Thank you for your thoughtful response to my article.

My compliments were completely sincere. I think very highly of the Yearwood release. As I said in the article, I consider it “an admirable accomplishment” and I’ve personally recommended it to friends.

Trust me, I have no problem pointing out what I consider to be “melodramatic flare” and “overblown production” if I feel it’s present. Check out my review of the Josh Turner/Trisha Yearwood duet “Another Try” if you don’t believe me. If I thought the Yearwood release suffered from the same problems, I would have said as much.

I feel that I do embrace the variety that exists in country music, as well as the incorporation of outside genres. I’m thrilled that Bob Wills incorporated swing. I’m thrilled that Willie Nelson incorporated Jazz and R&B. I’m thrilled that Gram Parsons and Chris Hillman incorporated Rock and Roll. I’m thrilled that Freddy Fender incorporated Mexican music.

But, for all the reasons I stated in the article, I think that the Yearwood release made some fundamental decisions that distanced it from the country music tradition.

I never argued that it wasn’t a good record, or that there weren’t numerous worse records consistently distributed under the banner of “country music”.

But a great record, an appropriate paradigm does not make.

I set out, in this article, to examine precisely why I don’t think that “full-throttled” divas who employ the communication strategy I outlined, can sit happily alongside traditional country music. I think that the Yearwood record was fundamentally and intentionally different than Hank Williams’ records. Or Merle Haggard’s. Or Buck Owen’s. Or George Jones’. Or Dwight Yoakam’s. Or Hank III’s.

And if the entire industry decides to intentionally and fundamentally diverge from traditional country in order to capture a larger market, then what will be “country music” will not be what was once “country music”, and that would make me very sad.

Listen to “Sing You Back to Me” or “The Dreaming Fields.” The arrangement is sparse and the emotion is located squarely on the sleeve. Delve deeper into her catalogue and listen to “Some Days Are Better Than Others,” “Hearts In Armor” or “It’s Alright.” These all feature sparse arrangements and stung emotion.

Now it’s true Yearwood’s elegant phrasing isn’t as “raw” as Hank’s, but that needn’t make it any less of a contribution to the genre. Yearwood is a stately piece of the puzzle, but holding any single example up as a representative of the whole of Country Music is unfair.

I have never understood traditionalists’ reticence to embrace the broad family of country. Why can’t traditional mountain music sit happily alongside today’s full-throttled divas? There doesn’t have to be one road to hillbilly heaven. I think that accepting the diversity of the field is the best way to encourage development and fine, upstanding art, regardless of genre.

Brady –
I am indeed using Nashville as a euphemism for the country genre. I realize that historically much of the best country music has come from outside Nashville (Bakersfield what what!), but I think its fair to say that in the long-term, as goes Nashville, so goes country music.

David T –
The “country music naturally fluxes between traditional and pop leanings” is historically true. But even when John Denver and Olivia Newton John were cleaning up at Country award shows, there were viable hit artists putting out uncompromising, traditional country music. I’d argue that this hasn’t been the case for sometime now, though I accept that I have a strict standard for what is uncompromising traditional country music.

Lucas –
oh Garth Brooks. The first real commenting I did here at the9513 was a disagreement with my esteemed associate Jim Malec on Garth’s legacy in country music. I argued that Garth was a clownshoes figure who will ultimately not make it into the country music cannon. Don’t get me wrong, I actually like Garth. Heck I even liked “More than a Memory”. And I seriously don’t want this thread to become a pro Garth vs. Anti Garth discussion, but Garth Brooks is a pop fan and an 80’s/70’s stadium rock fan, in a big big way. Garth Brooks is a fan of corporate rock in such a big way that he was jazzed to work with Huey Lewis. Garth Brooks is a big Kiss fan, and actually told people about it! All and all, I like Garth Brooks, I really do. I think he’s a great entertainer, I think he has a lot of great songs, and I think that he’s uniquely talented as an interpreter of songs, but I don’t think Garth “gets” what’s so incredible about Hank Williams. I don’t think Garth “gets” was so cool about country music. Garth “gets” James Taylor, Billy Joel, and Huey Lewis in a big way though.

Peter -
I’m not so worried that country artists are aiming for crossover AC chart hits as I am that Nashville is trying to position itself as the new AC.

I agree that Nashville is thought of as the home of American songwriting and that if one is a songwriter, than they go to Nashville because that’s where songwriters go. I’m just not sure that its a good thing.

As far as country music broadening out to incorporate other genres, I think that the problem with that becomes apparent rather quickly. If there is nothing out of country music’s realm, than country music becomes a meaningless designation, and more importantly, it ends an unbroken tradition that stretches back to the dawn of recorded music.

Songwriters whose childhood heroes are Sting and Fleetwood Mac, or Billy Joel and Elton John, or even Skynyrd and Marshall Tucker, aren’t going to be concerned about the country music tradition or about the fundamental values of country music songwriting.

I enjoyed the Trisha album. I think it’s an undeniably great record, which is precisely why we need to second-guess it as potential paradigm for country music. You can’t just say that a good record is a good record and that any good record should serve as the standard for every genre. I argued that the Yearwood record’s communication strategy is fundamentally different from the approach country music has historically taken, and that the divergence was the result of a conscience decision. If the genre as a whole continues to make the conscience decision to eschew tradition and to embrace the theatrical approach of conveying emotion and connecting with listeners, then we’ll have lost some of the very core of what distinguished country music in the first place.

Garth kept it country. Just because you do a rock cover or two doesn’t mean you’re not country. Don’t even attempt to argue songs like “Friends In Low Places” and “Ain’t Goin’ Down Til The Sun Comes Up” as not being country.

Garth is a MILLION times more country than all the new artists on radio today combined.

You have to admit that there have been many times that Garth hasn’t “kept it country” as you stated. I dig a ton of his stuff and his live gigs are the stuff of legend. What he had truly figured out was not to “keep it country”, but to give the country audience something that they werent getting at the time, and that was a fresh attiude of excitement and edgy storytelling that wasnt considered very “country” at the time. Songs with the subject matter of “the thunder rolls” or songs written by rockers like Billy Joel (shameless), merged with more traditional sounds and with rocking songs about the rodeo (which was a subject that country radio has always seemed to neglect with only a few shining exceptions)to give country fans soemthing that most people considered a newer form of country.

By the way, Chris Gaines was cheesy regardless of its intended purpose though.

Don’t try to tell me being in movies isn’t acceptable for a true country artist, please refer to “Pure Country” with Strait and every Kristofferson movie ever made.