In a society that is obsessed with being non-conformist it is ironic how elements of life are very much borrowed ideas – remixes if you will. Along with trying to be an original individual (*cough* hipsters), people search high and low for their identity. This struggle for an understanding of self can be seen echoed in various aspects of life including but not limited to: politics, beliefs, clothing, gender, and music. Specifically in music, the distinction between original and borrowed ideas is blurred beyond repair. Country music is the leading genre that borrows from others in an effort to stay popular. In fact, country music’s identity is a prime example of a fluid identity; easily integrating aspects of other genres into the existing country sound. However useful this trait is, the bottom line is people are turning away from country music. If this trend is to be reversed, country music will need to remember the genres origins.
Before country music was the industry giant, the genre was the voice for the people society tends to ignore. We all know the people I am referring to – the farmers, the downtrodden, and the blue collar workers that power the nation. According to an entry in the Oxford Music Dictionary by Jocelyn Neal, the country music is rooted in “the folk music of mostly white, working-class Americans, who blended popular songs, Irish and Celtic fiddle tunes, traditional ballads, and cowboy songs, along with African American blues and various musical traditions from European immigrant communities.” Meaning, the people who were seen as uncultured and dense were combining many cultures and creating bonds over their hand in life. Similarly, Gary Hartman, of the Texas State Historical Association, states that the “folk music of the British Isles, English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh poetry, folklore, ballads, and sea chanteys form the basis for many of the earliest songs that came to be called country music in the United States.” These outside influences gave country music its unique sound, along with a broad audience base. Since a large portion of the fans of country music are classified as the working class or poor, the genre was quick to be labeled as simple music for simple folks.
And the moniker stuck. Now, not only was country music thought to be for the lower classes, the image of the hillbilly was permanently branded onto the genre. Here, music historians site the first major shift in country music. During the early-to-mid 1900’s, while the Great Migration was taking place (the shift from farm labor to city manufacturing jobs), country music was trying to rid itself of the hillbilly brand. Country music hoped to do so by incorporating more ‘urban’ sounds. In the article by Jeremy Hill, Hill based his research on the ideas of involving urbanity and country music, and how country music looked to capitalize and improve its reputation with the new association with urbanity. Upon seeing how the urban populace was not listening to the hillbilly music, Hill writes that some early country music groups began to tweak
their sound. Such groups eventually formed the Country Music Association (CMA), he mentions, in order to keep country music from being pigeon-holed. These preventive measures were sure to change the future of the genre, however only time could tell if the changes were to be beneficial or detrimental.
For a time, this change in direction carried positive outcomes for the genre. With the help of the radio, country music was heard all across the United States. Because of its new range of audience members and urban sounding tunes, country music became a staple of American society. In the article, “Gone Country”, Bruce Feiler focuses on how country music has become, and has influenced, a major part of mainstream American culture. Feiler says that country music today “with its suburban, middle-aged themes of family and renewal – may be the clearest reflection of many of the anxieties and aspirations that have just begun to bubble to the surface in American life.” Especially in the political and social spheres of public life, he argues, country music allows outsiders to gleam comprehensive looks at society. By emphasizing the family and portraying anxiety as personal matters, Feiler states, country music has spread across the nation, creating lasting bonds between people that they do not even realize. These bonds are created, he concludes, because society craves material that has more meaning, more presence than shallow words that reflect an even shallower society. However, as country music continues to integrate elements from other genres, these famous ideals and attitudes would slip further away.
In the beginning, the country music sound was created by the “traditional string band (especially fiddle, acoustic guitar, and banjo) and steel guitar,” with outside influences, the “most [notable of which are] blues, swing, Southern gospel, rock’n’roll, Southern rock, and mainstream pop” – at least according to the extensive definition provided on the Oxford Music website. These simple sounds were a comfort, and indeed the article states that many use country music as background music as the lyrics tend to revolve around relationships and family gatherings.
However, as in all facets of life, music changed with the times. As people began to move toward the cities, the sound grew more urban. The traditionalistic, conservative attitude was carried by some artists and pushed aside by others. Lyrics and melodies began to sound more manufactured instead of a song from the heart. Even the instruments and voices began to vary from the traditional twang, instead turning to a more pop sound. Which leads me to the modern country – the stuff that plays on country radio stations.
Now, I will acknowledge the fact that change is mandatory for any part of society that wishes to stay current and attract new members. I understand this, however, I do not appreciate how far country music has changed. As a personal example, I grew up on the older country music as well as classic rock. I can remember listening to the country station on the radio and learning about the world around me. Specifically, areas of life I hope I do not experience for myself. Thinking about the older songs, I can remember a car ride long ago when I learned that people could be sentenced to a life in prison instead of the death penalty. I was around six at the time, and my father and I were driving around when “Ol’ Red” (by Blake Shelton) came on the radio. Now I had
heard the song before, and began to sing along. About half-way through the song, my father turned down the radio and asked me the simplest of questions, “Do you know what he is talking about?” My answer was no, and my father began to explain to me that the narrator killed his wife’s lover and went to prison – for life. However, as the song ends, the narrator escapes prison, all thanks to love.
My point of that story is that I could learn from the lyrics. Over half of the new songs feature lyrics that only deal with surface emotions or one of three topics: girls, drinking, and/or trucks. That is what modern country can be reduced to. Now the genre was not always this way, as I alluded to with my personal insight. As the author Robert Lacy writes, his largest problem with the newer country is its clear lack of sincerity, or poetic nature. The new songs, Lacy claimed, were devoid of real emotion and were instead based on shallower ones. These new surface level songs, he says, made it apparent that “something irretrievable was beginning to go out of country music…all those simple heartfelt melodies of love and loss and making do” were no more. He closes his article with this statement: “The music of the underclass had finally arrived [on a national level], but in the process [country music] had disappeared, having been swallowed up by the great autonomic mulching machine that is American consumer culture.” Perhaps he means that country music is just another victim of the consumers, too quickly changing for the demands of the few while ignoring the cries from the majority. Regardless, Lacy is not alone in his belief that something has gone very wrong fundamentally within the genre.
When asked to analyze the impact of urbanization and modernization on country music, George Lewis concluded that “[country music] more resembles a battle field of cultural conflict and contradiction” than anything else. His conclusion was based off of several factors that he found existed within the genre, as well as his opinion that country songs are often “walking contradictions,” and certainly problematic for social analysts whom seek to find consistent value patterns. He examined the gender roles that are found in the lyrics of modern country songs. Lewis spent time talking about the males’ role in the genre, the “buddy phenomenon,” which he characterized by
“competition, conflict and even betrayal” more than it is to be full of “mutual support and respect.” Similarly, he scrutinized the female portrayal in country music. Lewis found that “the contradiction contained in the female role in this culture…is between acting like the ‘honky-tonk angel,’ or like ‘momma.’” Now Mr. Lewis is not the only one to realize the gender gap is widening in the genre. As an example, check out this song by Maddie & Tae called “Girl in a Country Song.” It is a satire of the modern portrayal of women in the genre, and works along with Lewis to show the lack of respect within country music now.
Being a female and having grown up to the southern drawls crooning on the radio, this severe lack of respect and objectification is unsettling. If I were to have grown up on the modern ‘country’ music, I guarantee you I would not be the lady I am today. Instead of valuing time with my family and friends, I would be seeking ways to get out of family functions to go party and hang out with my boyfriend. I would allow boys to holler at me like I was a piece of meat and dress in next to nothing. All the while representing the country genre and being proud about it.
This is all hypothetical, as I could no more bring myself to lower my morals than I could hurt someone I love. But this does make one pause and think, or at least it should. These songs are powerful – the melodies, lyrics, and context of them influence so many. People begin to form their identity within genres of music, and take in the music’s core values. Which in modern country are what? I question the genres values simply because they are so contradictory, as George Lewis concluded in his paper. I also believe very strongly that country music artists need to consider the impact their words have on their fans. Where did the songs go that were about treating one another with respect, such as Tim McGraw’s “Don’t Take the Girl,” or Brad Paisley’s “She’s Everything.” Or the songs that taught listeners about life, even the not so pretty parts. I can think of a couple right off the top of my head: “Fancy” by Reba McEntire, “God’s Will” by Martina McBride, “The Call” by Matt Kennon, and “Alyssa Lies” by Jason Michael Carroll.
Many fans have had it with the fake country and are turning elsewhere for the music and/or entertainment. One such critic, Grady Smith, sums up how all country fans should feel in just three words: “Evolution, how dismal.” Similarly, in his blog, Cameron Sullivan discusses how country music has changed. As he states it, his opinion is that country music “is now all but in its death throes, disfigured by slowly changing opinions of increasingly careless people.” He belittles the seeming requirements to be a ‘country’ singer, while critiquing the songs that ‘country’ radio stations play. Sullivan knows that his opinions do not really matter, but like the rest of the discontented, he states them anyway. He chooses to end his post with the following statement: “The arts, of which music is of course one, have always changed and evolved, and old stick-in-the-muds like me are always around to complain bitterly at each stroke of the evolutionary brush.” Like I have said before, however, the evolutionary brush is not always for the better.
There are people though, that while they are not in favor of the changes, they are not exactly against them either. These people are on the fence, they understand the change must happen, but are not 100 percent sure if they approve of the direction the genre is taking. One such individual is Derek Hudgin, another country music blogger. Eloquently, yet, bluntly stating that, in his opinion, “if I want music that sounds like Hank Williams, then I’ll play my Hank Williams’ Very Best Of two-disk collection.” He goes on to state that the problem is that the new songs “don’t evolve the country sound, they abandon it.” He refers to the works by Keith Urban, Jake Owen, Florida Georgia Line, and Luke Bryan to name a few. Hudgin specifically cites “Burnin’ It Down” by Jason Aldean and “John Cougar, John Deere, and John 3:16” by Keith Urban to showcase how country music ideals have been abandoned. He writes that “most of what’s ‘country’ nowadays are pop blends of rap, rock, and hip-hop with generic images of dirt roads and southern pride to make listeners believe its country.” This last statement summarizes the modern country music beautifully. There is just enough twang or guitar to fool listeners into thinking they are enjoying country music.
If you, whoever is reading this, is curious about country music, I would encourage you to give the older material a chance. If you, my readers, have already passed judgement on the whole genre based on the current perception, I encourage you to also give the older material a listen. Personally, if I had not grown up on the late 90’s – early 2000’s country, I would probably not give country music a chance. However, I encourage you to be better and experience it before you judge the genre. While reviewing the book “Real Country: Music and Language of the Working-Class Culture,” by Aaron A. Fox, critic Wendi Haugh also encourages people to give country music a chance. After reading the book, Haugh states that the book “will provide [people who have not experienced the country music culture] with a powerful corrective to stereotypes they may hold, enabling them to see working class Texan men and women in their full humanity and to appreciate the depth and complexity of country music.” And to the people from working class backgrounds, Haugh adds that the book may “provide insights into – or interesting contrasts to – their own experiences.” Because after all, country music used to tell stories, ones that were so powerful, people across the nation could connect. Songs such as “The Impossible,” by Joe Nichols, “Skin (Sarabeth),” by Rascal Flatts, “Sissy’s Song,” by Alan Jackson, and “8th of November,” by Big and Rich. There are more, but these are some of the most emotionally charged songs I can think of. These are just some of the songs that are closer to the roots of the genre. The lyrics tell a story full of heartfelt emotions that all can relate to on some level, and the melodies are simple yet moving. This is what country music should be.
At the end of the day, the country music sound is a product that the industry is selling consumers. As Diane Pecknold concludes in her dissertation, “the sales of country music have governed the sound and material of the music; the product is shaped by the consumers cultural values.” Meaning that the future of country music is completely up to us, the consumers. We have the power to dictate how the genre will sound and thusly be perceived. Just as one last example to show how far from its roots country has become, check out this video. The video is a quick sample of the greatest country music hits from 1964 – 2014, and if one listens closely, you can hear how the lyrics and instrumentation changed over the decades.
Sunflowers and Riddles 