Topic: Lane Hardin - California Desert Blues

[bayrum78]

Lane Hardin!!

[CF]

Good impression of an old-time player . . . what do YOU sound like?

[bayrum78]

This is what I sound like. Would you prefer me to sound the way YOU imagine I should sound? If so, describe in detail what you think a person you have never met should sound like.

[CF]

Bayrum the Back Porch is the place at Weenie where you're supposed to offer performances for comment & maybe even criticism from members. Are you aware of this? If you posted your many videos in the Performance Corner then you would be presenting them as final versions & someone, say, like me, would not be compelled to voice an opinion on your performance.
Your voice is shockingly over-the-top & inappropriate to me, to the point where I have to come off as an ass at Christmas, apologies.

btw . . . we've never met dude but I think it's safe to say that you weren't born in coal mining country in 1899 which is the only place that voice you use could possibly come from.

[Johnm]

Cheapfeet, a thought--if you're not an ass at Christmas, you won't have to apologize for being an ass at Christmas--so simple!

btw . . . we've never met dude but I think it's safe to say that you weren't born in coal mining country in 1899 which is the only place that voice you use could possibly come from.

I'm interested to know by what means you could possibly know this.  If you've never seen the John Cohen movie "The High Lonesome Sound", I suggest you give it a good watch.  Roscoe Holcomb's singing voice was by no means necessarily a "natural" extension of his speaking voice.  The same is true of Dock Boggs or Blind Willie Johnson.  These are choices made based on the musicians' own sense of how their voices should sound to express what they wished to express in their music.  Used across their repertoires it translated into what is usually referred to as a personal style.  Are these kinds of choices to be denied by you to present-day artists and musicians?  I don't think you can do that actually. 

Certainly you're not required to like the music that Nate or anyone else here or elsewhere makes.  You've previously made clear where you stand in this particular instance, and it appears the judgement is an across-the-board judgement as opposed to a case-by-case one.  You've had your say, and now you might consider looking elsewhere to ply your role as the self-appointed guardian of all that is good and true in the music.

Sincerely,
Johnm

[Stuart]

A month or so ago I finished reading Gone to the Country: The New Lost City Ramblers and the Folk Music Revival and Music from the True Vine: Mike Seeger's Life and Musical Journey (I recommend both). In both books the authors touched on the criticism that the NLCR received early on and throughout their careers, both as a group and as individual performers. They were criticized by some as being inauthentic imitators, "citybillies," old-time rural wannabes, etc. Yet, in addition to being musicians, entertainers, performers, etc., they were also educators, advocates, and custodians of an important part of what we refer to American culture. They played a major role in making more people aware of sting band music from the American South.

There are numerous examples of people playing music across what are perceived as genres and across what are perceived as class, age, generational and sub-cultural lines. Are people not supposed to enjoy and play the music they like in the way they want to play it just because "someone said?"

[lindy]

Roscoe Holcomb's singing voice was by no means necessarily a "natural" extension of his speaking voice.  The same is true of Dock Boggs or Blind Willie Johnson. 

Skip James.

[Prof Scratchy]

..and spare a thought for all us Euroweenies who just have to do the best we can to find a half way plausible voice for this music....

[CF]

I'm confused. A gentleman came around here yrs ago who used a vocal style that many of us considered in bad taste . . . now this was a white guy affecting an older black vocal style, a different situation to be sure, but I do believe that mixed into those opinions was the idea, at least for me, that it wasn't simply a racial thing but that those voices, those wild, oldtime voices were EARNED, were of the time & place & culture & that it was kind of in bad taste for a modern person to just use that voice like it was a characteristic, something that could be worn like a hat.

Am I wrong about the nature of the back porch?

I can only be absolutely honest with my response to Bayrum's voice. It sincerely strikes me how I've written about it. I'm not trolling, I'm not trying to start trouble. If Bayrum's posts were not so plentiful I probably wouldn't have felt so compelled to express my opinion. 

If the collective crowd here is telling me that this gentleman's vocal style does not at all sound like maybe it's a bit much then I guess we have different ears.

And John, all of those gentlemen you cited were older musicians, working out of an immediate tradition. If you cite Holcomb as a comparison to guys playing covers into computer cameras . . . .? I think maybe we're talking about something else here altogether.

I don't think I'm suggesting that I hold any standard. At all. I have strong beliefs about how this music should be played in the 21st century & this is the Back Porch isnt it?? Bayrum should do exactly what he wants, I never suggested anyone do anything because of 'what I said' wow! Who would think that way?

I just think this music would be best served by folks who learned to sing a little more with the voice their mother's gave them.

PS there is nothing 'across the board' about my opinion here. People who truly love this music can do ANYTHING with it & make it work.

I do apologize for my heated tone . . . . but you post A LOT of videos Nate!

[Stuart]

Speaking only for myself, there was never any criticism of C.W. Stoneking's singing, musicianship or talents. I merely pointed out that parts of his act (the banter between the songs as posted on his Myspace page) resembled derogatory stereotypes that would probably be considered offensive to some.

People are free to express themselves musically, but this does not mean that they are free from criticism or critical evaluation. And while people are free to criticize, their criticism is not immune to critical evaluation and/or refutation. There are, after all, bad or misguided reviews.

As for the older musicians, they lived within a specific historical and technological context. Some learned songs from recordings and/or from the radio, technology that wasn't available to musicians who came up a decade or a generation earlier. How are they to be evaluated when compared to those who learned songs prior to the introduction of the phonograph or radio? Worse? Better? Or just taking advantage of the available technology?

IMHO, there is room for discussion here. My only advice is to try to clearly and thoroughly articulate the criterion or criteria that one bases his or her judgments on. This might help to eliminate some of the confusion.

Edited to add--Cheapfeet: The "someone said" wasn't referring to you specifically, I was making generalized observation within the context of my post about how opinions shouldn't affect what a person decides to play and sing or how he or she decides to play or sing it. The NLCR are a case in point.

"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." --TR

[Richard]

We all have opinions and maybe over here we take a different tack. To us simple folk it seems obvious that to post on the back porch is to invite comments be they good, bad or indifferent.

[blueshome]

I'm with Richard on this, the Back Porch is there to invite criticism in order to develop our performing skills.

I think if there is a mass of performance material, then a general link to the person's youtube channel may be more appropriate than multiple posting here unless he really wants to be open to public comment.

Cheapfeet may be immoderate (and I think he needs to cool it a little) but he has a right to his opinion.

As to Bayrum's performances, whilst I think they are very capable,  I too prefer a less affected vocal. I'm afraid his voice is not my cup of tea, but mine may not be his and he is free to say so.

[Prof Scratchy]

What a rich tapestry of views and opinions! A number of issues raised:
1) On Nate's singing and playing: I think it's great, I'm subscribed to his youtube channel and if he brought out a CD I'd buy it. Good to have folks who are this imbued in, and enthusiastic about, this old music;
2) On the Back Porch: If I haven't anything nice to say, I prefer to say nothing at all;
3) On 'Can Blue Men Sing the Whites' - grow up and behave yourselves....

[Slack]

I'm with Prof Scratchy.  Many of us think Nate plays and sings great!  Hopefully we all won't pigeonhole these board categories, that we've made up, into such black and white methods of behavior. 

Cheapfeet, I think the problem is that you've expressed your opinion in the past, you are saying nothing new to your view.  The Backporch is for _supportive_ criticism and when you repeatedly tell Nate that you don't think he is singing like himself, it really becomes harassment.  And even though you do not intend it - you appear as a troll. Nate has a distinct stye which a number of us really like.

The best solution for you, it seems to me, would be to simple quit viewing Nate's videos.  I'm sure Nate would appreciate the break as well.

[Johnm]

What John D. said!  I think an additional point needs to be made re the Back Porch posts being open to criticism.  Musical criticism yes, but offensively knowing ("dude"), ignorant and uninformed attacks that question a poster's right to make music the way she or he does are beyond the pale.  If making the music we play here required having been born in a particular time and place, having parents of a particular ethnic background, or having "earned" the right to sound a particular way, we would all be out of luck here, and that's a fact. 
What is a fact is that a musician's sound is a personal creation, based on an interior sense of how the player/singer wants the music to sound.  You "earn" the right to your sound by choosing to make it that way, continuing to do so, trying to get closer to the version that's in your head over time, and not looking back.  The "high lonesome sound" is a living tradition, not the object of some archaeological musical treasure hunt.  There are little kids now who are going to end up as adults singing with an intense, pushed vocal sound.  Should we tell them now to give it up because the time to be authentic with that sound has come and gone?
I think the key to responses on the Back Porch postings is respect.  All posters should be accorded the respect that recognizes their right to choose the way they will sound.  One's own musical truth is not knowable by another, or up for grabs.  Do we have to like everything posted on the Back Porch?  Certainly not, but as Prof. Scratchy so wisely noted, if the issue is simply not liking something, why say anything at all.
All best,
Johnm