Firstly we must acknowledge the human inability to fully tap into such a massive scene as the music world- we tend to either shallowly observe the massive entirety without understanding the intricacies, or be deeply intertwined with a specific niche. However, it seems something has changed. It was inevitable, but much as a goldfish discovering the far end of the tank for the umpteenth time, no less surprising when it actually happened. In each of the past three years, a defining artist of the 2010’s released an album. Blake “Old Farts and Jacka**’s" Shelton put out Body Language in 2021, Carrie Underwood released Denim and Rhinestones in 2022, and in the first couple months of 2023, Dierks Bentley put out Gravel and Gold. What I found so remarkable about these three albums is just how irrelevant they felt to the discourse. At least in the on and offline groups I frequent, those album came and went very quietly. The conversation centered around other younger artists: Zach Bryan, Megan Maroney, Bailey Zimmerman and many others. Now, admittedly the water coolers I hang around skew towards younger audiences, but even so, other veteran artists had more buzz. Hype surrounded Eric Church’s (underwhelming and maybe career decline causing) triple album Heart & Soul or Cody Johnson's Human. The contrast feels worthy of remarking on.
It seems that the same held the to a smaller degree commercially. All the albums underperformed relative to their average 2010’s output. Album consumption units were down, singles climbed slower and peaked low. More importantly, their music hasn't spawned any push or change in what radio plays. Within months of Morgan Wallen hitting the scene, we started seeing copycat raspy singing sadbois getting pushed up the charts (Bailey Zimmerman, I mean you). The same applied for Luke Combs (see Profitt, Shane and Smith, Nate) and Zach Bryan inspired artists (literally the entire TikTok). When success hits, imitaters spawn and crawl out the woodwork. I have seen no evidence that the recent glam rock turn of Carrie, the renewed grit of Dierks, and the acoustic popco of Blake have had any such effect.
Why is this the case? We can all agree that plenty of older artists can be deeply important and impactful to art. Artists like John Prine were highly influential until their dying day. Other Artists, in spite of universal adulation, have very little impact on the scene past age 45 or so. They are relegated to oldies concerts and the occasional new song breaking through and becoming popular among the core fans. What is the difference between the artist that fizzles and the artist that thrives?
There are many possible answers. Let’s run through some of the most often suggested approaches. They fall broadly into a couple different categories.
First we have the variations of the “it’s the artists fault” arguments. These range from simply blaming the product- ie their most recent album just wasn’t good- to arguments with more philosophical heft to them- such as the idea that it’s hard for older artists to offer fresh takes on themes they’ve already covered in the past.
Others choose to blame the “system”. You’ve all heard it before, it’s the classic “If they only would play artist X on radio then….” argument.
The problem with pinning it on any of these factors is that there are plenty of counter examples. Any argument pertaining to the quality of a specific album or single can be refuted with just as many examples of exemplary albums and fantastic singles that just didn't catch fire.
The “system” arguments have a similar flaw in that the system is a chicken and egg conundrum. If the artist still brings in the dollers from shows and popular singles, then what financial incentive is there for the label to drop them? Aside from the old adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (which would imply that a label would hold onto old artists even past the point where a younger artist might be more worthwhile an investment), businesses will nearly always make the decision that makes the most dollars and cents. If an aging artist still has popularity, then dumping them for a younger model is financially stupid. It doesn't seem likely to my mind that some malicious intent supersedes the plain financials.
I would like to suggest a counterintuitive theory to explain. We’ll tentatively call it the success influence paradox. Success and influence follow a fairly predictable path. Early success is often achieved by separating oneself from the pack with a unique and differentiating sound. Commercial success spawns a legion of imitators. A really successful artist will drag the generic sound of country music in the direction of their personal sound. Once that has come to pass, it is that much more difficult to then go and replicate that differenting effect. Some large chunk of fandom and influence is based on the person with their personality and distinct style, but some other large segment is determined by the relationship to the scene at large. Dierks Bentley was a revelation when he arrived in the scene. His grit was a proper antidote to the overly smoothed syrupy adult contemporary that was in vogue at the time. As time went on and Dierks’ sound started to become replicated by others, all of a sudden he became less unique in spite of him not changing an iota. Fans no longer are attracted to him because of his different sound. Now he gets evaluated on other factors. An artist has two choices when faced with this dilemma. Accept that you are one with the pack now and generally follow future trends, or try and push further and aim to be the disruptor yet again.
Both of those approaches have difficulty. The trend follower is on borrowed time. They established themselves in the highest pedestal of stardom via a particularly attractive take on music. They can’t stray too far from that otherwise they lose their base. They can’t stick too close to it because they’ll fall behind the trend. This often leads to very boring results.
The other approach equally has difficulties in that by constantly aiming to be different, you sacrifice consistency. The fans that gravitated towards you because of that original sound aren’t going to be happy when you take a 180 degree turn on the next album. There’s only so far fans will be schlepped before they throw up their hands and only listen to old material. Honestly, most artists don’t have the ability to endlessly change and still maintain both the authenticity and high standard of musicality they’ve set for themselves. It’s a catch-22. Do you boundary push and difference make to gain new fans potentially at the expense of those you’ve already built up or do you stick to a more sedate pace of change that keeps the fanbase as is, but leads to less differential with the scene going forward?
Shelton, Bentley, and Underwood all have had their finest days back in the past. That’s no surprise. We know these artists intimately and have spent close to twenty years with their input critically influential to the sound of modern country music. They are locked in enough now that any decision they make will have a deleterious impact in part. That’s just the nature of being super successful early on. To an extent they are locked in and the cards have been dealt already. They can try to play the cards as best as they can by releasing the best material possible but the house will always win. To be frank, if you look critically at any of these three artists discographies, you’ll realize that in spite of the varying quality of the music they’ve released in the last decade (sometimes even great!), nearly all of their iconic songs all occurred in their first decade as an artist. I think this is the reason why.
This perspective also illuminates why certain artists seem to defy this paradigm. Take an artist like John Prine who really only became acclaimed later in his career. His late career material stacks up equally favorably with his early material. His influence on the current era of singer songwriters is undeniable. Odd for an artist to have that impact in their older years. What gives? I’d answer in response that the key for an artist to have that freshness that allows them to impact the scene later on is mostly correlated with being a relative cultural unknown early on. That means the artist didn’t get locked into the success influence paradox early on. That allows their body of work to grow and develop in a way that it won’t if the audience is built up heavily in the artist's twenties and thirties.
Thanks for reading,
Joe
I do apologize for the long wait on this one. For some reason I had a very hard time piecing this all together. To be honest, I’m not happy with how it did, but I’ve haggled with it enough that I no longer care to work on it further. I hope it gets the picture across.
As this goes to press, I am sad to note the excellent country music blog The Musical Divide is closing down. The golden age of blogs ended a long time ago, so the impact of such a well run site hanging up the cleats is all the more impactful. Zackary wrote eloquently about country music in all its forms, modern and historic, for five years. In a large part, Today I Heard would not be what it is today without his inspiration and advice. I personally have learned a tremendous amount and discovered untold amounts of music from the TMD archives.
It was a sudden announcement, at least to readers, and I hope that all is well behind the scenes. We often consume product without fully understanding the efforts going on the other side of the computer screen. Lord knows how many late nights nitpicking over small details and typos went into creating an enjoyable and coherent read for us readers. We thank you for the last five years and hope for success with whatever is next.
Godspeed
phot credit YouTube screenshot I found in gallery dunno more specifics.