from anything country or rural, music included.

I found out that not everybody had grown up with traditional musicians in the family, and not everybody had grown up listening to Gene & Roy & Bob Wills & Kitty & Ernest & all of the Hanks. For a long time, I cut myself off from other, non-country forms of music in self-defense. Eventually, I got over it, and my tastes are more eclectic now, at the ripe old age of 59. But still, country is my favorite. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 17 Sep 2007 8:04 pm

Donny. Axioms are not absolutes.
And generalities are just that.

The majority of steel playing foprumites
are older folks.The demographic fits the
time frame and local's that the instrument
was MOST played, by the most people.

It is now an aging demographic,
and with age typically comes
intransigence to change,
in music and life in general.

Not absolutely all people are that way,
and within that group some are not not as
adverse to all types of change...

But the old dog new trick adage rings true.
We learn less, retain less and hence,
become more comfortable with what we know,
and less comfortable with what is new,
as we age.

It is notable that those who try most to
continue learning for learning's sake,
age slower, and dare I say more gracefully.

Some have a greater facility for harmonic expansion,
others while physically dexterous will never
be harmonically advanced.

So to berate those content to their lot and place,
because you are more open or absorbtive still,
seems to shut the door on learning something
you might not know you can use, because it is
in a context you find too simple for
your current advancement.

ie. I like older country, but can't see any place I could possibly play it. It isn't my fovoirite style.
but I CAN and have easily applied things I learn in country TAB to much different musics.
It also showed me ways to get around the instrument.

This I see as a plus, even if I can't play the music with anyone.

I can work on mandolin concertos and gain from that too,
even if I will not have a chamber orch. to perform them with.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 17 Sep 2007 8:50 pm

... could part of the separation so many of us have felt from non-country music be because of the disparaging remarks we were subjected to for listening to unfashionable hillbilly music? Being known as a teenage country music lover in the 60s was just asking for verbal abuse, even in the rural area where I grew up. The kids could hardly wait to get away from anything country or rural, music included.

Bingo, Gary! Yup, no doubt about it. I grew up in Boston, and psychedelic rock, blues, and jazz ruled in my time. Don't get me wrong - I was into that too. But Hank and Merle just weren't on the radar with anybody I knew. I just listened at home and kept my mouth shut to avoid the abuse.

I still get that from some "whiny country music hater" friends and musical colleagues of mine. They're fine with me as long as I'm playing blues, jazz, funk, rockabilly, or whatever. But when I say - "Hey, let's play 'I'm a Lonesome Fugitive' or 'Pop a Top'", I get that deer crossed in the headlights look - "Say What?! Is that one of those whiney country songs blah blah blah?" There definitely is a bias in many, many circles.

I don't think there's anything wrong with completely focusing one approach to music and drilling that down to China. But I really wouldn't be happy with that. I think that's because there is no "pure" American popular musical style. Practically any modern style has large elements of other styles - historical and contemporary. Blues derives from African music and Western European church music. Country derives from Celtic music, traditional American string music, popular music, blues, swing (western and otherwise), and other things. Rock and roll derives from swing jazz, early R&B, blues, country, popular music, and other things too. The whole concept of Americana revolves around this idea, IMO.

So, to me, the history of American music - and all music, really - is that of amalgamating what's going on at the time to create new things. So again to me, to hermetically seal out other styles or influences means, to a certain extent, to turn a style into something more like a museum-piece, much as has been done with mainstream classical music. These days, some circles of "traditionalists" in jazz, blues, bluegrass, rockabilly, country and others have extolled the virtues of this approach.

Although I think there's a place for the "pure" traditional styles, I wouldn't want to see that become formally codified. I really think that if practitioners of a style don't allow themselves to be influenced by anybody, that style pretty much dies with them except among a small group of devotees. The greats of traditional country music allowed themselves to be influenced. Why not us too? Just my opinion.

chas smith R.I.P. · Post by **chas smith R.I.P.** » 17 Sep 2007 9:30 pm

Dwight Yoakum is doing an album tribute to Buck Owens, to be released October. It was produced by another fan of Buck Owens, Fred Durst, formerly of Limp Bizkit.

Jeremy Threlfall · Post by **Jeremy Threlfall** » 17 Sep 2007 10:24 pm

...and what about the contribution Buck Owens made to Lennon & McCartney's songwriting for that matter?

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 17 Sep 2007 10:51 pm

If all country artists played the same country,
we only would have needed to listen
to ONE OF THEM.

It is the differences in players,
and with in styles that makes music interesting.

If we don't embrace some of the new, we lose out.

How many were outraged when Hank Snow went out of bounds.
It was rancorously disputative back then,
And now can be labled retro.

It is always those stretching the limits a bit
that brought life into any musical sub-genre.
The only alternative is a muribund homogenization.

Jim Sliff · Post by **Jim Sliff** » 18 Sep 2007 5:30 am

Well said David.

David L. Donald · Post by **David L. Donald** » 18 Sep 2007 6:04 am

As I see it Hank Snow doing a bit of island music
set the stage for Jimmy Buffet
and then he worked with Alan Jackson.
Turning bringing the connection back to today.

And Loggins and Messina did a similar detour from country rock and folk.

But Hank did it first, and for his gig that was WAY out.

Sneaky Pete was a tie line between more conventional country,
and country rock and rock.
He brought more people TO old school country,
than the other way round.

One group was looking to expand,
the other to remain the same, to some extent.
I think you know which ones chose which path back then.

Now it is so mixed that few oldsters can
tell where anything's roots are coming from.
But it was like that in the 50's
when you looked back at country in the 20-30s too.
A sea change in style.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 18 Sep 2007 6:23 am

David Donald, answer this question, please! Generally, don't you consider yourself both smarter and wiser than you were, say...20 years ago?

Barry Blackwood · Post by **Barry Blackwood** » 18 Sep 2007 7:38 am

"It is notable that those who try most to
continue learning for learning's sake,
age slower, and dare I say more gracefully."

DLD, I generally agree with what you're saying, but would you classify this particular statement as fact, or opinion?

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 18 Sep 2007 8:17 am

It is now an aging demographic,
and with age typically comes
intransigence to change,
in music and life in general.

Not absolutely all people are that way...

Hmm, I don't really recall saying "absolutely" about anything.

All I'm saying is that it's fine to allow the wheels of musical progress to keep on rolling. It's quite another thing, however, to let them run over and kill everything that's gone before.

There's room for everything, but only if everything is kept in the proper place.

If there's prejudice against any style of music, I've found it usually exists in both directions. Lately, there seems a backlash going on against both older and newer styles. Hardly anyone likes every single style of music.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 18 Sep 2007 8:36 am

Donny - David can answer the question or not - but it really is irrelevant to the point we were making, IMO. You seemed to make the argument that older people are, in general, wiser than younger people - not whether certain individual people get wiser with age.

Even with that distinction made - I hope that in 20-30 years I will be yet wiser than I am now, assuming I make it that long. But in all seriousness - at a certain point, I think a lot of people, if not most, start to regress. I totally agree with David that stemming that regression means being willing to continue to learn and actively interact with the world. To me, it's "grow or die", and I'm perfectly serious. The only issue is the parameters of that growth.

I agree that it's possible to grow in a restricted context like Duane is talking about - one can grow deeply in a narrow direction instead of broadly. But I still argue that the mindset that refuses to acknowledge new things often tends to also not want to grow at all, but rest on tried-and-true ways of doing things.

All I'm saying is that it's fine to allow the wheels of musical progress to keep on rolling. It's quite another thing, however, to let them run over and kill everything that's gone before. ... Lately, there seems a backlash going on against both older and newer styles. Hardly anyone likes every single style of music.

On these points, I completely agree. But I don't think that backlash is new. The society is more polarized than ever, and it was always quite polarized. I think the level of rapid communication allows this clubiness to move to a worldwide scale. All IMO, of course.

David Doggett · Post by **David Doggett** » 18 Sep 2007 9:51 am

In the biology of aging there is some evidence for "use it or loose it" with the mind as well as the body. Continueing to challenge the mind by learning new things seems to help keep it healthy longer.

The question of whether older people are wiser is muddied by the rapid pace of change in the world. Among tribal primitive people in ancient times, the environment changed little from generation to generation, and the longer one lived in the environment, the more one knew about it. In modern civilization change is so rapid that situation has been almost turned upside down, at least in terms of technology. If you want to know something about computers, ask young people (Wiz is a refreshing exception - not that he is old

).

Military historians have a saying that the brass always fight the last war, sometimes with disastrous effects. Some would say that also applies to politicians and voters. They tend to react to the way the world use to be rather than the way it is now. This tends to indicate that, not just with technology, but with human events in general, older is not necessarily wiser in a rapidly changing world.

Nevertheless, in spite of all the changes, there are certain human characteristics that don't change - love, hate, sex, pain, death. People in every era may get a little wiser in those things as they get older. Still, those things are embedded in cultural mores and manners that do change, and older people can get out of touch with those things.

So the bottom line is: it depends.

Ward Skinner · Post by **Ward Skinner** » 18 Sep 2007 10:16 am

Not sure if this is relevant to the topic, but it is to David's post.

Music and Quality of Life

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 18 Sep 2007 10:50 am

The question of whether older people are wiser is muddied by the rapid pace of change in the world.

Important point, David. It does muddy up the waters.

However in some ways, growing up in a stable environment can definitely have advantages. Not all change is "good" - according to whatever metric you want use. If one has never been able to stick with one approach to things long enough to deeply understand it, it can lead to a very superficial view. Frankly, I think it has lead us to the point where many people simply have no idea how to drill down and really dig into a problem. Instead, they insist on quick solutions and instant gratification.

I think this is, in fact, one of the problems that up-coming generations need to face squarely. Tons of changes are shoved at us constantly - "Whassamattayou - you a luddite?" But one needs to be able to critically evaluate this mountain of information and pressure to change.

So I agree it's a mistake to refuse to accept change blindly, but also a mistake to accept it blindly. Ironically, I think that the ever-increasing pace of change will force us to be ever more skeptical about its value. At some point, there must be a tradeoff between fixed cost vs. variable benefits of adaptation, IMO.

Donny Hinson · Post by **Donny Hinson** » 18 Sep 2007 1:41 pm

Duane Reese wrote:I think it should end, for steel players as well, at some point short of obsessing about a "cultural divide". I hear you, Alex

Really, I don't obsess about it...but I don't try to ignore it either!

We live in a world of choices... Some want to take steel to exciting new places, some want to stick with the country tradition; those with "the vision thing" go ahead, those "traditional country players" stay behind, happily. This creates what some are calling a "divide", and I just don't see what the problem is.

I think the problem stems from the fact that some players feel that there's no place for older styles. There is a place for them, just not a place on the radar of most of the younger set. Conversely, some older players think there's no place for the newer stuff, and that can cause problems too. Hey, I think it's great that Pink Floyd had a steel in some of his music. I also think it's great that RR is bringing newbies into the fold. However, if the newer stuff was all that was out there now, I'd probably be pretty put off.

Sure, I've done tons of tons of older whiney stuff. I've also done jam-band stuff, similar to what RR is doing now. I've played Billy Joel stuff, Robert Plant stuff, J. Geils' Band stuff, and even some Hendrix stuff on steel.

Like a few players out there, I've done a little of a great many styles of music, and I've enjoyed most of it. What do I like most? Well, that depends on my mood, but I can tell you flatly, I'm not "hooked" on any one style, nor do I worship any single player or band.

As Duke Ellington once said..."There's good music and there's bad music". Whether or not you can get a concensus on exactly what's good and what's bad all depends on where you are, and who you're talking to.

Michael Lee Allen · Post by **Michael Lee Allen** » 18 Sep 2007 5:00 pm

REMOVED

Duane Reese · Post by **Duane Reese** » 18 Sep 2007 7:07 pm

Donny Hinson wrote:
Duane Reese wrote:We live in a world of choices... Some want to take steel to exciting new places, some want to stick with the country tradition; those with "the vision thing" go ahead, those "traditional country players" stay behind, happily. This creates what some are calling a "divide", and I just don't see what the problem is.
I think the problem stems from the fact that some players feel that there's no place for older styles... Conversely, some older players think there's no place for the newer stuff, and that can cause problems too.

Ehh... I still don't see a problem. I understand what creates a divide, which many people call a "problem", but I just don't see that it actually is a problem. Nobody can forbid anybody else from playing a type of music that they feel there's no place for, so where's the problem?

A lack of understanding? Well, besides the bickering right here on this forum about it (which is now probably responsible for 10 ft. of collective hairline retreat), I don't anticipate this causing any problems whatsoever... Unless of course, one really believes that it causes misspellings on plaques. These forum wars are generally worse for the soul than that, I'd say.

I say it's only a problem if people make it into one. There is a divide, and I think that if everyone ignores it, it won't amount to anything.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 18 Sep 2007 7:42 pm

The steel guitar, pedals, knee levers, palm levers, the straight pedal rack, and the E9th tuning were all originated by "non-hillbillies" outside of country music. The C&W contribution was the added on inside-out re-entrant chromatic strings and additional knee levers.

Of course, the physical instrument was indeed developed before the C&W people came in. But I agree with David in the sense that the "pedal steel guitar sound and technique" as we now know it came from the country music community. I love players like Alvino Ray also - but it's a very different sound and technique, IMO. I can't speak for David, but that is what I consider to be the "development" of the pedal steel guitar.

Are these people now an "ethnic group" too?

Yes, they are. For example, peoples derived from Anglo-Saxon and Gaelic are ethnic groups - yeah, not under-represented ones in the US - but definitely ethnic groups. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups

Duane, I agree that cultural divides aren't, by themselves, a problem. To me, it's good to have cultural diversity. From a purely selfish point of view, I learn all kinds of new stuff from people who come at things from a different angle. Only when venomous intolerance rears its ugly head is there a problem - of course this happens sometimes. To me, one should deal with the problem - intolerance - and embrace the fact that we're not all homogenized like Velveeta cheese.

At least on this thread, I haven't seen a "forum war" yet. I hope it doesn't go that way. I still think most of us have way more in common than differences, and I'm not just talking about country steel players.