Contemporary Rootsy Americana-y Type Stuff

[Neal Pomea]

"But to me it is not the music itself that is evolving or developing at all. That's a metaphor with limitations."

What I mean is that the metaphor of evolution or development tends to have the connotation that the later is better than the earlier, and that is an unfortunate connotation.

[JSngry]

There's two parts to "recreate", though - "re" & "create".

The implication to me is that there is always a balance between the two at play, and like all balances...attention should be paid!

Similarly - if the balance goes too far either way, you get either all "re" or all "create". Yin & Yang, complimentary opposites, much like Failure & Success.

To everything there is a season, etc.

[Big Beat Steve]

2) as for form and the need to change, I think that certain forms just wear out their welcome - bebop leads to repetition, as did swing, and basic orchestral triadic harmony and even chromatic harmony. Many musicians just get bored, feel they've tried the possibilities - same with early blues which, it has been argued, was a very personalized response to the minstrel-ethos (and here I mean minstrel in the broadest sense of the word to encompass various forms of early commercial gospel and basic professional songwriting) which had, in many ways, dated itself by subject and style. ... Things change because certain musical gesture are just tired and outworn. Also happens in theater, as in dance, as in every form of expression. (Except, it seems, current day 'old time' music).

True - there have been quite a few musical styles where more than one (musician - or listener) has said "Everything that could possibly be said in that idiom has already been said". If musicians and their audience tire of it, new musical styles will (ideally) evolve all by themselves and (again ideally) will find receptive ears (less ideally these styles will be hyped up and foisted on the public as the "latest" marketing plot).

But I'd be very, very wary if it is critics or scribes who proclaim that this or that is tired and outworn. Because if critics and scribes get into that act this will lead us back to those Down Beat record reviews where the reviewers threw their stereotyped reproach of being "derivative" at every other artist they did not happen to have extreme adulation for. (As if playing in ANY musical idiom could exist without "deriving" a good deal of your musical means, craft and esxpression directly from what has been played before. This is what the common denominator of any (by necessity "common") core of any style is all about). And this would only be the beginning of their criticism of what they want to perceive to be "worn out".

But even if, say, in jazz the only musical expression left unplayed would consist in burping into an empty watering can, would this make it a great "new thing" to be hailed as jazz just because it IS "new"? Effects for effects' (and newness') sake? (And would it be new at all? Check the instrumental means of expression used by Mauricio Kagel, for example ... )

OTOH, as for certain musical styles (including what you sum up under "old time" tag) as being "worn out"? What makes you think they are worn out if an audience is there? (And there most definitely is one. Only on a subculture level but anyway ...) And I'd venture a guess that many among that audience are VERY much aware of the "old masters" and "forefathers" of that particular "roots music" style in question and appreciate them too (maybe even more). But to them both aspects (historical and contemporary) are complementary, not opposed.

If those musical styles really were worn out and stylistically exhausted, the audience would drift off by themselves and the "scene" would dry out. But quite a lot of it has been around on that subculture circuit for far roo long for it to be just a fas (a passing fad doesn't last for 15 or 20 years AFAIK).

So isn't it rather a matter of "to each his own" and "one man's meat is another man's poison"? Nobody is FORCED to appreciate any particular style of music.

[AllenLowe]

"They just want to do something new to fit their contemporary context or experience the thrill of discovery/recovery."

I agree, and maybe evolution is NOT the right word, as it seems to be judging the past by the present. And the reccovery or re-creation of old music is a tricky slope. Sometimes it is done brilliantly, with an authentic energy and sense of committment. As I've probably already indicated, I find this not to be the case with much of today's roots music, which seems second-hand and strained in its associations. But it's indeed another thing to hear a young fiddler who has listened and then put his/her own stamp on an old form.

Which is why, as I may have also said, the guy I like today is Eric Royer of Boston. Amazing player, with a unique and un-feigned energy.

after him, I'll still take Doc Walsh and Gus Cannon over the Chocolate Drips.

[Big Beat Steve]

There's two parts to "recreate", though - "re" & "create".

The implication to me is that there is always a balance between the two at play, and like all balances...attention should be paid!

Similarly - if the balance goes too far either way, you get either all "re" or all "create". Yin & Yang, complimentary opposites, much like Failure & Success.

To everything there is a season, etc.

Which is why I (just like Bev if I got him right) earlier mentioned that "new twist" added to the music the basic style of which may be familiar from 60 or 70 years old records. This is what the "create" part would be all about.

What extent of "difference" you'd accept as sufficient "creativity", then, is a matter of taste, of course. Anyway, I'm definitely not talking about "soundalike" copycats, nor about caricaturesque and watered-down imitations.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Big Beat Steve

[A Lark Ascending]

Having just started reading "In Search Of The Blues" by Marybeth Hamilton, I'll be interested to find out, eventually, what larger-than-life-character myths will have been dispelled (or not) by the time I reach the end of the book.

Just finished that myself, Steve. Confirmed all my prejudices, re-enforced all my views on the past!

I found it really interesting how all these early explorers started out as modernity-phobes, convinced that authenticity could only be found in players unsullied by exposure to radio and records.

She makes a very convincing case for the 'invention' of the Delta Blues.

I can see why the feathers flew!

[AllenLowe]

well, many tired old forms have huge audiences - look at PBS on pledge night, fill with aging doo-woppers and their Depends-dependent audiences. So I'm not sure if that's the measure.

It's not impossible to get something new out off the old. I've already cited Jaki Byard, but look also at Barry Harris, who, since I first met him (1977) always showed a deep sense of how bebop could be gently developed and taken in personal directions. Look at Lee Konitz, who has not essentially altered his style, but has deepened it. And others have done the same. So it's not impossible.

"burping into an empty watering can"

tried that already. Gotta move on to the next thing.

Edited March 31, 2010 by AllenLowe

[Big Beat Steve]

well, many tired old forms have huge audiences - look at PBS on pledge night, fill with aging doo-woppers and their Depends-dependent audiences. So I'm not sure if that's the measure.

Well, I am not talking about "nostalgia" or "oldies night" events either. (The "Glenn Miller" revival Orchestra concerts would be another of that type of events)

Believe me - most of the audience of the "roots" acts I am talking about would be just as bored by these "nostalgia" events.

These really are two distinctly different pairs of shoes.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

2) as for form and the need to change, I think that certain forms just wear out their welcome - bebop leads to repetition, as did swing, and basic orchestral triadic harmony and even chromatic harmony. Many musicians just get bored, feel they've tried the possibilities - same with early blues which, it has been argued, was a very personalized response to the minstrel-ethos (and here I mean minstrel in the broadest sense of the word to encompass various forms of early commercial gospel and basic professional songwriting) which had, in many ways, dated itself by subject and style. The new deep delta blues, in this way of seeing it, was a new expression that came of certain kinds of modernist necessity. There was just new things that had to be said, new subjects covered, people were thinking differently, imaginative imagery was changing. Hense, in these stages of blues, we find Robert Johnson and than T. Bone Walker, to give one evolutionary cycle. In jazz think King Oliver-Armstrong-Lester Young-Coleman Hawkins- Bird - Trane - Ornette (to vastly over simplify). Things change because certain musical gesture are just tired and outworn. Also happens in theater, as in dance, as in every form of expression. (Except, it seems, current day 'old time' music).

Yes - I agree. As I said, it's an observable fact. Do you have any views on why this happens at different speeds in different places and times? If it were simply musicians getting bored because they felt they'd tried all the possibilities, why wouldn't this happen at about the same speed everywhere and everywhen?

MG

[JSngry]

Which is why I (just like Bev if I got him right) earlier mentioned that "new twist" added to the music the basic style of which may be familiar from 60 or 70 years old records. This is what the "create" part would be all about.

Then again, if I comb my hair a few strands at a time, I can always find "new twists"...

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Which is why I (just like Bev if I got him right) earlier mentioned that "new twist" added to the music the basic style of which may be familiar from 60 or 70 years old records. This is what the "create" part would be all about.

Then again, if I comb my hair a few strands at a time, I can always find "new twists"...

Someone's splitting hairs.

Couldn't resist, sorry.

MG

[Big Beat Steve]

Someone's splitting hairs.

MG

:D

[A Lark Ascending]

If styles die once they reach their sell-by date, then surely this is an argument not just for not reviving old style but not reissuing old records. That was then, this is now. The Carter Family are as irrelevant as the Carter Family Revival Band.

Except people are fascinated by past musical styles. The fact that Perotin or Hildegard of Bingen are a millenium old doesn't stop people wanting to hear them. I know one of the thrills I get from music is the great diversity of approach and style. Now, where its available, you can listen to that on the original record (no cylinderr discs of Hildegard of Bingen have turned up yet as far as I know); but it can be great fun to listen to it played by a live band now. I might love Boult doing the Moeran G Minor Symphony but that doesn't mean I won't get a thrill hearing the Halle play it live.

Based on the original premise of this thread (yes, I knew the 'Great Minds' would take it elsewhere), I've downloaded this disc from e-music recommended above:

Enjoyed it thoroughly. Based on the young adults I know, I suspect young listeners hearing this today haven't a clue who The Byrds or the Flying Burrito Brothers were (let alone Clarence Ashley or The Stanley Brothers). But I bet they are having a ball to it.

******************

I go back to something I mentioned earlier - rapid movements forward often burn themselves out; they are frequently followed by some form of neo-classicism, a return to some sort of music from the past, before the next push forward begins. It happened with the 'back to Bach' movement, it happened when the punks went back to the rock'n roll/skiffle model after the complexities of the late 60s and 70s. I'd suggest its happening today in contemporary classical music where there's a general acceptance that somehow the audience got lost in the post 1950 period.

Now listening to:

Revisionist? Deviastionist? Conservative? Disnified country-rock?

No idea, But it sounds great and doesn't stop me listening to any of the sources.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Bev Stapleton

[Big Beat Steve]

Enjoyed it thoroughly. Based on the young adults I know, I suspect young listeners hearing this today haven't a clue who The Byrds or the Flying Burrito Brothers were (let alone Clarence Ashley or The Stanley Brothers). But I bet they are having a ball to it.

Now if the Byrds or Flying Burrito Brothers already inspire a new batch of bands resurrecting their musical styles (in the same manner it has been done with country string bands, western swing or rockabilly, for example) then I KNOW I must be getting old! :D

That said, this statement of yours,

Revisionist? Deviastionist? Conservative? ...

No idea, But it sounds great and doesn't stop me listening to any of the sources

sums up the enjoyment of these "roots" bands rather nicely as far as I am concerned.

[JSngry]

(yes, I knew the 'Great Minds' would take it elsewhere),

Wow.

Resentment towards individuals here based on...what, exactly? Differences of opinions? Strength of opinons? Courage of convictions! Just what causes one to be so...whatever as to make one so personally hostile towards those with whom one has fundamental disagreements?

There's heated disagreement & then there's just flat-out weirdness, unresolved authority issues, something besides just "seeing things differently". Don't know, really don't care. I'm happy to discuss, argue, whatever from now until the cows come home (or don't) - but based on the music and one's personal opinions and passions stemming from that.

But to take it there is...not nice.

And it's really weak.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

(yes, I knew the 'Great Minds' would take it elsewhere),

Wow.

Resentment towards individuals here based on...what, exactly? Differences of opinions? Strength of opinons? Courage of convictions! Just what causes one to be so...whatever as to make one so personally hostile towards those with whom one has fundamental disagreements?

There's heated disagreement & then there's just flat-out weirdness, unresolved authority issues, something besides just "seeing things differently". Don't know, really don't care. I'm happy to discuss, argue, whatever from now until the cows come home (or don't) - but based on the music and one's personal opinions and passions stemming from that.

But to take it there is...not nice.

And it's really weak.

I think you missed the humour there, Jim.

Sometimes we English are a bit dry and may need to put in a smiley for foreigners

MG

[JSngry]

Dry I understand...but this has been a drought of almost a decade now...

RAIN, PLEASE!!!!!

[AllenLowe]

I just like being thought of as a great mind.

[JSngry]

I would if I was...not even close....but yeah, it feels kind of good, even if it's an insult!

[AllenLowe]

well, I'll take whatever I can get.

[JSngry]

We both have the love of a good woman. What else do we really need?

[AllenLowe]

as long as it's not the same good woman -

[JSngry]

Given the difficulties that we both undoubtedly present, the odds of any good woman tackling that challenge is highly unlikely...

[medjuck]

"

after him, I'll still take Doc Walsh and Gus Cannon over the Chocolate Drips.

"Chocolate Drips" Why get nasty?

Edited March 31, 2010 by medjuck

[AllenLowe]

sorry; gratuitous remark. I know you like 'em but they drive me up the wall.