A friend in a low place
fx...@acad3.alaska.edu
in. Garth Brooks I think (and George Jones agrees with me) that Garth is a
credit to the country music industry. Keep in mind Garth wouldn't be so
popular if his singing wasn't any good and we weren't buying the records!!!!!
I have all his records. I too would like him and Reba to sing a duet. I hope
Garth Brooks is around a loooooooonnnnnnnnngggggggggg time. I'll wager he'll
be respected like George Jones is today in about 30 years. Those of you that
say that Garth don't sing traditional country obviously have not listened to
all his albums! Flame away if you wish I've got my fire fighting equipment
handy.
sx...@orca.alaska.edu
James W. (Jim) Grimes
University of Alaska
Computer Network
Rob Bernardo
> Keep in mind Garth wouldn't be so
>popular if his singing wasn't any good and we weren't buying the records!!!!!
Wait a second. Does this mean that "good" is not in the individual
beholder's eye?
--
Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
email: r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US home phone: (510) 827-4301
Tim Foster
In article <18...@leadsv.UUCP>, net...@leadsv.UUCP (Leads Network News) writes:
> In article <1991Oct24...@acad3.alaska.edu>, fx...@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
> >Those of you that say that Garth don't sing traditional country
> >obviously have not listened to all his albums!
>
> is number one on the *POP* charts?
> =============================================================================
> Bob Marshall ^ \\
> Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. |L| \\ Marshall's Theorem :
> Sunnyvale, CA |M| \\ "2 + 2 approximately equals 5 for
> (408)756-5737 |S| \\ large values of 2"
> mars...@force.decnet.lockheed.com |C| \\
> / \ \\
> =============================================================================
Because they changed the way in which they tabulate album sales.
Before, it was done mostly by surveying the record stores. As a
result, the managers/employees of the stores, which are mostly run
by popular music enthusiasts, would more or less embellish the #'s
in favor of the artists which they like. Now they have a system
which counts actual album sales, so the true numbers are showing
through. This is the main reason Garth is up on the charts, not your
inference that millions of pop music fans are running out to buy
his album. As an aside, it was recently shown that, while the
numbers of popular music radio station listeners has been steadily
dropping, the opposite has been true of country station listeners
so that there are virtually as many people listening to country as
anything else. I think these two factors have more to do with the
fact that Garth has the ability to top the "pop" chart more than
anything else. I also think that you might see other country
artists topping the charts soon too.
--
----------
Tim Foster
E-mail: tfo...@viewlogic.com
Tom Owens
In article <1991Oct24...@acad3.alaska.edu>,fx...@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>Those of you that say that Garth don't sing traditional country
>obviously have not listened to all his albums!
>is number one on the *POP* charts?
Whoa, there. As I recall Tennessee Ernie Ford, Eddy Arnold, and Hank Williams
were all cross-over artists who reached number one (maybe not Hank, but he
was definitely big on pop charts). Now I suppose you could make arguments
that Tennessee and Eddy aren't "pure" country, but Hank? If he ain't pure,
give me the polluted stuff every time.
Garth is traditional enough for me; he just doesn't seem all that good.
He is beginning to grow on me though as he brings some Jones into his singing.
--
Tom Owens
MIT Library Systems Office
ow...@athena.mit.edu
617-253-1618
Leads Network News
>obviously have not listened to all his albums!
Then how do you explain the fact that Garth's "Ropin' the Wind" album
is number one on the *POP* charts?
Mike Linan
>> In article <1991Oct24...@acad3.alaska.edu>, fx...@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>E-mail: tfo...@viewlogic.com
Well Tim, the problem here is that a lot of us who have been listening to CW
for some time and love the music's roots and traditional sound, dislike the
way Garth is compromising it by trying to attract a larger audience and more
buyers of his records. Some of Garth's songs *are* good. But, others like
Billy Joel's song Shameless are nothing but POP songs with a steel guitar.
I would be curious how long you and many other Garth fans have been listening
to REAL country western music.
Mike Linan
Steve Carnes
li...@bell.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Mike Linan) writes:
>Some of Garth's songs *are* good. But, others like
>Billy Joel's song Shameless are nothing but POP songs with a steel guitar.
Ronnie Milsap did this also. Pretty lame. So much of what passes for
country music these days are just prettyboys with a hat, but without a
musical vision. "I'll sing anything if it makes me money..."
--
Steve Carnes car...@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!carnes
Do technical nerds shop at Fnordstrom's?
Michael Picou
>Well Tim, the problem here is that a lot of us who have been listening to CW
>for some time and love the music's roots and traditional sound, dislike the
>way Garth is compromising it by trying to attract a larger audience and more
>buyers of his records. Some of Garth's songs *are* good. But, others like
>Billy Joel's song Shameless are nothing but POP songs with a steel guitar.
>I would be curious how long you and many other Garth fans have been listening
>to REAL country western music.
>Mike Linan
I have been listening to C&W for 20+ years. I don't like the old stuff as
much as I like the new. Garth is my favorite at the time. Clint runs a
strong second. I don't know about ya'll, but I like to dance to C&W. The
up-beat new country is much more enjoyable to dance to. I *do* like some
of the older songs, but IMHO the newer songs are better.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a sucker for a polka or a waltz.
As for saying "Shameless" isn't country, what defines country. What makes
a song country to one may not be the same as anothers ideals. I'll except
"Shameless" as a country song any day. But I also love Billy Joel's music.
Just my $.02 worth,
Mike Picou
Joe Richmeyer 5-0029
>In article <1991Oct24...@acad3.alaska.edu>, fx...@acad3.alaska.edu writes:
>>Those of you that say that Garth don't sing traditional country
>>obviously have not listened to all his albums!
>
>Then how do you explain the fact that Garth's "Ropin' the Wind" album
>is number one on the *POP* charts?
>=============================================================================
>Bob Marshall ^ \\
Bob,
Thats easy to explain! People, including kids and your adults, are tired
of rap, heavy metal is out because of it links with drugs/violence + you
can't understand the words, what else is left? Country!! Kids can
understand the words + most of the stations are playing the new muscians
(Garth, Clint..) and not all the "twang" stuff. I suspect that its a
fad with the younger generation that will wear off, but the overall number
of county listeners will continue to increase. I personally hate the old
hick twang country and like the new stuff.
Joe R.
--
Joseph Richmeyer DISCLAIMER: "It was like that when I got here"
INTERNET: jr9...@jimbo.sbc.com
UUCP: uunet!swbatl!jimbo!jr9283 "Who invented liquid soap and why?"
Peggy Bertsch
>for some time and love the music's roots and traditional sound, dislike the
>way Garth is compromising it by trying to attract a larger audience and more
>buyers of his records. Some of Garth's songs *are* good. But, others like
>Billy Joel's song Shameless are nothing but POP songs with a steel guitar.
>I would be curious how long you and many other Garth fans have been listening
>to REAL country western music.
>
>Mike Linan
This isn't meant to be an inflammatory comment, just a general observation...
the recording industry is suffering through tough times just like a lot of
areas of the economy...there are labels folding, concert tours being cancelled,
and all kinds of nasty stuff.
Unfortunately, music *is* a business. It's about making money. Garth is
under a contract. If he wants his label to let him continue making records,
he had better make the label some money. I'm very slow to criticize someone
for selling out, because I think it's a no-win situation: you either
compromise a little, or you might not get to play at all.
So, before you take to criticizing Garth too strongly, think of the possible
benefits country music can get back by having Garth compromise enough to
attract a larger audience:
* Garth fans might be inclined to try listening to other CW artists,
especially if Garth says he likes them -- like George Jones.
* Garth's earnings might be enough to allow his label to sponsor other
artists with a more traditional (and, unfortunately, *smaller*) audience.
If you have someone like Garth around, you can afford to lose some money
on the lesser-known artists.
Note I'm not saying this as a Garth fan. I bought one of his tapes because
a friend's cousin co-wrote "If Tomorrow Never Comes" and I wanted to hear
that one song. I don't even know where the tape is now :-) But knowing
what I know about the business (I'm a wanna-be writer, and spend a fair
amount of time dealing with industry people...I've got friends who've gone
to great lengths to get deals with major labels), I respect *anyone* who
can do what Garth Brooks has done. Even if I don't like his music.
-peg
Tim Foster
In article <1991Oct28....@ico.isc.com>, car...@ico.isc.com (Steve Carnes) writes:
>
> li...@bell.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Mike Linan) writes:
> >Some of Garth's songs *are* good. But, others like
> >Billy Joel's song Shameless are nothing but POP songs with a steel guitar.
>
> Ronnie Milsap did this also. Pretty lame. So much of what passes for
> country music these days are just prettyboys with a hat, but without a
> musical vision. "I'll sing anything if it makes me money..."
Could you please explain what a "musical vision" is, or give me an
example of someone who has this "musical vision" and why? I'm sure
you don't think that Garth is a "prettyboy". Maybe Vince Gill is,
but he doesn't wear a hat. :-)
> --
> Steve Carnes car...@ico.isc.com uucp: {ncar,nbires}!ico!carnes
> Do technical nerds shop at Fnordstrom's?
--
Matthew Ault
>pi...@convex.com (Michael Picou) wrote:
>> I don't know about ya'll, but I like to dance to C&W. The
>>up-beat new country is much more enjoyable to dance to.
>
>
>>As for saying "Shameless" isn't country, what defines country. What makes
>>a song country to one may not be the same as anothers ideals.
>
>approach the issue of what's country music without resorting to issues
>of personal taste.
>
>> I'll except
>>"Shameless" as a country song any day.
>
>seem country to you?
One undercurrent that seems (at least to me) to be running through this
dicussion is that to be country is "good" and to not be country is "bad".
Like with this "Shameless" song, there are all of these Garth fans out
there claiming that "Yep, yep, it's country" as if to admit that it
might *not* be would be blasphemy. Personally, I don't see why
we have to pigeonhole the artist. Maybe he sings country music most
of the time, but just decided to cut a more pop oriented song for a
change of pace.
Someone earlier talked about how much the music industry is really just
that: an industry, a business. And that I think is the bottom line
of the whole debate here. The business of who gets played on what station.
I have loved Billy Joel's version of "Shameless" ever since his album,
"Storm Front", first came out. When I heard Garth's version I thought,
"It's O.K., but I'd rather listen to the original." IMO, Garth didn't
do anything new with the song. (I must admit here that I haven't listened
to his version too manty times, as I stopped listening to country radio
a few months ago. I have grown a disenthused with WWWW in Detroit. If
only they would play something different once in a while.) Anyway, the
only reason Garth can get so much attention with his version is that
Billy Joel doesn't get played on country stations. So I guess the reason
some might think the new version is country is that it's done by Garth,
and Garth only gets played on country stations, therefore it must be
country.
What I would like to see is a detailed comparison between Garth's version
and Joel's version along with an explaination as to why one is country
and the other isn't. Personally I don't think either song is. But that
doesn't automatically make either one a "bad" song.
-matt
--
|-------------------------|"Just remember that we're standing on a planet |
|Matthew A. Ault |that's evolving, and revolving at 900 mph. That's |
|au...@caen.engin.umich.edu|orbiting at 90 miles a second, so it's reckoned, |
|-------------------------|the sun that is the source of all our power..." -MP|
Michael Moore
> One undercurrent that seems (at least to me) to be running through this
> dicussion is that to be country is "good" and to not be country is "bad".
> Like with this "Shameless" song, there are all of these Garth fans out
> there claiming that "Yep, yep, it's country" as if to admit that it
> might *not* be would be blasphemy. Personally, I don't see why
> we have to pigeonhole the artist. Maybe he sings country music most
> of the time, but just decided to cut a more pop oriented song for a
> change of pace.
>
>
I think one thing that would definitely be "bad" is if an artist
sings songs which are definitely more "pop" oriented and then calls it
country. If its borderline then perhaps its permissible, but otherwise
its an action which deserves refute. (IMHO of course)
-Sincerely,
_Michael_Moore_
(University of Utah)
jeffrey templon
>Someone earlier talked about how much the music industry is really just
>that: an industry, a business. And that I think is the bottom line
>of the whole debate here. The business of who gets played on what station.
I think you've got the crux of it. There's another dimension I'd
like to point out -- this thread of "what's all this pop stuff doing
in my good music" is common when some form of music experiences
a rise in popularity. An example: heavy metal (as _currently_
defined). First there was Van Halen and a few other bands;
then more bands most basically still carrying the pure heavy
metal torch; then metal started to really become popular, with
videos etc., and you get Poison playing "Every Rose has its Thorn"
and Def Leppard doing "Pour Some Sugar On Me". I'd venture that
both of these are basically pop songs with some heavy metal
guitar thrown in. That doesn't make them bad, as the original
poster pointed out.
SO here you have people who like their country a certain way;
country starts to get popular (reAL popular) and there starts
to be some more pop influence, pushing in the general direction
of accessibility to the masses. THe people who liked it the
way it was are gonna have a REAL hard time with that. I'm one
of them; I get pretty disgusted with the amount of poppy
stuff. Sometimes I find I like the pure pop stuff even better
than the "popped country"; at least they're being honest.
Example: Ronnie Milsap's "Wonder What it is to Feel Like You".
Only thing country about that performance is the name Ronnie
Milsap on the record. But it's a great song.
>I have loved Billy Joel's version of "Shameless" ever since his album,
>"Storm Front", first came out. When I heard Garth's version I thought,
>"It's O.K., but I'd rather listen to the original." IMO, Garth didn't
About Garth: he can't seem to make up his mind, can he? I think
"Not Counting You" is one of the countriest songs to hit the radio
in the past few years. "Thunder Rolls" seemed pretty blatantly
pop to me. Couldn't make up my mind about "Unanswered Prayers",
I guess mention of God tends to put that on the country side.
I like Garth though.
>and Garth only gets played on country stations, therefore it must be
>country.
Another thing: just the country treatment (some steel guitar in
the background, maybe? I haven't heard "Shameless" yet) may be
enough for newcomers to country to say "HA! That's country!"
If you'll remember a previous post, the poster was really glad
that "new country" had come along because (s)he counldn't stand
the old stuff with all that "twang" to it. People who tend to
follow what's popular generally hear the same sorts of songs,
but layered with some treatment of whatever "form" of music
it's being called, and say "well, that's <form> music."
Steel guitar ==> "country".
What I'd do, is sit 'em all down with a Robert Earl Keen Jr.
CD. Now THAT'S country. (At least I think so.)
JT
Rob Bernardo
> I don't know about ya'll, but I like to dance to C&W. The
>up-beat new country is much more enjoyable to dance to.
Enjoyability is in the feet of the beholder.
>As for saying "Shameless" isn't country, what defines country. What makes
>a song country to one may not be the same as anothers ideals.
True. However, all personal definitions aren't equally valid. One can
approach the issue of what's country music without resorting to issues
of personal taste.
> I'll except
>"Shameless" as a country song any day.
Okay, so then what distinguishes it from pop music? What about it makes it
seem country to you?
Mike Linan
I guess I probably came off too strong on Garth. The fact is I like a number
of his songs and some of them have some true country, like "Two of a Kind"
for example. You can't get more traditional than that. However, what I dis-
agree with is that Garth is the greatest thing since sliced bread as the
disjockeys and powers that be in the CW music industry would have you believe.
Also, I *do* like Billy Joel's song Shameless that Garth sings BUT, IT IS NOT
A COUNTRY WESTERN SONG just because Garth sings it and they add a steel guitar!
I also liked the Eagles and they weren't a CW group, their music was country
flavored. To me Clint and George Strait a much better CW artists, they just
haven't kept up with Garth in his self promotion. Like I said he *is* good,
just not as good as he thinks he is.
Mike Linan
Tim Foster
(WARNING! Heavy sarcasm follows)
Well Mike, sounds like to me you could do just fine by listening
to your old Hank, Jones, Cash, Twitty, etc. albums without even trying
to listen to any of the new music. I mean, it would be awful if
any new sounds would come along which stray from traditional CW.
Because then CW would might more popular and we wouldn't like that.
Too many people at the concerts. Too many records to choose from.
They might even put a CW show on TV (other than Hee Haw, of course)!
Oh geez, I shouldn't be opening my mouth, seeing that I don't have the
required number of years in as a CW listener. Maybe I should unsubscribe
from this news group. What is the required number of years anyway?
Seriously, isn't there room in CW for artists with a different sound?
If Garth isn't CW, how would you classify him? Wouldn't the fact that
Garth seems to be the most popular artist in CW music lend you to
believe that he is a CW artist?
Steve Carnes
li...@bell.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Mike Linan) writes:
>
>Also, I *do* like Billy Joel's song Shameless that Garth sings BUT, IT IS NOT
>A COUNTRY WESTERN SONG just because Garth sings it and they add a steel guitar!
To badly quote Steve Goodman (RIP), does it mention mother, prison,
planes, trains, holidays like Christmas, getting drunk, trucks, or
dogs like Old Shep...??
jeffrey templon
>(WARNING! Heavy sarcasm follows)
[...]
>to listen to any of the new music. I mean, it would be awful if
>any new sounds would come along which stray from traditional CW.
>Because then CW would might more popular and we wouldn't like that.
>Too many people at the concerts. Too many records to choose from.
You left out some steps (at least this is what I'M worried about):
More popularity => more money. More people jump on pop country
bandwagon. They get rich. Record companies quit signing
traditional-souding artists, push current stars to pop out.
FOOM! More-traditional CW almost disappears for several years
until people start getting sick of country and it goes retro.
>Seriously, isn't there room in CW for artists with a different sound?
Yeah, but pop tends to kill off almost any kind of music real quick.
I like different sounds like Cowboy Junkies, k.d. lang, etc.
JT
Leads Network News
>
>Seriously, isn't there room in CW for artists with a different sound?
>If Garth isn't CW, how would you classify him? Wouldn't the fact that
>Garth seems to be the most popular artist in CW music lend you to
>believe that he is a CW artist?
Seems like this Garth Brooks issue has gotten out of hand. I think the
real issue runs much deeper than "is Garth Brooks country?". I think the
real issue is the way in which the country music industry operates; some
of us are turned off by the commercialism, and others are not bothered
by the commercialism. Garth has certainly "sold out" (and who can blame
him?), and that affects different people in different ways; it's
unavoidable. So be it.
Sure, I can understand the "strike while the iron is hot" philosophy;
from a business point of view it is the smart thing to do. But that
attitude is guaranteed to disenchant a lot of people (as we have witnessed
in this thread).
'nuf said.
=============================================================================
Bob Marshall Clouseau: "Does your dog bite?"
Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. Innkeeper:"No..."
Sunnyvale, CA Clouseau: "Nice doggie!"
(408)756-5737 Dog: "Rowr, rowr, rowr, chomp!"
mars...@force.decnet.lockheed.com Clouseau: "You said your dog doesn't bite!"
Innkeeper:"That is not my dog."
=============================================================================
Matthew Ault
>>
>>Seriously, isn't there room in CW for artists with a different sound?
>>If Garth isn't CW, how would you classify him? Wouldn't the fact that
>>Garth seems to be the most popular artist in CW music lend you to
>>believe that he is a CW artist?
Sure, so long as one accepts the fact that he is a CW artist that
occasionally releases non-CW songs. (Gee, what a thought! :^)
>Seems like this Garth Brooks issue has gotten out of hand. I think the
>real issue runs much deeper than "is Garth Brooks country?". I think the
>real issue is the way in which the country music industry operates; some
>of us are turned off by the commercialism, and others are not bothered
>by the commercialism. Garth has certainly "sold out" (and who can blame
>him?), and that affects different people in different ways; it's
>unavoidable. So be it.
I wouldn't necessarily say that he's "sold out", just that he's into
doing different things...
This whole dicussion reminds me of a concept that I heard of some time
ago. (I can't remember where, it may have even been on this group.)
It's that you can't define a genre, style of music or whatever by looking
at its boundries because they are necessarily going to be blurry. You
define a style of music, CW in this case, by deciding where it's center
is. So it's kind of fruitless arguing as to whether or not a particular
artist is country, because there's really no boundry.
Another way to look at it would be a "country ratio", like on the
country/pop scale. An artist like George Jones or Hank, Sr. will likely
have a higher CR than, say, Garth Brooks. Or even k.d. lang, for that
matter. (It reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend who considered
k.d. to be a blues singer, not country.) And different people will have
different limits as to how much pop can be put into country before they
stop seeing it as country and start seeing it as pop with country
influences. All a matter of taste. I don't think that there's anyone
who would say that Garth doesn't have *any* country in him, but I also
doubt that there's anyone who would say that Garth is the most country
artist *ever*.
-matt
P.S. As an new thread, we should take opinions on which
artist could be defined as being the *most* country.
An interesting topic I should think.
jeffrey templon
writes:
>P.S. As an new thread, we should take opinions on which
> artist could be defined as being the *most* country.
> An interesting topic I should think.
Yeah! I'll put in some candidates (I can't decide.)
1) Male -- Dwight Yoakam, Ricky Skaggs
2) Female -- Loretta Lynn, Patty Loveless (OLD Loretta, I should say.)
JT
Kathy Tavener
>from a business point of view it is the smart thing to do. But that
>attitude is guaranteed to disenchant a lot of people (as we have witnessed
>in this thread).
Put yourself in his shoes!
--
Rob Bernardo
>I wouldn't necessarily say that he's "sold out", just that he's into
>doing different things...
Hard to tell exactly what he motivation is, but when someone who changes
his performance to a style that's more popular, more appealing to the lowest
common denominator, I'd begin to suspect that they were looking more at
$$ than at artistic exploration.
>This whole dicussion reminds me of a concept that I heard of some time
>ago. (I can't remember where, it may have even been on this group.)
>It's that you can't define a genre, style of music or whatever by looking
>at its boundries because they are necessarily going to be blurry. You
>define a style of music, CW in this case, by deciding where it's center
>is.
Yes, that was what I said in a posting I did a while back, and I just
reposted it.
> So it's kind of fruitless arguing as to whether or not a particular
>artist is country, because there's really no boundry.
Yes and no. It's fruitless to argue whether a particular singer (Why do
we call a singer an artist? Most country singers and pop singers are
exhibiting craft, not art.) or song is country or not as a
black-and-white situation. But it certainly is possible to discuss to
what degree the singer or song is country and why. I think this is
related to what you had in mind when you wrote:
>Another way to look at it would be a "country ratio", like on the
>country/pop scale.
Rob Bernardo
>to your old Hank, Jones, Cash, Twitty, etc. albums without even trying
>to listen to any of the new music.
>Seriously, isn't there room in CW for artists with a different sound?
I think the problem is not that Garth is exploring new sounds and taking
country in some new artistic direction. Becoming more "pop" is hardly
artistic. It's an appeal to the lowest common denominator.
>If Garth isn't CW, how would you classify him?
His recent hits hardly have any country music features to them. A bit
of steel guitar isn't enough. Those songs are simply "pop".
> Wouldn't the fact that
>Garth seems to be the most popular artist in CW music lend you to
>believe that he is a CW artist?
Don't see the connection here. He's been classified as a country singer
by record stores, recording studios, radio stations, etc. That does not
mean that any one of his songs is necessarily going to be very country.
And in fact, few of his recent hits are.
It is possible to define country, not necessarily by giving neccessary
and sufficient criteria (very few categories can be defined in that way),
but rather by describing prototypical country music and allowing for
fuzzy logic (i.e. something is country to varying degrees by how close
it matches up to the prototype). I once posted a first draft on this
a while back. Here's the main part of that posting:
* * *
Let me preface my definition of country by mentioning a linguistic point:
categories are better defined by focal prototypes than by "boundaries";
this is how language works. (E.g. it's hard to find well defined boundaries
for things like "red" or "cup" (when is it a mug instead of a cup?), but
it's easy to define "red" and "cup" with prototyptes). People tend to
agree a lot better on definitions that are prototype-defined than on
those that are "boundary" defined.)
So my list of characteristics is an attempt at specifying what makes a
song a prototypical country. To the extent that an actual song approaches
the prototype is the extent to which it is country. Note that prototype
is not the same as stereotype.
Disclaimer: this is just my first stab and also based on my thoughts.
I welcome additions and corrections. Remember: this describes the prototype.
Most any country song is not going to fit all of these and may even
contradict a fair number of them.
Instrumentation:
primarily guitar, with steel guitar, fiddle (but *not*
whole string sections), and percussion
generally *not* piano, at least as the primary instrument
(This is one main feature of Ronnie Milsap's music
that keeps it pop-sounding.)
generally not instruments that sound electronic or synthesized
generally not sounding highly processed by electronics (little
echoing, etc.)
generally one main voice singing melody with possible background
vocals (as opposed to say a quartet/trio/duet situation
with simultaneous voices of equal status)
regional accents, if prominent, are American rural sounding
Lyrics:
generally about down-to-earth issues, life's problems and joys,
esp. romance, with little political or social "analysis"
perhaps dwells more on failures than other popular music genres,
often a cry-in-one's-beer, self-pitying, or self-mocking
storyline
often appeals to the emotions or sentimental
often has to do with things in a rural context, or things
from a rural point of view
often with an explicit "traditional American" point of view:
white, Christian, heterosexual, when specified
often about blue collar, middle class people, "the common man"
if mentioned, sometimes about being a socio-economic
underdog
men more often protrayed as sensitive and tender than in many other
popular music genres
often includes puns and figures of speech of a down-to-earth
nature, i.e. generally not ones that involve literary
references
Music:
generally about 2-3 minutes long (although one might say this
is more properly a characteristic of a mainly
superordinate category: "commercial" music that
is intended for radio airtime)
fairly simple harmonic/scale structure (maybe someone else
can make some more technically musicological
distinctions here)
generally *not* with a syncopated beat (This is what prevents
many folk-ish songs, e.g. some of Bruce Springstein's,
from being country - the syncopated beat is antithetical
to good two-steppin' music)
standard 4/4, 2/4 or 3/4 tempo
more traditional song structure, tending to have a more bona
fide coda, as opposed to a fade out, than many other
popular music genres
Rob Bernardo
>Yeah! I'll put in some candidates (I can't decide.)
>
>1) Male -- Dwight Yoakam, Ricky Skaggs
>2) Female -- Loretta Lynn, Patty Loveless (OLD Loretta, I should say.)
Um, why are you splitting by gender and not, say, race? Because sexism's
acceptable?
Michael Moore
> tem...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) wrote:
> >Yeah! I'll put in some candidates (I can't decide.)
> >
> >1) Male -- Dwight Yoakam, Ricky Skaggs
> >2) Female -- Loretta Lynn, Patty Loveless (OLD Loretta, I should say.)
>
> Um, why are you splitting by gender and not, say, race? Because sexism's
> acceptable?
> --
> Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
Why do the CMA awards do it? I doubt they do it because they feel sexism
is acceptable. (could be wrong...)
Michael Moore
(University of Utah)
Frank Godbey
r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>
>.............. my definition of country
(lots of stuff deleted)
>generally one main voice singing melody with possible background
>vocals (as opposed to say a quartet/trio/duet situation
>with simultaneous voices of equal status)
>
I can't argue with most of what you say, but you might want to
reconsider the above.
Harmony singing (as apposed to a featured vocalist with back-up singers)
is stronger now in country music than it has been since the heyday of
the so-called "brother duet". Granted, the usual format is for a solo
voice on the verses, but there is much fine "equal status" harmony
singing on the choruses. Groups like Diamond Rio, McBride and the Ride,
the Judds, and Highway 101, to mention only a few, regularly feature
tight harmony. Even some of the Hats use a well-blended tenor voice
for support. And for bluegrass groups it's a stock in trade. There
are no better harmony singers in the world, IMHO, than the Osborne
Brothers. Personally, I think "back-up singing" in most country
music is unnecessary, if not down right distracting-- give me a good
trio any day.
______________________________________________________________________
Frank Godbey INTERNET: UKA...@UKCC.UKY.EDU
Bonnie J. Black
do so because we want to hear country music, not some "country" artist's
new pop song.
--
Bonnie J. Black (ad...@midway.uchicago.edu)
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (but looking for work in Pittsburgh)
(312) 702-2555 (9-5 CST)
Bonnie J. Black
>
>As for saying "Shameless" isn't country, what defines country. What makes
>a song country to one may not be the same as anothers ideals. I'll except
>"Shameless" as a country song any day. But I also love Billy Joel's music.
>
song!
>Just my $.02 worth,
>Mike Picou
>
Bonnie J. Black
>tem...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) wrote:
>>Yeah! I'll put in some candidates (I can't decide.)
>>
>>1) Male -- Dwight Yoakam, Ricky Skaggs
>>2) Female -- Loretta Lynn, Patty Loveless (OLD Loretta, I should say.)
>
>Um, why are you splitting by gender and not, say, race? Because sexism's
>acceptable?
Maybe because awards are also split up this way. I don't believe
this has anything to do with sexism. Female vocalists do not sound the
same as male vocalists.
Michael Picou
> What's more, those of us who listen to "country" radio stations
>do so because we want to hear country music, not some "country" artist's
>new pop song.
Speak for yourself, I listen to "country" radio stations because I like
90% of the songs they play! That other 10% is both new and old "country"!
There is a station here in town that claims "CLASSIC COUNTRY". I have
tuned to it on occasion, and I can't stand to keep it on for long. Does
this mean that I'm not "country"? I think not!!! I've broke horses, rode
in rodeos, worked on ranches, rode trailrides, etc...
All this discussion that has been goin on here is opinion! Simply because
someone doesn't like a song, doesn't make it *non-country*! Everybody has
an opinion. Others may not like that persons opinion, but that doesn't
make it proper or improper. I recall reading something about traditional
country, and this new stuff isn't country because it fit the template.
Well, that is BS!!! (IMO) That traditional country is exactly that,
TRADITIONAL! The new stuff is more of a mix of southern rock and traditional.
I guess Charlie Daniels isn't country huh??? It's not the lyrics that make a
song country or rock, it's the music, the tempo. Break out of the paradigm,
this is the 20th century, higher quality sound equipment! Things aren't
the same as they were in the traditional times.
For those of you who say Garth has only a few country songs, why don't you
try listening to some of his tapes. Here are a few that are by far real
country.
"What she's doin now"
"Cowboy Bill"
"A new way to fly"
"Same ol' story"
"Much to young to feel this damn old"
"Burning bridges"
"Rodeo"
"Nobody gets off in this town"
Shall I continue?
I'm sorry for rambling on. IMHO music is what you make of it, not what
the guy on the radio says it is. If you think Garth is *pop*, then so
be it in your eyes. Far be it from me to insist that ya'll follow my
opinion. You think what you want, and I'll do the same. Beauty is in the
eyes of the beholder!!!
MJP
use...@swbatl.sbc.com
Bernardo, no one gives a big fat rat's a*s about your
political interjections. This is not a political forum
nor it is a place to chide someone for not being politically
correct. For my part, you can take your tired, liberal views
elsewhere.
Geez, is there no escape from you politically correct freaks???
*********************************************************************
Joe Spencer What the Hell is the world
Southwestern Bell coming to?
Network Engineering
Sheriff Buford T. Justice
********************************************************************
Mike Schmitt
>Well Tim, the problem here is that a lot of us who have been listening to CW
>for some time and love the music's roots and traditional sound, dislike the
>way Garth is compromising it by trying to attract a larger audience and more
>buyers of his records. Some of Garth's songs *are* good. But, others like
>Billy Joel's song Shameless are nothing but POP songs with a steel guitar.
>I would be curious how long you and many other Garth fans have been listening
>to REAL country western music.
I like Garth's music and songs. I like the new - I like the old. Shoot,
I even like the Sons of the Pioneers. How long have I been listening to
country music? Well let's see - by my best recollection I was into it when
playing drums in a 3-piece band - behind a bass guitar and a double-neck
lead - at a country-western tavern - for $5 a night - and all the beer I
could drink. That was back in '60 when I was 18. Is that long enough and
real enough?
I have no problem with Garth and others of his ilk. It's a business. And
right now business is pretty good - I'd guess there are over twice (maybe
even three times) as many country stations on the radio than a few years
ago (anybody got statistics on this?) The bottom line for me is that it
all seems pretty good for country music.
mike
Peggy Bertsch
Mike, are you placing the blame solely on Garth for "selling out," and for
blatant self-promotion?...again, it's tough to avoid in his business; when
you're hot, you're everywhere, and sometimes it's tough to control...he's
got managers and PR people and record company people all trying to get him
to do various things, and again, it's part of his *job*...what is it we
want him to do? Become a recluse until his popularity erodes enough to let
him get back to doing "real" country music? I can't blame Garth for not
wanting to risk it...audiences are fickle, and if you're out of sight (or in
this case, earshot :-), you're definitely out of mind. And you might not
get a chance to try again later.
Garth will probably burn out naturally. I saw him turn up on "Empty Nest"
(T.V. sitcom) the other night and it reminded me of one of my former-favorites,
Phil Collins...Phil got his hand into just about everything, and after a while
he became too overexposed for me -- I got sick of him! He still does some
good work, and has a loyal following...Garth will too, I'm sure. It's not a
question of whether he's good or bad or country or pop...it's the audience
whose taste will change, eventually. No one can stay on top for too long.
BTW, Garth really wasn't bad in "Empty Nest" -- he had a naturalness that
really seemed to come across. I'm convinced that Garth himself is a very
nice, natural person...I don't think it's his own ego that has led him to the
brink of overexposure -- I think it's his handlers who have let that happen.
I wish him well, even if I'm a member of the minority (people who do not own
his multi-platinum albums :-)
Cheers,
-peg
Bonnie J. Black
>ad...@quads.uchicago.edu (Bonnie J. Black) writes:
>
>> What's more, those of us who listen to "country" radio stations
>>do so because we want to hear country music, not some "country" artist's
>>new pop song.
>
>Speak for yourself, I listen to "country" radio stations because I like
>90% of the songs they play! That other 10% is both new and old "country"!
>
radio stations do so because we want to hear country music. I suppose some
tune in just because they saw Garth Brooks on a Walt Disney special.
Leads Network News
>In response to one of Mike Linan's comments:
>
>Mike, are you placing the blame solely on Garth for "selling out," and for
>country music?
YES!
Seriously, though, I'm sure it's difficult to resist the tempatation to
compromise your musical standards in the face of the potential $$$$.
But it is possible to be hugely popular and still be almost universally
respected. I take Reba McIntire as an example. She reached a point in
her career a few years ago where she was letting herself be shaped and
sold by PR people; she put out a really bad album with a lot of syrupy,
sappy stuff on it (can't remember the name of the album, but it had
a horrid pink cover and it had a picture of Reba with tons of makeup on,
looking real glamourous). Fortunately for us she fought against that
direction, and her next release was "My Kind of Country", which had her
on the cover with blue jeans and a big shiny belt buckle. I think the
album was a statement from her that she was attempting the resist the
urge to let herself be "molded" by the people who run the country music
business. And I think she has been more or less successful at it, even
though she is still over-promoted. But the important thing is that she
has not lost any respect, as Garth has.
Rob Bernardo
>In article <1991Nov4.1...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US> r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>>tem...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) wrote:
>>>Yeah! I'll put in some candidates (I can't decide.)
>>>
>>>1) Male -- Dwight Yoakam, Ricky Skaggs
>>>2) Female -- Loretta Lynn, Patty Loveless (OLD Loretta, I should say.)
>>
>>Um, why are you splitting by gender and not, say, race? Because sexism's
>>acceptable?
>
> political interjections.
Seems like you do, or you wouldn't have posted. Given the tenor of your
posting I seem to have hit a raw nerve.
> This is not a political forum
> nor it is a place to chide someone for not being politically
> correct.
I was pointing out something that was sexist. I don't care if you call
it politically correct or not. It's just about *always* okay to point
out people's prejudices when they're voiced in public. What? You think
it's okay to act in a prejudicial manner in non-political newsgroups?
> For my part, you can take your tired, liberal views
> elsewhere.
I see. If my views had been conservative they'd be okay? Calling someone
on sexism is not allowed because it's a liberal view?
> Geez, is there no escape from you politically correct freaks???
Is there no escape from people who won't look at their own prejudices
and instead the first thing they think of is to argue against rather than
to think about what the other person my being talking about?
Matthew Ault
>In article <1991Nov4.1...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US> r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>>tem...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) wrote:
>>>Yeah! I'll put in some candidates (I can't decide.)
>>>
>>>1) Male -- Dwight Yoakam, Ricky Skaggs
>>>2) Female -- Loretta Lynn, Patty Loveless (OLD Loretta, I should say.)
>>
>>Um, why are you splitting by gender and not, say, race? Because sexism's
>>acceptable?
>>--
>>Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
>
> political interjections. This is not a political forum
> nor it is a place to chide someone for not being politically
> correct. For my part, you can take your tired, liberal views
> elsewhere.
>
> Geez, is there no escape from you politically correct freaks???
>
>*********************************************************************
>Joe Spencer What the Hell is the world
Let he who is without an agenda cast the first stone. You make it pretty
clear what *your* agenda is...
I myself find it an interesting comment. Why *do* the awards people
split up the categories male/female? Someone else posted that it was
because males and females sound different, but doesn't *every* performer
sound different? I mean, compare k.d. lang to Reba, or Hank Jr. to
Randy Travis. You get at least as much variety within the male and
female ranks as you do when comparing males to females, so why split?
Traditionally it was most likely because men had more opportunities
in the music business and the female awards were introduced in order
to give them a chance for some recognition. As to whether or not women
have equal opportunities compared to men in the music business today,
well, I'm not in the music business, so I can't be sure. (And it's not
just the country music industry. Why do the Academy awards have
actor *and* actress categories?)
Personally, I think they have too many awards as it is. I never give
a hoot as to who wins what. I listen to who I like to listen to regardless
of whether or not they won some silly award. I guess it's just another
part of the music *industry*.
jeffrey templon
I was the original poster of the "most Country" artist suggestons,
that had the "sexist" split between male and female. Some
folks were asking "why"?
In short, because I feel very differently when I hear many
female CW artists than when I hear male ones. For instance,
I have *never* found a male singer who evokes the feelings that
Nanci Griffith, Reba McEntire, Kathy Mattea, and Patty Loveless
will bring out with their ballad-type songs. There are also
very few times that a female-sung song has made be bounce
around in the truck like Garth's "Not Counting You", Gene
Watson's "The Jukebox Played Along" or Dwight's "I'll Be
Gone". Sure, there are some similarities between the songs
sung by males and females, but I find the greatest songs
to be those that have, to me, a fairly distinct "gender"
to them.
Some of you may say, "that proves it! He's sexist". Sure I
am. I only ask women out on dates, I think they sing songs
differently than men do, and they dress nicer. Is that so bad?
There are also several grad students in my department that
happen to be women, and when I work with them I do my best
to throw all that other stuff in a corner (and I see what
problems arise when people DON'T do that.)
I said this to Mr. Bernardo privately in email, I'll say
it here: sexism, defined as "discrimination between the
sexes", is not always bad. Heck, having "Men" and "Women"
restrooms is "sexist"!!! It's only bad when it's hurting
someone. And I don't think my opinion that Nanci Griffith's
"More Than A Whisper" has much greater impact when sung by
a woman is really hurting anyone.
JT
Peggy Bertsch
>we call a singer an artist? Most country singers and pop singers are
>--
>Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
Okay, so this was probably one of them there rhetorical questions, but what
the heck :-)
"Artist" used to be used in a stricter sense, to identify singers who wrote
their own songs (which, of course, is more aptly described by the title
"singer/songwriter," but let's face it -- that's a mouthful and "artist" is
just so much easier to say! :-) It's true that the term has lost its
distinctive quality, and is used to describe almost *everybody* these days.
But what bothers you about the distinction? Aren't most forms of art really
just craft, when it comes down to it? All Michaelangelo's "David" is is a
statue of a man, carved with uncanny precision out of stone. But when you
take a simple concept a raise it to an incredible level, it becomes art.
Granted, most popular music doesn't reach that level, but it's a subjective
rating...in a related vein, I saw a picture in the paper the other day of
a new art exhibit, where an "artist" collected junk and garbage from the
streets of San Jose, and built a collage-sculpture with it. Is this at a
level to call art? Some would say yes, some no.
Writing songs is a craft, but very much a form of artistic expression. And
singing, though more an interpretive form, can often take a song to a new
level. Why is it wrong to consider singers artists?
Way too serious for a congenial notes discussion, huh? ;-)
-peg
Laurie Anderson, West Bay Facilities Planning Administrator
Did anyone catch Garth in last weeks episode of Empty Nest?
He was surprisingly good! And he has a great senes of humor!
L.
Bonnie J. Black
>j...@okepyr.UUCP (Joe Spencer) wrote:
>>In article <1991Nov4.1...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US> r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>>>tem...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) wrote:
>>>>Yeah! I'll put in some candidates (I can't decide.)
>>>>
>>>>1) Male -- Dwight Yoakam, Ricky Skaggs
>>>>2) Female -- Loretta Lynn, Patty Loveless (OLD Loretta, I should say.)
>>>
>>>Um, why are you splitting by gender and not, say, race? Because sexism's
>>>acceptable?
>>
>> Bernardo, no one gives a big fat rat's a*s about your
>> political interjections.
>
>Seems like you do, or you wouldn't have posted. Given the tenor of your
>posting I seem to have hit a raw nerve.
>
>> This is not a political forum
>> nor it is a place to chide someone for not being politically
>> correct.
>
>I was pointing out something that was sexist. I don't care if you call
>it politically correct or not. It's just about *always* okay to point
>out people's prejudices when they're voiced in public. What? You think
>it's okay to act in a prejudicial manner in non-political newsgroups?
>
having people looking for prejudices where they don't exist. Male vocalists
differ from female vocalists. It's a somewhat arbitrary distinction, but
hardly sexist.
>> For my part, you can take your tired, liberal views
>> elsewhere.
>
>I see. If my views had been conservative they'd be okay? Calling someone
>on sexism is not allowed because it's a liberal view?
>
>> Geez, is there no escape from you politically correct freaks???
>
>Is there no escape from people who won't look at their own prejudices
>and instead the first thing they think of is to argue against rather than
>to think about what the other person my being talking about?
>--
>Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
>email: r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US home phone: (510) 827-4301
Tom Owens
>j...@okepyr.UUCP (Joe Spencer) wrote:
>>In article <1991Nov4.1...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US> r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>>>tem...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) wrote:
>>>>Yeah! I'll put in some candidates (I can't decide.)
>>>>
>>>>1) Male -- Dwight Yoakam, Ricky Skaggs
>>>>2) Female -- Loretta Lynn, Patty Loveless (OLD Loretta, I should say.)
>>>
>>>Um, why are you splitting by gender and not, say, race? Because sexism's
>>>acceptable?
>>
>> Bernardo, no one gives a big fat rat's a*s about your
>> political interjections.
>
>Seems like you do, or you wouldn't have posted. Given the tenor of your
>posting I seem to have hit a raw nerve.
>
>> This is not a political forum
>> nor it is a place to chide someone for not being politically
>> correct.
>
>I was pointing out something that was sexist. I don't care if you call
>it politically correct or not. It's just about *always* okay to point
>out people's prejudices when they're voiced in public. What? You think
>it's okay to act in a prejudicial manner in non-political newsgroups?
>
>> elsewhere.
>
>I see. If my views had been conservative they'd be okay? Calling someone
>on sexism is not allowed because it's a liberal view?
>
>> Geez, is there no escape from you politically correct freaks???
>
>Is there no escape from people who won't look at their own prejudices
>and instead the first thing they think of is to argue against rather than
>to think about what the other person my being talking about?
More questions to ponder:
Is there no escape from the self-proclaimed thought police? Is there some
reason we should put up with Bernardo's nonsense rather than publically
denounce it? Can the harm of listing favorite male and female singers
come close to the harm of these trivial attacks? Can we teach these
people to use a little judgement and commonsense before making these
baseless and arrogant charges? This stuff has got to stop.
--
Tom Owens
MIT Library Systems Office
ow...@athena.mit.edu
617-253-1618
Melinda Shore
>Is there some
>reason we should put up with Bernardo's nonsense rather than publically
>denounce it?
Yes. First, it's not nonsense. Second, I think it's
very important for us to question how our assumptions
reflect an acceptance of situations and stereotypes that
are doing a lot of damage. We don't live in a society
where everyone has equal rights and equal opportunities,
and the reasons for that are reflected in our day-to-day
behavior.
And when you tell us that we shouldn't be discussing
such things, who, precisely, is playing 'thought police?'
So why are vocalists segregated by gender for awards?
Songwriters aren't. Instrumentalists aren't. Producers
aren't. It's an interesting question, and one, I think,
that's worthy of a few moments of consideration.
--
Software longa, hardware brevis
Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
Michael Moore
>
> More questions to ponder:
> Is there no escape from the self-proclaimed thought police? Is there some
> reason we should put up with Bernardo's nonsense rather than publically
> denounce it? Can the harm of listing favorite male and female singers
> come close to the harm of these trivial attacks? Can we teach these
> people to use a little judgement and commonsense before making these
> baseless and arrogant charges? This stuff has got to stop.
>
I second the call for a halt. I enjoy this newsgroup for many reasons
and one of them is the friendly atmosphere. Used to be you really could
express your views here without having to worry about getting flamed. People
respected the fact that every individual has a right to an opinion about the
music they listen to. You didn't have to look your post over four times to
make sure you weren't going to get flamed for being sexist, racist, wrong,
or whatever.
That is still basically true, I believe. But I also believe a few
are spoiling it for the rest. So let it lie, and let's get back to the
discussions and reviews that make this newsgroup worthwhile.
-Sincerely,
_Michael_Moore_
(University of Utah)
Michael Moore
>
> Yes. First, it's not nonsense. Second, I think it's
> very important for us to question how our assumptions
> reflect an acceptance of situations and stereotypes that
> are doing a lot of damage. We don't live in a society
> where everyone has equal rights and equal opportunities,
> and the reasons for that are reflected in our day-to-day
> behavior.
>
This is fine. But flaming is what has been going on, and
that I whole-heartedly condemn. I advocate discussion, but not
slamming the other guy because of a post you find disagreable.
So sure its important to discuss the above, but its even more
important to keep the discussion civil. Nothing is accomplished
when things degenerate into a flame, and thus I feel it is even
more important to try and prevent that from happening than to
discuss whatever topical issue comes up (like sexism in awards
and society in general).
>And when you tell us that we shouldn't be discussing
>such things, who, precisely, is playing 'thought police?'
He never said that. The item which recieved his "nonsense"
label was Bernardo's post, not the actual topic of discussion. And
keep in mind it was hardly a "discussion" Bernardo began - Attack
is more like it.
[stuff deleted...]
> Melinda Shore - Cornell Information Technologies - sh...@tc.cornell.edu
-Sincerely,
_Michael_Moore_
(University of Utah)
Rob Bernardo
>>Yes and no. It's fruitless to argue whether a particular singer (Why do
>>we call a singer an artist? Most country singers and pop singers are
>>exhibiting craft, not art.) [...]
>
>their own songs (which, of course, is more aptly described by the title
>"singer/songwriter," but let's face it -- that's a mouthful and "artist" is
>just so much easier to say! :-) It's true that the term has lost its
>distinctive quality, and is used to describe almost *everybody* these days.
Hm. My impression is that the expression "recording artist" is one that
was initially promoted by the industry itself. It's self-elevation.
>But what bothers you about the distinction? Aren't most forms of art really
>just craft, when it comes down to it?
No.
Rob Bernardo
> He never said that. The item which recieved his "nonsense"
>label was Bernardo's post, not the actual topic of discussion. And
>keep in mind it was hardly a "discussion" Bernardo began - Attack
>is more like it.
Actually, my first post on the issue was simply to ask questions. I think
it was something like, "Why differentiate singers on the basis of gender,
instead of say race?" It was an honest question. I'm not sure why you
take it as an attack. What *followed* was invective.
Bob Davis
>>j...@okepyr.UUCP (Joe Spencer) wrote:
>>>In article <1991Nov4.1...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US> r...@mtdiablo.Concord.CA.US (Rob Bernardo) writes:
>>>>tem...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jeffrey templon) wrote:
>>>>>Yeah! I'll put in some candidates (I can't decide.)
>>>>>
>>>>>1) Male -- Dwight Yoakam, Ricky Skaggs
>>>>>2) Female -- Loretta Lynn, Patty Loveless (OLD Loretta, I should say.)
>>>>
>>>>Um, why are you splitting by gender and not, say, race? Because sexism's
>>>>acceptable?
>>>
>>> Bernardo, no one gives a big fat rat's a*s about your
>>> political interjections.
>>
>>Seems like you do, or you wouldn't have posted. Given the tenor of your
>>posting I seem to have hit a raw nerve.
>>
>>> This is not a political forum
>>> nor it is a place to chide someone for not being politically
>>> correct.
Amen.
>
>More questions to ponder:
>Is there no escape from the self-proclaimed thought police? Is there some
>reason we should put up with Bernardo's nonsense rather than publically
>denounce it?
I can't think of a single, solitary one.
...and speaking of Vince Gill... I saw this man in live performance
at the Maxwell King Performing Arts Center in our local area recently.
He is the real thing. He and his 5-piece band (same as on recent Opry
appearances) were a class act. "Look At Us" brought down the house.
I am so pleased at this performer's success. Gill has been around
Nashville for years and now he finally gets his 'overnight success.'
How many others are there? I have loved country music for 40 years
and I can't recall a time when the "depth of the bench" seemed as great
as it now appears to be.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Bob Davis, UofALA alum \\ INTERNET: so...@trantor.harris-atd.com | _ _ |
Harris Corporation, ESS \\ UUCP: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!sonny |_| |_| | |
Advanced Technology Dept.\\ AETHER: K4VNO |==============|_/\/\/\|_|
PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 \\ VOICE: (407) 727-5886 | I SPEAK ONLY | |_| |_| |
Melbourne, FL 32902 USA \\ FAX: (407) 729-3363 | FOR MYSELF. |_________|
Rob Bernardo
>
>I was the original poster of the "most Country" artist suggestons,
>that had the "sexist" split between male and female. Some
>folks were asking "why"?
>
>In short, because I feel very differently when I hear many
>female CW artists than when I hear male ones. For instance,
>I have *never* found a male singer who evokes the feelings that
The questions in my mind:
1. Is there a difference between female singers
and male singers?
2. If yes, is it of necessity tied to gender, or is it
just a statistical correlation?
3. If it's just a correlation, then why not describe the
difference on it's own grounds rather than by gender?
4. Even if there is a difference, is it really that major
of a difference that it requires two categories of
judgment? Are there not more important distinctions to
make in country songs that might make more sense when
talking about "favorite songs/singers"?
--
Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
Tom Owens
> ...and speaking of Vince Gill... I saw this man in live performance
>at the Maxwell King Performing Arts Center in our local area recently.
>He is the real thing. He and his 5-piece band (same as on recent Opry
>appearances) were a class act. "Look At Us" brought down the house.
>I am so pleased at this performer's success. Gill has been around
>Nashville for years and now he finally gets his 'overnight success.'
>How many others are there? I have loved country music for 40 years
>and I can't recall a time when the "depth of the bench" seemed as great
>as it now appears to be.
>
This _is_ a pretty exciting time in country music. Financially healthy.
A whole new crop of performers with a wide range of styles. People like
Jones, Haggard, and Nelson still doing good work.
One thing I'm pleased about -- and I think fits what you say about the bench -
is that the overall quality of the music is higher than I can remember it.
It isn't only Grady Martin doing fantastic guitar in the studio anymore.
Like many on this group, I tend to like the traditionalists. Gill's a
little sweet for me. I can't figure out what most of Rodney Crowell's
early work is about (though it sure is pretty). Emmy Lou has gotten too
angelic. But I'd hate to think that country music was so narrow that it
could only support one style of music. And I'd hate to lose people like
Lyle Lovett and Bela Fleck who seem to be taking country off in directions it
hasn't gone before. Hey, the more the merrier. The party's just beginning.
Archie Warnock
>early work is about (though it sure is pretty). Emmy Lou has gotten too
>angelic. But I'd hate to think that country music was so narrow that it
Go see her live! She's anything but. I haven't been thrilled with her
last couple of recordings (other than her work on "Spring Training"),
but her live shows with the Nash Ramblers are incredible.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Archie Warnock Internet: war...@nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov
-- Hughes STX SPAN: NSSDC::WARNOCK
-- NASA/GSFC "Unix - JCL for the 90s"
Michael Moore
>
>Actually, my first post on the issue was simply to ask questions. I think
>it was something like, "Why differentiate singers on the basis of gender,
>instead of say race?" It was an honest question. I'm not sure why you
>take it as an attack. What *followed* was invective.
>--
>Rob Bernardo Mt. Diablo Software Solutions
You said something to the effect of :
"I'm curious, why do you split them up on the basis of gender, instead of
race or [something else]. Because sexism is acceptable?"
I agree your question was honest. Its the implication which in my
mind turned the post into an attack. You implied the posters reason
might be because sexism is acceptible. This is certainly no way to
begin an objective discussion of an important issue, in my mind. It seems
to me if you want to get results in a discussion, objectivity in the
participants is the most conducive.
But lest I myself forget, this is all just *my* opinion. I don't
expect that everyone would agree with me or that I am even correct. All I
know is that is how I feel about it.
Jerry Gaiser N7PWF
>Like many on this group, I tend to like the traditionalists. Gill's a
>little sweet for me. I can't figure out what most of Rodney Crowell's
>early work is about (though it sure is pretty). Emmy Lou has gotten too
>angelic. But I'd hate to think that country music was so narrow that it
>could only support one style of music. And I'd hate to lose people like
>Lyle Lovett and Bela Fleck who seem to be taking country off in directions it
>hasn't gone before. Hey, the more the merrier. The party's just beginning.
I would like to add another amen...
With people like Lyle Lovett, k.d. laing, Alan Jackson, Dwight Yoakum, Clint
Black playing music, it's an exciting time in Country Music.
***************************************************************************
* Jerry Gaiser (N7PWF) -- Relax. Don't worry. Have a homebrew*
* je...@jaizer.intel.com *
* PBBSnet: n7pwf@n7pwf.#pdx.or.usa.na *
* n7...@n7pwf.ampr.org [44.116.0.68] *
* Dogs and old men thrive on monotony -- Baxter Black *
***************************************************************************
fx...@acad3.alaska.edu
Overall) stole the show!
Jim
Phil Scott
>>early work is about (though it sure is pretty). Emmy Lou has gotten too
>>angelic. But I'd hate to think that country music was so narrow that it
>
>Go see her live! She's anything but. I haven't been thrilled with her
>last couple of recordings (other than her work on "Spring Training"),
>but her live shows with the Nash Ramblers are incredible.
>
So is there any chance of a live album? It's nearly 8 years since
"Last Date"; surely she must be due for one pretty soon. After all the
incredible things I've heard about this band, it'd have to be a winner.
Also, what is this "Spring Training"??
Cheers, Phil Scott
--
Phil Scott (psc...@cs.ntu.edu.au) Phone: +61 89 466519 Fax: +61 89 270612
Dept. Computer Science, NTU, PO Box 40146, Casuarina, NT, 0811, Australia
Archie Warnock
>So is there any chance of a live album? It's nearly 8 years since
>"Last Date"; surely she must be due for one pretty soon. After all the
>incredible things I've heard about this band, it'd have to be a winner.
>Also, what is this "Spring Training"??
As a matter of fact, there _is_ a live album in the works. She spent a
couple of days this past summer recording live at the old Ryman
Auditorium. Not sure when it'll be released, but there are supposed to
be videos with it, etc. Word is it should be dynamite.
"Spring Training" is the recent release from Carl Jackson, John
Starling and Emmylou's band, the Nash Ramblers (Sam Bush, Roy Husky, et
al). Emmylou helps out on vocals. It's a superb recording.
Mike Schmitt
> >2) Female -- Loretta Lynn, Patty Loveless (OLD Loretta, I should say.)
>
> Um, why are you splitting by gender and not, say, race? Because sexism's
> acceptable?
Yes.
mike