Letters to the Editor - vol. 2

Short questions, long answers

Sorry for the delay, real life got busier. There's some great questions here, all of which got me thinking. Hope you enjoy!

Joe

Ryne C. asks,

1. How do you balance listening for pleasure vs business (intent to review)

2. How do you balance the objective vs subjective nature of reviewing music?

Thanks.

A great question. This might be a convoluted way to address this, but I think it does justice to the questions.

When evaluating music, it's essential to consider the complexities of the medium. Otherwise you'll fall into the “Moneyball mistake". This is what I call the tendency to focus too much on what is quantifiable, simply because it is quantifiable, and neglect the intangible aspects of a thing, simply because they are difficult or impossible to accurately gauge. The name comes from the story detailed in Michael Lewis’ Moneyball. Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland Athletics, decided to go all in on playing Jeremy Giambi, the younger brother of Jason Giambi. At the time, Jeremy Giambi was known as a talented hitter to get on base, but a poor defender. Beane, who was a proponent of sabermetrics, focused on Giambi's on-base percentage and ignored his defensive limitations. Defense, he felt, was unquantifiable and therefore probably overrated. However, with the benefit of modern metrics, we see the correctness of the traditional evaluation of Giambi's poor defense ultimately outweighing his offensive contributions. This example illustrates the danger of prioritizing exclusively quantifiable data instead of looking at the whole picture. This mistake can also happen with music evaluation.

Some reviewers suggest that music can be broken down into objective metrics. Lyrical choices, production, vocal quality, etc. I believe this approach falls prey to the Moneyball mistake. Music is, after all, a deeply emotional experience, and many songs are technically proficient but fail to resonate personally. Conversely, songs may not be polished, but still speak to listeners. This is sometimes difficult to explain.

The cultural context, genre, and artist's intentions all play a significant role in shaping our understanding of music. Take Zach Top. Some might correctly argue that he's not pushing the technical boundaries of the genre, but that's a narrow view. His music is not revolutionary, it's deeply traditional, but it doesn't code as stuffy. Why? From an objective assessment, nothing he is doing is different from Mark Chestnutt circa 1994. The answer is simple. More context is needed. With Top, it's like choosing to wear a suit and tie to work nowadays. Yes, it used to be the traditional choice, but now it's different and stands out. Top’s music is distinctive relative to the crowd, and that's what makes it special. Simply assessing the music via its “objective” criterion misses this important cultural context.

Because of this, I evaluate music with a holistic approach, considering both the technical and emotional aspects of a song. I ask whether the music speaks to me on a deeper level. My personal taste is composed primarily of songs that trigger emotional resonance. Then, I try to suss out what aspect or factor within those songs triggered the emotional response. Once a satisfactory answer for that has been determined, I can then look for more music that hits those beats.

This goal changes for the music I listen to for reviewing. I view my role as requiring me to consider the target audience and aims for a particular song or album, and evaluate it based on whether it succeeds in its goals. This takes into account both the objective as well as subjective sides of things. This might involve imagining myself in the shoes of a listener who is looking for music that speaks to their experiences and emotions. For example, if I'm reviewing a song by an artist like Koe Wetzel, I might imagine myself as a 25-year-old former frat house guy who still loves to party on the weekends, but also needs to get up for work on Monday morning. I'll ask myself whether the song would resonate with that person, and whether it would be something they'd want to listen to. This might mean that overblown rock guitars, which for me are often a production mistake, need to be viewed as a strength. It's a challenging task, but one that I believe is essential to being a thoughtful and effective critic.

Hopefully, this gives you a sense of how I approach music evaluation, both in my own listening for pleasure and reviewing, as well as objective vs. subjective.

Name withheld upon request asks,

I greatly appreciate the depth of analysis you provide in your articles. For the letters to the editor issue, I would like to pose a question regarding the cultural significance of country music. How do you see the genre reflecting the sociopolitical landscape of America, particularly in relation to issues such as identity, class, and regionalism?

I’m definitely not an expert in socio-political matters, let me take a shot. Culture is an imperfect way of discussing sociopolitical dynamics, but is part of the picture. I once came across a book by Bill Bishop called "The Big Sort." It suggests, based on census and voting data, that America is becoming more partisan largely because people are moving to areas based on political affinity. In the past, people moved to where the jobs were, without caring much about the political makeup of the area. Now, however, they are shifting towards politically aligned areas. For example, Texas and Florida are getting more red, while California and New York are becoming more blue. This creates deeper polarization.

However, that alone is not the only thing that gets affected. When like-minded people come together and stick in one area, it intensifies their shared interests, in this case politics. Not only do these areas get more aligned, but they feed off each other and the pre-existing bias gets amplified.

I would argue that these changes will even affect music preferences.

It might be a stretch to expressly correlate this to country music, but some effect is suggestive. Areas where country popularity has always existed are growing. They may not be moving there specifically for country music, but it’s associated with the culture of the area. That leads to more exposure and therefore more fandom. The intensifying effect happens as well.

To be fair, this cuts both ways. There is a flavor in the independent scene that reflects the hub from which the music originates. Austin-based music versus broader Texas-based, or Red Dirt music, often has a very different political flavor. But then again, that’s always been the case to some extent. I should be cautious about overstating this.

Another dynamic at play is that this shift is happening simultaneously with the internet flattening our culture. The late filmmaker David Lynch once said something that stuck with me: when he was a kid in the 50s, each area had a distinct style. When you left your region and went to a big city, people looked different, dressed differently, and acted differently. This makes sense. Cultures that are hyper-local tend to be thicker, and America felt bigger back then. There were fewer people, less ease of access, and a much bigger distance between the city and the country than there is now. Rural Michigan was fundamentally different from rural Alabama.

That is no longer. America as a whole has been divided into two broad camps; one urban and one rural. Rural Michigan is much more comparable to rural Alabama, and Atlanta is more similar to Detroit than it used to be. Sure, there are still some regional differences—like the South being very into college football and the North being into hockey more—but the differences aren’t as pronounced as they once were. You can walk into a gas station or mechanic shop in rural Maine, and they’re just as likely to be playing the same music as in rural Louisiana.

Country music has taken advantage of this shift by expanding its footprint. It is now listened to equally all over rural America. These two ideas—the broad splitting and amplification of local political identity and its knock on effects for music taste, along with the flattening and broadening of culture—seem to be part of the story of country music's current success. It’s definitely not the whole picture, but these facts are important for understanding the reach of country music.

When someone asks how Morgan Wallen could have such incredible popularity when no one they know listens to him, this explains that. Yes, they're are some people in big cities who do listen, but the second is that country music has switched from being a regional, southern genre—rarely listened to west of Texas—to now being popular across the entire country, especially in rural areas. These changes are impactful.

That may not have answered the exact aim of your question, but it should color a large chunk of the picture. Others might feel that culture influences politics more. Debate exists about which one has an effect on the other. Realistically, things cut both ways. This above explanation clarifies one of these dynamics.

Grace asks,

Do you think labels serve any purpose nowadays? Artists can just record on a computer in their own bedroom and post something on TikTok or YouTube. Labels don't really feel needed anymore.

This is a very interesting question, and while lacking concrete answers, a framework for analysis comes to mind. The label system is indeed antiquated. However, its longevity does not render it purposeless. Perhaps the opposite. That fact it's still around, even with all the changes of the last quarter century, indicates that it still provides utility.

Looking at the state of independent creators, the landscape of YouTube and other platforms demand less from their creators than musical artists. Many creators can still maintain a nine-to-five job while pursuing their passions in their spare time. The nature of the algorithm allows for the possibility of going viral. Pump out consistent content, and your day may well yet come. With artists and musicians however, success requires a far more significant investment of time and resources. They must travel extensively and shift their entire lifestyle. All without any guarantee of success.

In theory, a record label can offer a degree of stability for the struggling artist. Instead of shouldering the vast costs of marketing and production, artists receive financial support, which eases their burden. While the lifestyle of a label artist is not easy, it is somewhat more manageable. Even if a record doesn't achieve commercial success, artists at least gain a chance and some semblance of stability for a period. If they chance into a hit, they share a significant portion of the profits with the label, but it is a gamble worth taking for many.

However, well-known downsides exist. Artists often face limitations on their creative freedom.. And obviously, if the artist becomes wildly popular, a large portion of their money goes to the labels.

These days, it may be more beneficial for artists to engage directly with algorithms rather than relying solely on labels. The connections that labels offer—curated over years through festivals, openers, and radio interviews—are not as impactful as they once were. Strategies need to adjust. They've tried. For instance, many generic playlists on platforms like Spotify are owned by labels, allowing them to promote their artists through them. If you've ever wondered why a seemingly generic official playlist features unexpected artists, that's often the reason. This showcases how labels are changing and trying to adapt. It isn't enough though.

Reports indicate that labels are shifting their approach in recent years. The package they offer artists now may include more favorable profit-sharing arrangements. While this is a positive development for artists, it also reflects a diminishing advantage in recording and marketing. The market is evolving. Labels will adapt. So far, they've been slow to develop, but don't count them out.

Labels probably won't go away entirely, as the promise of stability is hard for artists to resist. The specifics may change, but the fundamental need for support remains. If the labels don't provide a counterbalance to the risk-reward calculus, someone else will. Could YouTube or some other social media evolve into something that provides that same need? Perhaps. Time will tell.

A.P. asks,

Hello Joe, it's your old buddy A. P. again!

We both are very much into Country Music history, but we are also very well aware that the average listener is not. How important do you think it is for the average Country listener to know their proverbial roots, and what's the baseline of knowledge that you wish everyone had? In support of this goal, would you also share some vintage listening recommendations for those interested in learning?

I wouldn't give you a question I wasn't prepared to answer myself, so I'll start you off with five songs I believe every Country fan should listen to:

Blue Yodel No. 1 (T For Texas) - Jimmie Rodgers

New San Antonio Rose - Bob Wills

I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry - Hank Williams Sr.

Walking The Floor Over You - Ernest Tubb

Long Black Veil - Lefty Frizzell

Good to hear from you!

For anyone who has followed this blog, it’s clear that I place great importance on history. Understanding historical context can profoundly change our view. I recall when the Ken Burns documentary on country music was released. It marked a watershed moment. For many country fans, it was an opportunity to engage with the rich history of country music.

It can also make you either understand or reassess the assumptions you make. I remember video commentator Grady Smith sharing his documentary takeaways. One key insight, which likely resonated with many others, is the cyclical nature of country music. Previous moments of pop country music existed, and similar trends will likely emerge again. This was remarked on as being novel. Of course he was aware of previous pop-influenced moments, but the extent of the back and forth adjustment over the years was not understood until that moment. The same was for me. At the time I was strongly thinking about whether the Sam Hunt moment indicated that country had gone too far. It was reassuring to learn about the cycles and how most likely these cycles would continue. This was illustrative of the benefit of learning history.

Country music has a unique relationship with its own history. The genre often comments on itself, as evidenced even by pop country artists like Thomas Rhett referencing classics like “I'm So Lonesome I Could Cry" in his songs. This practice is quite remarkable—other popular genres don’t seem to have the same historical engagement.

If country music cares about its history, then as listeners, we should too. Even if you’re not typically inclined to explore history, the genre itself places significant emphasis on it, and that should encourage you to engage with it as well.

Regarding specific songs, I believe it’s challenging to narrow down the essence of country music to just five tracks. I love your selections, and have a personal fondness for "T for Texas." I’ve written about it before. There are great covers as well from the various decades, by notable artists like the Everly Brothers, Johnny Cash, and Dwight Yoakam. The original is fantastic, and iconic in its own right.

When considering songs, I'm going to take a different tack. I'd want to highlight the positives and negatives of a subgenre rather than just focusing on the biggest hits. For example, while "Crazy" is undoubtedly one of the greatest songs of all time, it won't give the full depth of understanding about the Nashville sound era. Instead, selecting a song that is perhaps not Patsy Cline’s best but still showcases the era’s characteristics could provide more insight. Maybe “So Wrong”.

For instance, a hit like Eddie Arnold’s “Turn The World Away”, that sounds reminiscent of Sinatra or Dean Martin could illustrate both the appeal and limitations of that style. Similarly, something like Tracy Byrd’s "Watermelon Crawl" from the 1990s captures that eras vibrant neo-traditional instrumentation and upbeat line-dancing dynamic, while also reflecting the era's pastiche, which some may view as a downside.

When it comes to having a baseline historical understanding for country music fans, the answer can be complex. People have personal connections to country music, and I wouldn't feel comfortable validating or invalidating anyone's experiences. Instead, I would urge listeners to try and stretch beyond their own experiences in trying to understand the genre. By doing so, they may discover new aspects and appreciate the full gamut that country music has to offer.

Unlike those with familial connections, I did not grow up with a strong affiliation to country music. I took a more discovery focused approach to understanding the genre to grasp both its roots and the various forms it has taken over time. This allowed me to appreciate country music even more.

So if I were to advocate for more understanding of the genre among fans, I would give a pitch like this: Having a basic understanding of the history, diversity, and roots of country music can add a great deal of enjoyment to your listening to the genre, even in its current pop iteration. While country music has undergone significant changes over time, it still retains a common transmitted core. Gaining some knowledge of this context can help listeners connect with the music on a deeper level. By exploring the genre's rich history and diverse influences, listeners can develop a more nuanced understanding of country music and its ability to evoke emotions, tell stories, and bring people together.

As always, I appreciate your feedback and insights on this topic.

Thanks for reading,

Joe