Anatomy of a Country song..

Joe Miraglia · Post by **Joe Miraglia** » 9 Oct 2007 3:58 pm

Bill--Stars of Country Music who used very little or no steel guitar at all: Glen Campbell, Johnny Cash, Sunny James, Marty Robbins, Don Gibson, Tom T. Hall, the Carter Family, Jerry Reed, Jim Reeves, Charlie Rich and Roger Miller. Maybe some of you can think of other artists considered to be country who used limited amount of fiddle or steel in their band. Joe

Dennis Graves · Post by **Dennis Graves** » 9 Oct 2007 4:14 pm

Joe, You're right. They were stars. But all of the above mentioned are low on my list. Give me Hank, Porter, Carl Smith, George Jones, Webb Pierce, Ray Price, Buck, Conway, Alan Jackson, George Strait, Randy Travis, Mel Street...to name a few

Marc Jenkins · Post by **Marc Jenkins** » 9 Oct 2007 5:27 pm

Simple suggestions for enjoying country music the way it used to be:

1. Stop listening to the radio
2. Buy records that are of the era when they got it "right".
3. Buy newer records that sound like the era when they got it "right".
4. Avoid at all costs modern music

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 9 Oct 2007 6:41 pm

Roger Rettig wrote:Thanks for that excellent post, Dom.

With all the denigration of today's music - especially here on the Forum - I've found myself wondering how Buck Owens and Merle Haggard were received by the die-hard country music fans of their day. Those biting Telecasters must have been anathema to them!

RR

Well, with all due respect, Roger, I'd say usually they were received with thunderous applause. Because their music was not a departure from their musical roots -- Hank Williams, Lefty Frizzel, Hank Thompson, Bob Will, etc.

What we have being presented as country music today is what we were calling rock in the 70's.

And, I don't find it absurd to think that music genre is defined by the instrumentation. Look no further than Blue Grass. There are a core set of instruments. Sure, they are often augmented with others.

Clean lead (Tele, Les Paul, or other) guitar, pedal steel and clean fiddles were once the core of country music; augment them with anything from horns to accordians and it's still going to sound "country". Nothing close to that is being played on so-called country stations today; no new tunes anyway.

Maybe I can't describe it so well, but I sure know when I hear it and with I don't. Can't find any on FM these days so I go to XM Radio.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 9 Oct 2007 6:55 pm

It take's a certian instrumentation to create a country song, Steel and Fiddle ect. Same with Blues, Rock N Roll and so on. Thats how we can tell the difference. Be it old or new country it still has to have that sound to be country and have that emotion. ... I like and play all kinds of music. Delta Blues has a unique sound.

I completely disagree that a style must have a certain instrumentation. There's tons of great old country music without steel or fiddle. Are you seriously gonna tell me that "Six Days on the Road" isn't a great country tune? How about "Today I Started Loving You Again". No steel whatever on the singles, some of the greatest country songs ever recorded, IMHO. Whole periods of great country artists were without steel. I've been listening to a George Jones compilation today - plenty of songs with no steel, but they are all great country songs. I could go on all night.

Ever heard of Yank Rachell? Great blues mandolin player. The instrumentation is not important. It's the emotion that is conveyed. Some people laugh about the harmonica as a serious instrument, but tell Toots Thielemans that it doesn't belong in jazz. There are no rules.

I think we need to lose the straitjacket of stereotypes. The steel guitar means oh, so much more, when it's not plastered all over everything like an overused and de rigeur cliche that just "has" to be there to lend some sort of "ethnic authenticity" to the music. Great music should be able to hang in there using any instrumentation - and then when we hear steel guitar, it stands out and is appreciated.

As I said before, I agree that the great blues, country, or any of these great roots styles that we love so much DO have a unique feel and sound. But it isn't the instrumentation, how old or new it is, how young or old the artists are, or how they dress or wear their hair. To me, it's whether they get their heads into a good space or not.

I also definitely agree that the traditional sounds you're talking about need to be preserved. But I don't really think they're in real danger. There are, what, something like 7 billion people on the planet. There's gonna be plenty of them that find their way into this music and like it as long as there are some of us out there plying our craft to whomever will listen. So it may not be a huge megabucks commercial thing - but who cares? Neither will real deal blues, mainstream jazz, bluegrass, rockabilly, zydeco, western swing, or Western (you know, like Country and Western). They are specialty styles - and there are good people performing them. What more do you want? Some of these may come back around into the mainstream for a while - but I hope that doesn't mess them up too much, like it often does.

The deal is that you can't change other people. You can only change yourself. I still say that if you make something great, there will always be an audience. Maybe not in an arena - but I hate arena shows anyway. I emphatically prefer to play and see shows in a small club. The people I saw in small clubs in the 60s suddenly became megastars in the 70s and 80s and moved to arena shows - forget it, it's a drag. IMHO, it was far better in the early days. It does my heart good to see these same people playing in clubs again. Too much "success" definitely can spoil Rock Hunter.

Just noticed this:

And, I don't find it absurd to think that music genre is defined by the instrumentation. Look no further than Blue Grass. There are a core set of instruments. Sure, they are often augmented with others.

I don't think I've ever seen a real bluegrass band without bass, but I've seen them without one or more of guitar, mandolin, banjo, fiddle, or dobro. But that's really not the point - lots of people play music with guitar, mandolin, banjo, fiddle, dobro, and bass that is not bluegrass. The instruments don't define the music - the way the ensemble plays them is. Old-time, newgrass, and some forms of early country music use(d) similar instrumentation.

I honestly think the reason bluegrass has remained as relatively rigid as it has is first because of the stern watchful eye of its epicentric creator, Bill Monroe, but second, because it never really became the megabuck commercial success rock and some forms of country have been. I genuinely think that was a blessing. Bluegrassers have been content to just play what they want and not try to be the "flavor of the month". Same with traditional blues, to some extent. But don't think the hardcore bluegrassers and traditional blues folks don't complain about "Oh, that isn't bluegrass/blues - what are they doing to my music? Electric guitars, electric bass, Oh my!". It isn't all as pure as the wind-driven snow. But I do agree that we can learn from their example - it isn't hard to recognize bluegrass at all, and it has maintained a steady profile through thick and thin.

All my opinions, as usual.

Bob Ritter · Post by **Bob Ritter** » 9 Oct 2007 7:59 pm

Shoot I wonder what Roger Miller would have said about all this...Roses are red and violets are purple sugar is sweet and so is maple surple....beep beep bee dee ba beep deep dumb badaba bap doo...beep deep bee bib dooba dumb.....and everybody just loved it. Yeah that real country music there...lolrof

Bill Dobkins · Post by **Bill Dobkins** » 9 Oct 2007 8:32 pm

Some one finally understands where I'm coming from.
Thank you Mr Page. I know theres a lot of good country music that don't have Steel or Fiddle.Remember the ect. In my post. I don't think anyone uses Steel and fiddle all the time. A song may just have a finger style acoustic guitar and thats all and still have the sound, feel, emotion and structure to be a country song.OK lets say your at a Darrell McCall concert and some one hauls in a Marshall stack and starts playing like Stevie Ray Vaugn. Would it fit ? as a Darrell McCall fan I wouldn't like it at all, but I would walk across the street and listen to a good Blues Band play all nite, but I doubt I'd like it if they started playing
Dreams of a Dreamer either. Its appearant I'm never going to get my point across. I'm sorry for ever posting this thread. As for as I'm concerned it can be closed. Its just a breeding ground for argument. Again thank you Ron Page for understanding. You get the star.

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 9 Oct 2007 9:03 pm

Roger, You were wondering why Buck And Merle were accepted by hard core country fans.Can only speak for myself,I loved James Burton,Roy Nichels,and Don Rich's tele picking,But the iceing on the cake was not even mentioned any where here.TOM BRUMLEY,NORM HAMLET,AND MOONEY.Would NOT have been the same WITHOUT these guys,Don't you know.

Alvin Blaine · Post by **Alvin Blaine** » 9 Oct 2007 11:54 pm

Bill Dobkins wrote:OK lets say your at a Darrell McCall concert and some one hauls in a Marshall stack and starts playing like Stevie Ray Vaugn.

It wouldn't be like Stevie because he used Fender and Dumble amps not Marshall.

Chuck Thompson · Post by **Chuck Thompson** » 10 Oct 2007 12:14 am

this thread has certainly morphed quickly from interesting to sad to surreal (I take the blame for my part). I think we can voice a concern for the current state of country music and not be too worried we are denigrating the players on the recordings. In general, I doubt that they have that much control over the recording process. I would guess that for the most part, they are there to make money by playing their part as best they can within the framework and latitude they are given in a way that pleases the producer and artist so they can be called again. They are great players doing a great job. I think we should be honest enough with ourselves to realize that some of what we now call classic country was at one time outside the bounds of that term to someone who thought Buck Owens using loud teles and drums doing Chuck Berry songs was stomping all over their beloved tradition of country music. I think we can be honest enough to admit that country music does have a tendancy (but not a dogma) to use certain instrumentation that does lend to it's identity. I don't listen alot to current popular country music so maybe I missed the new artist that sounds comparable to Darrell McCall with Stevie Ray guitar playing through Marshall stacks. When I do listen to current country music I do hear alot of music that in my opinion may push the envelope in good ways and bad. In my opinion all popular music styles go through ebbs and tides and right now seems to be a pretty low point in country music. Maybe it would help to keep in mind that even as far back as the "good old days" that we long for, there were some pretty forgettable periods of forgettable recordings of forgettable songs by forgettable and memorable artists that are just fine to some but too far out for others. Is it possible that there are session players from the good old days that did some sessions that they wished they had never been called for to play parts using "far out" effects in unseemly places? Remember cheezy wah-wahs phasors and electronic drums going "BEEeeew Beeeeeew!!"? Probably country music (like all music) over time has produced alot of rocks and a few gems. Maybe adding 30 years to some rocks makes them seem a little shinier. A quote from a song I know: "Some things never change, Some things never seem the same"

Chuck Thompson · Post by **Chuck Thompson** » 10 Oct 2007 12:38 am

Come to think of it, I bet there are songs or artists from the "good old days" that we liked then but would listen to now and think they weren't very good or very "country"

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 10 Oct 2007 6:46 am

Bill - very simply, I think the problem with your argument is that all the musical styles we are discussing here developed by mixing a bunch of things going on at the time and forging their own thing. There is no "pure" country, blues, bluegrass, or whatever. People sing and play instruments and try to get a particular feel. If it fits within what most people call that style, or if someone promotes them as being in that style, then - defacto - they are in that style.

People decide what to call things - there's no formal academic arrangements with rules about what it takes to be a "REAL" country, blues, or bluegrass song. Sure, there are foundations or associations that promote the music - the Country Music Association, the Academy of Country Music, the Blues Foundation, the International Bluegrass Music Association, various local or regional societies to promote country, blues, or bluegrass music, and so on. But there's no absolute consensus. Even in blues and bluegrass, which have strong organizations to promote a particular concept of the music, there are more and more people who expand the range.

I really think that part of the problem here is that, unlike the Blues Foundation or IBMA, which really have been relatively non-commercial and primarily interested in perpetuating the music as they define it, the major country organizations like the CMA or the ACM are, IMO, primarily commercial organizations trying to maximize the commercial aspects of the music - trying to get it out to as many people as possible. That goal is in direct conflict with any stylistic purity notions.

I really think there's a place for a national or international organization like the Blues Foundation or IBMA for "traditional" country music. It may be possible to do something like this, but I think there are some hurdles. I think the biggest difficulty is getting agreement on even what "traditional" country music is.

To me, the problem is that it has been so commercially successful the last 30-40 years that there is a lot of stuff that is very marginally in the genre that have been big hits. Is anything Olivia Newton John did truly a country song? Lots of the Countrypolitan and disco-oriented stuff in the 60s and 70s is now considered part of the "traditional" country genre. When I turn on my cable "Classic Country" station, about half of it is that stuff. I think it should be possible to drill down to the stuff you're talking about and promote it. But maybe even the "traditional" tag isn't enough. I honestly don't know the right tag to distinguish what you're talking about. I think the thing that distinguishes it to me is the idea of "traditional honkytonk country music", but that's getting a bit much.

I really think that, as a well-defined musical style, country music has been bitten by its own commercial success - its identity is now seriously blurred. The horse left the barn a long time ago.

My opinions still. Sorry you feel this is such a negative conversation. But IMO, if anybody wants to do something about this, I think it's important to clearly understand why things are the way they are. I don't claim to have definitive understanding, but I don't think I'm in left field either.

Brint Hannay · Post by **Brint Hannay** » 10 Oct 2007 7:54 am

I started listening to Country radio in the early Eighties. (I stopped sometime in the Nineties.) The "neo-traditional" movement was happening then: George Strait, Ricky Skaggs, Randy Travis, etc., and they were still playing Merle, Willie, and George's current releases, and maybe one song in four sounded really "country" to me--but the rest was Kenny Rogers, Ronnie Milsap, and the like, who I didn't feel were actual "Country" music, not saying they were necessarily bad, just not country to me. Given that up to that point I had no knowledge of country music, and hence no sense of a "tradition" I was attached to and wanted preserved, I'm not sure what distinguished "real country" in my mind--it's just a feeling, and thus very subjective. It certainly doesn't depend on any specific instrumentation, as others have said. Lots of Buck Owens songs have no steel or fiddle, ditto Merle, but I see (almost) all their stuff as "real country".

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 10 Oct 2007 8:33 am

Bill, you give me way too much credit. I went back and read my post and basically it adds another opinion to the mix. That's all.

Granted we don't need most country songs to sound like a steel instrumental with a few vocals thrown in, but there has to be a happy (happier) medium.

I understand where the other folks are coming from. Heck! Even I -- stone cold country fan-- was in awe of every player in the Jazz Room at Scotty's this past September. So I don't for a minute think steel is just a country instrument. I do, however, prefer my country music with a full load of steel, clean fiddles and guitars, and no over-harmonized vocals. Let the singer(s) sing and give them a little support here and there.

I would have liked Johnny Cash's music better with some steel. The best version of Folsom I've ever heard is on Merle's 2nd Live At Billy Bob's TX. It's just a matter of taste. Cash was for simple-more is less. I like that, but Folsom with steel, horns and fiddles just knocks my socks off.

Tim Harr · Post by **Tim Harr** » 10 Oct 2007 9:01 am

Dave wrote:

Ever heard of Yank Rachell? Great blues mandolin player. The instrumentation is not important. It's the emotion that is conveyed. Some people laugh about the harmonica as a serious instrument, but tell Toots Thielemans that it doesn't belong in jazz. There are no rules.

Yes, I have. I used to play with him in Indianapolis back in the early 90's. Great player!

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 10 Oct 2007 3:42 pm

I do, however, prefer my country music with a full load of steel, clean fiddles and guitars, and no over-harmonized vocals. Let the singer(s) sing and give them a little support here and there.

For the record - so do I, and emphatically so. Like revenge, country music is a dish that is generally best served cold - stone cold. But that's just my personal tastes. It doesn't bother me a wit if others feel differently.

Tim, that's cool. I have some friends who have also played with him at one time or another, I think quite a long time ago. Never got the chance myself.

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 10 Oct 2007 5:21 pm

Charles,

Of course I'm aware that there was a lot of steel on those Owens/Haggard records, but my point was that it was the Teles that drew me (someone who'd previously disliked country music) in - my appreciation for pedal-steel then followed.

RR

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 10 Oct 2007 9:06 pm

Roger,I know what you mean,it would be hard not to like guys like James,Roy,or Don,I want to say up front I have ALWAYS been a huge Buck fan,He is an icon,[so don't throw rocks at me for saying this]Sometimes I wondered if buck would have had the HUGE success he had,if not for Don Rich,Don's tele style DEFINED the buckaroo sound,and his harmony singing with Buck was about as close to sibling harmony as you could get without being siblings[such as the Everly Brothers,or The Whites]As I said this is JUST my opinion,Any one that thinks different just say so,don't you know.

Larry Strawn · Post by **Larry Strawn** » 11 Oct 2007 7:59 am

Charlie,

I seem to recall reading somewhere, can't remember where, that when Don and Buck met Don was a fiddle player, and that Buck taught him to play guitar.

If that's true then maybe Don's guitar style may have been derived in part from Buck's style forming the closeness in style between the two.

I may be wrong on this, if so, anyone please feel free to add a correction.

Larry

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 11 Oct 2007 8:21 am

Here's a recent anecdote that indicates things may be looking up.

A co-worker recently went to see Brad Paisley. We got talking about the steel (Randall Currie) and guitar (Brad). He said he could actually hear the steel quite well and was blown away at the guitar solos -- some quite long-- that Brad/Randall do on the show.

So what's my point, you say?

Well, when we used to talk about Garth Brooks shows it was all about laser lights, trapeeze acts and smashing (perfectly good) guitars. Not much was ever said about the music.

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 11 Oct 2007 9:27 am

Larry,Buck WAS a guitar player,Seems I remember he was Tommy Collin's guitar player,not sure but think he played several instrument,including some kind of horn,sure someone here on the forum knows the facts,don't you know.

Roger Rettig · Post by **Roger Rettig** » 11 Oct 2007 9:40 am

Here's a piece of trivia for you....

When producer Ken Nelson first had Gene Vincent in the Capitol Studio in LA, he booked Buck Owens as a stand-by guitar-player. He had his doubts about an untried rock'n'roll group in the studio.

Once he heard Cliff Gallup, however, Buck was sent home as being 'surplus to requirements...'

It suggests that Owens was reasonably well-regarded, though.

RR

Stephanie Carta · Post by **Stephanie Carta** » 11 Oct 2007 10:01 am

One of Buck's favorite guitar players was Jimmy Wyble from the Texas Playboys. Wyble is playing all those jazzy guitar lines on Roly Poly (to name one), which I'm still blown away by to this day so I can only imagine how Buck felt in his day. While Buck was never as complex as Wyble, as a country guitar player, I'd say he was up there. The fact that he let Don take over as lead player says a lot about the man too.

Charles Davidson · Post by **Charles Davidson** » 11 Oct 2007 10:34 pm

Roger I heard another Capitol studio story[don't know if its true or not]A female singer that was hot at the time[May have been Wanda Jackson]Mooney came in with a beatup old steel,held together with wire,etc,She asked the producer[WHO THE HELL IS THIS GUY]After the session,she told the producerSome times a sow's ear IS a silk purse,don't you know.

Gary C. Dygert · Post by **Gary C. Dygert** » 12 Oct 2007 9:01 am

Here's my 2 cents. Mostly, I'm a traditionalist, having grown up listening to Ernest Tubb & Kitty Wells. When I was a teenager, Buck & Merle were considered new country, and now they're part of the tradition. After a few decades, things look different.

When the Carter Family was recording half-remembered turn-of-the-century parlor ballads, they ruffled the feathers of people who knew the original songs. They also ruffled the feathers of people who knew different versions of traditional songs.

Remember when Ray Price used an orchestral string section? What do we call that? Certainly Ray is country.

I happen to like a few pop standards done country-style, like Willie Nelson's version of All of Me and other songs of that era. Do I like everything Willie has recorded? No. Same with bluegrass--I like it somewhat progressive, but not astral noodling. I also like western swing and traditional-style 12-bar blues.

I'm just throwing this out for people to kick around. We all like what we like. Even with our differences, we're all members of this Forum for a reason.