The long road ahead-Can we bring real country back.

[Robert Shafer]

Mark Eaton Posted: 22 Feb 2007 12:38 pm Post subject:

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

Marlin, anyone who disagrees with your stance on disco should get a frontal lobotomy!

Personally speaking, I'd sooner have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.

[David L. Donald]

Many have decried rockers going country,
or crossing over; Bon Jovi being a notable recent one.
Or Soul gone hick a la Ray Charles, back in the day.

And currently the exception it seems
Van Morrision rightly getting a pass into acceptance.

And the bruehahah about A Bee Gee brother declaiming his country roots.

Well to those thay say, they ain't country,
well... they also MAY be you best friend...
To get people into your niche, you HAVE TO,
pull them from other niches, if crossover artists do that
more power to them!

IF Kanye West wants to do a big band / rap version of Crazy Arms,
I am all for it,
as bizarre as that might be.
Cause somebody listening will track down the original;
imagine inner city 50's Ray Price fans under 21

[Herbie Meeks]

For you old hard core musicians /vocalists, here is about 30 songs clipped from our live radio show, nothing fancy, just a fun family radio show, unrehearsed, not trying to compete with anyone, just keeping the show like music was on radio in years gone by [ FREE streams, and /or downloads, ] if you care to save any, this is truly grass roots family radio.
Nothing to sell here....

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemus ... ndID=83929

Enjoy, tear it apart, laugh. what ever. Just want to prove,
If any Band will do the ,Leg Work, get sponsors, you can buy Radio time on your Local Stations. ( FCC Regulations )

Herbie

[Kenny Burford]

IMO traditional country will make another come back in another 30 years or so, or something close to it. Right now I agree with those who have concentrated their efforts on small market radio stations and local advertisers. That's how regional acts that make recordings will suceed in today's markets. IMO the Texas Music scene has proven that this will work and gain an artist International attention.

[Herbie Meeks]

Kenny
IMO, That has been the best , modus operandi, all back through the years.
as you stated, proven again, and again
very few short cuts,

Herbie

[Bill Dobkins]

David D, theres nothing wrong with a rock star,pornstar or any kind of star doing country,as long as they keep it country. One of the best country singers I've heard of the new artist is Shania Twain doing (You lay a whole lotta love on me)
a Con Hunley song and (There goes the Neighborhood)by Joe Diffie,its not who does country its how they do it. I really liked Keith Urban's first few songs but now he is nothing but rook. Don't get me wrong!
I like rock, blues, and about any kind of music except RAP. But I don't want to hear I'm so lonsome I could cry done in Jimmy Hendrick style.Rock, blues, oprea, bluegrass and so on have a distinct style. The minute you hear it you know what it is.

I kinda look at country this way.Take all these styles throw them in a blender, add a hand full of dirt, leave out the fiddle and steel guitar and turn it on. Now Thats country ?????

[Charles Davidson]

Bill,I can't say it here was is added to the mix,much worse than dirt.Hint a four letter beginning with S.

[Bill Dobkins]

I forgot that one.

[Bob Hickish]

Herbie
here is how this group is getting there music out .
Its just like you said , do your own thing !!
http://www.edscountry.com/

Hick

[Fred Shannon]

'GET COUNTRY MUSIC BACK?' Guess we're very fortunate here where I live, THE STUFF NEVER LEFT BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T LET IT.

Phred

[Donny Hinson]

Classic country music, which I spent the better part of my life playing, just belonged to a different time. I think most of the appeal was the limited popularity it enjoyed. It was never really popular in this area, and had a small but loyal fan base. Mostly, you were branded as "square" or a hick if you liked it. The minute that they tried to make it's appeal wider, it lost it's appeal. It was changed by the demographers who said..."If you want to increase market share, do this..." Yes, market share increased, but it was all done by diluting the original product.

"The product doesn't change the market, the market changes the product."

Webb Pierce and Ernest Tubb and Kitty Wells soon became Ray Price, Faron Young, and Patsy Cline.

The market grew.

Ray Price and Faron Young and Patsy Cline soon became Bobby Goldsboro, Mac Davis, and Barbara Mandrell.

The market grew.

Bobby Goldsboro and Mac Davis and Barbara Mandrell soon became Alabama, Charlie Daniels, and Crystal Gayle.

The market grew.

Alabama and Charlie Daniels and Crystal Gayle soon became Garth Brooks, Travis Tritt, and Reba McIntire.

The market grew.

Garth Brooks and Travis Tritt and Reba McIntire soon became...

...well, you get the idea.

Expanded markets change the product, they erode the purity of the original product (by trying to "improve" it), and they (finally) alienate the original buyers of the product.

Progress (in one thing) is destruction (of another).

Do I want classic country music to be popular again?

"Popularity" is what ruined it, IMHO.

I think the old bluegrassers have the right idea. Try to keep it unpopular, and then no one will screw it up.

[Dave Mudgett]

An early 90s country song lyric (Aaron Tippin):

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

I agree with Donny that the model used by enthusiasts of bluegrass, traditional blues, mainstream jazz, and so on, is probably the best road to long-term acceptance and survival. There are the IBMA Awards for bluegrass, the W.C. Handy Awards for blues, and so on, and societies that work to keep these styles alive and in fact evolving.

On a national and international level, traditional country music needs to rediscover its identity and stick to it. It's great that it's still mainstream in Texas, but I sure would like it better if there was an organized core of loyalists in all 50 states and across the world. The people are there - but I don't see it as being very organized.

I think one problem is that the moniker "country music" is already a mainstream entity. Add to that the fact that the approach Donny suggests may seem to be "a step backwards". But by formally accepting the smaller scale, it opens the possibility of asserting a strong, uncompromised identity and regaining national and international strength that way.

Now - I don't think that Ray Price, Faron Young, Patsy Cline, George Jones, Buck Owens, Merle Haggard, David Frizzell, Waylon Jennings, John Conlee, Johnny Paycheck, George Strait, Ricky Skaggs, Randy Travis, Emmylou Harris, Vince Gill, Dwight Yoakum, and many, many other "modern" country artists "diluted" the core of country music - starting with the Carter Family, Jimmie Rodgers, the Delmore Bros, Bob Wills, Hank Williams, Ernest Tubb, and so on - in any way. There is a thread that can be easily separated from much of what's going on today. It's about the music, IMO, not the label. But the identity needs to be strengthened and forces marshalled to spread the word.

All IMO, of course.

[Donny Hinson]

Now - I don't think that Ray Price, Faron Young, Patsy Cline, George Jones, Buck Owens, Merle Haggard, David Frizzell, Waylon Jennings, John Conlee, Johnny Paycheck, George Strait, Ricky Skaggs, Randy Travis, Emmylou Harris, Vince Gill, Dwight Yoakum, and many, many other "modern" country artists "diluted" the core of country music...

Well, with the exception of Buck Owens and Randy Travis (and possibly Hag, too), most of those others got kinda "schmaltzy" or "big" in their sound, or at some point veered away from the unique sound they started with. Now, everybody's sound changes a little, but I'm talking the big string section and chorale thing, or the "I'm tired of this style, I'm gonna change" thing. I just have a lot more respect to artists that stay true to their roots.

Of course, some of this is forced on the artists by their producers, but that doesn't mean it's right. The one good thing about rap music is you know what it is, and that's not true for country music anymore. It no longer has a solid identity, and I honestly can't tell rock, from country rock, from NCS country today. The lines are getting more blurred all the time, and I'm probably one of the few who prefers a segmented music market to all this crossover crap.

It's not a new thing, though. For example, Ray Charles did a country album back in the early '60s that blurred the borders of country music, and brought new attention to the genre. Now, Ray was a great singer, doing country songs...but it sure wasn't "country" by any stretch of the imagination. Luckily, another great singer named Charlie Pride came along less than 5 years later, and showed him how it should be done.

[David L. Donald]

I see nothing wrong with artist growth.

If I stayed 'true to my roots."
I would still be just playing a cross between
E. Power Biggs - Lenard Cohen - 3 chord blues,
Burl Ives and New Bedford Whaling songs....

Ray Charles just liked the songs,
so he did them his way, and did them well.
Charlie Pride came from country more,
so he did them country, and stood out doing it.
Two totally different mind sets.
Ray was growing and expanding,
even against strong advice to the contrary.

So change and growth is not a bad thing.

Patsy Cline made many great songs,
some in a simple style others in a
more orchstral setting. Some a bit jazzy too.
I like them all mostly. She no doubt would have
continued to expand.

Hank Snow even did island/country music 20 years before Jimmy Buffet.
He started much like Ray Price
and ended up in a much different place.

On the other hand I prefer early and late
Ray Price to 60-70 Ray Price,
a perfect case of errant producer empowerment.

Lefty Frizzel would have benifited with producers
who kept him truer to his roots of course.


A great example of a true to roots is Doc Watson,
yet within his 'Box' Doc can, and will, stretch out a bit.

I like bluegrass and newgrass. The newgrass players got raked over by the bluegrass nazis quite a bit,
but that didn't stop them, finally they are
accepted pretty much.

Still what worked for Jimmy Rogers,
will not work for artists today.
The times have changed, people have changed,
communal experience has changed.

And so lyric content and influences on style have also changed.
What Jimmy R. heard as outside influences ,
once he started to travel, was New Orleans and big city jazz.

This was reflected in his later compositions.
And also the use of Louis Armstrong on a tune or two.
No doubt SOME of his listener thought this was anathema.

Some of this stylistic change is driven by improved technology.
Fender basses were once considered the devils toys
vs upright bass, now they are S.O.P. for traveling bands.

Pedals on steels were too hip at one point,
until some great players bucked the trend
and recorded things others couldn't cover
without pedals.

Change is inevitable, the loss of one groups style
is the adoption of a new style, by the incoming group,
fitting their time in life and experiences better.

It is sad there is no clearly defined country music
association for EACH different period of style.

We do have the Western Swing and Bluegrass camps,
but not 50's Shuffle societies in any great area,
nor the hippie country music Association etc etc.

The best we can hope for is to just keep playing what we like
take down emails and do a website for the style
we like and talk it up. And email when there's a gig.

[Dave Mudgett]

Well, Donny - as I sit here and listen to my old LP of Ray Charles' "Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music", which I agree is a classic R&B interpretation of great country songs, but is one cool record:

I agree that there needs to be a level of cohesiveness to maintain a style's identity, but there is a tradeoff, IMHO. To me, any style needs to evolve or essentially die and become a complete museum piece. Dr. Humphrey Bates and the Possum Hunters and Gid Tanner and the Skillet Lickers are cool, but I'm real glad the music evolved significantly from that. Where do we decide the cutoff?

Ultimately, the tradeoff - to me - is a judgement call. One needs to have enthusiasts to keep a style relevant. Make the base too broad, it becomes a hodgepodge, as has happened. But make the base too narrow, and it topples.

Bluegrass and blues are two excellent role models, IMO. Bill Monroe rode herd on bluegrass for decades, and it sometimes chafed under the the regimentation. But gradually, it did evolve anyway, and now there's all kinds of exciting stuff going on. Even with all this evolution, it's not hard to recognize bluegrass and it's direct offspring, but the growth has been tremendous. These core loyalists are organized, and know what they're about.

Blues didn't have as strong a "father figure" as Monroe, but it was so much a part of the development of rock and roll that certain people figured prominently - Muddy Waters, B.B. King probably the most notable. It transcended a racial barrier, and now there's tons of great blues out there, and people to support it. There is a clear identity among blues fans and players, even though there are a lot of blues-rock straddlers that talk the talk but don't walk the walk, IMO. In the public eye, blues seems bigger than it is, but that's OK. At the center, there's a core of organized loyalists who know what it's all about.

Traditional country has a core of loyalists which is, I think, larger than that for either bluegrass or blues. But instead of these core people running the organizations, it's all run by the "mainstream country" commercial organizations who seem to have no use for anything that doesn't draw mega dollars. This is fundamentally different than the grassroots organization of bluegrass and blues.

I think all that's missing is the right type of organization. It must be people who don't care about commercial success in the usual mega-entertainment terms - just success in establishing a strong identity and projecting that to the public as an "American art form", the way bluegrass, blues, and mainstream jazz enthusiasts do. IMHO, they must not succumb to double-whammy myths that 1) the commercial organizations will take care of this and 2) there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Here, I think bluegrass and blues organizers were at an advantage - they knew perfectly well nobody else would do it if they didn't, and were also not worried about mega-entertainment "success". Ironically, some from both groups are now enjoying mainstream success - but it flowed from the music, as it should, and not hype. Most people in either blues or bluegrass are journeyman musicians, and by and large seem to be fine with that - at least the ones I have known or talked to.

But to follow this lead - there must be a large enough core of loyalists who can agree what country music is, and the concept must allow for new artists and musical growth. If it's restricted to purely old-time forms and eschew even great country artists like Ray Price, George Jones, and Patsy Cline because they had pop/crossover hits, the whole thing would become a parody of itself, IMHO. I wouldn't be surprised if this kind of thing isn't a big part of the problem now - this kind of "stylistic purity" stuff can be stultifying, again IMHO.

One needs to insist on enough clarity to reasonably define the style, a big enough tent to get a critical mass, and then enough flexibility to allow continued growth without compromising the basic identity.

Impossible outside Texas? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion.

David - I just saw your post as I previewed mine. Maybe you're right about continued splintering, but there's such a large group of country music loyalists, I guess I'm more optimistic. I do think it requires organization by committed loyalists, though.

[David L. Donald]

The basis of this discussion seems to be,
splintering off older style country
from the country label as used, or mis-used, today.

It isn't a question for my personal tastes so much,
they are very diverse, but how to delineate the
loyalist audience for a time period's style,
and thus save it from extiction by inclusion
under the umbrella of ALL country styles.

What is country music?

Well there are so many answers depending
on age bracket and location as to boggle the mind.

But the 'Texas Shuffle Society' would certainly give
people and idea exactly what to expect.

The 'Countrypolitain Society' would do the same...

I'll join the former rather than the later!

[Dave Mudgett]

David - I'm talking about an umbrella for something like "Traditional Country Music" - something needs to be changed to avoid getting lumped into current commercial form. Perhaps it needs a very different name. Americana encompasses so many other styles, that's not really it. I'm not sure what would work here, but my "Traditional Country" is what Comcast cable radio calls it, for example.

But you're right - there's a problem with pretty serious fragmentation of even that loyalist audience. Some people say "that Ray Price stuff with the strings isn't country music, and even Patsy Cline and George Jones with heavy backup just doesn't cut it. It's gotta have a steel guitar or it ain't country! You gotta be wearing a Nudie suit or it ain't country! "

But the same thing happened in blues - acoustic Delta purists vs Piedmont advocates vs Chicago electric vs Texas vs West Coast and people arguing over whether a white person could really be a blues artist - you name it, they've argued it. The bluegrass people went "you can't have an electric bass, sure as &%** can't have any drums up there, there has to be a banjo or it ain't bluegrass, they gotta wear conservative suits like Bill or we won't let 'em onstage", you know the drill. But those kinds of arguments got worked out in time, and there is an umbrella for a wide variety of blues or bluegrass styles under the banners now. If people who love traditional country music don't band together, I think it will stay very pocketed like it is now. Maybe that's what people want. I dunno.

[Herbie Meeks]

IMO,, Music has been,, and always will be, " Regional "
The old saying, " You Gotta Go Where The Action Is "
This would include your choice of playing and listening to music.
The areas to fit your preference, are easy to find

If I was still a young musician, Steel player, Vocalist, Fiddler, Lead Guitarist,etc. etc.
looking to learn more, rub elbows with the big names, get acquainted
and get a steady job picking , as they are constantly looking for, musicians
and talented vocalists, in all kinds of music. to keep these shows going.
I would surely pack my bags, and head for, Branson, MO, where there are
over 40 Theaters, most doing two shows a day, with huge audiences
Also many other jobs, to supplement your pay, if needs be.
Studios to work in, for those experienced with Studio work.

Someone wrote , above, They thought Branson was just a Tourist attraction
for the older generations, This is not so, There is something for all generations

Herbie

[Donny Hinson]

Americana encompasses so many other styles, that's not really it.

"Americana"? If ever there were a dum-bass moniker for a musical genre, that's it. That's grown to include just about everything, and that's the core of the problem! I don't understand why we can't start calling moderm country music "Modern Country Music", or "New Country". Geeze, is that so difficult? Save the "Country Music" label for the older stuff, something closer to what most think of as country. One thing is for sure, the people would have to do it, the customers. The record labels won't do anything that doesn't have a price tag and additional profit associated with it.

Also, there's nothing wrong with Ray Price or Pats or George Jones as country singers. The problem begins when they stop being country singers (by the decree of whomever) and start trying to be something else. One good example is Ray Price's old "Take Me As I Am" album. If you stacked it on your Webcor between Jerry Vale, Dean Martin, and Perry Como, no one would even notice it was a "country singer gone big city". I imagine that album sold a few hundred copies...I can't imagine many more buyers falling for that schmaltzy stuff...yuck, it makes even Lawrence Welk's crew sound exciting and "edgy"! Ray never realeased another album that un-country, so that's a good sign. His last couple of releases harken back to the days of old...he's doing what he did best.

[David L. Donald]

Donny I agree about lables and Ray being
relabled and remarketed.

From until the Time album I find him unlistenable,
I can NOT finish a cut. I TRIED too! Sorry Ray,
but I bet you don't listen much to that period now either...

I can listen to Dino till the end of the song at least.

Still Time is really cool and before that
too he actual was a bit of a trend setter.

Wish he had never changed!

Now that his music is an historical niche, he can go out
and do the early music and it's decendants
and likely have a better time doing it.

At least in Texas there are decendants plowing those fields still.

[Theresa Galbraith]

Is Lyle Lovett's new CD out yet?

[Marlin Smoot]

Perhaps why we see a younger demo at bar-concerts where the classic country artist are playing is:

The younger demo also attends bar-concerts on a regular basis and are 'trained' like zombies to go reguardless of whats going on at the club. This is a gathering place for others of their age and interest simply because there isn't a whole lot more for them to do or places to meet singles. (remember, we're talking about the bar-going, drinking, 21-29 demo's)

The younger demo is aware of the artist to some degree.

The older demo would rather not fight the crowd, the traffic, the noise, the smoke, the hip-hop music mixed with country, understands what a DUI is and the high ticket prices. Their bar-concert going days, for the most part are over.

I've been to some country disco-bars (no live music) and the people are so young there, I feel I'm at a day care and I don't consider myself 'that old'.

Just thoughts...