Letters To The Editor
Answering readers about my writing evolution, brainstorming tips, AI and Taylor Swift, and a deep dive into both kinds of music; country and western.
Welcome to 2023’s first entry in our Letters To The Editor/ Q and A. The response to the February deadline was solid, and I wrote at length in response. There are six submissions. Three will be posted today and another three at the end of the month. Thank you to everyone who took part. I am very grateful for those of you who took the time to ask questions and give feedback. If you have any questions, or any sort of feedback, please leave a comment or reach out to todayiheardblog@gmail.com
Joe
Hi Joe. My name is Connor. I recently discovered your blog. I’ve been reading older material of yours and noticed changes to the writing style. Is that just you growing or changing as a writer or are there intentional changes that you do? Do you have any background or are you just winging it? Any tips on brainstorming or writing?
Thank you for writing in. I am glad to see a newer reader digging into the archives! I hope you find the older material enjoyable!
I do not have a background in writing. This is just a hobby. I would like to think that the changes you remark on are reflective of growth. I am sure that is true of some. However, there are also things that have changed due to changes in my focus and writing process. This will be addressed.
When I first wrote, I did not have much of a rough draft process. I would sit down, think of an idea, bang out a piece and publish. I have since shifted my process and now start off with a voice to text memo on my phone. The hope is that it captures the gist of what I want to say. This becomes my template. I then rigorously edit it, subtracting and adding large chunks of text as I see fit. The results are different. It ends up being a more conversational tone. The end result is hopefully more relatable than the stilted prose I was engaging with in my older material. Of course, I still use fun words, but it isn’t the aim overall.
Speaking of this older material, a difference in focus has developed. I enjoy words. Words are very fun and we rarely get to stretch ourselves linguistically in conversation. My aim when I started was obviously to dissect country music, but an additional goal was to experiment with a more pseudo-intellectual style of writing and use all the fun words I wanted. I also enjoy run-on sentences. Basically things were unnecessarily complex, but very flavored. I haven’t cut down on the length of my prose, but perhaps it is now more easily digestible by audiences. I’ll leave you to be the judge.
Lastly, my tip for brainstorming actually comes from Roald Dahl. As a child I had a book which was a collection of a bunch of Dahl’s short stories, some excerpts from his longer books, and some short essays and musings from Dahl. The man certainly was not without fault as a human, but as a writer he had an impeccable sense of his aims and execution. His advice for brainstorming was to keep a pen and paper on him at all times and whenever a flash of an idea hits the brain, immediately write it down. Inspiration can strike at any moment and you will forget it soon afterwards if not written down. He gave a visceral example of this by showing a one sentence scribble that was the kernel of inspiration for Charlie and The Chocolate Factory. I don’t carry pen and paper with me, but in our sci-fi future of literal supercomputers in our pockets that isn’t needed. I frequently have a momentary thought and crystallize it on my phone. Sometimes even just a couple words can do the trick.
Hope that helps,
Thanks for writing in!
I’m writing in with a quick idea about AI and music. It feels like since the pandemic, live music has been super popular. I wasn’t going to concerts before 2020, but now with my friends, it is very normal to go to shows. I don't feel it was like that for my older siblings. I was thinking that the Eras tour and other big tours are proof for this. Once I read your AI piece, I thought that maybe this live music bump is exactly because of what you called the customization and individualization of music. Humanity likes to do things as a community. Maybe it used to be that we would all listen to the same songs, or even that the songs sounded the same. But going together to hear Taylor is like a backlash to that. Hope that makes sense.
- Anonymous
I think it absolutely makes sense. As content becomes mundane, the transcendent is found in events. Perhaps in years past, people would camp outside a record shop for a chance to get a new album before the first printing sold out. Content was the bottleneck. Inevitably the nexus of cultural experience lies there. Nowadays, we are drowning in a sea of content. There is nothing exceptional about the mere release of new music. AI and related technologies will further erode whatever remaining supremacy we grant to content. However, similar to a plumber confident that “ain’t no AI gonna take this job”, the live show will remain a unique avenue for human connection and moment creation. I strongly agree that the massive success of the Eras tour, especially in spite of it being on the heels of Swift releasing a middling album, is indicative of this idea at play.
A thoughtful idea. Thanks for sharing.
Hello Joe, it's A. P. again!
I'm honored to have been featured in your first Letters To The Editor post and our exchange was great fun. So thanks for that. The reason I'm writing to you today is because you made an assertion in your Short Notes post that I don't think is entirely accurate. You said that Western music was considered a separate genre until it was folded into the Country charts in the 40s, but I think it is the other way around.
Western was part of the 'primordial soup' of Country music, as evidenced by both the old songs of the West compiled in the early 20th century by John Lomax and others, and the numerous Western performers that emerged at the same time Country artists did in the 20s, namely Carl T. Sprague, John I. White, Harry McClintock, and Otto Gray and His Oklahoma Cowboys.
Now, I think we can both agree that influence alone does not justify inclusion in the genre; we rightly separate Folk, Gospel, and Blues from Country. But Western performers were often classed as 'Hillbilly', which as you know was the original term for Country. The Hillbilly or Country genre was an umbrella term for an assortment of vernacular music with similar modes of presentation. Jimmie Rodger's "Blue Yodel No. 1", for example, sounds quite a bit different than the Carter Family's "Can The Circle Be Unbroken", and they both sound different than Gid Tanner and the Skillet Lickers work. Yet they all share common musical elements.
My argument is that Western deserves to be included in that original fold of Country and recognized as one of the founding pillars of the genre. Want more proof? Several early Country artists covered and produced Western material: see Jimmie Rodgers' 1931 song "When The Cactus Is In Bloom".
I think the confusion comes in when the Singing Cowboys emerged in the 30s, as the Tin Pan Alley material took them in the lush sonic direction that performers like Rex Allen Sr. or Roy Rogers would become known for (Gospel harmonies also played a part). It should be noted that these performers were still influenced by both original Western compositions and the newly emerged Western Swing, but they definitely differentiated themselves from mainstream Country sonically. This is when I think that superficial split occurred. Country stars often dressed in Western wear until the 50s and Western stars often performed for Country audiences, but people began to separate the two. When the two were once again merged it only reaffirmed what had been recognized from the start: that Western is part of Country. I mean, what would Country be without cowboy boots and hats?
Anyway, that's just my two cents on it, Joe. I loved the Bill Anderson piece and I can't wait to see what else you publish this year.
Best wishes, A. P.
Well, this is a doozy. I do not claim to be an expert, merely a curious bystander. As I became curious about the roots of the genre, an incomplete picture began assembling. I think the disconnect between our understandings is not necessarily the idea that an iteration of Western music played a role in the formation of the primordial soup. Rather, it’s about how to view the forces that caused the merged country and western sound of the 50s and 60s.
Let me explain by means of an example. Country music is undoubtedly part of the primordial mix of rock music. The early merger of country and rock n’ roll was similar enough to compete on the same charts. Rock's rowdy reputation and success was viewed as a threat. Going forward, Nashville intentionally split off and veered in a less rock direction.
One could feasibly say the country music of the 60s had next to nothing to do with rock music. Even with the common roots, they were essentially separate genres. As the 70s continued into the 80s, we finally see experimentation and a new merger with rock taking place.
The details are intricate and more murky than the simplified version of events I describe, but the argument simple. Once a split occurs, the tentacles of genre influence expand in different directions. The Johnny Cash crossover music of the 50s genuinely reflected the murky boundaries of country rock/rockabilly. A couple decades later, the soft pop rock of Kenny Rogers was reflecting a different strain of post country/rock split musical innovation. Indeed it contained rock influence, but that wasn't the rock via country that Cash had. It was something distinct and different. Not a continuation, rather a new merger.
I'd argue that the 1930s Singing Cowboy movement, which is the style I, and most of the literature I read views as the "western" music in Country & Western, affected a split similar to what occurred in the late 50s with country and rockabilly. Even granting overlap early on, as you aim to show in your question, there was a clear split. Therefore when the genres were artificially smushed together later, they hadn't evolved in concert over the fifteen some years they diverged. Then they merged for good and lived happily ever after. Importantly, this doesn't disregard the real overlap and shared history that existed.
Additionally, a fair characterization would that there is room to quibble with just how sizable the percentage of western influence was occurring in 1920s Appalachia. Fiddling John Carson wasn't engaging with much in the way of western material. As ignorant as I am of that period, what I have heard leads me to think that most of the early hillbilly singers Ralph Peer sought out were not per se fusionists. Color me skeptical that it was even as commonplace a mixture as early 50s rock and country.
You bring a formidable proof to your thesis by reflecting on Jimmie Rodgers and his brand of music. He was the prototypical country star. He also pulled deeply from the tradition of the traveling bluesman, and was no stranger experimenting with other genres. The simple fact that he performed music of a certain style isn’t enough to deem it country. Would you say that because he recorded a version of Blue Yodel no. 9 with Louis Armstrong that trumpets are an essential part of country? By and large, the mixture of hillbilly folk and blues he performed coalesced into what we’d call country. On the edges however, he dabbled with different styles and modes of expression. Assuming you are fine with genre separation, I’m fine drawing the line there. Western and Louis Armstrong on one side, bluesy country on the other.
Tldr: agree with most of the facts you state, mild disagreement in extent and therefore differing interpretations.
A pleasure as always. Thanks for writing in. I greatly appreciate your support and thoughtful commentary.
Part 2 coming soon.