Why do we care?

[John Steele (deceased)]

For those here who lived through a style or genre of music they liked and respected, I wish they would spend more time considering themselves lucky to have been there. Some of us never had the privilege of hearing Jimmy Day play, etc.
And after they've finished thanking their lucky stars, I wish they would consider the effect that constant moaning and groaning has on the younger musicians who are out there now trying to make something of what's left of it. You make it hard, guys.
Somehow the hand-wringing about the lack of younger musicians coming up who appreciate traditional styles, and the constant put-downs of anything new don't add up very well. The moaning and gnashing of teeth for the "good old days" doesn't help our situation, one bit.
Thank you, b0b.
-John

[Kevin Hatton]

I understand Travis. Good points. Dave, we are living in a Corpratocracy, not a Democracy. The sovereignty
of the country has been taken away from the citizens and given to international corporations who control most of what we see and hear on public radio and T.V. That is what this next election is about. To get it back, and we will. It was no mistake that the restrictiions on owning T.V. and radio stations in a given geographical area were lifted so that concentrations of power could begin. They decided that country music was going to be destroyed. This was purposeful. As I said, thank God for Texas.

[Walter Stettner]

Why does it always have to become political???? What does this have to do with b0b's original post?

Maybe that's the first time that b0b has to lock one of his own threads....


Kind Regards, Walter

[Henry Nagle]

I'm not sure that has to be taken as a political statement. It's a fact that mainstream radio and television are almost totally corporate, therefore under corporate control.

I don't believe anyone ever set out to "destroy" country music. Producers and executives try to calculate what they can safely assume will sell. Artists try to fit into that mold so that they may have a career. It's a pretty natural process. Every once in a while something fantastic squeezes through and there's something new to imitate for awhile.

It's a fact that in any genre, styles come and go. Classic country is "classic". I think it is some of the best popular music ever recorded. It would be nice to have a radio station dedicated to it, but the"mainstream" is for new stuff. I just wish the new stuff was about the music more than the image and the clothes and hair and bad accents.

Travis- Thank you for bringing your great attitude here. I've never heard you play, but there is no doubt that you rock!


edited to say: There is still a lot of great music being recorded in Nashville. I'm sure that any of these folks could give you a long list of quality independent projects that they've worked on. I've been playing some gigs with a woman who recorded her second album in Nashville. The playing on that album is fantastic. I mean, bionic! Trying to live up to that recording has been intimidating for sure! If you do a little digging, you will find plenty of great country music that isn't "classic" or "mainstream". Find those people and support them!

[Dave Mudgett]

I completely agree that we should stay away from partisan politics.

However - the issue of the reality of the control of the radio airwaves naturally came up. Kent Thompson said that he's frustrated that he can't turn the radio on and find anything to listen to. b0b chimed in that, essentially, we have no right to expect to be able to find anything on the radio - that someone else owns the public airwaves and can do whatever they want with them. I believe this is at the heart of a lot of the anger that b0b asked about in his opening post.

That situation may be the de-facto reality, but it is not the way it is supposed to be, IMO. In the US, there is a codified public interest in the open airwaves that has been flushed down the toilet due to this concentration of media power. Again - I agree we should stay away from partisan politics. But if one wants to discuss "why people care" - I think this is an important reason why.

If someone wants to argue that things are no different than 40 years ago - I disagree. There were lots of smaller stations that played different types of music. Try getting that type of license now - they took it away. Between AM and FM, one could, at one time, find all types of music on the radio - classical, adult, teen-pop, underground rock, jazz, country - anything imaginable in many permutations. IMHO - if left to a competitive free market, a much larger group of competitive and diverse radio stations could find audiences and sponsors. Of course, the multi-megalopolis media conglomerates wouldn't be raking in billions each year, but who cares? I don't, and I don't know anybody else that does either. I want to see their unbalanced power taken away. This isn't a partisan political issue - I doubt any mainstream politicians from any party agree with me.

Fundamentally, I think what people rail about on this type of thing is a forced hijacking of the entire culture. I'm not satisfied with the corporate answer "OK - you 'misfits' can all just crawl into your holes and just do your own thing. You don't fit and there's no room for you at this table that we own." I disagree.

Kevin - I guess my point was that I don't think any of these media changes were to purposely destroy traditional country music. I think it was an unintended side effect of purely business decisions. It affected the commercial side of many, many styles of music.

There's another wrinkle here, I think. What we now call traditional country music was at one time a mainstream commercial style. That was never really the case for traditional blues, bluegrass, or modern jazz. I think this is part of the reason why blues, bluegrass, and jazz have weathered the changes better - they knew from the get-go that they would have to band together to promote their interests, and it would be on a smaller commercial scale. Country music, on the other hand, has continued to pursue a larger commercial model. I think it's safe to say that we will not be going back to traditional country music as a high-volume, mainstream commercial style anytime soon. I think this requires a major paradigm shift for people who want to promote the style. But it is very unhelpful that radio doesn't permit a smaller market model anymore. That is my beef.

Travis - you have a great attitude, I agree completely with what you have said. You've handled this much better than I probably would have. Keep on keepin' on.

As always - these are my opinions.

[Henry Nagle]

Geez, Dave. You're so much more articulate than I am. Good post.

[Donny Hinson]

The music business, like most any other big business, is run by rich people (who want to make big money and get even richer). Any trend or style that fades from real popularity is no longer profitable to them.

And contrary to whatever you might think right now, that's a good thing!

[John Steele (deceased)]

The only thing I had to add was pretty well summed up by Henry Nagle... thank you Henry, I'm with you, man.
But I just wanted to say, Mr. Toy, I admire your composure. I haven't heard you play a note yet, but I think you're a class act already.
-John

[Kent Thompson]

Thank you dave for putting so eloquently what we were all trying to get across. Food for thought:I was asked by another collegue in radio if I would be happy if country music had totally died because it did not evolve? Mabee country would turn out like polka music something you would hear on a specialty show. My answer was at least the mainsteamists would not have control and it would still be true to it's form.

It's a rotten shame in my own humble opinion that "The Suits" have ruined a style of music for their own pocket book and benefit.I understand you're in buisiness to make money,but there needs to be someone keeping these folks in-check.

[Leslie Ehrlich]

...the music is changing and we must either change with it or reject it...

I think the real reason why this theme keeps recurring is because there are some 'traditional country' steel players who are/were sidemen in cover bands and don't get to play what they like any more.

I felt the same way playing in rock bands. I started playing guitar in the mid-1970s, and the classic heavy rock that I wanted to play was on the way out during the latter half of the decade. I played in cover bands, but for the most part I grudgingly played whatever current music the band had to do to get gigs.

It got to the point where I got fed up with it and quit. Now I do original material and just play music as a hobby.

[Doug Beaumier]

Like Dave, I see this as a problem of corporate ownership of the airwaves.

Without making this political... here are some facts to consider: A few large corporations now own most of the local radio and television stations throughout the country. These few companies monopolize the airwaves and dictate what the programming will be… the music, the talk, etc. Programming decisions are made at corporate headquarters and the local stations must follow the directives. Satellite feeds are pumped in from elsewhere. Many listeners think that programs are locally produced... but the same content is being broadcast to 50, 75, or 100 stations nationwide from a central site.

These companies do not want diversity. They homogenize the airwaves with syndicated talk and formula music, shutting out independent artists, and shutting out content that may be in the interest of local listeners. When I was a kid in the 1950s and 60’s I remembering hearing all kinds of music on my local radio stations: polka, folk, bluegrass, jazz, country, rock, etc. These were LOCAL broadcasts with local personalities hosting the shows. Those kinds of shows are Gone now.

Again, I’m trying not to politicize this, although it‘s difficult to avoid the political aspects. In the mid-1980s the government did away with the Fairness Doctrine, thereby allowing large corporations to buy up unlimited numbers of local radio and television stations throughout the country. So today we have a few big companies that own stations in dozens of U.S. cities and towns. Many of these corporations own other interests: manufacturing companies, financial institutions, etc. Often, decisions about what is broadcast over the air (or not broadcast) reflects the corporation’s bias, serves the corporation’s own interests. These corporations have little interest in broadcasting diverse styles of music…or diverse anything. Market Share is their only concern. The music piped into the local stations is generic formula, in my opinion. Yes, the public is buying it… but the public is not hearing much alternative. All across the radio dial we hear the same few limited formats. The public ultimately hears what the board of directors chooses to broadcast… the music, the talk, and even the news in some companies.

The largest of these mega companies is Clear Channel Communications. They own over 1200 radio stations throughout the USA. Guess who bought Clear Channel in 2006? Mitt Romney. Are you starting to get the picture? I mention this only to point out that A FEW RICH white men own the airwaves. This is Not a political statement, just a commentary on radio airplay and why things are the way they are now. What we hear on the radio (or don’t hear) and what we see on television (or don’t see) is controlled by a few powerful billionaires. Profit is everything, diversity is discouraged, musically and otherwise IMHO.

[Mike Winter]

I think that at the end of the day, the majority of the Forum members really do agree to disagree...peaceably. I think the term "heated" is overstated...it's really a matter of semantics.

My opinion? Shame on those members who bombarded b0b with emails demanding/complaining/requesting that posts be "locked." And I think shame on b0b for caving in to pressure. It isn't really that big a deal, is it? Yes, some get passionate about their position, but looking at the big picture, it isn't really important. Have we all become so thin-skinned that we have to have posts locked because we can't tolerate a position different than our own...because someone might get offended?

This is a Forum...when it comes right down to it, we're all enamored with...an...instrument. That's the main deal...the instrument. All the other stuff is superfluous, isn't it? But to have posts locked/closed because people get offended is just too much...

[Roger Kelly]

Doug, you've hit the nail right on the head. I totally agree.

[Cal Sharp]

If you're not a session player and if you don't work in a top 40 country band - and I think this would include the vast majority of Forum members - there's no reason to ever voluntarily listen to commercial radio, which for the most part only exists to sell stuff and to disseminate emergency information, not to pander to the tastes of niche audiences.

With internet radio, satellite radio and portable music players you can listen to any kind of music any time and any place. So, yeah, who cares? What's the problem? I gladly pay $60 a year to www.live365.com so I can listen to real jazz and country music.

And, as b0b noted, cable TV sucks, too - hence the popularity of the Pirate Bay.

[Dave Mudgett]

I completely agree that there are alternatives to radio and TV right now. I don't pay any attention to them either, and get music elsewhere. I agree that there's tons of great music out there. None of this is a major problem for me right now.

But still - I think this media concentration is wrong. Even now, I think TV and radio are the center of the culture for most people, especially those over 30 or 40. IMO, this media concentration marginalizes anything that is not being pushed by these corporate and government interests. I say corporate and government because I believe this is a result of collusion - the fox has been guarding the chicken house for a long time now.

At this point, I think the internet is the last refuge for truly independent, large-scale thought and discussion in the US. That may seem OK for now, but look out if the conglomerate and government media interests have their way here. I think there's real danger here. There have been a lot of rumblings about significant structural changes on the internet for the last several years. 30 years ago, a lot of pundits said "It can't happen here." about old-style media outlets, but it can and did. The minute we accept the notion that we have no right to a place at the table, that place will be taken away. At least - that is my opinion.

You may ask - what does this have to do with "this is country, blues, jazz, ..." vs. "this ain't country, blues, jazz, ...". My opinion is that if we allow government and/or corporate media conglomerates to control the medium, there will be no outlet to keep any alternative view alive. Of course, this goes way further than music, but certainly would affect music and the arts directly.

I don't mind other people having a different view than me - but I have a problem if they also squelch other views, even if it is simply by their imposing dominance. Remember also - the FCC isn't elected by anybody - its chairman is appointed by the President without even the need for legislative approval. In a modern society, most communication is not person-to-person anymore. So this gets right down to the efficacy of the First Amendment.

As always, my opinions again.

[David Mason]

Somewhat tangentially, I would postulate that people like to yammer, pontificate and carry on too. When b0b asks,

So why do we get into heated arguments about the music we don't like?

the answer is, because we can - because of the wondrous(?) advances in technology, opinions that once were muttered to the cat, an unfeeling wife, or left to simmer unexpressed, can now be trumpeted from the ramparts of the internet. Progress!

[Cal Sharp]

if we allow government and/or corporate media conglomerates to control the medium, there will be no outlet to keep any alternative view alive.

Yep, and the nightly network news is a good example. But I don't mind being marginalized, and living in a fragmented society. I'll probably be long gone before they take away my music and books and other freedoms, but future generations will have to be more tightly controlled to preserve those government and/or corporate interests - after all, they're not reaping any appreciable benefit from 4/4 shuffles and steel guitar. But they do get some from musically unsophisticated housewives who buy products advertised on commercial radio.

[Kevin Hatton]

Mike Winter, personal attacks are NOT allowed on this Forum. This Forum has rules and is moderated for such. There are those players whose interest lies in that non country music being purpotrated as country and they think they can personally attack people here who disagree with them. The airwaves are PUBLIC. They belong to the PUBLIC. Not the CORPORATIONS.That was what the Fairness Doctrine was all about. This is why whats happened is so dangerous. The PUBLIC airwaves have been taken over by the super wealthy who do not represent the public interest but rather their own corprate greed. The last time I looked this was supposed to be government BY, FOR, an OF the PEOPLE. Not the corporations. Real country music is not being put on the airwaves on purpose. It does not serve their corporate profit interest. Thank goodness for XM Satellite radio and "Willie's Place". I can listen to all those great Texas players as well as real country music that used to come out of Nashville. I can hear Ricky Davis, Dick Overby, Tommy Detamore, Rick Price and other Forum steelers playing real country music, and they're not all trying to sound the same. I love 'em.

[Mike Winter]

Kevin -- I didn't state or intimate that personal attacks were allowed. They shouldn't be. My point was that I think sometimes people perceive differing opinions as a personal attack, especially if they're stated strongly, when in reality an attack was not intended. People tend to over-react. We're dealing with printed words. There is no tone of voice to listen to, no eye contact. All we have are emoticons, and even they can be mis-interpreted.

[Randy Phelps]

So I ask again, why is it important if a popular musician conforms to our taste?

The music is an element of the world we create and live in. We all have listened to music at key moments in our lives... essentially the soundtrack of our lives... and in that soundtrack we associate a zillion things. We create and have created for us myths about the music, the artist, the circumstances and the music is a badge of sorts that identifies us.

So, when an artist makes music that runs counter to what we've come to accept and expect as who WE are... it creates some major discomfort. Fear is usually exhibited as anger... So, we go berserk because the world we created and had created for us turns out not to be exactly as described.

For the guy who bought "The Fightin' Side of Me" and who loved the music and accepted the message along with it... Merle's later thoughts run counter to that... it can be complicated... so fear and anger are not far behind.

That is why people get so mad. It is about THEM.

[Kevin Hatton]

That seems like reverse logic to me. Your blaming the end result instead of the cause. This has nothing to do with an artist conforming to our taste. It has to do with the purposeful destruction of a genre of music by people with the power to do so. I could care less if someone wanted to play cultural Chinese music on the pedal steel guitar. More power to them.

[Clyde Mattocks]

Darn, b0b, that was the first good one in months!
Seriously, I think spirited discussions (as opposed
to heated or personal) are good for the forum. If
you don't have challenges, certain alpha personalities go unchecked and their opinions start to carry more weight than they deserve.

A second point, somewhere buried in this or the other thread is the old "your opinions are why the pros don't post here anymore". Well Buddy Emmons comes on when he has something to say and I see posts by Paul Franklin, Tommy White, Ron Elliot, Randy Beavers. Also John Hughey was a regular contributor. Mike Douchette is all over the place
and I would certainly consider him a pro.

Let 'er rip!

[Pete Finney]

I NEVER said that "pros don't post here anymore". I actually said:

SOME of the "pros" that used to be regulars here can't be bothered with the forum anymore

Not the same thing, and true unfortunately...

[James Cann]

We're dealing with printed words. There is no tone of voice to listen to, no eye contact. All we have are emoticons, and even they can be mis-interpreted.

As if emoticons were actually necessary! It's diction, semantics, and punctuation to determine "tone" and "contact," often despite objective writer attitude. Take your pick of head vs. heart:

The car crosses the centerline and collides with the tree.
The car hurtles over the line and, in lethal embrace, weds itself to the tree.

[Whip Lashaway]

Bob, I agree with everything you've said. However, we have to look at who we are. If you are not a huge fan of 4/4 shuffles and "traditional country" music, you're probably NOT a fan of steel guitar! This defines the majority of the forum membership. Now, mix in those who love the instrument for other styles of music and you now have the ingredient's for controversy. Now sprinkle in some public ignorance about "that slide bar thingy" or "that keyboard thing" or you name the stupid comment, and you have some musical frustration that we all live with. Now, cover the whole thing in a layer of industry that seems to prefer canned music to live music and markets itself to teenage girls (who admittedly buy all the CD's) leaving the musicians wishing they could get a gig and when they do they are forced to play songs they probably don't prefer (to put it mildly). You think they might get heated up when speaking to someone they believe should be on the same page with them? NA, never happen!!!
I love you guys, each and every one.