I also think Top 40 Radio used to play more meaningful songs: Mary-Chapin Carpenter tended to record thoughtful stuff, but music like hers is rarely heard on top 40 these days. But every now and then a meaningful song sneaks through.

I think I’ve heard enough to give an answer for this message board, but, if I was going to write a book or give a talk on the topic in a formal setting, I would have to sit down and do some serious thinking and listening!

As for “Islands in the Stream,” the “fine tooth comb” line in that song is one of the worst lines I’ve ever heard in a hit song.

a very good point. However, despite my 70’s countrypolitan knowledge being a little shaky, I think that the subgenre of “modern, mainstream commercial country” (or Highway Rock-Roll as proposed by some Australian guy)is probably well known to both of us.

That reminds me of something you had brought up before that I didn’t address. Namely, the difference between Kenny Rogers as pop country and Keith Urban as pop country.

Harkening back to the original post, unless I read the article incorrectly, the Highway Rock and Roll designation was being applied to new mainstream commercial country, and not what may have been historically considered “pop country”.

Therefore, the depth of Kenny Rogers isn’t really in question here. Though I will say that many of Kenny Rogers songs (especially the early ones) are damn good. Lucille and Ruby in particular are fine country songs. Lady, and Islands in the Stream on the other hand, are poptastic, and would not do as well under literary analysis, IMO.

But as a rule, I like countrypolitan, it’s like a guilty pleasure. I will totally rock me some “Slide off of your satin sheets”, “I never promised you a rose garden”, “The Gambler”, or “Could I have this dance”.

I think we’re more or less on the same page here, but let me ask you one last question. Accepting that the subgenre in question is modern,popular, top-40, commercial country (what is being designated as Highway Rock and Roll) do you think that you’ve listened to enough of it alongside enough Traditional country to make a judgment on which one is typically deeper and more meaningful?

1) I agree that Jewel’s poetry isn’t as meaningful as Milton’s. And that’s an objective fact. Likewise, Garth’s “The River” isn’t profound (whatever you or I thought at 14). And its true that Merle Haggard’s “Irma Jackson,” “If We Make It Through December,” or “Mama Tried” are more meaningful than a typical Taylor Swift song, even if Taylor fans disagree. Of course, the difference between Jewel and Milton is greater than the difference between Garth and Merle.

I agree with you that literary analysis would be a good way to settle disagreements over meaningfulness (or at least gain insight into the matter). Literary analysis, I agree, is partly subjective, but at least it is a step in the right direction of insight.

So I vastly overstated my point when I said that objective analysis might not tell us whether one subgenre of country is more meaningful than another. But I made that statement with a certain assumption: namely, that many of the subgenres are fairly similar in “meaningfulness,” and therefore objective analysis can’t settle what might inevitably be subjective matters. I shouldn’t have done that because I was assuming exactly what is at issue in this discussion. That’s sloppy thinking.

Since I agree with you that it is objectively true that certain songs are more meaningful than others, I think it is untenable for me to claim that it is not objectively possible to decide that one subgenre is more meaningful than another. To make this determination, though, would require listening to a lot of songs in the various subgenres!

Perhaps I should qualify the above: I don’t have enough knowledge of literary theory to take an informed stand on whether there can be objective interpretations or whether all interpretations purely subjective or whether there is some middle ground. I don’t know how to answer or approach the Emily Dickinson conundrum you and a roommate had. But I think it might be hard to have a convesation about the merits of a song without some backround assumptions that might have a quasi-objective quality. Thus, I think it is “objectively true” that “The River” is not a song about boating. If someone were to insist that “The River’s” meaning lies in its advice to captains of boats, he better offer some amazing evidence for this idea or I will conclude that talking to him about the meaning of songs is pointless. Even if he isn’t “objectively wrong” about the River because objective meaning does not exist, I think it would be fair to treat him as though he were.

I’m not sure how to address the questions you raise without making assumptions about interpretation that I am not really qualified to make because I haven’t studied much in that area. I suspect a literary theorist might find my ideas naive or uninformed. These are very interesting issues, for sure.

I’ll disagree with you on this point as well. Despite the fact that Jewel’s poetry may resonate more with a group of people than say Bukowski’s or Milton’s, it in no way makes Jewel’s poetry on par with theirs.

Furthermore, though I acknowledge that there is no absolute metric to measure artistic worth, I am not enough of a post-modern to claim that all art starts off on the same foot and it’s worth is decided only by it’s public reception.

It’s like a conversation I had with a roomate one time. If Emily Dickinson’s poetry had never been discovered would it have still been great amazing poetry?

She was arguing that it would not have been, since people would not have had the opportunity to read it and instill it with meaning.

I was arguing that it would have been, because the meaning was not instilled by the readers, but recognized by the readers. Even in a box it still has all the qualities and insights that makes it great poetry.

Merle Haggard’s writing has the qualities that make it deep and meaningful whether or not your average Taylor Swift fan can recognize it. I would say that Garth’s “The River” falls short of the depth that it aspires to (though don’t tell my 14-year-old self that) though I could see people disagreeing with me.

How could one settle such a disagreement? I’d argue that some good old-fashioned literary analysis would do the trick.

Of course a degree of preference would remain, but it would have to be preference that was heavily supported by insight and examination. In my view, insight and examination are the very things that would separate the wheat from the chaff, or in this case, the traditional country from the Highway Rock and Roll.

Also, a song that seems like a cliche to me might seem like a fresh insight to someone who, for whatever reason, hasn’t heard the cliche before. When I was 14 I thought “The River” by Garth Brooks was “deep” because of its “don’t sit on the sidelines, get in the game” message. But now that I have heard that message so many times in so many country songs, I think the “don’t sit on the sidelines” theme is a bit trite. However I have come to appreciate his idea that we much modify our dreams as we meet new situations in life, much as a boat’s captain must adopt to different currents in the river.

But its a bit unfair in that its comparing the best of the “traditional” artists (whether Nelson is tradition is a bit of a question; he has certainly recorded pop, folk and jazz songs) with some middling (if popular) pop-country artists.

By comparison, I would say that a good Kenny Rogers Greatest Hits CD, (which might contain “the Gambler,” “Ruben James,” “Daytime Friends” or “Ruby Don’t Take Your Love To Town”) is at least as meaningful as George Jones’ “Anniversary” compilation. (I am just discussing lyrics, not vocal or musical performance here).

As for playing nintendo, as for duck hunt; Perhaps “19 Something” by Mark Wills doesnt mention those, but it could have. Substitute playing Nintendo for watching MTV, and there you go. Hopefully we won’t have another song like “19 Something” for a while.

I agree with you on the first point, but disagree on the second.

I think that if we take your average run of the mill greatest hits cd by George Jones, Willie Nelson, Hank Williams, Merle Haggard, and Loretta Lynn, and compare them to the greatest hits of Tim Mcgraw, Montgomery Gentry, Kenny Chesney, Keith Urban and Faith Hill, that we would see a very substantive difference in the “depth, meaning, and significance” of the songs.

But on the other hand, the highway rock and roll selection would have way more to offer in terms of pensive song intros, building pre-choruses, sweeping choruses, reflective bridges, and awesome 80’s rock guitar work.

though to each his own I suppose. I didn’t grow up on a farm, and therefore have no memories of holding up traffic in my tractor, of course I also have no first hand experience of being 21 in prison doing life without parole.

If they are going to mindlessly churn out songs that remind people of random unimportant activities that we may have participated in, where are the nintendo songs huh?

“I’m sitting around playing nintendo! Using my plastic gun on Duck Hunt! You may not understand it, but I’m super proud of my nintendo background! Super secret code on Contra! Super Mario!”

My point is that artists like George Jones or Dale Watson are not significantly more “meaningful or significant” lyrically than artists like Crystal Gayle or Taylor Swift.

Obviously one could find particularly meaningful Jones songs and particularly trite Gayle songs. But overall, I don’t thik one artist is vastly more meaningful than the other.

Of course, these artists produce songs with different meanings. No doubt there. And much of the meaning of a song derives from the listener’s mind, not the singer’s voice.

Thus, “International Harvester” by Craig Morgan is considered “meaningful” to some because it invoked memories of growing up on a farm. But non-farmers might see this as a silly song about a guy who is causing a traffic jam on the road. Which interpretation is better is another matter, of course.

that could spark quite the debate round here. Before it gets underway, would you concede that there were any substantive difference between “traditional country” and “highway rock and roll” aside from tempo/instrumentation/arrangement?

There are a lot of shallow pop songs and traditional country songs and there are a lot of good ones in both genres too.