I love me some bluegrass, but this thread is about the relation between country and soul music...oh wait, I forgot about that "funkgrass" LP by Bad Bascomb.
(check out my uncle on the far right)
Cool photo. So, what bluegrass band is this? Charlie Waller's? (That's what the credit line sez...)
If that's Charlie Waller I'd assume that's the Country Gentlemen. That's cool that you're uncle played with them, though. I didn't think to look what the title of the picture was.
I'm glad everyone is at the conclusion that these two styles/genres were never far apart, instead running parallel and intermingling.
As for the disco theory: It wasn't that there was a monumental schism at this time but a growing trend that manifested with the gradual disappearance of the rural way of life. Soul and country can both be traced to the same thing: southern folk music. Keep in mind, that before the 1950s there was really only country and city life. There was no such thing as a suburb. Before this, the rural form of musical expression developed in a unique and confusing way in the south, which may even be hard to understand today if you've never spent a significant amount of time here.
There's always been segregated locations in the rural south, but by and large the communities themselves are integrated, whereas in the rest of the country ethnic/racial groups have established neighborhoods that actually function as the community. Small southern dowtowns consist of an intersection and a factory/plant. That's it. This is why whites felt the need for segregation since everyone was using the same facilities. Try as they might, they were, and still are, very aware of each other's culture. The witticisms in the language are the same, the religion is practiced similarly, the food is prepared the same, etc. As a result of this system of segregated "communities", the music here grew in that same way: Jimmie Rogers and Louis Armstrong sang/played over the same rhythm (and even dueted in the 20s), Bob Wills played in a swing band with fiddles (as mentioned), Chuck Berry basically sang country music, Memphis/Muscle Shoals studios' racial dynamic, the standards "Tobacco Road," "Motherless Child," I'll Fly Away," plus what everyone else mentioned...the list is endless and it really couldn't have happened anywhere else.
Both country and soul/rnb mutated in the late 70s, because the future inventors and practioners no longer lived their lives the way that resulted in the music's birth. Both are currently in the same state now: mainstream/common denominator/Clear Channel pop or saccarine, not-quite-right throwbacks in the forms of neo-soul and alt-country.
As for session men: Members of Nashville's music mafia that played for SSS International, mainly, and other small soul labels: Teddy Paige, Mac Gayden, Charlie McCoy, Ed Kollis, David Briggs, Billy Linneman, William Sanders, Kenneth Butrey, and Karl Himmel (some of them were later in Area Code 615)
....whew, that's my longest post ever...I hope someone reads it.
great post, misterc. you hinted at one of the things that really bothers me about music in general today - the "not-quite-right throwback" concept. it's sad that so much new music is thinly-veiled simulacra of yesterday's ideas, or that when an artist decides to "take it back to its roots" it has to be micromanaged by goofy genre names like "neo-soul." I know, I know, it makes it easier to shift units at the big box store when you can quickly define musical genres, but still a bummer. something's soulful, or it's not, folls! sheesh, flimsy.
I know I'm over-romanticizing the music of earlier generations in saying those artists didn't seem to be obviously recycling ideas as much, and that's probably because I wasn't there so I wouldn't know it as readily. I'd like to think that earlier music was somehow more genuine, but then again, to incorporate another post here, I loves me some bluegrass, too - and bluegrass guys were basically recycling Scottish folk/work songs...so maybe it's same as it ever was.
but yeah, great post.
---
nah, wait, I'm not done - two more things: in addition to the sociological reasons pointed out, I could see a couple possible mechanical things that aid the close relations between these genres: I remember reading somewhere about session players in Nashville and how once the Nashville Numbering System became known around town guys could sit in the studio all day and genre-hop from artist to artist with no problem (ie blues keys are usually different than country keys, etc.), but the NNS would skip transcription time and let the artists spend more time actually playing, so there's got to be some further blending together from things like that, right? ie, you get used to playing with a group of guys in one way, then hop over into another genre quickly - there's probably going to be some carryover of ideas from the earlier session.
and second - Leon Russell was mentioned in here, and I have to say that Freddie King on Shelter Records is my blues rackordness. I don't know if this was ever released on 45 or something (bc the LP doesn't have it), but the CD/cassette release of "Getting Ready" has a sick cover of Gimme Some Lovin' that's been on constant rotation with me for about 15 years now.
Some good thoughts as well. Music, by definition, has always been recycled and interpreted. Part of what makes it so interesting, though, is when you can hear and feel that culture through their creations. As to why it's fading, I revert back to the city/country dynamic. (I'm really only comfortable speaking on the rural aspects of that juxtaposition, but I'm sure someone else could go on for days about creations from unique city cultures like bop, salsa, boogaloo, etc.) Today, most people live in the suburbs or some derivation of that in a rural or urban form. I'm no anthropologist but it just seems that the suburban culture doesn't really have a concrete identity or at least one that I, personally, find interesting.
As a result, I think the music seems more tribute-like, because, all too often, it's done in an ironic way that exudes an "I know better than you because I know about real music" attitude. Unfortunately, rural communities just don't have that same isolation they once did to make that "real music" like bluegrass.
As for the sessions and numbering ideas, I think you're spot on. Also, most musicians of that ilk in that day weren't formally trained. They were either self learned or served like apprentices to someone else. So there was no "Learn Country Guitar," you just learned how to play. It's only in retrospect that things get categorized. I mean, almost the entire Muscle Shoals band were in country bands before...they just found a paying gig. They would never label themselves genre musicians and I doubt they would now. Hell, Solomon Burke played at a klan rally. They didn't know he was black, they just thought he played that good ole music. Per his account, everyone had a good time, but I'm sure he and the band lit out of there quickly when they were done. I think genre hopping was something we've assigned to these people later on, whereas they were just "playing."
Comments
I love me some bluegrass, but this thread is about the relation between country and soul music...oh wait, I forgot about that "funkgrass" LP by Bad Bascomb.
Cool photo. So, what bluegrass band is this? Charlie Waller's? (That's what the credit line sez...)
great post, misterc. you hinted at one of the things that really bothers me about music in general today - the "not-quite-right throwback" concept. it's sad that so much new music is thinly-veiled simulacra of yesterday's ideas, or that when an artist decides to "take it back to its roots" it has to be micromanaged by goofy genre names like "neo-soul." I know, I know, it makes it easier to shift units at the big box store when you can quickly define musical genres, but still a bummer. something's soulful, or it's not, folls! sheesh, flimsy.
I know I'm over-romanticizing the music of earlier generations in saying those artists didn't seem to be obviously recycling ideas as much, and that's probably because I wasn't there so I wouldn't know it as readily. I'd like to think that earlier music was somehow more genuine, but then again, to incorporate another post here, I loves me some bluegrass, too - and bluegrass guys were basically recycling Scottish folk/work songs...so maybe it's same as it ever was.
but yeah, great post.
---
nah, wait, I'm not done - two more things: in addition to the sociological reasons pointed out, I could see a couple possible mechanical things that aid the close relations between these genres: I remember reading somewhere about session players in Nashville and how once the Nashville Numbering System became known around town guys could sit in the studio all day and genre-hop from artist to artist with no problem (ie blues keys are usually different than country keys, etc.), but the NNS would skip transcription time and let the artists spend more time actually playing, so there's got to be some further blending together from things like that, right? ie, you get used to playing with a group of guys in one way, then hop over into another genre quickly - there's probably going to be some carryover of ideas from the earlier session.
and second - Leon Russell was mentioned in here, and I have to say that Freddie King on Shelter Records is my blues rackordness. I don't know if this was ever released on 45 or something (bc the LP doesn't have it), but the CD/cassette release of "Getting Ready" has a sick cover of Gimme Some Lovin' that's been on constant rotation with me for about 15 years now.
Some good thoughts as well. Music, by definition, has always been recycled and interpreted. Part of what makes it so interesting, though, is when you can hear and feel that culture through their creations. As to why it's fading, I revert back to the city/country dynamic. (I'm really only comfortable speaking on the rural aspects of that juxtaposition, but I'm sure someone else could go on for days about creations from unique city cultures like bop, salsa, boogaloo, etc.)
Today, most people live in the suburbs or some derivation of that in a rural or urban form. I'm no anthropologist but it just seems that the suburban culture doesn't really have a concrete identity or at least one that I, personally, find interesting.
As a result, I think the music seems more tribute-like, because, all too often, it's done in an ironic way that exudes an "I know better than you because I know about real music" attitude. Unfortunately, rural communities just don't have that same isolation they once did to make that "real music" like bluegrass.
As for the sessions and numbering ideas, I think you're spot on. Also, most musicians of that ilk in that day weren't formally trained. They were either self learned or served like apprentices to someone else. So there was no "Learn Country Guitar," you just learned how to play. It's only in retrospect that things get categorized. I mean, almost the entire Muscle Shoals band were in country bands before...they just found a paying gig. They would never label themselves genre musicians and I doubt they would now. Hell, Solomon Burke played at a klan rally. They didn't know he was black, they just thought he played that good ole music. Per his account, everyone had a good time, but I'm sure he and the band lit out of there quickly when they were done. I think genre hopping was something we've assigned to these people later on, whereas they were just "playing."