Sam Hunt - "Make You Miss Me"

[rsmatto]

Feb 12, 2016 18:44:36 GMT -5 trebor said:

Feb 12, 2016 18:37:08 GMT -5 rsmatto said:

Why not support the ones you like the most or that style more, whether it's on the radio or not, than get angry or frustrated about others that are played. Support those acts you like by buying their music, streaming their music/videos, buying tickets to the and some merch at the shows. THAT will do more than you could ever imagine for those artists (big and small).

The debate about what is or isn't country music is as old as the genre itself.

Good post!  :)
Plus support them by helping them out on kickstarter and pledgemusic, etc.
You'd be amazed at what "bigger" sub-scene names are without a record company and go from EP or album to album by crowd-funding.

Right. Look at Green River Ordinance. They've crowdfunded their last handful of projects and then ended up with a Thirty Tigers-like label/partner for the "Fifteen" project. The band has barely been on the radio for about the last six years yet they've had a huge career. Granger Smith has done remarkably well without radio (til now). Ditto to Aaron Watson. Support what you love and are enjoying and let the other artists be for the ones that enjoy them. I know we can't possibly like everything and it's human nature to pick on stuff that gets popular or is deemed popular by some gatekeepers but now, more than ever, we're able to like and support acts and give them viable careers of some success without the need for selling 1,000,000 or even 200,000 albums. The margins are smaller but the rewards are greater for the bands (They typically will own their music and make more off of it more quickly).

[keelhauled]

Feb 12, 2016 18:37:08 GMT -5 rsmatto said:

Feb 12, 2016 11:34:07 GMT -5 keelhauled said:

What makes you think I don't buy music? I get disappointed though that I have watched the genre I love change so dramatically that sometimes I'm not even sure it *is* a genre anymore, the definition has become so nebulous. I don't have anything against Sam Hunt, and I don't condemn people that like his music, but I am frustrated that his success (and others) has come at the expense of displacing the artists and sounds I love from the radio.

Edit: stupid software won't quote like I want but it's obvious what I'm replying to

[rsmatto]

Feb 12, 2016 19:11:50 GMT -5 keelhauled said:

Feb 12, 2016 18:37:08 GMT -5 rsmatto said:

What makes you think I don't buy music? I get disappointed though that I have watched the genre I love change so dramatically that sometimes I'm not even sure it *is* a genre anymore, the definition has become so nebulous. I don't have anything against Sam Hunt, and I don't condemn people that like his music, but I am frustrated that his success (and others) has come at the expense of displacing the artists and sounds I love from the radio.

Edit: stupid software won't quote like I want but it's obvious what I'm replying to

Dude, I did t say that you didn't buy music. I said you should just focus on the stuff you do like and ignore this other stuff. The same argument you are making has been levied for every "evolutional change" country music, which has a mainstream not unlike pop itself. radio is simply playing stuff that MORE people wanna hear. They'll play stuff at the expense of Sam Hunt and Luke Bryan and others at some other point too. It's all cyclical.

[Deleted]

Feb 12, 2016 12:19:07 GMT -5 Kat5Kind said:

Radio CAN play whatever they want. It's not up to people like us to decide, lol. Get over it.

Exactly.

Radio can play whatever they want. It's always been that way. And radio is never gonna be able to please every single listener. Now, I do think a station that brands itself as a country station should do their best to champion quality country music...but some people have a different definition of what quality country music is. I also think Sam would be a better fit at other formats (my opinion, of course) but there's no changing it. He's signed to a Nashville-based label and he's marketed to country radio because of it. If someone is really that upset about it, call your local radio station (or Facebook them or whatever) and tell them which artists you don't like and which ones you do. If enough people chime in on a certain artist, then yeah, the station might listen and might start programming their playlists a bit differently.

But otherwise there's not much else we can do, other than support the artists we DO like and tune out the ones we don't.

[carriekins]

Feb 12, 2016 20:58:21 GMT -5 jhomes87 said:

Feb 12, 2016 12:19:07 GMT -5 Kat5Kind said:

Radio CAN play whatever they want. It's not up to people like us to decide, lol. Get over it.

Exactly.

Radio can play whatever they want. It's always been that way. And radio is never gonna be able to please every single listener. Now, I do think a station that brands itself as a country station should do their best to champion quality country music...but some people have a different definition of what quality country music is. I also think Sam would be a better fit at other formats (my opinion, of course) but there's no changing it. He's signed to a Nashville-based label and he's marketed to country radio because of it. If someone is really that upset about it, call your local radio station (or Facebook them or whatever) and tell them which artists you don't like and which ones you do. If enough people chime in on a certain artist, then yeah, the station might listen and might start programming their playlists a bit differently.

But otherwise there's not much else we can do, other than support the artists we DO like and tune out the ones we don't.

Not to derail the thread but people DO post on station facebook pages, in droves where artists like Sam and Luke and FGL are concerned, expressing their dislike, distaste, and general dissatisfaction. It hasn't changed the conversation at ALL.

So, yeah, sorry not sorry that I, too, am one who is pissed off that I, a loyal, passionate country listener for over TWENTY YEARS, has been shunted to the side in favor of whatever the flavor of the season is. I barely listen to the radio anymore and I am not happy about it. I've been pretty vocal about it. A lot of people have. Nobody is listening.

[Deleted]

Feb 12, 2016 21:03:46 GMT -5 carriekins said:

Not to derail the thread but people DO post on station facebook pages, in droves where artists like Sam and Luke and FGL are concerned, expressing their dislike, distaste, and general dissatisfaction. It hasn't changed the conversation at ALL.

So, yeah, sorry not sorry that I, too, am one who is pissed off that I, a loyal, passionate country listener for over TWENTY YEARS, has been shunted to the side in favor of whatever the flavor of the season is. I barely listen to the radio anymore and I am not happy about it. I've been pretty vocal about it. A lot of people have. Nobody is listening.

Nowhere in my post did I say that people don't already complain to their radio stations. I see it ALL the time, too.

But that's beside the point. The point is that the majority of listeners are still enjoying Sam's music. There might be a lot of people who don't like it, but there are more people who DO like it.

I don't listen to the radio much anymore, either. I make my own playlists and listen to music on my own time. I've also been just as vocal as others about my belief that Sam would be a better fit at Pop/HAC radio. But until things "spill over" or hit some critical breaking point, Sam's going to keep getting significant airplay from country radio.

I don't really care for the direction that country radio is heading in. Y'all should know that. But their ratings are telling them that they're doing fine, so there's not much anyone can do unless, as I said, things hit a breaking point.

[matty005]

Feb 12, 2016 21:03:46 GMT -5 carriekins said:

Feb 12, 2016 20:58:21 GMT -5 jhomes87 said:

Exactly.

Radio can play whatever they want. It's always been that way. And radio is never gonna be able to please every single listener. Now, I do think a station that brands itself as a country station should do their best to champion quality country music...but some people have a different definition of what quality country music is. I also think Sam would be a better fit at other formats (my opinion, of course) but there's no changing it. He's signed to a Nashville-based label and he's marketed to country radio because of it. If someone is really that upset about it, call your local radio station (or Facebook them or whatever) and tell them which artists you don't like and which ones you do. If enough people chime in on a certain artist, then yeah, the station might listen and might start programming their playlists a bit differently.

But otherwise there's not much else we can do, other than support the artists we DO like and tune out the ones we don't.

Not to derail the thread but people DO post on station facebook pages, in droves where artists like Sam and Luke and FGL are concerned, expressing their dislike, distaste, and general dissatisfaction. It hasn't changed the conversation at ALL.

So, yeah, sorry not sorry that I, too, am one who is pissed off that I, a loyal, passionate country listener for over TWENTY YEARS, has been shunted to the side in favor of whatever the flavor of the season is. I barely listen to the radio anymore and I am not happy about it. I've been pretty vocal about it. A lot of people have. Nobody is listening.

Thing is, during those 20 years of you being loyal, there were plenty of people who were like you are now - saying they hated the direction country music was going. They were saying Shania and Faith were ruining country music. That Garth wasn't real country. But you happened to like the music then - now, not so much.

Don't get me wrong, I totally understand where you're coming from. But it's not like those 20 years of you being a loyal listener, there weren't other people complaining (and saying similar things that you're saying now).

[Uncle Lumpy]

I'm always amused at how a handful of posters try to shut down any dissention on the direction that this genre is taking. If people can hold the opinion that Sam Hunt is the greatest thing since sliced bread and this song in particular is great and is great for the genre as a whole , then others also have the right the hold the opposite opinion. And telling someone to "get over it" is the opposite of having a discussion.

[Deleted]

Feb 16, 2016 13:07:35 GMT -5 Uncle Lumpy said:

I'm always amused at how a handful of posters try to shut down any dissention on the direction that this genre is taking. If people can hold the opinion that Sam Hunt is the greatest thing since sliced bread and this song in particular is great and is great for the genre as a whole , then others also have the right the hold the opposite opinion. And telling someone to "get over it" is the opposite of having a discussion.

I realize we have the "like" button but amen!!!

[Deleted]

Feb 16, 2016 13:07:35 GMT -5 Uncle Lumpy said:

I'm always amused at how a handful of posters try to shut down any dissention on the direction that this genre is taking. If people can hold the opinion that Sam Hunt is the greatest thing since sliced bread and this song in particular is great and is great for the genre as a whole , then others also have the right the hold the opposite opinion. And telling someone to "get over it" is the opposite of having a discussion.

This statement perfectly sums up the problem with modern day country music. There's hardly any criticism and everyone is country as long as you put the label on country. It's why I can't stand sites like The Boot or Taste Of Country, whenever they "review a song" it's just saying a bunch of positive statements. Every artist is unique and special in their own way. Country music fans that accept any song no matter what make me sick 

[matty005]

Feb 16, 2016 13:38:16 GMT -5 raylatch98 said:

Feb 16, 2016 13:07:35 GMT -5 Uncle Lumpy said:

I'm always amused at how a handful of posters try to shut down any dissention on the direction that this genre is taking. If people can hold the opinion that Sam Hunt is the greatest thing since sliced bread and this song in particular is great and is great for the genre as a whole , then others also have the right the hold the opposite opinion. And telling someone to "get over it" is the opposite of having a discussion.

This statement perfectly sums up the problem with modern day country music. There's hardly any criticism and everyone is country as long as you put the label on country. It's why I can't stand sites like The Boot or Taste Of Country, whenever they "review a song" it's just saying a bunch of positive statements. Every artist is unique and special in their own way. Country music fans that accept any song no matter what make me sick 

I guess since I grew up listening and enjoying all kinds of music, a song doesn't have to be country for me to like it. A song can be labeled country and not sound like country did 20 years ago and I can still enjoy listening to it (fun fact, 20 years ago, country music didn't sound like it did 20 years before that). There are plenty of options for me to be able to listen to a more traditional sound of country. I am lucky that in the last couple years, we have had new albums from Lee Ann Womack, Ashley Monroe, George Strait and Alan Jackson. I can still listen to that music and enjoy it, while understanding that country music has always changed throughout the years. Yes I may not love the current sound as much as I did in the mid 90s, but I can still enjoy it for what it is. And if that makes you sick, there's not much I can do.

[Deleted]

Feb 16, 2016 14:32:29 GMT -5 matty005 said:

Feb 16, 2016 13:38:16 GMT -5 raylatch98 said:

This statement perfectly sums up the problem with modern day country music. There's hardly any criticism and everyone is country as long as you put the label on country. It's why I can't stand sites like The Boot or Taste Of Country, whenever they "review a song" it's just saying a bunch of positive statements. Every artist is unique and special in their own way. Country music fans that accept any song no matter what make me sick 

I guess since I grew up listening and enjoying all kinds of music, a song doesn't have to be country for me to like it. A song can be labeled country and not sound like country did 20 years ago and I can still enjoy listening to it (fun fact, 20 years ago, country music didn't sound like it did 20 years before that). There are plenty of options for me to be able to listen to a more traditional sound of country. I am lucky that in the last couple years, we have had new albums from Lee Ann Womack, Ashley Monroe, George Strait and Alan Jackson. I can still listen to that music and enjoy it, while understanding that country music has always changed throughout the years. Yes I may not love the current sound as much as I did in the mid 90s, but I can still enjoy it for what it is. And if that makes you sick, there's not much I can do.

I can like any genre of music trust me I do. I'm not exclusively into country music. But if a song is labeled country then I'm going to judge it as a country song. Simple as that, if the songs not country then I'm not going to like it as a "country" song. It's why I'm not a fan of Sam Hunt, Old Dominion, Chris Lane just to name a few. Their songs are total pop songs and have no country elements. But to each their own. 

[Uncle Lumpy]

I don't believe anyone is saying the genre should sound exactly like it did 20 years ago. Nor is anyone saying that the music of 1996 was the same as the music of 1976. But you could tell Ronnie Milsaps 1976 hit "What Goes On When the Sun Goes Down" & Garth Brooks 1996 hit "The Beaches Of Cheyenne" shared similar musical quality's. Go listen to those two songs and then play "Make You Miss Me" and tell me which one is different. I don't listen to country music exclusively either but if a song or more importantly , if an artist is going to claim to be a country artist, I should be able to trace SOMETHING to the genres past. When I hear Sam Hunt , I hear nothing even remotely linking him to any country music of the past.

[matty005]

Feb 16, 2016 14:38:34 GMT -5 raylatch98 said:

Feb 16, 2016 14:32:29 GMT -5 matty005 said:

I guess since I grew up listening and enjoying all kinds of music, a song doesn't have to be country for me to like it. A song can be labeled country and not sound like country did 20 years ago and I can still enjoy listening to it (fun fact, 20 years ago, country music didn't sound like it did 20 years before that). There are plenty of options for me to be able to listen to a more traditional sound of country. I am lucky that in the last couple years, we have had new albums from Lee Ann Womack, Ashley Monroe, George Strait and Alan Jackson. I can still listen to that music and enjoy it, while understanding that country music has always changed throughout the years. Yes I may not love the current sound as much as I did in the mid 90s, but I can still enjoy it for what it is. And if that makes you sick, there's not much I can do.

I can like any genre of music trust me I do. I'm not exclusively into country music. But if a song is labeled country then I'm going to judge it as a country song. Simple as that, if the songs not country then I'm not going to like it as a "country" song. It's why I'm not a fan of Sam Hunt, Old Dominion, Chris Lane just to name a few. Their songs are total pop songs and have no country elements. But to each their own. 

So if a song is labeled country, but doesn't sound country to you, you won't like the song even if you do actually "like" it? Interesting.

[matty005]

Feb 16, 2016 15:11:33 GMT -5 Uncle Lumpy said:

I don't believe anyone is saying the genre should sound exactly like it did 20 years ago. Nor is anyone saying that the music of 1996 was the same as the music of 1976. But you could tell Ronnie Milsaps 1976 hit "What Goes On When the Sun Goes Down" & Garth Brooks 1996 hit "The Beaches Of Cheyenne" shared similar musical quality's. Go listen to those two songs and then play "Make You Miss Me" and tell me which one is different. I don't listen to country music exclusively either but if a song or more importantly , if an artist is going to claim to be a country artist, I should be able to trace SOMETHING to the genres past. When I hear Sam Hunt , I hear nothing even remotely linking him to any country music of the past.

You could pull a lot of songs from today that will still compare to that though.

And you could pull a lot of songs from 1996 that nothing like Milsap's either (Shania'a "If You're Not In It For Love is the first song that comes to mind from that year).

So yes, this doesn't sound anything like those songs. But neither did a lot of songs in '96. And still a lot of songs today do sound like it.

[Deleted]

Feb 16, 2016 16:06:38 GMT -5 matty005 said:

Feb 16, 2016 14:38:34 GMT -5 raylatch98 said:

I can like any genre of music trust me I do. I'm not exclusively into country music. But if a song is labeled country then I'm going to judge it as a country song. Simple as that, if the songs not country then I'm not going to like it as a "country" song. It's why I'm not a fan of Sam Hunt, Old Dominion, Chris Lane just to name a few. Their songs are total pop songs and have no country elements. But to each their own. 

So if a song is labeled country, but doesn't sound country to you, you won't like the song even if you do actually "like" it? Interesting.

I'll like it as a pop/R&B whatever the genre is but since it's labeled country I don't like it as a country song. 

[matty005]

Feb 16, 2016 16:38:31 GMT -5 raylatch98 said:

Feb 16, 2016 16:06:38 GMT -5 matty005 said:

So if a song is labeled country, but doesn't sound country to you, you won't like the song even if you do actually "like" it? Interesting.

I'll like it as a pop/R&B whatever the genre is but since it's labeled country I don't like it as a country song. 

I just don't get that. I can see you saying, "this is a good song, but it should be played on pop radio, not country." But it's hard for me to understand how you can dislike a song you actually like because of it's label! To each his own though - I find it fascinating! :)

[Uncle Lumpy]

Feb 16, 2016 16:41:49 GMT -5 matty005 said:

Feb 16, 2016 16:38:31 GMT -5 raylatch98 said:

I'll like it as a pop/R&B whatever the genre is but since it's labeled country I don't like it as a country song. 

I just don't get that. I can see you saying, "this is a good song, but it should be played on pop radio, not country." But it's hard for me to understand how you can dislike a song you actually like because of it's label! To each his own though - I find it fascinating! :)

I absolutely will not enjoy a song if it is mislabeled. Perfect example is Faith Hills "Come Home". It was a pop song. And once I heard One Republic had cut it originally , I looked it up and even bought a copy along with a few other songs of theirs on iTunes. And when I'm in the mood to listen to something non country I do.

Feb 16, 2016 16:08:41 GMT -5 matty005 said:

You could pull a lot of songs from today that will still compare to that though.

A lot of songs? On country radio? I'm thinking we are listening to very different radio stations & looking at very different charts. And while there were songs like "If You're Not In It For Love" and others that were certainly not my cup of tea , there were at least subtle things that still linked them to the roots of the genre for the most part. How far can country go down the pop/rap/ anything-goes route before there is really no reason for the genre to exist ? That may not be a big deal for someone that listens to "all kinds of music" , but for those of us that are primarily fans of country music that genre less music landscape is pretty freaking scary.

[matty005]

Feb 16, 2016 17:09:07 GMT -5 Uncle Lumpy said:

Feb 16, 2016 16:41:49 GMT -5 matty005 said:

I just don't get that. I can see you saying, "this is a good song, but it should be played on pop radio, not country." But it's hard for me to understand how you can dislike a song you actually like because of it's label! To each his own though - I find it fascinating! :)

I absolutely will not enjoy a song if it is mislabeled. Perfect example is Faith Hills "Come Home". It was a pop song. And once I heard One Republic had cut it originally , I looked it up and even bought a copy along with a few other songs of theirs on iTunes. And when I'm in the mood to listen to something non country I do. .

Feb 16, 2016 16:08:41 GMT -5 matty005 said:

You could pull a lot of songs from today that will still compare to that though.

A lot of songs? On country radio? I'm thinking we are listening to very different radio stations & looking at very different charts. And while there were songs like "If You're Not In It For Love" and others that were certainly not my cup of tea , there were at least subtle things that still linked them to the roots of the genre for the most part. How far can country go down the pop/rap/ anything-goes route before there is really no reason for the genre to exist ? That may not be a big deal for someone that listens to "all kinds of music" , but for those of us that are primarily fans of country music that genre less music landscape is pretty freaking scary.

That isn't a good example. Would you have liked, "Come Home" if it wasn't a remake? It's just hard for me to fathom someone liking a song, then finding out it's being labeled country, and changing your mind on liking the song.


And yes, I think a lot of songs today would fit into country radio in the mid 90s. "It All Started With a Beer," Record Year," Shut Up and Fish" and "Unlove You" all remind me of 90s country.


I am an idiot, but can't seem to get the quoting correct. I hope you can understand what I am saying despite the bad quoting, because I am really enjoying and learning from this!

[Uncle Lumpy]

Feb 16, 2016 17:15:53 GMT -5 matty005 said:

Feb 16, 2016 17:09:07 GMT -5 Uncle Lumpy said:

I absolutely will not enjoy a song if it is mislabeled. Perfect example is Faith Hills "Come Home". It was a pop song. And once I heard One Republic had cut it originally , I looked it up and even bought a copy along with a few other songs of theirs on iTunes. And when I'm in the mood to listen to something non country I do. .




A lot of songs? On country radio? I'm thinking we are listening to very different radio stations & looking at very different charts. And while there were songs like "If You're Not In It For Love" and others that were certainly not my cup of tea , there were at least subtle things that still linked them to the roots of the genre for the most part. How far can country go down the pop/rap/ anything-goes route before there is really no reason for the genre to exist ? That may not be a big deal for someone that listens to "all kinds of music" , but for those of us that are primarily fans of country music that genre less music landscape is pretty freaking scary.

That isn't a good example. Would you have liked, "Come Home" if it wasn't a remake? It's just hard for me to fathom someone liking a song, then finding out it's being labeled country, and changing your mind on liking the song.


And yes, I think a lot of songs today would fit into country radio in the mid 90s. "It All Started With a Beer," Record Year," Shut Up and Fish" and "Unlove You" all remind me of 90s country.


I am an idiot, but can't seem to get the quoting correct. I hope you can understand what I am saying despite the bad quoting, because I am really enjoying and learning from this!

Not by Faith Hill as a country single, no , I wouldn't have. I didn't "change my mind". I went in expecting a country record and "Come Home" simply wasn't and isn't a country song. I take no issue with artists cutting the music they wish to cut , just label it correctly. (High five to Taylor Swift). I tend to think pop artists generally do pop songs better. And with that , Im bowing out of this conversation as I think I've derailed this thread enough.

EDITED: Because I can't quote any better than you. Ha!

[The Brazilian Guy 🇧🇷]

Feb 16, 2016 16:41:49 GMT -5 matty005 said:

Feb 16, 2016 16:38:31 GMT -5 raylatch98 said:

I'll like it as a pop/R&B whatever the genre is but since it's labeled country I don't like it as a country song. 

I just don't get that. I can see you saying, "this is a good song, but it should be played on pop radio, not country." But it's hard for me to understand how you can dislike a song you actually like because of it's label! To each his own though - I find it fascinating! :)

I don't get it either personally, but I've come to learn that this mindset its not that uncommon. I too find it very interesting... As someone who was raised in a very musical (and very eclectic) household, I ended up connecting to music in a more "universal" way than as something belonging to specific labels. Not to say I don't appreciate the uniqueness of every genre or think such a thing isn't important, it's just that when it comes to liking/making a connection with music or art in general, labeling it's something very secundary to me. I totally get people who were raised on country music being turned off by today's more "experimental" country (for the lack of a better word), but this specific importance some people give to nomenclature is very different to me... I quite like learning this new perspective from people!

[matty005]

Feb 16, 2016 18:03:40 GMT -5 Uncle Lumpy said:

Feb 16, 2016 17:15:53 GMT -5 matty005 said:

That isn't a good example. Would you have liked, "Come Home" if it wasn't a remake? It's just hard for me to fathom someone liking a song, then finding out it's being labeled country, and changing your mind on liking the song.


And yes, I think a lot of songs today would fit into country radio in the mid 90s. "It All Started With a Beer," Record Year," Shut Up and Fish" and "Unlove You" all remind me of 90s country.


I am an idiot, but can't seem to get the quoting correct. I hope you can understand what I am saying despite the bad quoting, because I am really enjoying and learning from this!

Not by Faith Hill as a country single, no , I wouldn't have. I didn't "change my mind". I went in expecting a country record and "Come Home" simply wasn't and isn't a country song. I take no issue with artists cutting the music they wish to cut , just label it correctly. (High five to Taylor Swift). I tend to think pop artists generally do pop songs better. And with that , Im bowing out of this conversation as I think I've derailed this thread enough.

EDITED: Because I can't quote any better than you. Ha!

I think I am understanding. So this example wouldn't happen:

You hear a song at a store and like it a lot. But you don't think it's country. Then you find out it's labeled country even though, to you, it doesn't have any country elements. You're saying you would still like it, correct? You just won't like the fact that it's being labeled country.

Just trying to understand the thinking here! :)

[43dudleyvillas]

I think I fixed all the errant quote tags, matty005 and Uncle Lumpy. I don't like editing people's posts, but it was driving me slightly batty not being able to attribute comments to the proper person.

Feb 12, 2016 18:54:10 GMT -5 rsmatto said:

Feb 12, 2016 18:44:36 GMT -5 trebor said:

Good post!  :)
Plus support them by helping them out on kickstarter and pledgemusic, etc.
You'd be amazed at what "bigger" sub-scene names are without a record company and go from EP or album to album by crowd-funding.

Right. Look at Green River Ordinance. They've crowdfunded their last handful of projects and then ended up with a Thirty Tigers-like label/partner for the "Fifteen" project. The band has barely been on the radio for about the last six years yet they've had a huge career.

I'm glad that you brought up Green River Ordinance, because as you know and as detailed in this excellent Tennessean report, they are a great current example that illustrates the absurdity of the current chart gatekeepers' definitions of the word "country." Billboard's Jim Asker declined to classify their album as country despite the many indications, sonic and otherwise, that it is. Sam Hunt's Montevallo and Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" are "country," but Green River Ordinance's music is not. Sure. Makes sense.

And let's also not forget that for all the crowdfunding support that Green River Ordinance has received, they appear to care very much about the fact that they weren't classified as country by Billboard. They don't appear interested in having fans "ignore all this other stuff," considering the media that they have done on the subject, if for no other reason than the classification confers some marketing advantages.

I land where Uncle Lumpy does with respect to the point that rsmatto and matty005 are making about how there have always been arguments over boundary-pushers and how they aren't country -- I agree that Montevallo simply doesn't bear enough sonic or lyrical hallmarks of country music to be considered a reasonable extension of it. But I think the "there are always people complaining that something isn't country" argument falls apart for another reason as well: Montevallo's style of music already has a name: pop/contemporary R&B. I mean, I can write a story, get it bound and published and call it a feature film, but the fact remains that it's a book, not a film. So this is not just about Montevallo not being country, it's about there being more accurate descriptors for its music out there no matter what gatekeepers and marketers in their infinite and cynical wisdom would have us believe.

Feb 16, 2016 18:11:03 GMT -5 The Brazilian Guy 🇧🇷 said:

Feb 16, 2016 16:41:49 GMT -5 matty005 said:

I just don't get that. I can see you saying, "this is a good song, but it should be played on pop radio, not country." But it's hard for me to understand how you can dislike a song you actually like because of it's label! To each his own though - I find it fascinating! :)

I don't get it either personally, but I've come to learn that this mindset its not that uncommon. I too find it very interesting... As someone who was raised in a very musical (and very eclectic) household, I ended up connecting to music in a more "universal" way than as something belonging to specific labels. Not to say I don't appreciate the uniqueness of every genre or think such a thing isn't important, it's just that when it comes to liking/making a connection with music or art in general, labeling it's something very secundary to me. I totally get people who were raised on country music being turned off by today's more "experimental" country (for the lack of a better word), but this specific importance some people give to nomenclature is very different to me... I quite like learning this new perspective from people!

I think the nomenclature takes on significance because a) there are marketers and gatekeepers who treat the public as sheeple who will accept any definitions imposed on them from above, even if it flies in the face of common sense and b) the growing possibilities of building a country fanbase without radio support notwithstanding, country radio exposure remains the most effective means of building a fanbase and contributing to the general image and understanding of country music. Country radio exposure impacts who gets major label deals and major label support. It affects the prominence and livelihoods of songwriters. It is, in many ways, a zero sum game. So it's natural that country radio's divorce from country music would yield a custody battle over who gets to keep the word "country."

When it comes to artists and music, I have no trouble saying that I still enjoy about half of Montevallo and that I am impressed by Sam Hunt's game. I've said before that I think he was very smart to position himself as the evolved, articulate and respectful successor to the fratty bros who ruled country radio for a few years. Heck, I even think it's possible that he could make credible country music one day (maybe). I am genuinely curious to hear what he will do for a follow-up to Montevallo.

But I understand why his team's labeling and marketing of his music as country would turn some people off from his music. Here's the thing: Montevallo positions Sam as this thoughtful, sensitive guy who respects female agency, is interested to understand the female perspective and who acknowledges some of his weaknesses. It all seems very believable and self-aware and honest, right? I've said before that Sam's the guy at the college party one would want to run into after having been cornered for too long by some overconfident drunk loudmouth who's convinced he's going to get lucky that night; Sam may have the same intention, but he's way smarter in his approach. But then this sensitive, charming guy who's kind of hot and who actually listens, he suddenly starts talking about this great investment scheme he's a part of, and one is no longer sure if he's a salesman or a potential paramour.

The mislabeled marketing is buzzkill like that. Sam Hunt and his team calling him country is a reminder that for all the confessional "authenticity" of Montevallo, Sam is also a salesman. I know, I know, everyone wants to sell records and there is no shame in that. And authenticity is a marketing construct in and of itself. But my point is that as a listener, marketing music as "country" when it is very clearly not feels like someone is treating me like I'm stupid, and it shatters that suspension of disbelief that is often required to buy into an artist. So I think it's reasonable that the mislabeling would interfere with a person's enjoyment of music that they might otherwise like.

Anyway, "Make You Miss Me" is in the half of Montevallo that I really enjoy. My favorite part of it is Hillary Lindsey's lovely background vocals (which also give the song its only tie to country, as far as I'm concerned), but I also like it melodically.

[mamasboy]

Feb 16, 2016 18:11:03 GMT -5 The Brazilian Guy 🇧🇷 said:

Feb 16, 2016 16:41:49 GMT -5 matty005 said:

I just don't get that. I can see you saying, "this is a good song, but it should be played on pop radio, not country." But it's hard for me to understand how you can dislike a song you actually like because of it's label! To each his own though - I find it fascinating! :)

I don't get it either personally, but I've come to learn that this mindset its not that uncommon. I too find it very interesting... As someone who was raised in a very musical (and very eclectic) household, I ended up connecting to music in a more "universal" way than as something belonging to specific labels. Not to say I don't appreciate the uniqueness of every genre or think such a thing isn't important, it's just that when it comes to liking/making a connection with music or art in general, labeling it's something very secundary to me. I totally get people who were raised on country music being turned off by today's more "experimental" country (for the lack of a better word), but this specific importance some people give to nomenclature is very different to me... I quite like learning this new perspective from people!

I completely agree - and it's not to say that criticism and dissension do not have a place in an online forum, as they clearly do; but it's the SAME people beating the SAME dead horse constantly. I also think it's deeper than music (aka - Republican thinking).

[The Brazilian Guy 🇧🇷]

Feb 17, 2016 0:19:15 GMT -5 43dudleyvillas said:

I think I fixed all the errant quote tags, matty005 and Uncle Lumpy . I don't like editing people's posts, but it was driving me slightly batty not being able to attribute comments to the proper person.

Feb 12, 2016 18:54:10 GMT -5 rsmatto said:

Right. Look at Green River Ordinance. They've crowdfunded their last handful of projects and then ended up with a Thirty Tigers-like label/partner for the "Fifteen" project. The band has barely been on the radio for about the last six years yet they've had a huge career.

I'm glad that you brought up Green River Ordinance, because as you know and as detailed in this excellent Tennessean report, they are a great current example that illustrates the absurdity of the current chart gatekeepers' definitions of the word "country." Billboard's Jim Asker declined to classify their album as country despite the many indications, sonic and otherwise, that it is. Sam Hunt's Montevallo and Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" are "country," but Green River Ordinance's music is not. Sure. Makes sense.

And let's also not forget that for all the crowdfunding support that Green River Ordinance has received, they appear to care very much about the fact that they weren't classified as country by Billboard. They don't appear interested in having fans "ignore all this other stuff," considering the media that they have done on the subject, if for no other reason than the classification confers some marketing advantages.

I land where Uncle Lumpy does with respect to the point that rsmatto and matty005 are making about how there have always been arguments over boundary-pushers and how they aren't country -- I agree that Montevallo simply doesn't bear enough sonic or lyrical hallmarks of country music to be considered a reasonable extension of it. But I think the "there are always people complaining that something isn't country" argument falls apart for another reason as well: Montevallo's style of music already has a name: pop/contemporary R&B. I mean, I can write a story, get it bound and published and call it a feature film, but the fact remains that it's a book, not a film. So this is not just about Montevallo not being country, it's about there being more accurate descriptors for its music out there no matter what gatekeepers and marketers in their infinite and cynical wisdom would have us believe.

Feb 16, 2016 18:11:03 GMT -5 The Brazilian Guy 🇧🇷 said:

I don't get it either personally, but I've come to learn that this mindset its not that uncommon. I too find it very interesting... As someone who was raised in a very musical (and very eclectic) household, I ended up connecting to music in a more "universal" way than as something belonging to specific labels. Not to say I don't appreciate the uniqueness of every genre or think such a thing isn't important, it's just that when it comes to liking/making a connection with music or art in general, labeling it's something very secundary to me. I totally get people who were raised on country music being turned off by today's more "experimental" country (for the lack of a better word), but this specific importance some people give to nomenclature is very different to me... I quite like learning this new perspective from people!

I think the nomenclature takes on significance because a) there are marketers and gatekeepers who treat the public as sheeple who will accept any definitions imposed on them from above, even if it flies in the face of common sense and b) the growing possibilities of building a country fanbase without radio support notwithstanding, country radio exposure remains the most effective means of building a fanbase and contributing to the general image and understanding of country music. Country radio exposure impacts who gets major label deals and major label support. It affects the prominence and livelihoods of songwriters. It is, in many ways, a zero sum game. So it's natural that country radio's divorce from country music would yield a custody battle over who gets to keep the word "country."

When it comes to artists and music, I have no trouble saying that I still enjoy about half of Montevallo and that I am impressed by Sam Hunt's game. I've said before that I think he was very smart to position himself as the evolved, articulate and respectful successor to the fratty bros who ruled country radio for a few years. Heck, I even think it's possible that he could make credible country music one day (maybe). I am genuinely curious to hear what he will do for a follow-up to Montevallo.

But I understand why his team's labeling and marketing of his music as country would turn some people off from his music. Here's the thing: Montevallo positions Sam as this thoughtful, sensitive guy who respects female agency, is interested to understand the female perspective and who acknowledges some of his weaknesses. It all seems very believable and self-aware and honest, right? I've said before that Sam's the guy at the college party one would want to run into after having been cornered for too long by some overconfident drunk loudmouth who's convinced he's going to get lucky that night; Sam may have the same intention, but he's way smarter in his approach. But then this sensitive, charming guy who's kind of hot and who actually listens, he suddenly starts talking about this great investment scheme he's a part of, and one is no longer sure if he's a salesman or a potential paramour.

The mislabeled marketing is buzzkill like that. Sam Hunt and his team calling him country is a reminder that for all the confessional "authenticity" of Montevallo, Sam is also a salesman. I know, I know, everyone wants to sell records and there is no shame in that. And authenticity is a marketing construct in and of itself. But my point is that as a listener, marketing music as "country" when it is very clearly not feels like someone is treating me like I'm stupid, and it shatters that suspension of disbelief that is often required to buy into an artist. So I think it's reasonable that the mislabeling would interfere with a person's enjoyment of music that they might otherwise like.

Anyway, "Make You Miss Me" is in the half of Montevallo that I really enjoy. My favorite part of it is Hillary Lindsey's lovely background vocals (which also give the song its only tie to country, as far as I'm concerned), but I also like it melodically.

I completely understand that aspect of things... it's a very practical way of seeing this. I'm just not so sure everybody (or even most people) are as aware of the country music business as you or we are in this forum, to have such a well constructed view of this situation as you put in the first part of your post, but I'm sure that applies to a lot of people in here.

I guess the second part you presented seems more in line with what I've encountered all over the internet, that those people feel "lied to" and that "turns them off" of music they would otherwise like. That sounds completely reasonable. I guess my point of thinking of it as an "interesting" perspective is that I don't personally associate my connection or liking of music (or art in general) to business... I just like it or dislike as a piece of art that speaks to me above everything. That could be cultural or maybe that immediate association of music as a product is something more common in a place like the US were "showbiz" is way more connected to art than most places... and I don't mean that as a negative thing AT ALL as I am very interested in the commercial aspect of things as well (hey, I'm here after all, in a charts forum! LOL). I guess my point is that I understand that aspect of things but personally find it interesting because I am able to dissociate my liking and connection to music completely from the business of music, because I don't feel like they are mutually exclusive in my mind. I thinks is awesome learning from people's different perspective!

Damn...  it's hard trying to put your thoughts together coherently in a different language just as good as you would in your native language! I hope I make any sense! LOL 

[matty005]

Feb 17, 2016 8:17:46 GMT -5 The Brazilian Guy 🇧🇷 said:

Feb 17, 2016 0:19:15 GMT -5 43dudleyvillas said:

I think I fixed all the errant quote tags, matty005 and Uncle Lumpy . I don't like editing people's posts, but it was driving me slightly batty not being able to attribute comments to the proper person.
I'm glad that you brought up Green River Ordinance, because as you know and as detailed in this excellent Tennessean report, they are a great current example that illustrates the absurdity of the current chart gatekeepers' definitions of the word "country." Billboard's Jim Asker declined to classify their album as country despite the many indications, sonic and otherwise, that it is. Sam Hunt's Montevallo and Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" are "country," but Green River Ordinance's music is not. Sure. Makes sense.

And let's also not forget that for all the crowdfunding support that Green River Ordinance has received, they appear to care very much about the fact that they weren't classified as country by Billboard. They don't appear interested in having fans "ignore all this other stuff," considering the media that they have done on the subject, if for no other reason than the classification confers some marketing advantages.

I land where Uncle Lumpy does with respect to the point that rsmatto and matty005 are making about how there have always been arguments over boundary-pushers and how they aren't country -- I agree that Montevallo simply doesn't bear enough sonic or lyrical hallmarks of country music to be considered a reasonable extension of it. But I think the "there are always people complaining that something isn't country" argument falls apart for another reason as well: Montevallo's style of music already has a name: pop/contemporary R&B. I mean, I can write a story, get it bound and published and call it a feature film, but the fact remains that it's a book, not a film. So this is not just about Montevallo not being country, it's about there being more accurate descriptors for its music out there no matter what gatekeepers and marketers in their infinite and cynical wisdom would have us believe.
I think the nomenclature takes on significance because a) there are marketers and gatekeepers who treat the public as sheeple who will accept any definitions imposed on them from above, even if it flies in the face of common sense and b) the growing possibilities of building a country fanbase without radio support notwithstanding, country radio exposure remains the most effective means of building a fanbase and contributing to the general image and understanding of country music. Country radio exposure impacts who gets major label deals and major label support. It affects the prominence and livelihoods of songwriters. It is, in many ways, a zero sum game. So it's natural that country radio's divorce from country music would yield a custody battle over who gets to keep the word "country."

When it comes to artists and music, I have no trouble saying that I still enjoy about half of Montevallo and that I am impressed by Sam Hunt's game. I've said before that I think he was very smart to position himself as the evolved, articulate and respectful successor to the fratty bros who ruled country radio for a few years. Heck, I even think it's possible that he could make credible country music one day (maybe). I am genuinely curious to hear what he will do for a follow-up to Montevallo.

But I understand why his team's labeling and marketing of his music as country would turn some people off from his music. Here's the thing: Montevallo positions Sam as this thoughtful, sensitive guy who respects female agency, is interested to understand the female perspective and who acknowledges some of his weaknesses. It all seems very believable and self-aware and honest, right? I've said before that Sam's the guy at the college party one would want to run into after having been cornered for too long by some overconfident drunk loudmouth who's convinced he's going to get lucky that night; Sam may have the same intention, but he's way smarter in his approach. But then this sensitive, charming guy who's kind of hot and who actually listens, he suddenly starts talking about this great investment scheme he's a part of, and one is no longer sure if he's a salesman or a potential paramour.

The mislabeled marketing is buzzkill like that. Sam Hunt and his team calling him country is a reminder that for all the confessional "authenticity" of Montevallo, Sam is also a salesman. I know, I know, everyone wants to sell records and there is no shame in that. And authenticity is a marketing construct in and of itself. But my point is that as a listener, marketing music as "country" when it is very clearly not feels like someone is treating me like I'm stupid, and it shatters that suspension of disbelief that is often required to buy into an artist. So I think it's reasonable that the mislabeling would interfere with a person's enjoyment of music that they might otherwise like.

Anyway, "Make You Miss Me" is in the half of Montevallo that I really enjoy. My favorite part of it is Hillary Lindsey's lovely background vocals (which also give the song its only tie to country, as far as I'm concerned), but I also like it melodically.

I completely understand that aspect of things... it's a very practical way of seeing this. I'm just not so sure everybody (or even most people) are as aware of the country music business as you or we are in this forum, to have such a well constructed view of this situation as you put in the first part of your post, but I'm sure that applies to a lot of people in here.

I guess the second part you presented seems more in line with what I've encountered all over the internet, that those people feel "lied to" and that "turns them off" of music they would otherwise like. That sounds completely reasonable. I guess my point of thinking of it as an "interesting" perspective is that I don't personally associate my connection or liking of music (or art in general) to business... I just like it or dislike as a piece of art that speaks to me above everything. That could be cultural or maybe that immediate association of music as a product is something more common in a place like the US were "showbiz" is way more connected to art than most places... and I don't mean that as a negative thing AT ALL as I am very interested in the commercial aspect of things as well (hey, I'm here after all, in a charts forum! LOL). I guess my point is that I understand that aspect of things but personally find it interesting because I am able to dissociate my liking and connection to music completely from the business of music, because I don't feel like they are mutually exclusive in my mind. I thinks is awesome learning from people's different perspective!

Damn...  it's hard trying to put your thoughts together coherently in a different language just as good as you would in your native language! I hope I make any sense! LOL 

Good points and I think 43dudleyvillas made some great points too. I guess I should be able to understand it though. Because, while this issue (country/non-country) doesn't bother me, I do get turned off by artist's music if I don't like them as a person. I used to adore Sara Evans, but after reading her political rants and not sharing any of her views, I found myself still liking her music, but almost rooting against it doing well on the charts. So, I guess what I am saying is I should understand why people can be turned off if a song is not county sounding to them. And the cool thing was, before this discussion I couldn't understand and now I can - this is why I love good conversation like this.

[The Brazilian Guy 🇧🇷]

Feb 17, 2016 8:33:31 GMT -5 matty005 said:

Feb 17, 2016 8:17:46 GMT -5 The Brazilian Guy 🇧🇷 said:

I completely understand that aspect of things... it's a very practical way of seeing this. I'm just not so sure everybody (or even most people) are as aware of the country music business as you or we are in this forum, to have such a well constructed view of this situation as you put in the first part of your post, but I'm sure that applies to a lot of people in here.

I guess the second part you presented seems more in line with what I've encountered all over the internet, that those people feel "lied to" and that "turns them off" of music they would otherwise like. That sounds completely reasonable. I guess my point of thinking of it as an "interesting" perspective is that I don't personally associate my connection or liking of music (or art in general) to business... I just like it or dislike as a piece of art that speaks to me above everything. That could be cultural or maybe that immediate association of music as a product is something more common in a place like the US were "showbiz" is way more connected to art than most places... and I don't mean that as a negative thing AT ALL as I am very interested in the commercial aspect of things as well (hey, I'm here after all, in a charts forum! LOL). I guess my point is that I understand that aspect of things but personally find it interesting because I am able to dissociate my liking and connection to music completely from the business of music, because I don't feel like they are mutually exclusive in my mind. I thinks is awesome learning from people's different perspective!

Damn...  it's hard trying to put your thoughts together coherently in a different language just as good as you would in your native language! I hope I make any sense! LOL 

Good points and I think 43dudleyvillas made some great points too. I guess I should be able to understand it though. Because, while this issue (country/non-country) doesn't bother me, I do get turned off by artist's music if I don't like them as a person. I used to adore Sara Evans, but after reading her political rants and not sharing any of her views, I found myself still liking her music, but almost rooting against it doing well on the charts. So, I guess what I am saying is I should understand why people can be turned off if a song is not county sounding to them. And the cool thing was, before this discussion I couldn't understand and now I can - this is why I love good conversation like this.

That's another layer to this discussion that is also fascinating to me... I guess that could happen to me if I feel an artist does something that really offends me, but I think in lighter cases I'm also able to separate the artistic contribution from the artist/person.

[Deleted]

Feb 16, 2016 13:07:35 GMT -5 Uncle Lumpy said:

I'm always amused at how a handful of posters try to shut down any dissention on the direction that this genre is taking. If people can hold the opinion that Sam Hunt is the greatest thing since sliced bread and this song in particular is great and is great for the genre as a whole , then others also have the right the hold the opposite opinion. And telling someone to "get over it" is the opposite of having a discussion.

I certainly haven't tried to shut down any discussion here (whether it's about Sam or the genre as a whole); rather, I've tried to focus my posts on explaining WHY Sam gets airplay at country radio and why he's likely to continue getting airplay whether I and others like it or not.

I feel like most people here understand the reasons why Sam gets a lot of airplay...but then again, sometimes it seems like people forget why things are the way they are (when it comes to Sam and the types of songs that country radio will/won't play in 2016). In a perfect world, stations that brand themselves as country would play music that is clearly country (which Sam's music isn't).

I guess I tend to look at situations like this from a business standpoint (Note: that does NOT mean I like how corporate the country radio industry has become). As long as country radio ratings are good and as long as Sam's music is selling and isn't overly polarizing to the point that it causes a significant group of current listeners to change stations, then the vast majority of country radio stations will continue to give Sam significant airplay. We can discuss our reasons for liking it or not liking it, but unfortunately, those of us who don't like Sam's music or at least don't like the fact that he's played on country radio are in the minority.

A lot of loyal, long-time country radio listeners (including you and me, as well as carriekins and several others here, I'm sure) probably don't figure into country radio's equation here, and I think it's probably because we are among a group of listeners that have been 'replaced' by a new wave of listeners, many of whom are probably 'new' to the country radio format over the last 5-10 years or less.

So that's really the point I was trying to get at: some of us here don't like the fact that Sam is played on country radio, but I think that the majority of country radio listeners in 2016 either a) don't feel strongly one way or the other about Sam Hunt's music on country radio stations, or b) are big fans of Sam's music and think it fits in at country radio, in which case it's logical to assume that they fully support Sam's music being played on country radio stations.

If things hit a breaking point -- if Sam's music gets too polarizing or something like that -- then maybe the direction that country radio is heading in will change a bit. I definitely think Stapleton's breakthrough will help radio realize that they've forgotten about a lot of people who like the more traditional-sounding country music (but no longer listen to country radio all that much), but I don't think Stapleton's breakthrough is enough. Basically, I don't think it will suddenly cause radio to play a bunch of neotraditional acts, mostly because they'll still see it as a risk. With a radio format that's as big as country, change happens very slowly. They're going to keep playing the artists that have proven themselves and are popular now, because they know that those artists have fans that will tune in to hear them.

[nick64]

I'm not a long time country music fan and I'm not going to pretend that I am, although in recent years, I have enjoyed many country songs I've heard, from various styles, artists, and times. I understand the complaints of many that songs like "Break Up In A Small Town" and "Beautiful Drug" are performing so welll on country radio when they just don't fit in with the country music they've grown to love. Yes, we have many new sources of listening to music, but fans of the radio shouldn't have to change their preferences because of artists they don't enjoy.

However, I do disagree that artists like Sam would do better on pop. First of all, "Take Your Time" didn't do very well on pop radio. And I think that's because it really doesn't fit in well with pop either. In fact, I remember one time a friend and I were driving in the car listening to our local pop station and TYT came on. After the first chorus, he asked me "Is this a country song?" He's not a fan of country at all and had never heard the song before, but something about it made him think of country. Sam may not fall into the common description of country, but he doesn't fall into the common description of pop either.

So what's to be done? I think it's time for a change on radio. No, I don't mean they should stop playing these songs because clearly they are liked and are doing well. But look at other radio genres. There aren't simply pop, hip-hop, and rock stations. There's pop, AC, hot AC, rhythmic, urban, urban AC, alternative, modern rock, triple A, etc. But then there's just one country. All of these other genres have greatly evolved over time too (just look at rap and R&B for the most dramatic changes). But there are places for almost everything on the radio. I don't see why the label "country" has to be so set in stone. It's evolved too much and there's too many different styles. I think it's time we start seeing country, country AC, modern country, etc. Everyone would get to listen to what they please, and many different artists would get the chance to make their music heard on a wider scale. And some artists would even get to increase their success by pushing different songs to each format (see pop/R&B artists like The Weeknd). It just makes sense to me.

[Deleted]

Feb 17, 2016 21:37:07 GMT -5 nick64 said:

However, I do disagree that artists like Sam would do better on pop. First of all, "Take Your Time" didn't do very well on pop radio. And I think that's because it really doesn't fit in well with pop either. In fact, I remember one time a friend and I were driving in the car listening to our local pop station and TYT came on. After the first chorus, he asked me "Is this a country song?" He's not a fan of country at all and had never heard the song before, but something about it made him think of country. Sam may not fall into the common description of country, but he doesn't fall into the common description of pop either.

I disagree that Sam's music doesn't fit in at pop (which means we probably have to agree to disagree here). Just the other day I was in the car with my dad and my brother, and we had been listening to a country station out of Omaha. My dad flipped to XM radio for a bit and then back to the country station just as "Break Up In A Small Town" started playing. He wondered aloud if he'd gotten the station number wrong, but I told him it was the same station that we had on before. He asked why they were playing pop music, lol. He's not familiar with Sam at all and he assumed that BUIAST was a pop song from a pop artist.

I think the reason that Sam hasn't seen much cross-over airplay is because he's been marketed as a country artist from the get-go, and the CHR/Pop format has not been very receptive to country artists (or artists/music that are marketed as country) over the last several years. Keep in mind that Sam is signed to a Nashville-based label, which means that they have to hire outside help to promote any of his country radio hits to other formats. I believe that if Sam had signed with a New York-based or Los Angeles-based pop label and had marketed himself as a Pop/AC artist from the start, he would have no trouble getting airplay from CHR stations.

Musically, the production and melodies of Sam's songs have a lot more in common with pop music (which doesn't really have a lot of musical boundaries because it's essentially just "popular" music) than they do with country music, which has traditionally always been defined by a more specific sound based on the fact that the country genre has many instruments that are largely unique to the genre. It's true that there is less steel guitar, fiddle, and banjo on much of today's country music than there was 10, 20, 30 years ago, but those sounds aren't completely gone. Aside from "House Party" which had a banjo featured rather prominently, Sam doesn't really incorporate any of those instruments into his music. The few times that he has put in a tiny bit of country instrumentation, the instruments were buried so far in the background that you can't even hear them, which makes their inclusion rather pointless if you ask me.

And in response to your last paragraph, the fragmentation of the country radio format is certainly an interesting idea, and while it could happen, I don't think it's very likely to happen (it's certainly not imminent), mostly because iHeartMedia (the biggest radio conglomerate) would rather not see it happen, and I don't think most of the country music industry is in favor of it, either.