The Malec Minute: Sugarland Deserves Album, Song, Single Nominations

Great article, Jim!

I’m not personally a big fan of Sugarland, but as far as what a nomination should be based on – I would hope that it’s artistic achievement. Focus on the music – the song, the performance. If you want to honor high-selling music, then you should have a category for “best-selling” artist or a “viewer’s choice” award. The two shouldn’t be confused. Otherwise you get things like Fergie being nominated for a grammy for “My Humps.” Ugh.

The dirty secret is that nominations are generally decided by which artists have the biggest organizations behind them (especially record labels), because all the employees of those organizations are voting members. Don’t tell anyone.

I was a little disappointed with the Sugarland album. It’s so much more Nashville-y than the first one.

I don’t care for a lot of Sugarland’s work, but your article is definitely persuasive. “Want To” is a very well written and performed song and surely deserves nomination over B&R’s song. I may not be a Sugarland fan, but I will give them respect for twanging, picking good songs and knowing how to entertain their fan base.

It’s hard to define it precisely, there’s just something a little more calculated about this record compared to the first one. The first one seemed like it accidentally happened to fit in on country radio, and this one sounds like it was designed to fit on country radio.

“A Bluegrass artist whose name doesn’t rhyme with Malison” cracked me up.

I think you have to break these categories down.

Single: the only song that “Want To” obviously trumps is “Ticks,” and I would be happy to see them swapped. Despite what you say, “Anyway” and “Lost in this Moment” both deserve their single nominations. I understand that “Lost in this Moment” sounds to many (including myself) like an artistic sell-out, but I still think that it’s a good single by current radio standards and it’s very easy to understand why it was nominated.

Song: “Want To” should probably be swapped for “Lost in this Moment.” All of the other songs are stronger than “Want To” in my opinion, so I don’t think that its omission is egregious.

I admit to only listening to Enjoy the Ride once, so I am not that conversant about it. I agree with what most have posted here. I wouldn’t call it calculated, but it was simply standard Nashville fare that was well-done. It’s more informative to look at the category, as I don’t think that it was superior to anything that was nominated:

These Days, contrary to what you said, is actually the only album that absolutely deserved to be nominated. It’s a great artistic statement and a platinum seller by the newest hall of fame inductee – a no brainer. Should, but probably won’t, win. Fifth Gear is inferior to Time Well Wasted but still better than the Sugarland album. Love, Pain and the Whole Crazy Thing was not my favorite but I think that it was more of an artistic statement than Enjoy the Ride. Same with Long Trip Alone. That leaves only It Just Comes Natural, which I think is like Enjoy the Ride in that it’s nothing earth-shatteringly new or even memorable, but rather the same stuff that George Strait has been doing his entire career done well. I think that these albums are basically on equal footing but I give the nod to the traditionalist.

Jim, you’re approaching it backwards. Both realistically and (in my opinion) normatively, albums, songs and singles have to meet a certain threshold of sales and commercial exposure to be seriously considered for nomination. I don’t think that Bruce Robison deserves a nomination for album of the year because I think there’s value in a credible awards show that recognizes the best of mainstream country music.

Pieces that have the commericial chops to get nominated should then be evaluated more or less independent of their commercial achievement (single of the year is one category that’s an exception). You ask for opinions that are backed up by empirical observation. I could give you observations that explain why I think that “Want To” is superior to “Ticks,” but these would all be based on my opinion rather than fact, and other might disagree. Sales, airplay, etc. are the only indisputable metrics that you can use, but you seem to want to place so much emphasis on sales that the CMA would become a foregone conclusion.

You askWhat do the CMA Awards really mean if all they are is a survey of people’s opinions, when those opinions are not based on any particular data or analysis? There’s nothing wrong with making awards based on surveying supposedly respected opinions (some may challenge the CMA’s credibility, but that’s a differnet question). The only “data” available to CMA voters is sales and airplay, and if you’re going to make this the primary metric than you can just eliminate the voters altogether. With the possible exception of single of the year, it’s ridiculous to quibble over a song reaching #1 vs #5 or moving 100,000 first week units vs. 200,000 first week units. Furthermore, it’s not fair to argue that CMA nominations do not result from any analysis simply because the analysis that lead to the current crop of nominees disagrees with yours.

I Agree with you Matt. The CMA and ACM are for commercial contemporary country. That Vince Gill set of records is an artistic statement that far too many people look over. He wrote 4 discs of NEW music for the record. All the tracks were very well done and not ‘overproduced’ and not ‘Nashvill-y’ by current standards. As for Sugarland, I LOVE that “Enjoy The Ride” disc and agree it should probably have been nominated. It’s on par with Urban’s record and is better than Strait’s ’cause his records are always the same. But that’s just me. As for “Want To,” it’s a better song to me than “Ticks” (which still kinda creeps me out) but I don’t think it was unfairly overlooked. Chris made a point earlier about the dirty side of the CMA: EVERY label employee is a member and block votes for their label’s artists (or distributed artists). So, UMG may be the biggest label on the planet but they appear smaller than SonyBMG in Nashille and it DOES seem that SonyBMG might make corporate memos about getting their artists nominated for stuff. So, in a funny occurance, SonyBMG promoted the nomination of “Find Out Who Your Friends Are” for Event to get Chesney one more nomination (even if they threatened to sue radio/Tracy Lawrence for airplay issues).

Since we are dealing with the subjective, it will never be possible for any awards show, including Kevin’s beloved Grammys, to be anything but VERY political in some manner or another. I know Kevin likes the broad based membership of NARAS but increasing the scope of individuals with agendas does not make the process less political. When I start seeing Grammy nominations for people like Justin Trevino, Amber Digby, Dale Watson, Lou Rochelle and Cornell Hurd, I’ll start believing that the Grammys are less political than the other awards

Before the CMA was formed, awards came in the form of BMI, ASCAP, Billboard and Cashbox awards, and while I don’t have a complete list of those awards, those awards were at least as good as the Grammys, ACMs, CMAs, CMTs, etc. in assessing the merits of country recordings

By the way, since the article was ostensibly about Sugarland’s single and album, I would not have nominated Sugarland in either category

Jim, as I noted earlier, These Days moved many more units than you are giving it credit for, so using your “top-down” view, you don’t have to descend far to get to it. I don’t think that radio spins particularly matter in teh album of the year category. Furthermore, the traditional material (2 out of 4 discs) of the collection was no more on the traditional side of mainstream than past and present nominees are on the pop side of mainstream. Vince Gill has always been a mainstream country artist and I maintain that These Days is a mainstream work.

Jim, since the RIAA does certifications that way, a platinum record is a platinum record. It could’ve been a 10 disc collection and sold 100,000 and still been platinum. And what I think Matt’s saying is that in the Album of the year category, it sold enough for ‘mainstream’ and then is on a major label by a CMA star. That’s mainstream for me. Anyway, on pure artistic merit, that 4 disc collection should and probably will win.

IIRC, Lee Ann Womack’s “There’s More Where That Came From” had also sold far less than its four competitors for Album of the Year in 2005, and it went on to win. Ditto Patty Loveless in 1995 with “When Fallen Angels Fly”.

I think it’s hard for an album to get nominated if it hasn’t at least sold somewhat well – and Gill sold very well, esp. for a four-disc set with little help from radio – but the CMA definitely considers artistic merit as well. Taylor Swift’s album has outsold most of this year’s nominees, but I don’t see anybody seriously arguing that she was snubbed by not being nominated.

I liked the Sugarland record, ranking it in the lower end of my Best Albums of 2006 last year, but I don’t think they were snubbed. IMO, “Twice the Speed of Life” was a much better album, and too much of “Enjoy the Ride” was derivative of it. I also think Nettles overdoes her vocals on the new album. I’m excited to see, though, that they’re sending out “Stay”, since I think that’s the best thing on the album. It helps make up for never officially issuing “Stand Back Up” last time around.

“…Given that the artists you listed have little more than kitsch value – all they do is rip off the music of yesteryear for the entertainment of people who still wish it was 1962 – I doubt they’d even get nominated if they were acts with a national platform.”

This is probably the most insulting sentence I’ve seen yet in a country music forum.

I guess that you would lump classical composers who compose new orchestral music as “kitsch” for people who wish it was still 1814.

The fact that honky-tonk and swing are “mostly” generated by artists from Texas (with healthy contingents from California, Ohio, New York, Florida, Maine, Virginia and elsewhere) does not make it kitsch. The music continues to progress, tackling new issues and creating new musical combinations while remaining true to its roots.

When any musical form forgets its roots it is no longer a part of its original format; it has become something else entirely. Most alt-country isn’t country at all – I don’t object to its existance – some of it is even pretty good or excellent – but don’t ask me to regard it as country or have the various country awards be given to it. Let them form their own organizations and hold their own award shows. I loved Ella Fitzgerald and Duke Ellington but they certainly were not country music

I have no problem with the CMAs choosing not to nominate rock or alt-country artists for awards. I would never expected Soul Train to nominate Porter Wagoner or Johnny Cash for its various awards.

Also, do you think Skaggs would be getting much Grammy respect if he was still getting mainstream airplay ?

I’ve never seen any award from the CMA, Soul Train or any other group as ludicrous as the Heavy Metal award given to Jethro Tull by NARAS. Any group that could make that sort of error really doesn’t deserve much respect.

Most of the folks I know didn’t see Alan Jackson’s latest album as either an artistic breakthrough or a disaster. Most have felt that it needed a couple of uptempo songs. Phrased in more academic terms: “the whole was less than the sum of the parts”.

As far as getting bored easily, I suffer from the same curse, which is why I can hardly listen to modern country radio – it’s simply too boring, like eating fat-free food or unsalted potato chips

That may be true in linguistics but in music there reaches a point in which it is no longer true. Defining that point is the problem. Fans of the Carter Family recognized Ernest Tubb as being of the same family – they had some doubts about Buck Owens and were sure that the Eagles were a whole ‘nother thing. As for Julie Roberts or Rascal Flatts …

Good question, and I’m not sure that there is a good answer, particularly since both definitions of country music are in use in society, depending upon the age of the individuals. Madison Avenue seems to run everything nowadays and has decided that appealing to the over 50 crowd isn’t worth the effort. Consequently, country radio is using the Madison Avenue definition of Country Music whereas fans of the more traditional music and defining it more organically.

I suppose the proper answer is that the term country should belong to us old traditionalists who owned the term first, then when most of the generation passes from the scene, the newcomers take possession of the term. Sort of like the term liberal – the classic meaning of the term as used in the 19th century would describe a Reagan Republican but the 20th/21st century meaning is more likely to apply to a Jimmy Carter or Teddy Kennedy, individuals who would have been described as socialist or radicals during the 19th century. So shall the term “Country Music” evolve. To my generation (or older) Ernest Tubb and Merle Haggard are Country, the Eagles are rock, Rascal Flatts and Keith Urban are acoustic pop and Big and Rich are crap (at least that’s how the over 65 crowd views then – I’m 55 and view them simply as not very good pop).

Don’t ask me how to classify Garth Brooks – he is smart enough to include a couple of tracks on every CD that appeal to the most diehard traditional country fan, even if the singles usually strike us as arena rock.

I actually would like to see a new organization form to issue awards and honors to the alt-county (a/k/a Americana, roots rock, lite rock, southern rock lite) and then leave the ACMs and CMAs to deal with the traditional forms of the music.

i find jennifer nettle’s voice insulting. she seems to deliberately stress vowels in such a way that it sounds like a caricature of a person from the country. the country voice is amplified to the point of silliness. all i hear is ‘waaaahhh’. i apologize for my opinion, but i think she’s a horrible singer. icky ugh.