Period Music

[John Steele (deceased)]

We spend alot of time on here complaining about the current state of music, and longing for the Good Old Days.
Recently I had a round table discussion with a couple of jazz musicians who play mainly swing era music. Much of the same sentiment was put forth, with several venting their spleen about the state of modern jazz.

One person there shrugged his shoulders and stated that, in his opinion, people who play Swing Music are in fact playing "period music"; music pressed into a frame and frozen in time, and therefore they shouldn't be surprised or distressed that the new music doesn't represent that. He likened it to civil war re-enactors, or people who play recorders and lutes.
He wasn't diminishing the value, artistry, or enjoyability of said "Period Music", but somehow looking at it that way reduced his angst about what's going on these days. It seemed very relevant to many of our discussions here, and I think he has a point - even simply from the point of view of preserving his sanity. Thoughts ?

- John

[Dave Mudgett]

I largely agree with this view, with a couple of provisos -

1. I think a lot of supposedly "new" ideas really come from older periods. To a significant extent, each new generation tends to reinvent the popular music wheel at a lot of levels, with a "not invented here" type of mentality for anything that they can't put their own stamp on.

2. Some younger artists - the more intellectually honest ones, IMO - deliberately go back and scrounge up older influences, incorporate them, and pay homage to the original creators. As a result, some styles of popular music don't have to get completely frozen in time and can stay vibrant. I think blues, bluegrass, and to some extent mainstream jazz are examples where this has happened, at least to some extent. I see this less in modern country music, and I don't honestly know if most younger artists are less interested in what came before or if most older artists are too hardnosed to tolerate evolution, or some of both. I do believe that many (not all) older blues, bluegrass, rockabilly, and jazz artists have been very supportive of younger musicians, new ideas and continued growth, and I think that may be part of the reason the generational schism doesn't seem so intense.

But to me, the hard mainstream of popular music is, and generally has been, more sociological than musical. Styles like blues, bluegrass, rockabilly, and mainstream jazz have been "alternative" popular music styles for some time. My take, anyway.

[Rick Campbell]

I've glad this is working for these guys. My issue is not that the new country music is no good, it's that it's not anything new. What I hear, when I can't escape it, is the same music they called rock and roll, and pop in the 70's and 80's, being referred to as country. Let them play their music all they want to, but don't use the term "country", that's already taken.

I don't know anything about jazz music, but I'm sure these guys know what their talking about. Which brings us back to the same old point.... a lot of listeners don't know the difference and will buy into anything the radio stations program them to accept.

[Alan Brookes]

... What I hear ... is the same music they called rock and roll, and pop in the 70's and 80's, being referred to as country...

Terminology tends to change over the years. When "rock and roll" was so named in the early 50s, it gave a name to a style of music that already existed, but was not mainstream. But it was not just another name for "pop": "rock and roll" was a definite musical form. It had an offbeat, a walking bass, and only three chords. Add extra chords, take away the syncopation, and it was no longer "rock and roll". I believe the dilution of the term came about during the early 60s, mainly by the reaction of the press to Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan had made his name as a folk singer, but, by the time mainstream media had picked up on him, he had changed his style. So the press was presented with someone known as a folk singer, but singing music which had more to do with his pre-folk upbringing on rock and roll. To reconcile this someone came up with the term Folk Rock, which didn't make much sense because Rock & Roll itself was a derived folk music on modern instruments. Before long the media was calling everything from Joan Baez to Jimi Hendrix "Rock", and "Rock" just became another name for "Pop".

This left the problem of what to call real Rock & Roll, and the term Rockabilly came to be more and more used.

Rockabilly has always been a form of Country Music. That's why Elvis fitted right into the Louisiana Hayride. If you listen to Country Music recorded in the 50s, many Country Stars incorporated Rockabilly into their acts. This included Buck Owens, Tennessee Ernie Ford, Marty Robbins, Carl Perkins, Patsy Cline, Conway Twitty, and many others. Have you ever listened to Patsy Cline's "Shake Rattle and Roll", or Buck Owens's "Hot Dog", or Marty Robbins's "Long Tall Sally", or Tennessee Ernie's "Shotgun Boogie"?

When modern C&W groups include 50s-type rockabilly they are only returning to their heritage.

[Edward Meisse]

My short answer is, I agree with the guy, period.

[David Doggett]

Yes, the concept of period music is useful. This has long been the case in classical music; thus, there are classical music “conservatories,” and a great deal of attention to the goal of conservancy. I also see this happening now among the African-American middle class and musicians regarding the conservancy of jazz, which they consider their classical music. They have loosened up on the obsession with contemporary cutting-edge jazz, and more and more extend the focus to all eras of jazz, recognizing and relishing the distinctions between the various eras.

But you have to come up with names for the different periods. In classical music there are periods such as baroque, classical, romantic, impressionist, modern, post-modern, minimalist, etc. The term “classical” does double duty as one of the defined eras, but also as the general term for all of it. Likewise there is ragtime, Dixieland, Swing, hot, bebop, cool, free, fusion, etc., and it’s all called jazz.

The attempt of Rick and many others to limit the use of the term “country music” to a particular era is probably futile. It’s simply the generic industry term for all of the stuff that has been played on country radio stations, the subject of country awards shows, etc. Serious conservancy will require labeling the various eras. For me it would be something like: the folk-country era (Jimmy Rogers, Carter family, Woody Guthrie, etc.), Golden Age (‘40s – ‘50s), Silver Age (‘60s – ‘70s), Texas Outlaws (Waylon, Willie, Billy Joe Shaver, etc.), The Garth era, and modern rock-country.

To people who have grown up with rock’n’roll and rock, it is very wrong to lump modern rock-country into any era of rock. Although it borrows heavily from Southern rock, it is not really identical to that or any other era or sub-genre of rock. Rock-country is a sub-genre of country in it’s own right. It evolved in the star-oriented pop-country milieu of Nashville and Texas and rural/small-town southern and middle America, not from the band-oriented, urban, high school and college rock scene. Like it or not, modern rock-country is what pop-country has evolved to in the country music industry. It is definitely country music. It’s just not the country music of the various earlier eras older country fans prefer. At some point you have to accept the fact that “country music” is a very broad term spanning a number of eras and sub-genres, and can’t be artificially defined as some one particular era that a particular country fan prefers.

It seems time to stop wasting energy fighting about possession of the broad term “country,” and start conserving it all for the various country constituencies of the various eras and sub-genres, and for posterity, when future generations will come to enjoy and cherish the distinctions of the different eras.

[David Doggett]

Alan, I have many disagreements with your explanations of this. Although Rockabilly came from country, and overlapped and evolved into Rock’n’Roll, it was and is a fairly distinct sub-genre in it’s own right. Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Pat Boone, the doowoppers, etc. were R’n’R, but not Rockabilly. And at the time they emerged, Rockabilly and R’n’R created a big schism from country in pop music. The Everly Brothers came from a country music family, and were considered traitors in Nashville, which was panicked for awhile that R’n’R would completely eclipse country music. But R’n’R and country simply settled into different niches in pop music. The eclipse didn’t come overnight as they first feared, but instead took about 5 decades, when rock-country finally took over the country music industry in the ‘90s and ‘00s. But modern rock-country is not Rockabilly, nor is it Rock’n’Roll. It’s something country evolved into within the country music industry.

It’s getting off topic, but there is much more to the evolution of Rock’n’Roll into Rock than Bob Dylan. It has as much or more to do with the Beatles and Stones and the whole British invasion; and the proliferation of FM radio and band-oriented “album rock,” as an alternative to pop-star Rock’n’Roll singles on AM. At least that’s what happened in the US. As usual, things happened a little differently across the pond.

[Scott Shipley]

And we all owe Paul's dad a big thank you for his influence, that quite possibly saved rock and roll from forever being three chord rockabilly.

[Rick Campbell]

All this talk about rockabilly, etc... is true, but the part you're leaving out is that in their time, they were the exception, and real country continued to be the mainstay. However, it seems that today, real country has been forced to take a backseat to the over abundance of the new sounds, that seem to me to be nothing more than the rock and roll of The Eagles, Three Dog Night, etc...

One thing we can all agree on is that discussion of this is probably a waste of time, if we expect any results to come from it. For some crazy reason, I feel the need to defend the real traditional country music, soulful ballads, shuffles, etc... because they have brought me so much enjoyment over the years, and I just hate to see it go away without someone speaking up in favor of it.

On the bright side, I suppose we're lucky to have a place that we can discuss our opinions and all be friends at the end of the day.

[Theresa Galbraith]

I agree David!

[Alan Brookes]

The one good thing about music is that no styles ever disappear, they just sink from prominence. In 200 years time, whatever Country Music has become, there will still be enthusiasts around who will want to play and hear 1940s Country Music. I don't think any type of music is a threat to any other type of music in the long run. When a new musical style comes into prominence it has it's flash for a few years, then settles down into the accumulated archive. Who would have thought, for instance, as the lute and cittern died out, that there would be more lutenists in the 21st century than there were in the 17th century ?

When it comes to terminology, that will change over the years, just as language changes. Those influentual in bringing about semantic changes do so because they perceive words to be different than their originators. "A rose by any other name...."

[Paul Graupp]

And we all owe Paul's dad a big thank you for his influence, that quite possibly saved rock and roll from forever being three chord rockabilly.

Paul ?? Paul who ??

Regards, Paul (Not me...)

[John Steele (deceased)]

If you're taking strictly about terminology, it's interesting to note that the term "country and western" as a genre was unknown until 1949, when the Billboard chart people coined the term for purposes of categorization.

But that's not even really the point. If the "new country" people didn't define themselves that way, as a sub-genre, then the term "country" wouldn't have any application whatsoever in today's music.
Because, after all, classic country is a "period music".

- John

[Scott Shipley]

Paul ?? Paul who ??

Regards, Paul (Not me...)

There was a reference to The Beatles in the post before mine.

[Leslie Ehrlich]

For some crazy reason, I feel the need to defend the real traditional country music, soulful ballads, shuffles, etc... because they have brought me so much enjoyment over the years, and I just hate to see it go away without someone speaking up in favor of it.

Hey, I like that stuff too, but I'm not going beat the dead horse here by constantly whining about it falling by the wayside.

But to me, the hard mainstream of popular music is, and generally has been, more sociological than musical.

Popular music today is a strange meld between fashion statements, attitudes, and music. What I see happening is that each succeeding generation tries to be 'cooler' than the previous one, and the state of being 'cool' is prepackaged and commodified in the form of popular music.

Country music had to be made 'cooler' to appeal to a younger audience. Face it, Porter Wagoner's rhinestone studded suits don't look as 'cool' as a T-shirt and blue jeans, and a whining pedal steel guitar doesn't sound as 'cool' as a Gibson Les Paul forcing an amp into gritty overdrive. And songs about hillbillies falling in and out of love just aren't 'cool' compared to songs about partying and getting rowdy.

[Scott Shipley]

Popular music today is a strange meld between fashion statements, attitudes, and music

As was, and always will be the case.

Country music had to be made 'cooler' to appeal to a younger audience. Face it, Porter Wagoner's rhinestone studded suits don't look as 'cool' as a T-shirt and blue jeans, and a whining pedal steel guitar doesn't sound as 'cool' as a Gibson Les Paul forcing an amp into gritty overdrive.

And overalls didn't look as cool as Porter's rhinestone studded suits, nor did open-back banjo's being played clawhammer style (pre-Earl) sound as cool as Hi-waiian steel guitars being played through 5 watt electrical amplifiers.

And songs about hillbillies falling in and out of love just aren't 'cool' compared to songs about partying and getting rowdy.

"Settin The Woods On Fire," "Shotgun Boogie," "Honey Take a Whiff On Me," "Rye Whiskey," etc, etc, etc.......

Not tryin to be a smart alec LE, just pointin out that nothing is new. Hank Jr. wasn't the first country artist to be thrown out of a town for bustin up a hotel room!
Tot pferd!

[Dave Mudgett]

Popular music today is a strange meld between fashion statements, attitudes, and music. What I see happening is that each succeeding generation tries to be 'cooler' than the previous one, and the state of being 'cool' is prepackaged and commodified in the form of popular music.

This type of "in with the new, out with the old" has been going on for a very long time indeed, which was an important piece of my earlier post. It goes to much more than popular music, which is just one piece of popular culture. Nudie suits, flashy electric guitars and pedal steels, and such were a reaction to the earlier ethos, and such can be seen across the board in popular music - there are various eras in country, jazz, blues, R&B, rock, and so on.

But the other piece is how much of earlier styles are retained in later eras. To me, the issue is whether or not later artists acknowledge, or are even aware, of their influences. I don't have much patience for artists who claim authorship for things they should know came much earlier, and I think that perception is a piece of what rankles many older artists. The torch must always be passed to a new generation, but it is not a good idea to spit in the face of the people they borrowed from. But not all new artists do this - not at all. Most serious musicians I've run into are well aware of their influences. I think it's more often audiences that act like this - that goes to my earlier point that music is not necessarily the main focus, but a piece of the overall popular culture.

[Edward Meisse]

If you're taking strictly about terminology, it's interesting to note that the term "country and western" as a genre was unknown until 1949, when the Billboard chart people coined the term for purposes of categorization.

But that's not even really the point. If the "new country" people didn't define themselves that way, as a sub-genre, then the term "country" wouldn't have any application whatsoever in today's music.
Because, after all, classic country is a "period music".

- John

"New Country," is also period music. And so is every kind of music from every period. We just don't usually call it that while it's in fashion.

[Scott Shipley]

Well said EM.

[Ron Sodos]

The concept of "period music" is well taken but good is good and crap is crap. Most of the stuff coming out on the radio is crap. It has nothing at all to do with whether it is new or resembles old country. I listen alot to jazz and other forms of music. I can understand how the issue could be more appropriate to that form of music. But even if someone does not like to listen to a form of music it can be appreicated as well played and well designed. The stuff i mostly hear on the radio these days is just plain bad. Sugarland for example is nothing but exaggerated twang in a nasal tone. Some sort of hype that the public continues to buy. O well.

[Donny Hinson]

At the end of WWII, music became so diverse that suddenly, it became difficult to associate a historic period with any one style of music. There was so much overlap and variety that you could no longer classify any decade as being associated with any one style or genre. That became, more or less, the end of "period music" (to me, anyway), and that's why I have a hard time calling any specific genre after WWII "period music". That term is usually associated with musical styles that span many decades, sometimes more than a century (such as Classical, Baroque, and Rennaissance). I realize many people tend to categorize certain music in decades (like '50s music) but it's really hard to associate only one genre of later than mid 20th century music with any decade. Sure, many people classify '50s "rock" music as stuff like Fats Domino, Elvis, Chuck Berry, and Bill Haley. But there was a lot of other music in that period that also classified as rock. Groups like The Platters, The Four Lads, The McGuire Sisters, Johnnie Ray, and many others were also on the rock charts back then, so the term "50s music" is somewhat subjective. There was rock, and pop, and dance music as well, but everything was hashed together so that connecting only one style with a decade became difficult. The same thing was true in the '60s, when we had surf music, folk music, British music, and soul music, and pop-flavored instrumental music all running concurrently on the rock charts.

[Alan Brookes]

Don't forget that the term "50s Music" would include Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby, Dean Martin, Mel Torme, and such great rock & rollers as Semprini and Mantovani....

[AJ Azure]

If you think any era is just one genre you need to get out more there have always been multi-styled eras. the only issue is availability to the masses. Let's take for example my 'period' group. jazz (hot jazz, gypsy jazz, dixieland), ragtime, blues, pop novelty, foxtrot, waltz, beguine, bolero,tango, Hawaiian, klezmer, Western swing, latin and that does not include asian or African cultures. The 20s and 30s were about dance bands and they were not only one style. Swing era is where it really became more one style and even then there were foxtrots, Latin, tangos, etc.along with swing. Nowadays everything is compartmentalized, specialized, etc. it's ironic in an age where we have access to everything and could and should be fusing and being ultra exploratory, instead we end up putting it all in to neat, tidy little boxes. music has and will always be fusion. if you place a mental constraint on it then you limit yourself and music as a whole. Even with my group we play period music but, flip it on its' ear and input new concepts too. Like the spy theme medley we're working on hehe

[David Doggett]

I don't think anyone in this thread is advocating lumping all the different genres during some one decade together as a period. Maybe popular music in America was once like that, but as Donny pointed out, it certainly hasn't been like that since WWII. Rather I think we are talking about considering the different decades in the one genre of country music as different periods within that genre, and as examples we have mentioned different eras or periods within other genres, such as jazz and classical music.

[Dave Mudgett]

I thought John made it pretty clear in the OP that he was discussing, for example, swing music as a period music in the jazz genre, and so on. I totally agree that there are and always have been a variety of genres going on concurrently in an era.

I'm sorry, but I'll never consider acts like The Four Lads, The McGuire Sisters, Johnnie Ray, or Patti Page as "rock and roll" of any sort. 50's rock and roll conjures up a particular image. I think most people distinguish between the different genres of an era - of course, as time goes on, they often do mix considerably. To me, a genre is both musicological and commercial. Even though boundaries are not precisely circumscribed, I still think there's some fuzzy-set type of description that is of some distinguishing value.