What IS country music?

I've been hearing mainstream country radio 6 hours/day at work. I'm a little intrigued by it. Oddly, I started to appreciate it fairly quickly and now I recognize the songs, know the words, get a lot of these songs stuck in my head when I'm not at work. (Search: Rodney Atkins - "These Are My People", Carrie Underwood - "Before He Cheats", the "free and easy down the road I go" song. Destroy: Tim McGraw - "Last Dollar." I'm not sure where to classify "I Got a Brand New Girlfriend" but I'm leaning towards "search.") What's interesting and maybe slightly disconcerting is how much of this stuff sounds almost exactly like a lot of (North) American classic rock or mainstream light rock from the 80s onwards. (Might be an obvious observation for anyone who's paid attention to new country.) If anything, early Eagles probably comes closer to what I would think of as a classic "country" sound than a lot of this stuff. They even play "Life Is a Highway" and "Walking In Memphis" as well as an uber-faithful cover of "Take It Easy" and none of it stands out. It seems that getting over my biases against the rootsy Americana side of classic rock has made this stuff totally intuitive for me, like, probably easier to get into than pop/R&B radio.

For a while a few years back, the touchstone of a lot of "hot new country" was Kenny Loggins' "Footloose". I think that meets your "mainstream light rock" categorization. It's totally natural to get into this stuff: it's well constructed pop music, that's all. I guess some people have problems with twang and the alleged lyrical homogeneity, and I understand that, but if you can get past that and you have a taste for pop, then "today's hot new country" ought to be just as appealing as, say, Def Leppard was in 1983.

"Footloose" would fit, yeah. I was thinking of things like Tom Petty, John Cougar Mellencamp, some Bryan Adams, some Springsteen, Aerosmith ballads, Blue Rodeo, DMB, ...

(Now they're playing Josh Turner - "Would You Go With Me?" Excellent song.)

What's interesting and maybe slightly disconcerting is how much of this stuff sounds almost exactly like a lot of (North) American classic rock or mainstream light rock from the 80s onwards. (Might be an obvious observation for anyone who's paid attention to new country.)

See the Rolling Country thread. It's where classic rock went in the US.

Some of the stuff Ive heard on country radio (which my mom listens to non stop) seems to indicate to me that country can be basically anything so long as they put in a slide guitar or a soft fiddle to ground it in country.

who listens to it (white, American, suburban-rural, middle-and-working-class)

almost every one of those assumptions is wrong. yes, there are lots of white, middle-class suburban americans who listen to country, just as there are lots of white, middle-class suburban americans who listen to hip-hop. and rock. and blues. but country can -- and does -- lay as much of a claim to an urban audience as any other current poopular music.

i'd be hard-pressed to define what IS country music. i'm not very good at that sort of thing. but i'd posit that it's whatever people who like country music say it is. i'd also posit that that definition works for most popular musics.

"poopular" was unintentional, oops.

A tad Freudian, nein?

lay as much of a claim to an urban audience as any other current poopular music.

Do you mean "urban" as in African-American? Or do you mean white people who live in cities?

(x-post) i was going to lay claim to having coined the word, which could be quite useful in other circumstances, but a google search made clear that others had beat me to it :(

Do you mean "urban" as in African-American? Or do you mean white people who live in cities?

neither. i mean people, period, who live in cities, as opposed to in suburbs or rural areas.

Actually New Jersey/"Blaze of Glory"-era Bon Jovi is probably a good reference point for some of this stuff.

bon jovi has a huge presence in nashville, and has for a while.

(and nashville, in case it needs to be pointed out, is an urban area.)

but country can -- and does -- lay as much of a claim to an urban audience as any other current poopular music.

I'm not too sure about this. Any facts to back this up? Certainly I think that 'hip hop' lays claim to a much wider geographical / ethnic / age variety than "country" music does.

As far as what country music is now? It is indeed puzzling. Ryan Adams seems to me to be about the most country thing going on today, in that there is a direct lineage from him back to 70s country that I know. Not true? The sound is certainly there.

Around the time of Shania Twain, I started to think that country, as packaged by mainstream outlets, is indeed just about the accent and a little slide guitar now and then. I mean, her stuff, at least the singles, and I haven't gotten past those, is just pop music, pure and simple. I did get into Trisha Yearwood and Dwight Yoakam at the time, and while I do love their records, I still categorize it as more pop than country.

In the end, I'd have to say that it boils down to certain musical styles being at the root core of all modern music to the extent that you can no longer parse them out. On the one hand, country music, as a variant on music that was imported from Scotland and Ireland and the like back in the day, and blues music on the other hand - both of those are so ingrained in music that too much contains them to really parse anything out as 'true country' or 'true blues.'

neither. i mean people, period, who live in cities, as opposed to in suburbs or rural areas.

So you think enough African-Americans listen to country music not to call it a predominantly white music? I'm just wondering. Country's demographics are a mystery to me. But the idea that country crosses racial boundaries far less than hip-hop doesn't seem that implausible.

Everything in my experience says that it crosses much less. The last time I heard hip hop at a public gathering, for example, was at a Japanese American Obon festival. I hear Asian MCs and DJs all the time. Where is the secret enclave of urban-Asian country creators? I'm sure you can make a case that they're out there, but the music certainly does not penetrate community-wide events.

fact checking cuz:

Two spoken (and unspoken) assumptions I see in this thread:

1) Country is white music. It appeals not exclusively to white people, but almost not at all to black America.

2) Country is most popular in rural/suburban areas. (Corollary assumptions about the nature of that audience, class in America, etc.)

Is there any reason to doubt these assumptions?

Well, we could get scientific and look for surveys about music listening, of course, but I think part of the problem is that we haven't defined what country music is yet. I think there is a nascent audience for 'country' music in the Hispanic community, since music south of the border and 'country' often intersects, particularly in Austin sounds I find this to be true. But if 'country' is more Shania, then that wouldn't be true.

I do know that country definitely crosses the line among the hispanic community. I see tons of latinos wearing cowboy hats blairing the young country station in mexican town by where I live.

(many x-posts)
Ryan Adams seems to me to be about the most country thing going on today, in that there is a direct lineage from him back to 70s country that I know.

why would you just country in 2007 by how much it sounds like the music anyone made in 1977? do you judge rock music in 2007 by how much it sounds like fleetwood mac? do you judge R&B in 2007 by how much it sounds like billy preston? though if you can't trace a lineage from waylon jennings to brooks & dunn, i'd submit that you're not trying hard enough.

i think it's fairly obvious that the mainstream country audience is more white than it is black. no argument there. i also think it's fairly obvious that a huge number of white people live in urban environments.

There ya go. I would certainly believe that. At the same time, on the Hispanic side of my family, there are about one part Tejana and related styles (actually Tejana is a little old-school for them) and 4 parts hip-hop / reggaeton, with no pure Nashville country at all in the mix, but perhaps thrown in as an influence. Oh and another part Nirvana - based generic rock.

Yes, I would judge country in 2007 by how much it sounds like country in 1977, merely because that's my favorite country music. My point is that the 'alt.country' stuff has as much claim to being country as current country stuff, and yet it's never mentioned in the rolling country thread, and never played on country stations. So how do you define country away from stuff like that? I mean, the White Stripes sound a lot like Led Zep a lot of the time, but no one goes around calling that 'alt.classicrock.'

x

I live in an urban environment and can't recall ever meeting/witnessing/hearing of a single black/asian/hispanic person enjoying mainstream country music. I live in a Latino neighborhood and it is ALL hip-hop and norteno/tejana/tex-mex-style stuff. With the occasional metal/rock variant thrown in (there is a great 70s-latin-rock-style band that jams down the street from me, they make me smile)

xpost see: cornyindiefuxxorphobia, apply where needed

Tremendoid - I don't understand what you mean at all.

Shakey - I agree, and extend that to the following: In terms of actively supporting and creating music, I see zero people of that demographic in a group or community based setting engaged in country, although there are some people within the demographic (of course) who listen to country, and I think Shakey would know that and doesn't need to be counter-pointed in that regard.

my wife has remarked that she feels 'at home' with country having grown up with ranchera, tejano, etc. The stuff I play around the house is mostly pre-1980 though, fwiw.

Yeah. My love of country pretty much peaks at Glenn Campbell, so I understand that I don't get the more recent stuff.

There are white people in the city, and some cities have big country audiences, but that's a bit disingenous, I think. Country is, arguably, one of the least racially inclusive pop forms in America.

Country (as a concept) is explicity about not being from the city -- country mouse vs. city mouse. The genre reflects and pays tribute to a very specific culture: American white & rural. There's a reason that cowboy hats are such an enduring country icon. This focus on a particular experience/heritage may limit country's appeal among those who aren't inclined to unreservedly celebrate it.

humansuit, I'm saying you don't see alt-country in the rolling country thread because ilm bristles(rightly or wrongly) at any scenes that self-identify as 'authentic'(or seem to). I don't think you'd see anyone arguing that it's not country, it's just a sin of omission.
I don't know why radio stations don't play it.

Tremendoid, ah, yes, I get it now. I do see that 'bristling' - in this very thread, and I don't mean to cause it at all. I've been humbled in trying to convey Adams as more authentic, and I currently submit he is no more authentic than anything else. I sure like his records a lot more, though.

because ilm bristles(rightly or wrongly) at any scenes that self-identify as 'authentic'(or seem to)

I blame xhuxh for the predominance of this attitude when it comes to country

this is simplifying things TREMENDOUSLY, but i think xhuxh, like many of us, likes music with a good beat, and toby keith and brooks & dunn tend to wallop neko case in that department.

let's not get into what xhuxh thinks is "funky"/a "good beat"

But is it really a matter of a pre-conceived position or a matter of people like Chuck just not enjoying the music that happens to come out of that sub-culture? It's probably impossible to answer that definitively. "I just don't like the music" may mask a lack of insight into one's own prejudices about the ethos, but I'm not willing to assume that one way or another.

(I mean, I love real salsa as much as the next salsero, but somehow a lot of the salsa coming out of the self-conscious salsa dura ("hard salsa" but it could just as well be called "real salsa") reform movement really does nothing for me, and I wouldn't say I had any prejudice against it in advance.)

I mean, the White Stripes sound a lot like Led Zep a lot of the time, but no one goes around calling that 'alt.classicrock.'

i'm reasonably sure that it wasn't the mainstream country audience or industry that started labeling certain music "alt-country." it was people outside that mainstream calling THEMSELVES alt-country. and to some extent it's now a self-fulfilling prophecy.

and to another extent, there's lots and lots of bleed between real country and alt-country anyway, and no one in nashville is bothered in the least by that. the alt-country scene wants to claim miranda lambert as much as the mainstream country scene does, and if i'm reading my miranda lambert interviews correctly, she couldn't care in the least. she's just making pop music and she doesn't care who listens to it, as long as people do listen.

and if i'm reading my miranda lambert interviews correctly, she couldn't care in the least. she's just making pop music and she doesn't care who listens to it, as long as people do listen.

I would think this is how the majority of artists feel about their music. You have to be a pretty uptight asshole to hold it against your listeners for slapping some subgenre label on you.

But is it really a matter of a pre-conceived position or a matter of people like Chuck just not enjoying the music that happens to come out of that sub-culture?

I think Chuck's positions, pre-conceived or not, are subjected to some serious analysis on his own part, I just happen to disagree with them and he's obsessed with this "good music = music people can dance to" line that I find really irritating and condescending and limiting.

surely you've heard him complain about how rock music loses the plot whenever it steps out of the bounds of ritual dance music

I'm pretty sure Lambert has explicitly mentioned liking alt.country alongside mainstream country (not to mention some of her choices of songwriters to cover), not that I think that contradicts anything anyone has said.

x-post:

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure Chuck would deny that's what he thinks if asked directly. I certainly find it limiting. (Someone I discuss Latin music with a lot takes almost that position and I don't really argue with her about it, since we have dance music to talk about, but it seems pretty limiting. It annoys me especially when she uses it to make a case for jazz being "dead," when to me, jazz simply became something else other than popular dance music--and a while ago at that.)

xx-post:

Not sure I have, but I guess I've seen similar things. I don't even like to dance to most rock music myself.

This may be grossly over-simplifying the matter, but isn't the difference between real country and alt. country just that the former is produced and marketed as pop music for a particular audience, while the latter is sort of the modern equivalent of folk-rock, produced and marketed for an almost entirely different audience?

Hmmm. I'm pretty sure Chuck would deny that's what he thinks if asked directly.

perhaps - its complicated by what Chuck considers dance music (see also: "funky/"a good beat") because he likes to confound expectations by doing things like saying Grand Funk Railroad is funkier than Betty Davis (I made that example up, but you get the idea)

isn't the difference between real country and alt. country just that the former is produced and marketed as pop music for a particular audience, while the latter is sort of the modern equivalent of folk-rock, produced and marketed for an almost entirely different audience?

yeah, mostly. Genres exist for the sole purpose of marketing - you won't find many musicians that give a shit about those kinds of demarcations.

Well sure, but how any given popular musicians perceive their own music (and audience) is largely irrelevant to said audience, no?

(Surely the White Stripes are often classified as "alternative rock?")

chuck sez: I have long been on record as stating that alt country is the lamest, blandest, most timid, most whitebread, most arhythmic subgenre in the history of rock, with the possible exceptions of powerpop and indie rock, and except when it's not, which is probably more often than i've usually admitted, though it depends how you define it, i guess.

oh the endless equivocating

In Nashville country, there are producers (Mutt Lange, most obviously) as enamored of middle-eastern modes as Timbaland is, and other boundaries are being exploded left and right. Faith Hill and Toby Keith are singing what amounts to soul music, and Montgomery Gentry are rocking as hard as any garage-revival band in Detroit, and LeAnn Rimes is making full-fledged disco albums, and Brooks and Dunn are collaborating on stage with Sheila E. Most rock critics can't hear any of it, of course, but they still think Wilco are brave for tip-toeing outside of alt-country, which may well be the blandest, most conservative, most whitebread-anal-compulsive sub-genre in rock history. How come when alt-country bores stretch a little it's considered godhead, but when Nashville types, who've been doing it unabashedly for years, do it, it's considered the essence of cheese? How come rock critics never fully embraced the Dixie Chicks, who I often love (the album rocks fine until it slows down halfway in), until they retreated back into acoustic *O Brother* bluegrass? I considered voting for "Long Time Gone" as a single, but its stupid pandering line about Haggard and Cash pisses me off. You don't hear rock people whining in their songs about how modern rock music doesn't sound like Elvis and Chuck Berry, do you?

-- chuck, Friday, March 28, 2003 2:21 AM (4 years ago)

note that all positives/negatives are discussed in racial and rhythmic terms. white guilt issues methinks.

Well sure, but how any given popular musicians perceive their own music (and audience) is largely irrelevant to said audience, no?

oh totally - I'm just sayin, if you're looking for the roots of where genre distinctions come from, don't look to the musicians or even the music, its all rooted in marketing and demographic $$$$.

Agreed.

Retitle thread: Shakey's passive-aggressive rip on xhuxk; [whatever I don't like about definitions] it's all xhuxk's fault. Darnielle tried that one over in Rolling Metal with a slightly different flavor so get in line.

Sundar:

White Stripes are alternative rock. But alternative rock has partially usurped non-alternative rock as rock itself. This is possible 'cuz rock is proud of its imagined outsiderness, terrified of age/obsolescence. Rock wants to be orthodoxy-challenging, dangerous, cool, youthful, etc. As a result, rock tries to incorporate alternatives.

Country sometimes borrows rock's dangerous/outsider image, but is much more conservative at heart: happy to be comfortable, respectful of tradition & established boundaries. And most alt-country music I've heard comes across as at least a bit different-than: self-conscious, referential, artistic, insular. Not unabashedly populist & socially conservative, not rooted in unironic celebration of rural values & heritage, thus not country.

there's no strain of country more conservative, more reverent of tradition & established boundaries and more comfortable than that which calls itself alt-country.

passive-aggressive? chuck and I have had these exchanges many times.

fact checking cuz essentially otm tho

Bob Standard, I think what you say about country as conservative is on the right track in one way, but wrong in others. Let me explain. I agree with what Chuck said in the post Shakey quoted. Nashville country today is not particularly conservative production-wise, for instance.

But I think it's unhelpful to call country "socially conservative". What that tends to mean is that it shares what we also unhelpfully call "family values". I don't think any music where drinking and cheating are as celebrated as they are should be called "socially conservative" in that GOP-today sense (and yes, I know about GOP inconsistencies on this).

However, I think what you said about country being "happy to be comfortable" is closer to the mark. Listen to Matchbox 20's "Unwell". Add some twang to the vocals and the song would be pretty close to a great Nashville single. But the song's subject is wrong: he's singing about being "unwell", crazy, breaking down. Compare that to Brad Paisley's "Online", which is sonically pretty similar. Paisley is mostly poking fun at online pretenders, and at an urban (b/c of the wine references) indoor type that the intended audience will presumably find funny. It's not a particularly introspective song, while Matchbox 20's is (even if not very deeply). Paisley's song is poking fun, while Matchbox's 20 is just poking. Furthermore, since the whole premise of Paisley's song is that the person online is different than the person offline, we can see by contrast what the person is like: presumably ordinary in a way that the intended audience can identify with. So ultimately the intended effect (I think) is to feel comfortable with who you are, without needing to pretend like the goober in the song.

Agree 100% with Euler. But want to respond to this:

...it's unhelpful to call country "socially conservative". What that tends to mean is that it shares what we also unhelpfully call "family values". I don't think any music where drinking and cheating are as celebrated as they are should be called "socially conservative" in that GOP-today sense

But the phrase "family values", with all its connotative attachments isn't what I was shooting for. You can look at American history as a battle of wills between the country and the city: rural vs. urban power. Each has distinct culture, needs & values. And country music is a cultural expression of rural American culture/values. It is socially conservative, in the same sense that rural America is, by and large, socially conservative.

I don't see how the celebration of "drinking and cheating" is inconsistent wtih any of that.

I think the problem with that formulation is that country music stopped being produced and consumed by primarily rural people a long long time ago. Its more suburban than anything else, now.

I mean culturally those concepts are still very much in play, but socio-economically genuinely rural communities are increasingly non-existent. Sprawl and strip malls have eaten everything.

Ok, if that's what "socially conservative" is going to mean, then sure, drinking and cheating are pretty consonant with it. I think Shakey is right too, though, about the "genuinely" rural disappearing (here I'm thinking of the "genuinely rural" as being the farming world). I would put it a little differently, and say that what it is to be "rural" today is shifting. Naturally country music is shifting with it.

Judds to thread, esp. "Grandpa (Tell Me 'Bout The Good Old Days)".

Agreed (both last two posts). I'm talking about mythology. Country music celebrates a mythic rural ideal. At this point, it's probably more imaginary than actual, but the ideal's power gives country its resonance.

Course, when we talk about the country audience, we're not talking exclusively about people who raise cows. But country performers still tip the hat to western style, and there's a reason for that. It sends a message - stakes claim to a specific (rural) territory in the American cultural psyche.

yep no doubt about that

i didnt really read this thread but one place in cities where country is really popular = gay bars, at least in the south

haha man I can definitely tell you that is not the case in San Francisco aka Gayopolis

This is great if only to demonstrate just how much reductionism can be jammed into a single thread.

So if "socially conservative" doesn't mean family values and doesn't mean conservative politics, just what does it mean? Belief in some rural American myth? Really. Ever see Ray Price do a show backed by a string section and a tuxedo?

I'm more of a Bob Wills fan

Fair enough on Ray Price, but we were mostly talking about country music today. There's not much in the way of tuxes there.

This may be grossly over-simplifying the matter, but isn't the difference between real country and alt. country just that the former is produced and marketed as pop music for a particular audience, while the latter is sort of the modern equivalent of folk-rock, produced and marketed for an almost entirely different audience?

This sounds right.

Shakey: my sister -- like me a Miami native whose parents are Cuban -- adores country. She took her reluctant hubby (an Akron native) to the Toby Keith show a couple of months ago. We've bonded lately over Tim McGraw and Miranda Lambert.

any discussion of genre conventions is ipso facto reductionist gimme a break

while the rural-mythology thing is strong in country and always has been its often been tempered by a kind of reactionary desire to appear culturally respectable and mainstream (see: "countrypolitan", for ex.)

x-post

re tuxes: Well, Trace Adkins talks about wearing an Armani suit in his (not very good) new single. (Also going to the ballet and flashing his platinum card.)

Otherwise, I kind of love how stuff I wrote four years ago (most of which still seems fairly pretty sensible, though critics wound up loving the Dixie Chicks I guess) wound up being a flashpoint for this thread without me even showing up. I'm honored.

For whatever it's worth, there have a couple well-researched market studies in the past year about Hispanic audiences listening to country radio. (More about that on the rolling country thread, I believe.)

And I like plenty of rock music (and country too) that I can't dance to.

what Roy's saying, I think, is that country music has always been about assimilation, just like any other kind of American pop. Ray Price is a perfect example. Ray Price's music is as sophisticated, both conceptually and musically, as anything you could hear. A musician like Buddy Emmons (steel guitarist, for those of you who haven't heard of him)listened to Charlie Parker as much as he did Hank Williams. I recently got the chance to talk to Emmons for a couple of minutes, on the steps of the Country Music Hall of Fame, and I asked him about bebop. He said he was trying to compete with Charlie Parker. The other thing is that country has always "engaged" if you want to use that word with the world, admittedly in a strange way. The '60s in country music is as rich as the '60s in pop. Listen to Buck Owens sometime--that's some really really crafty, even arty music, as rigorous as anything you could think of. But I would have to say that country's main audience is composed of people who are, in some way, afraid of city ways, even if they live in cities. But you could also say that songs about your baby who comes to live with you in the city and you want to send the uncouth person back to the country is a part of rock and soul music, big time.

There's a funky little Hispanic taco place in Madison I go to--great cheap food, great people who give me extra-hot roasted peppers just because they're sadists--and they play country music in there. And I think what Trace Adkins does, as a dance musician (and Chuck has an interesting point, that Trace is usually better as a "serious" dude than as a poet of booties, a dance musician), is in the line of what Ray Price did with shuffle rhythms--for the time, the hip rhythm of the moment.

I love me some Buck Owens

Sorry, Shakey, I guess I should have qualified "reductionism" with "superficially informed" and "cliched."

And alt-country gets discussed quite a bit on Rolling Country, but it takes reading it to find that out, and granted that's asking a lot.

oh snaps

I don't like any of the Rolling Threads, they're impossible to keep up with for anybody that doesn't receive shitloads of free music prior to its release or spend lots of time downloading from blogs

impossible to keep up with for anybody that doesn't receive shitloads of free music prior to its release or spend lots of time downloading from blogs

i have the exact same problem keeping up with half my friends. but i love the rolling threads.

Okay, since "reductionism" has been downgraded to something merely "superficially informed" and "cliched", what IS country music?

In trying to figure that out, I don't imagine I'm saying terribly insightful, but nor am I too far off-base. I suppose country has meant different things at different times, and it's a damn big tent, but it all still boils down to not-city. Rooted in rural American traditions/culture, no matter how sophisticated the refraction. Maybe "cuturally conservative" is a less troubling phrase?

I'm not sure what might be objectionable about any of that. Or what a better layman's description might be. I'm sure this is all old news in the Rolling Country thread, but I'm just trying to engage with OP's question.

No, country does not boil down to "not-city"--unless in said boiling you want to evaporate a lot of the greatest country records ever fucking made.

they're impossible to keep up with for anybody that doesn't receive shitloads of free music prior to its release or spend lots of time downloading from blogs

Nope. I don't download tunes from blogs or get shitloads of free music.

down to not-city

I guess you could say lots of people who listen to and play country were born in a not-city but haved lived and done more in the city. Or when you're a modern country artist who affords a big mansion in the not-city, they'll still be spending and doing more of their life in the city.

Maybe "cuturally conservative" is a less troubling phrase?

Redneck. White trash. I'm not troubled by these at all.

PS: Nashville is a pretty big city, actually. (And Austin's not particularly small, either.)

Like most pop music, or anything in the US, modern country can be defined by its (sometimes but not always endearing) contradictions.

It's 100 percent reverent to the military but hardly any of its stars have served or been to war outside a USO tour. It appears to be very pious while at the same time represented by people who appear mostly unpious.

Its artists advocate responsible drinking so they can get booze endorsements on their CD sleeves, while the same CDs have a couple songs/per on irresponsible drinking that everyone loves to sing along to.

It says its a rebel but when real rebels come along the people who say they love such have a shit fit.

Roy Kasten, it's helpful to point out that the discussion has at times been "superficially informed" and "cliched". But it would be far more helpful for you to give your own deeply informed views, to develop and counter the ones you find objectionable.

look out dude, he knows how to use the "f" word!

I noticed. I await further enlightenment.

It's 100 percent reverent to the military but hardly any of its stars have served or been to war outside a USO tour.

are we talkin current country here...? this strikes me as a weird thing to say, I wonder how relevant or accurate it is (on the one hand I can think of a bunch of WWII-era country stars that served in the military, and on the other there's country folks like Kris Kristofferson and the Dixie Chicks clearly not being down with the military.)

this strikes me as a weird thing to say, I wonder how relevant or accurate it is

It's accurate in terms of what I see and hear. There's not a blessed artist in the CMT Top 20 who did the military. It's congruent with the rest of American which doesn't do the military, either, despite professing when polled to being supremely respectful and supportive of it. The US military is for people without options. Unless you're talking a special case, like the Marine Corps, which easily hits its recruitment goals because of its rep.

I watched the Dixie Chicks Shut Up and Sing and it has nothing to do with not being down with the military. It had to do with not being down with George W. Bush, primarily, the military didn't really enter into it. And of the many people in the film who ventured to give their thumbs down on the Dixie Chicks, it was because they had the nerve to have a contrary opinion and the nerve to state it publicly in a foreign country when it was seen as heretical to do so.

Brace yourselves dudes, but country is as complex, varied and contradictory as, gasp, rock music.

That said, I think Bob Standard is right to bring up the country/city opposition--a lot of country music explores a tension between the two, not just in the lyrics, but in the music. I think that push-pull is a big part of the music. As is a self-conscious recognition of tradition (both musically and culturally), whether to affirm or subvert. And while you're at it, go fuck yourselves.

okay, so I see you're talkin TODAY as opposed to, say historically (or traditionally or whatever)

as for the Chicks, I was thinkin more of their "Travelin' Soldier" (which granted is not explicitly ANTI-military, but is definitely not pro-military either as it emphasizes the losses endured as a result of military service) in combination with their anti-Dubya publicity. Also since being pro-military has been hopelessly intertwined with being pro-Dubya in recent years, I think in many ways one equals the other for the average American.

x-post

but country is as complex, varied and contradictory as, gasp, rock music.

I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested anything to the contrary.

Yeah. This whole thing is weird.

Dudes, I'm sorry, but when was the last time you or anybody who has given it more than a moment of thought--and I think some of you have--has said that "rock music" boils down to any one thing?

Sorry, I'm cranky and out of cigarettes.

Rock music does boil down to just a few things. But I'm not gonna go into it, 'cuz everybody'd kick my ass in, not just Sherrif Roy Kasten.

but when was the last time you or anybody who has given it more than a moment of thought--and I think some of you have--has said that "rock music" boils down to any one thing?

there's probably a thread about it somewhere... if not you could start one and I'm sure you'd get some interesting answers ("sex" would probably be the most popular one)

Yeah, I mean jazz all boils down to saxophones, right?

trying to define a genre requires trying to identify and isolate its central elements (for example, contentious attempts to do this with jazz spring to mind - but usually people will agree that its some combination of swing rhythm and collective improvisation)

lolz x-post

I'm slow on the draw, but I finally get the "Standard" part.

Listen, I'm all for discussing genre, but it's incorrect and ahistorical to say that country boils down to "not-city." And it's not just a matter of coming up with important counter-examples; it's a matter of the varied and rich sensibility of the whole range of the music.

maybe we should try an opposite tack - what makes something NOT country?

I understand where you're coming from, Roy, but it leaves me a bit stranded. What you're saying discards the way I conceptualize country, and - as you seemed to imply a while back - the way country narrates itself to itself. When country lyricists define/describe country in song, they mostly employ totems of rural culture and experience. That's why I say not-city, knowing that it isn't comprehensive.

What does make something not country?

David Allan Coe to thread.

("sex" would probably be the most popular one)

with the possible -- but not automatic -- exception of certain strains of gospel, all music boils down to sex, doesn't it?

eh, not really - I can think of strains of metal and jazz and classical/experimental compositions that elicit no sexual response and contain no sexual content whatsoever

whereas rock has always had this recurring theme of getting/not getting laid

(x-post)
that sounds dreadful

otoh maybe there are people who like to make out to Burzum

Stockhausen's "Hymnen" = HOTTTTTTT

To try to think in just musical terms for a second, a record that is devoid of at least some of the sounds or stylistic approach (whether via rhythm, melody or structure, or choice of instruments) of early, pre-country string band music is going to have hard time selling itself as country. It's not impossible, mind you, just tough.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "not-city," Bob, so I apologize. I just think boiling it down to those totems doesn't get you very far, though they're definitely important.

Going back to the initial post, a few thoughts--

If you just listen to Country radio you'll get an insanely narrow view of even the mainstream of Country. The stations seem to be going for a Classic Rock effect, though with relatively new songs. Thus, the idea is to sloooowly introduce new songs to the playlist, then when listeners are familiar with them, play the hell out of them for the next 6 months. If you check the Country singles charts, some of the singles just entered the top 20 have been on the charts for like 26 weeks.

Also, I wonder how we're defining alt-country. There does seem to be a self conscious strain (Uncle Tupelo, Drive By Truckers, Neko Case.) But a lot of the stuff covered in No Depression is by artists who were once having number one hits but are now on indie labels (Pam Tillis, Kelly Willis.) It's also hard to define why Gary Allan is mainstream and, I dunno, Dwight Yoakum no longer is. Then you've got the fact that mainstream artists constantly cover songs by indie/alt writers (Tim McGraw doing Ryan Adams, etc.)

That's all true. For whatever it's worth, I'm way less cynical about alt-country than I was four years ago -- partly because the walls seem to have come down some; partially because its definition seems wider to me than it did then. I like a lot of it.

I don't think you can really define alt-country. What was so 'not country' about Gram Parsons in the first place, or Adams? Is it because they use a little rock sometimes? Doesn't rock incorporate country anyway?

i've always found the "alt-country" strawman on ilm to be a really weird phenom. this is a genre that peaked something like 10-12-15 years ago, was never a commercial success, and is currently fairly moribund or has morphed into something closer to mainstram country, yet it continues to be a whipping boy on threads like this. What is soooo scary about some rootsy folk-rocky music that brings the hate out. I liked a few bands back in the day, very rarely listen to it now, but it amazes me to see the venom it still inspires. I know that some critics overrated it back then, but most of those critics were pretty lame to begin with and except for Wilco, who left the alt-country genre mostly by their second full-length, who the fuck gives a shit about any of these bands? let them ply their npr-ish trade in peace and take down some truly worthy bogeymen.

I don't think indie country is totally hated here. Folks like Dale Watson get pretty positive mentions over on the Rolling Country thread. I think the strawman is usually conjured up only after someone starts a thread about how Shania and Brooks & Dunn aren't "authentic" country and then mentions someone like Gillian Welch as one who is. I know that sounds strawmanish right there but I remember it happening a few months ago.

Re "truly worthy bogeymen":

Such as?

Anyway, Gershy may have a good point. Though did alt-country really peak 10-12-15 years ago? (How long ago was Car Wheels On A Gravel Road?) If you pick up Harp or Pulse or obviously No Depression these days, it's not hard to get the idea that it's still all over the place. Though these days, Miranda Lambert can get top billing in those magazines, and Pulse even gave a whole -page to the Dierks Bentley album. So times have changed, and the distinctions have become fuzzier.

As for Ryan Adams, I've never heard anybody complain about him incorporating rock; if anything, my complaint about him, at least compared to lots of the artists with actual country hits these days, is that when he does incorporate rock, he sounds kind of timid about it to me. But I don't mind him that much. And right, with Tim McGraw hitting with one of his songs, walls have fallen in his case, as well.

And Gram Parsons? Wow, I never thought of him as alt-country at all, though I guess alt-country folks (starting with, like, Elvis Costello's Almost Blue?) probably have adopted him as an granddaddy. I'm not sure how many actually really sound like him, though. And I've never heard anybody call Gram not=country, though maybe I just haven't been listening to the right people. (When is alt-country supposed to have started? I guess you could make a claim for Joe Ely in the late '70s? And I like him!)

And yeah, I love a lot of Dale Watson stuff, too.

And btw, re fuzzy boundaries, in addition to former hitmakers like Pam Tillis and Kelly Willis crossing over to the alt side without changing their sound all that much, you've also got onetime alt/cult artists like Pat Green and Jack Ingram (both of whom I like a whole lot, and both of whom have a lot of Petty/Mellencamp/Adams in their sound fow what it's worth) crossing over to the land of country hits.

Sundar, the "Free and Easy (Down the Road I Go)" song you referred to above is Dierks Bentley, by the way. It's great, as is much of his stuff. Anyway, I really do hope you check out the rolling country thread, and start posting your thoughts there.

Petty/Mellencamp/Adams in their sound

[That's Adams as in BRYAN, not Ryan, Adams.]

When is alt-country supposed to have started? I guess you could make a claim for Joe Ely in the late '70s? And I like him!)

is there a thread on that somewhere? you could make a case for willie and waylon earlier in the '70s being almost simultaneously country and alt-country.

Terry Allen? Townes van Zandt? Willie + Waylon = Outlaw Country?

Most lineages of alt.country I've seen conflate early Country rock, especially Byrds/Parson/Emmylou, with Outlaw Country and Texas singer-songwriter stuff (Ely/Jimmie Dale Gilmour.) I suppose John Prine fits in there somewhere too. But a lot of movements have been seen as a return to the roots--Bakersfield vs. Countrypolitan, New Traditionalist vs. Rhinestone Cowboy, etc.

i've gone around on the alt-country thing a lot, and leaving aside the periodic and obnoxious paeans to authenticity, i think an awful lot of the issue comes down to production. the reaction was as much to the sound of commercial country -- the mutt lange-ization -- as anything else. in some ways i think it's just a continuation of the "outlaw" rejection of countrypolitan, the conceit (or folly) that nothing that sounds so big and bright and slick (and commercial nashville does sound slick, just like commercial r&b and commercial rock) can really be "country music." i think there are an awful lot of good songs written by people like steve earle and lucinda williams and scott miller (of the v-roys, not the loud family) and so on, which, if given commercial nashville production, would be embraced by people who say they don't like alt-country (and, conversely, rejected by people who say they do). the best example of this may be "sometimes she forgets," which was a big hit in travis tritt's slicked-up version before it appeared in its pristine, acoustic form on train a comin'. i like both versions of it, because it's a good song and i think travis tritt and steve earle are both good singers, but the dividing line between them is entirely in the sonic presentation. and truth be told, i agree that a lot of alt-country production (like a lot of indie-rock production, to my ears) has a sort of flattening effect on the material. and that lucinda's endless fussing with car wheels seems to have sucked some of the air out of the album (which is why i think the less-fussed-over essence sounds better, even if it's a somewhat lesser collection of tunes).

also, gram parsons is very much claimed as an alt-country godfather. and i think there were plenty of country traditionalists at the time who didn't have any use for him at all, what with his hippie rock'n'roll friends and all.

(and also i should make clear that i like mutt lange production. a lot.)

In the '70s, one of the marketing terms for music just outside of Nashville (and sometimes inside) was "progressive country"--hard to believe, since everyone knows how culturally conservative the music is.

I'm not sure that the only difference is sonic production, although that's a major part of it. Part of it is a leaning toward pop structure in Nashville. Something like the difference between Sebadoh and Nickleback, although both are rock.

Interesting comparison, in that I think Sebadoh leans more toward pop structure (in the Beatles sense) than Nickleback does. But I guess the fact that Nickleback are the most popular rock band now makes them the pop standard.

I think the difference is more in the production than the songwriting. First of all, a lot of alt artists--Townes Van Zant, Lucinda Williams, Todd Snider, the previously mentioned Steve Earle & Ryan Adams, as well as many lesser knowns--have sold songs to mainstream acts, who have had major hits with them. Nashville seems to treat a lot of indie country albums as glorified songwriter demo tapes--you know, "Great lyrics. Too bad about that voice,though." I've never seen most alt artists as shooting for something far away from pop structure--and when they do, as in the case of Wilco, they usually stop wanting to be tagged alt-country, or anything-country.

In my country there's problem.

Mulla - actually, that's what I get for shooting off a post without much thought. I came to the same conclusion - Sebadoh is particularly pop. So in the end I simply agree with you. Having come to that conclusion, isn't it strange? Pick any particularly polished pop rock album, put it next to the most grungy (or whatever word), unpolished, non-structured thing, and they both fit under rock. So the same should be true for 'country,' and in the end have we succeeded in finding any real distinction otherwise?

I'm still confused. Who says alt-country is not country? (I'd be more likely to say indie-rock isn't rock, myself. It's certainly easier for me to hear Lucinda as country than Sebadoh as a rock band, though maybe if I heard more Sebadoh it'd be equal.)

Nashville seems to treat a lot of indie country albums as glorified songwriter demo tapes--you know, "Great lyrics. Too bad about that voice,though."

Fwiw, this is how a lot of alt-country=so-called sounds to me, too (and I've said so a few times).

I can think of plenty of commmercial country that doesn't really hit me as "slick", though -- unless thick just means that you can hear the singer without straining and the're enough production to give the band some punch. (Which maybe it does, to some people.) Also, I've never really bought the outlaw-to-alt-country continuum, and we've talked about that on the rolling country thread (though maybe more last year than this.) Or at least I hear the outlaw ethos carrying over to as many if not more current Nasvhille acts than alt-country acts (who, to me, just frequently seem introverted or small-sounding in ways the outlaws didn't, so much.) (Though on the other hand, I'm not a fan of either Waylon's or Steve Earle's voices. That's something.)

"there's enough production..."

(Also, no doubt there were certain '70s outlaws who did prefigure what I perceive to be alt-country's introversion -- which introversion some might just term "bare-bones production" or whatever. James Talley? Townes Van Zant? Did they count as outlaws?But as for, say, David Allen Coe or Hank Jr, they sound closer to Montgomery Gentry or Van Zant than to, say, the Jayhawks or Uncle Tupelo to my ears.)

And didn't '70s outlaw/"progressive country" (yeah, I definitely knew guys at University of Missouri who called it that in 1979 and 1980) have a lot of back and forth with '70s Southern rock (which is clearly a huge influence upon current Nasvhille?)

and I meant "unless SLICK ([not 'thick'] just means that you can hear the singer without straining and the're enough production to give the band some punch. (Which maybe it does, to some people.)"

(So anyway, I guess what I'm saying, is that lots of outlaw music probably sounded as big and slick as lots of the music coming out of Nasvhille nowadays.)

I'd be more likely to say indie-rock isn't rock

Though there's plenty of indie-rock, of course, that clearly is rock. Just not all of it I guess.

Listening to George Jones up here, I think that rockabilly and rock 'n' roll in general really twisted country music's head around; if the country music industry got cooking right after WW2, then rockabilly came along a short decade later and almost killed it off. That would account for the reactionary tendencies in Nashville, obviously. Whatever makes Jones great is akin to what makes Al Green great, some angst expressed in a voice that wants to transcend but can't quite do it. Of course, Al Green is an ecstatic, Jones is a man struggling with facts and feelings he can't quite come to grips with any other way, and truculence has always seemed a big part of country, and I guess I admire that. Kind of like when Faulkner said something to the effect that "television is for niggers," excuse that word. That's Southern, deliberate truculence and dismissal of invconvenient fact, writ pretty big. Whatever else you can say about Townes Van Zandt, he did a good job of denying some shit and you can hear it in his music. I never thought he was artist enough to really make it swing and sing, but he tried. And sure, Southern rock and Outlawism were intertwined. Just listen to Gary Stewart.

southern rock is also an influence on alt-country, though. if you count drive-by truckers and the bottle rockets, say, as alt-country. or even just "copperhead road," which is for sure southern rock. i think the outlaw continuum to alt-country is probably more conceptual than sonic, the idea of operating outside the bounds of the system, etc. (which, of course, the outlaw guys were happy to be inside the system in their own way, their albums were on major labels etc.) and of course again you return to the eternal problem of definition. "alt-country" has/had several different strands, some of which came out of folk-rock, some from punk, some from indie rock, some from gram parsons/hippie-country-rock, and the whole contingent out of the texas singer-songwriter scene (townes, steve earle, lyle lovett, r.e. keen, nanci griffith, etc), some of which have overlapped and many of which haven't. (and then there's, like, alison krauss, who is alt-country only by virtue of not being dogmatically anything else, including bluegrass.) i don't think any of them have really rejected country or pop songforms, although of course some of them do those more or better than others. their divergence from commercial nashville is really more attitudinal than musical.

their divergence from commercial nashville is really more attitudinal than musical.

What about Carla Bozulich?

right well there are some serious outliers. geraldine fibbers for sure. if you set them as the benchmark for "alt-country," most of the stuff under that label would look not very "alt" at all. (altho my tanya-tucker-lovin' wife was a big fan of carla's red-headed stranger, so...)

I think that rockabilly and rock 'n' roll in general really twisted country music's head around

How easy was the relationship between "country" and "western" pre-war (where my understanding is "western" = "Western Swing")*? I guess the fact the industry was so much less well established means that "western" didn't harm many established interests, but I get the impression that the relationship between the two forms was fairly relaxed. *

I want to draw interesting parallels around traditionalism - resistance - acceptance in the various spells in which country has drawn heavily from particular generic sources (there are identifiable spells when jazz, r'n'b, rock, disco, "classic rock" kind of poured into country, right?) but I'm not really well-informed enough to start to do so. Sorry.

*(Erm my history of this stuff is sufficiently weak that I'm not sure "country" ("hillbilly"?) pre-dated "western": I think it did, though not by many years. I read that "Creating Country Music - Fabricating Authenticity" book a few years ago but I don't have it with me here at work (haha I keept it under my pillow obv).)

Agreed. Probably not 'alt'.

Isn't the benchmark for alt-country No Depression magazine? It isn't a unique sound or an attitude, it's a specific era and demographic. Uncle Tupelo provides an avenue for 80s indie rockers - Replacements/REM division - aging out the youth culture circle jerk. Neil Young gets a boost from Pearl Jam, Johnny Cash from Rick Rubin, and you've got movement. At the same time, country radio and Nashville are pushing a "young country" that doesn't resonate with the aging indie crowd.

Within a few years, you get all the big name alt-country bands and a renewal of popular interest in their influences. It's a sub-scene: a roots-oriented offshoot of American indie rock that has almost nothing to do with the Nashville country machine. Same sounds, same attitudes, same reference points, but, for the most part, a different audience.