nubbin,

Again, you make a valid point. I think the difference is more in the listener these days. However, I don't think, for the most part, that todays concert attendee or CD/radio listener is that concerned the singer being right on pitch, or that the harmonies meld perfectly. It's more the overall mood of the song...the rhythm, the beat, etc, than it is the actual vocal performance that garners their attention. Does the beat or the aura of the song move them to quit what they are doing to "groove" with the music...that sort of thing.

Also, we had some of the same issues back with the traditional Country as we do today with the Contemporary Country. Many listeners are a bit myopic. Back in the late 50s and early 60s my sister commented that "Anything Web Pierce does is good. I would buy any of his albums before I ever listened. He could never sing a bad song." I'm a big fan of web pierce. But yes, he could sing a bad song. I guess I should restate that...he had the potential to sing any song badly...as does any artist. My sister also said that "Anything Ernest Tubb does is pure crap." I wasn't the biggest fan of his singing, although I thought he was wonderful gentlemen the several times I met him and played with him. But, he had some very good songs. I just find it ludicrous that anyone would think that their favorite artist could never have a bad recording or performance and that the ones they don't like could never have an acceptable recording or performance.


There is but one major, super-star artist in my 62 years about whom I would say I have never enjoyed anything they did. I didn't care for his singing, his lyrics, his musical composition or his delivery. That's just one over three generations of music.

Going back to your original point, I don't think today's audience is as critical of the finer points from live performances. Just play the music that makes me groove is their mantra. But, your point remains valid. All the best.

Alan