Country radio tries to run through the center of various tastes and demographics so as to appeal to as broad a cross-section as possible. I think that’s pretty obvious.

That you think so serves mostly to show that you don’t know much about radio – at least, not as much as you think you know. This hasn’t been the basic goal of any large commercial format station for the past decade and more; in fact, the basic goal is far more often the opposite – to retain the listening of one or two fairly narrow demographic groups.

As for my personal views, they are that song lyrics are not poetry, and that attempting to gauge the quality of country songs by evaluating the “literary depth” of their lyrics is an enterprise which serves only to demonstrate that its undertaker doesn’t “get” country music in at least one profoundly important way.

I’m also sorry to see Jim argue at one moment that country radio airplay is of negligible significance commercially

I did not argue that, Jon, and to imply that I did is disingenuous. Here’s what I said:

“Radio sometimes drives sales. But I think the publicity surrounding singles is even more important than the airplay.”

Where in that paragraph do you see me saying that radio airplay is negligible?

Then I said,

“You don’t need radio success to sell a lot of records and make very good money. Colt Ford is not an accident.”

Where in that paragraph do you see me saying that radio airplay is negligible?

The fact that one thing may be more important than another does not mean the thing of lesser importance is negligible. It just means it’s not as important as the first thing.

The fact that you don’t need radio success to sell a lot of records doesn’t mean that radio success can’t help you sell a lot of records, thereby making radio airplay quite significant in certain circumstances (as opposed to negligible). I simply said that radio airplay doesn’t necessarily spur album sales–that the lines between radio success and album sales do not have a congruent relationship. Do you want to debate that?

All of this wouldn’t need clarification or explanation if you would have read the words as I wrote them.

“Compared to publicity because people aren’t really influenced by what they hear on the radio,”

Who said people aren’t influenced by what they hear on the radio? I certainly didn’t say that. I said, once again, that they may not necessarily be influenced to buy a record because a song receives a lot of radio airplay.

“And then at the next that what radio programmers choose to air not only defines the country mainstream, but is a good index to what the country audience wants to hear,”

The fact that radio success doesn’t necessarily drive sales does not mean that country radio doesn’t reflect what the mainstream country audience wants to hear. Country radio tries to run through the center of various tastes and demographics so as to appeal to as broad a cross-section as possible. I think that’s pretty obvious. And the fact that a particular song does well among that mix of music doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s going to inspire people from a number of those groups to buy the record.

There are a number of things which factor in to why an individual might buy (or not buy) an artist’s album. And the point I was making, which is exceptionally clear if you read my words as written, is that I’m not sure having a #1 single is among the most major of those factors.

There is, in fact, a difference between what the mainstream wants to hear and what the mainstream wants to buy. Unless, of course, you’d make the argument that the mainstream wants to buy everything it wants to hear. And if radio played what people wanted to buy, radio would be playing a good amount of Colt Ford.

@Jon: Now that we’ve clarified my opinion on the subject, I’m really looking forward to hearing some of your own original thoughts. I’m sure you have a lot to say on this subject, and I’m sure you were only waiting for me to retort before sharing your personal views.

In the first place, only someone who knows his body of work only through greatest hits compilations would imply that he didn’t turn out plenty of, ah, less than stellar songs. And in the second place, you’re the one that brought up his list of 100 songs in the first place; if that wasn’t what you wanted to talk about, why’d you talk about it? Or do you forget what you’ve written as soon as it’s escaped?

If 3 song writers turn in 1 good to great song each per week, there is your quoata.

Well, actually, no. That would be half my “quota,” which was actually a serious lowball of the requisite number.

Is it really so difficult to believe that all the songwriters in the entire world can come up with more than three good to great songs a week?

Oh, well, if you’re talking about all the songwriters in the entire world, then you’re talking about all the genres in the entire world. So now instead of talking about a steady diet of something like 300 good to great songs year in year out for just 1 album apiece by 30 country artists – that was my “quota,” and remember, Steve was saying there’d be no problem for them to turn out 2 or 3 albums a year each full of good stuff – you’re talking about several orders of magnitude more songs. And yes, I found it difficult to believe that there are thousands, much less tens or hundreds of thousands of good to great songs being written every year. As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Why don’t you list off a few hundred good songs written, say, in 2000? According to you, it ought to be easy.

No, they’re not.

They aren’t written to be poems; they aren’t poems set to music; they’re song lyrics. Take the music away and you can’t tell how a song is to be phrased, what the meter is (quick, what’s the meter for “Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies …”? — it doesn’t have one, whereas as a song it’s in waltz time all the way), where the breaths and beats are. Plus, it has lost half its sound, whereas a poem doesn’t need music for its sound.

As far as Blake is concerned, he’s said that they’re only releasing “Hilbilly Bone” from this EP and then moving onto the next project for singles.

I’m sorry to see it become apparent that what Steve Harvey actually meant by “there’s no reason why an artist can’t put out multiple full-length albums a year with no filler” is nothing more than “artists should record what I think they should record rather than what they think they should record.” I’m also sorry to see Jim argue at one moment that country radio airplay is of negligible significance commercially compared to publicity because people aren’t really influenced by what they hear on the radio, and then at the next that what radio programmers choose to air not only defines the country mainstream, but is a good index to what the country audience wants to hear, as if our memories are so poor that we’ve forgotten he’s said the first by the time we get to the second.