Corb Lund Hooks Up With New West Records

“…one could argue that the best country music historically was the mainstream pop of its day–from Hank Williams Sr. to Tammy Wynette to Willie Nelson to Garth Brooks.”

If one were to argue that, one would show that one has very little understanding of musical delineation. Garth Brooks as a mainstream pop artist? By what possible definition? The claim that Brooks (for example) was, even at the height of his success, a pop artist requires the subjective displacement of Pop as an entity. Further, you would have to separate what was perceived as mainstream pop of the period from its evolutionary stem.

I mean, you would have to say that Whitney Houston was not a core Pop artist in the early to mid 90s, since there’s no possible musical relationship between Brooks and Houston. You’d have to make the same case for Ace of Base, Paula Abdual, etc.

Step back to Willie Nelson–could we ever say that he was a mainstream pop act? Tammy Wynette? One could argue this, but one would be wrong.

Oh, so to be a country artist, you can’t be popular?

A Garth song came on the radio the other day and compared to today, his sound was pretty country. And that says something coming from this traditional purist.

“I’m of the belief that music should be the sole driving factor in how music is classified. Album sales, chart performance, mass popularity, none of these things have jack to do with the music in question.”

Amen.

they may argue that there are better songs than “Shuttin Detroit Down” but they don’t make the case. some people just like to argue.

“”Maybe “musical delineation” is overrated.”"

“It’s not overrated or underrated, it is just reality.”

Pshaw. It’s an aspect of reality, and it’s the starting point of an analysis, not the end point; that’s what I meant by “overrated.”

“I’m of the belief that music should be the sole driving factor in how music is classified.”

The key term there is “belief” – as in “religious belief” or “article of faith.” The reality of the matter is that there is no musical common thread or definition which will serve to put everything considered country music inside the circle and keep everything not considered country music outside. What ties it all together – not as a “belief,” but as a stone cold fact, no matter how uncomfortable it may make you – is a confluence of musical, socio-economic, historic and commercial factors. And this is a fact recognized by every serious student of the music.

“To imply that because a country artist sells millions of records he MUST therefore be pop by definition is diminutive of country music as a whole because it implies that country music exists on some sort of lesser commercial plane–that it couldn’t possibly sell so much without sacrificing its core.”

A couple of problems there. In the first place, I don’t, nor, I suspect, does Koppner subscribe singlemindedly to the thesis that an artist “is” or “isn’t” country – and if you’re consistent, you shouldn’t either; “musical delineation” means looking at performances, right? In the second place, the country market is smaller than the pop market and by and large has been since the beginning of the recording industry; that’s not “diminutive of country music,” that’s a fact. And in the third place, to say – as I did – that Brooks was a pop star at the height of his popularity in the 90s says nothing about whether he was making country music, or “sounded country” or whatever locution you want to use. It simply acknowledges that he was selling beyond the country market, that there were millions of people – as indeed, there were – who offered up variations on the “I don’t like country music but I like Garth Brooks” trope.

“The purists of the time certainly thought that Brooks sacrificed much of country’s core. Purists always think that certain artists are doing so. But that’s a completely different discussion, because one stems from a subjective perception as to the qualities which are requisite for a definition, whereas one stems from a much more objective orientation of how and why different forms of music become classified differently.”

Oh, yeah, “how and why different forms of music become classified differently.” If you think you can explain how country is classified in purely musical terms, I’d love to see you try – and especially to do it in a way that differs in form from any other purist. The insistence that “the music” is all that matters in classifying music is the hallmark of purism.

“But just because one could reasonably argue (possibly) that Brooks was NOT country, does not mean that, by default, he WAS “mainstream pop.” That is faulty logic.”

Performer existentialism (so-and-so “was” or “wasn’t” x) is also faulty, and so is the notion that serving up country music and being a pop star must be mutually exclusive.

Here’s a little something to chew on from Tony Russell’s Introduction to his massive _Country Music Records: A Discography, 1921 – 1942_:

“Clearly, a term so routinely applied to so many diverse performers and styles is likely to be questioned…and I should go no further without explaining that when I use the expressions ‘country’ and ‘country music’ in this book, I am under no illusion that they are precise or comprehensive tuerms. To the best of my knowledge, no precise or comprehensive definition of country music has ever been agreed upon….[The book's] primary purpose is to document recordings that were designed to be sold principally to a market….”

Jon,

Having worked on historical aspects of Country music as of late, Country music was VERY MUCH the most popular music for the early third of the 20th century.

The key term there is “belief” – as in “religious belief” or “article of faith.” The reality of the matter is that there is no musical common thread or definition which will serve to put everything considered country music inside the circle and keep everything not considered country music outside. What ties it all together – not as a “belief,” but as a stone cold fact, no matter how uncomfortable it may make you – is a confluence of musical, socio-economic, historic and commercial factors. And this is a fact recognized by every serious student of the music.

Well Jon, first of all I’d like to thank you for implying that I’m not a serious student of music. I’m glad that we are able to have a reasonable, respectful conversation without resorting to personal knocks. At least I can be satisfied in the knowledge that we’ve all handled this maturely.

Of course there are various issues which influence how music is perceived and classified within a given society, but you are grossly misrepresenting the extent to which we can track the genealogy and evolution of any particular style of music. And this is what I’m talking about when I talk about music being the sole determining factor related to classification. If we have a song that appeals to the needs of rural southerners, comes from a historically southern tradition, and sells in historically country outlets, but which, at the same time, cannot be musically traced back in large part to country music, claiming that it is country amounts to a flawed argument.

Flip that scenario and we have the argument that Garth Brooks was ever a mainstream pop artist. His music appealed to the needs of the pop audience and came from a rock tradition, to be sure, but the music itself was, by and large, so far removed from that tradition (let alone the pop tradition), that its classification as such is a forced one.

The big difference of opinion here, I guess, is in how we’re applying the term “pop.” I get the feeling that you’re using it in the broader, catch-all sense; you’re saying that pop (and perhaps this is also the main author’s point) is more a social classification than a musical one.

I reject that argument on the basis that it undermines the significance of country music by implying that music which reaches a broad audience somehow must be something other than country. Garth Brooks wasn’t even close, musically speaking, to being the most “pop” sounding country artist of his era, and to imply that he couldn’t have achieved what he achieved as a country artist is generally dismissive of country as a whole.

In your reply you clarify your position regarding the use of the terms pop, which I appreciate it. In the broader social sense, sure, Brooks was a “pop star.” From a musical standpoint, by no measure can he be considered a pop artist. And I think that’s a very important distinction.

A couple of problems there. In the first place, I don’t, nor, I suspect, does Koppner subscribe singlemindedly to the thesis that an artist “is” or “isn’t” country – and if you’re consistent, you shouldn’t either; “musical delineation” means looking at performances, right?

If you want to utilize delineation on a micro level, then sure. What you’ll end up with, of course, is a scenario in which–since most artists are constantly hopping between influences and styles–musical classifications no longer have any meaning, since no artist can ever be said to be purely one thing or another.

I think a number of people would agree that musical classifications serve no purpose. I am not one of those people. If music is a social expierience, classifications help us make sense of an otherwise disordered system. They help us discover and define. And those are important functions, just as classifying poultry, steak, and salads on a menu is an important function.

In the second place, the country market is smaller than the pop market and by and large has been since the beginning of the recording industry; that’s not “diminutive of country music,” that’s a fact.

But that fact doesn’t prove that a country artist who sells millions of records at some point ceases to be country.

“Oh, yeah, “how and why different forms of music become classified differently.” If you think you can explain how country is classified in purely musical terms, I’d love to see you try – and especially to do it in a way that differs in form from any other purist. The insistence that “the music” is all that matters in classifying music is the hallmark of purism.”

I’m sure everyone who reads my work here (or anywhere else) will tell you that I’m a STRONG purist…

No, I can’t explain, in a single stroke, how country can be (or should be)classified in purely musical terms. I am not, nor would I ever, hold “the music” to a certain ideal sound, or imply that country has a single specific defining characteristic. But I am, at the same time, not willing to throw my hands up in the air and accept that musical styles don’t, at some point, diverge artistically. Those divergences can be multiple and result in multiple branches, and certainly the point at which the diverge is up for debate (and will never be conclusively solved). But I still find the discussion interesting. I admit I have a vested interested in determining how we separate pop from country. This is because, unlike most mainstream music writers, I actually love country music and consider it my primary musical center. I fully admit that bias.

Your argument is based on consumption; the idea you’re presenting is that how a society consumes a product should be used in determining how that product is defined within that society. It is to say that if country people listen to Rascal Flatts, and country radio plays Rascal Flatts, that Rascal Flatts must certainly be a country artist.

And all I’m saying is that in each individual case, as students of the music, we should look and listen and question whether or not there is a musical stem that traces back to that which we’re trying to bind together. If you want to claim that Garth Brooks makes pop music, prove to me that Garth Brooks’ music is significantly similar to the bulk of other music also considered pop during the period in question. I don’t think you can do that. I think it’s difficult–essentially impossible–to say that because he cut a Billy Joel song, he’s a pop artist.

I get that when it comes to classification, you’re placing music on an equal level as the other considerations you noted, but I wholly disagree with that methodology.

“In the broader social sense, sure, Brooks was a “pop star.” From a musical standpoint, by no measure can [Brooks] be considered a pop artist.”

So the guy who wrote just a few weeks ago about how he loves “the pop-driven power of Garth’s power ballads” was way off base? ;-)

No, seriously, I’m satisfied to end this piece of the discussion with the recognition that Brooks was a pop star in “the broader social sense,” because there’s good no reason to think that that’s not what Knopper was talking about when you took him to task.

Beyond that, I think that your arguments about “musical delineation” betray an incomplete understanding of what I said (going from my statement that it’s a starting point to a characterization that I hold it at a level equal to other factors demonstrates that pretty clearly); betray a static and reductionist view that, stripped to its essence, says recognizing ambiguity, uncertainty and the importance of context in talking about categorical boundaries is the same as arguing that musical classifications serve no purpose or that there are no meaningful artistic distinctions between styles; and betray an incomplete grasp of country music history, which – as my quote from Russell was meant to hint at – makes clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the genre came into existence predominantly (though not exclusively) as a commercial construct and barely at all as a coherent “musically delineated” genre. Loving country music doesn’t automatically give you a command of its history and an unerring sense of its distinguishing features.

Sorry to sound harsh about it; I think you and the9513 are doing some good stuff, and I really like the fact that y’all are covering such a broad range of country music territory. But your response to Knopper’s comments was gratuitous and snarky, and it’s a bad idea to talk the talk if you can’t (yet) walk the walk.

I’m still trying to figure out where Hank Williams fits into this discussion…